Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
=-
(3.1)
where =superficial velocity, q =volumetric flow rate, A =cross sectional area,
k =permeability; =viscosity;
=pressure gradient.
With other properties remaining constant, an increase in flow rate leads to an increase in
fluid flow velocity, thus an increase in fluid production.
In the Base Case Scenario, the WCONPROD keyword under the SCHEDULE section is set
to an oil flow rate of 5,000 stb/day. In a bid to obtain the optimal production flow rate, 2
methods were applied. These were:
Trial and error method; by altering the flow rate constraint under the WCONPROD
keyword of the SCHEDULE section of the simulation data file till ideal well oil
production rates and total were achieved.
Setting the production constraint as a Bottom Hole Pressure (BHP) of 14.7 psi, and a
default oil rate under the WCONPROD keyword of the SCHEDULE section of the
simulation data file, till optimal well oil production rates and total were achieved.
(The 14.7psi BHP value is impossible in practical, but is only used for comparison
purposes.)
These steps are detailed in Appendix B1 and B2 respectively.
3.5.2 Well Location
In determining the best location for a wellbore in a reservoir prospect, multiple factors have
to be considered. These factors are cogitated from the geology, reservoir, drilling and
[ ID: 51124915 ]
30
production points of view; and then results from numerous tests and investigations are
compiled to determine the most ideal location, economically and lithologically.
Paramount amongst these factors are the permeability and saturation of the reservoir around
the wellbore. Using the Schlumberger Eclipse Floviz tool, it can be seen that the Base case
scenario well is a horizontal well completed in layer 9. To test for ideal well location,
modifications were made to the COMPDAT keyword of the SCHEDULE section. These
syntax can be viewed in Appendix C.
3.5.3 Well Inclination
After the best location for well placement has been determined, the next step is to determine
the inclination with which the well will be completed. The angle of wellbore completion has
a sizeable effect on the well production rates and total. As can be seen in the COMPDAT
keyword of the SCHEDULE section of the Base Case Scenario (Appendix A), the well is
completed horizontally. To test if optimal inclination was adopted, modifications were made
to the SCHEDULE section ,COMPDAT keyword to complete the well with vertical and
deviated connections.
In testing for vertical and deviated flow, the concept of "Commingled Production" was also
put to the test. Based on the assumption that the various production layers of the reservoir are
compatible, and the hurdles of Government legislations have been cleared, the principle of
concurrent production of hydrocarbon fluids from multiple zones via a single production
conduit is applied to the oil field. These syntax can be viewed in Appendix D1 and D2.
3.5.4 Well Contact area
In a bid to contact a larger reservoir area from a single wellbore, the borehole is kept in the
reservoir over a longer distance, thus optimizing well productivity and drainage i.e.:
Extended Reach Drilling (ERD) and Maximum Reservoir Contact (MRC) are applied. ERD
and MRC increase the field production total and rates.
[ ID: 51124915 ]
31
The Base Case Scenario producer well had a horizontal distance of 2,296 ft i.e.: X gridblocks
30 to 37 (COMPDAT keyword in Appendix A). In applying Intelligent Well technology, the
wellbore horizontal distance was amplified by increasing the horizontal completion in the
COMPDAT keyword, as seen in Appendix E.
3.5.5 Multilateral Well
The propelling force behind multilateral wells is the improved exposure to productive
reservoir formation by multiple lateral wells, resulting in higher production rates.
The Base Case Scenario has a single production and injection wells (SCHEDULE section,
WELSPECS keyword of Appendix A). IWC is applied by increasing the number of lateral
wells to produce from multiple optimal layers. In addition, a 2nd water injection well is
added to the model based on considerations for increased flood efficiency of the added layers
(53). These syntax are detailed in WELSPECS and COMPDAT keywords of Appendix F.
3.5.6 Inflow Control Devices
Inflow control devices are applied across wells and intervals to regulate flow, optimizing
hydrocarbon production and minimizing water production.
Modeling for Open/Shut ICDs with the Schlumberger Eclipse 100 simulator was achieved by
applying the CECON keyword in the SCHEDULE section to set a water cut limit of 90%, at
which the errant connections are automatically SHUT (Appendix G).
3.5.7 Effects of Reservoir Variability
Over the decades, there have been astounding improvements in technology, spanning
exploration, drilling, completions and production techniques. However, uncertainties remain
inevitable and are to be expected and factored into the planning process of every oil field.
[ ID: 51124915 ]
32
In a bid to satisfy unavoidable variations in reservoir properties, 3 factors are considered.
These are: a) Homogeneous reservoir b) Thief zones c) Minor Isolated zones. The impact on
recovery of Thief zones and Minor Isolated layers are modeled and tested.
3.5.7.1 Reservoir Homogeneity
A homogeneous reservoir refers to a reservoir with isotropic properties, that do not vary with
change in direction (i.e.: horizontally and vertically) (56).
3.5.7.2 Thief Zones
Thief zones are defined as portions of the reservoir formation, which are of limited thickness
but relatively high permeability (57). This results in rapid channeling, fluid loss, and
bypassing. However, these can be remedied by IWC, which aids in detecting the errant zones
and activates the ICDs to regulate or shut down production from these zones.
Thief zones are included in the reservoir models for horizontal and deviated wells by using
the MULTIPLY keyword in the GRID section (APPENDIX H1). Their effects on field
production total are duly investigated.
3.5.7.3 Minor Isolated Zones
Isolated zones are regions of relatively low permeability (as low as zero) which act as seals
(permeability barriers), preventing free flow of petroleum fluid through the reservoir
formation and into the wellbore (56). These isolated zones are usually formed during the
secondary stages of porosity due to excessive cementation. The effect of Isolated zones can
also be remedied by IWC application, detecting the errant zones and activating the ICDs to
regulate or shut down production from these zones.
Isolated zones are included in the reservoir models for horizontal and deviated wells using
the MULTIPLY keyword in the GRID section, by multiplying specified zones with "0" to
simulate their occurrence (APPENDIX H2). Their effects on field production total are duly
investigated.
[ ID: 51124915 ]
33
3.5.8 Economic Evaluation
Optimal hydrocarbon exploitation is 3 pronged. It entails "maximum recovery", which must
be carried out "safely" and "profitably". An innovative, ingenious technology that ensures 1
or 2 of the above mentioned targets are satisfied, but tends to neglect the others, would not be
considered adoptable. Hydrocarbon exploitation is a business for virtually every party
involved, and like all businesses, its main aim is to make profit.
The economics of adopting IWC technology on the field are thoroughly investigated, to
determine the viability of implementing the technology. Basic economic analysis tools and
formula are applied (58) to generate comprehensive results and plots consisting of CAPEX,
OPEX, Revenue, Payback time, and NPV (Net Present Value).
The NPV budgets for the deterministic cash surplus that is generated by anticipated future
events (59). CAPEX refers to the front end cost that arise at project inception (60).i.e.:
drilling costs, completion costs etc. OPEX are expenses necessary for the daily operations on
the field. Revenue is a product of the volume of oil produced and the present oil market
value. Payback time is the time it would take for investment to equal returns. The NPV is the
summation of discounted cash flow.
For the purpose of simplicity, gas revenues are ignored, and the analysis is concentrated on
oil. Comprehensive results and plots are outlined in Appendix I
Some basic formula applied include:
CASH FLOW =REVENUE - (CAPEX+OPEX+ROYALTY+TAX)
TAXABLE INCOME =REVENUE-(OPEX+ROYALTY)
TAX =TAX RATE TAXABLE INCOME
[ ID: 51124915 ]
34
Table 3.3: Field Economics Values
VARIABLE OPEX ($) 0.1 * VOLUME OF WATER PRODUCED
(STB)
FIXED OPEX ($) 20,000,000 PER ANNUM
OIL PRICE ($) 110 (61)
ROYALTY (%) 10
DISCOUNT RATE (%) 10
TAX RATE (%) 20
Table 3.4: Breakdown of Fields CAPEX
BASE CASE SCENARIO UNIT
PARAMETER CAPEX ($)
COST OF OIL WELL
10,000,000 2 20,000,000
COST OF
COMPLETION
2,000,000 2 4,000,000
TOTAL CAPEX
24,000,000
MULTILATERAL WELL
UNIT
PARAMETER
CAPEX ($)
COST OF WELL
10,000,000 6 60,000,000
COST OF
MULTILATERAL
WELL
0.5 * COST OF
WELL
30,000,000
COST OF
COMPLETION
2,000,000 6 12,000,000
TOTAL CAPEX
102,000,000
ICD WELL
UNIT
PARAMETER
CAPEX ($)
COST OF WELL
10,000,000 6 60,000,000
COST OF
MULTILATERAL
WELL
0.5 * COST OF
WELL
30,000,000
[ ID: 51124915 ]
35
COST OF
COMPLETION
2,000,000 6 12,000,000
COST OF ICD
0.3 * COST OF
ICD WELL
COMPLETION
2 1,200,000
COST OF
DOWNHOLE
SENSORS
3,000,000 FOR
EACH
PRODUCTION
WELL
INSTALLATION
4 12,000,000
TOTAL CAPEX
115,200,000
3.5.9 Sensitivity Analysis
The effect of uncertainties in variables e.g.: labor, cost of equipments, raw materials, well
dimensions, hydrocarbon market price, well radius etc can have a major effect on the
evaluation of investments, and the return on investments (62). It is important that the effect
of drastic changes on outcome are appraised and varied while keeping other factors constant,
and a sensitivity analysis is made to show changes in rate of return (63).
Adopting the technique used in (62), the following variations are made:
Table 3.5: Sensitivity Variations
Variable Increase by Reduce by
Well diameter 20% 15%
Oil Price 15% 20%
Skin 400 % 50 %
Water Cut limit 5% 10%
[ ID: 51124915 ]
36
3.5.10 Risk Identification and Reliability
Risks are events that when triggered would cause unwanted consequences to occur (64).
There are numerous possible risks that may occur on a conventional oil and gas production
platform, these risks are further magnified when unconventional IWC technology is adopted.
For the sake of simplicity, the Intelligent Completion related issues are mostly concentrated
on, in this thesis.
In most cases, it is believed that as far as a future event is anticipated, human intervention
can alter the occurrence of this event. Some risks are considered minor (i.e.: easily and
cheaply fixed), while others are major (i.e.: complicated and expensive to remedy). In all
cases, risks should be reduced to a level that is considered ALARP (As Low As Reasonably
Practicable). Common Cause failures (CCFs) or minimal cut sets are major failures that
occur in a critical component; when instigated, they would cause a chain reaction that would
trigger total system failure. CCFs should be avoided at all cost.
Reliability can be defined as the probability that a component or system would operate
adequately at any point of demand, or over a certain period of time; it is the life distribution
of the component.
Risk =Probability * Consequence (3. 2)
Thus, as proven mathematically, the lower the probability or consequence of failure, the
lower the risk (direct proportionality). Since reliability is the opposite of probability of
failure, the task at hand is to improve reliability so as to reduce risk. This is a very important
concept, and is the basis of all efficient design. Although there are multiple techniques for
risk management, the basic principle still follows this sequence of Risk identification and
Mitigation
For risk identification, a concept similar to the HAZID technique is employed, with a
structured set of questions asked about each component of the system, so as to prevent
possible failures. Past experience from literature search is drawn upon, so as to scrutinise the
IWC concept (from design to completion phase) for hazard identification and methods for
eliminating these hazards (65, 66).
[ ID: 51124915 ]
37
Safety Integrity Level (SIL) is the degree of safety requirement; the level of protection
(based on estimated risks of failure) that a system must achieve for a given degree of
reliability (64). These range from SIL 1 to SIL 4, with SIL 1 having the lowest level of
reliability, and SIL 4 with the maximum possible reliability (difficult to attain). These are
applicable to both existing and proposed systems. These concepts are applied in risk
mitigation, to measure increased system reliability.
3.5.11 Proactive Algorithm
A Proactive approach to Intelligent Well technology applies an optimization algorithm to
achieve an optimal ICD configuration, by using real time production data from downhole
sensors in decision making. The aim is to prevent a future undesired event; yield a maximum
hydrocarbon recovery, and a minimum water production without the need for continuous
operator intervention.
The steps taken in making the Chevron Field X "smarter" are combined with downhole
sensors functionalities to propose a proactive flowchart.
[ ID: 51124915 ]
38
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Overview
The results derived from various modifications to the Base Case Scenario field model to
increase its "smartness", thus maximizing oil production and restraining water production
below 90% water cut, are presented in this chapter. The main output focus is on field
production total. The oil outputs are of greater importance than the gas yield, since oil has a
higher market value. Investigations on risks and reliability, economic feasibility, sensitivity
analysis, and the generated proactive algorithm are also presented.
4.2 Base Case Scenario
A summary of the result output that was generated by running the data file of the base case
scenario field model i.e.: No "Intelligent" modifications included (Eclipse syntax in
Appendix A), are presented here.
Figure 4.1: Field Production Rate of Base Case Scenario
[ ID: 51124915 ]
39
Figure 4.2: Field Production Total of Base Case Scenario
Table 4.1: Field Production Outputs of Base Case Scenario
FOPT (MSTB) FWPT (MSTB) FOE FWCT
18,199.91 582.25 14 % 6.2 %
**NOTE: 1 MSTB=1,000 STB
At initial conditions, the field is producing oil at 18,200,000 stb volumetric total, with a field
recovery factor (field oil efficiency) of 14%. Initial water production is quite low at 585,250
stb and a corresponding water cut value of 6.2%. The foremost target is to produce more oil,
generating higher economic returns.
4.3 Adopting Intelligent Well Completions
4.3.1 Flow Rate
A) Trial and error method; Varying the oil flow rates for maximum productivity. The
altered oil flow rates and accompanying field oil production totals are displayed in Table 4.2
[ ID: 51124915 ]
40
Figure 4.3: Comparison of Field Production Total with varying flow rates
As seen from the graph in Figure 4.3 above, the maximum field oil production volume is
achieved at an oil flow rate of 10,000 stb/day. At this rate, the field's total production is at the
highest achievable value right from the production onset. Although, it is noted that the
volume of water produced (FWPT) also increases, but as long as the water cut remains below
90%, and it is an economically feasible venture, this is an acceptable output.
Table 4.2: Field production outputs using Trial and error method
OIL RATE (STB/DAY) 5,000 7,500 10,000
FOPT (MSTB) 18,199.91 19,188.29 19,218.36
FWPT (MSTB) 582.25 739.67 744.612
FWCT 6.2 % 6.8 % 6.8 %
FOE 14 % 14.5 % 14.6 %
The Eclipse syntax for altering the oil flow rate to 10,000stb/day can be seen in Appendix
B1.
[ ID: 51124915 ]
41
B) Bottom Hole Pressure (BHP) of 14.7 psi, and a default oil rate
For the purpose of further verification, the well oil flow rate is defaulted, while the
constraining factor is set as a BHP of 14.7 psi (Appendix B2). A BHP of 14.7 psi is
unrealistic in practical, but is adapted for making comparisons.
Figure 4.4: Comparison of FOPT and FOPR of 10,000stb/day and BHP constraints
As can be seen from the plots of methods A and B (Figure 4.4), the FOPT and FOPR values
of BHP constraint and 10,000stb/day virtually overlap.
These results further validate the selection of 10,000stb/day oil flow rate as the optimal
choice. The results of the Eclipse simulations are presented in Table 4.2 above. These
indicate that production at an oil rate of 10,000stb/day gives the highest cumulative oil
production and field oil efficiency values.
4.3.2 Well Location
Based on the field permeability and saturation, investigations were carried out to determine
the ideal well location for optimal oil production. Four (4) high permeability, high saturation
[ ID: 51124915 ]
42
layers were detected; i.e.: Layers 6, 9, 13 and 14. The Base Case Scenario well was located
in layer 9 (As seen in Figure 4.6).
The results from varying well location amongst the favorable layers can be seen in Table 4.3,
and the Eclipse syntax for accomplishing this is presented in Appendix C.
Figure 4.5: Comparison of Field Oil Production Total of wells located in the various layers
Table 4.3: Field output data of wells located in the various layers
LAYER 6 9 13 14
FOPT (MSTB) 18,930.47 19,218.36 20,843.39 19,539.91
FWPT 804.53 744.612 21,170.32 26,647.35
FWCT 7.2 % 6.8 % 76 % 78 %
FOE 14.5 % 14.5 % 16 % 15 %
[ ID: 51124915 ]
43
Figure 4.6: FloViz Image of Base Case Scenario Well Located In Layer 9
Figure 4.7: FloViz Image of Optimal Well Located In Layer 13
Interpreting the results from simulations in table 4.3, the upper layers 6 and 9 have a low
water production with water cuts of 7.2% and 6.8% respectively. However, there is a sharp
rise in water production as the wellbore is further drilled to layers 13 and 14 with water cut
values of 76% and 78% respectively.
On the other hand, the highest cumulative field oil production was achieved in layer 13.
Since the target at this point in time is for optimal oil production, and the water production is
still below the acceptable water cut of 90%, the well location is adjusted to layer 13, as it is
considered a "smarter" decision to complete the well in this layer.
[ ID: 51124915 ]
44
4.3.3 Well Inclination
Based on modifications made to the well completion model i.e.: inclination, to determine the
option for maximum oil production (Syntax in Appendix. D1 and D2), the following plots
and results were produced as outputs.
Figure 4.8: FOPR of the various well inclinations
As seen in Fig 4.8, the well with a horizontal inclination (blue curve) has the highest oil
production rate for over 2,200 days. This is deemed a major benefit, considering the time
value of money, and the effects of depreciation.
[ ID: 51124915 ]
45
Figure 4.9: FOPT of the various well inclinations
As seen in Fig 4.9, the well with a horizontal inclination (blue curve) has the highest oil
production total right from production onset till the end of flow simulation (20,843,490 stb).
This is the major basis for selection of well completion type, as the water cut is still below
90%. Simultaneously, the horizontally drilled well also has the highest recovery factor, as
seen in Fig D1 (Appendix D).
Combining the results from Figures D1, 4.8 and 4.9, a horizontal well is the obvious victor.
Thus, the Base Case horizontal well is retained. Further comparative plots can be viewed in
Appendix D.
Table 4.4: Field output data of the various completion methods
INCLINATION HORIZONTAL COMMINGLED
DEVIATED
COMMINGLED
VERTICAL
FOPT (MSTB) 20, 843.39 13, 833 8,913.9
FWPT 21,170.32 19,765.75 15,379.89
FWCT 76 % 70 % 74 %
FOE 15.8 % 10.5 % 6.8 %
[ ID: 51124915 ]
46
4.3.4 Well Contact Area
It is a wide spread theoretical belief that a wellbore kept in the reservoir over a longer
distance with a high reservoir contact area would have an optimized well productivity and
drainage (67). This theory is put to the test by applying the concept of Extended Reach
Drilling with a Maximum Reservoir Contact (MRC) area in modeling the production and
injection wells. The syntax codes for these modifications can be found in Appendix E.
Figure 4.10: FOPR and FOPT of conventional horizontal well and ERD
Table 4.5: Field output data of conventional and ERD wells
COMPLETION LENGTH CONVENTIONAL ERD
FOPT (MSTB) 20, 843.39 24,973.5
FWPT (MSTB) 21,170.32 13,746.92
FWCT 76 % 70 %
FOE 15.8 % 19 %
LENGTH (ft) 2,296 6,890
[ ID: 51124915 ]
47
The ERD wells are completed at a total horizontal distance of 6,890 ft, which is three times
the conventional length. There is an enormous increase of about 20% (4,000 MSTB) in the
total oil produced from the field, giving an overall field oil output of 23,973.5 MSTB (Figure
4.10). The ERD well produces at a constant higher rate of 10,000 stb/day for over 600 days,
after the conventional well production rate has begun to decline.
In addition, the field recovery factor rises to 19%, and the water cut drops by 6% from 76%
to 70% (Table 4.5). All these benefits prove the superiority of ERD wells over the
conventional well on all planes of optimal production, thus ERD technology is adapted on
the Field X as a means for achieving "smartness".
NOTE: Though applying ERD has led to a substantial increase in oil production, the
technology can only be considered feasible when it is proven to be an economic success
based on Net Present Value (NPV) analysis. In addition, ERD poses additional challenges,
some of which were outlined in the literature review.
Figure 4.11: FloViz images of the ERD wells
4.3.5 Reservoir Variability
4.3.5.1 Effect of Thief zone
Thief zones are included in the reservoir models for horizontal and deviated wells to show
their effect on oil production (APPENDIX H1).
[ ID: 51124915 ]
48
Figure 4.12: Plot showing effect of thief zone on FOPT from Horizontal and Deviated wells
Figure 4.13: Plot showing effect of thief zone on FWPT from Horizontal and Deviated wells
[ ID: 51124915 ]
49
Table 4.6: FOPT and FWPT from Horizontal and Deviated wells with thief zone effect
INCLINATION HORIZONTAL COMMINGLED DEVIATED
FOPT (MSTB) without
Thief Zone
20, 843.39 13, 833
FOPT (MSTB) with Thief
zone
20, 843.39 13, 826.82
FWPT (MSTB) without
Thief Zone
21,170.32 19,765.75
FWPT (MSTB) with Thief
zone
21,170.32 19,900.21
As can be seen from the plots in Figures 4.12 and 4.13, and the production results in table
4.6, the presence of thief zones has a negligible effect when the well is completed
horizontally, but leads to a slight reduction in Oil production in deviated wells (about 7,000
STB) with a corresponding increase in water production (135,000 STB).
This effect can be easily visualised in theory i.e.: a thief zone that occurs in a different layer
than the horizontal well is completed, would have little or no effect on the well production.
However, a deviated well cuts across multiple layers, thus is more susceptible to the effect of
thief zones. Different reservoirs have various inherent reservoir properties, therefore the
resultant effect of thief zones on another reservoir may vary entirely.
4.3.5.2 Effect of Isolated Layers
Isolated zones are included in the reservoir models for deviated and horizontal wells (syntax
in APPENDIX H2), and the effects on field production total are investigated.
[ ID: 51124915 ]
50
Figure 4.14 : Plot showing effect of Isolated zones on FOPT from Horizontal and Deviated wells
Figure 4.15: Plot showing effect of Isolated zones on FWPT from Horizontal and Deviated wells.
[ ID: 51124915 ]
51
Table 4.7: FOPT and FWPT from Horizontal and Deviated wells with Isolated zone effect
INCLINATION HORIZONTAL COMMINGLED DEVIATED
FOPT (MSTB) without
Isolated Zone
20, 843.39 13, 833
FOPT (MSTB) with Isolated
zone
20, 678.46 12,444.27
FWPT (MSTB) without
Isolated Zone
21,170.32 19,765.75
FWPT (MSTB) with Isolated
zone
21,038.75 20,028.15
As can be deduced from the plots in Figures 4.14 and 4.15, and the production results in
table 4.7, the presence of isolated zones leads to a reduction of oil production in both
horizontal and deviated wells. The isolated zone acts as a seal, preventing free flow of the
hydrocarbons from the reservoir to the wellbore, hence the reduction in oil production
volume as noted above. Although, the effect is much more significant in deviated wells due
to its completion across multiple layers that contain isolated zones, unlike the horizontal well
that is completed across a single layer.
The effect of isolated zones on water production is apparent in both deviated (FWPT
increases by 262,400 STB) and horizontal wells (FWPT reduces by 131,570 STB). (Figure
4.21). Different reservoirs possess varying degrees of randomness in properties, the effects
of reservoir variation on production volume cannot always be predicted before production.
4.3.6 Multilateral Well
The objective of Multilateral wells is to produce more hydrocarbons from a well, while
reducing the total cost of producing each STB of oil (68).
The next steps in IWC application are an upgrade of the ERD well configuration model to a
multilateral layout, and an addition of a 2nd water injector to efficiently flood the added
layers (see Appendix F for syntax). The multilateral well is completed horizontally in layers
[ ID: 51124915 ]
52
6, 9, 13, 14; which had hitherto been identified as optimal production zones, on account of
their high permeability and oil saturation properties.
Figure 4.16: FloViz Image of the dual Injector Multilateral field plan
The results from production simulations are presented below.
Figure 4.17: FOPR and FOPT of Multilateral and ERD wells
[ ID: 51124915 ]
53
Table 4.8: Field output data of Multilateral and ERD wells
WELL TYPE MULTILATERAL ERD
FOPT (MSTB) 27, 810.25 24,973.5
FWPT (MSTB) 31,823.03 13,746.92
FWCT 92 % 70 %
FOE 21.5 % 19 %
As confirmed by the plots in Figure 4.17, and the production results in table 4.8, the
multilateral well initially produces with a higher FOPR for the first 2 years, which later
drops. However, this initial FOPR is enough to result in a much larger FOPT, with a
cumulative oil production of over 10% than the ERD (Additional oil production of 3,000,000
stb), offsetting the high initial costs and risks involved in multilateral drilling.
On the other hand, it can also be seen that in the bid for oil production optimization, there
has been a gradual and continuous increase in water production, till the water cut has
exceeded the 90% maximum limit (92%). This is an unacceptable development. On the basis
that the decision is taken to adapt the Multilateral well technology due to the vast increase in
oil production, then the concept of Intelligent Well Inflow Control Devices (ICDs) should be
employed to curb water production and reduce water cut to an acceptable level.
4.3.6 Inflow control devices
Inflow control devices are applied across wells and intervals to regulate flow, optimizing
hydrocarbon production and minimizing water production. In a typical IWC installation,
water cut can be measured effectively (by downhole temperature, pressure and flow sensors),
and ICVs are activated accordingly. However, due to limitations on this research, water cut is
detected by modeling for production in each layer and shutting layers of high water
production manually. Based on results from production predictions, production layers 6 and
14 are detected as the high risk zones, and ICDs are applied to them accordingly.
The water cut limit is set as of 90% for ICD activation (Appendix G). The results from field
simulations are presented below.
[ ID: 51124915 ]
54
Figure 4.18: FOPR and FOPT of Multilateral well and ICD Multilateral well (CECON)
Figure 4.19: FWPT of Multilateral well and ICD Multilateral well (CECON)
[ ID: 51124915 ]
55
Table 4.9: Field output data of Multilateral well and ICD Multilateral well (CECON)
WELL TYPE NON-ICD MULTILATERAL ICD-MULTILATERAL CECON
FOPT (MSTB) 27, 810.25 28,133.78
FWPT (MSTB) 31,823.03 23,820.56
FWCT 92 % 84.5 %
FOE 21.5 % 21.8 %
From the plots in Figures 4.18 and 4.19, and the production results in table 4.9, it can be seen
that the modeled ICD lived up to all expectations. These include:
An increase in Oil production over the non-ICD model (approximately an additional 330,000
STB of oil produced over the field life)
Accelerated oil production, with a slightly higher production rate (Fig 4.18)
A drastic reduction in Water production (approximately 25% reduction in water produced
i.e.: 8,000,000 barrels)
A field water cut that is retained below the 90% mark (84.5%), thus extending field life.
A higher field recovery factor of 21.8%
Elimination of the need for intervention procedures to curb water production, if hydraulic
activated ICDs are employed.
ICD installation was able to remediate the problem of premature water breakthrough in
errant layers, shutting them down before they could detract from the field oil production.
A method for modeling ICDs by altering the skin value at various connections was
considered (43, 69). However, this idea was discarded because in real life situations, a group
or production interval is shut off, and not each individual completion.
Additional plots can be found in Appendix G.
4.3.8 Economics
Keeping in mind the time value of money, the target is to maximize Return On Investment
(ROI) by increasing and accelerating gains while reducing or delaying investment(47). Thus
far, multiple variations have been made to the field in order to achieve optimal oil
[ ID: 51124915 ]
56
production, keeping water production below the unwanted 90% water cut limit. These
variations have been technically successful, meeting the set targets. However, IWC upgrade
can only be considered feasible when it is proven to be an economic success based on Net
Present Value (NPV) analysis. Although the Eclipse simulation package is set to present
production output every 30days, the production values are averaged for economic evaluation
on an annual basis. These are outlined in Appendix I.
Table 4.10: Result of Economics Analysis
WELL TYPE BASE CASE SCENARIO MULTILATERAL ICD
NPV ($ millions) 764.513 1,571.145 1,583.694
Figure 4.20: Plot of Payback time of Base Case Scenario, Multilateral (No ICD) and ICD well
Based on extensive economic analysis, comparing the base case scenario, multilateral wells
without ICDs and downhole sensors, and Multilateral wells with ICDs and downhole sensors
installed, the results in figures 4.20 (Payback time) and table 4.10 (NPV) were observed.
As inferred from the results, the IWC multilateral well, complete with sensors and ICD has
the highest NPV, with a higher production rate and revenue right from the onset. The ICD
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
C
U
M
M
U
L
A
T
I
V
E
C
A
S
H
F
L
O
W
(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
$
)
TIME (YEARS)
Base Case
Multilateral
ICD well
[ ID: 51124915 ]
57
multilateral well which enjoys the full application of IWC (well smartness) has an NPV
which is 200% ($1,583,694,000) of the base case conventional well ($764,513,000). Though
NPV usually underestimates the value of IWC technology (59), it is considered adequate for
the purpose of this research.
Thus, the project of IWC adaptation on the Chevron Field X is proven to be both technically
and economically feasible.
4.3.9 Sensitivity Analysis
o Effect of variable Well Diameter on FOPT
In the conventional sense, installation of Intelligent Well hardware would require a larger
liner, thus reducing the hole size and installable production tubing. There is no standard hole
size for Intelligent Well holes at completion, as different companies and conditions might
determine the specifications adopted. Thus, a sensitivity analysis is carried out to examine
the effect of changes in hole size on FOPT.
Table 4.11: Field Output Data from Sensitivity analysis (Well diameter)
Variable Standard size Increase by20% Reduce by15%
Well diameter (ft) 0.708 0.8496 0.6018
FOPT (MSTB) 28,133.78 28,158.01 28,123.62
FWPT (MSTB) 23,820.56 23,937.11 23,711.81
As shown in Figure 4.21 and Table 4.11, the effect of the liner size on oil production is
negligible, as long as the difference in diameter is within prescribed limits ( 20%).
However, the bigger the well diameter, the higher the production volume. Thus, it should be
ensured that the diameter of the Intelligent Well is as large as practicable.
[ ID: 51124915 ]
58
Figure 4.21: Plot of sensitivity analysis of varying Well Diameter
o Effect of Varying Oil Price on NPV
Table 4.12: Field Output Data from Sensitivity analysis (Oil Price)
Variable Standard size Increase by 15% Reduce by20%
Oil Price ($) 110 126.50 88
NPV ($) 1,577,693,508 1,857,131,469 1,226,949,560
As seen from the results in table 4.12, changes in oil price have a very significant effect on
the Net Present Value of the field. Changes in oil prices can make or mar a project, so they
should be closely monitored and carefully predicted to ensure that returns on investment
remain within target.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
0
1
2
2
2
7
3
4
2
6
5
7
8
7
3
1
8
8
4
1
0
3
4
1
1
8
7
1
3
3
8
1
4
9
1
1
6
4
2
1
7
9
5
1
9
4
8
2
1
0
0
2
2
5
3
2
4
0
4
2
5
5
7
2
7
1
0
2
8
6
0
3
0
1
3
3
1
6
4
3
3
1
7
3
4
6
9
3
6
2
2
F
O
P
T
(
M
S
T
B
)
TIME (DAYS)
FOPT for 0.6018 ft
FOPT for 0.708 ft
FOPT for 0.8496 ft
[ ID: 51124915 ]
59
o Effect of Varying Water Cut Limit on FOPT and FWPT
Figure 4.22: Plot of sensitivity analysis of varying Water Cut limit
Table 4.13: Field data Output Data from Sensitivity analysis (Water Cut limit)
Variable Standard limit Increase by 5% Reduce by10%
Water Cut Limit(%) 90 95 80
FOPT (MSTB) 28,133.78 28,250.66 28,027.25
FWPT (MSTB) 23,820.56 25,184.11 22,999.18
As shown in Figure 4.22 and table 4.13 above, the effect of the ICD water cut activation
limit on oil production is minimal, as long as the difference is within prescribed limits (-10%
/+5%). However, it has a substantial effect on water production. For example, setting the
water cut limit as 80 % would cut down water production by an additional 1 million STB
over the field life, but unfortunately the oil production would also be slightly reduced.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
0
1
5
3
3
3
4
5
1
8
7
0
0
8
8
4
1
0
6
5
1
2
4
9
1
4
3
0
1
6
1
4
1
7
9
5
1
9
7
9
2
1
6
1
2
3
4
5
2
5
2
6
2
7
1
0
2
8
9
1
3
0
7
5
3
2
5
6
3
4
4
0
3
6
2
2
F
O
P
T
(
M
S
T
B
)
TIME (DAYS)
FOPT for 80% WATER CUT
FOPT for 90% WATER CUT
FOPT for 95% WATER CUT
[ ID: 51124915 ]
60
o Effect of Varying Skin on FOPT
Figure 4.23: Plot of sensitivity analysis of varying Skin
Table 4.14: Field Output Data from Sensitivity analysis (Varying skin)
Variable Standard size Increase by 200% Reduce by50%
Skin 2 6 1
FOPT (MSTB) 28,133.78 27,788.53 28,266.67
FWPT (MSTB) 23,820.56 22,556.77 24,564.85
Skin effect is caused by the combination of several factors (e.g.: drilling, cementing,
completion, perforation activities, sand production etc) that cause formation damage near the
wellbore, thereby reducing permeability (70).
Normally, the adaptation of Intelligent Well Completion would increase the skin effect on
the wellbore. This is caused by the additional equipments (flow valves, downhole sensors
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
0
1
2
2
2
7
3
4
2
6
5
7
8
7
3
1
8
8
4
1
0
3
4
1
1
8
7
1
3
3
8
1
4
9
1
1
6
4
2
1
7
9
5
1
9
4
8
2
1
0
0
2
2
5
3
2
4
0
4
2
5
5
7
2
7
1
0
2
8
6
0
3
0
1
3
3
1
6
4
3
3
1
7
3
4
6
9
3
6
2
2
F
O
P
T
(
M
S
T
B
)
TIME (DAYS)
FOPT for SKIN 1
FOPT for SKIN 2
FOPT for SKIN 6
[ ID: 51124915 ]
61
etc) and operations (installation and testing procedures) that are carried out on the borehole.
A sensitivity analysis is carried out to simulate for the effect of changing skin on FOPT.
As can be seen from Figure 4.23 and table 4.14 above, the effect of skin occurrence has a
sizeable impact on oil production. The lower the skin, the higher the oil and water produced.
The desired condition is for the wells to have less skin. Thus, precautionary measures should
be taken to ensure low skin occurrence on fields, and minimum wellbore damage during
Intelligent Well adoption.
4.3.10 Risk Identification and Reliability
The major risks that are anticipated on this project, and mitigative steps to increase their
Safety Integrity Levels (SILs) to an acceptable range are outlined below. A more
comprehensive risk register can be found in Appendix J .
Table 4.15: Risk Management
S/N Description of risk
Exposure
before
mitigation
Action
Exposure
after
Mitigation
1 Flow Assurance problems SIL 1
Adoption of the FAMUS
model; where flow
assurance mitigation is
integrated into the RAM
(Reliability, Availability
and Maintainability)
analysis process.
SIL 3
2 Human Error SIL 1
All members of staff must
undergo intensive training
and be kept abreast of new
developments. Technical
knowledge and relevant
experience must be
SIL 4
[ ID: 51124915 ]
62
prioritised. Information
sharing should be
encouraged. Sensitive
operations should be
double checked and
performed in groups, to
reduce the probability of
an individual's failure.
3
Failure of IWC downhole
subcomponents/equipment
due to HPHT
SIL 2
Carry out RAM analysis
and performance
forecasting, so as to
anticipate and mitigate
failures before they occur.
Apply IW specific data to
monitor the SIS
performance, acting on
deviations as soon as
detected. Install only
durable, tested and highly
reliable hardware from
onset.
SIL 3
4
Failure of Minimal Cut set
components.
SIL 2
Some measures of
redundancy may be
introduced to improve
reliability. For a higher
level of reliability, all CCF
systems should be installed
in duplicates or triplicates,
and sensitive components
should be installed in
SIL 4
[ ID: 51124915 ]
63
parallel wherever possible.
5
Failure of the gauge,
transmission and
communication.
SIL 2
Selection of the more
reliable fiber optics and
hydraulic system, over
electrical systems. Using
dedicated electronic
circuits.
SIL 3
6 Changes in Oil Price SIL 1
Sensitivity analysis should
be carried out to predict
changes in NPV that may
occur, and prepare
contingency plans for
plunges in oil price.
SIL 2
**NOTE: Lowest Reliability level is SIL 1, Highest Reliability is SIL 4
By applying these mitigative steps listed above to the highly sensitive predicted risk areas,
the project reliability is raised to an average region of SIL 3, which is considered ALARP.
Summarily, the project has been made safer and more reliable, meeting up with the industry
set target of above 90% (71).
[ ID: 51124915 ]
64
4.3.11 Proactive Algorithm
In a bid to increase efficiency of future IWC applications, an optimization algorithm for
achieving an optimal ICD configuration is designed. The Proactive flowchart is generated
from an analysis of the steps taken in making the Chevron Field X "smarter", in combination
with downhole sensors functionalities.
With appropriate application of the algorithm generated in Fig 4.24 below, it is possible to
prevent a future undesired event from occurring; while simultaneously yielding a maximum
hydrocarbon recovery, and a minimum water production; all without the need for continuous
operator intervention. Consequently, the time consuming trial and error reactive method is
eliminated or diminished.
This Proactive process accelerates the process of selecting the ideal combination for optimal
IWC technology, increases efficiency and productivity, and saves engineering time. The
algorithm can be seamlessly coupled to a commercial simulator for effective application.
[ ID: 51124915 ]
65
Identify Scenario for
IWC Application
Design Field Architecture that
satisfies Decision Driver
Begin
Production/Simulations
Temperatur
Flow rate etc Pressure
Modify Design
and Update ICD
Trigger ICD
Downhole Sensors
-Gather data
Other Data Sources
Trigger Alarm To
Notify Personnel
Analyse and Compile
Data for Database
Enhancement
DECISION DRIVER
-Maximum Oil Production
-Minimum Water Production
-Reliability etc
Required
Option/Solution
met?
Satisfies Criterion for ICD
Activation?
Desired Deliverable on
track?
Objective of
Field/Well defined?
CENTRAL CONTROL
SYSTEM
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
I
N
T
E
L
L
I
G
E
N
T
W
E
L
L
D
A
T
A
NO
Fig 4.24: Proactive Algorithm
[ ID: 51124915 ]
66
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Intelligent Wells are reputed to increase production output when adopted on new or existing
hydrocarbon platforms. The major challenges faced by Intelligent Well Completion have
been the issues of costing, reliability and risk.
The optimal IWC adaption sequence (maximum oil production and water cut below 90%)
for the field under study was achieved by taking the following optimal actions:
Flow rate of 10,000 stb/day
Horizontal well completion
Multilateral Extended Reach Drilling (6,890 ft) in layers 6,9,13 and 14.
ICV installation
Based on production simulations, risk and economic analysis, and sensitivity analysis applied
to the Chevron Field X, the following optimistic results were yielded:
Substantial Production increase and Economic benefits were realised from IWC
implementation. These results were deduced from the resulting FOPT of 28,133,780
stb, a higher FOPR and an increase in NPV by over 100 % to $1,583,694,000.
Due to ICV activation, the water cut level is reduced from 92% to 84.5%. Therefore,
water production is reduced by over Eight million barrels over a ten year period, thus
saving costs and reducing impact on the environment.
Sensitivity analysis on varying factors including a reduced oil price still resulted in a
positive NPV. Sensitivity analysis also showed that skin damage should be
minimized during IWC installation, as this negatively affects production.
Proper Risk analysis and mitigation was applied to increase IWC reliability to an
average level of Safety Integrity Level (SIL) 3, ensuring a reliability of at least 90%
over a five year production period.
[ ID: 51124915 ]
67
A Proactive algorithm for speedy and effective IWC application on future fields was
developed.
These results agree with conclusions derived from the research of multiple academic and
industrial investigations (11, 19, 26). In addition, this study has proven the significant effect
of well design from the initial concept stage to the final completion, on the field's future
operability and production. Application of IWC is subjective, and it is unfeasible to design a
Universal combination. Every choice counts.
Widespread adoption of IWC technology to new and existing fields is unavoidable, as its
benefits have been proven in this case study, and will continue to be proven via results from
real life production data.
5.2 Recommendations
Based on research thus far, the following recommendations are made:
Intelligent Well Completion is an industry winner, and should be adopted on
compatible existing and future wells, after detailed surveys have been carried out.
The novel Proactive algorithm generated in this study should be coupled with a
commercial simulator and adopted by Oil and Gas Producing and Servicing
companies in IWC application. This would reduce Non-Productive time and cut
costs.
Further research and analysis should be dedicated to the application of IWC
downhole sensors; as these have the potential for further added value.
As deduced from the results of fit-to-purpose research on the Chevron Field X, IWC
application is highly advantageous and should be adapted to the field.
Specialised tools for economic and production modeling of Intelligent Wells should
be developed.
[ ID: 51124915 ]
68
REFERENCES
(1) Mody RK, OMalley E. Oilfield Automation. USA. Springer US. 2011:9-20.
(2) Gao CH, Rajeswaran RT, Nakagawa EY. A Literature Review on Smart Well Technology. Production
and Operations Symposium; 31 March-3 April 2007; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, U.S.A.: Society of
Petroleum Engineers; 2007.
(3) Reed D, Raw I, Huber M, Reyes A, El-Khazindar Y, Dyer S. Intelligent Completions- A Hands-off
Management Style. 2007:July 2nd, 2012-1-14.
(4) Ferguson S, Makin G. Intelligent well completion the next steps. September 2002:18-19, 20.
(5) Naus MJ , Dolle N, J ansen J D. Optimization of Commingled Production Using Infinitely Variable
Inflow Control Valves. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; 26-29 September 2004;
Houston, Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2004.
(6) Rump P, Bairagi R, Fraser J , Mueller K. Multilateral / Intelligent Wells Improve Development of
Heavy Oil Field - A Case History. IADC/SPE Drilling Conference; 2-4 March 2004; Dallas, Texas:
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference; 2004.
(7) Clark HP, Ascanio FA, Kruijsdijk CP, Chavarria J L, Zatka MJ . Method to Improve Thermal EOR
Performance Using Intelligent Well Technology: Orion SAGD Field Trial. Canadian Unconventional
Resources and International Petroleum Conference; 19-21 October 2010; Calgary, Alberta, Canada:
Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2010.
(8) Dharan BG. Improving the Relevance and Reliability of Oil and Gas Reserves Disclosures . 2004;
Available at: http://archives.financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/072104bd.pdf. Accessed J uly 3, 2012.
(9) Tunio SQ, Tunio AH, Ghirano NA, El Adawy ZM. Comparison of Different Enhanced Oil Recovery
Techniques for Better Oil Productivity. September 2011;1(5):1-2-11.
(10) Mody RK. Multilateral Wells: Maximizing Well Productivity. USA. Springer US. 2011:71-86.
(11) Ajayi AA, Konopczynski MR. Evaluating Intelligent-Well-System Requirement for an Offshore
Field Development. SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference; 20-23 J une
2005; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2005.
(12) Lien HCA, Cliff R, Simon L, Suriname SM. Evaluation of a Smart Well System at the Saramacca Oil
Fields: A Case Study. SPETT 2012 Energy Conference and Exhibition; 11-13 J une 2012; Port-of-Spain,
Trinidad: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2012.
(13) Collins JR, Neuber EB. The Agbami Intelligent Well: Examples Of Active Reservoir Management.
SPE International Production and Operations Conference & Exhibition; 14-16 May 2012; Doha, Qatar:
Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2012.
(14)Al-Zahrani R, Al-Arnaout IH, J acob S, Rahman ZA. Intelligent Wells to Intelligent Fields: Remotely
Operated Smart Well Completions in Haradh-III. Intelligent Energy Conference and Exhibition; 25-27
February 2008; Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2008.
[ ID: 51124915 ]
69
(15) Al-Zahrani R, Dashash AA. Moving Towards Sustainability: A 5 Year Production Engineering
Experience with Intelligent Fields. SPE Intelligent Energy International; 27-29 March 2012; Utrecht, The
Netherlands: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2012.
(16) Anderson AB, Aubed YM, Al-Sarrani HF. A Case Study of the World's First Maximum-Reservoir-
Contact Well With Intelligent Well Systems and MultiPhase Flow Monitoring. SPE Middle East Oil and
Gas Show and Conference; 11-14 March 2007; Kingdom of Bahrain: Society of Petroleum Engineers;
2007.
(17) Saleri NG, Salamy SP, Al-Otaibi SS. The Expanding Role of the Drill Bit in Shaping the Subsurface.
2003 12/01/2003;55(12):53-53-56.
(18) Chacon A, McCutcheon J B, Schott DW, Arias BJ , Wedgwood JM. Na Kika Field Experiences in the
Use of Intelligent Well Technology to Improve Reservoir Management. International Petroleum
Technology Conference; 4-6 December 2007; Dubai, U.A.E.: International Petroleum Technology
Conference; 2007.
(19) Yu S, Davies DR, Sherrard DW. The Modelling of Advanced Intelligent Well - An
Application. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; 1-4 October 2000; Dallas, Texas:
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.; 2000.
(20) Akram N, Hicking S, Blythe P, Kavanagh P, Reijnen P, Mathieson D. Intelligent Well Technology in
Mature Assets. Offshore Europe; 4-7 September 2001; Aberdeen, United Kingdom: Copyright 2001,
Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.; 2001.
(21) Lie OH, Wallace W. Intelligent Recompletion Eliminates the Need for Additional Well. IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference; 23-25 February 2000; New Orleans, Louisiana: Copyright 2000, IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference; 2000.
(22) The Province of Alberta. Alberta Regulation 151/71- Oil and Gas Conservation Act, Oil And Gas
Conservation Regulations. 1971:3.040-3.070.
(23) Konopczynski M, Ajayi A, Russell LA. Intelligent Well Completion: Status and Opportunities for
Developing Marginal Reserves. Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition; 4-6 August
2003; Abuja, Nigeria: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2003.
(24) Chukwueke V, Constantine J . EA Field Development: Intelligent Well Completion, Offshore Nigeria.
Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition; 2-4 August 2004; Abuja, Nigeria: Society of
Petroleum Engineers; 2004.
(25) Quereguan R, Grossmann A. Multilateral wells reduce CAPEX and OPEX of gas development in
Russia's Arctic in an environmentally responsible way. ; 2011.
(26) Sun K, Constantine J J , Eriksen F, Costa L. Intelligent Well Systems:Providing Value or Just
Another Completion? SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; 4-7 October 2009; New Orleans,
Louisiana: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2009.
(27) Bourgoyne J r AT, Millheim KK, Chenevert ME, Young J r FS. Directional Drilling and Deviation
Control. In: Evers J F, Pye DS, editors. Applied Drilling Engineering. 2nd ed. Richardson, Texas: Society
of Petroleum Engineers Textbook Series; 1991. p. 351-352-453.
[ ID: 51124915 ]
70
(28) Sun K, Guo B, Saputelli L. Multinode Intelligent-Well Technology for Active Inflow Control in
Horizontal Wells. 2011 09/01/2011;26(3):pp. 386-pp. 386-395.
(29) E-Tech International. Comprehensive Extended Reach Drilling (ERD) Study for Block 56. August
17, 2005;1:1-2-12.
(30) Paino W, Tengah N. Using Intelligent Well Technology to Define Reservoir Characterization and
Reduce Uncertainty. SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition; 18-20 October 2004;
Perth, Australia: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2004.
(31)Ebadi F, Davies D, Reynolds M. Screening of Reservoir Types for Optimisation of Intelligent Well
Design. SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference; 13-16 J une 2005; Madrid, Spain: Society of Petroleum
Engineers; 2005.
(32) Zhu D, Furui K. Optimizing Oil and Gas Production by Intelligent Technology. SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition; 24-27 September 2006; San Antonio, Texas, USA: Society of
Petroleum Engineers; 2006.
(33) Cullick S, Sukkestad T. Smart Operations With Intelligent Well Systems. SPE Intelligent Energy
Conference and Exhibition; 23-25 March 2010; Utrecht, The Netherlands: Society of Petroleum
Engineers; 2010.
(34) Arashi A. Defining and Implementing Functional Requirements of an Intelligent-Well Completion
System. Latin American & Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference; 15-18 April 2007; Buenos
Aires, Argentina: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2007.
(35) Naldrett G, Ross D. When Intelligent Wells Are Truly Intelligent, Reliable, and Cost Effective.
Offshore Technology Conference; - 2006; Houston, Texas; 2006.
(36) Younger AH. Natural Gas Processing Principles and Technology- Part 1. 1st ed. University of
Calgary: Thimm Engineering Inc.; 2004.
(37) Robinson M. Intelligent Well Completions. SPE Journal of Petroleum Technology. 2003
08/01/2003;55(8):57-57-59.
(38) Mubarak S, Dawood N. Lessons Learned from 100 Intelligent Wells Equipped with Multiple
Downhole Valves. SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium; 9-11 May 2009; AlKhobar, Saudi
Arabia: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2009.
(39) Forrest CF. Reservoir Heterogeneity. The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding. 2nd ed.
Dallas, Texas: Millet the Printer; 1971. p. 62-68.
(40) Alvarado V, Manrique E. Chapter 2 - Enhanced Oil Recovery Concepts. Enhanced Oil Recovery
Boston: Gulf Professional Publishing; 2010. p. 7-16.
(41) Al-Otaibi N, Al- Gamber A. Smart-Well Completion Utilizes Natural Reservoir Energy To Produce
High-Water-Cut And Low-Productivity-Index Well in Abqaiq Field. International Oil & Gas Conference
and Exhibition in China; 5-7 December 2006; Beijing, China: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2006.
(42) Langnes GL, Robertson J r. J O, Mehdizadeh A, Torabzadeh J , Yen TF, Donaldson EC, et al. Chapter
8 Waterflooding. Developments in Petroleum Science: Elsevier; 1985. p. 251-334.
[ ID: 51124915 ]
71
(43) Armstrong A. Management of Water Breakthrough Using Intelligent Well Technology. Offshore
Technology Conference; - 2001; Houston, Texas; 2001.
(44) Pinto M, Barreto C. Comparison between Conventional and Intelligent Wells with Reactive and
Proactive Controls under Economic Uncertainty. SPE International Production and Operations Conference
& Exhibition; 14-16 May 2012; Doha, Qatar: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2012.
(45) Ebadi F, Davies D. Should a Proactive or a Reactive Control Be Chosen for Intelligent Well
Management? Intelligent Energy Conference and Exhibition; 11-13 April 2006; Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2006.
(46) Arashi A. Managing Operational Challenges in the Installation of an Intelligent Well Completion in a
Deepwater Environment. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; 21-24 September 2008;
Denver, Colorado, USA: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2008.
(47) Tirado R. Using Intelligence to Improve Efficiency in Remote-Oilfield Operations: Case Histories.
SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference; 1-3 December 2010; Lima, Peru:
Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2010.
(48) Graf T. A Rigorous Well Model To Optimize Production From Intelligent Wells and Establish the
Back-Allocation Algorithm. SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition; 12-15 June 2006;
Vienna, Austria: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2006.
(49) Goggin D. Maximizing Production Capacity Using Intelligent-Well Systems in a Deepwater, West-
Africa Field. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; 24-27 September 2006; San Antonio,
Texas, USA: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2006.
(50) Yadav V, Surya N. Evaluating the Performance of Intelligent Completions. SPE Intelligent Energy
International; 27-29 March 2012; Utrecht, The Netherlands: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2012.
(51) Khalid A. Petroleum Reservoir Simulation. 1st ed. London, England: Applied Science Publishers Ltd;
1979.
(52) Schlumberger Information Solutions. Eclipse Reservoir Simulation Software. Version 2010.1 ed.
Texas, United States: Sclumberger; 2010.
(53) Bradley HB. Water-Injection Pressure Maintenance and Waterflood Processes. In: Gipson FW, Odeh
AS, Sizer PS, editors. Petroleum Engineering Handbook. 3rd Edition ed. Texas, USA: Society of
Petroleum Engineers; 1987. p. 1247-1248-1298.
(54) Pettersen O. Basics of Reservoir Simulation with the Eclipse Reservoir Simulator. 2006;1(1):1-2-113.
(55) Ahmed T, McKinney PD. Advanced Reservoir Engineering. 1st ed. United States of America:
Elsevier Inc; 2005.
(56) Dake LP. Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering. 1st ed. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science
BV; 1978.
(57) Ahmed T. Reservoir Engineering Handbook. 2nd ed. United States: Gulf Professional Publishing;
2001.
[ ID: 51124915 ]
72
(58) Seba RD. Economics of Worldwide Petroleum Production. Revised Edition ed. United States of
America: Oil & Gas Consultants Intl; 1998.
(59) Han J. There is Value in Operational Flexibility: An Intelligent Well Application. SPE Hydrocarbon
Economics and Evaluation Symposium; 5-8 April 2003; Dallas, Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers;
2003.
(60) Sakowski S, Furui K. Impact of Intelligent Well Systems on Total Economics of Field Developments.
SPE Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation Symposium; Apr 03 - 05, 2005 2005; Dallas, Texas: Society
of Petroleum Engineers; 2005.
(61) Crude oil and commodity prices. Available at: http://www.oil-price.net/. Accessed 19th of August, ,
2012.
(62) Gary J H, Handwerk GE. Economic Evaluation. In: Bucklin RW, Chafin S, editors. Petroleum
Refining: Technology and Economics. 4th Edition ed. New York, USA: Marcel Dekker Inc.; 2001. p. 355-
356-368.
(63) Heriot Watt Institute of Petroleum Engineering. Petroleum Economics. 1st ed. Edinburgh, UK: Heriot
Watt University; 2005.
(64) Martorell S, Guedes C, Barnett J . Safety, Reliabilty and Risk Analysis: Theory, Methods and
Applications. vol 1 ed. England, Great Britain: CRC Press; 2008.
(65) Smith DJ . Reliability, Maintainability and Risk. 8th ed. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Ltd.; 2011.
(66) Van Gisbergen SJ , Vandeweijer AA. Reliability Analysis of Permanent Downhole Monitoring
Systems. 2001 03/01/2001;16(1):60-60-63.
(67) An W, Xiong T. Liuhua oil field - 1 Extended-reach drilling extends life of CNOOC field. Oil Gas J
2005 AUG 1;103(29):35-37.
(68) Chin WC. 15 - Horizontal, Deviated, and Modern Multilateral Well Analysis. Quantitative Methods
in Reservoir Engineering Burlington: Gulf Professional Publishing; 2002. p. 245-287.
(69) Rester S, Thomas J . Application of Intelligent Completion Technology to Optimize the Reservoir
Management of a Deepwater Gulf of Mexico Field A Reservoir Simulation Case Study. SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition; 3-6 October 1999; Houston, Texas: Society of Petroleum
Engineers; 1999.
(70) Guo B, Lyons WC, Ghalambor A. Petroleum Production Engineering- A computer assisted approach.
1st ed. USA: Elsevier Science & Technology Books; 2007.
(71) Veneruso A, Hiron S. Reliability Qualification Testing for Permanently Installed Wellbore
Equipment. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; 1-4 October 2000; Dallas, Texas:
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.; 2000.
[ ID: 51124915 ]
73
APPENDIX
Appendix A: Base Case Scenario Eclipse Data Input and Plots
Figure A1: FOE of Base Case Scenario
RUNSPEC
TITLE
FIELD X FULL FIELD MODEL CDP3 MAY 2007 BASE CASE
START
1 'SEP' 2010 /
FIELD
DIMENS
132 82 24 /
OIL
WATER
GAS
DISGAS
ENDSCALE
/
OPTIONS
59* 1 /
EQLDIMS
2 1* 1* /
WELLDIMS
60 99 6 27 /
REGDIMS
25 25 1 25 /
TABDIMS
6 1 25 25 8 25 /
VFPPDIMS
15 10 10 10 9 8 /
VFPIDIMS
[ ID: 51124915 ]
74
20 20 20 /
UNIFOUT
NSTACK
50 /
--NOSIM
-- GRID SECTION
GRID
INIT
MINPV
30 /
PINCH
5 /
NOECHO
INCLUDE
'CDP4_B166_PERMS.GRDECL'
/
BOX
1 132 1 82 1 24
/
INCLUDE
--'CDP4_B166_NTG.INC'
'NET_41.INC'
/
ENDBOX
BOX
1 132 1 82 1 24
/
INCLUDE
'POR_41.INC'
/
ENDBOX
BOX
1 132 1 82 1 24
/
INCLUDE
'KX_41.INC'
/
ENDBOX
MULTIPLY
'PERMX' 100 1 132 1 82 1 24 /
'PERMX' 0 1 20 53 53 1 24 /
'PERMX' 0 21 26 54 54 1 24 /
'PERMX' 0 27 29 55 55 1 24 /
'PERMX' 0 30 37 56 56 1 24 /
'PERMX' 0 38 42 57 57 1 24 /
'PERMX' 0 43 44 58 58 1 24 /
'PERMX' 0 44 54 59 59 1 24 /
/
BOX
1 132 1 82 1 24
/
INCLUDE
'KY_41.INC'
/
ENDBOX
MULTIPLY
'PERMY' 100 1 132 1 82 1 24 /
'PERMY' 0 1 20 53 53 1 24 /
'PERMY' 0 21 26 54 54 1 24 /
'PERMY' 0 27 29 55 55 1 24 /
'PERMY' 0 30 37 56 56 1 24 /
'PERMY' 0 38 42 57 57 1 24 /
[ ID: 51124915 ]
75
'PERMY' 0 43 44 58 58 1 24 /
'PERMY' 0 44 54 59 59 1 24 /
/
BOX
1 132 1 82 1 24
/
INCLUDE
'KZ_41.INC'
/
ENDBOX
BOX
1 132 1 82 1 24
/
MULTPV
259776*0.5 /
/
ENDBOX
BOX
1 132 1 82 1 24
/
INCLUDE
'ACTNUM_HORST.INC'
/
ENDBOX
MULTIPLY
'PORO' 0 1 132 68 82 1 24 /
'PORO' 0 1 30 67 67 1 24 /
'PORO' 0 1 27 66 66 1 24 /
'PORO' 0 1 22 65 65 1 24 /
'PORO' 0 1 13 64 64 1 24 /
'PORO' 0 1 132 1 82 20 24 /
/
PROPS
INCLUDE
'2006_RELPERM.INC'
INCLUDE
'PVT_MODEL4.INC'
/
BOX
1 132 1 82 1 24
/
INCLUDE
'CDP4_B166_SWATINIT2.INC'
/
ENDBOX
EQUALS
'SWL' 0.26 1 132 1 82 1 24 /
'SWCR' 0.2601 1 132 1 82 1 24 /
'SOWCR' 0.14 1 132 1 82 1 24 /
'SWU' 1 1 132 1 82 1 24 /
'SGU' 0.74 1 132 1 82 1 24 /
'SOGCR' 0.31 1 132 1 82 1 24 /
'SGCR' 0.05 1 132 1 82 1 24 /
'SGL' 0 1 132 1 82 1 24 /
/
-- REGIONS SECTION
REGIONS
BOX
1 132 1 82 1 24
/
INCLUDE
'CDP4_B166_FIPNUM.INC'
[ ID: 51124915 ]
76
/
ENDBOX
BOX
1 132 1 82 1 24
/
INCLUDE
'CDP4_B166_EQLNUM.INC'
/
ENDBOX
EQUALS
'PVTNUM' 1 1 132 1 82 1 24 /
/
SOLUTION
DATUM
5971 /
EQUIL
5971 2776 6955 0 5085.30 0 1 /
5971 2776 6955 0 5085.30 0 1 /
PBVD
5085.30 2460.81
5275.59 2429.81
5433.07 2403.38
5669.29 2363.78
5839.90 2331.34
5994.09 2302.55
6184.38 2260.30
6322.18 2220.28
6522.31 2053.76
6568.24 2009.98
6641.08 1935.90
6741.14 1836.04
7741.14 1736.04 /
5085.30 2460.81
5275.59 2429.81
5433.07 2403.38
5669.29 2363.78
5839.90 2331.34
5994.09 2302.55
6184.38 2260.30
6322.18 2220.28
6522.31 2053.76
6568.24 2009.98
6641.08 1935.90
6741.14 1836.04
7741.14 1736.04 /
/
SUMMARY
RPTONLY
EXCEL
SEPARATE
WBP
/
COPR
/
COPT
/
CWPR
/
CWPT
/
FOPR
/
[ ID: 51124915 ]
77
FOPT
/
FWPR
/
FWPT
/
FOE
/
ALL
SCHEDULE
INCLUDE
'ECLIPSE_A01.VFP' /
/
RPTSCHED
'RESTART=2' 'FIP=3' 'WELLS=5' 'CPU=1' /
WELSPECS
'ICD1' 'FLD' 30 64 1* 'OIL' 7* /
'INJ 1' 'FLD' 29 60 1* 'OIL' 7* /
/
COMPDAT
'ICD1' 30 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD1' 31 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD1' 32 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD1' 33 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD1' 34 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD1' 35 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD1' 36 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD1' 37 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 29 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 30 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 31 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 32 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 33 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 34 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 35 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 36 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 37 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 38 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
/
WRFT
/
GRUPTREE
'FLD' 'FIELD' /
/
WCONPROD
'ICD1' 'OPEN' 'ORAT' 5000 6* /
/
WCONINJ E
'INJ 1' 'WATER' 'OPEN' 'RATE' 5000 /
/
TSTEP
1 29 31 30 31 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 31 29 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30
31 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 31 29 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 31 28 31
30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 31 29 31 30 31 30 31
31 30 /
END
Appendix B1: Flow Rate Data Input (Varying Oil Rate)
WCONPROD
'ICD1' 'OPEN' 'ORAT' 10000 6* /
/
[ ID: 51124915 ]
78
Appendix B2: Flow Rate Data Input (Default BHP)
WCONPROD
'ICD1' 'OPEN' 'BHP' 4* 20000 14.7 /
/
Appendix C: Well Location Data Input
Layer 6
WELSPECS
'ICD2' 'FLD' 21 64 1* 'OIL' 7* /
'INJ 1' 'FLD' 20 60 1* 'OIL' 7* /
/
COMPDAT
'ICD2' 21 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD2' 22 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD2' 23 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD2' 24 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD2' 25 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD2' 26 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD2' 27 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD2' 28 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
Layer 13
WELSPECS
'ICD3' 'FLD' 21 64 1* 'OIL' 7* /
'INJ 1' 'FLD' 20 60 1* 'OIL' 7* /
/
COMPDAT
'ICD3' 21 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 22 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 23 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 24 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 25 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 26 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 27 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 28 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
Layer 14
WELSPECS
'ICD4' 'FLD' 21 64 1* 'OIL' 7* /
'INJ 1' 'FLD' 20 60 1* 'OIL' 7* /
/
COMPDAT
'ICD4' 21 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD4' 22 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD4' 23 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD4' 24 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD4' 25 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X /
'ICD4' 26 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD4' 27 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD4' 28 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
[ ID: 51124915 ]
79
Appendix D: Well Inclination Data Input and Plots
Figure D1: FOE of the various well inclinations
Appendix D1: Vertical well
COMPDAT
'ICD1' 21 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'Y'/
'ICD1' 21 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'Y'/
'ICD1' 21 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'Y'/
'INJ 1' 19 60 10 10 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'Y'/
'INJ 1' 19 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'Y'/
'INJ 1' 19 60 16 16 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'Y'/
/
Appendix D2: Deviated well
COMPDAT
'ICD1' 21 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'Y'/
'ICD1' 22 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'Y/
'ICD1' 23 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'Y'/
[ ID: 51124915 ]
80
Figure D2: FWCT of the various well inclinations
Appendix E: Well Contact Area Data Input and Plots
WELSPECS
'ICD3' 'FLD' 21 64 1* 'OIL' 7* /
'INJ 1' 'FLD' 20 60 1* 'OIL' 7* /
/
COMPDAT
'ICD3' 21 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD3' 22 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD3' 23 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD3' 24 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD3' 25 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD3' 26 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD3' 27 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD3' 28 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD3' 29 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD3' 30 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD3' 31 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD3' 32 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD3' 33 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD3' 34 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD3' 35 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD3' 36 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD3' 37 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD3' 38 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD3' 39 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD3' 40 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD3' 41 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD3' 42 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'INJ 1' 20 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'INJ 1' 21 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'INJ 1' 22 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'INJ 1' 23 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'INJ 1' 24 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'INJ 1' 25 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'INJ 1' 26 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
[ ID: 51124915 ]
81
'INJ 1' 27 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'INJ 1' 28 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'INJ 1' 29 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'INJ 1' 30 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'INJ 1' 31 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'INJ 1' 32 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'INJ 1' 33 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'INJ 1' 34 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'INJ 1' 35 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'INJ 1' 36 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'INJ 1' 37 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'INJ 1' 38 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'INJ 1' 39 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
Figure E1: FOE of conventional horizontal well and ERD
Figure E2: FWCT of conventional horizontal well and ERD
Appendix F: Multilateral Well Data Input
WELSPECS
'ICD1' 'FLD' 21 64 1* 'OIL' 7* /
[ ID: 51124915 ]
82
'ICD2' 'FLD' 21 64 1* 'OIL' 7* /
'ICD3' 'FLD' 21 64 1* 'OIL' 7* /
'ICD4' 'FLD' 21 64 1* 'OIL' 7* /
'INJ 1' 'FLD' 20 60 1* 'OIL' 7* /
'INJ 2' 'FLD' 25 65 1* 'OIL' 7* /
/
COMPDAT
'ICD2' 21 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD2' 22 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD2' 23 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD2' 24 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD2' 25 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD2' 26 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD2' 27 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD2' 28 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD2' 29 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD2' 30 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD2' 31 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD2' 32 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD2' 33 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD2' 34 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD2' 35 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD2' 36 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD2' 37 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD2' 38 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD2' 39 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD2' 40 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD2' 41 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD2' 42 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD1' 21 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD1' 22 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD1' 23 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD1' 24 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD1' 25 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD1' 26 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD1' 27 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD1' 28 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD1' 29 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD1' 30 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD1' 31 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD1' 32 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD1' 33 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD1' 34 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD1' 35 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD1' 36 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD1' 37 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD1' 38 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD1' 39 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD1' 40 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD1' 41 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD1' 42 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'/
'ICD3' 21 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 22 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 23 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 24 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 25 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 26 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 27 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 28 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 29 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 30 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 31 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
[ ID: 51124915 ]
83
'ICD3' 32 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 33 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 34 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 35 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 36 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 37 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 38 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 39 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 40 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 41 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD3' 42 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD4' 21 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD4' 22 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD4' 23 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD4' 24 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD4' 25 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD4' 26 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD4' 27 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD4' 28 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD4' 29 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD4' 30 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD4' 31 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD4' 32 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD4' 33 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD4' 34 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD4' 35 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD4' 36 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD4' 37 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD4' 38 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD4' 39 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD4' 40 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD4' 41 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'ICD4' 42 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 20 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 21 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 22 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 23 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 24 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 25 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 26 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 27 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 28 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 29 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 30 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 31 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 32 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 33 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 34 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 35 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 36 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 37 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 38 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 1' 39 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 2' 25 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 2' 26 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 2' 27 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 2' 28 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 2' 29 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 2' 30 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 2' 31 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 2' 32 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 2' 33 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
[ ID: 51124915 ]
84
'INJ 2' 34 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 2' 35 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 2' 36 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 2' 37 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 2' 38 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 2' 39 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 2' 40 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 2' 41 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
'INJ 2' 42 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2* 0.708 1* 2 1* 'X' /
/
Appendix G: ICD Data Input and Plots
CECON
-- Economic limits for production well connections: Water cut limit for all connections in well
-- Well I J Kup Kdo Max Max Max Workover Continue checking Min oil
-- name Watcut GOR WGR procedure stopped wells? prod rate
'ICD2' 4* 0.90 2* CON NO /
'ICD4' 4* 0.90 2* CON NO /
/
Figure G1: FOE of Non-ICD Multilateral well and ICD Multilateral well (CECON)
Figure G2: FWCT of Non-ICD Multilateral well and ICD Multilateral well (CECON)
[ ID: 51124915 ]
85
Appendix H: Reservoir Variability Data Input
Appendix H1: Thief Zone Data Input
MULTIPLY
'PERMX' 10 1 132 1 82 16 16 /
/
Appendix H2: Minor Isolated Zone Data Input
MULTIPLY
'PERMX' 0 1 132 1 82 11 11 /
/
[ ID: 51124915 ]
86
Appendix I: Economic Analysis
Table I1: Economic Analysis of Base Case Scenario
YEAR
OIL
PRODUCTION
(MSTB/YR)
WATER
PRODUCTION
(MSTB/YR)
CAPEX
($)
FIXED
OPEX
OIL($)
VARIABLE
OPEX
WATER($)
TOTAL
OPEX($)
REVENUE
($)
ROYALTY
(10%)
TAXABLE
INCOME($)
0 0 0 24000000 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1825 12.109 0 20000000 1210.9 20001211 200750000 20075000 160673789
2 1830 26.27486 0 20000000 2627.486 20002627 201300000 20130000 161167373
3 1825 35.22904 0 20000000 3522.904 20003523 200750000 20075000 160671477
4 1825 41.67597 0 20000000 4167.597 20004168 200750000 20075000 160670832
5 1825 49.7233 0 20000000 4972.33 20004972 200750000 20075000 160670028
6 1830 59.7352 0 20000000 5973.52 20005974 201300000 20130000 161164026
7 1825 69.8402 0 20000000 6984.02 20006984 200750000 20075000 160668016
8 1825 81.4593 0 20000000 8145.93 20008146 200750000 20075000 160666854
9 1824.56 96.0424 0 20000000 9604.24 20009604 200701600 20070160 160621836
10 1765.35 110.4421 0 20000000 11044.21 20011044 194188500 19418850 154758606
TAX ($) CASH FLOW($) CUMM CASH FLOW($) DISCOUNT FACTOR (10%) PRESENT VALUE($)
0 -24000000 -24000000 1 -24000000
32134758 128539031 104539031.3 0.90909 116853664.8
32233475 128933898 233472929.3 0.82645 106556940.5
32134295 128537182 362010111 0.75131 96571887.06
32134166 128536666 490546776.9 0.68301 87792272.33
32134006 128536022 619082799 0.62092 79810756.93
32232805 128931221 748014020.2 0.56447 72778313.13
32133603 128534413 876548433 0.51316 65958477.39
32133371 128533483 1005081916 0.46651 59961818.54
[ ID: 51124915 ]
87
32124367 128497469 1133579385 0.4241 54495470.4
30951721 123806885 1257386269 0.38554 47732913.56
NPV= $764,512,514.6
Table I2: Economic Analysis of Multilateral well
YEAR
OIL
PRODUCTION
(MSTB/YR)
WATER
PRODUCTION
(MSTB/YR)
CAPEX
($)
FIXED OPEX
OIL($)
VARIABLE OPEX
WATER($)
TOTAL
OPEX($)
REVENUE
($)
0 0 0 102000000 0 0 0 0
1 12765.25 1783.561 0 20000000 178356.1 20178356.1 1404177500
2 7433.06 5134.111 0 20000000 513411.1 20513411.1 817636600
3 2115.96 3014.8 0 20000000 301480 20301480 232755600
4 1299.74 2744.868 0 20000000 274486.8 20274486.8 142971400
5 1006.56 2897.36 0 20000000 289736 20289736 110721600
6 822.18 3044.25 0 20000000 304425 20304425 90439800
7 695.92 3171.32 0 20000000 317132 20317132 76551200
8 609 3282 0 20000000 328200 20328200 66990000
9 550.68 3350.8 0 20000000 335080 20335080 60574800
10 511.9 3399.96 0 20000000 339996 20339996 56309000
ROYALTY
(10%)
TAXABLE
INCOME($) TAX($)
CASH
FLOW($)
CUMM CASH
FLOW($)
DISCOUNT FACTOR
(10%)
PRESENT
VALUE($)
0 0 0 -102000000 -102000000 1 -102000000
140417750 1243581394 248716278.8 994865115.1 892865115.1 0.909090909 904422831.9
81763660 715359528.9 143071905.8 572287623.1 1465152738 0.826446281 472964977.8
23275560 189178560 37835712 151342848 1616495586 0.751314801 113706121.7
[ ID: 51124915 ]
88
14297140 108399773.2 21679954.64 86719818.56 1703215405 0.683013455 59230802.92
11072160 79359704 15871940.8 63487763.2 1766703168 0.620921323 39420905.92
9043980 61091395 12218279 48873116 1815576284 0.56447393 27587599.86
7655120 48578948 9715789.6 38863158.4 1854439442 0.513158118 19942945.23
6699000 39962800 7992560 31970240 1886409682 0.46650738 14914352.91
6057480 34182240 6836448 27345792 1913755474 0.424097618 11597285.26
5630900 30338104 6067620.8 24270483.2 1938025958 0.385543289 9357321.929
NPV= $1,571,145,145
Table I3: Economic Analysis of ICD well
YEAR
OIL
PRODUCTION
(MSTB/YR)
WATER
PRODUCTION
(MSTB/YR)
CAPEX
($)
FIXED
OPEX
OIL($)
VARIABLE
OPEX
WATER($)
TOTAL
OPEX($)
REVENUE
($)
ROYALTY
(10%)
TAXABLE
INCOME($)
0 0 0 115200000 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 12837.55 1016.031 0 20000000 101603.1 20101603 1412130500 1.41E+08 1.25E+09
2 7714.64 3937.464 0 20000000 393746.4 20393746 848610400 84861040 7.43E+08
3 2292.98 2519.503 0 20000000 251950.3 20251950 252227800 25222780 2.07E+08
4 1304.16 1959.201 0 20000000 195920.1 20195920 143457600 14345760 1.09E+08
5 942.69 1944.191 0 20000000 194419.1 20194419 103695900 10369590 73131891
6 768.84 2177.07 0 20000000 217707 20217707 84572400 8457240 55897453
7 652.33 2379.69 0 20000000 237969 20237969 71756300 7175630 44342701
8 584.18 2531.29 0 20000000 253129 20253129 64259800 6425980 37580691
9 535.3 2658.96 0 20000000 265896 20265896 58883000 5888300 32728804
10 501.11 2697.16 0 20000000 269716 20269716 55122100 5512210 29340174
[ ID: 51124915 ]
89
TAX($) CASH FLOW($) CUMM CASH FLOW($) DISCOUNT FACTOR (10%) PRESENT VALUE ($)
0 -115200000 -115200000 1 -115200000
250163169 1000652678 885452677.5 0.90909 909684252.3
148671123 594684491 1480137168 0.82645 491474785.9
41350614 165402456 1645539624 0.75131 124269313.1
21783184 87132735.9 1732672360 0.68301 59512831.04
14626378 58505512.7 1791177873 0.62092 36327320.36
11179491 44717962.4 1835895835 0.56447 25242123.98
8868540.2 35474160.8 1871369996 0.51316 18203853.6
7516138.2 30064552.8 1901434549 0.46651 14025335.76
6545760.8 26183043.2 1927617592 0.4241 11104166.26
5868034.8 23472139.2 1951089731 0.38554 9049525.757
NPV= $1,583,693,508
[ ID: 51124915 ]
90
Appendix J: Risk Register
S/N IDENTIFIED RISKS
1 Failure of mateable connectors
2 Wrong sizing, specifications and capacity of control valves.
3 Effect of High Pressure High Temperature (HPHT) environment.
4 Failure of Control Valve to activate during operation or on demand.
5 Failure of Control Valve to deactivate on demand.
6 Failure of Sensor to activate during operation or on demand.
7 Failure of Sensor to deactivate on demand
8 Inadequate manpower and expertise for Intelligent Well technology
9 Flow Assurance problems disrupting Sensor and Valve operations
10 Gauge, Instrumentation and Communication malfunction
11 IWC exceeding target budget and cost
12 Failure of IWC predicted production estimates to match actual outputs.
13 Drop in Oil Price
14 Poor Maintenance Techniques
15 Downhole leakage from zones shut in by ICV
16 Human Error
17 Hydraulic System malfunction
18 Wear and Tear of IWC subcomponents/equipment
19 Abnormal/Excessive flow rates damaging ICVs and Sensors
20 Impingement from sand production damaging IWC equipments
21 Utilities(electricity, power, air etc) failure
22 Software Failure
23 Operating below Safety Requirement Specifications
24 Environmental Influences (Electromagnetic, temperature and mechanical effects)
25 Poor Hardware design
26 Non-Optimal decisions in IWC trial and error method of selection
27 Complications during Completion Operations.