SPE 110207
Enhancing Production From Thin Oil Column Reservoirs Using Intelligent Completions
Fajhan H. Almutairi, Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research/Heriot-Watt University; David R. Davies, Heriot-Watt
University; and Shamrendra Singh, BG
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference
and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 30 October–1 November 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Intelligent completion have been proven to be an efficient
reservoir management tool, with rapid deployment in various
reservoirs environments, value have been established for the
use of inflow control valves (ICVs) and different downhole
sensors. One of the difficult environments to manage is the
thin oil column reservoirs, where issues of rapid and
simultaneous gas and water breakthrough affect ultimate oil
recovery.
This study investigates the opportunities that intelligent
completions provide for efficient oil recovery from thin oil
column reservoirs. Three wells located in an offshore field
were studied to show the benefit of intelligent completions in
different reservoir behavior.
The study shows that using intelligent well completion can
increase the total oil production from a well by controlling the
gas and water production. The value is clearer in wells where
the gas or water constraint is reached early in the well life,
causing cessation of production. The ICV control strategy
chosen illustrates how emphasis should be placed on delaying
the gas/water breakthrough rather than controlling the
production of unwanted fluids if choking reduces the well’s
deliverability. It also highlights the importance of applying
conventional well design and reservoir engineering prior to the
consideration of using intelligent wells.
1 Introduction
Thin oil column reservoirs, where the pay is sandwiched
between an aquifer and a gas cap with a thickness of the order
of tens of feet, are common throughout the world [1].
Reservoirs are considered to have an “Ultra-Thin” oil column
when the thickness is less than 20ft [2]. Despite this low pay
thickness these reservoirs can still contain substantial volumes
of hydrocarbons-in-place. Developing such reservoirs (i.e.
turning Oil-In-Place into reserves) presents many technical
challenges to the field development planners. One important
issue is water coning and gas cusping - problems that have a
detrimental effect on the ultimate oil recovery, and hence the
project economics.
Recent studies [2, 3] have shown that developing this type of
reservoir using horizontal wells has many benefits:
1. The reduced drawdown will minimize coning
and cusping [1, 2].
2. The reduced drawdown will also alleviate any
sand problems.
3. The well geometry will drain a larger volume of
the reservoir.
Employment of intelligent completions in horizontal wells for
developing thin oil column reservoirs has already produced
many benefits. Experience in the Mahogany gas field
(offshore Trinidad) showed that distributed temperature
measurements eliminated the need for production logs and
provided a continuous indication of the lateral length that was
actually contributing to the flow [4]. Such information allows
determination of the producing well’s efficiency; while also
providing the justification for any stimulation job required to
maximize production.
A second example of intelligent completions installed in a
horizontal well producing from thin oil column in a
compartmentalized reservoir is that of a well in the Iron Duke
Field [5]. This well was forecast to produce an extra 38%
cumulative oil compared to a conventional well by managing
production from the five production zones, all of which had
different reservoir characteristics.
2 Reservoir and Well Models:
Two, sector reservoir simulation models were extracted from a
full field model of a thin oil column reservoir situated offshore
in water depth of 155 ft.
1. Sector A is on the flank of the field where the main
production problem is excessive production of water
2. Early gas production typifies production problems
experienced in sector B due to the presence of a gas
cap.
Three well models covering the two types of distinct
production behavior were generated.The wells were located in
2 SPE 110207

the middle of the oil column with an openhole horizontal 2.2 Cases Studied:
completion. Local grid refinement was used around the The benefit of using intelligent wells was evaluated by
wellbore to better model the water coning and gas cusping comparing the following cases:
effects. A vertical to horizontal permeability ratio of unity was a. Conventional Case: An Openhole Completion
assumed in the reservoir simulation model (this represents the (Figure 4)
worse case scenario with regard to the coning problem). Table b. Base Case: I-Well completion without ICV control.
1 summarizes the formation characteristics. The ICV remains fully open at all times with a flow
diameter similar to or greater than the tubing area
Table 1. Well Properties (Figure 5).
Oil Column Average Horizontal Reservoir c. I-Well Case: I-Well completion with ICV Control
Porosity
Well Thickness Permeability Section Pressure (Figure 6).
(%)
(ft) (mD) Length (ft) (psi)
The Base Case captures the effect of an ICV-style completion
A1 79 204 3,843 2,329 21.6 with its increased pressure drop along the wellbore on the
recovery. Previous studies [6] showed that the installation of
A2 64 191 3,408 2,324 28.9 such a completion (tubing, valves, etc) compared to a
conventional openhole completion will effect the well’s
B1 61 142 1,863 2,400 24.0 recovery.

2.3 Intelligent Well Design:

All wells were produced under the same constraints:
The intelligent wells were completed with a 3.5” tubing inside
1. Gas Oil Ratio (GOR) of 10,000 scf/STB
a 7” casing. The well was divided into three production
2. Water Cut (WC) of 95%
interval with the smallest interval near the toe and
3. Minimum Bottom Hole Pressure (BHP) limit of
progressively larger intervals toward the heel (Figure 6). This
1,000 psi
arrangement is designed to deliver the greatest control near the
The wells have different target liquid production rate due to
heel of the well. This is required since the largest drawdown,
the different production environments (Table 2).
and hence the greatest coning potential, will occur at the heel.
Table 2. Maximum Target Liquid Production Rate
3 Well A1:
Well Target Liquid Production The intelligent completion was modeled with a 10 position
Rate (STB/d) ICV (Table 3) using the multi-segment well option of the
A1 2,000 EclipseTM reservoir simulator [7].
A2 3,000
B1 1,000 Table 3. ICV Positions
Equivelant
Well A2 has an additional problem compared to well A1 due pipe flow
to the presence of a higher permeability streak in the mid- Position area (in2)
section of the well. Figure 1 and 2 show the A1 and A2 well’s 0 0
performance for a 10 year production period. By contrast, 1 0.055
Well B1 reached the GOR constraint after only 2.5 years of 2 0.11
production (Figure 3). 3 0.215
4 0.319
2.1 Intelligent Completions:
5 0.472
The objective of this study is to investigate the impact of
utilizing the downhole inflow control valves (ICVs) on the 6 0.626
performance of horizontal wells and to quantify any increase 7 0.856
in recovery achieved by controlling the production from 8 1.163
various sections of the horizontal well completed in a thin oil 9 1.776
column. The impacts of various factors controlling the 10 8.073
intelligent well performance were investigated:
The well production was not affected by any of the constraints
1. ICV arrangement within the wellbore. during the 10 year production period studied. The
2. Permeability Distribution. conventional (openhole) completion shows an exponential
3. Different choking policies. increase in the water cut (Figure 1). A water control strategy
4. Standoff from the oil-water contact of continuous choking of that region of the completion that
produce water was developed. This strategy required
monitoring of the water cut (WC) at both the well and the ICV
level (Figure 7) with the ICV opening being reduced by one
 SPE 110207 3

step when the well or any of the individual ICVs WC exceeds profile by encouraging flow from the “lower drawdown” part
the current limit. The resulting improved tubing performance of the well normally found at the toe. Conventional wells
lead to an increased oil recovery (Table 4). similar to A1 are normally produced at a flow rate that
provides the maximum total oil recovery for the forecaste field
Table 4. A1 I-Well Results life. Production at higher flow rates will cause a decrease in
Increased the well life, decreasing the field development economical
Production viability. The initial, target, liquid production rates used in this
Total Oil Compared to study (Table 2) causes a relatively uniform drawdown profile
Production Conventional to develop along the wellbore.
Case (103 STB) Case
The ability of intelligent well to provide a uniform drawdown
I-Well 3,613 + 2.3%
from the heel and the toe was tested by increasing the flow
Base Case 3,572 + 1.2% rate to 10,000 blpd using the previously described water
Conventional control strategy. The resulting drawdown profile along the
Case 3,533 - wellbore (Figure 10) shows that the difference in drawdown
between the heel and the toe is higher (29 psi) for the I-Well
The effect of the ICV control policy can be observed on the case than for the base case (9 psi).
well’s WC profile after 2 years (Figure 8 and Figure 9). There
is high water production from the heel and the toe for the first The main reason is that the control strategy was based on
two years of production the well life. The ICV action slowly controlling the water production at the well and valve level.
stabilizes the water production from all the zones for the third The toe of the well is the first region to show increase in water
and later years. flow rate (Figure 11). An increase in drawdown is then
required to compensate for the lost production from the toe of
The I-well control no longer achieves the greatest oil recovery the well so as to maintain the target liquid production rate.
if the well is produced at higher, target flow rates (Table 5). The resulting drawdown profile across the well is less uniform
This comes about because, at the higher flow rates, the well for the I-Well case, despite which there was a 4% increase in
inflow performance is reduced by “excessive” choking while the total oil production over the 10 year period. Obtaining a
attempting to control water production. The well’s production uniform pressure drawdown profile can be easily achieved in a
is then constrained by the BHP limit. case of single-phase production, where the control strategy is
focused on balancing production from different zonal of the
Table 5. Well A1 Production Rate Sensitivity horizontal wellbore rather than controlling undesirable fluids
(gas or water).
Maximum Increase in
Liquid Production
Production Total Oil Compared to
The algorithm for water control used in Well A1 (Figure 7)
Rate Production Conventional
attempts to equalize and control the water production from
(STB/d) Case (103 STB) Case
each zone. Basing the well production control on a target
2,000 Conventional Case 3,533 - liquid rate will cause higher drawdown from the least choked
zone to maintain the liquid rate, promoting a non-uniform
Base Case 3,572 + 1.1% pressure drawdown profile. A second strategy that minimizes
I-Well 3,613 + 2.3% zonal choking is to adjust the pressure balance along the
wellbore with one ICV always fully open and manage the total
4,000 Conventional Case 4,358 -
well target rate with a wellhead choke.
Base Case 4,555 + 4.5%
I-Well 4,484 + 2.9% The ICV control strategies discussed above are not general
6,000 Conventional Case 4,936 - and are case specific, in the field case studied in this paper
continuous choking was selected because the permeability
Base Case 5,237 + 6.1% profile is almost homogenuous and the water breakthrough is
exponential in all the wellbore sections (Figure 1 and Figure
I-Well 4,661 - 5.6%
2).
9,000 Conventional Case 5,086 -
4 Well A2:
Base Case 5,441 + 7.0%
The simultaneous increase in both the WC and GOR in this
I-Well 4,711 - 7.4% well presents a more difficult challenge for the development of
an ICV choking policy. The choking strategy chosen was
3.1 Effect of I-Well Control on Drawdown Profile: GOR management - the ICV being closed by one position
when the valve GOR increases beyond a designated limit.
The use of ICVs to control the inflow from a horizontal well
has long been promoted as a mean to maintain the well inflow
4 SPE 110207

Figure 12 shows the GOR profile for well A2. The ICV
control actions can clearly be seen by the reductions in the
produced gas. An increase of 1.9% in the oil recovery was
achieved along with a decrease of 2.9% in the water
production. An increase of the target liquid production rate to
a value greater than the 3,000 blpd results in a decrease in the
total oil production.
4.1 Presence of High Permeability Zone:
Close analysis of the well inflow profile shows a high gas
production interval in the mid-section of the well (controlled
by valve No. 2). Eventhough the conventional well was the
least affected by the high permeability streak, the presence of
the high permeability streak can reduce the benefit from using
the I-Well. Such high gas producing permeability streaks can
often be detected dring drilling operations.
Geological heterogeneity can affect the well’s production
control and optimization e.g. high gas production through a
high permeability streak can lead to shutting off oil producing
zones that still contain significant unrecovered oil.
Table 6 examines the impact of the presence of the high
permeability feature on the extra value detrived from the A2 I-
Well completion.
arrangement delivers the greatest oil recovery when ICV
control is available. The small differences in the results maybe
attributed to the relatively homogeneous nature of the
permeability distribution along the wellbore. However, they
do highlight the need to investigate the appropriate zonal
length selection when designing an I-well completion.
4.3 Water Control vs. Gas Control
GOR control was used to obtain the above results when
managing well A2’s production. This well produces both
water and gas at high rates, hence it was decided to evaluate
whether changing the control strategy to water control could
have an effect on the recovery. Several water control strategies
were tested:
1. Case 1: Progressive choking of the valve based on
increase of water cut at the valve level.
2. Case 2: Use both well and valve water cut as a trigger
to progressively choking the valve.
The above water control strategies were tested on the Equal
ICV Arrangement configuration. The best results were
obtained with water control being implemented at both the
well and the ICV level (reflecting the decreased tubing
outflow performance with increasing water cut). However,
GOR control provided better results than water control

Table 6. High Gas Production Feature Effect Analysis of the water cut profiles (Figure 14) for cases 1 and
I-Well Base 2 shows, that in addition to causing the GOR to fluctuate
Conventional
Total Oil Case Case (Figure 15); there was no success in controlling the water
3 3 Case
Production (10 (10 production, leading to a reduced oil recovery. ICVs proved to
(103 STB)
STB) STB) be incapable of controlling the WC. The choking action
With High increases the drawdown, resulting in an increased water
5,757 5,631 5,573 production. Further, the well productivity index to gas is
Permeability streak
higher than that for water. The GOR reacted faster than the
Without High WC to the ICV choking due to gas’s lower viscosity.
5,723 5,616 5,568
Permeability streak
Difference - 0.59% - 0.26% - 0.08% Delaying the water production rather than controlling the
water production provides a more efficient method to increase
4.2 ICV Placement Sensitivity: the oil recovery in that situation as analysis on the well
standoff showed. Changing the horizontal standoff from the
The standard ICV placement philosophy used in this study is a middle to the top 15% of the oil column (10 ft below the
geometric arrangement of the ICVs. The impact of reversing GOC) delayed the water production by almost a year (Figure
this strategy and the use of equal zone lengths has been 16). This change in well placement resulted in a 4% increase
investigated (See Figure 13 for a schematic completion in the total oil production from the ICV control case. This
diagrams). Table 7 shows that the inverse arrangement has a highlights how ICVs cannot (completely) compensate for
very slightly reduced recovery. It was expected that ICV incorrect well design or placement.
control would be most difficult to implement in this case – as
proven by it being the only case where ICV control yielded a
5 Well B1:
lower recovery.

Table 7. Well A2 ICV Placement Sensitivity This well is located immediately under the field’s gas cap
leading to rapid gas breakthrough, limiting the well life to only
Total Oil Production (106 STB)
2.5 years. The B1 well is different from the previous two wells
ICV Placement No Control Control Increase since they have been able to produce throughout the 10 year
Inverse 5.589 5.568 - 0.38% study period without reaching any of the production
Equal 5.622 5.697 + 1.33% constraints. (i.e. the only from ICV control resulted from
Geometric 5.616 5.723 + 1.90% improved tubing performance by control of unwanted fluids.)

The B1 well thus provides a good showcase of the benefit of

Table 7 shows that the equal zone arrangement provides the
using the intelligent completion to efficiently control the gas
highest oil recovery for the “no control” case. The geometric
SPE 110207 5

production and extend the well life. The logical ICV control Lowering the well to the bottom 10% of the oil column and
strategy is to control the GOR since water production is producing at 1,000 blpd increased the life of the well to 10
minimal (less than 2% after 2.5 years). The well target liquid years without gas breakthough (Figure 19). The water cut at
production rate is 1,000 blpd, the lower value being chosen the end of the well life was only 18% despite the well being
compared to the other two wells to help minimize the GOR positioned near the aquifer. This result prompted the
increase. evaluation of an increase in the liquid production rate to 2,000
Aggressive choking of the ICV (Figure 17) reduces the gas blpd coupled with I-well control of any increased gas
production to such an extent that the well life is extended by 4 production. A 184% increase in the discounted total oil
years with an increased total oil production (discounted at 8%) production (Table 10) resulted. Figure 20 illustrates the ICV
of 69% (Table 8). actions required to control the increase in the gas production
Table 8. Well B1 Discounted Total Oil Production in the period between 3.5 and 7 years to ensure that the well’s
Discounted Total producing life is extended to the full study period of 10 years.
Cases
Oil Production (106 STB)
I-Well Case 1.585 5.3 Can I-Wells Manage Permeability Variation and
Uncertainty?
Base Case 0.940
Conventional Case 0.878 One of advantages of I-well completions is their ability to
Difference Between I-Well & manage the unpredictable nature of the reservoir’s geological
+ 69% features. This is illustrated by the presence of higher
Base Case
permeability gas producing conduit in A2 well. The
5.1 Well Target Production Rate permeability is almost homogeneous along the wellbore in the
cases studied so far (Figure 21). Several permeability
ICV control allows the target liquid production rate to be
distributions along the completion interval were introduced
increased up to 6,000 blpd (Table 9). This brings a large,
into well B1 to assess the robustness of the chosen choking
potential impact on project economics (increased recovery per
strategy to a limited amount of geological uncertainty (See
well combined with production acceleration). This option was
below and Figure 22).
not available with the open-hole conventional completion
since it is essential to have the means to control the gas
1. Toe-Centric: Low permeability at the heel,
production downhole.
gradually increasing toward the toe
Table 9. Well B1 I-Well Rate Sensitivity 2. Convex: Low permeability at the heel and toe, with
Target Liquid Increase in Extra Oil an increased value in the middle wellbore section
Production Well Life Production 3. Heel-Centric: High permeability at the heel,
Rate (blpd) (Years) (106 STB) gradually decreasing towards the toe
1,000 4.00 0.995 4. Base Case: Constant permeability.
2,000 5.10 1.524
The permeability range was based on geological model of the
4,000 5.30 1.697
reservoir. It varied from a minimum of 40 to a maximum of
6,000 5.40 1.765 308 mD. The choking strategy and the geometric arrangement
of the ICVs was not been changed. Only minor differences in
5.2 Importance of Well Stand-off the total oil recovered form the well were observed for these
The initially chosen position of the horizontal section was in scenarios, though significant differences in the GOR profiles
the middle of the column, similar to wells A1 & A2. The were recorded (Figure 23). The heel-centric distribution had
minimal water production indicates that lowering the well the earliest gas breakthrough (12 months) due to the
position towards the oil-water contact could be beneficial by combination of the high permeability at the heel and higher
further reducing the gas-coning tendency. drawdown at the heel. The gas break-through was delayed
until 18 months for the constant permeability distribution,
Table 10. Well B1 Standoff Sensitivity while cases 1 and 2 showed gas break-through at about 15
months.
Discounted Increase
Oil Compared The relatively small permeability variation, as expected, did
Production to Base not affect the robustness of the choking strategy (Table 10). I-
(106 STB) Case Well control of the toe-centric permeability distribution
Base Case 1.585 - provided a slightly higher total oil production (having the low
Bottom 10% of the permeability at the heel as an extra restriction delayed the gas
Column (1000 BLPD, breakthrough while the higher permeability at the toe counter
NO I-Well Control) 3.301 +108% balanced the lower drawdown).
Bottom 10% of the
Column (2000 BLPD &
IW Control) 4.501 +184%
6 SPE 110207
Table 11. Well B1 Permeability Distribution Sensitivity
I-Well Case Base Case
Total Oil (106
Distribution STB) Total Oil (106 STB) Difference
Toe-Centric 1.982 1.062 +87%
Heel-
Centric 1.972 1.062 +86%
Flat 1.967 1.048 +88%
Convex 1.943 1.076 +81%
This investigation confirms the importance of proper well
placement to increase the potential value of the intelligent
completion to enhance production.
6 Conclusions:
1. Intelligent completions provide an effective tool for
managing and increasing production per well from
thin oil columns reservoirs.
2. A control strategy that aims to delay the unwanted
fluid’s breakthrough prior to controlling the
unwanted fluid’s production yields the greatest value
in thin oil column reservoirs.
3. A suitable control strategy for single-phase
production is to maintain a uniform pressure
drawdown profile along the horizontal wellbore.
4. The preferred ICV control strategy when confronted
with simultaneous gas and water influx into the well
is to focus on controlling the gas .
5. Combined control at both the well and ICV level
provides control of unwanted fluids while
maximizing fluid influx.
6. Optimized conventional well design by efficient use
of geological models together with reall-time log and
other drilling information are essential elements for
optimal, intelligent well construction.
7. The (relative) activities (size and connectivity) of the
gas cap and aquifer are determine optimum well
placement and maximizing I-Well value.
7 Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Nurlan Mukhamedkarim and
Guilaume Maillet for their contribution towards the project,
Geoquest for software provision. One Author would like to
thank Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research for financial
support. The authors of the paper would like to thank the
“Added Value from Intelligent Well systems Technology” JIP
project sponsors in Heriot-Watt University (BG, BP, ENI,
ExxonMobil, Norsk Hydro, Statoil & WellDynamics) for
permission to publish this work.
8 Nomenclature
BLPD = Barrels of Liquid per Day
GOC = Gas-Oil Contact
GOR = Gas-Oil Ratio
ICV = Inflow Control Valve
MWD = Measurements While Drilling
PLT = Production Logging Tool
STB = Stock Tank Barrel
WC = Water Cut
9 References
1. Jansen, J.D., et al. Smart Well Solutions For Thin Oil
Rims: Inflow Switching and the Smart Stinger
Completions. Paper SPE 77942 presented at SPE
Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Melbourne, Australia, 8-10 October 2002, Society of
Petroleum Engineers.
2. Vollmer, D.P., et al. Convective Heat Transfer in
Turbulent Flow: Effect of Packer Fluids on
Predicting Flowing Well Surface Temperatures.
Paper SPE 86546 presented at SPE International
Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage
Control, Lafayette, Lousiana, U.S.A, 18-20 February
2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
3. Bayley-Haynes, E. and E. Shen. Thin Oil Rim
Development in the Amherstia/Immortelle Fields,
Offshore Trinidad. Paper SPE 81088 presented at
SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference, Port-of-Spain, Trinidad,
West Indies, 27-30 April 2003, Soceity of Petroleum
Engineers.
4. Mackow, H.M., et al. Finding New Limits with
Horizontal Wells in a Thin Oil Column in the
Mahogany Gas Field, Offshore Trinidad. Paper SPE
81090 presented at SPE Latin American and
Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Port-
of-Spain, Trinidad, West Indies, 27-30 April 2003,
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
5. Glandt, C.A. Reservoir Aspects of Smart Wells. Paper
SPE 81107 presented at SPE Latin American and
Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Port-
of-Spain, Trinidad, West Indies, 27-30 April 2003,
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
6. Elmsallati, S.M., D.R. Davies, and S.M. Erliandsen.
A Case Study of Value Generation with Intelligent
Well Technology in a High Productivity, Thin Oil
Rim Reservoir. Paper SPE 94995 presented at 14th
SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference,
Bahrain, 12-15 March 2005, Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
7. Schlumberger, Geoquest Eclipe 100 Reservoir
Simulator Manual 2005A. 2005.
SPE 110207 7

Conventional Case
WATER DEPTH 47.3 m (155 ft)
* ALL CASING DEPTHS ARE IN MD(M)
30” csg shoe

500

T.V.D (M)
oe
g sh
1000 cs
8”
3/
13

oe
sh
g
1500 cs
8”
5/ OPEN HOLE
9

2000

Figure 4. Well A1 Open-Hole Completion Well Design

Figure 1. Well A1 Open-Hole Completion Production
Profile
Base Case Design WATER DEPTH 47.3 m (155 ft)
* ALL CASING DEPTHS ARE IN MD(M)
30” csg shoe

500

T.V.D (M)

oe
sh
g
1000 cs
8”
3/ Maximum Diameter for Flow Opening = 3.5”
13

7” Casing Shoe
g
in ng ng
oe pen ni ni
sh pe pe
sg wO O O
1500 c
Fl
o ow ow
8” Fl Fl
5/
9
Horizontal Section

2000
Interval (Zone) Length is smaller near heel

Figure 2. Well A2 Open-Hole Completion Production Figure 5. Base Case Completion Design
Profile

I-Well Design
WATER DEPTH 47.3 m (155 ft)
* ALL CASING DEPTHS ARE IN MD(M)
30” csg shoe

500

oe
T.V.D (M)

sh
g
1000 cs
8”
3/
13
7” Casing Shoe

oe e 1
sh alv e2 e3
g lv lv
1500 cs V Va Va
8”
5/
9
Horizontal Section

2000
Interval (Zone) Length is smaller near heel

Figure 3. Well B1 Open-Hole Completion Production Figure 6. I-Well Completion Design

Profile
8 SPE 110207

Simulation Start 90%

* All Valves are Checked at Each Time Step Time Step 1

80%

T=0
* Well & ICV WC Values Not Always Equal 70%
T=1 year
60% T=2 Years
* Main Objective is determination of the ICV that
is the major contributor to the well’s water T=3 Years
SET Initial Well and 50% T=4 Years
production
Individual ICVs WC T=5 Years
40%
Limit at 10% T=6 Years
T=7 Years
30%
T=8 Years
20% T=9 Years
Well WC > 95% T=10 Years
or Well NO Next Time Step 10%
GOR > 10 Mscf/STB
0%
1 (Heel) 2 3 (Toe)
Check Well & ICV(n) Valve No.
WC
Figure 9. A1 I-Well Water Production Profile
YES

460

455
Well and ICV(n) WC >
NO
WC Limit

Pressure D raw dow n (psi)

450

445
Base Case
YES I-Well Case
440

435
Decrease Flow Area of ICV
by one step
430

425
5900 6400 6900 7400 7900 8400 8900 9400
Measured Depth (ft)
Increase WC Limit by
10%
Figure 10. Well A1 Base Case vs. I-Well Case (Q=10,000
BLPD) Drawdown Profile
3500

3000
Water Flow Rate (STB/Day)

End Simulation
2500

2000 Valve 1
Valve 2
Figure 7. Well A1 Choking Strategy Flow Chart (WC 1500 Valve 3
Control)
1000

500

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Year

Figure 11. A1 I-Well (Q=10,000 BLPD) Valves Water Flow

Rate

Figure 8. A1 I-Well Water Cut Profile

SPE 110207 9

Production Rate = 3,000 BLPD

GOR Profile under ICV Water Control Fluctuating

ICV Action GOR Profile Stable and Controlled Under ICV GOR Control

Figure 12. Well A2 ICV Control Effect on GOR Profile Figure 15. A2 Equal Zone Arrangement Water Control
GOR Profile
Geometric Zone Lengths
1 2 3
ve ve ve
al al al
V V V

Horizontal Section = 3408 ft

550 ft 1000 ft 1858 ft

1
Equal Length Zones 3
2 ve
ve ve
al al al
V V V

Horizontal Section = 3408 ft

1136 ft 1136 ft 1136 ft

Inverse Geometric Arrangement

1 2
ve ve
al al
V V
Horizontal Section = 3408 ft

1800 ft 1000 ft 608 ft

Figure 13. A2 ICV Placement Sensitivity Figure 16. A2 Standoff Sensitivity

Extra Oil Production

Well Life increased by ≈ 4 years

Figure 14. A2 Equal Zone Arrangment Water Control

(WC Profile) Figure 17. Well B1 Total Oil Production
10 SPE 110207

Permeability Distribution Along Wellbore

300

trol 250
V con

Permeability (mD
hIC 200
oug
nt Thr B1
eme 150 A1
nag
R Ma A2
GO 100

50

0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
Connections (Heel - Toe)

Figure 21. Well's Original Permeability Distribution

Figure 18. Well B1 Gas Oil Ratio Profiles
We l B 1 P e r me a b lit y D is t r ib u t io n A lo n g t h e We lb o r e S e n s it iv it y

35 0

30 0

25 0

T o e -C e nt r ci
20 0
C o nv e x
Delayed Gas
Breakthrough when Fla t (IW C a s e )
15 0
placed in the bottom He e l C e nt r ci
25% of column 10 0

No GAS Breakthrough 50
when well in the bottom
10% of the oil column 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

C o nn e c t oi n

Figure 22. Well B1 Permeability Distribution Sensitivity

Figure 19. Well B1 Standoff Sensitivity with No I-Well
Control

Gas breakthrogh still delayed

when well is placed lower in oil
column, despite increased rate

ICV control the GOR

Figure 23. B1 I-Well without Control Permeability

Figure 20. Well B1 Standoff Sensitivity GOR Profile with Distribution GOR Profiles
I-Well Control