PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT FRONT MATTER

Peterhead CCS Project

Doc Title: - Well Completion Concept Select Report

Doc No. PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003

Date of issue: 12/09/2014
Revision: K02
DECC Ref No: 11.097
Knowledge Cat: KKD-Subsurface

KEYWORDS
Goldeneye, CO2, Completion, Hydrates, Filtration, gravel pack, injectivity, pressure and temperature
calculation, minimum stress, lift performance, Joule-Thomson, single tubing, well elements, cement,
corrosion, materials.

Produced by Shell U.K. Limited

ECCN: EAR 99 Deminimus

© Shell UK Limited 2014.

Any recipient of this document is hereby licensed under Shell UK Limited's copyright to use, modify,
reproduce, publish, adapt and enhance this document.

IMPORTANT NOTICE

Information provided further to UK CCS Commercialisation Programme (the “Competition”).

The information set out herein (the “Information”) has been prepared by Shell U.K. Limited and its sub-
contractors (the “Consortium”) solely for the Department of Energy & Climate Change in connection with the
Competition. The Information does not amount to advice on CCS technology or any CCS engineering,
commercial, financial, regulatory, legal or other solutions on which any reliance should be placed. Accordingly,
no member of the Consortium makes (and the UK Government does not make) any representation, warranty
or undertaking, express or implied, as to the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of any of the Information
and no reliance may be placed on the Information. Insofar as permitted by law, no member of the Consortium
or any company in the same group as any member of the Consortium or their respective officers, employees or
agents accepts (and the UK Government does not accept) any responsibility or liability of any kind, whether
for negligence or any other reason, for any damage or loss arising from any use of or any reliance placed on the
Information or any subsequent communication of the Information. Each person to whom the Information is
made available must make their own independent assessment of the Information after making such
investigation and taking professional technical, engineering, commercial, regulatory, financial, legal or other
advice, as they deem necessary.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 i
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT FRONT MATTER

Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
1 Introduction 3
2 Completion requirements 6
2.1 Introduction 6
2.2 General completion considerations 6
Hydraulic Requirements 6
Well Integrity 7
Well Modifications 7
Operational aspects 7
Well Monitoring 7
Life Cycle Cost 7
2.3 Peterhead – Goldeneye CCS information 7
2.3.1 General information 7
2.3.2 Goldeneye field - main stratigraphy 8
2.3.3 Reservoir characteristics 10
2.3.4 Fluids characteristics 11
CO2 injection rates and condition 12
2.3.5 Existing wells summary 13

3 Injectivity 17
3.1 Initial injectivity 17
3.1.1 Reservoir characteristics of the Captain formation 17
3.1.2 Hydrocarbon Productivity Phase 19
3.1.3 Correction of hydrocarbon productivity for CO2 injection due to PVT changes 21
3.1.4 Relative permeability 26
3.2 Long Term Injectivity Management 27
3.2.1 Gravel pack and Formation plugging - Filtration 27
3.2.2 Discussion 27
3.2.3 Disbondment of pipeline coating (applicable to existing offshore pipeline) 28
3.2.4 Hydrates 29
3.2.5 Joule Thomson cooling upon CO2 injection into the reservoir 37
3.2.6 Halite Precipitation 37
3.2.7 Near Wellbore Asphaltene Deposition 39
3.2.8 Near Wellbore Wax deposition 39
3.3 Matrix or Fracturing conditions 39
3.4 Injection under fracturing conditions 40
3.4.1 Software 40
3.4.2 Model Input 41
3.4.3 Stress Regime 42
3.4.4 Injection conditions (matrix or fracturing) – The numbers 47
3.4.5 Summary of cases investigated for propagating fracture under injection 48
3.4.6 PWRI. Base case pressure and minimum stress 49
3.4.7 Fracture Geometry. Base Case Simulation results 51
3.4.8 Fracture Geometry. Injection rate sensitivity 52

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 ii
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT FRONT MATTER

3.4.9 Fracture Geometry. CO2 quality sensitivity 54

3.4.10 Fracture Geometry. Reservoir Properties sensitivities 55
3.4.11 Fracture Geometry. Fracture Initiation Point 55
3.4.12 Fracture Geometry. Original Stress conditions 56
3.4.13 Summary of fracture geometry calculations 57
3.5 Mitigation Options Summary for injectivity management 57
3.5.1 Summary of proactive measures 57
3.5.2 Reactive measures 57
3.5.3 Injectivity Management summary 58
3.6 Injectivity test requirement 59
4 Vertical Lift Performance 61
4.1 CO2 properties and its influence in well performance simulators 61
4.1.1 Close in Conditions 63
4.1.2 CO2 Expansion 65
4.2 Steady State Injection Philosophy 67
4.3 Steady State Pressure and Temperature Calculation 68
4.3.1 Software 68
4.3.2 Arrival temperature to the platform and wellhead temperature 68
4.3.3 Wellhead pressure range 70
4.3.4 Other input 71
4.3.5 Steady state operating envelope – reference case 72
4.3.6 Steady state - Different tubing sizes 72
4.3.7 Steady State - Wellhead Temperature Sensitivity 73
4.3.8 Steady State – Roughness Sensitivity 74
4.3.9 Steady State - Traverse Pressure and Temperature Calculations 75
4.3.10 Steady State – Bottom Hole Temperature ranges 77
4.3.11 CO2 velocity and vibration 78
4.3.12 Steady State – Downhole choke option 80
4.4 Transient conditions (close-in and open-up well operations) 82
4.5 SSSV testing 86
4.6 Partial loss of control in CO2 wells 86
Jet release of dense phase CO2 86
CO2 expansion to 1 bara 86
CO2 expansion to triple point 87
4.7 Total loss of control in CO2 wells 87
5 Injecting into Existing Wells 88
5.1 Existing Well Integrity 88
5.2 Reasons for working over the existing producing wells 88
5.3 CO2 management and upper completion changes 90
5.4 Suitability of the existing Lower Completion for CO2 injection 91
5.4.1 Lower Completion Description in existing Goldeneye Wells 91
5.4.2 Injection Experience with Sand Control 93
5.4.3 Lower Completion Under CCS 93

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 iii
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT FRONT MATTER

5.4.4 Material / Corrosion 95

5.4.5 Gravel Pack Design / Operations / Performance 95
5.4.6 The Problem of losing integrity at the screens 96
5.4.7 Plugging / Erosion 96
5.4.8 Flow Reversal (applicable to existing wells) 100
5.4.9 Other considerations under fracturing conditions 101
5.5 Re-Completion Options for managing the CO2 properties 104
6 Conceptual Upper Completion Selection 104
6.1 Available options 104
6.1.1 Single Tapered Tubing 105
6.1.2 Insert String 106
6.1.3 Dual Completion 107
6.1.4 Concentric Completion 108
6.1.5 Downhole choke 109
6.2 Comparison of Completion Concepts - Discussion 110
7 Well Construction Elements 111
7.1 Well Materials 114
7.1.1 Carbon Steel 114
7.1.2 13Cr steel 114
7.1.3 Elastomers 114
7.2 Conductor and Casing strings 114
7.2.1 30” Conductor 114
7.2.2 20” x 13 3/8” Surface Casing 115
7.2.3 10 ¾ x 9 5/8” Production Casing 115
7.3 Cement 116
7.4 Surface Trees and Wellheads 117
7.5 Upper Completion 117
7.5.1 Tubing 118
7.5.2 SSSV and control lines 118
7.5.3 Production Packer 119
7.5.4 In-well monitoring 119
7.6 Lower Completion 119
7.7 Other well elements 119
7.7.1 Pressure containment between the lower completion (top of the screens) and upper completion (tail
pipe) 120
7.7.2 Packer fluid 120

8 Number of Wells 120

8.1 Minimum number of injection wells 121
8.2 Monitoring well 123
8.3 Fifth well 123
9 Other Production Technology Aspects 124

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 iv
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT FRONT MATTER

9.1 Maximum Bottom Hole Injection Pressure 124

9.2 Design Conditions - CITHP 124
9.2.1 CITHP for CO2 and CH4 filled tubing 124
9.2.2 Scenarios 126
9.3 Packer Fluid 126
9.4 Well abandonment 126
References 128
[Link] of new wells: CO2 expansion in the tubing 129
A1.1. Reasons for considering new wells 129
A1.1.1. Injection Flexibility and Temperature rating 129
A.1.1.2. Leak scenarios 129
A1.2. Well Design for New Wells 129
A1.2.1 Drilling 130
A.1.2.2. Well Materials 130
A1.2.3. Conductor and Casings 130
A1.2.4. Cement 130
A1.2.5. Surface Trees and Wellheads 131
A1.2.6. Upper Completion 131
A.1.2.7. Lower Completion 131
A1.2.8 Packer fluid 132
A1.2.9. B-C annulus fluids 132
A1.2.10 Currently unknown elements 132
A1.3. Comparison of existing Workover wells versus New Platform wells 132
10 Glossary of terms 134
11 Glossary of Unit Conversions 138

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 v
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT FRONT MATTER

List of figures
Figure 2-1: Main stratigraphy for Goldeneye area, average depths of formation tops 9
Figure 2-2: GYA01 well schematic including formations (similar completion in
GYA05) [1ft = 0.3048m, 1'' = 25.4mm] 15
Figure 2-3: GYA03 Completion including completions (similar completion in
GYA02S1 and GYA04) [1ft = 0.3048m, 1'' = 25.4mm] 16
Figure 3-1: Subdivision of the Captain reservoir, Goldeneye area. Log data on left with
core faces log description on right. Note unit A is homogenous in parts
and highly variable in thickness (shown partial log). 17
Figure 3-2: Permeability histogram from available cores in the Captain D formation. 18
Figure 3-3: Goldeneye hydrocarbon production. Clean-Up performance. 19
Figure 3-4: GYA01. Productivity history 20
Figure 3-5: Productivity per well during long term production phase 20
Figure 3-6: Productivity. Jones representation. 21
Figure 3-7: CO2 downhole (in-situ) injection rate for given surface rate 22
Figure 3-8: Comparison of CO2 and hydrocarbon downhole rates 23
Figure 3-9: Comparison of Viscosity between CO2 and hydrocarbon gas. 23
Figure 3-10: CO2 injectivity in comparison to hydrocarbon productivity (GYA01,
GYA03 and GYA04) 25
Figure 3-11: CO2 injectivity in comparison to hydrocarbon productivity (GYA02S1
and GYA05) 26
Figure 3-12: Hydrate equilibrium curve for CO2 and Goldeneye hydrocarbon and
their mixtures in the presence of free water. 30
Figure 3-13: Hydrate equilibrium curve for CO2 at different water concentrations 30
Figure 3-14: Hydrate equilibrium curve and well conditions under normal CO2 injection
conditions 31
Figure 3-15: Hydrate equilibrium curve and well conditions during close-in operation 32
Figure 3-16: Hydrate equilibrium curve and well conditions during closed-in
conditions 33
Figure 3-17: Hydrate equilibrium curve and well conditions during start-up operations 34
Figure 3-18: Hydrate equilibrium curve and well conditions during first start of
injection (well filled with water) 35
Figure 3-19: Fracture propagation mechanism in PWRI 40
Figure 3-20: Original minimum stress conditions at isothermal conditions 44
Figure 3-21: Uncertainty in minimum stress in the Captain formation and injection
conditions at the start of injection. [1 psia = 0.06895bara] 48
Figure 3-22: Formation pressure in the Goldeneye area (pressure in the Captain
formation as an average pressure over the life of the project) 50
Figure 3-23: Isothermal minimum stress in the Goldeneye area for injection (reference
case Captain minimum stress) 50
Figure 3-24: Base case. Fracture depth to and depth bottom with time 51
Figure 3-25: Base case. Fracture length profile with time 51
Figure 3-26: Base case. Fracture length with time 52
Figure 3-27: Rate sensitivity. Fracture depth to and depth bottom with time 53

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 vi
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT FRONT MATTER

Figure 3-28: Rate sensitivity. Fracture length with time 53

Figure 3-29: CO2 quality sensitivity. Fracture depth to and depth bottom with time 54
Figure 3-30: CO2 quality sensitivity. Fracture length with time 55
Figure 3-31: Fracture geometry with time for different fracture initiation points 56
Figure 3-32: Fracture geometry with time assuming no changes in original minimum
stress (worst case for fracture containment) 56
Figure 4-1: Phase diagram of CO2 [from Wong, 2005] 61
Figure 4-2: Variation of CO2 density with pressure and temperature (NIST data) 62
Figure 4-3: JT coefficient of CO2 (Source SPE115946) 63
Figure 4-4: Pressure profile in a closed-in well (at geothermal conditions). 64
Figure 4-5: CITHP for a well filled with CO2 (at geothermal conditions) 65
Figure 4-6: Temperature profile in the well considering CO2 injection in two phases in
the top of the well by expanding the liquid CO2 from the pipeline 66
Figure 4-7: General expected CO2 surface choke performance 67
Figure 4-8: Sea temperature at the Goldeneye area 69
Figure 4-9: Wellhead pressure and pure CO2 saturation line. Difference in pressure
between minimum injection pressure and saturation curve. 71
Figure 4-10: Friction Dominated Concept. Inflow and Outflow. 72
Figure 4-11: Friction dominated concept. Sensitivity to tubing sizes 73
Figure 4-12. Friction dominated concept. Sensitivity to wellhead temperatures 74
Figure 4-13: Friction dominated concept. Sensitivity to steel roughness 75
Figure 4-14: Pressure and Temperature predictions under steady state 76
Figure 4-15: Pressure and Temperature prediction with respect to CO2 phase
envelope and density 77
Figure 4-16: Bottomhole injection temperature sensitivity 78
Figure 4-17: C factor comparison (from ISO13703) for CO2 and hydrocarbon gas 79
Figure 4-18: Downhole choke operating range (at 2500psia iBHP) 81
Figure 4-19: Downhole choke pressure and temperature traverse (at 3000psia iBHP) 81
Figure 4-20: Pressure drop across a downhole choke (at 2000psia iBHP) 82
Figure 4-21: Wellhead transient temperature. Recommended operations case.
Wellhead conditions. 4°C IWHT (2500psia reservoir pressure). 83
Figure 4-22: Wellhead transient temperature. Wellhead conditions. 4°C IWHT
(2500psia reservoir pressure) 84
Figure 4-23: Traverse temperature profile design case: 13.5hr. 45bara WH pressure
steady state (2500psia P reservoir) 85
Figure 5-1: Aperture velocity in the screen assuming uniform distribution 98
Figure 5-2: Downhole rate for the hydrocarbon phase 98
Figure 5-3: Aperture velocity in the hydrocarbon production phase (assumes uniform
distribution) 99
Figure 5-4: CO2 downhole rate 99
Figure 6-1: Completion Concepts (for injecting in single phase CO2) 105
Figure 6-2: Traffic light for completion concepts 111
Figure 7-1: Proposed general well schematic [1'' = 25.4mm] 113
Figure 8-1: Organ Pipe for Goldeneye project. 122

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 vii
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT FRONT MATTER

Figure 9-1: CITHP for a well filled with CO2 125

Figure 9-2: CITHP for a well with Methane in the tubing 125

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 viii
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT FRONT MATTER

List of tables
Table 2-1: Existing hydrocarbon producer wells in Goldeneye platform 6
Table 2-2: Completion requirement. General information 7
Table 2-3: Completion requirement. Reservoir characteristics 10
Table 2-4: Completion requirement. Fluids characteristics 11
Table 2-5: Completion requirement. CO2 injection rates and condition 12
Table 2-6: Completion requirement. Existing wells summary 13
Table 2-7: Well deviation of the existing wells 13
Table 2-8: Suspension plugs – Setting depths [1ft = 0.3048m] 14
Table 3-1: Joule Thomson expansion calculation near wellbore for different injection
conditions. 37
Table 3-2: Base assumptions for the fracture modelling [1ft = 0.3048m, 1psia =
0.06895bara] 41
Table 3-3: Minimum horizontal stress at the Rodby formation [1psia/ft =
226.2mbara/m, 1 psia = 0.06895bara] 43
Table 3-4: Original minimum stress at the Captain formation [1psia/ft =
226.2mbara/m, 1 psia = 0.06895bara] 44
Table 3-5: Change of minimum stress in the Captain formation due to depletion
(during the hydrocarbon production phase) [1 psia = 0.06895bara] 45
Table 3-6: Change of minimum stress in the Captain formation due to pressure
increase (during the pre-CO2 injection and CO2 injection periods) [1 psia =
0.06895bara] 46
Table 3-7: Change of minimum stress in the Captain formation due to thermal effects 47
Table 3-8: Summary of change in minimum stress in the Captain formation - reference
case [1 psia = 0.06895bara] 47
Table 3-9: Considered PWRI cases for simulation 49
Table 3-10: Estimated fracture length for different reservoir sensitivities [1ft =
0.3048bara] 55
Table 3-11: Injectivity management. Risk reduction 59
Table 3-12: Injectivity test. Risk/Uncertainty comparison pre and post-test. 60
Table 4-1: Arrival CO2 temperature to the platform for different cases and subsequent
expansion to wellhead conditions 70
Table 4-2: Steel Roughness. 74
Table 4-3: Maximum injection due to velocity in tubing [1'' = 25.4mm] 80
Table 4-4: Results of transient calculations – design case (base oil in annulus) 85
Table 5-1. Low temperature threshold of current completion equipment 88
Table 5-2: Low temperature threshold after workover during injection 90
Table 5-3: Bottomhole pressure and downhole rate relation for Goldeneye wells 100
Table 6-1: Single tapered tubing. Advantages and disadvantages [1'' = 25.4mm] 105
Table 6-2: Insert string. Advantages and disadvantages [1'' = 25.4mm] 106
Table 6-3: Dual completion. Advantages and disadvantages [1'' = 25.4mm] 107
Table 6-4: Concentric completion. Advantages and disadvantages [1'' = 25.4mm] 108
Table 6-5: Downhole choke. Advantages and disadvantages [1'' = 25.4mm] 109

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 ix
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT FRONT MATTER

Table A0-1: Workover with the current friction concept and drilling new wells.
Advantages and disadvantages. 132
Table 11-1: Unit Conversion Table 138

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 x
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Executive Summary

Executive Summary

This report, Well Completion Concept Select Report, includes the rationale for selecting the preferred
completion from the range of options available considering the lifecycle of a well in the Peterhead
Goldeneye Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) project.
The report considers the inflow performance (injectivity and matrix/fracturing conditions), the
vertical flow characteristics (pressure and temperature calculations) in relation to the phase behaviour
of the Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
Different completion concepts are analysed for the Goldeneye conditions and lifecycle
(installation/injection/abandonment) and a recommendation is done for the completion type to
mature in the define phase of the project (FEED). The Completion Concept for the upper
completion presented in this report is similar to the proposed for the Longannet project. Changes
related to flow rates, pressures and CO2 composition were included in the analysis.
The current upper completion was designed for hydrocarbon production. Analyses have shown that
injecting dense phase CO2 into a depleted reservoir has the risk of producing low temperatures in the
injection tubing. These low temperatures cause problems with the materials and fluids in the wells.
In order to avoid this, small injection tubing is being installed. This will introduce additional friction
and will maintain the injection column in dense phase from the well head to the sand face.
Limitations of the different well components were investigated for the expected well conditions
under CO2 injection. The Christmas tree and the tubing hanger will be replaced in the workover with
units having a lower minimum temperature. All completion equipment (i.e. attached to the tubing
string) will have 13Cr or s13Cr equivalent (or superior) metallurgy and will have working pressures in
excess of the expected final well pressures.
Based on the hydrocarbon production and the reservoir characteristics it is expected to have a good
initial injectivity in the Captain D. Filters will be installed on the platform to avoid particulates and
hence reduction of injectivity by plugging/erosion of the lower completion and formation. Batch
hydrate inhibitor is planned before well start-ups during the initial stage of injection to avoid hydrate
formation in the well. It is expected that matrix type of injection will occur at low reservoir pressures
changing to fracturing conditions with increase in reservoir, being the main uncertainty the thermal
effect on the rock.
The lower completion installed in the Goldeneye wells (screen and gravel pack) is considered fit for
purpose for CO2 injection. Filtration of the CO2 stream will reduce the risk of plugging and erosion
of the lower completion.
The installation of small bore tubing in the wells limits the operating envelope of each well. In order
to accommodate the range of injection rates at the different reservoir pressures during the injection
life, each well will be completed with a different tubing size/configuration tailored to a specific rate
range. The wells will then have overlapping operating envelopes and any rates specified in the
integrated basis-for-design will then be achievable through the choice of a specific combination of
wells.
In the completions, there will be permanent temperature and pressure monitoring gauges. There will
also be a distributed temperature sensing system - a fibre optic system providing temperature data at
specified intervals in the well, and distributed acoustic sending (DAS).
Three wells are planned to be converted as injector wells. GYA03 is planned to be a monitoring well.
The range of injection from the minimum to the maximum of the capture plant at the predicted
reservoir pressure evolution can theoretically be achieved with only two wells. In case of unforeseen
problems in a particular injector well, it is proposed to complete an additional or back-up well as a
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 1
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Executive Summary

CO2 injector to the number of wells required to cover the injection range. As such, at least three wells
are required to be completed as injectors. The well(s) not converted for CO2 injection will also need
to be considered for the Peterhead project. Options included are to complete as an injector/monitor
or to abandon the well.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 2
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Introduction

1 Introduction
General injection requirements
The Goldeneye platform features five suspended gas production wells, with an additional three spare
slots for potential future wells. Suspension plugs were installed in the existing producing wells after
the Cessation of Production (CoP) declaration.
The injector wells should be able to inject 10 million tonnes with a maximum rate of 138.3 tonnes/h.
Turn down of the surface facilities are estimated at 89.9 tonnes/h (65% of the design rate). The CO2
to be injected is almost pure (+99.9%) and it is arriving to the platform dehydrated (~20ppm weight
of H20) at temperatures similar to the seabed temperature and pressures above the critical point.
The reservoir will be depleted at the start of injection. The reservoir pressure will increase with CO2
injection; at the end the 10 million tonnes of injection, the reservoir pressure will be close to
hydrostatic conditions.
There is an aquifer attached to the formation. Completion design should consider the presence of
water and hydrocarbons (not only CO2). Water is present in currently present at the formation level.
The CO2 in presence of water is highly corrosive in carbon steel. Hydrocarbons are also present in
the current wells.

Injectivity
The initial CO2 injectivity is expected to be excellent (~200-400 psia [~13.8-27.6bara] above the
reservoir pressure) for the expected injection rates per well required for the project. This high
injectivity is based on the rock properties of the Captain D (storage formation) and the productivity
of the hydrocarbon production phase.
The expected CO2 injectivity under matrix conditions can be estimated from the hydrocarbon
productivity by considering the differences in (Pressure-Volume-Temperature) PVT between the
hydrocarbon and the CO2. The impact of the PVT correction is small in the injectivity as the high
viscosity of the CO2 is compensated by the low expansion factor of the CO2 with respect to the
hydrocarbon gas.
The risk of not being able to inject the desired amount of CO2 can be reduced by some proactive
measures such as filtration of the CO2 stream (5 micron) and hydrate inhibition (bath displacement of
methanol between the Xmas tree and the Sub Surface Safety Valve (SSSV) before opening the well).
There are other mechanisms, which are considered of very low risk to CO2 injectivity such as: Joule
Thomson cooling, Halite precipitation, and organic deposits like wax and asphaltenes.
Stress regime calculations in combination with the expected injection pressures indicate that the initial
phase of injection (for low reservoir pressure) will be under matrix injection. However, the late phase
of injection (as the reservoir pressure increases) is uncertain in terms of injection condition (matrix or
fracturing conditions). The main uncertainty in the calculations is the reduction in minimum stress
caused by the temperature contrast between the reservoir temperature and the bottom hole injection
temperature which effectively reduce the minimum stress of the formation.
Injection under fracturing conditions will propagate fractures in the Captain formation. These
fractures in the reservoir are not detrimental to the containment capacity of the primary reservoir seal
(Rodby/Hidra formations).

Vertical lift performance

The CO2 stream arrival temperature to the platform would be between 2.3°C to 10.1°C depending
mainly on seabed temperature and some expansion/cooling in the riser.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 3
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Introduction

Analyses have shown that injecting cold liquid CO2 into a depleted reservoir has the risk of producing
low temperatures in the injection tubing due to the Joule-Thomson (JT) expansion.
CO2 expansion properties can be managed by a small diameter tubing resulting in temperatures
compatible with the materials in the existing wells. This will introduce enough friction and will
maintain the injection column in dense phase from the wellhead to the sand face. With appropriate
size in the tubing the wellhead pressure can be increased to the extent that it lies above the saturation
line. As such, the minimum wellhead pressure in the well is determined by the requirement of
operating the well in single phase. This will create a minimum rate limitation in each well.
The maximum CO2 pressure available (~120bara) will dictate the maximum injection rate per well for
a given tubing size.
Tubing sizes can be designed to accommodate variable flow rates from the platform by using
multiple wells.
Low temperatures for a short period of time can be encountered during transient operations (start up
and shut down). A procedure for testing the SSSV needs to be validated in the next phase of the
project.
For the Carbon Capture Plant (CCP) rates in the project, the expected bottomhole temperature is
estimated between 23°C to 35 °C.
Loss of control in a CO2 well can generate very low temperatures in the top of the well. In a CO2
well; with the rapid expansion of the CO2, correspondingly rapid cooling will occur. The top of the
well (wellhead, Xmas tree and tubing above the SSSV) will require special considerations due to the
potential low temperatures.

Injecting into existing wells

The five existing wells were evaluated to be used as CO2 injection without any modification.
However, due to potential integrity issues and CO2 phase behaviour management it is not possible to
use the wells without any modification. A rig is required to carry out a workover of the upper
completion by installing small tubing in order to manage the CO2 expansion.
Due to the material compatibility in the lower completion it is recommended to control the Oxygen
to acceptable levels. This has been calculated at 1ppm Oxygen in the CO2 stream.
As the lower completion (screen and gravel), filtration of the CO2 stream will reduce the risk of
plugging and erosion of the screens.
The lower completion installed in the Goldeneye wells (screen and gravel pack) is considered fit for
purpose for CO2 injection.
There is not a requirement to perform side-tracks if pro-active control measurements are followed
(filtration and oxygen control) for the lower completion.

Conceptual completion selection

CO2 phase behaviour management can be achieved by extra pressure drop in the well. Options
include the installation of a small diameter tubing creating back pressure by friction loss or a pressure
drop in a device (downhole choke).
The initial installation of the single tapered completion option is the simplest and most robust. The
other evaluated systems - insert string, dual completion, concentric completion and downhole choke -
present extra design /operation challenges and additional cost in comparison to the selected single
tapered completion. As such, the proposal for the upper completion is to use single wells with slim
tubing sizes.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 4
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Introduction

Well construction elements

Limitations of the different well components have been investigated for the expected well conditions
under CO2 injection. The change of use of Goldeneye wells from hydrocarbon production to CO2
injection has been checked against the existing well design in the following areas: materials
(metallurgy and elastomers), casing design, cement and pressure management.
Re-completion of the wells will incorporate changing out of the 7′′ [178mm] tubing to a smaller size.
It is proposed to standardise the top (from surface Xmas tree down to the SSSV) and the bottom (tail
pipe up to the Permanent Downhole Gauge (PDG) mandrel) of the upper completion for the CO2
injection.
Distributed Temperature System (DTS) will be installed in the wells for monitoring purposes.
All completion equipment (i.e. attached to the tubing string) will have 13 percent Chrome metallurgy
(13Cr) or super 13 percent Chrome metallurgy (S13Cr) equivalent metallurgy and will have working
pressures in excess of the expected final well pressures.
The Xmas tree and the tubing hanger will be replaced in the workover with units having a lower
minimum temperature rating than the currently installed.
For normal well operating conditions (injection and transient conditions) the wellhead system is
compatible with the expected low temperatures. Detailed thermal simulations of the wellhead/Xmas
tree system under uncontrolled CO2 leaks will be done in the next phase to evaluate the extension of
the low temperature during leak scenarios for validating the suitability of the wellhead system.

Number of wells
The number of required injector wells depends mainly on the injection estimates (reservoir pressure
and injectivity), capture plant rates, CO2 management, monitoring requirements and life cycle risk
management.
The well(s) not converted for CO2 injection will also need to be considered for the Peterhead project.
Options included are to complete as an injector/monitor or to abandon the well.
The installation of small bore tubing in the wells limits the operating envelope of each well. In order
to accommodate the range of injection rates at the different reservoir pressures during the injection
life, each well will be completed with a different tubing size/configuration tailored to a specific rate
range. The wells will then have overlapping operating envelopes and any rates specified in the
integrated consortium basis-for-design will then be achievable through the choice of a specific
combination of wells.
The current plan is to recomplete the five existing production wells by means of a workover –
replacing upper completion. Whilst purely for CO2 injection, based on the latest scheduled volumes
of captured CO2 from the Peterhead power plant, there is a requirement for three injection wells
only. There is an additional requirement for one monitoring well (GYA03). There is a choice whether
the fifth well should be recompeted for injection or abandoned..
Drilling of new wells
New wells are not currently considered for the project. Drilling new wells to avoid the limitations of
eliminating the minimum rate dictated by the CO2 phase behavior is not justified.
Drilling new wells might only be justified in case of leak cases where the wellhead system needs to be
replaced based on consequences arising from a failure case. Experience in CO2 EOR and other CCS
projects under leak scenario indicated not to be an issue. Detailed thermal simulations of the
wellhead/Xmas tree system will be done in the FEED phase to evaluate the suitability of the system
under Goldeneye conditions.
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 5
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Completion requirements

As a consequence, in the case of drilling new wells, they should be able to take low temperatures
(sub-zero) in the top part of the well (~2600ft [792.5m] under injection conditions and even lower
temperatures for leak scenarios in the very top of the well).

2 Completion requirements

2.1 Introduction
The Goldeneye platform features five suspended gas production wells, with an additional three spare
slots for potential future wells.
The five existing wells in the Goldeneye platform initially drilled and completed to produce
hydrocarbons form the Captain sands, Table 2-1 . The abbreviated well names are used in this
document. Well DTI 14/29a-A4Z (GYA02S1) is the sidetrack of DTI 14/29a-A4 (GYA02).
Table 2-1: Existing hydrocarbon producer wells in Goldeneye platform

Full well name Abbreviated well name Spudded

(batch operations)
DTI 14/29a-A3 GYA01 8/12/2003
DTI 14/29a-A4Z GYA02S1 13/12/2003
DTI 14/29a-A4 GYA02 13/12/2003
DTI 14/29a-A5 GYA03 19/12/2003
DTI 14/29a-A1 GYA04 5/12/2003
DTI 14/29a-A2 GYA05 2/12/2003

The field was granted CoP (Cessation of Production) from DECC (Department of Energy and
Climate Change) in 2011. There are therefore no plans to produce the wells in the future.
These wells can be used for CO2 injectors or as monitor wells. Suspension plugs were installed in the
existing producing wells after the CoP declaration.

2.2 General completion considerations

The main functional requirements for the wells in the Peterhead Goldeneye CCS project are:

Hydraulic Requirements
• Management of the CO2 properties (Joule Thomson, JT expansion) and the resultant
temperatures in the existing platform wells.
• Flexible injection. The injector wells need to be able to cope with a range of CO2 arrival rates
within the limits of the capture plant and surface equipment. Facilities and their modus
operandi should be operated to have minimum impact in the wells.
• CO2 will be injected in a single phase with wellhead pressure kept above the saturation line.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 6
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Completion requirements

Well Integrity
• Avoid any leak path through the well.
• All well completion materials should be compatible with the injected fluid and expected
pressures and temperatures.
• Completion design should consider the presence of CO2, water and hydrocarbon. The
proportion will change depending on the well position and during the life of the project.
• Expected remaining well life after start of injection: minimum 15years.

Well Modifications
• A mobile jack-up rig will be required for Goldeneye platform due to the water depth.
• Minimise complexity of any well work. Uncomplicated well design.

Operational aspects
• Normally unattended platform.
• Maintain injectivity during the life cycle of the well.
• Optimise well life cycle cost..

Well Monitoring
• Able to monitor wells/reservoir. Facilitate intervention.
• In-well monitoring to be installed in the wells: Permanent Downhole Gauges (PDG) and
Distributed Temperature Sensing (DTS) (Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) being
considered).

Life Cycle Cost

• Regulatory responsibility for the five existing wells will transfer from the production license to
a new storage licence. As such, the cost associated to all the wells should be considered by the
project (e.g. abandonment costs should be included in the cost estimates in case of selecting
the options of drilling new wells).
• Reduce (or eliminate) the requirement to bring a rig in the middle of the project.
• Minimise complexity and cost of any well work. Uncomplicated well design.
• Facilitate final well abandonment.

2.3 Peterhead – Goldeneye CCS information

The following information will affect the completion type in the CO2 injector wells.

2.3.1 General information

Table 2-2: Completion requirement. General information

Name Goldeneye

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 7
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Completion requirements

Area North Sea

Located 100km northeast of St Fergus
Basin South Halibut Basin of the Outer Moray Firth
Platform Normally Unattended Installation (NUI)
Legs 4
Pipeline to shore 102km, 20'' [508mm] diameter
Reservoir Lower cretaceous Captain sandstone
Captain E, D (main) and C (not penetrated by the existing wells)

2.3.2 Goldeneye field - main stratigraphy

The injection reservoir is the Captain formation. The Rodby shales and Hidra marl are the main
shales above the injection reservoir.
Vertical containment is provided by the 300m thick primary storage seal, a package including part of
the Upper Valhall Formation, Rødby Formation, Hidra Formation and the Plenus Marl Bed.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 8
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Completion requirements

Figure 2-1: Main stratigraphy for Goldeneye area, average depths of formation tops

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 9
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Completion requirements

2.3.3 Reservoir characteristics

Table 2-3: Completion requirement. Reservoir characteristics

Type Sandstone
Captain formation. Main formation is the Captain D
Formation ~83°C @ 8400ft [2560m] TVDss
temperature
Reduction of temperature around the injectors due to cold CO2 injection
(~20-35°C bottom hole injection temperature)
Formation Water Formation water present in the bottom of the well.
Water will be initially at the sand face. Evidence of water from downhole
pressure gauges in GYA03.
Formation water around the wellbore will reduce significantly after 6 to 9
months of continuous CO2 injection. However, water might come back to
the formation is not enough CO2 is injected in the well.
Average Reservoir ~25% porosity
(Captain D) ~790md permeability
Porosity and The Captain D is a clean sandstone with very high Net to Gross
Permeability
Captain D presented an excellent connectivity during the hydrocarbon
production phase.
Pressure Regime (The pressure regime is given as an indication for general well/completion
design selection. This will be re-calculated before any well operation and
before working over the wells).
An active aquifer supports the field. All the wells are currently shut in due
to water breakthrough and isolated with deep and shallow downhole plugs.
Original Reservoir Pressure ~ 3830psia [264bara] @ datum 8400 ft TVDss
Minimum Reservoir pressure after depletion ~ 2100psia [145bara] @ datum
Current pressure is ~2620psia [181bara] (@ end of December 2013 @
datum)
Minimum expected reservoir pressure before CO2 injection (~Year 2019):
2650psia [183bara], Pressure Gradient Range - 0.319 psia/ft [72mbara/m]
Maximum expected reservoir pressure after 10 million tonne of CO2–
(~Year 2031) 3450psia [238bara] @ 8400ft TVDSS, Pressure Gradient:
0.416psia/ft [94mbara/m]
Information is of enough quality for this analysis/report on completion
concept select.
This pressure information will be updated during FEED for the detail
design of the wells.
Different section of tubing (4½'' and 3½'' [114mm and 89mm]) to be
installed in each well will depend on this information.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 10
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Completion requirements

2.3.4 Fluids characteristics

Table 2-4: Completion requirement. Fluids characteristics

CO2 Almost pure dehydrated CO2 will be available at the platform

level. CO2 specification as follows:
Compound % Fraction mol
CO2 0.999883
N2 0.000061
O2 0.000001
H2O 0.000050
H2 0.000005

O2 level specification is determined by the presence of 13Cr

material in the wells.
Water is controlled to avoid hydrates and corrosion in the
offshore pipeline (50 ppm mol of water = 20 ppm weight of
water)
Formation Water Water will be initially at the sand face. Water breakthrough
observed in all wells during the production phase. Evidence of
water from downhole pressure gauges in GYA03.
Salinity- Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): ~56000ppm (52000ppm –
Sodium Chloride - NaCl)
Water level in the wells is currently not known.
It is expected to have more water in the wells at the workover
time due to aquifer presence.
Hydrocarbon Gas – Condensate
0.37% mol CO2
0% H2S
No solids production observed in the facilities
There was a thin (7m) oil rim in the reservoir at original
conditions.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 11
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Completion requirements

CO2 injection rates and condition

Table 2-5: Completion requirement. CO2 injection rates and condition

Total CO2 available The project requires to inject 10 million tonnes of CO2
Design Rate (capacity of the capture plant): 138.3 tonnes/h
equivalent to 63 MMscfd
Normal Operating Conditions ~ 130 tonnes/h (59 MMscfd)
Turndown Rate of surface facilities ~ 89.9 tonnes/h (65% of the
design case, 41 MMscfd)
It is estimated that the injection will take place over a period of 12
years for the 10 million tonnes (including downtime).
CO2 fluctuation For the first 5 years of the injection, project will operate with
turndown case of 75% (103.8 tonnes/h, 47 MMscfd)
For the rest of the injection years, the turndown case will be 65%.
All the surface equipment should be design to minimum
turndown of 65%.
The reference case is to operate the capture plant at based load
(i.e. continuous flow) during the first five years on injection.
Daily fluctuations between the design rate and the minimum (65%
of the design rate) might be carried out after year 5 of injection.
Frequent (daily) on and off periods of the capture plant are not
planned.
A limited packing capacity exists in the offshore pipeline operated
in dense phase CO2 (estimated to be between 2 to 4 hours of CO2
injection depending on the conditions of the pipeline).
Arrival Pressure and The CO2 will be transported to the platform in dense phase.
Temperature The maximum pressure of the offshore pipeline is 120bara. This
conditions is limited by the operating pressure of the offshore pipeline.
The CO2 will arrive cold to the platform according to the seabed
temperature with some changes of temperature in the platform
riser.
Variations in temperature exist between summer and winter.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 12
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Completion requirements

2.3.5 Existing wells summary

Table 2-6: Completion requirement. Existing wells summary

Attribute Data
On/Offshore Offshore
Well type Previously Hydrocarbon producer.
Currently closed in and suspended with deep set downhole plugs
To be converted to CO2 injection
DFE (ft) 152.5 [46.5m] (Drilling Rig)
Water depth (ft) 395 [120m]
Number of wells 5 existing, 3 slots available
Top reservoir (ft ~8300 [2530m]
TVDSS)

There are five existing wells (GYA01, GYA02S1, GYA03, GYA04, and GYA05) in Goldeneye field.

The upper and lower completion specifications of the current completion are:
• Upper Completion
SSSV 5.875'' [149mm], 7'' [178mm] tubing 6.184'' [157.1mm], 5'' [127] tubing 4.67'' [118.6mm],
PDG 4.576'' [116.23mm], Polished Bore Receptacle (PBR) 4.577'' [116.26mm], Packer 4.65''
• Lower Completion
Formation Isolation Valve (FIV) 2.94'' [74.68mm], Screens 3.548'' [90.12mm], X-over 3.515''
[89.28mm]

The maximum well deviation in the wells is (degrees):

Table 2-7: Well deviation of the existing wells

Well Deviation (Degrees)

GYA-01 36
GYA-02S1 60
GYA-03 40
GYA-04 68
GYA-05 7 (shortest well)

An intervention campaign was carried out in 2012 and suspension plugs were set in all the wells. At
the time some safety valve control line integrity issues were noted on wells GYA01 and GYA03 and
corrective measures were required to some tree valves.
In a number of wells (GYA02, GYA04 and GYA05) the lowermost suspension plug was set above
the downhole gauge thereby allowing the reservoir pressure and temperature to be monitored, Table
2-8.
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 13
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Completion requirements

Table 2-8: Suspension plugs – Setting depths [1ft = 0.3048m]

GYA01 GYA02 GYA03 GYA04 GYA05

Suspended Nov 2012 May 2012 April 2012 May 2012 Feb 2013
Plug 01 139ft 124ft 134ft 118ft 148ft
Plug 02 2669ft 10362ft 2618ft 2976ft 7731ft
Plug 03 8595ft 9017ft
Gas migration Gas migration
through SSSV through SSSV
control line control line

None of the wells are subject to any integrity issues of note (PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00004 Well
Integrity Assessment Report, 2014).
The Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3 capture the existing well construction elements with respect to the
different formations:

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 14
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Completion requirements

Figure 2-2: GYA01 well schematic including formations (similar completion in GYA05)
[1ft = 0.3048m, 1'' = 25.4mm]

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 15
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Completion requirements

Figure 2-3: GYA03 Completion including completions (similar completion in GYA02S1

and GYA04) [1ft = 0.3048m, 1'' = 25.4mm]

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 16
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

3 Injectivity
This section is divided into initial injectivity, long term injectivity management and injection under
fracturing conditions.

3.1 Initial injectivity

3.1.1 Reservoir characteristics of the Captain formation

The main factor dictating productivity and injectivity is the quality of the formation. Reservoir quality
information is already available from the exploration and appraisal wells drilled in the Goldeneye area
and the five hydrocarbon producer wells.
The Early Cretaceous-aged Captain Sandstone Unit, a sandstone turbidite with good reservoir
properties, forms the main reservoir (PCCS-05-PT-ZG-05800-00004 Static Model (Field) Report,
2013). Captain formation is represented in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1: Subdivision of the Captain reservoir, Goldeneye area. Log data on left with core faces
log description on right. Note unit A is homogenous in parts and highly variable in
thickness (shown partial log).

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 17
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

The Captain 'D' is the primary reservoir unit, into which all the development wells have been
completed as the primary target. The Captain 'D' unit has been cored in all of the exploration and
appraisal wells in the Goldeneye Field. It comprises medium grained massive sandstones that, with
the exception of a fining-upwards sequence at the top seen in all wells in the field, show only subtle
changes in grain size.
Average porosity of Captain 'D' reservoir is 25% and average permeability is ~790mD (
Figure 3-2). The average net to gross is 94%. The thickness of the Captain D is 75 to 225ft [22.9 to
68.6m] True Vertical Depth (TVD) with an average of 130ft [39.6m]. These are the primary
indicators that we can expect good CO2 injectivity in Goldeneye.

Figure 3-2: Permeability histogram from available cores in the Captain D formation.

All the available wells were completed in the top of the Captain D formation (60ft [18.3m] true
vertical). The 9-5/8'' [245mm] casing was set in the Rodby formation. The Captain D and E are
open to the gravel pack and screens. The Captain E characteristics are poor with average net to gross
of 61%, average net porosity of 21% and average permeability of only 150mD. Clearly the
contribution of the Captain E with respect to the Captain D is negligible.
The Captain D formation is well connected based on production and pressure information collected
during the hydrocarbon production phase.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 18
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

3.1.2 Hydrocarbon Productivity Phase

The existing wells were completed in the top of the main reservoir Captain D; the wells are also
exposed to the poor reservoir Captain E and a short section of the Rodby seal. The ‘skin’ is high
(~80) from the initial completion, probably due to shale section from the Rodby entraining into the
gravel.
The best information available to estimate the future CO2 injectivity is the well’s hydrocarbon
productivity. This productivity was been excellent despite the high skin and has confirmed the
reservoir characteristics.
The gas production rate during the initial clean-up (after completion) was between 90 to 105 million
scf/d per well [3.2 to 3.7 million sm3/d]. The Figure 3-3 shows the behaviour of the wells during the
clean-up.

Goldeneye - Clean-Up Performance

3800

3700

3600
BHP @ PDHG, psi

3500 GYA01
GYA02
3400 GYA03
GYA04
3300 GYA05

3200

3100

3000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Gas Rate, MMscfd

Figure 3-3: Goldeneye hydrocarbon production. Clean-Up performance.

The high productivity was maintained during the production life of the wells. In general, low
drawdown levels have been required (150-200psia [10.3 – 13.8bara] drawdown for 60 million scf/d
[2.1 million sm3/d] production). The well productivity was stable during the production time,
demonstrating no impairment with time. This can be observed in the Figure 3-4 for GYA01 (note
that the other wells have similar performance). Similar productivity was observed for the five
producing wells.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 19
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

GYA01 Production Information

500
450
400
350
Drawdown, psi

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
- 20 40 60 80 100
Gas Rate, MMscfd

Oct-04 Feb-05 Jul-06 Oct-07 May-08 Jun-08 Sep-08 Jul-09 Sep-09

Figure 3-4: GYA01. Productivity history

There are minor differences between the wells as can be observed in the following graph. GYA02S1
and GYA05 are a bit stronger than the rest of the wells (in line with the initial clean-up of the wells).

Goldeneye - HC Productivity
Productivity Information (excluding initial prod. data)
500
450
400
350
Drawdown, psi

300
250 GYA01
200 GYA02S1
GYA03
150 GYA04
100 GYA05

50
0
- 20 40 60 80 100
Gas Rate, MMscfd

Figure 3-5: Productivity per well during long term production phase

Inflow Performance from gas wells can be represented mathematically using the Jones equation, as
follows:
Preservoir2 – Pwf2 = Darcy coefficient * Q + Non-Darcy coefficient * Q2
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 20
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

Based on the well performance the wells can be grouped in two sets:
GYA01, GYA03 and GYA04
GYA02S1 and GYA05

The calculated coefficients considering the production information are as follows

GYA01, GYA03 and GYA04
Darcy coefficient: 0.0017bar2/ (sm3/d)
Non-Darcy coefficient: 4 E-10bar2/(sm3/d)2
GYA02S1, GYA05
Darcy coefficient: 0.001bar2/ (sm3/d)
Non-Darcy coefficient: 4 E-10bar2/(sm3/d)2

These are graphically presented in the following Figure 3-6:

Goldeneye - HC Productivity
Productivity Information (excluding initial prod. data)
500
450
400
350 GYA01
Drawdown, psi

GYA02S1
300
GYA03
250 GYA04
200 GYA05
GYA-01,03,04 Jones
150 GYA-02S1, 05 Jones
100
50
0
- 20 40 60 80 100
Gas Rate, MMscfd

Figure 3-6: Productivity. Jones representation.

3.1.3 Correction of hydrocarbon productivity for CO2 injection due to PVT

changes
This section relates to the correction of hydrocarbon productivity to obtain CO2 injectivity based on
the different flowing properties of the hydrocarbon and CO2. Relative permeability is not included in
this section.
The CO2 injectivity will be different to the hydrocarbon productivity due to differences in the PVT
properties between the hydrocarbon gas produced and the CO2 injection. The magnitude is relatively
small, for example for the maximum rate of 63MMscf/d (138.3 tonnes/h) flow the drawdown under
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 21
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

hydrocarbon gas production was between 150 to 200psia, whilst for CO2 the injection would be
between 280psia [19.3bara] and 380psia [26.2bara] above the reservoir pressure depending on the
well.
The reservoir pressure just before the CO2 injection is estimated at 2650psia [183bara]. The required
bottom hole pressure is higher than the critical pressure of the CO2. At reservoir temperature, the
CO2 will be supercritical whilst at the injection temperature the CO2 can be considered as liquid or
supercritical fluid depending on the injection temperature. The viscosity of the CO2 will be higher
than the viscosity of the hydrocarbon gas.
The downhole in situ rate of the CO2 has a high dependency on the pressure and temperature, but
the effect is less pronounced in case of injecting at high pressures as encountered in the Goldeneye
reservoir. The downhole rate of the CO2 for a given surface rate is much smaller than the
hydrocarbon production. Both effects are illustrated in the following Figure 3-7 and Figure 3-8:

Goldeneye

16000

14000
CO2 83 degC 150bar
Downhole Rate, m3/d

12000 CO2 83 degC 200bar

CO2 83 degC 250bar
10000
CO2 30degC 150bar
8000 CO2 30degC 200bar
CO2 30degC 250bar
6000
CO2 20 degC 150bar
4000 CO2 20 degC 200bar
CO2 20 degC 250bar
2000

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Rate, MMscfd

Figure 3-7: CO2 downhole (in-situ) injection rate for given surface rate

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 22
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

Goldeneye

25000

HC prod 83degC 150bar

20000
Downhole Rate, m3/d

HC prod 83degC 200bar

HC prod 83degC 250bar
15000 CO2 83 degC 150bar
CO2 83 degC 200bar

10000 CO2 83 degC 250bar

CO2 20 degC 150bar
CO2 20 degC 200bar
5000
CO2 20 degC 250bar

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Rate, MMscfd

Figure 3-8: Comparison of CO2 and hydrocarbon downhole rates

The viscosity of the CO2 is higher than the viscosity of the hydrocarbon gas in Goldeneye (see Figure
below). This difference in properties will have a negative effect on the injectivity.

Viscosity Comparison
@ Injection conditions (~170 - 300bar)
0.14

0.12

0.10

CO2 20 degC
0.08
Viscosity, cP

CO2 30 degC
CO2 60 degC
CO2 80 degC
0.06
GYA HC 80 degC

0.04

0.02

0.00
150 200 250 300
Pressure, bar

Figure 3-9: Comparison of Viscosity between CO2 and hydrocarbon gas.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 23
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

The difference between CO2 and hydrocarbon gas in terms of equivalent downhole rate and viscosity
can be calculated with the previously calculated Jones equation as follows:

Pr2 − Pwf2 = Aq + Fq 2
µCO 2 Z CO 2 TCO 2
ACO 2 = Agas = Agas K A
µ gas Z gas Tgas
Z CO 2 γ CO 2 TCO 2
FCO 2 = Fgas = Fgas K F
Z gas γ gas Tgas
Where,
µCO 2 Viscosity relation CO2 / hydrocarbon gas
µ gas
Z CO 2 Compressibility Factor relation CO2/ hydrocarbon gas
Z gas

TCO 2 Bottomhole injection temperature relation CO2 / hydrocarbon gas

Tgas
γ CO 2 Specific Gravity relation CO2 / hydrocarbon gas
γ gas

A the Darcy coefficient and F the Non Darcy coefficient.

The main assumptions to the equation are:

• same permeability, skin and drainage radius for CO2 and gas
• No complex reservoir effects (e.g. well interference, external behaviour, etc.)
• Relative permeability effects not included
• CO2-rock chemical reaction not included
• Matrix injection
Because of the variable properties of the CO2 (Z factor, viscosity and density) with pressure and
temperature the injectivity will vary with these factors. However the effect is relatively small as can
be observed in the following figures where the CO2 injectivity is shown at different pressures and
temperatures.
For the maximum considered rate of 63MMscf/d then the delta pressure is in the order of 280psia
[19.3bara] and 380psia [26.2bara].

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 24
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

GYA CO2 Injectivity

(Based on GYA-01, 03, 04)
600
HC, 2168psi Pr, 83 degC
CO2 2500psi Pr, 83 degC
CO2 3000psi Pr, 83 degC
500 CO2 3500psi Pr, 83 degC
CO2 3830psi Pr, 83 degC
CO2 2500psi Pr, 70 degC
CO2 3000psi Pr, 70 degC

400 CO2 3500psi Pr, 70 degC

Drawdown - BHIP-Preservoir, psi

CO2 3830psi Pr, 70 degC

CO2 2500psi Pr, 60 degC
CO2 3000psi Pr, 60 degC
CO2 3500psi Pr, 60 degC
300 CO2 3830psi Pr, 60 degC
CO2 2500psi Pr, 50 degC
CO2 3000psi Pr, 50 degC
CO2 3500psi Pr, 50 degC
CO2 3830psi Pr, 50 degC
200 CO2 2500psi Pr, 40 degC
CO2 3000psi Pr, 40 degC
CO2 3500psi Pr, 40 degC
CO2 3830psi Pr, 40 degC

100 CO2 2500psi Pr, 30 degC

CO2 3000psi Pr, 30 degC
CO2 3500psi Pr, 30 degC
CO2 3830psi Pr, 30 degC
CO2 2500psi Pr, 20 degC
- CO2 3000psi Pr, 20 degC

0 20 40 60 80 CO2 3500psi Pr, 20 degC

CO2 3830psi Pr, 20 degC
Rate, MMscfd

Figure 3-10: CO2 injectivity in comparison to hydrocarbon productivity (GYA01, GYA03 and
GYA04)

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 25
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

GYA CO2 Injectivity

(Based on GYA-02S1,05)
600
HC, 2168psi Pr, 83 degC
CO2 2500psi Pr, 83 degC
CO2 3000psi Pr, 83 degC
500 CO2 3500psi Pr, 83 degC
CO2 3830psi Pr, 83 degC
CO2 2500psi Pr, 70 degC
CO2 3000psi Pr, 70 degC

400 CO2 3500psi Pr, 70 degC

CO2 3830psi Pr, 70 degC
Drawdown - BHIP-Preservoir, psi

CO2 2500psi Pr, 60 degC

CO2 3000psi Pr, 60 degC
CO2 3500psi Pr, 60 degC
300 CO2 3830psi Pr, 60 degC
CO2 2500psi Pr, 50 degC
CO2 3000psi Pr, 50 degC
CO2 3500psi Pr, 50 degC
CO2 3830psi Pr, 50 degC
200
CO2 2500psi Pr, 40 degC
CO2 3000psi Pr, 40 degC
CO2 3500psi Pr, 40 degC
CO2 3830psi Pr, 40 degC
100 CO2 2500psi Pr, 30 degC
CO2 3000psi Pr, 30 degC
CO2 3500psi Pr, 30 degC
CO2 3830psi Pr, 30 degC
CO2 2500psi Pr, 20 degC
-
CO2 3000psi Pr, 20 degC
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 CO2 3500psi Pr, 20 degC

Rate, MMscfd CO2 3830psi Pr, 20 degC

Figure 3-11: CO2 injectivity in comparison to hydrocarbon productivity (GYA02S1 and

GYA05)

3.1.4 Relative permeability

The CO2 injection in Goldeneye will be a gravity-dominated process, where the microscopic
displacement efficiency is quite high, even though in the near wellbore area there will still be a viscous
displacement. Nevertheless, the density difference of the fluids in addition to high rock quality in
Captain sands, will generate a strong segregation and the displacement process will be gravity
dominated. This will reduce water saturation to small values, where the relative permeability should
be very low for water and high for the CO2. So we can expect the CO2 to have a favourable mobility
ratio and, as a consequence, good injectivity.
During the Longannet project, the effect on Relative permeability on the injection was investigated.
In summary, the modelling results have demonstrated that hysteresis in water permeability has little
effect on CO2 distribution and injector bottom hole pressure, hence injectivity.
This was reported during the Longannet – Goldeneye CCS project in section 3.5 of the report
(UKCCS-KT-S7.18-Shell-002 Injectivity Analysis Preparation, 2010).

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 26
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

3.2 Long Term Injectivity Management

3.2.1 Gravel pack and Formation plugging - Filtration

Very small particles can be accepted in the injection wells to avoid plugging at the screens / gravel
pack and formation. The recommended values for filtration are 17 microns (section 5.4.7), to avoid
plugging of the lower completion in the existing wells and 5 microns to avoid formation plugging
(section 3.2.2).
There is a likelihood that following 7 years of production, debris will exist in the offshore pipeline
(corrosion products, sand etc.). When flow is reversed in the pipeline, displacement of these
products into the wells without any mitigation measures would plug the lower completions (screen-
gravel pack) and the formation. Plugging may reduce the injectivity through the lower completion
(screens / gravel) and formation with time. Mitigation options related to pipeline commissioning and
filtration should therefore be applied to ensure long term injectivity.
The offshore pipeline will be cleaned during the commissioning phase for the Peterhead CCS project.
Removal of the solids and liquids during this phase is very important to ensure the long term integrity
of the offshore pipeline and the lower completion / formation. Displacement of any pipeline content
into the wells during the pipeline-commissioning phase must be avoided in order to preclude damage
or impairment of the downhole sand control.

3.2.2 Discussion
The same offshore pipeline currently used for the hydrocarbon production will be used for the CO2
injection. During the production phase it is possible that corrosion products and / or formation
fines might have settled in the pipeline. On commencing CO2 injection there is the potential that any
solid debris present in the pipeline could become mobilised or dislodged and travel down the pipeline
to the wellbore, potentially impairing injectivity by physically obstructing the path of CO2 into the
reservoir. As the pipeline is 105km long 20'' [508mm] diameter, even a small film of debris may
represent a significant risk to injectivity.
In an injection system in the case of having particles bigger than a critical size the solids will start to
accumulate internally at the screens, gravel and the formation. Smaller solids can pass the screen but
can accumulate at the gravel. Still smaller solids can travel through the gravel and even smaller solids
can sail through the formation.
Very small particles can be accepted in the injection wells to avoid plugging at the screens / gravel
pack and formation. The accepted level is using the guidelines in the oil industry for flow in a porous
media:
o Particles larger than 1/3 of pore throat size will bridge
o Particles smaller than 1/7 of pore throat size will flow through the matrix without
plugging.
o Particles between 1/3 and 1/7 of pore throat size will invade and impair the porous
media
o Pore throat size is 1/6 of particle size in a packed sand matrix with reasonable sorting
Average pore throat analysis from capillary curves in Captain formation is between 35 to 40 microns.
Particles between 5-12 microns invades and impairs the formation (1/7 – 1/3 formation). Particles
smaller than 5 microns sails on through deep into the formation (1/7 formation).

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 27
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

Normally the value for the particle size compatible with the formation (under matrix injection) is
estimated using core flood lab experiments and experience in similar formations. The value in
Goldeneye was calculated using the average pore throat from petrophysical analysis (mercury
injection capillary pressures) and the normally accepted rules in the oil industry for particle
management. The average pore throat is in the order of 35-40 micron in line with the average
permeability of the formation.
During the hydrocarbon freeing operation in May 2013 (9 pigs sent from platform to beach), the
sludge collected contained approximately 1kg of solids. The sample analysis indicated 12% solids with
50% water & 25% condensate. The solids contained 50% iron oxides and the rest acid insoluble
compounds (silicates), carbon and other salts and trace materials. Sand was not detected. The only
material expected but not present in the samples was Iron Carbonate (FeCO3).
The main threat is perceived to be from the epoxy coating of the pipeline (section 3.2.3). Another
possible source of solids will be debris (corrosion products, sand/fines, scale) from the pipeline itself
and mol sieve, amine salts, etc. from the conditioning unit.
The quantity of solids that will be present during the injection operation is currently unknown.
The fact that the CO2 will be dry reduces the risk of having corrosion products injected into the wells.
Filtration will be provided at the Goldeneye platform. It is not expected to have large amount of
solids to be produced from the capture plant. Within the compressor package there will be a 5 micron
filter.
The current philosophy of the filters at the Goldeneye platform is to prevent exceptional situations
(de-bonding of epoxy coating) leading to remedial activities. In other words, the filters will be used to
prevent well workovers or stimulations with low chance of success. It is not designed for continuous
removal of sustained solids production. It is better to clog a surface filter than the filters (lower
completion/formation) downhole in the wells. If the filters clog up, it will be for no apparent reason,
and injection should be stopped until the root cause is identified and eliminated.
Filtration units for dense phase CO2 have been confirmed by the surface facilities to be available in
the market. Filtration package will be designed during FEED.

3.2.3 Disbondment of pipeline coating (applicable to existing offshore pipeline)

This risk will be mitigated by the operation of tight control of the quality of the injection gas, and the
installation of an appropriate filtration system on the platform upstream of the wells. Again, injection
gas quality management will feature in operational procedures that will be developed for the
installation
The offshore pipeline was installed with an internal epoxy coating. The internal coating is a solvent
based cured epoxy. The coating is not installed to protect against corrosion, it was installed to
provide short-term corrosion protection during the pipeline storage and transportation. The
thickness of the cured epoxy is between 30-80 microns.
Decompression testing was performed on the section of stock/spare pipe in the warehouse with CO2
content during Longannet Feed. Decompression testing has provided confidence that the coating is
not going to disbond even under very aggressive decompression rates when dense phase CO2(worse
than will be seen in operation) is high and it is not expected that the coating will come off.
Nonetheless, a filtration system should be applied/installed.
Although coating disbondment is not expected, there is still some degree of uncertainty of the coating
response under CO2 exposure.
Should disbondment occur during operation then particles ranging from small solids to relatively
large fractions of coating may be formed, which could subsequently clog or completely block the
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 28
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

gravel pack / formation, thereby reducing injectivity. The mitigation for this case is to have a tight
control on the CO2 quality being injected into the wells using a filtration system on the platform.

3.2.4 Hydrates
The formation of hydrates is only possible when water is present in sufficiently significant quantities
and the temperature and pressure of the fluid is within the hydrate formation window. Hydrates will
be managed primarily during steady state injection by dehydration of the injection fluids to
sufficiently remove the water to inhibit the formation of hydrates.
Free water is not expected in an injection scenario. However, it is possible that water will enter back
the wellbore in case of an injection trip when not enough CO2 is injected to displace the water from
the wellbore.
During hydrocarbon production, water encroached into the Goldeneye gas cap and at least part of
the well gravel pack will be surrounded by water at the time that injection commences. As such
hydrocarbon gas and water will be present during the initial CO2 injection. The trapped gas
saturation is estimated to be 25%, so some methane will remain near the well. The methane is
miscible with CO2 and consequently will eventually be displaced by the injected CO2. The initial
injection of CO2 will drive water away from a well and cool the reservoir.
In order to reduce the initial risk of hydrate formation during the first years of injection (once water is
displaced from the wellbore) it is considered prudent to introduce batch hydrate inhibition prior to
operational opening of a well for injection purposes. If water is subsequently introduced into a well
and/or it is suspected that water is present in a wellbore, then batch injection should continue.
Methanol is currently preferred as an inhibitor and this will be supplied to the platform via the 4''
[102mm] piggybacked supply pipeline. Batch hydrate inhibition will feature as an instruction in the
well operational procedures that will be developed for the injection system.

[Link] Hydrates Curves

It is possible to form hydrates from mixtures containing CO2 /hydrocarbon and water. Hydrate
curves for CO2 and Goldeneye hydrocarbon and their mixtures in the presence of a free water phase
are shown in Figure 3-12 (the hydrate region is to the left of the curve). Hydrocarbon hydrates are
formed more easily compared to CO2 hydrates in terms of temperature. For instance, at 2,900psia
[200bara] pressure and in the presence of water, hydrocarbon hydrates can be formed at temperatures
below 22°C whereas CO2 hydrates only form below 11°C.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 29
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

Goldeneye Hydrates Curve

>0.1 mol pure water / mol fluid

200
180
160
140 GYA HC
Pressure, bara

1GYA HC_0.1CO2
120
1GYA HC_1CO2
100
1GYA HC_10CO2
80 1GYA HC_100CO2
60 CO2
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Temperature, degC

Figure 3-12: Hydrate equilibrium curve for CO2 and Goldeneye hydrocarbon and their mixtures in
the presence of free water.

The CO2 hydrate equilibrium curve will change due to the reduction of water as shown in Figure
3-13. For low concentrations of water in CO2, the hydrate equilibrium curve in the liquid CO2 phase
shifts to lower temperatures. This shift is attributed to a shift in solubility of water in the CO2 liquid
phase.

Hydrates Prediction (PVT Sim)

Fluid: 1 mol CO2
Pure Water
200

180 0.00001 mol water / mol fluid

160
0.00005 mol water / mol fluid (CO2
spec 20 ppmw)
140
0.0001 mol water / mol fluid
Pressure, bar

120
0.0005 mol water / mol fluid
100

80 0.001 mol water / mol fluid

60 0.01 mol water / mol fluid

40 0.1 mol water / mol fluid

20
1 mol water / mol fluid
0
-50 -30 -10 10 30 Saturation

Temperature, degC

Figure 3-13: Hydrate equilibrium curve for CO2 at different water concentrations

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 30
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

[Link] Possibility of Hydrate deposition

Hydrate deposition risks is investigated in the following section for different well conditions.

Normal CO2 Injection Conditions

The dehydration of the injected fluid effectively inhibits any hydrate formation during normal
operating injection conditions of the well.
Free water from the aquifer during this phase is not expected as the water has been displaced by the
CO2 injection. The tubing content is displaced by CO2 many times.
The injection well will develop cold conditions, the bottom hole injection temperature during normal
injection are expected to be between 23°C to 35°C as such there is not an issue of hydrate deposition
in terms of injectivity.
This is illustrated in Figure 3-14 where the injection conditions at the wellhead and bottomhole are
plotted against the hydrate equilibrium curve for dehydrated CO2.

Hydrates Prediction (PVT Sim)

Fluid: 1 mol CO2 + Pure Water

200

180

160

140 0.00005 mol water / mol fluid (CO2

spec 20 ppmw)
Pressure, bar

120 Saturation

100 WH Steady State

80 Downhole Steady State

60

40

20

0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Temperature, °C

Figure 3-14: Hydrate equilibrium curve and well conditions under normal CO2 injection
conditions

Closing-in operation (Transient)

The bottom part of the well is not in the region to form hydrates. During the short term closed-in
operation (hours) it is likely that water is not present in the wellbore (bottom of the well) as per the
water has been displaced by the CO2 injection during the injection time. The well is still injecting CO2
during the close-in operation as such there is no aquifer influx yet.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 31
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

The CO2 in the top of the well will still be dehydrated during this operation. The top of the well will
be at saturation conditions (when the reservoir pressure is low) and some liquid CO2 will evaporate
causing a temperature drop. However, there is an insignificant risk of hydrate depositing, Figure 3-15,
as after a short time the content of the wellbore will increase in temperature again.

Hydrates Prediction (PVT Sim)

Fluid: 1 mol CO2 at water specification (20ppw). Using Pure Water
Close-in operation

200

180

160
0.00005 mol water / mol fluid (CO2
spec 20 ppmw)
140
Saturation
Pressure, bar

120

100
Wellhead conditions - close-in

80
Well Profile - coldest during close-in
60

40

20

0
-50 -30 -10 10 30

Temperature, degC

Figure 3-15: Hydrate equilibrium curve and well conditions during close-in operation

Well Closed-in Period

The well will be warming up during this time and will tend to go into the geothermal conditions. The
bottom part of the well will be at temperatures above the hydrate equilibrium temperature even
assuming free water.
The top part of the well will be warming up, but the pressure and temperature conditions will stay in
the hydrate curve assuming free water.
In the case of having dehydrated CO2 conditions then the risk of hydrates is insignificant at the top of
the well and nil at the bottom of the well (similar than the closing-in operation)
Aquifer water might enter the wellbore depending on injection time. There are two predicted cases:
• Water entering the wellbore
When the well is closed-in, water from the aquifer will enter the wellbore due to the aquifer strength.
Free water would tend to accumulate in the bottom of the well due to the density difference. The
main uncertainty would be the vertical column of water present in the well and the speed is moving
upward displacing the CO2 from the well.
• No water entering the wellbore

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 32
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

With enough CO2 injection, water from the aquifer is pushed away by the CO2. The time where the
water is not coming back into the well (when it is closed in) is estimated to be between 6 months to 1
year of continuous injection (section 4.6.2 in the report (UKCCS-KT-S7.18-Shell-002 Injectivity
Analysis Preparation, 2010)).
After this continuous time of injection the water will tend to stay away from the wellbore. However,
in case that the well has injected for a short time then the water may enter the wellbore.
The discussion above is illustrated in the Figure 3-16 below. The top of the well under the presence
of free water will enter the hydrate deposition region.

Hydrates Prediction (PVT Sim)

Fluid: 1 mol CO2 at water specification and free water. Uing pure water
Close-in conditions

200

180 0.00005 mol water / mol fluid (CO2

spec 20 ppmw)
160 1 mol water / mol fluid

140 Saturation
Pressure, bar

120 Closed-in conditions after closing-in

operation

100 Long term Closed-in conditions at

wellhead

80

60

40

20

0
-50 -30 -10 10 30

Temperature, degC

Figure 3-16: Hydrate equilibrium curve and well conditions during closed-in conditions

Starting-Up Operation
Under certain conditions aquifer water has entered into the well during the close-in period (as
described above). Considering the cold injection conditions of the CO2 arriving to the platform and
the expansion of the CO2 during the starting-up operation, hydrate would be formed during this
operation in the presence of free water, Figure 3-17.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 33
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

Hydrates Prediction (PVT Sim)

Fluid: 1 mol CO2 at water specifications and free water. Using pure water
Opening Up Operation

200

180
0.00005 mol water / mol fluid (CO2
spec 20 ppmw)
160
0.1 mol water / mol fluid
140
Saturation
Pressure, bar

120

100 Start-Up Operation well profile

80 WH conditions during injection

60

40

20

0
-50 -30 -10 10 30

Temperature, degC

Figure 3-17: Hydrate equilibrium curve and well conditions during start-up operations

The main risk during a well start-up operation is the hydrate deposition in the tubing and not in the
formation. The top of the well during the start-up operation will be in the hydrate region with a low
reservoir pressure. Expansion of the CO2 over the wellhead choke will result in low temperatures for
a period of time. The wellhead temperature of the steady state injection CO2 will be approximately
0.5°C -10.1°C, which is well to the left of the hydrate equilibrium curve considering the presence of
free water.
In the case that water is added to the well (e.g. well intervention) or suspected to be in the well (e.g.
initial injection conditions) then hydrate inhibitor should be used before starting-up the well.

First CO2 injection into the well

Water will be present during the very first injection of the well, either from the completion fluid or
from the aquifer water. CO2 has not been introduced in the well but there is the potential of having
hydrocarbon gas in the wellbore (and possibly in the tubing).
The well will be at geothermal conditions limiting any hydrocarbon hydrate at the reservoir level. Due
to the cold injection of CO2 the well would be at the CO2 or hydrocarbon hydrate region, Figure
3-18. As such, initial hydrate inhibition will be required during this operation.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 34
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

Hydrates Prediction (PVT Sim)

Fluid: 1 mol GYA HydroCarbon and different water cocentrations
Pure Water

0.0005 mol water / mol fluid

Pressure, bar

0.001 mol water / mol fluid

0.01 mol water / mol fluid

0.1 mol water / mol fluid

1 mol water / mol fluid

WH Steady State

Downhole Steady State

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

Temperature, degC

Figure 3-18: Hydrate equilibrium curve and well conditions during first start of injection (well filled
with water)

Uncertainty in hydrate predictions

The pressure and temperature conditions of the CO2 are in the region of forming hydrate problems
in the presence of free water in the top of the well. However, there are some factors affecting the
hydrate deposition which can minimise the effect of the hydrates, as follows:
• Formation of hydrates is not an instantaneous process. It requires time. Agglomeration of
hydrates also requires time. Hydrates can be formed but it might not create a flow blockage
(Dendy Sloan, 2000).
• Water is heavier than even dense phase CO2 at the Goldeneye conditions. Free water will tend
to accumulate in the bottom of the well where temperatures are higher and outside of the
hydrate deposition temperature. However, there is uncertainty in the water column in the
wells.
• The formation temperature conditions will always be above the CO2 hydrate equilibrium
temperature, as such there is not a risk of damaging the injectivity of the well for hydrates.
The main issue is in the top of the well in the presence of free water.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 35
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

[Link] Hydrate Inhibition Strategy

From the previous discussions, the cooling of the injection well induced by the injection of CO2 will
have the potential to create conditions favourable for the formation of hydrates, which means a
hydrate mitigation strategy is required.
Continuous hydrate inhibition is not required under normal injection because of the specification of
the CO2 stream regarding water content.
The recommendation is to displace hydrate inhibitor in the well when the well is closed-in as a batch
injection. The inhibitor should be displaced between the Xmas tree and the SSSV installed in the well
during the closed-in time. Batch hydrate inhibition will feature as an instruction in the well
operational procedures that will be developed for the injection system.
The placement of the SSSV should consider the hydrate deposition for CO2 and hydrocarbon gas.
This strategy will be reviewed during FEED.

[Link] Hydrate inhibitor selection

The liquid chemical hydrate inhibitor employed for inhibition of hydrates will be either methanol or a
mixture of Mono Ethyl Glycol (MEG) and water. Methanol is currently preferred hydrate inhibitor
over MEG based upon:
• MEG (normally mixed water) has a higher viscosity than methanol
• The CO2 will tend to remove the water from the MEG/water system making the MEG system
even stickier and more prompt to create formation damage
• Difficult to break down any alcohol in comparison to MEG (MEG to be pumped is a mixture
of water/MEG)
• Deep-water wells experience – Methanol is normally used to combat hydrates
• Methanol is compatible with the materials of the tubing (even in the presence of CO2)
Sleipner wells in Norway use methanol injection. The well has a SSSV and an injection sub for
methanol injection between the Xmas tree and the SSSV. The wellhead and Xmas tree is of standard
offshore layout with provision for methanol injection through the upper blocks cross (Baklid, 1996).
Snohvit field in Norway presented injectivity issues at the beginning of the project, believed to be
caused by Halite. A recipe of regular water with Methyl Ethyl Glycol (MEG) was pumped in the well
in a weekly basis until the problem was overcome (Hansen, 2013). No formation damage has been
reported for the Tauben formation; however the well was a cased and perforated well with a high
permeability than the Captain formation limiting the formation damage created by the MEG mixture.

[Link] Required volumes and pressures

The SSSV depth is currently planned to be installed at around 2550ft [777m] (hydrate deposition is
one of the selection criteria of the SSSV depth). 6.1m3 of methanol is required for the batch
displacement of methanol between the SSSV and the Xmas tree considering a 4½” [114mm] tubing.
The available pressure of the methanol system at the wellhead is estimated at 225bara which allows
for methanol displacement in the well when the well is even filled with hydrocarbon gas.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 36
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

3.2.5 Joule Thomson cooling upon CO2 injection into the reservoir
A Joule Thomson cooling effect can be expected when CO2 undergoes adiabatic expansion upon
entering the formation. The likelihood of encountering CO2 expansion problems in Goldeneye is
very low, due to the low JT coefficient based upon the injection pressure and temperature. Cooling
for Joule Thomson effects of less than 3°C is anticipated, due to the relatively high pressure of the
reservoir.
The injection conditions in Goldeneye: relatively high reservoir pressure, small delta pressure between
the well and the reservoir and low injection temperature are adequate to avoid cooling of the CO2 due
to CO2 expansion. This is demonstrated below:
Table 3-1: Joule Thomson expansion calculation near wellbore for different injection conditions.

Reservoir Pressure Injection JT coefficient, Delta Temperature for

Temperature, °C °C/bara 500psia (34.5bara)
expansion, °C
2650psia 23 0.029159 -1.0
182.7bara 35 0.050492 -1.7
3450psia 23 0.016643 -0.6
237.9bara 35 0.030261 -1.0

A delta pressure of 500psia [34.5bar] was used as a worst case scenario in terms of JT effects on
temperature across the wellbore. Reference case is in the order of 280-380psia [19.3-26.2bara].

3.2.6 Halite Precipitation

Halite investigation for Goldeneye was reported in (UKCCS-KT-S7.19-Shell-001 Wells Fluid Flow
Assurance & Technical Design, 2010) and summarised in this report. More data from Snohvit has
become available in recent years and is included in this analysis. (UKCCS-KT-S7.19-Shell-001 - Wells
Fluid Assurance & Technical Design, 2010).
This problem has been observed in salt-saturated formation water reservoirs, and is caused by water
evaporation around the wellbore due to CO2 injection. The formation water in Goldeneye has a
relatively low salinity (56000ppm TDS) that which will minimise the effect of any potential salt
precipitation.
CO2 injection can lead to desiccation of the near wellbore of the injector due to the slight solubility of
water into the CO2-rich phase if the injection stream is dry. When a large number of pore volumes of
dry CO2 have been in contact with the water (i.e. close to the injector) all water will have evaporated.
Since the salt dissolved in the water is not soluble in the CO2 stream it will stay behind and (upon
complete dry-out) deposit as solid salt. In theory this can lead to a reduction of absolute permeability
in the near-wellbore zone, and might lead to a reduction in injectivity. A straightforward calculation
and comparison to operational CCS projects, presented in the next two paragraphs, shows that for
Goldeneye the risk of injectivity reduction due to this dry-out effect is minimal.
The Goldeneye water chemistry has a TDS concentration of around 56,000mg/l. The Goldeneye
water is NaCl dominated brine (Na plus Cl concentration is 52,000mg/l). Even with full deposition
of salt in situ the total salt deposited is only 56 gram for every litre of formation water, almost
completely as halite (solid NaCl). Since the specific gravity of halite is 2.17g/cc this corresponds to
26cc of solids for every litre of formation water. Even if the pore space would be completely filled by
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 37
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

formation water (i.e. 100% water saturation) this would lead to a relative porosity reduction of only
26/1,000. Given the average porosity of 25% in the main reservoir sands (Captain D) this would
reduce porosity from 25% to 24.4%.
It should be noted that around most injectors the water saturation is likely to be lower, for two
reasons:
Initial water saturation in Goldeneye is only approx. 13% on average going down to 7% around
crestal wells. During the production phase this will have increased for some of the wells when
watering out, but at least the crestal wells will only have partially watered out at the end of
production.
Even for a fully watered out well, the initial water saturation upon injection is only (1-residual gas
saturation). Moreover, as has been shown in core flood experiments and modelling studies, dry-out
only starts to become significant after some of this water has been displaced by injected CO2. The
water saturation at the start of significant dry-out depends on the relative permeabilities, but
especially for a high permeability sandstone like in Goldeneye will be close to residual which for such
a sandstone is approx. 10-20%.
Therefore the relative porosity reduction is only [0.07-0.20]*26/1,000 = [2-5]/1,000, and therefore
the porosity only reduces from 25% to [24.88-24.96]%. This is a very small reduction. Even if much
of the salt deposition would occur in the pore throats (which have a relatively large diameter in
Captain D due to its high permeability) it is not expected to have a measurable effect on permeability
and therefore injectivity is expected to be unaffected by the build-up of the dry-out zone.
From field experience perspective, CO2 injection is ongoing in Sleipner in Norway and in Salah,
Algeria. These operations have a similar or higher likelihood than Goldeneye to exhibit injectivity
decline due to the build-up of a dry-out zone. This is for two reasons:
• These fields have a similar (Sleipner) or higher (in Salah) value of the product (salinity * water
saturation), primarily due to a similar or higher initial water saturation at start of dry-out, and
therefore a similar or higher amount of salt is available for deposition (per unit pore volume).
• These fields have similar (Sleipner) or much lower (in Salah) permeability and therefore (even
for the same amount of salt deposition per unit of pore volume) similar or higher risk of
deposition in the pore throats leading to permeability reduction.
However, no injectivity decline (besides decline due re-pressurisation of the formation) has been
reported for these operations during their injection period since start-up (14 and 6 years, respectively).
Therefore for Goldeneye the risk of injectivity impairment due to salt deposition in the dry-out zone
consider to be low.
Snohvit field in Norway presented injectivity issues at the beginning of the project. It was reported
(Hansen, 2013) that rapid increase in injection pressure during the initial stages of the project was
interpreted to be caused by halite precipitation in near the wellbore. A recipe of regular water with
MEG was pumped into the well on a weekly basis until the problem was overcome. Further
communication with Statoil clarified that the problem was attributed to the salt precipitation possibly
due to a high salinity (~150000 ppm TDS) and the presence of multiple perforation intervals
presented in the well. Production Logging (PLT) indicated cross-flow between the perforations at
well closed-in conditions. This facilitated water replenishing and further salt precipitation by water
dehydration with further CO2 injection then leaving more salt in the near wellbore area which lead to
injectivity deterioration. The water and MEG treatment possibly re-dissolve the salt present in the
wellbore.
In the case of halite precipitation bullheading of water can be applied in the wells to re-dissolve the
salt present in the well. Platform modifications to pump water into the wells are not justified due to

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 38
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

the low risk of having injectivity issues. Well intervention can be carried out in case of observing this
problem in the wells.

3.2.7 Near Wellbore Asphaltene Deposition

High levels of carbon dioxide are known to destabilise asphaltene dispersions in hydrocarbons. As
the composition of the hydrocarbon present in the CCS injection wells is assumed to be the same as
that produced from the reservoir, it is assumed that the total quantity of asphaltenes present in the
gas hydrocarbon on a percentage volume basis is zero. Therefore the risk of depositing asphaltenes
that could lead to injectivity impairment is nil.
The Oil Rim present initially in Goldeneye is expected to be smeared out by the gas production and
aquifer encroachment into the reservoir. The likelihood of having asphaltenes from the oil rim
deposited in the CO2 injector wellbore is very low due to the small amount of oil from the liquid
hydrocarbon produced in Goldeneye being reported. The wells were completed in the top of the
Captain D and structure away from the original position of the oil rim.

3.2.8 Near Wellbore Wax deposition

Injecting cold CO2 in a reservoir containing hydrocarbons has the potential to condense the heavier
alkene fractions leading to wax deposition. However, on review of the Goldeneye gas / condensate
composition it is clear that the amount of heavy end hydrocarbons is very small. Furthermore,
previous laboratory testing has shown that the cloud point of the Goldeneye condensate could not be
reached at -2.2°C and that the calculated cloud point of the condensate was predicted to be -6°C. As
the temperature of the near wellbore is not predicted to get below 20°C during CO2 injection, even
assuming no heat transfer from the formation, the likelihood of wax deposition is nil.

3.3 Matrix or Fracturing conditions

Stress regime calculations in combination with the expected injection pressures indicate that the initial
phase of injection (for low reservoir pressure) will be under matrix injection. However, the late phase
of injection (as the reservoir pressure increases) is hugely uncertain in terms of injection condition
(matrix or fracturing conditions). The main uncertainty in the calculations is the reduction in
minimum stress caused by the temperature contrast between the reservoir temperature and the
bottom hole injection temperature.
The reservoir has experienced a depletion process during the hydrocarbon production phase, from
the original pressure of around 3830psia [264.1bara] to 2100psia [144.8bara] at the end of the
hydrocarbon production phase. The minimum horizontal stress is affected by this process. The
reservoir will undergo a pressure increase process during the closed-in period, provided by the aquifer
support and later by both the CO2 injection and the aquifer support. The minimum stress
development is again uncertain during a re-pressurisation process, where it might not recover from
the absolute minimum in an inelastic process to the original minimum stress in a full elastic process.
The CO2 will be injected cold with an average difference of ~60°C between the formation
temperature and the injection temperature. The minimum stress will also be affected by the cooling
effect and there is an important uncertainty in the exact value of this reduction.
Considering the minimum stress range in the formation including all the factors (depletion, re-
pressurisation and thermal effects) and the required injection pressure, the most likely scenario during
the initial injection period, when the reservoir pressure is relatively low, is to have injection under

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 39
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

matrix conditions. However, as the reservoir pressure increases and hence the injection pressure
increases, it is possible that the reservoir may be fractured during the injection process. There is
uncertainty in terms of the pressure at which the injection will move from matrix to fracturing
injection.
Injection under fracturing conditions can propagate fractures in the Captain formation. These
fractures in the reservoir are not detrimental to the containment capacity of the seal (Rodby/Hidra).

3.4 Injection under fracturing conditions

The objectives of this section are (i) to estimate the fracture length in the Captain sandstone which
can be created in the formation in the case of injecting under fracturing conditions and (ii) highlight
the sealing capacity of the Rodby under fracturing injection of the Captain D. It is not intended to
demonstrate the primary seal capacity for all possible scenarios.

3.4.1 Software
The estimated length of the fracture in the case of injecting under fracturing conditions is calculated
using a Shell Proprietary software called PWRI-Frac.
The PWRI-Frac tool computes fracture dimensions, well injectivities, and flood front displacements
for injection above frac pressure. The software does not predict the starting point of the frac or
breakdown of the formation.
For injection of CO2 above frac pressure, the fracture propagation process is entirely steered by fluid
leak-off into the formation.

Leakoff
In-situ stress Pore pressure build-up
Formation cooling

Friction

Elastic opening
Figure 3-19: Fracture propagation mechanism in PWRI
The purpose of the program PWRI-Frac is to provide (i) an estimate of lateral and vertical extension
of induced fractures, (ii) of vertical fracture (non-)confinement and (iii) hydraulic requirements during
injection.
The software was developed for water injection purposes. The input has been modified to suit the
CO2 injection (viscosity, thermal properties, etc.).

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 40
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

3.4.2 Model Input

The main reservoir is the Captain D. The Rodby shale is the main seal above the Captain formation.
There is a substantial marl formation above the Rodby called Hidra. The Plenus Marl is not present
in all the Goldeneye producing wells. The Rodby formation is a shale directly above the Captain
formation with an average thickness of 180ft [55m] TV. The Hidra marl has an average thickness of
225ft [38m] TV.
Injection characteristics as follows:
o Injection surface temperature: 4°C
o Injection bottom hole temperature: 23°C
o CO2 viscosity at reservoir temperature: 0.05 cP
o CO2 viscosity at injection temperature: 0.15 cP
o Heat capacity CO2: 2400 kJ/kg/°C
o CO2 Density: 940 kg/m3 average @ injection conditions

Injection rate: 52 MMscfd for 7.5 years.

52 MMscfd (114 tonnes/h, 1mtpa) is the average between the design rate of the CCP and the
minimum rate of the CCP (65% of the maximum). The downhole rate equivalent is 2950
m3/d (927 kg/m3 density of CO2 for 3200psia [221bara] and 25°C).
Sensitivity is done for the maximum rate of the CCP 138.4 tonnes, h, 63 MMscfd equivalent
to 3580 m3/d downhole and the minimum rate of 89.9 tonnes/h, 41 MMscfd; equivalent to
2320 m3/d downhole.
7.5 years is used in the calculations considering that a well can be injecting maximum for ~
75% of the duration of the project (10 million tonnes).
Solids loading: 11 ppm vol
This value accounts for small particles and corrosion products injected into the formation.
Solids are to be removed at the platform level to prevent impairment near the wellbore. The
current specified level is that particles more than 5 micron should be removed from the
injection system. This will reduce the amount of solids injected into the wells.
The fact that the CO2 will be dehydrated will ensure that no corrosion is caused in the
offshore pipeline.
Reference case is for 0.1 pounds solids per thousand barrel CO2 at downhole conditions
equivalent to ~ 11 ppm vol. This value is considered high considering the nature of the CO2
and the filtration at the platform. This value was selected in order to have conservative
estimates of fracture length.
Sensitivities will be done with practically no solids (0.5 ppm Vol) and 22 ppm vol.

The following data were used for this study in terms of rock characteristics:
Table 3-2: Base assumptions for the fracture modelling [1ft = 0.3048m, 1psia = 0.06895bara]

Captain D Unit Remarks

Top 8,300 ftTV Average depth of Captain D
Bottom 8,480 ftTV 180ft average thickness of Captain D

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 41
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

Porosity 0.25 Fraction Average of the wells in Captain D

Permeability 790 mD Average of the wells in Captain D
Sensitivity for 500 and 1500 mD
Pore Pressure 2,100 psia Lowest after depletion
Captain 2,650 Before CO2 injection
3,450 At the end of injection
Reservoir Temp. 83 °C
Fracture initiation 8,330 ftTV Assumed. Wells completed in 60-70 ft TV of
Captain D. Sensitivity for top of Captain D
8,301ft
Young’s Modulus 16.2 GPa Reference case of 16.2 GPa is based on
Captain D 12-20 Geomechanics report (average injection test)
12 GPa: Based on lab analysis. Geomechanics
report Table 4.5. Average load test
20 GPa. Based on lab analysis. Geomechanics
report Table 4.5. Maximum recorded under
injection conditions.
Poisson’s Ratio 0.26 - Lab analysis. Geomechanics report Table 4.5 on
Captain D injection. Sensitivity to 0.15 based on lab analysis
- depletion
Poro-elastic constant 0.6 - Delta minimum stress / Delta reservoir pressure.
Captain D Reference case in the area of Goldeneye.
Variation from 0.4 to 0.8
Coefficient Thermal 9.2 1/°C 1 E -05 Recent lab analysis and literature
Expansion information
Rodby Formation 7 GPa Young Modulus
0.38 Poisson’s Ratio
(Geomechanics report, Table 4-3)
5 / 0.1 Porosity (%)/ Permeability (mD)
Hydrostatic (formation not drained)
IB Shales below 6 GPa Young Modulus
CaptainD 0.35 Poisson’s Ratio
(Geomechanics report, Table 4-3)
5 / 0.1 Porosity (%)/ Permeability (mD)
Hydrostatic (formation not drained)
The formation stresses are discussed in the following section.

3.4.3 Stress Regime

The stress regime under CCS for the Captain D will depend on the original in-situ stress conditions
(section [Link]), which are affected by changes in stress due to the depletion (section [Link]), and
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 42
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

later due to the pressure increase process (section [Link]). The minimum stress is also affected by the
injection of cold fluid into the reservoir (section [Link]).

[Link] Original Stress

The values presented in this section have been documented in the (PCCS-05-PT-ZP-9025-00004
Geomechanics Report, 2014)
An estimate of the vertical stress is calculated by integrating the density logs of these wells. The
vertical stress or Maximum Stress has been estimated at 23.3kPa/m [1psia/ft, 233mbar/m].
The original formation stresses in the Captain reservoir are not accurately known. No fracture tests
or formation leak-off tests were performed in the reservoir before the hydrocarbon production.
In well 14/29a-3 a Formation Limit Test was carried out at 7986.2ft [2428.7m] TVSS at the Hidra
formation. The Hidra marl formation was tested to an equivalent gradient of 0.572 psia/ft
[129.4mbara/m]. This is much lower than the anticipated gradient from regional stress trend maps
and it is due to the nature of the test (not an extended leak-off test)
An estimated value for the minimum horizontal stress (Sh) has been obtained from regional stress
trend maps of the Central Graben North Sea area. It is assumed that the test was stopped before
formation breakdown had occurred. The formation strength at the Rodby and Hidra levels are
expected to be around 0.72 to 0.80 psia/ft [162.9 to 181mbara/m]
The reference case minimum stress at the top of the Rodby is estimated at 6186psia [426.5bara] at
8140ft [2481m] TVD. Low and High values are estimated based on regional stress information
Table 3-3: Minimum horizontal stress at the Rodby formation [1psia/ft = 226.2mbara/m, 1 psia
= 0.06895bara]

Minimum Stress Sh (psia) @ top Remarks

Gradient, psia/ft Rodby (8140ft TVD)
0.76 6186 Reference case. Average between the minimum and
maximum recorded
0.72 Low 5861 Lowest recorded gradient in the region
0.80 High 6512 Highest recorded gradient in the region

The original Captain D minimum stress is estimated to be 5993psia [413bara] at 8300ft [2530m]
TVD, based on 0.72 psia/ft [162.9mbara/m], typical of North Sea sandstones where the minimum
stress gradient in the sandstone shows an average of 95% value of the shales above.

Gradient, psia/ft Sh (psia) @ top Remarks

Captain (8300 ft
TVD)
0.72 5993 Reference case. Average between the minimum and
maximum recorded
0.68 Low 5677 Lowest recorded gradient in the region
0.76 High 6308 Highest recorded gradient in the region

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 43
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

Table 3-4: Original minimum stress at the Captain formation

[1psia/ft = 226.2mbara/m, 1 psia = 0.06895bara]

The reference case minimum stress at original conditions is represented in the Figure 3-20. The stress
contrast in the reference case between the bottom of the Rodby and the top of the Captain is
estimated at around 300 psia [20.7bara].

Figure 3-20: Original minimum stress conditions at isothermal conditions

[Link] Change in Stress due to depletion

The minimum stresses in the reservoir in Goldeneye are reduced with respect to the original stress
due to depletion by the hydrocarbon production.
Assuming linear elastic behaviour, the reduction will depend on the Poisson’s Ratio of the rock and
the change in pressure. Compression of the sand grains by pore pressure needs to be included in the
calculations resulting in the depletion constant.
The minimum horizontal stress in a depleted reservoir is estimated using the depletion constant or
poro-elastic constant as follows:

∆S h = Ap * ∆Ppore
Where Ap = depletion constant or poro-elastic constant (-)
∆Ppore is the depletion level (psia)

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 44
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

For soft rocks (like Captain D in Goldeneye) the expected poro-elastic constant is in the order of
0.55-0.70. A base value of 0.6 has been used in the calculations with sensitivities to 0.4 and 0.8 (
(PCCS-05-PT-ZP-9025-00004 Geomechanics Report, 2014). The following Table 3-5 illustrates the
change in minimum horizontal stress with change in reservoir pressure at different poro-elastic
constants for depletion scenarios under an isothermal scenario.
Table 3-5: Change of minimum stress in the Captain formation due to depletion (during the
hydrocarbon production phase) [1 psia = 0.06895bara]

P reservoir Depletion Change in Sh, psia Change in Sh, Change in Sh, psia
Level due to depletion psia due to due to depletion
depletion
0.6 Depletion 0.4 Depletion 0.8 Depletion
Constant (reference Constant Constant
case)
3830 0 0 0 0
3450 380 -228 -152 -304
3050 950 -570 -380 -760
2650 1180 -708 -472 -944
2100 1730 -1038 -692 -1384
(lowest
reservoir
pressure, psia)

[Link] Inflation process – Reservoir pressure recovery (aquifer strength and CO2 injection)
The reservoir pressure has increased from the lowest on depletion 2100psia [145bara] to the current
2620psia [181bara] (December 2013). The pressure will continue increasing to around 2650psia
[183bara] before injection to 3450psia [238bara] after CO2 injection.
One uncertainty is the ability of the formation to increase or recover the minimum horizontal stress
with the pressure inflation when the formation has previously been through a depletion phase. Data
suggest that some formations will not fully recover the minimum horizontal stress as calculated using
the poro-elastic constant.
The reference case for minimum stress recovery is estimated at 50% of the depletion constant.
Ranges vary from 0% recovery to 100%.
The 100% recovery indicates a totally elastic behaviour of the rock; the minimum stress
recovery is based on the depletion constant.
A 0% recovery in the minimum stress min indicates a totally inelastic behaviour where despite
of the pressure recovery the minimum stress will not recover from the minimum stress
estimated at the lowest reservoir pressure.
The change in minimum stress due to the inflation process is included in the Table 3-6.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 45
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

Table 3-6: Change of minimum stress in the Captain formation due to pressure increase
(during the pre-CO2 injection and CO2 injection periods) [1 psia = 0.06895bara]
P Inflation Level, Change Change in Sh, Change in Sh, Change in Sh, psia
reservoir in reservoir pressure from psia due to psia due to due to inflation
(psia) lowest after depletion, inflation (after inflation (after (after depletion)
psia depletion) depletion)

50% recovery 100% recovery 0% recovery

and 0.6 and 0.6
Depletion Depletion
Constant Constant
(reference
case)
2100 0 0 0 0
(min P
reservoir)
2650 550 +165 +330 0
3050 950 +285 +570 0
3450 1350 +405 +810 0

[Link] Cooling effect on minimum stress

Temperature has a comparable effect on the in-situ stresses as pore pressure. Fracture propagation
pressure is reduced if the injected fluid is colder than the surrounding formation. The cold fluid
causes the formation to shrink or contract, resulting in a reduced formation stress and lower fracture
pressure.
The reduction in fracture pressure as a function of the temperature difference between formation and
injection fluid can be determined using the following equations:
E
AT = α ∗
1 −ν
where:
AT = Thermo-elastic constant (bara/°C)
E = Young’s Modulus (GPa)
α = coefficient of linear thermal expansion (1/°C )
ν = Poisson’s Ration (-)
and
∆S h = AT * ∆T
Where
ΔT = temperature differential (°C)

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 46
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

The typical coefficient of thermal expansion for sandstone is estimated at 10 E-6/°C (5.55 E-6 / °F).
The CO2 bottom hole temperature is estimated to be between 23°C to 35°C (section 4.3.10). As such,
there will be a difference of around 113°F (60°C difference). This will reduce the minimum stress in
the reference case in the order of 145bara [2000psia], Table 3-7.
Table 3-7: Change of minimum stress in the Captain formation due to thermal effects

Young’s Poisson’s Thermo- Change in Sh with

Modulus, GPa Ratio elastic 60° C difference,
constant, bara/psia
bara/C
Reference Case 16.2 0.26 2.3 -131/-1905
Small change 12 0.15 1.41 -85 / -1228
High change 20 0.26 2.7 -162 / -2351

3.4.4 Injection conditions (matrix or fracturing) – The numbers

Injection under fracturing conditions will occur when the injection pressure is above the minimum
stress. The minimum stress in the reservoir is affected by the depletion phase, the current and the
future pressure increase in the reservoir and the cooling effect as described in the previous sections of
this report. The main uncertainty lies in the reduction of the minimum stress due to the cooling
effects which is affected by the geomechanical properties of the rock.

The reference case minimum stress in the formation is calculated as follows:

Table 3-8: Summary of change in minimum stress in the Captain formation - reference case [1 psia =
0.06895bara]

Reservoir Original DSh, psia DSh, psia Isothermal DSh due Sh after
Pressure Sh, psia depletion inflation Sh (after to 60°C depletion,
(0.6 (50% depletion, cooling inflation and
depletion recovery inflation), cooling
factor @ P psia (60°C), psia
minimum)
2100psia 5993 -1038 0 5993 N/A N/A
(maximum
depletion)
2650psia 5993 -1038 +165 5120 -1905 3215
([Link] inj.)
3050psia 5993 -1038 +285 5240 -1905 3335
(mid Inj.)
3450psia end 5993 -1038 +405 5360 -1905 3455
of inj.)

The comparison of the bottomhole injection pressure and the minimum stress during injection will
determine the type of injection: under matrix conditions or fracturing conditions.
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 47
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

The bottom hole injection pressure during the CO2 injection would be between 280psia [19.3bara]
and 380psia [26.2bara] above the reservoir pressure depending on the well. This indicates that the
initial conditions of injection (reference case) will be under matrix conditions and switching to
fracturing conditions with time (increase in reservoir pressure). However, the exact conditions of
when this will occur are uncertain given the uncertainty in the calculations.
The main factor affecting the injection under matrix and fracturing conditions is the level of cooling
of the reservoir. Under isothermal conditions the injection would be under matrix conditions during
the duration of the project. Equally and assuming a low effect on the minimum stress given by the
formation cooling then the injection condition will be under matrix condition. However, considering
the high value in the thermo-elastic constant then the injection would be under fracturing conditions.
This is illustrated in the Figure 3-21 at the start of injection for different cooling effects and variables
(stress gradient, depletion constant, and inflation recovery) on the minimum stress. As it can be
observed the main factor affecting the minimum stress is the thermo elastic properties of the rock
where the minimum stress changes dramatically (difference between the blue and green lines).
Depending on its value the injection might occur under injection conditions (Minimum stress to be
lower than the bottom hole injection pressure for injection under fracturing conditions).

Comparison of Sh vs BHIP. Start Of Injection

6000

5500

5000
Pressure / Sh, psi

4500 Pres start of injection

BHIP
4000
High Thermo-Elastic constant
3500 Base Thermo-Elastic constant
3000 Low Thermo-Elastic constant
Isothermal
2500

2000
Reference High Low Low High Elastic on Inelastic All High All Low Sh
Case Original original Depletion Depletion inflation on Sh
Sh Sh Constant Constant inflation

Figure 3-21: Uncertainty in minimum stress in the Captain formation and injection conditions at
the start of injection. [1 psia = 0.06895bara]

Injection under fracturing conditions cannot be assumed to happen during the duration of the project
due to the uncertainty in terms of the effect of injection temperature in terms of minimum stress.
Matrix conditions should be used for the design of the injection system in terms of suspended solids.
However, injection under fracturing conditions in terms of fracture containment and potential issues
in the lower completion should be investigated due to the possibility of having this kind of injection.

3.4.5 Summary of cases investigated for propagating fracture under injection

Injection under fracturing injection cannot be ruled out; as such, the extension of the propagating
fracture needs to be investigated. The following cases have been investigated, Table 3-9.
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 48
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

Table 3-9: Considered PWRI cases for simulation

Section Case Objective
3.4.7 Base Case Considers the reference case stress at the mid-
point reservoir pressure in the project as
discussed in section 3.4.6 and reference
parameters in rock properties and injection
conditions (section 3.4.2)
3.4.8 Injection rate sensitivity Evaluate the minimum and maximum rate of the
capture plant
3.4.9 CO2 quality sensitivity CO2 with minimum solids content and a high
value (worst case in terms of containment)
3.4.10 Reservoir Properties Variation in reservoir permeability and
mechanical properties in the reservoir
3.4.11 Fracture initiation point Evaluate a fracture initiation as close as possible
to the primary seal
3.4.12 Original Stress conditions Worst case in terms of stress contrast between
the primary seal and the reservoir

3.4.6 PWRI. Base case pressure and minimum stress

The base case involves the following scenario:
• Reservoir pressure of 3,050psia [210bara]. Average reservoir pressure during the CO2 injection.
Rodby and Hidra formations are undepleted /undrained, Figure 3-32.
• The isothermal minimum stress of the Captain is 5,240psia [361bara] for 3,050psia reservoir
pressure. This is used as the stress value related to the base case minimum stress for the
depletion and inflation process. The stress contrast between the bottom of the Rodby and the
top of the Captain is around 1,070psia [74bara] after the depletion and pressure recovery
mechanism in the reservoir, Figure 3-23.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 49
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

Figure 3-22: Formation pressure in the Goldeneye area (pressure in the Captain formation as an
average pressure over the life of the project)

Figure 3-23: Isothermal minimum stress in the Goldeneye area for injection (reference case
Captain minimum stress)

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 50
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

3.4.7 Fracture Geometry. Base Case Simulation results

The results of the simulation (Figure 3-24, Figure 3-25and Figure 3-26) indicate that the fracture
will preferentially grow down toward the bottom of the Captain D reservoir. The fracture will initially
grow towards the top of the Captain reservoir. The fracture will grow ~20ft [6m] into the Rodby
formation at the end of the injection period. The main reason for this is the stress contrast and the
differences in properties between the Rodby seal and the Captain D formation. The fracture will have
a length of approximately 130ft [39.6m].

Figure 3-24: Base case. Fracture depth to and depth bottom with time

Figure 3-25: Base case. Fracture length profile with time

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 51
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

Figure 3-26: Base case. Fracture length with time

(The Figures above show sudden changes to the fracture geometry. This is an artefact of the output
from the simulation).

3.4.8 Fracture Geometry. Injection rate sensitivity

Sensitivity has been considered with 2,320m3/d and 3,580m3/d downhole CO2 injection equivalent to
41 MMscfd (89.9 tonnes/h) and 63 MMscfd (138.3 tonnes/h) respectively. The base case is for 2,950
m3/d downhole equivalent to 52 MMscfd.
The results (Figure 3-27 and Figure 3-28) are similar to the base case in terms of fracture growing to
the bottom part of the Captain D. The length of the fracture is very similar, being slightly longer
(150ft) for the high injection rate case.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 52
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

Figure 3-27: Rate sensitivity. Fracture depth to and depth bottom with time

Figure 3-28: Rate sensitivity. Fracture length with time

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 53
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

3.4.9 Fracture Geometry. CO2 quality sensitivity

Sensitivities have been considered for different solids content in the CO2. The quality of the CO2 is
estimated to be good as particles of less than 5 microns will be removed from the system to avoid
lower completion and formation blocking. This will reduce the amount of solids injected into the
wells. However, the value is uncertain but it is considered very low as the dehydrated CO2 will not
generate corrosion in the offshore pipeline.
Reference case for modelling purposes was selected for 0.1 pounds solids per thousand barrel CO2 at
downhole conditions equivalent to ~ 11 ppm vol. This reference case for modelling has been
selected as a very conservative number in terms of solids content in the CO2 which will give an
extended geometry of the fracture. Sensitivities will be considered/tested with practically no solids
(0.5 ppm Vol) and 22 ppm vol. The first one is the lost likely scenario in terms of CO2 quality due to
the filtration requirement at the platform.
The results of the simulation (Figure 3-29 and Figure 3-29) show that a high solids concentration
(22ppmvol) will allow for the fracture to grow longer (250ft) at the end of injection. Furthermore the
fracture will grow faster to the bottom of the Captain formation. The fracture will be contained by
the Rodby formation.
The results show that under a low solids content (0.5 ppm vol) the fracture will be of small
dimensions with a fracture length of only 25ft [7.6m]. The fracture will grow slowly into the top of
the Captain and it will not reach the bottom of the Captain at the end of the injection period.

Figure 3-29: CO2 quality sensitivity. Fracture depth to and depth bottom with time

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 54
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

Figure 3-30: CO2 quality sensitivity. Fracture length with time

3.4.10 Fracture Geometry. Reservoir Properties sensitivities

Reservoir Properties sensitivities were performed in terms of Permeability, Porosity, Young’s
Modulus and Poisson Ratio to evaluate the fracture length and containment in the Rodby, Table 3-10.
For all the cases evaluated the created fracture was contained within the Rodby formation.
Table 3-10: Estimated fracture length for different reservoir sensitivities [1ft = 0.3048bara]
Sensitivity Fracture length, ft
Base Case 130
Permeability = 500 mD 132
Permeability = 1500 mD 110
Young’s Modulus = 12 GPa 130
Young’s Modulus = 20 GPa 150
Poisson Ratio = 0.15 135

3.4.11 Fracture Geometry. Fracture Initiation Point

The base case fracture initiation point is 30ft [9m] below the top of the Captain formation. A
sensitivity analysis is carried out to evaluate the containment of the fracture assuming that the fracture
is initiated 1ft from the top of the Captain, as near as possible to the Rodby formation seal.
The results (Figure 3-31) show that the fracture is contained within the Rodby. The fracture length
increases to 190ft [58m].

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 55
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

Figure 3-31: Fracture geometry with time for different fracture initiation points

3.4.12 Fracture Geometry. Original Stress conditions

This simulation considered the original conditions in reservoir. This is considered the worst
conditions in terms of fracture containment as per the stress contrast between the bottom of the
Rodby and the Captain reservoir is at its minimum (300psia [21bara] only).
The simulations results (Figure 3-32) show than even under this hypothetical scenario the fracture
will remain within the Rodby formation.

Figure 3-32: Fracture geometry with time assuming no changes in original minimum stress
(worst case for fracture containment)

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 56
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

3.4.13 Summary of fracture geometry calculations

Under any circumstance or cases the fracture will grow over the top of the Rodby formation even
considering the worst case scenario for stress contrast (original conditions – section 3.4.12). The
fracture length will depend on different variables, the most important being the solids content into
the injected CO2. In the case of a limited amount of solids case (as expected from the project as
filtration is included) the fracture will grow slowly to the top of the Captain D and will not reach the
bottom of it.

3.5 Mitigation Options Summary for injectivity management

As described in the previous section, there are a number of different proactive activities that will be
carried out to minimise the risk of not being able to inject the required amount of CO2. Proactive
measures are summarised in section 3.5.1; there are also reactive options which might be available
should injectivity issues be encountered, and these are outlined in 3.5.2. Injectivity management of
the risk in Section 3.5.3.

3.5.1 Summary of proactive measures

The following actions have been identified as proactive mitigation options to reduce the risk of poor
injectivity.
• Pipeline cleaning
The pipeline needs to be cleaned before the CO2 injection this will form part of the pipeline
decommissioning
• CO2 filtration
Filtration will be required on the platform to the adequate levels of solids size to avoid lower
completion plugging and erosion and formation plugging. The current estimated size is 5
microns.
• Chemical injection
Batch injection of hydrate inhibitor to avoid hydrate precipitation. This can be stopped once
the formation water is displaced from the wellbore as the hydrates forming ingredients will
have been removed.
• Number of wells
Additional well(s) or redundant injectors will be converted to CO2 injection to increase
flexibility in terms of integrity and / or injectivity issues. This well can be used as a continuous
injector in case of finding injectivity problems.

3.5.2 Reactive measures

Apart from the proactive mitigations options described above, there are potential remedial activities
which can be executed in case of observing problems:
• Well stimulation
Using the proper fluid and operation depending on the damage mechanism. For example
water stimulation for halite precipitation. It can be carried out with a stimulation boat given the
space limitation on the platform or by simple bullheading into the wells.
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 57
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

• Flow back
Major operation for cleaning clogged solids on the screens. This might be applicable in case of
having problems with the pipeline coating disbondment. The planned platform configuration
will not allow a flow of the CO2 hydrocarbons mixture into the process facilities. Most likely a
well test package will be required.
• Others
Consideration should be given to new technologies in case of having injectivity problems. This
can be related to ultrasonic tools, heaters, etc.
• Side-track
It is always the last resort to restore injectivity. New formation is drilled with the formation
damage issues.

3.5.3 Injectivity Management summary

Initial injectivity problems are thought to be unlikely given the conditions of the storage formation.
As described in the previous two sections there are proactive and reactive activities in order to ensure
injectivity during the life cycle of the project.
The following summary presents the summary with the residual risk after applying mitigation
measures. This overall picture is summarised in the following table:

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 58
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

Table 3-11: Injectivity management. Risk reduction

Stage Mechanism Description Risk Mitigation Risk

probability Options probability
before after
mitigation mitigation
Initial Reservoir Parameters High absolute permeability Zero - Zero
Injectivity based on core and
production information.

Initial Skin High initial skin but stable VL - VL

drawdown during production.

Fluid Change - PVT Different PVT properties from VL Injectivity calculation VL

the current HC production to considering the change of
the CO2 injection. fluids
Relative Permeability Short term effect. Minor VL Simulation scenarios VL
effect on injectivity in the (Longannet report)
long term.

Injectivity Fines Re- Flow reversing will re- L Production conditions VL

deterioration accommodation accommodate the fines assessment
with time embedded in the gravel pack
(during the production phase)
against the formation

Desbonding Pipeline Potential for epoxy VL Proactive: Filtration. VL

Coating disbonding of the offshore Reactive - Flowback
pipeline Sidetrack

Gravel Pack / Plugging of the lower H Filtration to the required L

Formation plugging completion with particles. levels
Sensitivity to big particles. Pipeline cleaning
Reactive - Remedial
activities - Stimulation
CO2 expansion (JT Formation cooling due to JT VL Reduced effect due CO2 VL
effect) effect. bottomhole conditions

Halite Water dry up due to CO2 VL Reactive - Remedial VL

injection. Salt precipitation activities - Stimulation

Hydrates Potential of Hydrate M Chemical inj. - Hydrate L

formation at the start of the inhibitor
injection due to hydrocarbon
and water presence

3.6 Injectivity test requirement

An injectivity test was considered to reduce some of the uncertainties in injectivity. However, given
the value of information will not be significant and the complexity of the test is great, a decision has
been taken not to proceed with this.
The current production phase of Goldeneye is the best indicator of the expected CO2 injectivity in
Goldeneye. It can be considered a long term injectivity test by hydrocarbon producibility.
The ideal injectivity test should be carried out with the same fluid and conditions expected during the
operating phase of the injection, CO2 for the case of CCS.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 59
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injectivity

The length of any productivity / injectivity test should be tailored to the main uncertainties / risks
considering the operational aspects of the test.
Another fluid (e.g. water, nitrogen, hydrocarbon) might be used, but the extrapolation of the results
should be taken into consideration.
Doing the test with water, hydrocarbon or nitrogen will only have benefits in terms of reducing the
uncertainty in terms of fines re-accommodation in the gravel pack.
In addition to the fines re-accommodation an injectivity test carried out with CO2 will have small
benefits with respect to the fluid change in terms of PVT, relative permeability and the risk of
hydrates. The phenomenon related to fluid change is relatively well understood with a very low
uncertainty. Reducing this further will not impact the project in terms of cost or decisions. There
will be a reduction in Hydrates uncertainty from low to zero. However, the current thinking calls for
batch hydrate inhibition.
The following Table presents the summary with the reduction of Risk / Uncertainty with respect to
the current understanding of the injectivity in Goldeneye and the planned mitigation options. The
table shows the value of the injectivity test over and above the current understanding.
Table 3-12: Injectivity test. Risk/Uncertainty comparison pre and post-test.
Current risk
uncertainty
Current View (including
Stage Factor (includes Risk/Uncertainty after Injectivity Test
planned mitigation)
planned
mitigation)
with CO2 with N2 with Water
Initial Reservoir Parameters High absolute permeability based Zero Zero Zero Zero
Injectivity on core and production
information.
Initial Skin High initial skin but stable VL VL VL VL
draw dow n during production. No added value No added value No added value
Fluid Change - PVT Different PVT from the current VL 0 VL VL
HC production to the CO2 Minor effect on Another fluid Another fluid
injection. Already included in the injectivity based on introduced in the introduced in the
calculations different PVT. Easy to system. system.
calculate
Relative Permeability Minor effect on injectivity in the VL 0 VL VL
long term. Scal analysis. Easy to Information added in Complications w ith Complications w ith
calculate the difference Different terms of permeability to different injection different injection
scenarios w ith simialr results CO2. fluids. fluids.

Injectivity Fines Re-acommodation Flow reversing w ill re- VL VL VL VL

deterioration accommodate the fines Can give extra Can give extra Can give extra
w ith tim e embedded in the gravel pack information in the short information in the short information in the short
(during the production phase) term term term
against the formation. Production
conditions assessment indicate
not a bn important effect

Desbonding Pipeline Not expected. Filtration planned. VL VL VL VL

Coating Pipeline not used during
the injectivity test

Gravel Pack / Formation Plugging of the low er completion L L L L

plugging w ith particles. Sensitive to big No added value. No added value. No added value.
particles. Filtration to required Injectivity test should Injectivity test should Injectivity test should
levels. Initial comissioning of the be carried out w ith the be carried out w ith the be carried out w ith the
pipeline particulates particulates particulates
specification specification specification
CO2 expansion (JT effect) Formation cooling due to JT VL 0 VL VL
effect. Reduced effect due CO2 Information added in
bottomhole conditions terms of temperature
information
Halite Water dry up due to CO2 VL VL VL VL
injection. Salt precipitation. Not No added value. It might No added value No added value.
expected be a medium time
effect.
Hydrates Potential of Hydrate formation in L VL L L
the low er part of the w ell at the Cold CO2 to No added value No added value
start of the injection. Hydrate understand the risk of
inhibitor proposed for the initial hydrates
injection period

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 60
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

For a CO2 injection test and based on the current knowledge of Goldeneye wells, injecting CO2 in the
wells without carrying any modification to the well completion could jeopardise the integrity of the
wells. This is related to the extremely low temperatures expected due to the Joule Thomson effect of
the CO2 and the related tubing shrinkage affecting the PBR in the well. Modifications in the well
completion would need to be carried out prior to the injectivity test.

4 Vertical Lift Performance

This section details the vertical lift performance (temperature and pressure modelling of the upper
completion) for the Goldeneye CCS wells. Given that CO2 properties are very sensitive to Pressure
and Temperature, it is necessary to accurately predict the change in properties with an equation of
state. Heat exchange in the well and frictional pressure drop need to be accurately modelled.
Analyses have shown that injecting dense phase CO2 into a depleted reservoir has the risk of
producing low temperatures in the injection tubing.

4.1 CO2 properties and its influence in well performance simulators

Most phenomena related to CO2 dynamics become apparent with an understanding of the key fluid
properties and their dependence on temperature and pressure.
The critical temperature of CO2 is 31.1°C and the critical pressure is 73.8bara. At temperatures and
pressure above this critical point, CO2 exists as a supercritical fluid, whereby it has a density similar to
a liquid but exhibits gas-like viscosity (Figure 4-1).

Figure 4-1: Phase diagram of CO2 [from Wong, 2005]

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 61
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

The Figure 4.2 shows the variation of density as function of Pressure and Temperature for CO2.
Especially for pressures and temperatures that are often encountered in CO2 injection, the CO2
density changes significantly for only relatively small variations in pressure and/or temperature. The
changes are more pronounced near the critical point conditions. The changes are less severe in the
liquid and vapour areas.

CO2 Density

350

300

100 Kg/m3
250 200 Kg/m3
300 Kg/m3
400 Kg/m3
500 Kg/m3
Pressure, bar

200 600 Kg/m3

700 Kg/m3
800 Kg/m3
900 Kg/m3
150
Saturation
1000 kg/m3

100

50

0
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110
Temperature, degC

Figure 4-2: Variation of CO2 density with pressure and temperature (NIST data)

The Figure 4-3 below shows the Joule Thomson coefficient of the CO2 at different pressure and
temperatures. The JT coefficient is very high (~9 to 14°C/Mpa or 0.9 to 1.4°C/bara) for the vapour
phase whilst in the liquid phase the JT coefficient is low (0 to 1.5°C/Mpa 0 to 0.15°C/bara).

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 62
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

2900

2175

Pressure (Psi)
1450

725

Figure 4-3: JT coefficient of CO2 (Source SPE115946)

Well thermo-hydraulics are sensitive to the prediction of CO2 physical properties, heat transfer
between the fluid and the well bore and the frictional pressure drops.

4.1.1 Close in Conditions

Different CO2 phases exist in a static well at geothermal conditions (83 °C bottom hole and 7°C in
surface) depending on reservoir pressure assuming a well full with CO2.
For low reservoir pressures (≤3500psia, [≤241.3bara]), the top of a well will be at saturation
conditions (liquid gas consisting of mainly gas) whilst in dense phase at the bottom of the well.
With different reservoir pressures, the transition depth between gas and dense phase inside tubing
will vary. Increasing reservoir pressure will move the transition point shallower. For Goldeneye
reservoir pressures lower than ~3,000psia [206.9bara], the CITHP remains about the same at
~37bara [537psia] (depending on surface temperature). For reservoir pressures above 3,000psia
[206.9bara], the CITHP increases with reservoir pressure. Figure 4-4 shows the pressure profile
below for closed-in conditions of a Goldeneye well filled with CO2:

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 63
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

Figure 4-4: Pressure profile in a closed-in well (at geothermal conditions).

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 64
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

CITHP vs Preservoir
(Geothermal Gradient)
70

60

50
CITHP, bar

40

30

20

10

0
2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Preservoir, psi
Figure 4-5: CITHP for a well filled with CO2 (at geothermal conditions)

4.1.2 CO2 Expansion

CO2 will arrive at the Goldeneye infrastructure in liquid state between 2.3 and 10.1 °C depending on
the season of the year and 120bara approximately (section 4.3.2).
During injection and in the case that the top of the well is operated in two phases (liquid-vapour
CO2) in an free expansion then the resulting temperature in the top of the well can be extremely low
(with a minimum of -25°C and sub-zero centigrade above ~2600ft [792.5m] TVD) during the
injection time. With increase of the reservoir pressure the degree of cooling is less severe. The top
part of the well is operated in two phases (liquid-vapour) and the bottom part of the well is operated
in single phase (Figure 4-6).

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 65
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

Two phase injection in the top of the well

-25.00

-455.00

-885.00

TDV
(m) -1315.00

TVD (m)

-1745.00

-2175.00

-2605.00
-30.00 -20.00 -10.00
Temperature (°0.00
C) 10.00 20.00

2500psi 2750psi 3000Psi

3500psi 3800psi

Figure 4-6: Temperature profile in the well considering CO2 injection in two phases in the top of
the well by expanding the liquid CO2 from the pipeline

The extreme reduction in temperature is due to the flashing of the liquid CO2 to gas/liquid CO2
caused by the low reservoir pressure. Even at relatively high reservoir pressures there will be a
flashing into two phases, mainly related to the high density of the CO2 in the bottom of the well.
A well might be operated with free CO2 expansion once the reservoir pressure increases to levels
close to hydrostatic as the density of the CO2 will be similar to the density of liquid water.
The general isenthalpic expansion from liquid CO2 (arrival CO2 conditions to Goldeneye platform) is
represented in the Figure 4-7. If the CO2 is kept in liquid phase then there will be a small reduction in
temperature for big pressure drops. If the liquid CO2 is expanded down to the saturation line, then
there will be an important reduction of temperature for a small change in pressure; the CO2 will
follow the saturation line.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 66
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

Expected Choke Performance

120

100

Pressure, Bara 80

60

CO2 Saturation Line

40

20 Normal Expected
Downsrtream Choke
0
-40 -20 0 20 40
Temperature, Deg C

Figure 4-7: General expected CO2 surface choke performance

The existing wells cannot be operated under these conditions of free CO2 expansion (section 5.2 in
this report). It is necessary to operate the wells controlling the CO2 expansion during injection.

4.2 Steady State Injection Philosophy

A way of managing the potentially extremely low temperatures in the well during injection is by
keeping the CO2 stream in liquid phase at the wellhead, by increasing the required injection wellhead
pressure above the saturation line. This can be achieved by extra pressure drop in the well by use of
small diameter tubing creating back pressure by friction pressure loss or an important pressure drop
device (downhole choke).
The concept of managing the phase behaviour of the CO2 was presented by (Haigh, 2009). He
proposed the management of the wellhead pressure in the wells (by a downhole choke or friction) in
order to manage the phase behaviour of the CO2. Use of insert strings was proposed as a way for the
transition between gas phase injection to liquid phase injection.
The Figure 4-7 above shows the predicted Pressure and Temperature of flashing the CO2 in liquid
phase. If the CO2 remains in the liquid phase the change in temperature is small for changes in
pressure. However if the CO2 reaches the saturation line (liquid-vapour), for a very small change in
pressure, a very large variation in temperature is observed (follows the saturation line). The minimum
wellhead pressure to avoid the CO2 in two phases has been determined at 50bara considering the
maximum arrival temperature of the CO2 to the platform (section 4.3.3).
Increasing the pressure in the well can force the CO2 to stay away from the saturation conditions.
The WH pressure can be operated above the saturation line. The resultant wellhead temperature will
be in the design range (above 0°C under steady state conditions).
With appropriate size in upper completion the WH pressure may be increased to the extent that it lies
above the saturation line. As such, the minimum WH Pressure in the well is determined by the
requirement of operating the well in single phase.
Transient effects will occur when the well is closed in and opened up resulting in low temperatures as
the CO2 cannot be maintained in single phase in the top of the well (section 4.4).

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 67
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

4.3 Steady State Pressure and Temperature Calculation

4.3.1 Software
Prosper (a commercial software marketed by Petroleum Experts, UK) is used for all calculations on
Steady State. The Shell proprietary software WePs© (Well Performance Simulator) (Copyright of this
program is vested in Shell International Exploration and Production BV, Rijswijk The Netherlands) has also been
used to confirm the Prosper calculations. The differences are negligible.
All the five wells (GYA01, GYA02S1, GYA03, GYA04 & GYA05) with proposed completion
options are modelled using Prosper/WePs.
The temperature change of the CO2 over a tubing section is governed by the energy balance which
dictates the change of the total energy. The change in temperature is caused by heat transfer, change
of potential energy, change of kinetic energy (acceleration) and change of enthalpy due to expansion.
The effect of adiabatic cooling, and Joule-Thompson cooling and phase changes are taken into
account. These calculations are implemented in Weps and Prosper considering the well construction,
the overburden description and the fluid description.
For each section, the pressure drop across the section is calculated using a multi-phase pressure drop
correlation. Based on the section properties, such as diameter and inclination angle, a multi-phase
pressure drop correlation is used to calculate the flow regime, gas and liquid hold ups, and
subsequently the pressure drop.
The vertical lift performance under steady state conditions is relatively simple to calculate considering
that there is only 1 phase of dense phase CO2. Prospers use the Peng Robinson equation of state to
model the CO2 properties. It is calibrated for the Goldeneye conditions (Appendix A in the report
(UKCCS-KT-S7.18-Shell-001 Temperature and Pressure Modelling (for CO2 injection wells -
Goldeneye CCS), 2010).

4.3.2 Arrival temperature to the platform and wellhead temperature

Wellhead temperature will range from 0.5°C to 10°C. The CO2 stream arrival temperature to the
platform would be between 2.3°C to 10.1°C depending mainly on seabed temperature. The wellhead
temperature would also depend on the expansion degree of the CO2 in the surface facilities.
The minimum and maximum arrival temperatures in the platform in winter and summer times
considering the extreme temperatures which can be used for design purposes have been considered.
The variation in the P50 seabed temperature is between 6°C and 10 °C. The P50 sea surface
temperature has a variation between 7°C and 15 °C.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 68
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

Seabed Temperature - Goldeneye

20

18

16

14
Temperature, °C

12
1%
10
50%
8 99%
6

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Sea Surface Temperature - Goldeneye

20

18

16

14
Temperature, °C

12
1%
10
50%
8 99%
6

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 4-8: Sea temperature at the Goldeneye area

The minimum arrival CO2 temperature to the platform in winter of 2.3°C should be used for low
temperature calculations. The high temperature of 10.1°C should be used for limits of the injection
system. The temperature drop between the seabed and the CO2 arrival temperature is estimated at 1.7
°C for winter conditions and approximately 1 °C in summer.
The expected manifold conditions in winter would be 5.3°C considering an average seabed
temperature of 7°C and a temperature drop of 1.7°C at the riser. For an isenthalpic pressure drop in
the surface facilities to 115bara wellhead pressure, the wellhead temperature would be in the order of
5.2°C (3.1°C for 50bara wellhead pressure). These temperatures would be used for normal well
operational calculations. In summer the expected wellhead temperature is 5.5°C for 50bara tubing
head pressure and 7.9°C for 115bara.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 69
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

Table 4-1 summarises the expected temperatures for the operational and design cases to be used in
this report.
Table 4-1: Arrival CO2 temperature to the platform for different cases and subsequent expansion
to wellhead conditions

Design Operational Operational Design

Minimum (Winter) (Summer) Maximum
(Winter) (Summer)
Goldeneye Site Air temperature, -8.2 7 12 24.5
°C
Goldeneye Site Sea surface 1.0 7 14 21.0
temperature, °C
Goldeneye Sea bed 4.0 7 9 11.0
temperature, °C
Arrival CO2 temperature to the 2.3 5.3 8 10.1
platform °C
(120bara)
Isenthalpic expansion to 2.2 5.2 7.9 10
115bara, °C
Isenthalpic expansion to 50bara, 0.5 3.1 5.5 7.2
°C

A temperature of 5°C will be used for reference case simulations as the injected CO2 temperature.
This is the average for the summer and winter design cases and also the average temperature of the
operational cases. Sensitivities will be carried out for the different cases in injected CO2 temperatures
when required.

4.3.3 Wellhead pressure range

The current philosophy is to inject CO2 in single phase liquid in the top of the well keeping wellhead
pressures above the saturation line to avoid extremely low temperatures in the well caused by the
Joule Thomson effect.
There should be enough difference in pressure between the minimum wellhead pressure and the CO2
saturation pressure to avoid potential damage to surface equipment (e.g. cavitation problems). A
minimum margin of 50psia [3.5bara] between the minimum wellhead injection pressure and the
saturation pressure is suggested.
The maximum expected manifold temperature is 10.1 °C. The saturation pressure for temperature is
45.13bara. The minimum WH pressure for operating the wells would be 48.63bara (45.13+3.5). A
50bara minimum pressure has been selected as the minimum WH pressure to operate the wells,
Figure 4-9.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 70
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

Wellhead pressure and Saturation Line

50

Pressure, bar 40

30 Saturation Line pure CO2 NIST

50bar line (minimum WH pressure)

20 Difference. Minimum WH pressure

and saturation line

10

0
0 5 10 15
Temperature, degC

Figure 4-9: Wellhead pressure and pure CO2 saturation line. Difference in pressure between
minimum injection pressure and saturation curve.

It is important to mention that the expected injection range per well can be expanded by reducing the
minimum WH pressure but maintaining it above the saturation pressure. 50bara has been used at the
moment in the project as a conservative pressure considering the maximum manifold temperature in
summer. The WH temperature can be reduced with colder arrival temperature of the CO2. For
example, a way of operating the wells would be to reduce the minimum WH pressure in winter to a
lower value (43.5bara considering a CO2 manifold temperature 5.3°C and saturation pressure of
40bara).
The maximum WH pressure is limited by the maximum allowable pipeline pressure. A CO2 arrival
pressure to the platform of 120bara has been highlighted. Considering pressure drops in the surface
equipment (filters, meters, valves, etc.) a maximum available pressure of 115bara at the wellhead has
been used in the calculations.

4.3.4 Other input

Reservoir temperature of 83°C is given as an input at a depth, mid of Captain D. Water depth for
Goldeneye wells is 396ft [120.7m] from MSL. Reference depth datum is 152.5ft [46.5m].
For modelling purposes, sea surface temperature is 10°C and seabed temperature is 7°C. Air
temperature is simulated with 7 °C (simulations were carried out to evaluate the effect in the CO2
pressure and temperature for different sea and air temperatures, the effect is negligible; the arrival
temperature of the CO2 is the important factor).
Using the seabed temperatures and reservoir temperatures, overall geothermal gradient is defined by
the software.
Overburden/lithology data is also used as an input for temperature profile analysis across the tubing.
Each lithology section includes formation thickness, density, specific heat & conductivity.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 71
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

Water/Brine Packer fluid (or A-annulus fluid) is assumed in this report. New calculations of lift
performance will be done for the selected packer fluid.

4.3.5 Steady state operating envelope – reference case

The operating range of a well is defined with the injectivity curve or inflow performance at a given
reservoir pressure and the vertical lift performance. Under steady state injection, the well should not
inject below 50bara due to the JT characteristics of the CO2; this will generate a minimum rate that
the wells can manage. The maximum injection rate per well is given at the maximum injection
pressure of ~115bara. The concept is presented below, Figure 4-10.

Friction - General Concept

(Based on GYA01 well)
5500
Outflow 115bar WHP
Injection Bottom Hole Pressure, psi

5000

4500
Outflow 50bar WHP
4000 Inflow Pr 3450psi

3500

3000
Inflow Pr 2650psi

2500
CCP Rate
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Injection Rate, MMscfd
Inflow - P reservoir 2650psi Inflow - P reservoir 3450psi
Vertical Performance - 50bar WH Pressure Vertical Performance - 115bar WH Pressure

Figure 4-10: Friction Dominated Concept. Inflow and Outflow.

4.3.6 Steady state - Different tubing sizes

The operating envelope of the well can be designed by installing different tubing sizes. In the friction
concept a larger tubing diameter will provide a big well on injection rate and a smaller size will
provide a smaller well. The inflow plays a minor role (when remains stable and there is not significant
deterioration of injectivity) in comparison to the choice of tubing size, Figure 4-11.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 72
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

Tubing Size Sensitivity

(Based on GYA01 well)
5500
Injection Bottom Hole Pressure, psi

5000
4500

4 1/2" tubing

5 1/2" tubing
4000
3500
3000
2500 2 7/8" tubing 3 1/2" tubing

CCP Rate
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Injection Rate, MMscfd
Inflow - P reservoir 2650psi Inflow - P reservoir 3450psi
5.5" tubing 50bar 5.5" tubing 115bar
4.5" tubing 50bar 4.5" tubing 115bar
3.5" tubing 50bar 3.5" tubing 115bar
2 7/8" tubing 50bar 2 7/8" tubing 115bar

Figure 4-11: Friction dominated concept. Sensitivity to tubing sizes

The 2 7/8'' [73mm] tubing is considered very small and the 5 ½'' [140mm] tubing seems very big for
the Peterhead CCP rates. The tubing size required for the CCP rates is a combination of 3 ½''
[89mm] and 4 ½'' [114mm] completion.
The operating envelope per well will be engineered/tailored well by well considering the lifecycle of
the project parameters (expected reservoir pressure, CCP rates, etc.).

4.3.7 Steady State - Wellhead Temperature Sensitivity

The injection temperature is an important factor in determining the operating envelope per well. If
the wellhead temperature increases the capacity of injecting CO2 in the wells decreases (at the same
pressure conditions) due to the CO2 density variations.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 73
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

VLP - Sensitivity to Injection Temperature

(Based on GYA01)
5500
Injection Bottom Hole Pressure, psi

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Injection Rate, MMscfd
Winter design 50bar 0.5 °C Winter design 115bar 2.2 °C
Winter operational 50bar 3.1 °C Winter operational 115bar 5.2 °C
Summer operational 50bar 5.5 °C Summer operational 115bar 7.9 °C
Summer design 50bar 7.2 °C Summer design 115bar 10 °C

Figure 4-12. Friction dominated concept. Sensitivity to wellhead temperatures

There is some variation in injection rate per well due to the CO2 temperature (when considering the
extremes for winter and summer) which needs to be considered for meeting the minimum and
maximum rates of the CCP.

4.3.8 Steady State – Roughness Sensitivity

Roughness of the used tubing material is critical for the frictional pressure drop. The Roughness of
Bare 13Cr is used as the reference case,
Table 4-2 . For the low roughness case, the electropolished bare – 13 Cr tubing roughness is used.
Electropolished 13Cr has had the scale formed during manufacturing removed. (Bellarby, 2009) . A
high roughness value of 25% above the reference case is used. Rusted Carbon Steel is not used in the
calculations as no carbon steel will be used in the tubing.

Table 4-2: Steel Roughness.

Average absolute Remarks

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 74
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

Roughness, in /
micron
Bare 13Cr 0.0021654 / 55 Used as reference case
Electropolished bare - 13 Cr 0.00118 / 30 Low Value
Bare Carbon Steel 0.00138 / 35 Not to be used in the wells
Clean Carbon Steel 0.000787 / 20 Not to be used in the wells
Rusted steel 0.00394-0.0394 / Not to be used in the wells
100-1000
+ 25 % above Bare 13Cr 0.0027 / 69 High Value
roughness

Sensitivity was carried out for different average absolute roughness values, Figure 4-13. There are
some variation terms of injection rate per well. Variations in the order of ~+/- 3 MMscfd in injection
rate for the low and high roughness case with respect to the reference case are calculated.

Average Absolute Roughness Sensitivity

Based on GYA01
5500
Injection Bottom Hole Pressure, psi

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500
CCP Rate
2000
0 20 40 60 80
Injection Rate, MMscfd
Inflow - P reservoir 2650psi Inflow - P reservoir 3450psi
50bar WHP, Roughness Ref. C 55microns 115bar WHP, Roughness Ref. C 55microns
50bar WHP, LowCase 30microns 115bar WHP, Low Case 30microns
50bar WHP, High 69microns 115bar WHP, High 69microns

Figure 4-13: Friction dominated concept. Sensitivity to steel roughness

Roughness of the tubular to be purchased will need to be investigated in order to estimate the final
tubing design.

4.3.9 Steady State - Traverse Pressure and Temperature Calculations

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 75
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

Pressure and Temperature traverses in the well (based on GYA01) are presented in the figure below.
Total frictional losses of around 40 to 100bara will be encountered in the wells depending on flow
rate.
Pressure Traverse
Pressure, bar Temperature Traverse
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Temperature, °C
0 0 10 20 30 40
1000 0

2000 1000
True Vertical Depth, ft

3000 2000

True Vertical Depth, ft

4000 3000

5000 4000

6000 5000

7000 6000

8000 7000

9000 8000
41 MMScfd 50bar FTHP 41 MMScfd 80bar FTHP 41 MMScfd 115bar FTHP
9000
63 MMScfd 50bar FTHP 63 MMScfd 80bar FTHP 63 MMScfd 115bar FTHP
41 MMScfd 50bar FTHP 41 MMScfd 80bar FTHP 41 MMScfd 115bar FTHP
63 MMScfd 50bar FTHP 63 MMScfd 80bar FTHP 63 MMScfd 115bar FTHP

Figure 4-14: Pressure and Temperature predictions under steady state

The CO2 will be injected in the tubing of the well at single phase (dense phase). The PVT properties
of the CO2 are well defined in this region as observed in the Figure 4-15 where the CO2 density is
relatively stable travelling down the well. This will minimise the calculation error in terms of the
operating envelope of the wells and pressure traverses.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 76
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

CO2 Density and Injection Conditions

300

100 Kg/m3
250 200 Kg/m3
300 Kg/m3
400 Kg/m3
200
500 Kg/m3
Pressure, bar

600 Kg/m3

150 700 Kg/m3

800 Kg/m3
900 Kg/m3
100 1000 Kg/m3
Saturation
Wellhead
50 conditions
Bottomhole

0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Temperature, °C

Figure 4-15: Pressure and Temperature prediction with respect to CO2 phase envelope and density

4.3.10 Steady State – Bottom Hole Temperature ranges

The bottomhole temperature (BHT) will depend on the injected fluid temperature and the rate of
injection. For the CCP rates in the Peterhead project, the expected BHT is between 23°C to 35°C,
Figure 4-16.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 77
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

Bottom Hole Temperature Estimates

Based on GYA01
40
Bottom Hole Injection Temperature, °C

35
30
25
20
15
10
5 CCP Rate

0
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Injection Rate MMscfd
Winter design 50bar 0.5 °C Winter design 115bar 2.2 °C
Winter operational 50bar 3.1 °C Winter operational 115bar 5.2 °C
Summer operational 50bar 5.5 °C Summer operational 115bar 7.9 °C
Summer design 50bar 7.2 °C Summer design 115bar 10 °C

Figure 4-16: Bottomhole injection temperature sensitivity

4.3.11 CO2 velocity and vibration

The concept for the well design is to use a friction dominated scenario by high velocities. This
concept is used to restrict production from wells. The concept has been discussed in the industry
(Haigh, 2009) to overcome the CO2 Joule Thomson effect in depleted reservoirs but has not been
implemented to date.
Friction is a well-known effect in fluid thermodynamics. The extension of management CO2 phase
behaviour by the use of friction is a logical step.
The bottomhole pressure depends mainly on CO2 density and tubing friction (back pressure).
Different values for steel roughness have been used to derive the frictional losses in the well,
Table 4-2. The wells will be controlled by wellhead pressure. That is if there is not enough friction
then the injection rate should be increased to the minimum pressure value of 50bara - to keep the
CO2 in the dense phase. The other mitigation factor is the overlapping of the different well
envelopes.
The CO2 in the well will have a high density 900-970kg/m3 depending on pressure and temperature
and it is liquid in the top of the well. The maximum velocity suggested for liquid guidelines
APIRP14E or ISO13703 is 4.6 or 5.0m/s respectively for continuous service. These guidelines are
mainly used in the design and installation of offshore production platform piping systems. Sudden
change in flow directions is included in the guidelines. However, the trajectory of Goldeneye wells is
smooth enough not to cause changes to flow directions. Well experience across the world has shown
that the guidelines are conservative and higher values in velocity are normally used in the industry.
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 78
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

Operators have reported using 10m/s in water injectors wells completed with carbon steel; the
velocity is increased to 17m/s for a duplex stainless steel or higher grade alloy.
Similarly 50m/s for gas hydrocarbon production has been used on a continuous basis. This is
equivalent to around 16m/s for CO2 injection using the C-factor for the ISO 13703 or APIRP14E
(Figure 4-17).

C factor ISO13703

50

45

40
Fluid velocity, m/s

35
Dense CO2 940 Kg/m3
30
HydroCarbon Gas 100Kg/m3
25
17 m/s water
20 50 m/s HC gas

15 16 m/s dense CO2

12m/s dense CO2 (limit)
10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

C factor SI

Figure 4-17: C factor comparison (from ISO13703) for CO2 and hydrocarbon gas

Furthermore the erosion of the metal is not considered to be an issue. Erosion is not generally a
result of surface shear, but is usually a result of repeated, micro- (1) metal deformation or (2) fracture
damage as a result of a mass (solid in liquid or gas, liquid in gas) changing direction at a metal surface.
No ''mass'' changing direction equals no erosion.
Due to the high flow velocities and turbulent fluctuations in the fluid, pulsations and vibrations in the
tubing can be expected. Both the vibration of flow turbulence and the intrinsic instability of the
tubing due to large fluid momentum in the tubing were examined by TNO (TNO-RPT-DTS-2011-
00573, 2010). The tension in the tubing created during the installation and subsequent injection of
cold CO2 removed the chance of fluttering or oscillation of the tubing due to large flow velocity.
Instability is caused by an interaction between the flow-induced forces and bending waves of the
tubing. The part of the tubing in compression is more prone to instabilities than the part of the
tubing under tension. If there is no part in compression, there cannot be any instability in a vertical
pipe, for constant flow. The tubing above the packer on the full length will always be in tension. As
a result the instability is considered not an issue in this part of the completion. To avoid oscillations
in the tail pipe (or tubing below the production packer) a maximum length of 45.7m [150ft] is
calculated.
The acoustic forces, due to turbulence and created by the crossover installed in the completion will
not impact the tubing design.
In general, the TNO study recommended: to keep the tail pipe as short as possible, make sure the
tubing remains under tension during operation and use large diameter tubing near the packer.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 79
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

A maximum velocity in the tubing of 12m/s will be used in restricting the wells envelope. This value
includes a safety factor of 0.75 over the equivalent (C factor) experienced gas producing maximum
velocity in wells. This value is also in line with water injection values reported in the industry.
The 12m/s maximum velocity is equivalent in having the following injection rates in different tubing
sizes, Table 4-3. If the 3 ½'' [89mm] tubing is going to be used then the maximum injection rate per
well would be 68 MMscfd which is higher than the capacity of the capture plant (63 MMscfd).
Table 4-3: Maximum injection due to velocity in tubing [1'' = 25.4mm]

Tubing Size, in Internal Diameter, In-situ Injection Injection Rate for

in Rate for 12m/s in 12m/s in the tubing,
the tubing, m3/d MMscfd
(CO2 ~ 970m m3/d)

4 ½'' 3.958 8230 120

3 ½'' 2.922 4700 68
2 7/8'' 2.441 3130 45

4.3.12 Steady State – Downhole choke option

Downhole chokes were investigated for the Longannet-Goldeneye CCS study in order to manage the
CO2 phase. It was considered unreliable due to the high differential pressure requirement (~1200psia
[~83bara]), the small orifice requirement (6-9/64'' [2.38-3.57mm]) and the variability in differential
pressures and rates across the choke for small changes in diameter (choke erosion can lead to
dramatic changes in differential pressure).
New calculations have not been carried out for this type of completion. The following is extracted
from the Longannet report (UKCCS-KT-S7.18-Shell-001 Temperature and Pressure Modelling (for
CO2 injection wells - Goldeneye CCS), 2010) on downhole chokes.
The same principles apply in terms of minimum WH pressure of 50bara and maximum 115bara at
the WH defining the operating envelope of the wells.
The current completion (7'' [178mm] tubing) has been used to model this case. A downhole choke set
at 1700m AHD (5578ft AHD). The depth was chosen considering that at closed in conditions there
would not be any CO2 in vapour phase at this given depth.
The required size of the downhole chokes was first investigated for the CO2 in single phase along the
well as shown in the Figure 4-18 for an injection pressure of 2500psia [172bara]. The range of choke
sizes would be in the order of 6/64'' [2.38mm] to 11/64'' [4.37mm]. The operating range for each
choke size is defined between the 2 horizontal lines representing 50bara and 100bara WH pressure.
For example, for a 7/64'' [2.78mm] choke the minimum rate would be in the order of 27MMscfd
[16.4 kg/s] and a maximum rate of 37MMscfd [22.5 kg/s] at 2000psia [138bara] bottomhole injection
pressure. The operating range has an important change with the size of the downhole choke. For
example the minimum rate for a 7/64'' choke would be 27MMscfd whilst for an 11/64'' choke the
minimum rate would be 62MMscfd.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 80
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

Figure 4-18: Downhole choke operating range (at 2500psia iBHP)

The pressure and temperature traverse can be represented in the Figure 4-19 for the downhole choke
case for an injection pressure of 3000psia (207bara). The Pressure traverse shows the required
pressure drop across the choke for the minimum (at 50bara wellhead pressure) and maximum rate (at
115bara WH pressure). The bottomhole temperature is similar to the tubing cases with bottom hole
temperatures varying from 22°C to 39°C. Due to the pressure drop at the choke depth there is
cooling of the CO2 due to the Joule Thomson effect.

Figure 4-19: Downhole choke pressure and temperature traverse (at 3000psia iBHP)

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 81
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

The pressure drop across the choke is very sensitive to the choke size. The pressure drop for
different choke sizes have been calculated and shown (Figure 4-20) before for an injection bottom
hole pressure of 2000psia (138bara).
Choke Size Vs Del P

400

350

300

250
Del P (Bar)

200

150

100

50

0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Choke Size (1/64 inch)

15 MMscfd, iBHP of 2000 Psi 20 MMscfd, iBHP of 2000 Psi 25 MMscfd, iBHP of 2000 Psi 30 MMscfd, iBHP of 2000 Psi
35 MMscfd, iBHP of 2000 Psi 40 MMscfd, iBHP of 2000 Psi 50 MMscfd, iBHP of 2000 Psi

Figure 4-20: Pressure drop across a downhole choke (at 2000psia iBHP)

Some general remarks can be drawn from the downhole choke calculations:
• The downhole choke can force the CO2 to stay in single phase at the well
• The required choke size is very small given the pressure drop required
• The operating range of a fixed size choke is very small
• Temperature drop caused by the Joule Thomson effect can be effectively managed by placing
the choke at the dense phase region under closed in conditions.

4.4 Transient conditions (close-in and open-up well operations)

This section is a summary from the report (UKCCS-KT-S7.18-Shell-003 Flowline Well Interactions,
2011) where dynamic or transient calculations were performed for closing-in and opening up the
wells in a friction dominated scenario. New calculations are planned during the FEED phase of the
project with the Peterhead Goldeneye CCS conditions.
During transient operations (close-in and start-up operations), a temperature drop is observed at the
top of the well for a short period of time. The faster the shut-in or faster the well opening operation,
the less the resultant temperature drop. The cooling effect diminishes deeper into the well due to
limited CO2 flashing and heat transfer from surrounding wellbore.
The reservoir pressure affects the temperature calculation during the transient calculations. The
lower the reservoir pressure, the lower is the surface temperature expected during transient
operations and hence the higher the stresses/impact in terms on well design.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 82
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

The recommended procedure is to bring the well to the minimum rate (rate required to keep CO2 in
liquid phase at the wellhead, i.e. injection at 50bara WH Pressure) and then close the well at the
wellhead in 30 minutes. For bringing on a well on CO2 injection, the recommended procedure is also
to do it quickly. It is recommended to attain the minimum rate in 1 hour. Temperature as low as
-15°C can be reached inside the tubing in the top of the well during short periods of time. Due to
heat capacity/storage, this low temperature in the CO2 is not observed in the other well components
(tubing, annulus fluid, etc.), which will see less severe temperature drops. Calculated temperatures in
the top of the well for the recommended case at 2500psia [172bara] reservoir pressure are shown in
Figure 4-21.

Figure 4-21: Wellhead transient temperature. Recommended operations case. Wellhead

conditions. 4°C IWHT (2500psia reservoir pressure).

At ~450m depth, the CO2 temperature in the tubing is 0°C (32°F). At reservoir depth, during CO2
injection steady-state conditions, the temperature is constant around 17-20°C for injection surface
fluid temperature of 4°C. When shut-in, this bottom hole temperature rises slowly (~2 weeks)
towards initial reservoir temperature.
The design case considers a longer time to open or close the wells in case of any operational problem.
Equally the reservoir pressure used in the calculations is 2500psia which is lower than the predicted
reservoir pressure at the start of the CO2 injection. For the design case, for a short period of time,
surface temperature drop in the CO2 can be in the order of -20°C during well start-up (see Figure
4-22).

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 83
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

Figure 4-22: Wellhead transient temperature. Wellhead conditions. 4°C IWHT (2500psia reservoir
pressure)

Figure 4-23 shows the traverse temperature profile of injection fluid, tubing and production casing at
13th hour of Figure 4-22 (the time where the coldest temperature is observed CO2 at the wellhead).
The top of the well is at low temperatures whilst the bottom of the well is close to steady state
injection temperature. It should be noted that the profile plot shown below is for lowest CO2
temperature and not for lowest tubing or production casing temperature. There is a time lag
observed for the lowest temperature in tubing and production casing with respect to injection fluid
temperature.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 84
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

Bottom of Top of

the well the well

Figure 4-23: Traverse temperature profile design case: 13.5hr. 45bara WH pressure steady state
(2500psia P reservoir)

In summary, the expected transient conditions are as follows:

Table 4-4: Results of transient calculations – design case (base oil in annulus)

Design Case Operating case

Steady State CO2 manifold T, °C 3 -
Steady State manifold P, bara 120.2 -
Reservoir Pressure, psia 2500 2500
Steady State Conditions
WHP, bara 45 115
WH temperature, °C 1 4
BH temperature, °C 17 20
Transient conditions
Close in operation, h 2 0.5
Start Up operation, h 2 1
Coldest temperature (wellhead)
Fluid CO2, °C -20 -17
Average tubing, °C -15 -10
A annulus, °C -11 -4
Production casing, °C -10 -1
Strict operational procedures need to be implemented and adopted by the Goldeneye Well
Operations Group to avoid extreme cooling of the well components due to temperature limitation of
the well components.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 85
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

4.5 SSSV testing

Inflow testing is an HSE requirement. For hydrocarbon wells, the frequency is normally every 6
months but needs to be defined for CO2 injector wells in further phases of the project. The valve is
normally tested by initially closing the well at the Xmas tree, then closing the SSSV and bleeding off
the pressure to a given value. Then the WH pressure is monitored.
Bleeding off the WH pressure for SSSV testing should be done in a controlled manner. The report
(UKCCS-KT-S7.18-Shell-005, 2011) highlights a methodology to test the SSSV.
The current view is that the WH pressure can be reduced quickly to 27bara and then it needs to be
maintained at 27bara for approximately 24-hours to allow the vaporisation of the CO2 in the tubing
or the reduction of depth of the gas interface to the SSSV. There will be a continuous CO2 mass rate
coming out of the well. Once only gas is between the wellhead and the SSSV then the pressure can be
bled off rapidly to 10bara.
In summary, the testing of the valve should be carried out very slowly allowing for the normal boiling
of the CO2 liquid into gas to minimize the lowest temperature which can be observed in the interface
gas-liquid CO2.
It is proposed to achieve required blowdown for SSSV testing using a dedicated facility that will re-
use the existing vent system. The blowdown will be performed under automatic control to minimise
low temperatures and liquid produced from the well.

4.6 Partial loss of control in CO2 wells

There is an unlikely but potential scenario where a partial loss of control (e.g. a small wellhead leak
may develop). In this case a surface leak will expel cold CO2.
There is evidence in some CO2 EOR projects during partial loss of control that ice forming at the
leak point might reduce the consequences of the leak.
The influence of the low temperature into the different well elements will be variable depending on
the leak rate, involved volume, time and the heat transfer from the surroundings of the well and
internal elements of the well. One important factor is the ability of the SSSV to limit the amount of
CO2 to be released. This will be investigated during FEED.
There are different temperatures which can be considered as the lowest to be observed in the metal
surface (Xmas tree and tubing in the top part of the well) leak scenario. The temperatures are mainly
based on surface piping work.

Jet release of dense phase CO2

In the event of a minor leak, commingling with air drives the temperature lower than the sublimation
in the CO2 jet. The jet temperature measured at Spadeadam experiments was -85°C. In the same
experiments the metal temperature was recorded between -50°C to -60°C, although the duration of
the experiment was relatively short.

CO2 expansion to 1 bara

The sublimation temperature of the CO2 at atmospheric conditions is -78.5°C. This temperature can
be applied but heat transfer to solid CO2 will be low, so the low temperature may not be realised in
practise except in systems where the CO2 snow will be finely dispersed in a highly turbulent stream.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 86
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Vertical Lift Performance

CO2 expansion to triple point

The triple point for pure CO2 is defined at -56.6°C and 5.2 bara. Heat transfer between the walls and
the dense phase CO2 is very efficient. This temperature is similar to the recorded in the Spadeadam
tests. It is recommended that -56.6°C should be used as the upper limit of the Minimum Metal
Temperature (MMT) value for the project considering the limit heat transfer coefficient of the solids
CO2 subject to further validation.
The influence of a leak (size) in terms of temperature in different well elements will be calculated
during early FEED in order to determine the lowest temperature rating to be installed in the Xmas
tree and the tubing in the top of the well (down to the SSSV depth). Currently it is suggested that the
new Xmas tree and the tubing between the Xmas tree and the SSSV are rated to -60°C (section 7.4).
The other impact of the study would be to validate that the wellhead system and casing hanger (rated
to -18°C) are capable of adequately dealing with the conditions of a CO2 leak.

4.7 Total loss of control in CO2 wells

Even though the potential of a total well control incident is extremely low, this eventuality must be
considered. The strategy is clearly to prevent a blowout and much of the monitoring and corrective
measures plans are aimed at identifying and remediating irregularities long before they can escalate to
a blowout.
In a CO2 well; with the rapid expansion of the CO2, correspondingly rapid cooling will occur under a
total loss of well control (blowout). Cooling can reach the point where solid dry ice particles form in
the jet stream. After the loss of well control, the fluid accelerates until the pressure drop in the well
matches the pressure drop between the reservoir and the pressure at the wellhead, limited by the
sonic velocity.
The initial adiabatic expansion is instantaneous in its development, which is usually not expected by
field workers. Often only a small volume of supercritical “liquid” CO2 in the wellbore is enough to
trigger the process, causing the well to blow out in the matter of seconds. Reaction time is minimal
and some equipment, particularly manual BOPs and stab-in safety valve, cannot be installed and
closed fast enough to avoid complete liquid expulsion from the well and total loss of pressure control
(Skinner, 2003).
Although the risk of fire and explosions in a CO2 blowout are negligible, it is replaced with the
likelihood of extremely cold conditions caused by rapid CO2 expansion. This can threaten the
integrity of materials (brittle fracture) as well as threaten people directly by cold burns and frost bite.
The extreme cold conditions also create danger from flying solids (ice and hydrates).
The extreme cold conditions in a blowout case will happen in the top of the well; their extension will
depend on the CO2 conditions from the reservoir (pressure and temperature of the CO2 from the
reservoir). For example in a tubing blowout scenario at 2500psia [172bara] reservoir pressure, the
CO2 would be -7°C shallower than 450m (1480ft) when the bottomhole temperature is similar than
the reservoir temperature of 83°C. Assuming that the bottom hole temperature is 20°C then the well
will be below -7°C in depth shallower than 780m (2560ft) for the same pressure conditions.
Emergency Response Plans will be developed during FEED for a loss of well control case.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 87
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injecting into Existing Wells

5 Injecting into Existing Wells

The current upper completion was designed for hydrocarbon production. Changing to CO2 injection
will require a workover to install a single tapered tubing string in order to manage the CO2 phase
behaviour and to keep the integrity of the well.

5.1 Existing Well Integrity

Well integrity tests are carried out on an annual basis. All well integrity information is captured and
stored in eWIMS under the responsibility of a Well Integrity Focal Point. Additionally, the control
room monitors annulus pressure gauges on all wells continuously, with alarms at predetermined
levels, and the data stored in RTMS (Real Time Management System).
An intervention campaign was carried out in 2012 and suspension plugs were set in all the wells. At
the time some safety valve control line integrity issues were noted and corrective measures were
required to some tree valves. In a number of wells the deep suspension plug was set above the
downhole gauge thereby allowing the downhole pressure and temperature to be monitored.
The report (PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00004 Well Integrity Assessment Report, 2014) presents a more
detailed analysis of the well integrity in the existing Goldeneye wells.

5.2 Reasons for working over the existing producing wells

The five existing wells were evaluated to be used as CO2 injection without any modification.
However, due to potential integrity issues and CO2 management is not possible to use the wells
without any modification. A rig is required to carry out a workover of the upper completion by
installing small tubing in order to manage the CO2 expansion.

CO2 phase behaviour

The combination of initial low reservoir pressures, circa 2650psia [183bara], large bore tubing 7''
[178mm] and low arrival temperature of CO2 to the platform 2.3-10.1°C make it impossible to
maintain CO2 above the saturation point when injecting CO2 through the existing completion. By
injecting in the existing wells, the CO2 will expand and intersect the saturation line, generating low
temperatures during the injection conditions (section 4.1.2). These extremely low temperatures
caused by injecting CO2 in the existing completions will create serious complications in terms of well
design and operability as the temperature in the CO2 will be below the lower threshold limit of some
existing well equipment. The low temperature threshold of the existing completion is described
below:
Table 5-1. Low temperature threshold of current completion equipment

Item of Equipment Lower Limitations using the existing completion

Temperature with free expansion of CO2
Limit
Cameron Xmas tree block -18°C Predicted temperature under uncontrolled
injection (-25°C) during transients is
colder than low temperature threshold.
Current Xmas Tree material can be up
graded from 4140 low alloy steel to
F6NM stainless steel which has a low

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 88
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injecting into Existing Wells

temperature threshold of -60 °C.

Wellhead - Cameron 3 Stage -18°C Predicted temperature under uncontrolled
Compact Spool CO2 injection (-25°C) is colder than low
temperature threshold.
Compact spool is made from 4130 Low
alloy steel and cannot be replaced without
adding complexity to the workover
operation.
Cameron Tubing Hanger -18°C Predicted temperature under uncontrolled
CO2 injection (-25°C) is colder than low
temperature threshold.
Tubing hanger material can be upgraded
in line with the increased Xmas Tree
specification.
Production casing 10 ¾'' x 9 5/8'' -40°C Temperature OK for steady state
injection.
Potential complicated operation to replace
L80 casing in the upper section of the
well.
Production Tubing 13Cr L80 -20 to -30°C More investigation required to confirm
(different the use of this for steady state production.
source) Can be replaced with super 13Cr which
has a low temperature threshold of -50°C
A- Annulus Fluid Sea Water - 1.8°C Predicted temperature (-25°C) is colder
than low temperature threshold.

Replace with Base Oil

TRSSSV (Current Supplier) -7°C Temperature OK for steady state injection
at SSSV depth.
Further qualification to be carried out in
advance (one year) of workover
operations commencing
TRSSSV Control Line Fluid - 40°C Temperature OK for steady state
injection.
Alternative control line fluid to -60°C
available

For this case, there will be a requirement to change the shallow well equipment (Xmas tree, hangers, a
portion of the tubing) for extremely low temperature service. There is also potential for integrity
issues associated with freezing of annuli fluids in the wells.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 89
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injecting into Existing Wells

Well Integrity
Should CO2 be injected into the existing Goldeneye completions, a consequence of the resulting low
temperatures (even managing the JT effect with small insert strings), is that the existing production
tubing will contract to such an extent that the PBR shear ring, rated to 120,000 lbs has the potential
to fail.
This being the case and given it is likely that regular movement of the PBR mandrel due to variations
in downhole pressure and temperature will cause the PBR seals to fail. Containment of the CO2 in
the tubing will be lost above the packer.
This will also allow CO2 to enter the A annulus and mix with water based completion brine. Should
this be allowed to happen, the resultant formation of Carbonic Acid would cause an immediate and
significant threat to the integrity of the production 9 5/8'' [245mm] carbon steel casing.
There are issues with existing control line in two wells on the platform: GYA01 and GYA03. As such
these wells cannot be used for long term CO2 injection with the currently installed completion.

Others
o Removal of the perforated pup joint below the production packer and the screen hanger.
o Setting the new production packer deeper, to be in front of the Hidra seal. Ideally the
production packer should be placed in front of the sealing formation. The current packer
in the wells GYA01 and GYA05 are across of the bottom of the Chalk; during the
workover operations there is an opportunity to set the production packer at the desired
position.
o Optimise in-well surveillance.

5.3 CO2 management and upper completion changes

A way of managing the potentially extremely low temperatures in the well during injection is by
keeping the CO2 stream in liquid phase at the wellhead, by increasing the required injection wellhead
pressure above the saturation line.
Reduction in the expansion of the CO2 can be achieved by extra pressure drop in the well. Options
include the installation of a small diameter tubing creating back pressure by friction loss or a pressure
drop in a device (downhole choke).
The Steady State calculations for this type of concept were presented in section 4.3 of this report and
the transient calculations were summarised in section 4.4.
By performing a workover and changing some well elements the Goldeneye wells will be suited to
inject CO2. The low temperature is managed by installing a small size tubing and changing some well
elements (described in sections 7) as follows:
Table 5-2: Low temperature threshold after workover during injection

Item of Equipment Lower Limitations using the existing

Temperature completion with free expansion of CO2
Limit
Cameron Xmas tree block -60°C Current Xmas Tree material can be up
graded from 4140 low alloy steel to
F6NM stainless steel which has a low
temperature threshold of -60 °C.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 90
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injecting into Existing Wells

Wellhead - Cameron 3 Stage -18°C Compact spool is made from 4130 Low
Compact Spool alloy steel and cannot be replaced
without adding complexity to the
workover operation.
Operation procedures during normal
transient events for the temperature to
be above the threshold of this
equipment.
Under investigation for a leak scenario.
Cameron Tubing Hanger -60°C Tubing hanger material to be upgraded
in line with the increased Xmas Tree
specification.
Production casing 10 ¾'' x 9 5/8'' -40°C Temperature OK for steady state
injection.
Potential complicated operation to
replace L80 casing in the upper section
of the well.
Production Tubing 13Cr L80 and S13Cr -60°C Top of the well with S13Cr which has a
S13Cr 13Cr -20 to - low temperature threshold of -60°C
30°C
(different
source)
A- Annulus Fluid __ An annulus fluid can be replaced with
different fluids. Being investigated.
TRSSSV (Current Supplier ) -7°C Temperature OK for steady state
injection at SSSV depth.
Further qualification to be carried out
in advance (one year) of workover
operations commencing
TRSSSV Control Line Fluid __ Temperature OK for steady state
injection.
Alternative control line fluid to -60°C
available

5.4 Suitability of the existing Lower Completion for CO2 injection

5.4.1 Lower Completion Description in existing Goldeneye Wells

The five producers in Goldeneye have been completed with gravel pack. Oil industry practices for
sand control requirement assessment and selection were used in the Goldeneye wells for the
production phase.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 91
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injecting into Existing Wells

The Lower completion in the Goldeneye wells was selected considering hydrocarbon production.
The requirement for sand control was established considering the rock mechanics properties and the
well characteristics. The selection of the sand control method was done considering the rock
characteristics (e.g. grain size distribution), the understanding of the production phase and the
evaluation of the different sand control techniques. Installation operations and long term reliability
were also incorporated in the selection.
The Baker Alternate Pack system was chosen as the preferred lower completion. The following is a
summary of the operations carried out during the installation of the lower completion.
• Drill to TD (8.5'' [216mm] hole)
• Displaced to solids free mud
• Ran 7'' [278mm] pre-drilled liner (ensure formation stability during the gravel pack operation)
on drill pipe and washed down to the total depth
• Well displaced from mud (625pptf) to filtered completion brine (550pptf)
• Liner hanger set
• Ran 4'' [102mm] Excluder 2000 screen and liner assembly
• Set the gravel pack packer
• Gravel pack 20/40 pumped until screen-out
• Spotted MudSOLV–U820 with enzymes treatment (chelating agent U820 attacking the
CaCO3 and enzymes attacking the starch)
• FIV closed
• Well displaced to filtered and inhibited seawater
• POOH gravel pack assembly
• Continue with the Upper Completion installation

The principal characteristics of the installed equipment are as follows:

• Pre-perforated Liner
It was used to ensure formation stability during the gravel pack operation. Size 7''.
• Screens
The Excluder 2000 screen (Baker product) was installed in the well. This is premium downhole
sand exclusion device. The size was 4'' (3.548'' [90mm] ID). Medium Wave was used with an
average 210 microns weave.
• Gravel Pack
The gravel size used was 20/40. The medium diameter (D50) is approximately 730 microns.
Other components
• Other components:
FIV – Formation Isolation Valve
7'' predrilled hanger and screen hanger
Perforated pup joint

Formations
Figure 2-1 shows the main stratigraphy for the Goldeneye area with the main characteristics of the
individual formations.
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 92
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injecting into Existing Wells

Related to the lower completion: The main reservoir is the Captain D. Captain E is sand with
relatively low permeability above the Captain D. The Rodby shale is the main seal above the Captain
formation. There are some Marls above the Rodby called Hidra and Plenus Marl. The Plenus Marl is
not present in all the Goldeneye producing wells.
Lower Completion description with respect of formation tops
The 9 5/8'' [245mm] casing shoe was set at the Rodby shale (with the exception of GYA05 which
was set at the Valhall formation). The bottom part of the Rodby and the Captain E layer was not
isolated with the casing and as such it is part of the open system of the screens.
The top of the screens is installed above the 9 5/8'' casing shoe. The top of the gravel pack is
estimated to be above the top of the screens in 10-15ft [3-4.6m].
The screen hanger is either set at the Rodby formation or the Hydra formation.
The production packer is either set at the Chalk (GYA01 and GYA05) or within the Marls
(GYA02S1, GYA03 and GYA04).

5.4.2 Injection Experience with Sand Control

Baker (the supplier of the screens) has indicated that the screen can be used for CO2 injection. There
will be no modifications required to use the Excluder2000 screen for injection purposes.
There is experience in water injection projects with similar kind of screens.
The main operating practice in water injection projects with sand control is safeguarding the injection
system by having a tight control in the water specifications namely solids content and size. In some
Shell projects the water specification calls for a maximum particle size of 5 microns. Normal practice
is in the order of 17 microns considering only the gravel pack systems.

5.4.3 Lower Completion Under CCS

The principal question regarding the lower completion is its compatibility with CO2 injection. This
section is related to the containment of CO2 in the lower completion (corrosion and lower part of the
well barriers) and the reliability of the lower completion to sustain CO2 long-term injection (erosion,
plugging, flow reversing, etc.).
From the analysis to date, there is no reason to side-track the well and install a new lower completion.
No showstopper has been identified from this analysis, which can jeopardize the CO2 injection across
the existing lower completion. There are some operational restrictions related to the characteristics
of the CO2 and some limitations related to the particles in the CO2 but these are considered to be
manageable.

[Link] Lower Completion Strings

There are two permanent lower completion strings. The retrieval of these strings is not considered
feasible due to the gravel pack presence. In the case that the CO2 cannot reliably be injected through
the lower completion then a side-track will be required.

7'' Pre-perforated string

The 7'' [178mm] pre-perforated string consists of 7'' 13Cr pre-perforated liner and Uniflex liner
hanger. The hanger is set 160ft above the 9 5/8'' casing shoe. This string was run in the well to
ensure hole stability during the gravel pack operation.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 93
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injecting into Existing Wells

No issues have been identified for the long term operation of the CCS in this string.

4'' Screens string

The main elements of this string are A Baker Seal assembly, Baker SC-2R 9 5/8'' [245mm] packer,
FIV, & 4.00” [102mm] excluder screens. The screen implication under CCS is analysed in the next
section.

Baker Seal Assembly

The Baker G22s seal assembly and 9 5/8'' SC-2R screen hanger do not form part of the current well
pressure containment. There is a perforated pup joint between the 9 5/8'' production packer and the
SC-2R screen hanger. This creates an open void that would originally have contained inhibited
seawater. However it is likely that over the last six years or so of hydrocarbon production operations
there has been some hydrocarbon ingress into the void. Given that Goldeneye hydrocarbons contain
a small amount of CO2 (0.4% mol). During the workover for the CCS operations, the 9 5/8” HHC
production packer, the perforated pup joint and the Baker G22 seal assembly will all be recovered
from the well along with the original production tubing. Should the well be worked over in 2014 for
CCS operations the 9 5/8'' HHC production packer, the perforated pup joint and the Baker G22 seal
assembly will all be recovered from the well along with the original production tubing. After logging
the 9 5/8'' casing to check for corrosion damage and carrying out remedial work if required. The well
will be re-completed “without” a perforated pup joint between the G22 seal assembly and 9 5/8''
production packer. Effectively shielding the previously exposed 9 5/8'' L80 production casing from
exposure to CO2.

Baker SC-2R packer

The Baker size 96B-60, SC-2R packer currently installed in Goldeneye wells were used for Gravel
pack operations and to hang off the 4.00'' Baker Excluder Screens. The SC-2R packer will not be
removed from the well should the wells be worked over for CCS operations. The SC-2R packer is
made of 13% chrome material and is considered to be suitable for use in a CO2 environment
provided that water and oxygen is not present in the feed gas and that there are no temperature
excursions out with the packer operating envelope. The packer is rated to 7,500 psia [517bara]
differential pressure from above and below and from 0°F – to 350°F (-18°C - 176°C). The Nitrile
packing element is considered to be suitable for use in a dry CO2 environment, and because of the
deep packer setting depth there are no concerns over susceptibility to explosive decompression. Any
failure of the SC-2R packer is mitigated by the fact that there will be a 9 5/8” production packer
installed above the SC-2R packer should the well be worked over for CCS operations.

FIV
A 5.00'' 15 lb/ft 13Cr Formation Isolation Valve (FIV) is installed as part of the lower completion in
all of the Goldeneye wells. In the case of Goldeneye the main purpose of the FIV was to isolate the
reservoir from the well bore post gravel pack operations, and to provide a positive mechanical barrier
to flow when running the completion tubing. The FIV would then have been opened by application
of pressure cycles down the production tubing. It is worth noting however, that remotely opening
the FIV by application of pressure is a feature that can be utilised one time only, repeated application
of tubing pressure will not operate the FIV once it has been opened. Subsequent manipulation of the
FIV requires that a shifting tool be run on coiled tubing or wireline tractor to engage in a shifting
profile inside the FIV. When the shifting tool is locked into the shifting profile a downward force of
circa 1,200 lbs is required to move the FIV in to the closed position. It is not possible to close the
FIV by application of pressure or if the FIV is exposed to large pressure differentials.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 94
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injecting into Existing Wells

Should Goldeneye wells be worked over for CCS operations the FIV will not be removed from the
well. The FIV is made from 13cr material and is considered to be compatible with CO2 providing
that there is no oxygen in the feed gas. The FIV in its current configuration simply becomes another
section of 13Cr tubing and poses no threat to the future integrity of the well. The minimum ID
through the FIV of 2.94'' [74.7mm] although reduced when compared with the proposed CO2
injection wells is sufficient to allow coiled tubing and 2.125'' [53.98mm] O.D wireline logging tools to
be run into the screen section.

Gravel Pack / Screens Analysis

The objective of this section is to document the requirements of a side-track because of potential
incompatibility of the screens and gravel pack with the CO2 injection. The top of the screens is
above the 9 5/8'' casing shoe (~40ft [12.2m]).

5.4.4 Material / Corrosion

The material of the steel installed in the lower completion is 13% Cr. This is valid for the 4'' Screens
and 7'' Pre-perforated liner. Free water plus the CO2 will lead to dissolution of CO2, forming
carbonic acid (H2CO3). This leads to corrosion of carbon steel. For 13%Cr this is not considered a
corrosion threat.
Goldeneye reservoir is attached to a large aquifer. At least during the initial phase of injection the
lower completion will be in contact with formation water; with time and CO2 injection the presence
of water will be decreasing with time as per the water will be displaced by the CO2.
The presence of dissolved oxygen in the CO2 and free formation water are critical given the current
material installed in the lower completion. 13%Cr is not considered suitable at dissolved oxygen
levels (in water) higher than 10ppb, failures of 13%Cr tubulars have been seen in very short
timeframe in environments where oxygen level has not been controlled. This can lead to high pitting
rates and stress corrosion cracking. To avoid side-tracks due to the material compatibility it is
recommended to control the Oxygen to acceptable levels for the lower completion materials. This
has been initially calculated at 1ppm Oxygen in the CO2 stream.

5.4.5 Gravel Pack Design / Operations / Performance

The best indication of the performance of the lower completion is that sand has not been observed
during the hydrocarbon production phase. In-line monitors are installed in the platform for each well
and no sand production has been reported.
Most of the screen erosion failures in open hole gravel packs occur as a result of incomplete annulus
pack. There are higher possibilities of solids passing through the screen as the fluid seeks the path of
least resistance creating a 'hotspot' failure.
Gravel size was properly designed considering the Goldeneye sand characteristics in the Captain D.
The selected gravel size was 20/40.
Gravel was placed around the screens and 7'' pre perforated liner based on volumetric calculations
during the operation. Theoretical calculations indicated that the top of the gravel is above the screens
(6-21ft [1.8-6.4m] depending on well). Screen out was observed during the operation in all the wells
with the exception of GYA02S1.
There is a drawdown limit during the production phase in GYA02S1 due to execution problems
during the gravel pack operation (stop of injection and no screen-out). This limit is around 200psia
[13.8bara]. This drawdown limitation will be evaluated at a later stage but the 200psia will probably
be lifted as it applies for the production phase considering the gravel in the annular space between the

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 95
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injecting into Existing Wells

hole and the screens. In the CCS, the CO2 will be in contact first with the screen and then the gravel.
The gravel does not play an important role as in the production phase. As such, this limitation can be
lifted.

5.4.6 The Problem of losing integrity at the screens

One question that needs to be answered is: What would be the consequence of a screen failure under
CO2 injection? The principal consequence would be a serious reduction of injectivity in a relative
short period of time because the gravel (from the gravel pack) can fill in the wellbore across the
Captain D formation. This would happen during the non-Injection periods where the gravel can
move freely inside the screen.
The reasons for the scenario and consequences above are:
• There is not a rat hole in the Goldeneye wells
Total depth of the well is in the Captain D. Screens set close to the wells total depth. 60-70ft
[18.3-21.3m] of true vertical depth has been completed in the Captain D
• Internal Volume of screens is small
The internal diameter of the screens is 3.548'' [90.1mm] ID. The volume inside the screens is
only 0.0064m3/m (0.052 bbl/ft).
• Gravel Volume
The top of the screens extends above the top Captain D (63-207ft [19.2-63m]). There is gravel
above the top of the screens (6-21ft [1.8-6.4m]).
The volume of gravel is ~ 0.023 m3/m – 0.187 bbl/ft3 (This considers a 8.5'' [216mm] hole
diameter – 7'' [178mm] pre-perforated liner – and the screens OD). This value is 3.6 times the
volume associated to the screens.
• Gravel will cover the wellbore over the Captain D interval in case of any failure
Practically any screen failure will lead to the full coverage of the Captain D with gravel.

If the screen is covered with gravel then the pressure drop is significant to be able to inject through
the linear proppant plug. Assuming that a 50 ft/5'' [15.2m/127mm] screen is covered with proppant
of a permeability of 100Darcy then the pressure drop through the proppant plug to be able to inject
the minimum rate of the capture plant of 41 MMscfd (89.9 tonnes/h) would be in the order of 390
bara.

5.4.7 Plugging / Erosion

There are two effects to the lower completion, which are intimately related: plugging and erosion.
Both issues depend mainly on particles in the injection fluid. In the case of plugging then the injected
fluid can increase the speed through the open space of the system, which might lead to 'hotspot'
erosion.
Even injecting under fracturing conditions, 17 microns (below) should be the maximum size of any
particle dictated by limitations in the lower completion (5 microns is related to matrix conditions to
avoid formation plugging, section 3.2.1).

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 96
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injecting into Existing Wells

[Link] Plugging of the Lower Completion

Plugging may reduce the injectivity through the screens and gravel with time.
In a production system the gravel will act as the main filter of the formation sand whilst the screen
will act as the filter for the gravel. In general the gravel reduces the particles in contact with the
screen and reduces the velocity at which particles contact the screen.
Very small particles can be accepted to avoid plugging at the screens and gravel pack. This is in line
with the normal industry practice in water injection projects where sand control is installed; tightly
control of the quality of the injection water is observed even injecting under fracturing conditions.
The internal volume of the screens across the Captain D reservoir is very small, from 0.31 to 0.55m3
(1.9 – 3.4 bbl) (depending on the well). Practically there is no allowance for the accumulation of
solids inside the screen.
Considering the dimensions of the currently installed equipment in Goldeneye wells and the accepted
practice, the following calculations have been made:
Screen aperture dimension: 208 microns (Baker information)
Proppant Size: 20/40, D50 of proppant: 730 microns, gravel pore throat size (1/6): 120 microns
Formation Captain D D50: 230 microns, average pore throat size (1/6): 40 microns
• Particles larger than 70 microns plugs at the screen face (1/3 screen aperture)
• Particles larger than 40 microns plugs at the screen/proppant face (1/3 gravel)
• Particles between 17-40 microns bridges on formation sand face at interface with proppant,
resulting in plugging of the gravel pack (1/7 & 1/3 gravel)

[Link] Erosion
Erosion is one of the most common mechanisms of screen failure. Screen erosion is a progressive
failure that depends on fluid velocity, particle size and concentration and fluid properties. Erosion of
the screen can be caused by the high downhole flow of fluid through the screens. The presence of
solids will increase the erosion rate.
For erosion in the screens, it is normally accepted that particles above 30 microns will significantly
increase the erosion rate. As such, particle size above 30 microns should be avoided.
The aperture velocity (velocity at the slots or open space of the screens has been calculated (assuming
uniform distribution of the fluid in the screen, 10% of open space in the steel of the screens and
considers only the length of the screen at the Captain D) for the different wells considering the
downhole flow rate in the following picture.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 97
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injecting into Existing Wells

Goldeneye
Aperture Velocity (10% mesh area) - Across the Captain D

1
0.9
0.8
Aperture Velocity, ft/s

0.7
GYA01
0.6 GYA02S1
0.5 GYA03
0.4 GYA04
0.3 GYA05

0.2
0.1
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Downhole Rate, m3/d

Figure 5-1: Aperture velocity in the screen assuming uniform distribution

The gas production at downhole conditions has been estimated using the individual allocated flow
per well, information from the permanent downhole gauges as follows and the PVT properties of the
Goldeneye gas as follows

Goldeneye - HC production
Gas Downhole Production
30,000

25,000

20,000
Flow, m3/d

GY-A01
15,000 GY-A02
GY-A03
10,000 GY-A04
GY-A05
5,000

0
Jan-04

Jan-05

Jan-06

Jan-07

Jan-08

Jan-09

Jan-10

Figure 5-2: Downhole rate for the hydrocarbon phase

The aperture velocity at the screens is calculated and presented in Figure 5-3. The aperture velocity
has been increasing with time (despite lower surface rates).

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 98
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injecting into Existing Wells

Goldeneye - HC production
Screens Aperture velocity
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
Speed, ft/s

1 GY-A01
GY-A02
0.8 GY-A03
0.6 GY-A04
GY-A05
0.4
0.2
0
Jan-04

Jan-05

Jan-06

Jan-07

Jan-08

Jan-09

Jan-10
Figure 5-3: Aperture velocity in the hydrocarbon production phase (assumes uniform distribution)
At downhole conditions and under steady state conditions the CO2 will be injected in single phase
with low temperatures (20 to 40°C) and bottom hole pressures above the critical point. The bottom
hole injection pressures range would be between 2,900psia [200bara] to 3,800psia [262bara] (250-
400psia [17.2-27.6bara] above the reservoir pressure).
At the expected downhole pressure and temperature conditions the downhole flow rate of the CO2
will depend mainly on the surface injection rate. The pressure and temperature will have a minor
impact considering the steady state conditions of injection. This is due to the relatively stable density
of the CO2 at the bottom hole injection conditions (~920-940 kg/m3).

Goldeneye

10000
9000
CO2 83 degC 150bar
8000
Downhole Rate, m3/d

CO2 83 degC 200bar

7000
CO2 83 degC 250bar
6000 CO2 30degC 150bar
5000 CO2 30degC 200bar

4000 CO2 30degC 250bar

CO2 20 degC 150bar
3000
CO2 20 degC 200bar
2000
CO2 20 degC 250bar
1000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Rate, MMscfd

Figure 5-4: CO2 downhole rate

The capacity of the capture pant is 63 MMscfd or 138.3 tonnes/h. The steady state (low
temperature) downhole rate will be in the order of 3,580 m3/d with small variations at different

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 99
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injecting into Existing Wells

injection pressures. However, in the case that the temperature is much higher (around reservoir
temperature 83°C) then the downhole rate will also be variable from 5,000 to 6,000 m3/d.
Table 5-3: Bottomhole pressure and downhole rate relation for Goldeneye wells

63 MMscfd Injection rate BH Downhole Screen Aperture velocity *, ft/s

138.3 tonnes/h Pressure
bara m3/d GYA01 GYA02S1 GYA03, 04,
05
Steady State (20-40°C) 150-250 ~3,580 0.14 0.09 0.20-0.23
Res. Temperature (~83°C) 200 5,800 0.23 0.14 0.33-0.37
262 5,000 0.20 0.12 0.28-0.32

During the injection process the CO2 will contact first the screens (Excluder 2000). As such, the
restrictions for stand-alone screens (SAS) related to erosion should be applied (instead of the gravel
pack restrictions). Liquid limitations (instead of gas limitations) should be used as the density of the
CO2 at bottom hole injection conditions will be very high ~920-940 kg/m3. For liquid flow the
normally accepted industry velocity is 1 ft/s for production conditions.
It is clear that the aperture velocity (assuming uniform flow) during the hydrocarbon production
phase is much higher than the expected velocity during the CO2 injection case. In both cases the
aperture velocity is below the threshold velocity. In CO2 it is more variable depending on the
downhole conditions of pressure and temperature because of the CO2 variation with these properties.
However, the aperture velocity assumes uniform flow through the screens. Under production
conditions this can be considered a good approach due to the presence of gravel distributing the flow
– the flow is dispersed and distributed across the screen, which reduces the creation of hot spots.
Under injection conditions the CO2 will be first in contact with the screen increasing the susceptibility
to get plugged. If a large area of the screen is plugged or flow is going through a short interval such
as fractures, the erosion rate can be considerably higher creating a hot spot injection.
Even considering a reduction of the maximum aperture velocity from 1 ft/s to 0.25 ft/s (quarter of
the maximum recommended velocity) due to the reasons described above there will not be any
limitations in the wells with respect to the downhole injection velocity of the CO2 under steady state
conditions.
The main consequences of the calculations are in the well start up procedure. Start-up procedures in
the wells should be developed to be able to cope with the Joule Thomson effect in the top of the well
(rapid injection) and to avoid very high downhole rates created by high rates at warm CO2 conditions
at the screen level after some shut-in period.

5.4.8 Flow Reversal (applicable to existing wells)

The wells were completed with a screen and gravel pack in the lower completion. By design the
gravel pack was the main filter to avoid sand production from the wells, and was designed
considering the grain size in Goldeneye and the recognized oil industry design criteria.
In a production system the gravel will act as the main filter of the formation sand whilst the screen
will act as the filter for the gravel. In general, the gravel limits the size of the particles that come in
contact with the screen and reduces the velocity at which particles contact the screen.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 100
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injecting into Existing Wells

By reversing the flow, from the production hydrocarbon production phase to the CO2 injection
phase, there might be some re-accommodation of fines currently embedded in the gravel pack under
hydrocarbon production.
It is likely that sand failure has occurred in Goldeneye due to the level of depletion combined with
the rock strength. Fines have been trapped / embedded in the gravel pack, which is designed for this
function. The well productivity has not decreased with time.
Upon flow reversal the formation fines currently embedded in the gravel pack could be mobilized
and could then become trapped against the formation (like an external filter cake) and would then
create an additional pressure drop thereby reducing the injectivity in the well.
The effect of this pressure drop is considered low due to the following reasons:
- Well productivity stable with time.
Indication of a limited volume of fines being trapped with time as the pressure drop in the
wellbore has been stable.
- Captain D is well sorted sandstone
Completed in the top of the D sand where the sand sorting is better. Fines percentage in the
Captain D is very small
- Gravel pack designed considering the general criteria in the oil industry
- Industry experience in underground storage with sand control
This low risk can be further reduced with an injectivity test. However, the value of information of
carrying an injectivity test just for this cause is low, as the risk is considered manageable.
The mitigation were this issue to occur is to drill a side-track and to install a new gravel pack. This
avoids the trapping of solids in the lower completion during the production phase.

5.4.9 Other considerations under fracturing conditions

The simulations above show that injecting the CO2 under fracturing conditions will not pose a
problem in reservoir terms. The fracture lengths are not long and even in the worst case scenario the
frac will be constrained in the lower part of the Rodby.
From the well design / operations perspective the consequences of injecting under fracturing
conditions are as follows:

[Link] Filtration
In the event of injection under fracturing conditions, the CO2 quality specification in terms of
suspended solids may be relaxed. The injectivity is not affected as the fracture will grow longer.
In the case of Goldeneye, the lower completion, screens and gravel pack, also imply limitations in
terms of CO2 quality due to erosion / plugging.
To avoid formation impairment under matrix conditions, the CO2 should be filtrated to 5 microns
whilst to avoid blocking of the screens / gravel pack then the CO2 should be filtrated to 17 microns
to avoid lower completion erosion and plugging.
The initial period of CO2 injection will be most likely under matrix condition and 5 microns filtration
will be required. In the case of confirming injection under fracturing conditions, the CO2 quality
might be relaxed to higher value but not above 17 microns in size due to the lower completion
restrictions (erosion / plugging). An evaluation should be done to examine the predicted length of
the fracture once the solids content is known.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 101
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injecting into Existing Wells

In any case, under matrix or under fracturing conditions, the filtration is required and as such there
will not be a big cost difference in terms of the operation.

[Link] Impact on packer position

One of the concerns is related to the well integrity in the case of fracturing conditions.
The simulations suggested that the created fracture, even in the worst case scenario, will remain into
the Rodby not breaking into the Hidra marl.
Ideally, the production packer should be placed above the predicted top of the fracture in CO2
injection. This reduce the risk of CO2 entering the A-annulus in the well in the case of radial
degradation of the cement and casing during the injection life. The planned production packer setting
depth is currently at the Hidra level above the Rodby, as such there is not a problem.
The theoretical top of the cement is in the Chalk (1500ft [457m] AHD above the casing shoe) which
is well above the predicted top of the fracture. The production casing at the Hidra formation (part of
the primary) seal is also cemented. This will avoid CO2 communication with the A to B annulus even
by a complete axial degradation of the cement at the Rodby level.
Considering the above even injecting under fracturing conditions will not pose an integrity risk to the
well.

[Link] Lower completion impact

There might be limitations related to the lower completions (screens / gravel) currently installed in
the well. Two issues have been identified: Displacement of gravel into the fracture and ‘Hot Spot’
erosion.

Displacement of gravel into the fracture

The drag forces of the injected CO2 might displace the gravel into the propagating fracture, leaving
the space between the hole and the screens without gravel. Some operators have expressed concerns
about formation sand entering the wellbore reducing the general injectivity as the gravel is no longer
between the hole and the screens. However, there is uncertainty in the industry as to whether it is
possible that displacement of gravel into the frac could possibly occur given the mitigating elements
described below:
• Experience gained from working with water injector wells in other developments demonstrates
that not all injection wells experience gravel displacement into the propagating fracture.
• The drag forces of CO2 compared with pure water are much less due to the lower viscosity of
the CO2. Viscosity of water at 20°C is in the order of 0.99cP and CO2 would be in the order
of 0.10cP.
• An “alternate gravel pack” system was used in the Goldeneye wells. Good packing of the
gravel during the initial completion operation was achieved.
• The 7'' [178mm] pre-perforated liner used in the alternate packing system will help with
distributing the CO2 over the screens in the event of fracturing conditions developing.
Even in the event that gravel is displaced into the propagating fracture, the amount of solids from the
formation passing the screens and depositing/filling the wellbore will be limited. The premium
screens have an aperture of 208 microns, which is similar to the average particle diameter (d50) of the
formation sand in the Captain D (d50=230 microns). In addition, the uniformity coefficient of the

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 102
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Injecting into Existing Wells

formation sand was estimated at 2.5. In summary, the screens were also purpose designed for the
formation sand and in the event that the gravel is displaced into the propagating frac, then the lower
completion will behave as a Stand Alone Screen, which is an acceptable completion situation.

‘Hot Spot’ erosion

'Hot spot' erosion of the screens is a potential problem under fracturing conditions as the injected
CO2 is not uniformly distributed over the screens. Under fracturing conditions, the CO2 will be
injected trough the two wings of the created frac. The CO2 velocities can be extremely high and
screen erosion might occur, or ‘hot spot’ erosion. Holes can develop in the screen, resulting in loss
of screen integrity and subsequent injectivity problems.
The downhole rate of the CO2 will determine the expected velocity across the open space of the
screens – called aperture velocity. Holes can be developed in the screen, resulting in loss of screen
integrity and a subsequent injectivity problem as gravel and or formation sand is allowed to flow
inside the screens. If fracturing is suspected, the recommendation is to control the injection in order
to obtain an aperture velocity across the screens of 1 ft/s [0.305 m/s].
This has not been observed in water injector wells under fracturing conditions with sand control
equipment. It might be possible that the injected fluid is somehow uniformly distributed at the screen
level, limiting the hot spot erosion’ and then channelized in the annulus space between the screen and
the hole into the fractures. The other possibility is to have multiple fractures at the wellbore level
helping to have a more uniform distribution of the injected fluid at the screen level.

[Link] Screen Erosion Test

From the previous analysis there are some potential issues with the screens related to discrete
fracturing of the reservoir. Erosion depends mainly on aperture velocity, solids contents and size and
type of the solids. .A screen erosion test was considered to be carried out during FEED to confirm
the suitability of the screen at high rate liquid CO2.
However, the test will not be carried out due to the following reasons:
• The CO2 is planned to be filtered to 5 microns it is envisaged that the remaining smaller
particles would not erode the screens (not enough mass to create damage).
• Filtration of the CO2 will reduce the formation of ‘hot spot’ erosion in the screens distributing
the injected fluid across the screens more uniformly
• The created frac in soft rocks create multiple fracs enhancing permeability instead of discrete
fracs (two wings).
• The normally accepted value of aperture velocity of 1 ft/s is for liquids. This 1 ft/s value has
been determined for liquid (water) production conditions through SAS
It is possible that the upper limit of the aperture velocity is higher than the used value of 1 ft/s
due to the lower viscosity of the CO2 compared to water, though the density of the water and
CO2 are similar at injection conditions in Goldeneye.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 103
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Conceptual Upper Completion Selection

5.5 Re-Completion Options for managing the CO2 properties

Reduction in the expansion of the CO2 can be achieved by extra pressure drop in the well. Options
include the installation of a small diameter tubing creating back pressure by friction loss or a pressure
drop in a device (downhole choke).
During the Longannet-Goldeneye CCS study the preferred method was the use of small diameter
tubing over a pressure drop caused by a downhole device. This is still supported for the Peterhead
Goldeneye CCS.

6 Conceptual Upper Completion Selection

Workover or replacement of the upper completion will be required in the existing wells (Section 5.2).
The lower completion (sand exclusion) will be left in place as there is not a requirement to perform
side-tracks (section 5.4). Fit for purpose completion design that addresses the issues of well bore
freezing, material selection and tubing contraction will be installed.
Small diameter tubing is currently the preferred option as discussed in this chapter.

6.1 Available options

The available completion options can be divided in two options:
• Friction dominated concept: small tubing, insert string, dual completion and concentric strings.
• Downhole choke
They can be visualised as follows, Figure 6-1:

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 104
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Conceptual Upper Completion Selection

Figure 6-1: Completion Concepts (for injecting in single phase CO2)

The different completion options were evaluated / compared considering:

• Well design: Installation ease, normal practice in the industry and North Sea, reliability of the
solution and optimisation opportunities
• Injection Flexibility: Management of injection requirement, flexible injection from the
minimum to the maximum of the CCP.
• Well Integrity: Maintain well integrity, carry out prescribed integrity tests
• In- Well monitoring: ability to install and have reliable data from PDGs, DTS, etc.
• Well Intervention: Easiness to intervene the well (wireline, coil tubing)
• Life Cycle Cost: CAPEX, OPEX and abandonment cost

6.1.1 Single Tapered Tubing

Under this scenario a single tapered tubing is used in the Goldeneye wells to create the required delta
pressure to keep the CO2 in single phase at the wellhead. A minimum rate is imposed per well.
The combination of wells will be able to meet the CO2 rates from the capture plant (section 8 of this
report).
Table 6-1: Single tapered tubing. Advantages and disadvantages [1'' = 25.4mm]

Well Design (+) Simple and Standard completion

(+) Simple Wellhead

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 105
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Conceptual Upper Completion Selection

Different tubing sizes required (4 ½” & 3 ½”)

(-) Small tubing. 3 ½” is not a common size in the North Sea, but plenty of
onshore experience
Injection Flexibility One string per well
(+) Combination of wells provide the required injection conditions for the life
cycle of the project.
(-) Limited range of injection conditions – depends on tubing size
(-) Minimum rate required
Well Integrity (+) SSSV depth
(+) corrosion logs possible
(+) Pressure Integrity Test is possible. Special tool might me required due to
the small tubing size.
In-well monitoring (+) Normal installation. Enough annular space for in-well tools
Well Intervention (+) Standard. Limited ID depending on tubing size and FIV (2.94”)
Life Cycle Cost As a minimum 2 injectors required and 1 back up
(+) simple integrity workover (if required)
(+) no late workover required to meet CCP rates

6.1.2 Insert String

The installation of an insert or velocity string below the SSSV will introduce the required frictional
pressure losses into the injection system, thus maintaining the supplied CO2 above the saturation line
in the dense liquid phase.
The main advantage of the system is the ability to install the SSSV at a depth similar to currently
installed SSV in the existing wells.

Table 6-2: Insert string. Advantages and disadvantages [1'' = 25.4mm]

Well Design (-) Medium complexity. Experience in the gas industry with velocity strings
(+) Simple wellhead
Different tubing sizes required (4 ½” & 3 ½”) in the insert string
Hanger inside the tubing is critical. Pressure sealing required in the top of the
insert string. Extra stresses created by this configuration.
(-) Unable to fix leaking in the completion tubing
Injection Flexibility One string per well. A workover to remove the insert string might be executed
to expand the operating envelope of the well once the reservoir pressure
increases. More applicable to expansion storage projects.
(+) Combination of wells provide the required injection conditions for the
life cycle of the project.
(-) Limited range of injection conditions – depends on tubing size

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 106
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Conceptual Upper Completion Selection

(-) Minimum rate required

(+) Optimisation: Install SSD in the insert string or perforate the insert string
to increase the operating envelope
Well Integrity (-) Severe vibration expected. Innes tubing not in tension, free-hanging.
Tubing integrity can be lost by the excessive moving and banging into the
outer tubing. This can be considered as a showstopper for this kind of
completion.
(+) SSSV depth
(-) corrosion logs not possible in the outer string (the tubing providing CO2
containment in the tubing). Corrosion log possible in the inner string.
(-) Pressure Integrity Test not possible in all the tubing length (where the
insert string is positioned)
In-well monitoring (-) PDG and DTS in the outside tubing. External reading of temperature
might not be representative due to the distance to the injected CO2.
Well Intervention (+) Doable. Limited ID depending on tubing size and FIV (2.94”)
Life Cycle Cost As a minimum 2 injectors required and 1 back up
(-) integrity workover (if required)
(+) no late workover required to meet CCP rates
(-) Slightly more expensive abandonment

6.1.3 Dual Completion

Each tubing in a dual completion well will introduce the required frictional losses into the injection
system. A minimum rate in each string should be maintained to avoid CO2 flashing in the top of the
well.
The advantage of the system is to expand the operating envelope per well by injecting in one or both
tubings at the same time. Dual 3 ½'' [89mm] 13Cr tubing and 2 7/8'' [73mm] 13Cr tubing will meet
forecasted injection volumes of CO2 with the use of fewer wells. DTS, PDGs would be able to be
incorporated in the well.
Table 6-3: Dual completion. Advantages and disadvantages [1'' = 25.4mm]

Well Design (-) High complexity. Practically no experience in the North Sea with dual
strings
(-) Dual Xmas tree required. Long lead item. Goldeneye wellhead is not
designed for a dual Xmas tree and tubing hanger. A new build Xmas tree is
likely to be required.
(-) limited combinations in the dual tubings (2 x 2 7/8”, 2 x 3 ½” (?) and 2
7/8” – 31/2”)
Y-tool preferred over dual packer (stronger completion)
(-) impact of tubing stresses when injecting down in the a single string
(-) Mechanical barriers to be recovered through small tubing.
(-) Congested well bay (dual wellhead and dual flowlines)
Injection Flexibility Two string per well.
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 107
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Conceptual Upper Completion Selection

(+) Increase flexibility per well (3 different injection sizes: tubing1, tubing 2,
tubing 1 + 2)
(-) Minimum rate required
(-) More difficult inflow calculation. Total capacity of the well should be
approximately ~ 0.85 of the tubing 1 + tubing 2 due to inflow restrictions.
(-) Congested well bay
Well Integrity (+) SSSV depth. 2 SSSV per well operating independently.
(+) PIT per string can be execute
(+) Corrosion log possible
(-) Multiple/complex leak paths
In case of a tubing failure, injection might continue in the well by isolating the
leaking string.
In-well monitoring (-) Limited space in the A-annulus. Ability to install devices depends on the
completion size
(-) PDG below Y-tool. DTS possible in one or both strings depending on
size. Number of penetration increase in the wellhead – confirmation required
of it doability
Well Intervention (+) Doable. Limited ID depending on tubing size and FIV (2.94”)
(+) 2 strings to get access to the wellbore. However, Y-tool will cancel this
option (only one string normally has access to the wellbore)
Life Cycle Cost As a minimum 2 injectors required and 1 back up. Not possible to meet
injection expectations with only one well
(-) Very expensive initial workover
(-) Expensive integrity workover (if required)
(+) no late workover required to meet CCP rates
(-) Expensive abandonment

6.1.4 Concentric Completion

The inner string will be run inside the outer tubing string. The advantage of the system is the ability
to change injection from the inner tubing to the outer tubing or both expanding the operating
envelope per well.
Table 6-4: Concentric completion. Advantages and disadvantages [1'' = 25.4mm]

Well Design (-) High complexity completion. No major experience in the hydrocarbon
industry with concentric completions
(-) Special dual wellhead required (Horizontal tree). Special design required
and long lead item. The current wellhead at Goldeneye is not suitable for
running a concentric completion from surface to require depth.
Different tubing sizes required (4 ½” & 3 ½”) in the inner string
(-) Unable to fix leaking in the completion tubing
(-) Deep set SSSV

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 108
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Conceptual Upper Completion Selection

(-) Lots of modifications required to standard practice in the oil industry.

Injection Flexibility Two string per well.
(+) Increase flexibility per well (3 different injection sizes: inner, annulus
between inner and outer tubing, both))
(-) Minimum rate required
(-) More difficult inflow calculation. Total capacity of the well should be
approximately ~ 0.85 of the tubing 1 + tubing 2 due to inflow restrictions.
(-) Congested well bay
Well Integrity (-) Severe vibration expected. Inner tubing not in tension, free-hanging.
Tubing integrity can be lost by the excessive moving and banging into the
outer tubing. This can be considered as a showstopper for this kind of
completion.
(-) SSSV depth. The SSSV can be installed below the inner string. No remedial
activities in the SSSV due to the ID restriction of the concentric string. The
valve is set very deep with larger CO2 inventory.
(-) corrosion logs not possible in the outer string (the tubing providing CO2
containment in the tubing). Corrosion log possible in the inner string.
(-) Pressure Integrity Test not possible in all the tubing length (where the
insert string is positioned)
In-well monitoring (+) Existing completion (7”) with PDG and cable.
(-) PDG and DTS in the outside tubing. External reading of temperature
might not be representative due to the distance to the injected CO2.
Well Intervention (+) Doable. Limited ID depending on tubing size and FIV (2.94”)
Life Cycle Cost As a minimum 2 injectors required and 1 back up
(-) Expensive integrity workover (if required)
(+) no late workover required to meet CCP rates
(-) Expensive abandonment

6.1.5 Downhole choke

Under this scenario, there is a downhole choke which creates the delta pressure required to manage
the CO2 in dense phase along the well.
Normally the downhole should be installed at a depth where no phase changes can occur to avoid
vibration and cavitation. For Goldeneye wells this is deep in the well.
Table 6-5: Downhole choke. Advantages and disadvantages [1'' = 25.4mm]

Well Design Smart application.

(-) Control line requirement. Proven technology for inflow control
modifications where small delta P is required. In our case high delta P is
required across the device.
(-) Wellhead with more penetrations (special hangers or modifications
required).

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 109
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Conceptual Upper Completion Selection

(+) Normal tubing size of the North Sea

Small chokes required (6 – 11 /64th in)
(-) Prone to choke erosion and plugging
Placement not very critical of the choke. In the dense phase (deep in the well).
Optimisation: Installation of multiple downholes chokes
Injection Flexibility One string per well. Large pressure drop in the downhole chokes.
(-) Big change of operating range with small changes in size diameter.
(-) Pressure and Temperature drop across the choke might increase the
potential for hydrate deposition.
Late injection will not require downhole chokes as the reservoir pressure will
increase.
Well Integrity (+) Standard SSSV
Corrosion log and PIT possible above the choke. Not possible below the
choke.
In-well monitoring Same than single tapered tubing
(+) Normal installation. Enough annular space for in-well tools
Well Intervention (-) Partial. No access to the reservoir. Access below the choke will depend on
choke type.
Life Cycle Cost As a minimum 2 injectors required and 1 back up
(+) no late workover required to meet CCP rates
(-)High chance of well activities to change downhole chokes
(-) Smart application. Expensive workover

6.2 Comparison of Completion Concepts - Discussion

The initial installation of the single tapered completion option is the simplest and most robust. The
other systems present extra challenges / cost in comparison to the single tapered completion,
specially related to the wellhead and Xmas tree system (for dual completion and concentric string).
For the insert sting option, the inner string hanger is critical to the CO2 management. The downhole
choke would require special control lines depending on the number of chokes to be installed.
For all the friction dominated completions there will be a minimum rate. The injection flexibility in
the single tapered system can be managed with the number of wells. The other friction dominated
systems present more flexibility in terms of number of injection strings per well. However, in the
single tapered completion, the combination of different wells with different injection characteristics
will be able to accommodate from the minimum and maximum rates of the capture plant during the
life cycle of the well. The downhole choke option can have issues regarding well envelopes in case of
erosion/abrasion in the choke (small changes in choke size can have significant changes in pressure
drop and hence unpredictable envelopes).
The well integrity management in single completion is ideal; position of the different safety devices is
robust. The insert string and concentric string options presents an integrity problem related to the
vibration of the inner string when injecting high velocity CO2 require to obtain the friction. The
position of the SSSV in the concentric string is critical as the depth would be very close to the

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 110
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Well Construction Elements

reservoir. The number of potential leak paths is high for dual completions. Pressure integrity test in
the downhole choke would be challenging below the valve in case of not able to retrieve the choke.
The single completion tubing and the downhole choke completion present the best option for in-well
monitoring. The in-well monitoring is not ideal in the insert and concentric strings as the temperature
information is from the outer tubing string. Depending on tubing size there might not be enough
space for accommodating all the required devices in a dual completion.
The well intervention for the friction dominated completion concepts is similar. Dual completion
options presents a slightly less than ideal conditions due to the intervention being possible in only
one string if Y-tool options is selected. In the single tapered tubing the only restriction for well
intervention is related to the tubing size (potential landing nipples) and deep in the well by the FIV.
The downhole choke option will have limitations in easy intervention as the restriction would require
to be removed prior to any intervention.
A traffic light can be used to visualise the advantages and disadvantages of the different completion
systems. Green represents ideal conditions and red represent a major concern of the option.
Concern
Small Tubing Big tubing +
Doable (Tapered) Insert String Dual completion Concentric Downhole choke
(Smart)
Ideal

Well Design

Injection Flexibility

Well Integrity

In-well monitoring

Well Intervention

Life Cycle Cost

Figure 6-2: Traffic light for completion concepts

Considering the discussion above the single tapered completion is selected.

7 Well Construction Elements

The report (PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00002 Conceptual Completion & Well Intervention Design
Report, 2014) contains more information on the selected option. This section is an abstract of it and
presents the important messages from it.
The change of use of Goldeneye wells from hydrocarbon production to CO2 injection has been
checked against the existing well design notably in the following areas
• materials (metallurgy and elastomers)
• casing design
• cement
• pressure management

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 111
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Well Construction Elements

• temperature

Limitations of the different well components were investigated for the expected well conditions
under CO2 injection. The Christmas tree and the tubing hanger will be replaced in the workover with
units having a lower minimum temperature rating. All completion equipment (i.e. attached to the
tubing string) will have 13Cr or S13Cr equivalent metallurgy and will have working pressures in
excess of the expected final well pressures.
It is proposed to standardise the top (from surface down to the SSSV) and the bottom (up to the
PDG) of the upper completion for the CO2 injection. The planned well design for CCS is shown in
Figure 7-1.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 112
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Well Construction Elements

GYA 01 Depth MD Description of Item ID Drift

Proposed (ft) (Inches) (Inches)
79 Tubing Hanger 6.169
7.00 29# Tubing 13Cr/S13Cr 6.184 6.059
139 XO 7.00" 29# x 4 1/2" 12.6# 3.958 3.833

4 1/2" 12.6# Tubing 13Cr/S13Cr 3.958 3.833

2500 SCTRSSSV 4 1/2" 13cr 3.813

3130 Casing XO 10 3/4" x 9 5/8"

6800 XO 4 1/2" 12.6# x 3 1/2" 2.922

3 1/2" Tubing 2.922
8430 X/O/Wire Finder Trip Sub 3 1/2" x 4 1/2" 12.6# 2.992 2.787

8536 4 1/2" PDGM for PDG + DTS 3.958 3.833

4 1/2" 12.6 # Tubing 3.958 3.833

8596 9 5/8" x 4 1/2" Packer 3.818

4 1/2" Circulating/Pressure Relief Device 3.958 3.833

4 1/2" Tubing
8696 Baker SC-2R packer/screen hanger 13Cr (existing)
G22 Seal Assembly 3.958 3.833

8650 XO 4 1/2" 12.6# x 2 7/8" 6.4# FJ Tubing 2.441 2.347

8755 Schlumberger FIV (existing) 2.94"
8850 2 7/8" Mule Shoe

8952 Top of 4.00" Screens (existing) 3.548

Figure 7-1: Proposed general well schematic [1'' = 25.4mm]

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 113
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Well Construction Elements

7.1 Well Materials

7.1.1 Carbon Steel

CO2 in the presence of water will lead to dissolution of CO2, forming carbonic acid (H2CO3). This
will lead to corrosion of carbon steel. The typical CO2 corrosion rate for carbon steel in contact with
water (wet conditions) will be in the order of 10 mm/yr.
Normally, in carbon steel tubulars, CO2 corrosion is mitigated by proper control of the water content
of the CO2 to avoid formation of free water and to prevent wet excursions. The water content in the
CO2 is specified as below 20 ppmW.
Available low temperature Charpy impact test results of the present carbon steel production casing
show that toughness is adequate down to -40°C.

7.1.2 13Cr steel

Even under wet conditions, CO2 corrosion is not a threat for 13Cr steel under typical Goldeneye
injection conditions.
13Cr is susceptible to localised corrosion in wet conditions when O2 is present. A limit of 1 ppmv
for O2 in the CO2, corresponding to a concentration O2 dissolved in water below 10 ppb (by mass);
will prevent such corrosion from occurring.
In case O2 is present at higher levels than the specified, it is not a corrosion threat without the
presence of free water and it might be expected that the O2 would be consumed, at least in part, by
the corrosion of carbon steel upstream of the wells (pipelines).
The generally accepted low temperature limit for 13Cr steel is from -10 to-30°C (depending on
manufacturer) and for Super 13Cr it is estimated at -50°C. In any case, impact testing of 13Cr or
Super 13Cr tubing will be required for equipment to be run in the wells (especially in the top part of
the wells, where extreme low temperatures are expected during transient conditions and loss of well
control scenarios).

7.1.3 Elastomers
Elastomers can also absorb gas and suffer explosive decompression when pressure is reduced. Any
elastomers to be in contact with CO2 have been checked for compatibility. Where needed these
elastomers will be changed out.

7.2 Conductor and Casing strings

7.2.1 30” Conductor

The 30” [762mm] conductor was driven 200’ [61m] into the seabed to 750ft [229m].
From 2010 PEC (Pulsed Eddy Curent) corrosion surveys, the carbon steel conductors look as though
they may be falling into the higher corrosion rate category. However, load calculations for the worst
case corrosion rate (0.5 mm/yr over a 25 yr period) conclude that the existing Goldeneye 30”
conductors are fit for the expected load cases for the duration of the extended field life. The 30”
conductor will not be in direct contact with CO2.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 114
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Well Construction Elements

7.2.2 20” x 13 3/8” Surface Casing

The first casing string set inside the conductor was a 20'' x 13 3/8'' [508 x 340mm] taper string set at
around 4150ft. The 20'' casing features a 1” (25 mm) wall thickness. The 20” casing was cemented to
seabed. The surface casing will not be in contact with the injected CO2.
The 30'' conductor and 20'' x 13 3/8'' casing are freestanding and independent of one another. The
20'' surface casing takes all the well loading and does not transfer the load to the 30” conductor.
Goldeneye Platform wells have been analysed with WellCat software. The analysis also models the
conditions of CO2 injection. PEC corrosion surveys were run on both the conductor and the
surface casing. There are indications that corrosion rates on both strings are relatively high. A special
case has been worked up to simulate high 20'' corrosion rates. Using the “high” corrosion rate of
0.5 mm/yr and a 25 year life span - both worst cases, the conclusion is that the pipe is still fit for
purpose - Safety Factor of 2.4 for axial loading. Furthermore, at high corrosion rate the 20'' casing
still has several years' life left beyond the 25 year life span. Hence, the Goldeneye 20'' casing will be
good for the expected load cases for the duration of the extended field life. It follows that no load
transfer to the conductor is expected.

7.2.3 10 ¾ x 9 5/8” Production Casing

The second casing string or 10 ¾'' x 9 5/8'' [273 x 245mm] taper production casing was set at the
bottom of the Rodby formation. This casing was cemented to approximately 1500ft [457m] AH
above from the casing shoe.
The position of the production packer in the current completion and the new completion for CO2
injection will be similar but deeper. The production packer in the injectors should be positioned in
the wells across the Hidra marl, considered part of the reservoir seal.
The current corrosion of the production casing above the existing packer is practically nil as the
completion fluid used in the A annulus was inhibited seawater installed during the completion
operations. The production casing above the production packer is not expected to be exposed to
free water and CO2 during the injection phase. Internally, the 13Cr tubing prevents contact with the
injected fluid.
Underneath the production packer, a section of production casing has been exposed for the period of
~6 years to the hydrocarbon production environment (natural gas with 0.3% CO2). This probably led
to some corrosion of the casing but the magnitude of attack is unknown. As an estimate of
maximum corrosion, assuming wetting for the full 6 years of field production, the corrosion loss
would be of the order of 6 yrs x 0.1 mm/y = 0.6 mm. In view of protection by FeCO3 scale and a
much shorter wetting period (wells production was closed in only after the presence of formation
water), the actual wall loss is probably less and of therefore of little significance.
The same section of the production casing (underneath the production packer), the carbon steel
casing would be in contact with the injected fluid. Under normal injection conditions the CO2
corrosion rate is controlled by the water content in the CO2. However, during non-injection periods,
water from the aquifer might initially come back into the well leading to presence of water and CO2,
which can result in high corrosion rates (10 mm/yr). A corrosion allowance of 2 mm is adequate to
make the carbon steel reach the design life of 20 years. Based on an estimated typical CO2 corrosion
rate of 10 mm/y, it would take a little more than 1 year of wet exposure to corrode through the ½''
thickness of the casing. This implies that to avoid the casing corroding through, wet exposure to the
CO2 environment needs to be limited to less than 1 year in total over the required life of the casing.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 115
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Well Construction Elements

Even in the scenario of having casing failure and axial cement degradation, the risk of leaking CO2 is
very low. This is based on the estimated matrix properties and the absence of fractures at the Hidra
level. Additionally, during most of the injection period, the pressure of the CO2 downhole will be
lower than the hydrostatic pressure. As such, there is no reason to plan a side-track for the potential
of out of zone injection of the CO2 as the marls above the Rodby also present adequate sealing
characteristics.
In the current well completion, a perforated pup joint is present below the production packer and the
top of the screen hanger; this section creates a dead volume (stagnant) between the tubing and the
production casing. CO2 fluid could find its way through the perforated pup and contact the carbon
steel production casing in the dead area between tubing and casing and potentially cause high levels
of corrosion in the casing. Although this section is below the existing production packer, it is
recommended to remove the perforated tubing section during the workover operations to give more
protection to the casing and to be able to run the new production casing across the Hidra.
Due to injection of cold CO2, the load cases are driven towards tensile loading due to thermal
contraction.
Normal CS (''LT0'') is adequate down to 0°C. For lower temperatures, carbon steel should be impact
tested. Available certificates that supported the quality of the installed production casing were
analysed and recorded Charpy values at different temperatures demonstrating adequate toughness
down to -40°C, well below the worst case lowest casing temperature on injection conditions. If such
information would not have been available, then the next step would be to assess the suitability based
on the design code used, the materials specification and the wall thickness.

7.3 Cement
This section is a summary of the Chapter 4 and Appendices 4 & 5 of the report (PCCS-05-PT-ZW-
7180-00002 Conceptual Completion and Well Intervention Design Report, 2014) where detail
analysis on the cement is presented.
The primary cement sheath of the production casing is a barrier to capture the CO2 downhole in the
well. The cement used in the cementation is normal Portland class G cement.
The theoretical top of the cement (TOC) in the B-annulus between 9 5/8'' [245mm] production
casing and the 10 ¾” [273mm] hole has been estimated for all five wells during the cementing
operations. The cement column from the 9 5/8in casing shoe to the theoretical TOC is calculated at
1,500ft [457m] AHD above the shoe, well above the formation seals of the reservoir. Cement
evaluation logs were not run during the drilling phase of the wells, but are scheduled for the
workover operations.
The cement is considered of good quality, based on well operation records. The historical records
show that the casing integrity is good as a successful pressure test was achieved after bumping the top
of the cement plug during the production casing section. The historical records of top well annuli
pressures also show that no anomalies have been reported in the B annulus pressures during the
production history of Goldeneye.
The distance between the currently installed production packer and the theoretical TOC is between
1,190 and 1,351ft [363m and 412m] AHD depending on the well. The cement is covering the
primary seal formations (Rodby and Hidra) in all five wells up into the Chalk formation. This is
enough cement height to ensure a barrier in the B annulus above the production packer.
Given that the TOC is theoretical, it is recommended to run a cement evaluation tool to better assess
the condition of the cement in the B-annulus during the proposed workovers of the upper
completion.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 116
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Well Construction Elements

The long term effect of CO2 on cement has been investigated. Cement degradation by CO2 in the
form of carbonic acid is a process that produces an insoluble precipitate that slows degradation.
Several recently published papers examine various experiments or case studies that examine the
potential degradation of Portland based cements when exposed to high CO2 environments.
Degradation rates are proportional to temperature, pressure and the square root of time. From
literature, estimates for cement degradation vary from 0.05 m in 10,000 years to 12.36 m in 10,000
years. Goldeneye conditions ~2m in 10,000 years.
Diana software, a specialist mechanical cement model has been run to ascertain the thermal effects of
CO2 injection on Goldeneye. The injection model simulates the thermal effects on the mechanics of
the system (casing / formation / cement). Diana results indicate that the remaining integrity of the
cement is sufficient for CO2 injection in the Goldeneye Platform wells. The remaining capacity of
the cement sheath for various simulated operational scenarios is sufficient for CO2 injection in the
Goldeneye Platform wells.

7.4 Surface Trees and Wellheads

The Goldeneye Xmas tree and wellhead is suited to CO2 injection for the specified steady state
operating parameters, but only for temperatures down to -18°C. The main issue is that 410 stainless
steel has a very low Charpy impact value that could generate cracking.
The 7'' [245mm] tubing hanger is designed for temperature class S,T,U,V (-18 to 121°C) and the
10¾'' [273mm] casing hanger is designed for temperature class P (-18 to 82°C).
Due to low transient temperatures (in the order of -20°C in the CO2) during opening and closing of
the wells and even lower temperatures which might be encountered in leak scenarios (-56°C), surface
trees and tubing hangers will be changed to low temperature compatible equipment. These well items
will be manufactured as long lead time items and installed as part of the workover operations.
The current Cameron Xmas tree class U and tubing hanger is rated to -18°C will be changed to a
lower temperature rating equipment. The material can be upgraded from the current 4140 low alloy
steel to a maximum F6NM stainless steel which has a low temperature threshold of -60°C. The
details of the new Xmas tree will be defined during FEED.
The casing hanger is designed to -18°C; the fluid transient temperature during well operations in the
design case is -20°C in the top of the well and -15°C average tubing temperature (in the normal
operating case is estimated at -17°C and -10°C respectively). As the casing hangers are not in direct
contact with the CO2, the expected temperature is above the average tubing temperature. For this
case there is no requirement to change out the casing hanger during the well activities.
Under uncontrolled leaks, the temperature of the CO2 might get very cold (metal temperatures
estimated at the triple point -56°C and jet temperatures of around -80°C). The Xmas tree and the
tubing hanger can be changed to consider this possibility. However, some well elements cannot be
changed. Detailed thermal simulations of the wellhead/Xmas tree system will be done in the next
phase to evaluate the extension of the low temperature during leak scenarios for evaluating the
suitability of the system.

7.5 Upper Completion

The existing upper Completion will be retrieved. A new upper completion will be installed.
All completion equipment will have 13Cr equivalent metallurgy and will have working pressures in
excess of the expected final well pressures.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 117
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Well Construction Elements

As part of the workover operations, the tubing hanger and tree will be installed and pressure tested.
This will then allow for final well hook up and flow of CO2 through the pipeline to the platform.

7.5.1 Tubing
Re-completion of the wells will incorporate changing out of the 7'' [245mm] tubing to a smaller size.
As pressure and CO2 rates will vary during the duration of the project, the injection rates will be
accommodated by different tubing sizes in the injection wells - low rates with smaller tubing and
higher rates with larger tubing, considering the well deviation.
The tubing sizes will be optimised in the later stages of the project when more information is
available, especially regarding the reservoir pressure, injection rates and powerplant power generation
cycles.
The intention is to standardise the top and bottom part of the upper completion. Currently the
preferred tubing size in the top of the well (from the wellhead to the SSSV) is 4½'' [114mm].
The upper completion tubing will be a 13Cr steel tubing material to provide protection of CO2
corrosion. The current view is to install Super 13Cr tubing in the top of the well (from wellhead to
SSSV) which gives more resistance to lower temperatures than 13Cr. For both materials 13Cr and
Super 13Cr, impact testing will be required. In the case 13Cr is resistant to temperatures below the
minimum expected CO2 temperature in the top of the well, 13Cr might be used instead of the Super
13Cr.
Tubing hanger material can be upgraded in line with the increased Xmas tree specification.

7.5.2 SSSV and control lines

The SSSV is required to seal off the flow of CO2 from the wellbore should surface flow control
systems fail for any reason. The Goldeneye SSSV is currently set at 2,500 ft [762m].
The SSSV will be positioned deep enough in the well so as to be unaffected by the same failure
mechanisms that can compromise surface ESD systems, and shallow enough that closure times are
not compromised by having to overcome high hydrostatic pressures in the control line and to
facilitate the testing of the valve by reducing the volume to bleed off. Other factors determining the
final setting depth for the SSSV are the maximum depth that hydrates form and uncontrolled flow
conditions.
The temperature rating of the SSSV is -7°C. In the transient design case, the -7°C is observed at
around 1,500 ft [457m]. The sub-zero temperature in the well is at 1,950ft [594m] depth. The
current depth of the valve was selected according to the hydrate deposition curve in the hydrocarbon
phase, a situation which cannot be disregarded during CO2 injection as the wells will be completed
initially in the hydrocarbon leg and the presence of a hydrocarbon bank displaced by the CO2.
Uncontrolled flow calculation indicates a temperature of -7°C at ~2500ft [].
The final depth of the SSSV will be defined at a later stage, but the depth will be similar to the current
setting depth in the production wells.
The current control line fluid (Castrol Brayco Micronic SV/3) is currently qualified for operations
covering the temperature range of -40°C to 200°C (-40°F to 392°F), Castrol Brayco SV/3 has a low
pour (<-50°C (<-58°F)) point making it suitable for operations in low ambient temperatures.
Testing of the SSSV is predicted to be a lengthy operation (24-40hours) especially when the tubing
between the valve and the wellhead is filled with dense CO2. In order to minimize this time the top of
the tubing is proposed to be 4 ½in tubing rather than 5½'' [140mm].

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 118
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Well Construction Elements

7.5.3 Production Packer

For CO2 injection operations, a standard AHC hydraulically set production packer made from 13Cr
material is considered to be suitable. The packer includes a one-piece mandrel and seal bore,
reducing potential leak paths.
For CO2 injection a HNBR (Hydrogenated Nitrile Butadiene Rubber) elastomer-sealing element will
be used. HNBR, also known as ''Highly Saturated Nitrile'' (HSN), is a special class of nitrile rubber
that has been hydrogenated to increase saturation of the butadiene segment of the carbon polymer
backbone. Subsequent improvements to the material properties, over that of a nitrile rubber (NBR),
include greater thermal stability, broader chemical resistance, and greater tensile strength. HNBR can
be formulated to meet application temperatures ranging between -50°C and 165ºC (-58°F-329°F).
The packer should be positioned in the well across the Hidra marl, considered part of the reservoir
seal. The screen hanger is either set at the Rodby formation or the Hidra formation. Currently, the
packers in GYA01 and GYA05 are set in the Chalk group. In these wells the plan is to install the
packer deeper in the Hidra formation. The existing packers in GYA02S1, GYA03 and GYA04 are
currently set in the Hidra formation. The final placement of the new packers for CCS operations
within the Hidra will depend on the status of the production casing at the moment of the installation.
A production casing evaluation tool will be run during the workover of the wells to assess the
condition of the production casing strings and optimise the position of the packer.

7.5.4 In-well monitoring

The completions will feature permanent temperature and pressure monitoring gauges. There will also
be a distributed temperature sensor - a fibre optic system taking temperatures every one metre in the
well. In the event of a tubing leak, the distributed temperature readings would facilitate the location
of the leak. It will also give a better understanding of the temperature calculations in a CO2 well.
Pressure and temperature modelling suggests that the BHT (Bottom Hole Temperature) is likely to be
in the region of 17°C-35°C [63- 95°F]. Currently, the pressure gauges are routinely calibrated for
temperatures in the range 25°C-150°C [65°F-302°F]. Therefore further qualification of the NPQG
NET system will be required before it can be used on Goldeneye for CCS operations.

7.6 Lower Completion

Aspects related to the lower completion are discussed in section 5 of this report.
The lower completion will be left in place during the workover activities. The lower completion of
the wells consists of open hole gravel packs including premium screens and pre-drilled liners –
alternate path system. Main elements are: 7'' [245mm] pre-drilled liner across the reservoir, 4''
[102mm] screens, 20/40 gravel between the hole and the screens and FIV 2.94'' [74.7mm] ID. The
top of the screens are at the Hidra marl level.
As CO2 will be injected into the well it is imperative not to block or damage the lower completion.
From the analysis to date, there is no reason to side-track the wells and to install a new lower
completion. The lower completion will not be changed during workover operations.

7.7 Other well elements

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 119
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Number of Wells

7.7.1 Pressure containment between the lower completion (top of the screens)
and upper completion (tail pipe)
There is the possibility to install a seal assembly in the tail pipe to seal off the casing between the
production packer and the SC-2R screen hanger. This will reduce the exposure of the 9 5/8in casing
to CO2 to below the SC-2R packer. A closed space with stagnant fluid between the packer and the
SC-2R packer (top of the screens) will be created. The main concern is that the cold injection of CO2
will contract the fluid installed in this confined space leading to vacuum conditions, generating loads
to the casing (collapse), tubing (burst) and packer (high differential pressure) which might jeopardise
the well integrity with time.
The other option is to stab the tail pipe into the SC-2R without the sealing mechanism. In this case
more casing is exposed to CO2. There will not be a closed space between the packer and the top of
the screens. This option is preferred as the production packer will be installed at the Hidra level,
which is part of the CO2 subsurface seal and it is expected that dry CO2 will displace and evaporate
water from the wellbore, reducing the corrosion rate of the production casing.
This will be explored in detail in the FEED phase. The options to install pressure relief valves in a
close system will also be investigated.

7.7.2 Packer fluid

The fluid left in the A annulus for Goldeneye Wells should have the following characteristics:
• Avoid/minimize Corrosion in tubing/production casing. Compatibility with tubing and casing.
• The rheological properties of the packer fluid should be stable during injection period. It
should have a low freezing point to cope with the well transient condition and should be
stable in terms of phase envelope.
• The fluid should be solid free.
• Have the ability to monitor the annuli pressure over time. Positive pressure at all times.
Alternatives are (i) base oil designed for low temperature with a Nitrogen cushion which manages the
thermal expansion of the base oil or (ii) water based systems with freezing point depressor (e.g.
methanol) or (iii) water based brine.
Sleipner used a Calcium Bromide (CaBr2) brine in the A-annulus to avoid freezing of the annulus with
a freezing point of -46°C (Baklid, 1996).
Annular fluids will be selected during FEED

8 Number of Wells
The Peterhead CCS bid submission, made in mid-2012, included four wells converted for
injection/monitoring, with the recommendation to decide the way forward of the fifth well during
further stages of the project.
The number of require injector wells depends mainly on the injection estimates (reservoir pressure
and injectivity), capture plant rates, CO2 management, monitoring requirements and life cycle risk
management.
The well(s) not converted for CO2 injection will also need to be considered for the Peterhead project.
Options included are to complete as an injector/monitor or to abandon the well.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 120
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Number of Wells

The installation of small bore tubing in the wells limits the operating envelope of each well. In order
to accommodate the range of injection rates at the different reservoir pressures during the injection
life, each well will be completed with a different tubing size/configuration tailored to a specific rate
range. The wells will then have overlapping operating envelopes and any rates specified in the
integrated consortium basis-for-design will then be achievable through the choice of a specific
combination of wells.
The five existing wells will be recompleted for the Peterhead CCS project. Two wells are the absolute
minimum injectors for the life cycle of the project. Two additional wells are required: a back-up and a
monitoring well. The fifth well in the platform will be re-completed based upon a project decision.

8.1 Minimum number of injection wells

In order to manage the CO2 behaviour of the CO2 and avoid integrity problems in the wells created
by freezing, each well will have a limitation in terms of minimum rate dictated by a minimum of 50
bara of wellhead pressure. The maximum rate of a well will be dictated by the maximum available
injection pressure, estimated at 115bara at the wellhead dictated by the MAOP of the offshore
pipeline.
The injection range per well at a given reservoir pressure can be shifted by changing the length of the
section of the different tubing sizes (4 ½” and 3 ½” [144mm and 89mm] tubing). However, the range
per well cannot be expanded. The completion sizing also considers overlapping of well envelopes to
give flexibility and redundancy in the system for a given arrival injection rate. At a given arrival rate
different combinations will add flexibility to the system. The aim is to minimise the number of wells
within the overall well restrictions.
The frequent opening-up and closing-in events should be avoided to limit the stresses in the well
(temperature reduction during short periods of time) and to reduce the operation intensity in the
wells. As such, line packing will be important to reduce the level of well operations.
The “Organ Pipes” were developed to integrate all the selection considerations,

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 121
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Number of Wells

75% of max.
Minimum (65%) Maximum
89.9 tonnes/h 138 tonnes/h
41 MMscfd 63 MMscfd
GYA_01_02_04

Max. 138 tonnes/h

65% of Maximum

75% of Maximum
GYA01 to cover maximum rate at high P reservoir
GYA02 in the middle of the range at initial P reservoir
GYA04 to cover minimum rate at initial Preservoir
2650psi Resevoir Pressure
GYA01 GYA02 GYA04 GYA05

Minimum Rate (50 bar) 53 44 38

Maximum Rate (115bar) 76 63 55

P reservoir
Minimum Maximum 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

1 53 76 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
1 44 63 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
1 38 55 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
1

2650psi
1 1 97 139
1 1 91 131
1 1
1 1 82 118
1 1
1 1
1 1 1 135 194
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1

2800psi Resevoir Pressure

GYA01 GYA02 GYA04 GYA05

Minimum Rate (50 bar) 49 42 37

Maximum Rate (115bar) 74 61 54
Minimum Maximum

2800psi
29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

1 49 74 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
1 42 61 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
1 37 54 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
1
1 1 91 135
1 1 86 128
1 1
1 1 79 115
1 1
1 1
1 1 1 128 189
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1

2950psi Resevoir Pressure

GYA01 GYA02 GYA04 GYA05

Minimum Rate (50 bar) 46 39 34

Maximum Rate (115bar) 72 59 52
Minimum Maximum 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

1 45 72 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
1 39 59 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

2950psi
1 34 52 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
1
1 1 85 131
1 1 80 124
1 1
1 1 73 111
1 1
1 1
1 1 1 119 183
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1

3100psi Resevoir Pressure

GYA01 GYA02 GYA04 GYA05

Minimum Rate (50 bar) 42 36 32

Maximum Rate (115bar) 70 57 50
Minimum Maximum 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

1 42 70 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
1 36 57 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

3100psi
1 32 50 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
1
1 1 78 127
1 1 74 120
1 1
1 1 68 107
1 1
1 1
1 1 1 110 177
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1

3250psi Resevoir Pressure

GYA01 GYA02 GYA04 GYA05

Minimum Rate (50 bar) 38 33 29

Maximum Rate (115bar) 67 55 48
Minimum Maximum 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

3250psi
1 38 67 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
1 33 57 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
1 29 50 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
1
1 1 71 122
1 1 67 115
1 1
1 1 62 103 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
1 1
1 1
1 1 1 100 170
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1

3400psi Resevoir Pressure

GYA01 GYA02 GYA04 GYA05

Minimum Rate (50 bar) 33 29 25

Maximum Rate (115bar) 63 53 46
Minimum Maximum 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

1 33 63 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
1 29 53 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

3400psi
1 25 46 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
1
1 1 62 116 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
1 1 58 109 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
1 1
1 1 54 99 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
1 1
1 1
1 1 1 87 162
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1

Figure 8-1: Organ Pipe for Goldeneye project.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 122
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Number of Wells

A single well will not be able to inject from the minimum to the maximum CO2 injection rate for the
duration of the project. This is due to the limited injection envelope per well and the increase in
reservoir pressure with injected CO2.
The range of injection from the minimum to the maximum of the capture plant at the predicted
reservoir pressure evolution can theoretically be achieved with only two wells. A small well might
likely be injecting during the initial years of the project when the reservoir pressure is relatively low. A
big well will likely be used when the reservoir pressure exceeds 2950psia [203bara].
In case of unforeseen problems in a particular injector well, it is proposed to complete an additional
or back-up well as a CO2 injector to the number of wells required to cover the injection range. As
such, at least three wells are required to be completed as injectors (observed in the “Organ Pipe”).

8.2 Monitoring well

The monitoring well (GYA-03) is selected considering the MMV requirements of the project. The
main objective of the well is to monitor reservoir pressure and monitor the CO2 breakthrough in the
well in order to calibrate models.
The project could choose to reduce the number of wells recompleted by one, using the monitoring
well as a late life backup. This is challenging from a monitoring perspective as it is estimated that the
CO2 breakthrough will take place in the monitoring well at around 10Mt of injection, near the end of
injection.
The completion of the monitoring well will be similar to the injector wells. For the identification of
the CO2 breakthrough additional downhole gauges will be included (different in density between
water and CO2).

8.3 Fifth well

If the project chose to re-complete only four wells the utilisation of the fifth well would have to be
addressed. The fifth well will be handed over to the storage license as part of the sale and purchase
agreement of the assets from the current production license.
This fifth well cannot be left under the current condition for the duration of the Peterhead CCS
project due to the risk of failure. In addition the industry is moving away from long term suspension:
The Oil & Gas UK well suspension and abandonment guidelines July 2012, and the Internal
Shell suspension guidelines do not determine the maximum amount of time that the well can
be suspended. Steer from the Well Integrity TA2 in the U.K. indicates that the industry in
general and DECC (the regulator) are moving towards the reduction of suspended wells in
the near future. It is likely that new guidelines will suggest a maximum time that the well can
be left suspended. This will limit the ability in Peterhead CCS to leave the wells with the
current suspension.
There are therefore only two options for the additional well: re-completion as injector/monitor; or
abandonment.
It is preferred to re-complete the well as injector/monitor instead of abandoning for the following
reasons:
• Increases the flexibility of the wells to be able to inject at varying CO2 rates from the capture
plant
• Increases the resilience of the whole system to external influences – such as nearby injection by
a third party
Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 123
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Other Production Technology Aspects

• Mitigates against possible well failure.

• Improve reservoir monitoring. The well can be used to assess the effects of the CO2 injection
with respect to the development of the reservoir pressure and the saturation changes in
different parts of the reservoir.
• The ability to show conformance between the predicted and actual CO2 movement within the
reservoir is increased by using the backup high rate well for monitoring early in the life of the
store. This might reduce the time between site closure and transfer of responsibility as per the EU
directive on CCS.
• While expansion potential is out of scope for the project – retaining all injection wells does
increase the ability of the platform to accommodate increased injection rates in the future.
As part of the drilling programme, it will be important to determine the value of each well should
side-tracking be required owing to work over challenges. This will allow the drilling team to
determine the walk away point from any well.
All wells will need to be abandoned at the end of the useful life of the platform.

9 Other Production Technology Aspects

9.1 Maximum Bottom Hole Injection Pressure
In an isothermal injection case the maximum bottom hole injection pressure corresponds to the
minimum stress at the primary seal including a safety margin. The injection pressure must not exceed
5860psia @ bottom hole under isothermal conditions with no safety factor (lowest recorded
minimum gradient at the Goldeneye area).
Injecting a cold fluid will change the minimum stress condition around the wellbore.
The section [Link] of the report (PCCS-05-PT-ZP-9025-00004 Geomechanics Report, 2014),
presents 2D simulations of thermo-elastic stresses applicable to the cold injection of CO2 in the
Goldeneye reservoir near the injection point. The study showed that the difference in major and
minor principal stress was greatly reduced in the cooled region around the fracture owing to the large
reduction in the major principal stress parallel to the fracture.
Considering the difference in temperature between the injected CO2 and the reservoir temperature
then the maximum injection pressure should not exceed 4860psia (33.5 MPa, 335bara) with no safety
factor. Considering a safety factor of 90% then the maximum bottom hole injection pressure should
not exceed 4370psia [301bara] unless a new risk assessment is performed.

9.2 Design Conditions - CITHP

The CITHP will depend on the reservoir pressure (or downhole pressure) and the fluid inside the
tubing. Two extreme cases exist: CO2 filling the well and CH4 filling the well.
The wells will be designed to accommodate water/CO2/gas for corrosion purposes and wellhead
pressures related to hydrocarbon gas filling the tubing.

9.2.1 CITHP for CO2 and CH4 filled tubing

For a CO2 filled well, the CITHP is relatively low of approximately 50bara at reservoir pressures at
the end of the 10 million tonnes injection of 3500psia [241bara]. See Figure 9-1 below.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 124
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Other Production Technology Aspects

CITHP vs Preservoir
(Geothermal Gradient)
70

60

50
CITHP, bar

40

30

20

10

0
2000 30002500 3500 4000
Preservoir, psi
Figure 9-1: CITHP for a well filled with CO2

In case that the well is full of hydrocarbon gas then the CITHP at the same 3500psia reservoir
pressure would be in the order of 205bara (assuming methane filling the tubing), see Figure 9-2

GYA01 - Closed in Profile

CH4 in the tubing
250

200

150
CITHP, bar

100

50

0
2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500 3700 3900
Bottom Hole Pressure, psi
CITHP

below.
Figure 9-2: CITHP for a well with Methane in the tubing

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 125
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Other Production Technology Aspects

9.2.2 Scenarios
The tubing will be left after the commissioning/workover operations with water/brine and probably
a N2 cushion in the top of the well. The reservoir currently has gas and water and the reservoir
pressure is increasing with time even without CO2 injection due to the aquifer strength. The reservoir
pressure will increase faster with CO2 injection.
CO2 will be injected into the wells displacing initially the water/N2 from the well. If CO2 continues
for long time in the same well then the expected fluid inside the well is CO2 when the well is closed
in.
However, if the well is left closed-in for a long time and because of the increase of reservoir pressure
(by the aquifer or CO2 injection in another well), fluid segregation in the reservoir (gas moving to the
top of the reservoir) and a potential arrival of a hydrocarbon bank displaced by the CO2 plume
(injected into another well) then the CO2 inside the tubing can be displaced to hydrocarbon. Under
this scenario the wellhead pressure will increase to the hydrocarbon case.
The monitoring well will be left closed-in for a long time. It is likely in this well to have a scenario
where the water left in the well after the workover is displaced by hydrocarbon gas considering the
increase in reservoir pressure (with / without CO2 injection), segregation of fluids in the tubing and
the arrival of a hydrocarbon bank into the well before the CO2 breakthrough. CO2 breakthrough will
take place in the monitoring well at around 10 Mt of injection, near the end of injection.
If the wells are filled with hydrocarbon gas then CO2 cannot be injected in the wells due to the higher
CITHP than the available CO2 pressure.

9.3 Packer Fluid

The fluid left in the A annulus for Goldeneye Wells should have the following characteristics:
• Avoid/minimize Corrosion in tubing/production casing. Compatibility with tubing and casing.
• The rheological properties of the packer fluid should be stable during injection period. It
should have a low freezing point to cope with the well transient condition and should be
stable in terms of phase envelope.
• The fluid should be solid free.
• Have the ability to monitor the annuli pressure over time. Positive pressure at all times.
Alternatives are (i) base oil designed for low temperature with a Nitrogen cushion which manages the
thermal expansion of the base oil or (ii) water based systems with freezing point depressor (e.g.
methanol) or special brine or (iii) water based brine in the bottom of the well with N2 cushion in the
top, to manage thermal expansion.
Annular fluids will be selected during FEED.

9.4 Well abandonment

Abandonment concepts and their reasoning have been described in the document (PCCS-05-PT-
ZW-7180-00001 Abandonment Concept for Injection Wells, 2014).
In summary:
• Permeable zones requiring abandonment:

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 126
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Other Production Technology Aspects

Captain sandstone: Formation receiving the CO2. It will contain hydrocarbon, water and CO2.
Hydrostatically pressured (~3500-3800 psia [~241-262bara]) or slightly depleted after CO2
injection. The primary seal for the Captain reservoir is the Rodby shales/Hidra marl. These
formations are impermeable, strong and about 500ft [152m] in vertical thickness. In Goldeneye,
these formations are positioned right above the Captain reservoir.
Tertiary sandstones (Balmoral, Dornoch): water bearing, hydrostatically pressured. However, in
case of CO2 leakage into this formation then CO2 will need to be considered for the
abandonment. The Balmoral sandstone formation is contained by the Lista shales.
• Number of cement plugs
Over-pressured permeable zones (both water and hydrocarbon bearing) and normally
pressured permeable zones containing hydrocarbons require a minimum of two Permanent
(abandonment) barriers between the permeable zone and seabed/surface.
Normally pressured permeable zones containing water require one Permanent (abandonment)
barrier between the permeable zone and seabed/surface.
• Cement
The reference case for cement plugs is Portland cement. The type of cement to be used will be
reviewed later and may include CO2 resistant additives. Some alternatives to cement (like resins,
etc.) may be considered as well. This will be influenced by the best practices and standards of
the day at the time of abandoning.
• Geometry of cement plug
Two options exist for the primary seal: rock to rock cement plug or internal and external with
pipe.
The reference case for cement plugs is Portland cement. The type of cement to be used will be
reviewed later and may include CO2 resistant additives. Some alternatives to cement (like resins,
etc.) may be considered as well. This will be influenced by the best practices and standards of
the day at the time of abandoning.

Different options exist for abandoning the injection wells. The reservoir abandonment will be
selected close to the time of abandonment.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 127
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT References

References
Baklid, Alan. 1996. SPE 36600, Sleipner Vest CO2 disposal, CO2 injection into a shallow underground aquifer.
1996.
Bellarby, Jonathan. 2009. Well Completion Design. s.l. : Elseiver, 2009. 978-0-444-53210-7.
Dendy Sloan, Jnr. 2000. Hydrate Engineering. Monograph Volume 21 SPE. 2000.
Haigh, M.J. 2009. SPE 124274 Well Design Differentiators for CO2 Sequestration in Depleted Reservoirs.
2009.
Hansen, Olav. 2013. Snohvit: The history of injecting and storing 1 Mt Co2 in the fluvia Tuaben formation.
2013. Paper presented in the GHGT-11.
Paterson, Lincoln. 2008. SPE115946 Numerical Modeling of Pressure and Temperature Profiles including
phase trasnitions in Carbon Dioxide wells. 2008.
PCCS-05-PT-ZG-05800-00004 Static Model (Field) Report. 2013. Peterhead Goldeneye CCS. 2013.
Key Knowledge Deliverable 11.108.
PCCS-05-PT-ZP-9025-00004 Geomechanics Report. 2014. Peterhead Goldeneye CCS. 2014. Key
Knowledge Deliverable 11.115.
PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00001 Abandonment Concept for Injection Wells. 2014. Peterhead
Goldeneye CCS. 2014. Key Knowledge Deliverable 11.100.
PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00002 Conceptual Completion & Well Intervention Design Report.
2014. Peterhead CCS Project. 2014. Key Knowledge Deliverable 11.093.
PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 Well Completion Concept Select Report. 2014. Petehead CCS.
2014. Key Knowledge Deliverable 11.097.
PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00004 Well Integrity Assessment Report. 2014. Peterhead Goldeneye CCS.
2014. Key Knowledge Deliverable 11.113.
Skinner, Lee. 2003. CO2 blowouts: An emerging problem. s.l. : World Oil Magazine, January 2003, 2003.
TNO-RPT-DTS-2011-00573. 2010. CCS Vibration Study: An assessment for Shell UK Ltd on tubing
vibrations due to high velocity fluid CO2 injection. 2010.
UKCCS-KT-S7.18-Shell-001 Temperature and Pressure Modelling (for CO2 injection wells -
Goldeneye CCS). 2010. ScottishPower Consortium UKCCS Demostration Project. 2010.
UKCCS-KT-S7.18-Shell-002 Injectivity Analysis Preparation. 2010. Scottish Power Consortium
UKCCS Demostration Competition. 2010.
UKCCS-KT-S7.18-Shell-003 Flowline Well Interactions. 2011. Scottish Consortium UKCCS
Demonstration Comnpetition. 2011.
UKCCS-KT-S7.18-Shell-005. 2011. Scottish Consortium UKCCS Demostration Competition. 2011.
UKCCS-KT-S7.19-Shell-001 - Wells Fluid Assurance & Technical Design. 2010. Scottish Power
Consortium UK CCS Competition. 2010.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 128
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS [Link] of new wells: CO2 expansion in the tubing

[Link] of new wells: CO2 expansion in the tubing

New wells are not the reference case for the project. This section is included for completeness of the
report.

A1.1. Reasons for considering new wells

The objective of a new well would be to avoid the limitations in terms of minimum rate or to
overcome design issues in the existing wells created by low temperatures.

A1.1.1. Injection Flexibility and Temperature rating

The objective of a new well would be to avoid the limitations in terms of minimum rate. As a
consequence, the well should be able to withstand to extreme low temperatures in the top part of the
well (~2600ft [792.5m] in sub-zero temperatures, see Figure 4-6) during the injection time. This will
bring new challenges to the well design in terms of temperature rating.
There is no point in drilling new wells and managing the CO2 arrival rates to the platform using the
selected friction concept as there are enough existing wells which can accommodate the arrival rates
to the platform and it is cheaper to perform workovers compared to drilling new wells.

A.1.1.2. Leak scenarios

As mentioned in section 4.6, a partial loss of containment might occur with possibility of low
temperatures. A metal temperature of -55°C is proposed to be used. Well Materials in contact with
the CO2 as the Xmas tree and top part of the tubing (above the SSSV) can be changed to be
compatible with this low temperature during the workover. However, other elements as the casing
hanger and the wellhead compact spool system which are rated to -18°C cannot practically be
changed during the workover. However, these elements are not in contact with the CO2.
The influence of a leak to atmospheric conditions will be calculated during early FEED in order to
determine the extent of the lower temperature in the wellhead / Xmas tree system.
In case that the wellhead system temperature in a leak scenario is above the current rating of the
system then no new wells are required (reference case). The consequence of having lower
temperatures than the temperature wellhead system then new wells might be required.
Available information on well design from a CCS project in Canada and CO2 EOR projects in
onshore America do not consider the resultant low temperature in case of a well leak. For example in
the Canadian project, the low temperature rating is related to the winter ambient temperatures (~-
43°C minimum) and not the leak resultant temperature.
In a fully uncontrolled release scenario (blowout) (section 4.7) the recovery mechanism is related to
bring the well back under control as the hazards generated during this scenario (cold CO2, low
visibility) would likely prevent access to the well. Even if attempts are being made to kill a well from
surface, a relief well will also be drilled. Under this scenario, the well cannot be used again for
injection or monitoring purposes.

A1.2. Well Design for New Wells

The low temperatures (-25°C) created by the expansion of the CO2 during injection or to be able to
handle uncontrolled CO2 releases will create issues in terms of well design. The following aspects
have been identified as the main well design considerations regarding new platform wells.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 129
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS [Link] of new wells: CO2 expansion in the tubing

A1.2.1 Drilling
No changes are expected in the undepleted overburden in the case of drilling of new wells. Learning
from the previous Goldeneye wells should be included.
The degree of depletion in the reservoir will depend on the time that the well is drilled. Drilling of
the undepleted overburden with the depleted Captain needs to be properly managed to avoid well
drilling issues and impairment to the formation.
The Rodby shale should ideally be isolated from any sand control devices to avoid high skin in the
wells as observed in the existing platform wells. This needs to be evaluated with respect to the
position of the casing points and well control.
In case of drilling deeper of the Captain D then reservoir pressure uncertainty should be considered
in the drilling design. This will impact the selection of the lower completion.

A.1.2.2. Well Materials

A1.2.2.1 Carbon Steel

Normal CS (''LT0'') is adequate down to 0°C. Any carbon steel tubular used in the top part of the
well needs to be qualified/certified for extreme low temperatures. Adequate toughness would be
required.

A1.2.2.2. Production Casing or Liner Material

Any production casing or liner material to be in contact with the CO2 should be defined with a
material compatible with CO2, water and possibly O2. This might relax the Oxygen specification in
the project.

A1.2.2.3. Tubing and Lower Completion Material

The material of the tubing and the lower completion should be optimised considering the lifecycle of
the project. For example, the tubing and the lower completion in contact with CO2 can be changed to
a material (e.g. 25Cr) where there is adequate management of low temperatures and CO2 corrosion
without the restriction of the limiting the oxygen content in the CO2. Material selection in this type of
wells can relax the specification of the O2 in CO2.

A1.2.3. Conductor and Casings

The conductor and the surface casing can be made of Carbon Steel with adequate toughness in the
top of the well to resist the continuous low temperature.
Depths for setting the conductor and the casing will be similar to the current wells.
The production casing can be made of carbon steel above the packer and CRA below the packer to
provide extra corrosion protection. Ideally the production casing should be set immediately above the
reservoir to avoid impairment issues related to the lower completion if sand control is required. It can
also be considered to use a 13Cr production casing above the packer to avoid corrosion of the
production casing in the unlikely case of a tubing leak and a water based completion fluid.

A1.2.4. Cement
The primary cement sheath of the production casing is a barrier to contain the CO2 downhole in the
well. Portland cement (installed in the existing wells) is suited for CO2 conditions. Choice between
the use of Portland cement and CO2 resistant cement should be evaluated during considering the
advantages, disadvantages of both system and the operational experience worldwide.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 130
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS [Link] of new wells: CO2 expansion in the tubing

A1.2.5. Surface Trees and Wellheads

The new Goldeneye Xmas tree and wellhead should be suited to CO2 injection for the specified
steady state operating parameters. The current Xmas tree class “U” is qualified for temperatures
above -18°C. The lowest qualified temperature for Xmas trees is -60°C (class “K”).

A1.2.6. Upper Completion

All completion equipment should have metallurgy compatible with CO2 and the low temperatures in
the top of the well; it should have working pressures in excess of the expected final well pressures.
A preliminary evaluation indicated that 5.5” [140mm] or 7” [178mm] tubing size can be used for this
application. By installing this large tubing and being able to manage low temperatures in the new wells
will increase the flexibility in terms of managing arrival rates to the platform. The wells would be able
to take daily variations of the capture plant CO2 profile.
The Goldeneye SSSV is currently set at ~2,500 ft [762m]. The current depth of the valve was selected
according to the hydrate deposition curve in the hydrocarbon phase, a situation which cannot be
disregarded for CO2 injection, as the presence of hydrocarbon in the well is likely (wells will be
completed initially in the hydrocarbon leg and a hydrocarbon bank displaced by the CO2 can be
formed).
The minimum installation depth for the SSSV will also depend on the depth where the CO2 is in
dense phase under injection conditions (avoid important cooling by reduction pressure changes).
Also, the temperature rating of the valve should be considered. The temperature rating of the SSSV is
-7°C. Under two phase injection this temperature is reached at a depth of around 640m [2100ft] at
2500psia [172.4bara] reservoir pressure.
In the new wells the packer should ideally be placed across the Rodby formation and in CRA in
casing (at least below the packer). This will provide extra protection for CO2 corrosion.
The completion can feature a permanent temperature and pressure monitoring gauges. There will also
be a distributed temperature sensor strapped outside of the tubing - a fibre optic system taking
temperatures every one metre in the well. In the event of a tubing leak, the distributed temperature
readings would facilitate the location of the leak.

A.1.2.7. Lower Completion

Drilling new platform wells will increase the degree of freedom with respect to the completion
strategy across the sand face. There are two different types: cased/perforated and sand control.
During the previous phase of the project (Longannet) it was recommended to install sand control
even in the new wells, however, this will require further evaluation/confirmation.
A sand control completion is currently the preferred option for new wells based on the Longannet
study. Current wells are gravel packed using the alternate path systems. Gravel packing in depleted
reservoir might be a challenge. The option to install Stand Alone Screens (SAS) is open.
Another option is for case and perforate completion. A rat hole is required and operational control is
required during the closing-in operation of the well (to avoid pressure surges in the formation which
might exacerbate the sand production). Special sand production studies will be required to ensure the
long term integrity of this completion.
As CO2 will be injected into the well it is imperative not to block or damage the lower completion.
Plugging of the formation/lower completion can be avoided by filtration of the injected CO2. This is
considered feasible for the platform option.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 131
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS [Link] of new wells: CO2 expansion in the tubing

A1.2.8 Packer fluid

With the expected low temperatures, there is no option to use simple water based fluids due to the
higher freezing point of the brines. Alternatives are (i) base oil designed for low temperature with a
Nitrogen cushion which manages the thermal expansion of the base oil or (ii) water based systems
with freezing point depressor (e.g. methanol) or (iii) water based brine in the bottom of the well with
N2 cushion in the top, to manage thermal expansion.

A1.2.9. B-C annulus fluids

Any fluid left in these annuli should be resistant to low temperatures and it should be able to manage
the thermal expansion of the thermal cycles. Potentially, a N2 cushion can be placed depending on the
top of the cement achieved during the casing cementations.
C- annulus can be left open as in the existing Goldeneye wells.

A1.2.10 Currently unknown elements

The operation of the well at sub-zero temperatures during the injection time will bring some
challenges, which have not been solved currently as:
• Freezing of sections adjacent to the well.
• Interstitial water in the shallow formations below the seabed can be frozen during the injection
time; however during the closed-in period, this water will melt. It is unknown if these
operational cycles will cause problem to the well integrity.
• For platform wells, the frozen riser might have an impact on the resultant temperature of other
wells.

A1.3. Comparison of existing Workover wells versus New Platform wells

The main benefit in drilling this type of new wells is the elimination of the required minimum rate, as
the wells by design should be capable of taking low temperatures. This will increase the flexibility in
terms of managing arrival rates to the platform. The wells would be able to take daily variations of
the capture plant CO2 profile. Operator intervention would also be minimised.
Currently there is not a justification to drill new wells. Well aspects related to low temperature in the
existing wells during uncontrolled CO2 releases need to be evaluated to validate this decision.

Table A0-1: Workover with the current friction concept and drilling new wells. Advantages and
disadvantages.
Existing Platform Wells New Platform Wells
Workover with single tapered tubing (for two phase injectors)
(+) Green project. Re-use of the existing (-) More penetrations in the overburden.
General
infrastructure. Increases the risk of a leak.
(+) Reduced uncertainty. Wells (+) Might increase flexibility in injection
completed in the top part of the Captain point.
D. (-) Low temperature in the top of the well
(down to -2600ft at low reservoir pressure)
and the Xmas tree area.

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 132
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS [Link] of new wells: CO2 expansion in the tubing

(+) High level of maturity. Investigated (-) Low level of maturity.

Well Design /
for the Longannet - Goldeneye CCS Identified fundamental well issues which
Construction
case. Minor issues pending (e.g. A- require further work.
annulus fluid). (+) Extra well protection by installing CRA
(-) Requires special Jack-Up rig in the casing below the packer
Design based on friction form small (-) Requires special jack-up rig
diameter tubing.

(-) limitations of -18°C in the wellhead (+) wellhead / Xmas tree can be installed to
Integrity
system -60°C
(+) Xmas tree can be changed to -60°C

(+) Known hydrocarbon production (-) More uncertainty in injectivity. High skin
Injectivity
properties. might be expected due to drilling in
Filtration required to ensure long term depleted reservoir.
injectivity
(+) Easy access to the wells (+) Easy access to the wells.
MMV / WRM
(+) Ability to design the well for the
instrumentation to be closer to the
formation than existing wells.
(-) Any injector well will have a (+) No minimum rate. Variable flow might
Well Operations
minimum rate dictated by the CO2 be accommodated in a single well.
phase management.
(+) Management of CO2 rate optimized
with the number of wells
5 wells to be worked over. (2 required Requires the abandonment of the existing
Well Requirement
for injection, 1 back up, 1 monitoring wells + the cost of drilling at least 2 wells.
well and 1 conversion to injector

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 133
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Glossary of terms

10 Glossary of terms
Term Definition
′′ Inches [1′′ = 25.4mm]
13Cr 13 percent chrome content metallurgy
1D, 2D, 3D One, two, three Dimensional
'A' annulus Annulus between the production tubing and production casing string
Annuli The space between adjacent strings of tubing or casing
'B' annulus Annulus between the production casing and intermediate casing string
bara Standard measure of pressure [1bara = 100,000Pa]
Barrier Barriers prevent of mitigate the probability of each threat or prevent, limit the extent of, or
provide immediate recovery from the Consequences
Base oil Oil with carcinogenic elements removed
BHP Bottom Hole Pressure
BHP&T Bottom Hole Pressure and Temperature
Cap rock The shale layers above a reservoir that provide geological isolation to upward migration
and provide the primary seal
CBIL Circumferential Borehole Imaging Log
CBL Cement Bond Logging
CCP Carbon Capture Plant
CCS Carbon, Capture and Storage
CDT Conductivity Depth and Temperature
Cement Injection of cement to isolate a leak in the cement behind casing
squeeze
CITHP Closed in Tubing Head Pressure
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
Completion The conduit for production or injection between the surface facilities and the reservoir.
The upper completion comprises the tubing and packer, etc. The reservoir completion is
the screens, etc., across the reservoir interval.
CoP Cessation of Production
CRA Corrosion Resistant Alloys
CTU Coil Tubing Unit
DAS Distributed Acoustic Sensing
DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change
DIANA Software package from TNO that solves, with the aid of FEM, problems relating to design
and assessment activities in concrete, steel, soil, rock and soil-structure.
DP Differential Pressure

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 134
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Glossary of terms

DTS Distributed Temperature System

ECP External Casing Packer
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
EU European Union
FEED Front End Engineering Design
Define phase
FEM Finite Element Modelling
FFM Full Field Model
FFSM Full Field Simulation Model
FIV Formation Isolation Valve
FWHP Flowing WellHead Pressure
FWHT Flowing WellHead Temperature
FWL Free Water Level
GPS Global Positioning System
GR Gamma Ray
Hazard The potential to cause harm, including ill health and injury, damage to property, products
or the environment; production losses or increased liabilities. In this report: buoyant CO2
HAZID Hazard Identification Study
HAZOP Hazard and Operability Study
HSE Health, Safety and Environment
HSSE Health, Safety, Security, and Environment
ID Inside Diameter
ISE Inflatable Setting Element
JT Joule-Thomson effect
KNMI The Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Leakage Migrated CO2 out of the containment that leaks into the biosphere (shallow subsurface
and atmosphere). In contrast to seepage, leakage involves medium fluxes and medium
concentrations
Leakage Group of threats that form cause-consequence relations leading to a certain route of
scenario migration and eventually leakage into the biosphere
LOP Leak-off pressure
LOT Leak-off Test
LT Limit Test
LTMG Long Term Memory Gauge
LWD Logging Whilst Drilling
m Meters

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 135
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Glossary of terms

MBES Multi Bean Echo Sounder

Mcf Thousand cubic feet at reservoir conditions
MEG Mono Ethyl Glycol
MFP Manifold Pressure
MFT Manifold Temperature
Migration Escaped CO2 out of the containment into the subsurface where it moves or trapped in
other layers
mm Millimeters
MMscfd Million Standard Cubit Cubic Feet
MMV Measurement, Monitoring and Verification
MoRes Shell proprietary software used for simulating fluid flow in a reservoir
Mscf Thousand cubic feet at standard conditions
NUI Normally Unattended Installation
OD Outside Diameter
Open shoe An annulus that is open to a formation
OWC Oil Water Contact
Packer A device that both anchors and seals the tubing to the production casing. The term
production packer is still used even when the well is in injection mode
PBR Polished Bore Receptacle
PDG Permanent downhole gauge
PEC Pulsed Eddy Currency
pH measure of the acidity or basicity of an aqueous solution
Production The casing providing the secondary wellbore barrier during production or injection (valid
casing term even in injection mode)
psia Pounds per square inch [1psia = 0.06895bara]
PVT Pressure, Volume, Temperature
PWRI-frac Shell proprietary software used for modelling the effect of fluid injection on fracture
development and growth
Relief well A well constructedwell-constructed specifically to intersect the wellbore or reservoir of a
blowing out well
Risk Risk management is the human activity, which integrates recognition of risk, risk
management assessment, developing strategies to manage it, and mitigation of risk using managerial
resources
RST Reservoir Saturation Tool
RTCI Real Time Compact Imager
S13Cr Super 13 percent chrome content metallurgy

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 136
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Glossary of terms

Seepage Migrated CO2 out of the containment that seeps into the biosphere (shallow subsurface
and atmosphere). In contrast to leakage, seepage involves low fluxes and low
concentrations
SEM Scanning Electron Microscope
Sh Minimum Horizontal Stress
SITs Non-flow wetted tests
SRM Static Reservoir Model
SSSV SubSurface Safety Valve
Straddle A device comprising two packers and tubing designed to isolate leaking tubing or casing
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
Threat Means by which a hazard can be released and thus cause the top event
TNO Netherlands organization for applied scientific research
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek
TOC Top of Cement
Top Event Incident that occurs when a hazard is realized, or the release of the hazard. The Top Event
is typically some type of loss of control or release of energy. If this event can be prevented
there can be no effect or consequence from the hazard
TVD True Vertical Depth
TVDss True Vertical Depth sub-sea
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
UGS Underground Gas Storage
UKCS United Kingdom Continental Shelf

Under ream To mill out a section of casing / cement by the use of an expandable milling bit
USIT Ultrasonic Imaging Tool
VIT Vacuum Insulated Tubing
VOI Value of Information
WFS Well Functional Specification
WITs Well Integrity Tests
XLOT Extended Leak Off Test

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 137
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.
 PETERHEAD CCS PROJECT Glossary of Unit Conversions

11 Glossary of Unit Conversions

For the provision of the SI metric conversion factor as applicable to all imperial units in the Key
Knowledge Deliverable.

Table 11-1: Unit Conversion Table

Function Unit - Imperial to SI Metric conversion Factor
Length 1 Foot = 0.3048m Metres
1 Inch = 2.54cm Centimetres
1 Inch = 25.4mm millimetres
Pressure 1 Psia = 0.0690 Bara
Temperature 1°F Fahrenheit = -17.22°C Centigrade
Weight 1lb Pound = 0.45kg Kilogram

Doc. no.: PCCS-05-PT-ZW-7180-00003 – Well Completion Concept Select Report Revision: K02 138
The information contained on this page is subject to the disclosure on the front page of this document.