DRILLING & COMPLETION

Bottom line benefits justify deepwater IWS

Installing intelligent well systems
in multi-zone completions pays off despite challenges
Stefano di Vincenzo

Eni E&P

Michele Arena

Schlumberger

Three possible scenarios, a Base Case (left) and two alternatives, (center and right) were postulated.
(Illustrations courtesy Schlumberger) [SOURCE: SPE 133080 Figure 2].

eepwater development presents many

challenges, from drilling to completion to production. This is the story of
an extremely complex set of challenges that were addressed successfully
offshore Nigeria, returning significant benefits to the operator in the form of an increase
in net present value of 15% and an increase in
overall reservoir recovery factor of 6%.

Setting the scene

About 37 miles (60 km) offshore Nigeria,

in about 2,132 ft (650 m) of water, several turbidite sand lobes located at different levels
constitute a high-permeability reservoir with
numerous mud-filled channels providing potential isolating barriers. The reservoir consists of a northern lobe and a southern lobe,
subdivided in three levels, A, B, and C. A total
of eight wells were drilled initially, all targeting level A. Wells 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 terminated
in the northern lobe and wells 4 and 7 terminated in the southern lobe. In 2005, an eighth
well was drilled that, while targeting level A,
also penetrated levels B and C, confirming
the complex nature of the reservoir and calling for a reassessment of completion options.
The team was faced with several challenges, both technical and legal. Under Nigerian
law, each zone in a multi-zone completion
must be isolated and monitored. On the technical side, sand management and crossflow
were the major issues.
After appropriate engineering study, the
following objectives and challenges were
identified:
Well controlthree fully separated, monitored and controlled zones were to be deployed in a single completion run.
Equipment clearancevery tight clearances between upper and lower completion units and between tubulars were
expected.
Zonal allocationDownhole zonal allocation must comply with Nigerian law.

Zonal isolationhigh integrity isolation

was required for selective isolation and
control.
Well positionwater depth required a
dynamically positioned rig.
The first step was to see if a single-well intelligent well systems (IWS) completion was
technically possible, given the constraints
posed by the reservoir conditions, the dimensions of available completion equipment and
compliance with the law. If the first step was
deemed to be feasible, the second step would
compare different alternatives to evaluate
economics.

Attention to detail
facilitates decision

During the evaluation phase, and before

the final completion decision was taken, the
team was faced with a complex set of economic and technical alternatives. Initially, the
plan was to consider only existing technologies applied to three single-zone horizontal
open hole gravel pack completions and dualzone cased hole gravel pack completions. As
third option there was the new technologies
applied to a single deviated well completed
with triple IWS and frac pack for sand management. The well would produce commingled from all three isolated levels, with
precise downhole monitoring of each level to
comply with Nigerian law.
After some study, the Base Case was removed from consideration because of problems experienced in previous wells with open
hole gravel pack completions. Thus, alternatives 1 and 2 were all that remained. To make
the project profitable in the long term, a gas
injector completion was added. Accordingly,
the final decision was between the following
alternative scenarios:
Alternative No. 1 (four wells)
One single producer (level B)
One dual zone producer with IWS (levels
A and C)

One dual zone producer with IWS (levels

A and B)
One triple zone gas injector (levels A, B,
and C commingled).
Alternative No. 2 (three wells)
One triple zone producer with IWS (levels A, B, and C)
One dual zone producer with IWS (levels
A and B)
One triple zone gas injector with IWS
(levels A, B, and C commingled).

First step Completion

design feasibility

Working as a team to ensure engineering

and operational compatibility, operator and
Schlumberger engineers developed a triple
upper zone IWS completion with a lower zone
stacked packed gravel pack completion. The
lower completion consisted of three independent stacked packed gravel pack assemblies,
each with an isolation packer to separate
them from each other, a gravel pack circulation sleeve to allow zonal fluid returns during pack installation, and 7-in. wire-wrapped
screens to isolate the gravel in the annulus.
The upper completion consists of two 2
7/8-in. flow-control valves with pressure
gauges. These are run inside the lower
completion to control flow from the middle
and lower zones. In addition, a 3 -in. flowcontrol valve and gauges are run above the
lower completion to control production from
the upper zone.

Second step Decision

factors weighed

The final decision boiled down to one of

implementation cost, or CAPEX, followed by
the net present value of expected incremental production. This, too, had its complexities.
Capex for a triple zone IWS cost 35% more
than that of a dual zone IWS. In addition, capex for the contract engineering required to
integrate sand management media amounted

Reprinted from the March 2011 edition of OFFSHORE

Copyright 2011 by PennWell Corporation

DRILLING & COMPLETION

A triple upper zone IWS

completion (left) and a
stacked packed gravel
pack lower zone completion (right) were designed.
[SOURCE: SPE 133080
Figure 1].

Safety valve

Cement and formation

behind perforations

9.625 productioncasing
ID drift - 8.525

9 5/8 Production packer

3 1/2 Row control valve

2_ flow control valvesmultistep fully hydraulic

Flat pack for
Intelligent Completion

9 5/8 Gravel pack packer

Gravel pack assembly
7 Wire wrapped screens

Blast joint

9 5/8 Gravel pack packer

6 Multi-ported seal assembly

Gravel pack assembly

2 7/8 Down hole gauges
2 7/8 Flow control valve
7 Wire wrapped screens
9 5/8 Gravel pack packer
Gravel pack assembly

Electrical cable

Blast joint
6 Multi-ported seal assembly
2 7/8 Down hole gauges
2 7/8 Flow control valve

7 Wire wrapped screens

to a 15% increase. Finally, well capex required to install the triple zone
completion added 23% to the overall cost.
On the other hand, expected incremental production for the triple
zone completion versus the dual zone completion was more
than 1 MMbbl.
When the total field development solution was taken into
account, alternative No. 2 offered some very attractive benefits. Drilling one less well would save about $24 million. A
complete subsea facility equipment and installation cost for
one well would be saved. Production from level C would be
controlled with concurrent ability to exercise conformance
and depletion control. It should be noted that these benefits
assumed the IWS would perform reliably.
The main advantages of the option chosen are as follow:
Reduced capexOne well to drill and complete, versus
the other options.
Increased productionAdditional production was expected due to gas lifting from level A helping to lift production
from levels B and C.
Zonal controlProvides the ability to react to premature
water breakthrough or early depletion of a zone.

Alternative 2 implementation

Seven-inch sand screens were selected over 6 5/8-in.

screens despite the fact that clearance between the 9 5/8-in.
casing and the screens was less than 1 in. This was because
the added strength of the larger screens was deemed significant during run-in and later when the well was put on production.
All flow-control valves were checked to ensure their operating range accommodated the expected production profiles
for each valve aperture position and achieved optimum drawdown.
A 6-in. multi-ported bonded seal assembly isolated the two
lower zones while allowing passage of hydraulic and electrical

7 wire wrapped screens

for Sand Control assembly
Clearance CSG/Screens = 0.7625

Radial clearances, while tight, were adequate to allow effective distribution

of the gravel pack while ensuring sufficient clearance for control lines.
[SOURCE: SPE 133080 Figure 7].

control and telemetry lines for the flow-control valve and gauges. To
protect the control lines, grooved blast joints were positioned opposite each perforated interval. These featured self-aligning connections
that aligned the grooves within 0.01-in. (0.25 mm) when the connections were made up so the lines were protected across several joints.
Radial clearance between flow-control valves and the sand screens
was 0.851-in. considered sufficient to prevent damage to the control
lines and prevent swabbing during upper completion run-in. This also
allowed circulation during stab-in.
Flow path through the completion shows how each zones production makes its way through the completion. Each zones contribution
is controlled and monitored using the IWS control-valves and gauges
before it is commingled for its ultimate journey to the surface production facility.
To ensure long-term reliability, engineers were careful to
avoid placing flow-control valves opposite perforations. This
affected completion equipment length for each zone, which
was 15-ft (4.5 m) for level A, 43-ft (13 m) for level B and 34-ft
(10.5 m) for level C. The interval distance between layers was
102-ft (31 m) between the bottom of level A and the top of level
B, and 105-ft (32 m) from the bottom of level B to the top of
level C. The wells maximum deviation of 32.5 with a maximum dogleg severity of 3.1/100-ft was considered adequate
to avoid problems during run-in or gravel packing operations,
or subsequently during the life of the reservoir.

Results exceed expectations

Planned versus actual costs for alternative No. 2 were encouraging. For the well drilled with the triple IWS completion
and the well drilled with the dual IWS completion, IWS material capex came in as planned at 35%; IWS service capex was
less than 12.5% versus the plan of 15%; and the overall well capex difference was reduced to less than 6% against the planned
23%.
On the production side, cumulative oil produced reached
normally expected levels seven months ahead of time and six
months ahead of the most optimistic expectations. The AFE
was re-paid within 15 months of production; net present value
of the well increased by 15% and reservoir recovery factor was
calculated to have risen from 24.7% to 31.05%.

Flow diagram illustrates how each zone flows through the completion
to its ultimate commingling at the top. [SOURCE: SPE 133080 Figure 8].