Sie sind auf Seite 1von 101

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235687630

INTELLIGENT WELL APPLICATIONS IN


PRODUCTION WELLS
Thesis September 2012
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3832.7842

READS

2,278

1 author:
Olajide Aderemi Adekunle
University of Aberdeen
3 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,


letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Olajide Aderemi Adekunle


Retrieved on: 12 July 2016

INTELLIGENT WELL APPLICATIONS IN PRODUCTION


WELLS

By

ADEKUNLE, OLAJIDE ADEREMI, B. Eng

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the award of


Master of Science in Oil and Gas Engineering at the University of Aberdeen

(September, 2012)

ABSTRACT

With the combined force of population outburst and industrialization, the demand for energy
sources is at an all time high, with hydrocarbon fuel sources topping the charts. The
conventional methods of producing oil and gas are no longer sufficient to meet up with
demand, and there has been an increased migration to unconventional methods for the last
few decades.
A practical solution to minimizing this problem is to increase oil production and recovery
factor from new and existing oil and gas fields. This project aims to model the application of
Intelligent Well Completion (IWC) technology using the Schlumberger Eclipse simulator. To
accomplish this target, the well design of a Chevron Field "X" is considered from the drilling
to the final completion phases, and optimised every step of the way. The Intelligent Well
Inflow Control Devices and downhole sensors are simulated for. The ICD offers the ability to
open and close sections of the borehole, while the downhole sensors monitor the borehole
and reservoir properties, providing better reservoir management and

early anomaly

detection.
Based on the analysis of the simulation results, risk management, sensitivity analysis and
other procedures, it was noted that the IWC technology presented an increase in oil
production by approximately 50%, a higher return on investment, low attached risks within
the ALARP region, a high reliability, and a minimal water production (water cut < 90%)
amongst other added values, thus proving the multiple benefits of IWC adaptation.
Although inherent challenges still need to be overcome, with ample room for growth and
development, the Intelligent Well Completion technology has the potential to alleviate the
crippling challenge of the shortage of hydrocarbon energy sources.

ii

DEDICATION

I dedicate this work to God, who graciously seen me through the travails and challenges I
have encountered thus far. Glory be to His name.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to thank my parents, Dr. and Mrs. Adekunle, for their support, material and otherwise.
I acknowledge Chevron upstream Europe, and my industrial supervisor, Mr Nick Waters, for
his tutelage and guidance through the quagmires I faced in executing this project.
I also want to thank Dr Thangavel Thevar, the course coordinator and Professor Gorry
Fairhurst, my academic supervisor, for solving the challenges I faced due to software
licensing.
I am grateful to Dr. Orodu. He was of extreme help in proof reading my thesis, and pointing
out errors along the way.
I thank all my friends that showed me love and support during the execution of this project.
Last and most of all, I thank God for seeing me through this stage of my academics, I couldn't
have done it without Him.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS

PAGE

TITLE PAGE

ABSTRACT

II

DEDICATION

III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
ABBREVIATION
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction

1.2 Statement of the Problem

1.3 Objectives

1.4 Scope of Work and Limitations

1.5 Outline of Report

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General Overview

2.2 Case Studies

2.3 Commingled Flow

2.4 Single and Multilateral Wells

10

2.5 Drilling Inclination

11

2.6 Inflow Control Devices

12

2.7 Downhole Sensors

13

2.8 Risk and Reliability

13

2.9 Economics

14

2.10 Reservoir Characterisation

15

2.11 Reservoir Heterogeneity

16

2.12 Enhanced Oil Recovery

16

2.13 Water Production

17

2.14 Reactive or Proactive

18

2.15 Benefits of Intelligent Well

19

2.16 Challenges Facing IWC

20

2.17 Focus of Present Work

20

3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction

21

3.2 Reservoir Simulation

22

3.2.1 Schlumberger Eclipse Simulator


3.3 Base Case Scenario Field Model

23
24

3.3.1 RUNSPEC

24

3.3.2 GRID

25

3.3.3 EDIT

25

3.3.5 REGIONS

26

3.3.6 SOLUTION

26

3.3.7 SUMMARY

26

3.3.8 SCHEDULE

27

3.4 Error Avoidance

28

3.5 Intelligent Well Modifications

28

3.5.1 Flow Rate

28

3.5.2 Well Location

29

3.5.3 Well Inclination

30

3.5.4 Well Contact Area

30

3.5.5 Multilateral Well

31

3.5.6 Inflow Control Devices

31

3.5.7 Effect of Reservoir Variability

31

3.5.7.1 Reservoir Heterogeneity

vi

32

3.5.7.2 Thief Zones

32

3.5.7.3 Minor Isolated Zones

32

3.5.8 Economic Evaluation

33

3.5.9 Sensitivity Analysis

35

3.5.10 Risk Identification and Reliability

36

3.5.11 Proactive Algorithm

37

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS


4.1 Overview

38

4.2 Base Case Scenario

38

4.3 Adopting Intelligent Well Completions

39

4.3.1 Flow Rate

39

4.3.2 Well Location

41

4.3.3 Well Inclination

44

4.3.4 Well Contact Area

46

4.3.5 Reservoir Variability

47

4.3.5.1 Effect of Thief Zone

47

4.3.5.2 Effect of Isolated Layers

49

4.3.6 Multilateral Well

51

4.3.7 Inflow Control Devices

53

4.3.8 Economics

55

4.3.9 Sensitivity Analysis

57

4.3.10 Risk Identification and Reliability

61

4.3.11 Proactive Algorithm

64

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


5.1 Conclusions

66

5.2 Recommendations

67

REFERENCES

68

APPENDICES

73

vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

3.1

Initial Reservoir Properties

21

3.2

SUMMARY output keywords

27

3.3

Field Economics Value

34

3.4

Breakdown of Fields CAPEX

34

3.5

Sensitivity Variations

35

4.1

Field Production Outputs of Base Case Scenario

39

4.2

Field Production Outputs using Trial and Error method

40

4.3

Field Output Data of Well Located in the Various Layers

42

4.4

Field Output Data of the Various Completion Methods

45

4.5

Field Output Data of Conventional and ERD wells

46

4.6

FOPT and FWPT from horizontal and Deviated wells with thief zone effect

49

4.7

FOPT and FWPT from horizontal and Deviated wells with Isolated zone effect

51

4.8

Field Output Data of Multilateral and ERD wells

53

4.9

Field Output Data of Multilateral Well and ICD Multilateral Well (CECON)

55

4.10

Result of Economic Analysis

56

4.11

Field Data Output from Sensitivity Analysis (Well Diameter)

57

4.12

Field Data Output from Sensitivity Analysis (Oil Price)

58

4.13

Field Data Output from Sensitivity Analysis (Water Cut Limit)

59

4.14

Field Data Output from Sensitivity Analysis (Varying Skin)

60

4.15

Risk Management

61

I1

Economic Analysis of Base Case Scenario

86

I2

Economic Analysis of Multilateral Well

87

I3

Economic Analysis of ICD Well

88

viii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure

Page

1.1

An Intelligent Well Completion System

2.1

Multilateral Well

11

2.2

Natural Gas-Lift Intelligent Completion

17

4.1

Field Production Rate of Base Case Scenario

38

4.2

Field Production Total of Base Case Scenario

39

4.3

Comparison of Field Production Total with Varying Flowrates

40

4.4

Comparison of FOPT and FOPR of 10,000stb/day and BHP Constraints

41

4.5

Comparison of Field Oil Production Total of wells located in various layers

42

4.6

FloViz Image of Base Case Scenario Well located in Layer 9

43

4.7

FloViz Image of Optimal Well located in Layer 13

43

4.8

FOPR of the various Well Inclinations

44

4.9

FOPT of the various Well Inclinations

45

4.10

FOPR and FOPT of Conventional Horizontal Well and ERD

46

4.11

FloViz Image of ERD Wells

47

4.12

Plot Showing Effect of Thief Zone on FOPT from Horizontal and Deviated Wells

48

4.13

Plot Showing Effect of Thief Zone on FWPT from Horizontal and Deviated Wells

48

4.14

Plot Showing Effect of Isolated Zone on FOPT from Horizontal and Deviated Wells 50

4.15

Plot Showing Effect of Isolated Zone on FWPT from Horizontal and Deviated Wells 50

4.16

FloViz Image of the dual Injector Multilateral Field Plan

52

4.17

FOPR and FOPT of Multilateral and ERD Wells

52

4.18

FOPR and FOPT of Multilateral well and ICD Multilateral well (CECON)

54

4.19

FWPT of Multilateral Well and ICD Multilateral Well (CECON)

55

4.20

Plot of Payback Time of Base Case Scenario, Multilateral (No ICD) and ICD well

56

4.21

Plot of Sensitivity Analysis of Varying Well Diameter

58

4.22

Plot of Sensitivity Analysis of Varying Water Cut Limit

59

4.23

Plot of Sensitivity Analysis of Varying Skin

60

4.24

Proactive Algorithm

65

ix

A1

FOE of Base Case Scenario

73

D1

FOE of the Various Well Inclinations

79

D2

FWCT of the Various Well Inclinations

80

E1

FOE of Conventional Horizontal Well and ERD

81

E2

FWCT of Conventional Horizontal Well and ERD

81

G1

FOE of Non-ICD Multilateral Well and ICD Multilateral Well (CECON)

84

G2

FWCT of Non-ICD Multilateral Well and ICD Multilateral Well (CECON)

84

[ ID: 51124915 ]

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1

Introduction

Numerous fields worldwide have been producing at rates considerably below potential
values. Marginal reserves have been overlooked and discarded because the technology
required for profitable exploitation has been elusive, expensive or unproven. These problems
can be remedied by the application of Intelligent Well Completion (IWC) technology.
An Intelligent well (also known as smart well) is a well that is fitted with special completion
equipments that monitor the wellbore properties, collect, transmit and analyse well and
reservoir production data, then enables actions to partition the well, seal portions of the
wellbore, and regulate flow. These actions are carried out in a bid to enhance well
production, and are triggered automatically or manually (operator activated).
An intelligent well may be a single (monitoring multiple zones within a single well),
multilateral (monitoring multiple wells) or a commingled (monitoring multiple reservoirs or
layers) well. It may be drilled vertically, horizontally or inclined. Basically, the initial well
design from conception to drilling to the final completion stage is of importance in
determining how smartly the well would be completed, thus affecting the future production
and operability of the well.
Intelligent well completion (IWC) involves a combination of inflatable packers and sealing
elements, Inflow control devices/valves (ICD), and downhole sensors. It is an advanced nonconventional well. Non-conventional wells may include horizontal wells, side tracked wells,
multi-laterals, highly deviated wells, extended reach drilling etc. Generally, any well that is
drilled or completed using techniques out of the norm, is considered non-conventional.
The concept of Intelligent well has been in existence for over a decade (1). It was first
installed at the Saga platform in the North Sea (2). The idea was initially borne out of a
search for a replacement to expensive and complicated well intervention procedures(3). At
first, the adoption of the technology was slow paced, but it has experienced sporadic maturity
and growth in recent time.
1

[ ID: 51124915 ]

The early versions of IWC used the concept employed by conventional wire line operated
sliding sleeves, which applied down hole electrical control systems and electronic sensors.
However, recurrent issues with longevity and reliability, and high attached costs, led to an
upgrade. This upgrade evolved to the application of down hole fiber optical sensors and
hydraulic controlled systems (2). Necessary electronic devices and software systems are
installed on the surface, allowing easy access for maintenance and repair operations (4).

Figure 1.1: An Intelligent well completion system. (Taken from (5))


Inflow Control Devices (ICD) or Inflow Control Valves (ICV) are considered key
equipments

in

Intelligent

Completion

Wells.

They

provide

variability

in

the

control/regulation of fluid flow through the single or multilateral wells, by utilizing multiple
open and close flow ports. ICD are usually of 2 types; binary (open and close control) or
variable (intermittent, stage-wise control).
Intelligent Well Completion technology is applicable to both conventional and
unconventional hydrocarbon wells. The technology is fast gaining acceptance in the
completion of heavy oil fields (6), and is highly beneficial in Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
operations (7). The goal of IWC is the automation of as much of the production process as is
achievable, so as to improve the Net Present Value (NPV) of an asset, which is achieved by
maximizing production and minimizing costs.

[ ID: 51124915 ]

1.2

Statement of the Problem

There is an ever increasing demand for fuel, which is caused by population growth and
globalization. Hydrocarbon fuel sources are unarguably the major source of energy, thus
putting a sizeable strain on the available resources.
To meet up with this demand, new hydrocarbon prospects need to be explored, and
recoverable production from existing and future proved reserves must be maximized. Proved
reserves are reserves with a high degree of certainty of being developed based on current
market prices (8). Conventional recovery rates hover around 35%, but operators aim to raise
this value to 60% (2).
This is achievable by 2 major methods, which are:

Enhancing the reservoir to increase recoverable reserves (i.e.: recovery factor) (9),

Maximizing the production of proved reserves by Intelligent Well Completions.

Various prospects present different challenges, which are tackled with diverse technological
combinations. The solution to maximizing production by IWC application is subjective, and
it is unfeasible to design a Universal combination.
Consequently, the challenge at hand is the determination of an optimal IWC combination for
maximum hydrocarbon recovery and minimal water production; with a high reliability and
relatively low attached risks.

1.3

Objectives

The objectives of this project include:


1. To carry out extensive literature review on Intelligent Well Completions and their
applications.
2. Apply a reactive trial and error method of IWC, by modifying drilling, completion,
production and reservoir parameters to obtain maximum hydrocarbon recovery and
minimal water production (< 90% water cut).
3

[ ID: 51124915 ]

3. Analyze and compare results by simulating the modifications in Objective 2 above


with a numerical simulation package (Eclipse) to predict production.
4. Employ Inflow Control Devices for IWC applications.
5. Carry out reliability and risk surveys for optimal IWC.
6. Carry out Economic analysis of optimal IWC.
7. Create an algorithm for Proactive IWC.

1.4

Scope of Work and Limitations

Data and simulation models from a Chevron oil field named "Field X" (For Confidentiality
purposes) are used for this case study. Schlumberger Eclipse simulation package would be
used to modify the drilling, completion and reservoir parameters, and simulate the changes in
production outcome.
The envisioned limitations include:

No access to specialized Intelligent well modeling tools and software e.g.: the ABB
Offshore systems' Advanced Downhole Monitoring and Reservoir Control
(ADMARC) Intelligent well systems.

A lack of on-hands direct field application to test viability of results under real-time
conditions. Results from simulations would have to be sufficient.

[ ID: 51124915 ]

1.5

Outline of Report

This project is presented in Five (5) chapters, outlined as follows:

Chapter One is a basic introduction to IWC, summarising its history and


applicability. The task at hand and expected targets are specified, the scope of work
and limitations are duly defined.

Chapter Two consists of an in-depth review into past experience in the field of
Intelligent well completion, and the various processes required for its attainment. The
benefits and challenges facing IWC are also investigated.

Chapter Three gives a detailed description of the steps taken to achieve optimal
production from the field using the Eclipse simulation package. Methodology for
economic evaluation, risk identification and sensitivity analysis are also presented.

Chapter Four presents results obtained from simulations and other methodology,
with detailed discussions.

Chapter Five presents the conclusions from this research, and makes
recommendations for future adaptation.

[ ID: 51124915 ]

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1

General Overview

Advancements in hydrocarbon exploration and production technologies have led to upgrades


in the complexity of well architecture (10), and intelligent wells are considered the most
advanced method of well completion available. Though the concept of Intelligent wells has
been in existence for over a decade, it continues to receive a lot of attention and research
grants, due to the enormous amount of accruable benefits, if effectively applied. Foremost on
the list of benefits are the accelerated oil production rate and upsurge in reservoir recovery
factor (11).
The functions of IWC are considered two-pronged i.e.: monitoring and control. The
downhole sensors act to measure various properties of the wellbore, while the ICD (Inflow
Control Devices) control and regulate the fluid flow at diverse points based on the results
from the sensor. Both the monitoring and control sectors must work in synergy for a well to
be truly considered intelligent.
The concept of IWC has been investigated from different perspectives, ranging from its
applicability under different conditions and multiple scenarios, to the benefits and challenges
encountered in operation. Extensive knowledge sharing on application of IWC technology
has bolstered its growth. A review has been carried out on previous IWC research and
applications, and these are summarized below.

2.2

Case studies

Over the years, the IWC technology has been applied to multiple fields under varying
environmental and reservoir conditions, and in different continents. Each field is considered
unique, as the method of IWC application varies based on individual field properties and
requirements. The desired benefits also play a major role in the selection of optimal IWC
combination to be employed.
Lien et al (12) evaluated the applicability of IWC on the Saramacca Oil fields, located in the
Republic of Suriname, South America. For the purpose of real-time monitoring of well
6

[ ID: 51124915 ]

performance and down hole pressure, a fully automated intelligent well system was installed
on the field. This aided in early detection of wellbore complications, troubleshooting as soon
as detected. There was a recorded increase of approximately 12 barrels of oil per day
(BOPD) from the Saramacca oil fields due to IWC adoption, thus compensating for the
higher installation cost.
Collins et al (13) investigated the effect of IWC on Agbami deepwater field, located offshore
Nigeria. IWC technology was installed on both production and intelligent wells on the field,
so as to alleviate the issues created by the complex stratigraphic architecture and subsurface
uncertainty

of

the

reservoir.

The

Agbami

IWC

project

provided

real

time

monitoring/surveillance and the control necessary for field performance and recovery
optimization. It ensured judicious reservoir management by the integration of surveillance
plans and production management practices in producing from multiple zones. Between
August and November 2010, approximately 10 million BOPD was incrementally added, due
to IWC application.
Al-zahrani et al (14, 15) of Saudi Aramco oil company, examined the installation of an IWC
SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) system on a Haradh Increment-III
(HRDH-III) field in Saudi Arabia.
The SCADA system was applied for real time monitoring and remote control of surface and
downhole tools from the control station. This eliminated the need for engineers to
control/regulate the Intelligent Well from the well site, while optimizing hydrocarbons
production. It was noted that IWC application (multilateral drilling, ICVs and sensors)
maintained peak production values, reduced water cut to the barest minimum (less than 3%),
and increased field performance.
Anderson et al (16) studied the first Maximum Reservoir Contact(MRC) multilateral well,
also located in Saudi Arabia. An MRC well is defined as a well that has a combined reservoir
contact area of more than 5km (16,000 ft), through the single or multilateral configuration
(17). Intelligent well completions and fiber optic monitoring technology were applied to
maximize production volume, resulting in a configuration that produced hydrocarbons at a
very high rate with low drawdown values for a prolonged timeframe.
In addition, the installation of IWC helped to extend the life of the wells. Ideally, when
premature water production occurs through one branch of a multilateral MRC well, it affects
7

[ ID: 51124915 ]

the other laterals, rendering the whole well network useless. However, IWC application
ensures that the erring lateral branch can be shut-in at will, thus stopping the standard
destructive chain reaction.
IWC applications in the Nakika fields, located in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, were
studied and reported by Chacon(18). The application of Intelligent Well technology enabled
successful development of the Nakika field with

a minimum number of wells while

providing high quality reservoir surveillance data.


Most of the reservoirs in the field are highly faulted, compartmentalized, and difficult to
image due to high salt presence. However, the installation of downhole pressure and
temperature sensors, availability of real time data, and installation of ICVs have been critical
to increasing reservoir characterization and eliminating the need for costly subsea well
intervention; thus reducing uncertainties and ensuring production optimization. These
combined benefits ensured a drastic reduction in the fields development costs.
Ajayi et al (11) evaluated the number of wells required for optimal development of a
segment of an offshore field. Both conventional and non-conventional IWC wells were
compared, so as to identify the best application of Intelligent well technology and quantify
the accrued benefits. This survey was carried out using a reservoir simulation model.
Downhole ICVs were installed at multiple positions in the wellbores to further increase
reliability and efficiency.
The results obtained showed an estimated incremental oil gain of between 2.5% and 26%
during the first 2 years of production, after water breakthrough had occurred. Controlling
produced water after water breakthrough occurred led to an increase in oil production.
In a study of a North sea oilfield, Yu et al (19) applied a reservoir simulation tool to quantify
the benefits of IWC. Multiple variations were considered in completing the well to achieve
optimal production. These include water injection, and altering the well inclination to that of
a slanted well. The selected combination proposed an addition of ICVs, downhole sensors
and downhole water-gas separator to a 2-branched inclined multilateral well.
Results indicate that the IWC combination increased the field oil recovery by 4%, continuing
production to the end of the fields life. This is a major improvement over the conventional
completion method, where hydrocarbons production was halted early due to free gas coning.

[ ID: 51124915 ]

Akram et al (20) investigated IWC installations on 9 mature, Shell operated prospects


located in the Brent and Tern fields, North Sea, UK. The fields produce a combined output of
400 thousand barrels of oil equivalent per day. ICVs were installed to provide on-line remote
control of the communication path from the reservoir zones to the tubing. The downhole
flow control enabled perforation of oil, gas and water production zones in a single operation,
thus saving costs.
The results of IWC installation included optimized oil production, zonal water management,
reduced sand production, and flexible gas capacity management; with the major challenge
encountered being the cost and technical difficulty of integrating IWC with the existing field
facilities.
Lie et al (21) reported on the first ever application of IWC technology in recompleting a
perforated live well in the Gullfaks field, offshore Norway. The result was considered
favourable from a technical and economic standpoint. The data from the downhole sensors
increased reservoir characterization, commingled production which was formerly considered
impossible was made feasible, and the need for drilling new wells was eliminated.

2.3

Commingled flow

Commingled wells are used to describe a concurrent production of hydrocarbon fluids from
two or more separate zones or reservoirs, via a single production conduit. This is of high
economic benefit, especially in the profitable production of marginal fields.
In most real life scenarios, wells often cross more than one hydrocarbon bearing layer. The
field operators are then faced with the challenge of deciding if to produce each layer
separately, or to apply commingling techniques. The latter option is only applicable when
Government regulations allow(22); also, the hydrocarbon bearing zones must be of
compatible pressure and fluid composition. Conventional sequential production usually
yields a lower recovery factor and poor production profiles. Application of IWC technology
solves these problems and eliminates intervention requirements, by opening and shutting
each zone remotely from the surface control unit (3, 23).
Chukwueke et al (24) investigated the deployment of IWC technology in exploiting reserves
offshore Nigeria, using commingled production. Three (3) marginal reserves which are not
considered economical by production from single wellbores, are commingled and produced
9

[ ID: 51124915 ]

through a single IWC wellbore. Marginal reserves can be defined as petroleum prospects that
are considered too minute or complicated to recover economically. Production from each
zone is managed and controlled using ICVs, without a need for intervention, further saving
costs.

2.4

Single and Multilateral Wells

Multilateral wells are wells that have more than one wellbore branching out from the main
borehole. Typically, a Multilateral well consists of 3 or 4 single open hole laterals drilled
from a sole main bore, with each single lateral acting as a single well with variances in
permeability and productivity from lateral to lateral. They are considered advantageous
because they increase overall cost of hydrocarbon production by accessing multiple
reservoirs/layers from a single surface location and improving reservoir drainage (25).
Multilateral technology is utilized to increase reservoir contact (reservoir-to-well exposure),
while remaining within the drilling and production limits. IWC can be installed to mitigate
against issues associated with variances in reservoir parameters that can lead to early water
breakthrough and low recovery.
Reed et al (3) indicate that application of IWC technology to multilateral wells bestow the
operators with the ability to isolate, test, monitor, and control each lateral of the wellbore. In
turn, this provides the engineers with the ability to maintain peak oil production, avoid or
reduce water coning, and extend the wells yield life.

10

[ ID: 51124915 ]

Figure 2.1: Multilateral well (Taken from (26))

2.5

Drilling inclination

Directional drilling is the process of directing the wellbore along a deviated trajectory to a
predetermined target in a 3-dimensional process on an X-Y-Z plane (27). The X plane
signifies direction, the Y plane signifies inclination, and the Z plane signifies depth.
Economic and environmental pressures have increased the adoption of directional drilling.
In a deviated well, produced fluid influx along the wellbore tends to be disproportionate due
to the reservoir heterogeneity and frictional pressure drop. This uneven influx can lead to
production problems e.g.: early water breakthrough. Though horizontal wells have a higher
production yield than vertical wells, they don't tend to access all the recovery layers. These
problems can be solved by applying IWC to isolate sections of the wellbore, and adjusting
fluid influx at each isolated section to obtain an even production(26, 28).
IWC application is even more advantageous in Extended Reach Drilling (ERD). ERD is an
advanced technique that applies the concepts of directional and horizontal drilling to achieve
horizontal well departures and reservoir contacts that exceed conventional directional drilling

11

[ ID: 51124915 ]

(29). Though, ERD technology increases hydrocarbon yield, a few challenges are associated
with it. These include:

2.6

Higher Initial Cost.

Complexities with reservoirs at great depths.

Issues with controlling pressure and weight of drilling mud.

Wellbore Instability and difficult wellbore management etc

Inflow Control Devices (ICDs)

The Inflow Control Devices (ICDs) or Inflow Control Valves (ICVs) are surface controlled
chokes that are used to restrict and regulate production. These devices regulate flow at each
predetermined zone by creating a pressure difference between the annulus and the production
string. They are applicable for shutting off zones of gas or water production, and can also be
used to shut in a well or layer for Pressure Build Up (PBU) operations (30). However, their
overall effectiveness is dependent on the reservoir properties (its pressure profile,
permeability, porosity and saturations), and the properties of the wellbore (well Productivity
Index (PI), Inflow Performance Relation (IPR) and Vertical lift performance (VLP)) (31).
Although sliding sleeves are applicable in choking flow, they cannot be used as effectively
nor accurately as ICVs. Installation of ICVs to choke a layer can only be effective when
production from the other completion layers can produce adequately to meet or exceed
production targets. Nodal analysis and reservoir simulations are applied in determining
position and type of ICV for optimal effect (32). Historically, ICDs exhibit high success rates
when installed in high permeability areas, but variations may occur based on the particular
scenario under investigation.
ICDs are built in multiple variations. They may be operator controlled or automated; they
may be operated hydraulically or electrically, they may be variable from open to close or
may operate in multiple incremental steps (15, 33). Notwithstanding their variations, ICVs
are purpose built, operating within pre-set objectives e.g.: an ICV installed to choke water
production might not function optimally under excess gas production (34). Although, control
valves may also be designed for multipurpose applications.

12

[ ID: 51124915 ]

2.7

Downhole Sensors:

IWC Hardware

can be broadly divided into the monitors (sensors), analysis (surface

computers) and control (ICVs). Sensors used in IWC are installed downhole for the purpose
of measuring parameters such as pressure, temperature, flow rate, seismic waves etc (35).
They may be in the form of downhole gauges or optical fibers.
The importance of sensors in the Intelligent Well system cannot be overemphasized.
Important real time and future decisions are based on comparisons of readings and
measurements that are derived from the sensor, to the flowing reservoir model. For example,
a downhole pressure sensors readings during production can be analyzed, and compared to
the expected geothermal gradient. This can help to detect a zone of abnormal pressure
(under-pressure or overpressure), thus preventing a catastrophe. It also enhances the
computation of fluid performance in the well, and can determine when ICDs should be
activated. Temperature sensors are used to detect gas influx (drop in temperature signifies an
increase in gas influx (Joule Thomson effect)) (30, 32, 36), and apportion zonal flow rates.
The measurements provided by the sensors provide data, which must then be interpreted to
provide the required information (35, 37). Issues with reliability have led to the replacement
of electrical systems with fiber optics systems, which have a higher reliability and higher
temperature capacity capable of efficient operation in difficult environments.
Reed et al (3) have proven that increased reliability of IWC components have led to an
evolution of its application from its initial target of well life extension, to include reservoir
management.

2.8

Risks and Reliability

For IWC technology to be considered effective, it must function with a minimum of 90%
probability during the first five years of installation. Premature failures negate its entire basis
for adoption. The requisite improvements and upgrades for a more reliable intelligent well
system have been studied extensively (35). This research has mainly been focused on the
design phase, using tools and techniques to improve system longevity.
Naldrett et al (35) considered IWC hardware reliability from a holistic approach. They
postulated 4 discrete and disconnected steps, consisting of training specialists, design,

13

[ ID: 51124915 ]

manufacture and installation of hardware. These 4 steps should be considered iteratively with
formal managements systems linking each stage for reliability improvement to occur.
Naldrett further believes that a stage-gate Product Lifecycle Management Process (PLMP)
should be adhered to, ensuring that the hardware is assessed from conception to
obsolescence. HAZID (Hazard Identification) and HAZOP studies should be performed for
risk quantification based on past experiences (21). Application of this process has led to
widespread improvements in specialists training techniques, well-site installation tools,
deployment efficiency and ultimate reliability.
Another method for increasing the reliability of the IWC system is by grouping the
completion components into sub-systems, with easy to handle pre-made hydraulic and fiber
optic links (16). Ferguson et al (4) prescribed that for increased longevity and reliability of
downhole data, the sensor transmission should be limited to raw data only and transmitted
through fiber optic cables. All stages of data processing and interpretation should be
performed on the surface where upgrades and maintenance procedures are easily applicable.
Al-Zharani et al (14) reiterate that the IWC hardware should be tested in a testing facility
i.e.: Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) before conveyance to the well site for actual installation.
This is done by connecting the hardware units to ICVs on the shop floor, and function testing
the valves to various positions i.e.: simulating the downhole control lines in the wellbore, so
as to optimize operating procedures and scrutinize equipment quality, hence giving an idea
of the length of each operation. This ensures a reduction in non-productive time (NPT),
while enhancing reliability.
Before and after installation, the IWC hardware is re-validated on location i.e.: Site
Integration Test (SIT). The sub-components are function tested and pressure tested to ensure
operation at full capacity, and this process should be routinely carried out every few months.
Presently, ICV deployment success rate is close to 100% (38)

2.9

Economics

Assets development teams are usually required to effectively rationalize the additional
capital cost of IWC installation. The rationale for cost effective IWC application is
subjective, and can only be justified on a case by case basis. A cost effective operation does

14

[ ID: 51124915 ]

not necessarily mean a lower cost. Economically, it is better defined as an investment that
produces a higher Net Present Value (NPV) than the alternatives.
Though, IWC is sometimes more expensive at the onset, this is compensated for by higher
hydrocarbons production, reduced water cut and a diminished necessity for future well
intervention.
In a study of a typical North Sea oilfield, Yu et al (19) indicated that the major challenge
with proper economic justification of IWC applications is the unavailability of ideal software
and modeling tools. These tools are required to show to the management that there would be
an increased and accelerated cash benefit by IWC adoption.
The North Sea oilfield case study describes an operation where an optimal IWC combination
is applied. The value of the oil produced from the IWC adoption was similar to the
conventional completion when an annual discount rate of 10% is employed; this is a major
financial advantage.

2.10

Reservoir Characterization

A prompt and judicious acquisition, evaluation and processing of reservoir data is paramount
for optimal reservoir characterization (35). Without these, the reservoir is considered a blind
zone with a high degree of uncertainty, making it difficult for engineers to manage the
reservoir soundly. Data from Intelligent Well downhole sensors are interpreted to enhance
and update production models and simulations. This increases clarity of reservoir
connections, reduces volumetric and deliverability uncertainties.
Naldrett et al (35) present a case where IWC technology is applied for reservoir management
and characterization. A production well is fitted with downhole temperature sensors which
record a temperature profile during production activities. An analysis and comparison of the
measured temperature profile with the geothermal gradient makes it possible to determine
the production interval and mass flow input from each reservoir layer.
Issues of poor or insufficient reservoir data have embarrassed petroleum engineers in the
past, forcing them to reduce estimates of recoverable reserves from oilfields. This situation
can be counteracted by a combination of MRC and Intelligent Well Completion, resulting in
a higher and more accurate reservoir description.

15

[ ID: 51124915 ]

Yu et al (19) summarized the positive effect of IWC on reservoir characterization as


providing real time downhole information from the production layers, thus increasing oil
recovery through better management.
Installation of IWC enhances reservoir characterization and modeling, enabling a better
reservoir model to be developed thus optimizing future production operations.

2.11

Reservoir Heterogeneity

Reservoirs are non-uniform in their properties such as permeability, porosity, pore size
distribution, wettability, connate water saturation and fluid properties. These variations can
be areal and vertical, and are caused by the depositional environments and subsequent events
e.g.: Catagenesis (39).
According to Reed et al (3) , experience has indicated that the profitability of IWC
application is greatly dependent on the inherent, pre-existing properties of the reservoir. The
extent to which production is enhanced depends on the field properties. The reservoir
heterogeneity causes a variation in the deliverability of each layer/zone. The reservoir must
be assessed and verified suitable for IWC technology before it is adopted.
Ebadi et al (31) carried out a research on the application of IWC to heterogeneous reservoirs.
The permeability and porosity values of the reservoir were varied using the geological
properties; Coefficient of Variation (Cv) and Correlation Length (CL). By increasing CL,
similar permeability values are grouped together; by increasing Cv, the disparity and range
of permeability values in the reservoir model are increased.
Based on the reservoir models, Ebadi et al deduced that there is great potential for added
value by applying IWC to a heterogeneous reservoir,. However, this is not conclusive, as a
full economic analysis was not carried out.

2.12

Enhanced Oil Recovery

Enhanced Oil Recovery or Tertiary oil recovery is the process of reducing oil saturation
below the residual oil saturation, after the primary and secondary recovery processes have
been exhausted (40).
16

[ ID: 51124915 ]

Naldrett et al (35) highlight an IWC application called Natural Gas-Lift Intelligent


Completion, whereby Intelligent Well technology is deployed for injection of gas for
improved reservoir and production management. Non-associated gas from a gas cap is
injected into the borehole through a wireline retrievable ICV, to provide a pressure boost and
aid oil production (41). This eliminates the need for intervention procedures, surface gas
injection and the accompanying equipments, saving costs in the process.
The concept of downhole gas separation reduces production of formation water and free gas
to the surface. The separated fluids (water and gas) will be re-injected into the formation to
enhance reservoir energy; the separated water will be re-injected into the aquifer, while the
separated gas will be re-injected into the gas cap or another formation.
Clark et al (7) expatiated on application of IWC to Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage
(SAGD) EOR process so as to achieve steam conformance along a horizontal wellbore, and
obtain a 5 to 10% increase in recovery factor.

Figure 2.2: Natural Gas-Lift Intelligent Completion (Taken from (35))

2.13

Water production

In cases where there exists an aquifer influx, or water injection (water flooding) is adopted as
a secondary recovery mechanism, the field would be susceptible to water breakthrough and a
high water cut. The produced water reduces the fractional flow of oil and increases the
17

[ ID: 51124915 ]

wellbore hydrostatic head, deteriorating oil flow. This forces the operators to make a
decision whether to abandon the well, or to continue production at a reduced rate.
Application of IWC technology reduces this problem by regulating water production through
the use of Inflow Control Valves.
Water flooding is the process of injecting water into the formation to displace the inherent oil
(42). Water flood projects are usually abandoned at the point where water breakthrough
becomes excessive, and the water produced dwarves the hydrocarbon swept along.
Application of IWC technology would gradually render this challenge extinct. Regulating the
injection flow rates from the injection well using ICVs would accomplish this goal
efficiently, maintaining the required pressure at each injection point.
Reed et al (3) analysed the application of IWC for water injection operations on Statoils
wells in the Norwegian sector of the North sea. The adoption of this technology generated
increased sweep efficiency, better reservoir drainage and decreased intervention costs. As a
result of these, the recoverable reserves were increased twofold from 2.4 million m3 to 5.4
million m3.
Armstrong et al (43) investigated the application of IWC to a single well producing from two
isolated pay zones of dissimilar permeabilities. ICVs are applied to choke back water
production from the high permeability zones, resulting in synchronized water breakthrough
along the wellbore. This reduced water cut, and simultaneously increased hydrocarbon
production volume.

2.14

Reactive or Proactive

There are two methods of controlling flow valves, these are the reactive and proactive
methods. Both methods have attached advantages and disadvantages. For example, though
the reactive method is simpler and faster to implement, the proactive method is less time
consuming, and can be more profitable in the long run (44).
Proactive method prevents an undesired future result, while the reactive method activates the
ICV when the undesired event occurs. The Proactive method is automated, following a
predetermined set of rules, while the reactive method is operated activated based on certain
decisions.

18

[ ID: 51124915 ]

The efficiency of a production system is optimized by an interactive integration of the


monitoring and control systems. Control actions can be taken based on readings from the
monitoring sensors, in turn these actions can be verified by the sensors. This ensures that
swift measures are taken, when anomalies are detected by the monitoring units.
Conditions for selecting the method of valve control to adopt are subjective, and different
scenarios may call for a different choice (45).

2.15

Benefits of Intelligent wells

As is evident thus far, the benefits of optimal application of IWC technology are numerous.
These include:

Reduction or elimination of extra wells, surface facilities, and intervention


procedures (24, 26, 32).

Reduction in the water cut (43,46)

Reduced Operational Expenses (OPEX) (26).

Maintaining oil and gas production peak (47).

Extends the life of wells and reserves(47).

Control, crossflow elimination and Back Allocation of commingled production for


economic exploitation of marginal reserves (32, 48).

Automated regulation of flow by downhole ICVs, controlled from remote locations


(21).

Augmentation or Replacement of Wireline services, particularly in inaccessible ERD


wells(26).

Maximise injection sweep efficiency by regulating injection rates.

Reduces geological uncertainty by higher reservoir characterization (2, 49).

Reduction in Non-Productive Time and Rig down time (32).

Real time measurement and transmission of reservoir properties for better reservoir
management(24, 47).

Reduced risk of personnel accidents, since there is reduced requirement for their
presence on the well site(24, 47)

19

[ ID: 51124915 ]

These benefits are amplified many times over in deepwater and subsea operations, due to the
expensive and technically demanding challenges of these locations.
2.16

Challenges facing IWC

Challenges in IWC adoption can be alleviated by selecting optimal system combinations, and
ensuring excellence in the different stages of design, planning, installation and
implementation. Though this does not guarantee a successful operation, it would greatly
increase its chances.
Based on literature review of past experiences, common challenges encountered include:

Substantial amount of rig time and expertise is required for the installation and testing
of IWC (16).

Oil and gas price uncertainties(50)

Lack of reservoir evaluation tools for effective modeling of the Intelligent well
components and expected operation (11).

Expensive adoption of IWC to mature fields (20).

Reliability of downhole valves and sensors (33).

Identification of potential and suitable candidates for IWC(34)

The challenge of finding the right "People", employing the right "Process" and using
the right "Products" (46).

2.17

Focus of Present Work

The aim of this project is to identify the optimal Intelligent Well Completion combination for
drilling and completion of Chevron Field X, and quantify the accrued gains by Numerical
reservoir simulation predictions. The reservoir simulation package of choice is the
Schlumberger Eclipse 100 simulator.
Based on prediction results from the simulator, economic analysis would be carried out to
determine the feasibility of the IWC of choice, a proactive algorithm is generated for future
applications, and Risk analysis is performed to reduce inherent risks and increase reliability.

20

[ ID: 51124915 ]

Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1

Introduction

As discussed in previous chapters, there is no "one size fits all" ideal IWC configuration. All
optimal Intelligent well applications are conceived as fit-for-purpose.
The 1st step in adopting IWC technology is to ascertain that the reservoir under study is
lithologically suitable. This starts from a simple analysis of the reservoir properties, and
advances to complex numerical reservoir simulations. From the reservoir standpoint, factors
such as number of layers, pressure variations, heterogeneity (porosity, permeability),
reservoir size, fluid contact depths, natural and artificial recovery mechanisms in place, total
recoverable reserves, fluid type etc are taken into consideration.
The next step is to consider the operating environment (onshore or offshore), well
completion and production methods. Based on well completion considerations, the well
geometry and trajectory, well type (injection or production), sand production potential,
expected drawdown rates, casing and tubing sizes, artificial lift etc are deliberated upon.
Afterwards, the reliability and associated risks of the IWC components will be outlined and
investigated, with steps proposed for mitigating against the occurrence and impacts of
exposure to these risks.
Finally, the economics of IWC adaptation i.e.: Increased investment costs (CAPEX, OPEX
etc) are compared to the calculated increase in revenue (due to higher hydrocarbon recovery,
lower water production, saved rig time from elimination of intervention procedures etc)
based on simulation predictions. The objective is to determine the economic viability of IWC
utilization.
These steps are not sequential, but are interwoven and considered in combination.

21

[ ID: 51124915 ]

3.2

Reservoir Data

The reservoir properties have been collated from well logs, core samples, laboratory tests and
measurements and petro-physical interpretation. Some of these properties are highlighted
below.

Table 3.1: Initial Reservoir Properties


Reservoir Parameters

Value

Grid cell Dimensions


Length (DX) (ft)

328

Width (DY) (ft)

328

Height (DZ) (ft)

6.06 to 119.10

Volume of Grid cells (X * Y * Z) (ft3)

138 * 82 * 24 = 271,584

Average Porosity *

0.12 to 0.17

Average Net To Gross NTG

0.63

Reservoir Permeability (mD)*

1 to 100

Initial Water Saturation

0.45

Initial Reservoir Pressure P initial (psi)

2,776

Oil Gravity (oAPI)

23

Oil Viscosity (cP)

Reservoir Depth (ft)

5,971

Water Oil Contact (ft)

6955

Gas Oil Contact (ft)

5085.30

= Heterogeneous and Anisotropic

3.2

Reservoir Simulation

The best way for appraising the production benefits of an IWC application is by modeling
both a conventional base case scenario and an alternative IWC scenario, and then comparing
the output ultimate recovery (11, 37). This is achieved using Reservoir simulation packages,
and in this case, the Schlumberger Eclipse 100 simulator.
22

[ ID: 51124915 ]

Reservoir simulation is a process of deducing the performance of a real reservoir from the
predictions made by a physical or mathematical model of that reservoir (51). It allows the
operator to gain a deeper insight into the mechanisms of hydrocarbon recovery. This is
achieved by dividing the reservoir into a number of blocks and applying basic equations
(governing, boundary and initial equations) for flow in porous medium to these individual
blocks.
The ultimate target of a reservoir simulator is to predict the future performance of a
reservoir, providing information on methods of increasing overall recovery (51). A
Numerical method is composed of a complex mathematical model of a physical system,
which is governed by partial differential equations and iterations, with preset boundary
conditions that describe and predict physical processes taking place in the reservoir. A
Numerical model is usually carried out with the aid of a computer program, applying
numerical methods to compute solutions to the mathematical model. The processes that take
place within a reservoir are predominantly fluid flow (water, oil and gas) and mass transfer.
However, it must be noted these models are prone to geological uncertainties, and disparities
might occur between predicted and real behaviour. Though, the reservoir simulator is a
valuable tool, it does not replace good and experienced engineering judgment. Operators
should continually adapt the model to changes.
3.2.1

Schlumberger Eclipse Simulator

Schlumberger/Geoquest Eclipse is a fully implicit, multiphase, multi-dimensional computer


program for numerical simulation of a reservoir model; consisting of several thousand
keywords that are used to initiate various actions.
To begin simulation with Eclipse, a DATA input file is required. The name of this file must
have a ".DATA" filename suffix. (e.g.: Reservoir2.data). This file contains the reservoir data
or links to other files in which the data is saved (using the INCLUDE keyword). The DATA
file can be created and modified using any standard word editor
An Eclipse data file is split into 8 major sections, each of which is introduced by a keyword
(52). Some keywords can be used in both Eclipse 100 and 300, while others are recognised
23

[ ID: 51124915 ]

in only one of the two. Most of these keywords can only be used in 1 specific sections of the
data file. Out of these 8 major sections, 5 are required, while 3 are merely optional. These
section keywords must be specified in the displayed order:

RUNSPEC (required)

GRID (required)

EDIT (optional)

PROPS (required)

REGIONS (optional)

SOLUTION (required)

SUMMARY (optional)

SCHEDULE (required)

For both the conventional base case scenario and all alternative IWC

combinations,

keywords 1-7 listed in the table above remain the same, except in the case of Minor isolated
layers and Thief zones. The modifications for Intelligent Well completion are made in the
SCHEDULE section (keyword number 8).
3.3

Base Case Scenario Field Model

The Base case field model refers to the field at initial conditions, before Unconventional
technologies and Intelligent Well Completion are applied. The details and data input
keywords can be viewed in Appendix A
3.3.1

RUNSPEC (Field Run Descriptions)

This is the first section of the simulation data input. It is a required keyword as the
information contained in Eclipse are a prerequisite for the simulations to execute without
errors. RUNSPEC further contains other keywords that execute the modeling options or
contain data and information.
Based on the RUNSPEC section in the base case scenario data file, the field contains oil,
water, gas and dissolved gas phases. The model grid block is subdivided into 138 cells on the
X axis, 82 cells on the Y axis, and a total of 24 layers on the Z axis for simulation purposes.
The X and Y axis are the length and breadth of the square model grid blocks, while the Z
24

[ ID: 51124915 ]

axis depicts the reservoir model thickness. All measurements are carried out in "field" units
for consistency. The reservoir has a weak aquifer, which is considered to be insignificant.
The field production and injection simulations are set to begin on the 1st of September, 2010.
3.3.2

GRID (Grid and Rock Geometry and Properties)

The GRID section contains information on the basic geometry of the simulation grid blocks
and rock properties in each grid block.
Based on the GRID section in the base case scenario data file, the model is of a Cartesian
block centered geometry, consisting of horizontal blocks with right angle corners.
Anisotropic values for Porosity, Net-To-Gross (NTG) and Permeability values for each grid
block are specified in the INCLUDE files. Net to Gross refers to the fraction of the reservoir
within the total sand sequence. The minimum pore volume that a cell must exceed or be
rendered inactive (cells with zero pore volume) is set by the MINPV keyword at a value of
30 rb (reservoir barrels). To curb the barrier effects of these inactive cells, the PINCH
keyword is used.
Based on the cell dimensions and permeability, the program then calculates the
transmissibility of fluid over the field model.
3.3.3

EDIT (User Defined Modifications)

No modifications are made to the simulation model, thus the EDIT keyword is omitted.
3.3.4

PROPS (Reservoir and Fluid Properties)

This section contains pressure and saturation reliant properties of the reservoir fluids (as
specified in the RUNSPEC section) and rocks. The PVT (Pressure-Volume-Temperature)
keywords used here are determined by the oil, water, gas and dissolved gas phases.
Based on the results from laboratory and field tests, the PVT model is inputted as an
INCLUDE file. This file contains the PVT properties of oil, dry gas and water. The
properties stipulated for oil includes its Gas Oil Ratio (GOR), bubble point/saturation
pressure, the oil formation volume factor, and oil viscosity respectively. The properties of
25

[ ID: 51124915 ]

dry gas include the gas phase pressure, the gas formation volume factor, and corresponding
gas viscosity. The properties of water include the reference pressure, the water formation
volume factor, the compressibility of water, and the water viscosity.
In addition, the surface densities of the reservoir fluids, rock compressibility and pressure,
initial water saturations, water/oil and gas/oil relative permeability and capillary pressures
etc are also included using appropriate keywords. These values are used by the simulator to
solve the mass balance equations.
3.3.5

REGIONS (Splits the Computational Grid into Regions for Calculation)

The INCLUDE section keyword is used to import files containing the FIPNUM and
EQLNUM keywords. The FIPNUM keyword signifies the region numbers for fluids in
place. Every grid block is defined by an integer following the keyword, specifying the fluid
in place region to which it belongs; while the EQLNUM keyword specifies the equilibration
region to which each grid block belongs.
3.3.6

SOLUTION (Initial Reservoir Conditions)

This section contains data on the initial state of each grid block that makes up the simulation
model i.e.: the pressure, saturations and composition.
Based on base case conditions, the datum depth is set by the EQUIL keyword at 5971ft. This
is followed by the pressure at this specified depth, which is set at 2776psi, the Water Oil
Contact (WOC) is at a depth of 6955ft, and the Gas Oil Contact (GOC) is at 5085.3ft. The
PBVD keyword is used to specify bubble point pressures at varying depths.
3.3.7

SUMMARY (Result Output Specification)

This section contains specifications of data that should be written to the summary file at the
end of each simulation time step. Though this section is optional, it is very helpful when
certain types of graphical and tabular outputs (e.g.: Completion oil production rate as a
function of time) are required. If there is no SUMMARY section, no summary files are
created at the end of the simulations.

26

[ ID: 51124915 ]

In the SUMMARY section of the base case data file, the following keywords are used and
are considered noteworthy:
Table 3.2: SUMMARY Output Keywords
KEYWORD
EXCEL

DESCRIPTION
This ensures that the generated predictions from the simulation model are
written to an excel file, and saved with a .RSM suffix. These files can be
opened and viewed with Microsoft Excel, making viewer readability easy.

COPR

Completion Oil Production Rate

COPT

Completion Oil Production Total

CWPR

Completion Water Production Rate

CWPT

Completion Water Production Total

FOPR

Field Oil Production Rate

FOPT

Field Oil Production Total

FWPR

Field Water Production Rate

FWPT

Field Water Production Total

FOE

Field Oil Efficiency; signifies the field recovery factor (the percentage of oil
that has been recovered)

3.3.8

SCHEDULE (Simulation Operations and Timing)

This section specifies the well definition, various operations to be simulated, production and
injection well completion and constraints, and simulation schedule (timesteps/dates). In the
SCHEDULE section of the base case data file, the WELSPECS keyword is used to define
the names of the single injector and producer wells, their cell locations on the simulation
gridblocks, and the preferred fluid phase produced from the well. The injection well location
is selected based on areal sweep efficiency, reservoir depth and geometry, and fluid
saturation(53). The reference well depth for the bottom hole pressure is defaulted, thus it is
automatically set to the grid block where the first connection is located in COMPDAT (52).
The COMPDAT keyword is used to define the position and properties of the well
completions, with the corresponding input values stipulating the location and inclination of
27

[ ID: 51124915 ]

the wellbore on the gridblocks. Based on values inputted in the COMPDAT keyword of the
base case file, the Base Case well is a horizontal well. OPEN flag is set to indicate that each
well connection is open to flow. The wellbore diameter is specified as 0.708ft, and the skin
factor is set as "2" for both injector and producer wells.
The keywords WCONPROD and WCONINJE are used to specify the control data and
constraints for the injection and production wells (production and injection rates). In the base
case model, there are 1 production and 1 injection wells. The production well is set OPEN to
flow, and constrained by a maximum oil rate (set by the ORAT keyword) of 5, 000 stb/day.
The injection well is also OPEN to flow, with the injection fluid phase set to WATER, and
constrained by a maximum water injection rate of 5,000 stb/day.
The TSTEP keyword is used to specify the schedule timestep for this project, which is set at
a total of 10 years, starting from 2nd September, 2010.
The proper arrangement of keywords is essential, as certain keywords must appear before
others for the simulation to run without errors (54). e.g.: WELSPECS must be specified
before COMPDAT, as this is analogous to the sequence with which events occur in well
drilling and exploitation. This can be viewed further in Appendix A.

3.4

Error Avoidance

The "NOSIM" keyword is used for data checking, to test the model without actual
simulation, thus saving time in error prone situations. Double dashes (--) are inserted before
comments to ensure that the Eclipse model treats it as a comment, and avoid unnecessary
errors. This also ensures that the various keywords and steps are clearly defined for ease of
readability.
3.5

Intelligent Well Modifications

3.5.1

Flow rate

The flow rate is the volume of a given fluid that passes through a surface as a function of
time. Fluid motion through the reservoir into the wellbore is governed by Darcy's law; which
28

[ ID: 51124915 ]

states that the rate of flow of a homogeneous fluid through porous media is directly
proportional to the area open to flow and pressure gradient, and inversely proportional to the
fluid viscosity (55).
Mathematically, this is expressed as:

= =

(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

29

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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.
30

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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.

31

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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.

32

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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

33

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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
CAPEX ($)

PARAMETER
COST OF OIL WELL

10,000,000

20,000,000

COST

2,000,000

4,000,000

OF

COMPLETION
TOTAL CAPEX

24,000,000

MULTILATERAL WELL

UNIT

PARAMETER

CAPEX ($)

COST OF WELL
COST

10,000,000
OF

MULTILATERAL

60,000,000

0.5 * COST OF

30,000,000

WELL

WELL
COST

OF

2,000,000

12,000,000

COMPLETION
TOTAL CAPEX

102,000,000

ICD WELL

UNIT

PARAMETER

CAPEX ($)

COST OF WELL
COST
MULTILATERAL

10,000,000
OF

60,000,000

0.5 * COST OF

30,000,000

WELL

WELL

34

[ ID: 51124915 ]
COST

OF

2,000,000

12,000,000

COMPLETION
COST OF ICD

0.3 * COST OF 2
ICD

1,200,000

WELL

COMPLETION
COST

OF

DOWNHOLE
SENSORS

3,000,000

FOR 4

12,000,000

EACH
PRODUCTION
WELL
INSTALLATION

TOTAL CAPEX

3.5.9

115,200,000

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%

35

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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).
36

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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.

37

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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


38

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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

39

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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.
40

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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
41

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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

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 %

42

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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.

43

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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.

44

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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

COMMINGLED

DEVIATED

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 %

45

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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
46

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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).
47

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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
48

[ ID: 51124915 ]

Table 4.6: FOPT and FWPT from Horizontal and Deviated wells with thief zone effect
INCLINATION
FOPT

(MSTB)

HORIZONTAL
without 20, 843.39

COMMINGLED DEVIATED
13, 833

Thief Zone
FOPT (MSTB) with Thief 20, 843.39

13, 826.82

zone
without 21,170.32

19,765.75

FWPT (MSTB) with Thief 21,170.32

19,900.21

FWPT

(MSTB)

Thief Zone

zone

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.

49

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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.

50

[ ID: 51124915 ]

Table 4.7: FOPT and FWPT from Horizontal and Deviated wells with Isolated zone effect
HORIZONTAL

INCLINATION
FOPT

(MSTB)

without 20, 843.39

COMMINGLED DEVIATED
13, 833

Isolated Zone
FOPT (MSTB) with Isolated 20, 678.46

12,444.27

zone
without 21,170.32

19,765.75

FWPT (MSTB) with Isolated 21,038.75

20,028.15

FWPT

(MSTB)

Isolated Zone

zone

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

51

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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

52

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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.

53

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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)
54

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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
55

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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
BASE CASE SCENARIO MULTILATERAL ICD

WELL TYPE

NPV ($ millions) 764.513

1,571.145

1,583.694

2500

CUMMULATIVE CASHFLOW (million $)

2000

1500
Base Case

1000

Multilateral
ICD well

500

0
0
-500

10

TIME (YEARS)

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
56

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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.

57

[ ID: 51124915 ]
30000
25000

FOPT (MSTB)

20000

FOPT for 0.6018 ft


FOPT for 0.708 ft

15000

FOPT for 0.8496 ft

10000
5000

0
122
273
426
578
731
884
1034
1187
1338
1491
1642
1795
1948
2100
2253
2404
2557
2710
2860
3013
3164
3317
3469
3622

TIME (DAYS)
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.

58

[ ID: 51124915 ]

o Effect of Varying Water Cut Limit on FOPT and FWPT


30000

25000

FOPT (MSTB)

20000
FOPT for 80% WATER CUT
FOPT for 90% WATER CUT

15000

FOPT for 95% WATER CUT


10000

5000

0
153
334
518
700
884
1065
1249
1430
1614
1795
1979
2161
2345
2526
2710
2891
3075
3256
3440
3622

0
TIME (DAYS)

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.

59

[ ID: 51124915 ]

o Effect of Varying Skin on FOPT


30000
25000

FOPT (MSTB)

20000
FOPT for SKIN 1

15000

FOPT for SKIN 2


FOPT for SKIN 6

10000
5000

0
122
273
426
578
731
884
1034
1187
1338
1491
1642
1795
1948
2100
2253
2404
2557
2710
2860
3013
3164
3317
3469
3622

TIME (DAYS)
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

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

60

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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
Exposure
S/N Description of risk

before

Exposure
Action

after

mitigation

Mitigation
Adoption of the FAMUS

Flow Assurance problems

SIL 1

model;

where

flow

assurance

mitigation

is

integrated into the RAM SIL 3


(Reliability,
and

Availability

Maintainability)

analysis process.
All members of staff must
undergo intensive training
2

Human Error

and be kept abreast of new

SIL 1

developments.

Technical

knowledge and relevant


experience

61

must

be

SIL 4

[ ID: 51124915 ]

prioritised.

Information

sharing

should

encouraged.

Sensitive

operations
double

be

should

be

checked

and

performed in groups, to
reduce the probability of
an individual's failure.
Carry out RAM analysis
and

performance

forecasting,

so

anticipate

as

and

to

mitigate

failures before they occur.


Apply IW specific data to

Failure of IWC downhole


3

subcomponents/equipment

SIL 2

monitor

due to HPHT

the

performance,

SIS SIL 3

acting

on

soon

as

deviations

as

detected.

Install

only

durable, tested and highly


reliable

hardware

from

measures

of

onset.
Some

redundancy
introduced

Failure of Minimal Cut set


components.

may
to

be

improve

reliability. For a higher


SIL 2

level of reliability, all CCF SIL 4


systems should be installed
in duplicates or triplicates,
and sensitive components
should

62

be

installed

in

[ ID: 51124915 ]

parallel wherever possible.

Selection
Failure
5

of

the

the

more

reliable fiber optics and

gauge,

transmission

of

hydraulic

and SIL 2

system,

over

electrical systems. Using

communication.

dedicated

SIL 3

electronic

circuits.
Sensitivity analysis should
be carried out to predict
6

Changes in Oil Price

changes in NPV that may

SIL 1

occur,

and

contingency

prepare
plans

SIL 2

for

plunges in oil price.


**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).

63

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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.

64

DECISION DRIVER
-Maximum Oil Production
-Minimum Water Production
-Reliability etc

CENTRAL CONTROL
SYSTEM

[ ID: 51124915 ]

Identify Scenario for


IWC Application
Analyse and Compile
Data for Database
Enhancement

Objective of
Field/Well defined?

NO

YES

INTELLIGENT WELL DATA

Design Field Architecture that


satisfies Decision Driver
Begin
Production/Simulations

Desired Deliverable on
track?

NO

YES
Downhole Sensors
-Gather data
Temperatur

Pressure

Flow rate etc

Satisfies Criterion for ICD


Activation?

NO

YES
Trigger ICD
Modify Design
and Update ICD
NO
Trigger Alarm To
Notify Personnel

Required
Option/Solution
met?

YES 65

Fig 4.24: Proactive Algorithm

Other Data Sources

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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.

66

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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.

67

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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, Jansen JD. 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 JL, 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 July 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 June
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 June 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, Jacob 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.

68

[ ID: 51124915 ]
(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-ReservoirContact 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 JB, 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 JJ, 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 Jr AT, Millheim KK, Chenevert ME, Young Jr FS. Directional Drilling and Deviation
Control. In: Evers JF, Pye DS, editors. Applied Drilling Engineering. 2nd ed. Richardson, Texas: Society
of Petroleum Engineers Textbook Series; 1991. p. 351-352-453.

69

[ ID: 51124915 ]
(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 June 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 Jr. JO, Mehdizadeh A, Torabzadeh J, Yen TF, Donaldson EC, et al. Chapter
8 Waterflooding. Developments in Petroleum Science: Elsevier; 1985. p. 251-334.

70

[ ID: 51124915 ]
(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, WestAfrica 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.

71

[ ID: 51124915 ]
(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 JH, 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. 355356-368.
(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.

72

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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

73

[ ID: 51124915 ]
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 /

74

[ ID: 51124915 ]
'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'

75

[ ID: 51124915 ]
/
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
5971 2776 6955
0 5085.30 0
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
/

1 /
1 /

76

[ ID: 51124915 ]
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* /
'INJ1'
'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'
/
'INJ1' 29 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'X'
/
'INJ1' 30 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'X'
/
'INJ1' 31 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'X'
/
'INJ1' 32 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'X'
/
'INJ1' 33 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'X'
/
'INJ1' 34 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'X'
/
'INJ1' 35 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'X'
/
'INJ1' 36 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'X'
/
'INJ1' 37 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'X'
/
'INJ1' 38 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'X'
/
/
WRFT
/
GRUPTREE
'FLD' 'FIELD' /
/
WCONPROD
'ICD1'
'OPEN' 'ORAT' 5000
6* /
/
WCONINJE
'INJ1' '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* /

77

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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* /
'INJ1' '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* /
'INJ1'
'FLD' 20 60 1*
'OIL' 7* /
/
COMPDAT
'ICD3' 21 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 22 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 23 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 24 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 25 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 26 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 27 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 28 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*

0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'
0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'
0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'
0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'
0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'
0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'
0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'
0.708 1* 2 1* 'X'

/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

Layer 14
WELSPECS
'ICD4'
'FLD' 21 64 1*
'OIL' 7* /
'INJ1'
'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*
'ICD4' 23 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD4' 24 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD4' 25 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD4' 26 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD4' 27 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD4' 28 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*

78

/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X /
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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*
'ICD1' 21 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD1' 21 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 19 60 10 10 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 19 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 19 60 16 16 'OPEN' 2*
/

0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*

'Y'/
'Y'/
'Y'/
'Y'/
'Y'/
'Y'/

Appendix D2: Deviated well


COMPDAT
'ICD1' 21 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD1' 22 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD1' 23 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*

0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*

79

'Y'/
'Y/
'Y'/

[ ID: 51124915 ]

Figure D2: FWCT of the various well inclinations


Appendix E: Well Contact Area Data Input and Plots
WELSPECS
'ICD3'
'FLD' 21 64 1*
'INJ1'
'FLD' 20 60 1*
'OIL'
/
COMPDAT
'ICD3' 21 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 22 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 23 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 24 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 25 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 26 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 27 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 28 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 29 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 30 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 31 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 32 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 33 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 34 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 35 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 36 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 37 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 38 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 39 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 40 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 41 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 42 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 20 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 21 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 22 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 23 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 24 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 25 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 26 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*

'OIL' 7* /
7* /

0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*

'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/

80

[ ID: 51124915 ]
'INJ1'
'INJ1'
'INJ1'
'INJ1'
'INJ1'
'INJ1'
'INJ1'
'INJ1'
'INJ1'
'INJ1'
'INJ1'
'INJ1'
'INJ1'

27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39

60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60

15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15

15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15

'OPEN' 2*
'OPEN' 2*
'OPEN' 2*
'OPEN' 2*
'OPEN' 2*
'OPEN' 2*
'OPEN' 2*
'OPEN' 2*
'OPEN' 2*
'OPEN' 2*
'OPEN' 2*
'OPEN' 2*
'OPEN' 2*

0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*

'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'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* /

81

[ ID: 51124915 ]
'ICD2'
'FLD' 21 64 1*
'OIL' 7* /
'ICD3'
'FLD' 21 64 1*
'OIL' 7* /
'ICD4'
'FLD' 21 64 1*
'OIL' 7* /
'INJ1'
'FLD' 20 60 1*
'OIL' 7* /
'INJ2'
'FLD' 25 65 1*
'OIL' 7* /
/
COMPDAT
'ICD2' 21 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD2' 22 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD2' 23 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD2' 24 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD2' 25 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD2' 26 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD2' 27 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD2' 28 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD2' 29 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD2' 30 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD2' 31 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD2' 32 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD2' 33 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD2' 34 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD2' 35 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD2' 36 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD2' 37 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD2' 38 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD2' 39 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD2' 40 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD2' 41 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD2' 42 64 6 6 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD1' 21 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD1' 22 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD1' 23 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD1' 24 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD1' 25 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD1' 26 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD1' 27 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD1' 28 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD1' 29 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD1' 30 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD1' 31 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD1' 32 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD1' 33 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD1' 34 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD1' 35 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD1' 36 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD1' 37 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD1' 38 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD1' 39 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD1' 40 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD1' 41 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD1' 42 64 9 9 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD3' 21 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD3' 22 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD3' 23 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD3' 24 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD3' 25 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD3' 26 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD3' 27 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD3' 28 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD3' 29 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD3' 30 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*
'ICD3' 31 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
0.708 1* 2 1*

'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X' /
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/

82

[ ID: 51124915 ]
'ICD3' 32 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 33 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 34 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 35 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 36 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 37 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 38 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 39 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 40 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 41 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD3' 42 64 13 13 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD4' 21 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD4' 22 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD4' 23 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD4' 24 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD4' 25 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD4' 26 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD4' 27 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD4' 28 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD4' 29 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD4' 30 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD4' 31 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD4' 32 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD4' 33 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD4' 34 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD4' 35 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD4' 36 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD4' 37 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD4' 38 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD4' 39 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD4' 40 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD4' 41 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
'ICD4' 42 64 14 14 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 20 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 21 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 22 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 23 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 24 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 25 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 26 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 27 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 28 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 29 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 30 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 31 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 32 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 33 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 34 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 35 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 36 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 37 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 38 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ1' 39 60 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ2' 25 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ2' 26 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ2' 27 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ2' 28 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ2' 29 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ2' 30 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ2' 31 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ2' 32 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2*
'INJ2' 33 65 15 15 'OPEN' 2*

0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*

'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X' /
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/
'X'
/

83

[ ID: 51124915 ]
'INJ2'
'INJ2'
'INJ2'
'INJ2'
'INJ2'
'INJ2'
'INJ2'
'INJ2'
'INJ2'
/

34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65

15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15

15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15

'OPEN' 2*
'OPEN' 2*
'OPEN' 2*
'OPEN' 2*
'OPEN' 2*
'OPEN' 2*
'OPEN' 2*
'OPEN' 2*
'OPEN' 2*

0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*

'X'
'X'
'X'
'X'
'X'
'X'
'X'
'X'
'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)
84

[ ID: 51124915 ]

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 /
/

85

[ ID: 51124915 ]

Appendix I: Economic Analysis


Table I1: Economic Analysis of Base Case Scenario
OIL
WATER
PRODUCTION PRODUCTION CAPEX
(MSTB/YR)
($)
YEAR (MSTB/YR)
0
0
0
24000000
1
1825
12.109
0
2
1830
26.27486
0
3
1825
35.22904
0
4
1825
41.67597
0
5
1825
49.7233
0
6
1830
59.7352
0
7
1825
69.8402
0
8
1825
81.4593
0
9
1824.56
96.0424
0
10
1765.35
110.4421
0

TAX ($)
0
32134758
32233475
32134295
32134166
32134006
32232805
32133603
32133371

CASH FLOW($)
-24000000
128539031
128933898
128537182
128536666
128536022
128931221
128534413
128533483

FIXED
OPEX
OIL($)
0
20000000
20000000
20000000
20000000
20000000
20000000
20000000
20000000
20000000
20000000

CUMM CASH FLOW($)


-24000000
104539031.3
233472929.3
362010111
490546776.9
619082799
748014020.2
876548433
1005081916
86

VARIABLE
OPEX
WATER($)
0
1210.9
2627.486
3522.904
4167.597
4972.33
5973.52
6984.02
8145.93
9604.24
11044.21

TOTAL
OPEX($)
0
20001211
20002627
20003523
20004168
20004972
20005974
20006984
20008146
20009604
20011044

REVENUE
($)
0
200750000
201300000
200750000
200750000
200750000
201300000
200750000
200750000
200701600
194188500

DISCOUNT FACTOR (10%)


1
0.90909
0.82645
0.75131
0.68301
0.62092
0.56447
0.51316
0.46651

ROYALTY
(10%)
0
20075000
20130000
20075000
20075000
20075000
20130000
20075000
20075000
20070160
19418850

TAXABLE
INCOME($)
0
160673789
161167373
160671477
160670832
160670028
161164026
160668016
160666854
160621836
154758606

PRESENT VALUE($)
-24000000
116853664.8
106556940.5
96571887.06
87792272.33
79810756.93
72778313.13
65958477.39
59961818.54

[ ID: 51124915 ]

32124367
30951721

128497469
123806885

1133579385
1257386269

0.4241
0.38554
NPV=

54495470.4
47732913.56
$764,512,514.6

Table I2: Economic Analysis of Multilateral well

YEAR
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

OIL
PRODUCTION
(MSTB/YR)
0
12765.25
7433.06
2115.96
1299.74
1006.56
822.18
695.92
609
550.68
511.9

ROYALTY
(10%)
0
140417750
81763660
23275560

WATER
PRODUCTION
(MSTB/YR)
0
1783.561
5134.111
3014.8
2744.868
2897.36
3044.25
3171.32
3282
3350.8
3399.96

TAXABLE
INCOME($)
0
1243581394
715359528.9
189178560

CAPEX
($)
102000000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

FIXED OPEX
OIL($)
0
20000000
20000000
20000000
20000000
20000000
20000000
20000000
20000000
20000000
20000000

CASH
TAX($)
FLOW($)
0
-102000000
248716278.8 994865115.1
143071905.8 572287623.1
37835712
151342848

VARIABLE
WATER($)
0
178356.1
513411.1
301480
274486.8
289736
304425
317132
328200
335080
339996

OPEX TOTAL
OPEX($)
0
20178356.1
20513411.1
20301480
20274486.8
20289736
20304425
20317132
20328200
20335080
20339996

REVENUE
($)
0
1404177500
817636600
232755600
142971400
110721600
90439800
76551200
66990000
60574800
56309000

CUMM
CASH DISCOUNT FACTOR PRESENT
FLOW($)
(10%)
VALUE($)
-102000000
1
-102000000
892865115.1
0.909090909
904422831.9
1465152738
0.826446281
472964977.8
1616495586
0.751314801
113706121.7
87

[ ID: 51124915 ]

14297140
11072160
9043980
7655120
6699000
6057480
5630900

108399773.2
79359704
61091395
48578948
39962800
34182240
30338104

21679954.64
15871940.8
12218279
9715789.6
7992560
6836448
6067620.8

86719818.56
63487763.2
48873116
38863158.4
31970240
27345792
24270483.2

1703215405
1766703168
1815576284
1854439442
1886409682
1913755474
1938025958

0.683013455
0.620921323
0.56447393
0.513158118
0.46650738
0.424097618
0.385543289
NPV=

59230802.92
39420905.92
27587599.86
19942945.23
14914352.91
11597285.26
9357321.929
$1,571,145,145

TOTAL
OPEX($)
0
20101603
20393746
20251950
20195920
20194419
20217707
20237969
20253129
20265896
20269716

ROYALTY
(10%)
0
1.41E+08
84861040
25222780
14345760
10369590
8457240
7175630
6425980
5888300
5512210

Table I3: Economic Analysis of ICD well

YEAR
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

OIL
PRODUCTION
(MSTB/YR)
0
12837.55
7714.64
2292.98
1304.16
942.69
768.84
652.33
584.18
535.3
501.11

WATER
PRODUCTION
(MSTB/YR)
0
1016.031
3937.464
2519.503
1959.201
1944.191
2177.07
2379.69
2531.29
2658.96
2697.16

FIXED
CAPEX
OPEX
($)
OIL($)
115200000 0
0
20000000
0
20000000
0
20000000
0
20000000
0
20000000
0
20000000
0
20000000
0
20000000
0
20000000
0
20000000

88

VARIABLE
OPEX
WATER($)
0
101603.1
393746.4
251950.3
195920.1
194419.1
217707
237969
253129
265896
269716

REVENUE
($)
0
1412130500
848610400
252227800
143457600
103695900
84572400
71756300
64259800
58883000
55122100

TAXABLE
INCOME($)
0
1.25E+09
7.43E+08
2.07E+08
1.09E+08
73131891
55897453
44342701
37580691
32728804
29340174

[ ID: 51124915 ]

TAX($)
0
250163169
148671123
41350614
21783184
14626378
11179491
8868540.2
7516138.2
6545760.8
5868034.8

CASH FLOW($)
-115200000
1000652678
594684491
165402456
87132735.9
58505512.7
44717962.4
35474160.8
30064552.8
26183043.2
23472139.2

CUMM CASH FLOW($)


-115200000
885452677.5
1480137168
1645539624
1732672360
1791177873
1835895835
1871369996
1901434549
1927617592
1951089731

89

DISCOUNT FACTOR (10%)


1
0.90909
0.82645
0.75131
0.68301
0.62092
0.56447
0.51316
0.46651
0.4241
0.38554
NPV=

PRESENT VALUE ($)


-115200000
909684252.3
491474785.9
124269313.1
59512831.04
36327320.36
25242123.98
18203853.6
14025335.76
11104166.26
9049525.757
$1,583,693,508

[ ID: 51124915 ]

Appendix J: Risk Register


S/N

IDENTIFIED RISKS

Failure of mateable connectors

Wrong sizing, specifications and capacity of control valves.

Effect of High Pressure High Temperature (HPHT) environment.

Failure of Control Valve to activate during operation or on demand.

Failure of Control Valve to deactivate on demand.

Failure of Sensor to activate during operation or on demand.

Failure of Sensor to deactivate on demand

Inadequate manpower and expertise for Intelligent Well technology

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.

90