Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235687630
READS
2,278
1 author:
Olajide Aderemi Adekunle
University of Aberdeen
3 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
By
(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
1.3 Objectives
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General Overview
10
11
12
13
13
2.9 Economics
14
15
16
16
17
18
19
20
20
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
21
22
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
28
28
28
29
30
30
31
31
31
vi
32
32
32
33
35
36
37
38
38
39
39
41
44
46
47
47
49
51
53
4.3.8 Economics
55
57
61
64
66
5.2 Recommendations
67
REFERENCES
68
APPENDICES
73
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
3.1
21
3.2
27
3.3
34
3.4
34
3.5
Sensitivity Variations
35
4.1
39
4.2
40
4.3
42
4.4
45
4.5
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
53
4.9
Field Output Data of Multilateral Well and ICD Multilateral Well (CECON)
55
4.10
56
4.11
57
4.12
58
4.13
59
4.14
60
4.15
Risk Management
61
I1
86
I2
87
I3
88
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1.1
2.1
Multilateral Well
11
2.2
17
4.1
38
4.2
39
4.3
40
4.4
41
4.5
42
4.6
43
4.7
43
4.8
44
4.9
45
4.10
46
4.11
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
52
4.17
52
4.18
FOPR and FOPT of Multilateral well and ICD Multilateral well (CECON)
54
4.19
55
4.20
Plot of Payback Time of Base Case Scenario, Multilateral (No ICD) and ICD well
56
4.21
58
4.22
59
4.23
60
4.24
Proactive Algorithm
65
ix
A1
73
D1
79
D2
80
E1
81
E2
81
G1
84
G2
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).
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
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),
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
[ ID: 51124915 ]
1.4
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
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
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
[ ID: 51124915 ]
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
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 ]
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
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
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
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 ]
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 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 ]
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 ]
2.15
As is evident thus far, the benefits of optimal application of IWC technology are numerous.
These include:
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 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).
Lack of reservoir evaluation tools for effective modeling of the Intelligent well
components and expected operation (11).
The challenge of finding the right "People", employing the right "Process" and using
the right "Products" (46).
2.17
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.
Value
328
328
6.06 to 119.10
138 * 82 * 24 = 271,584
Average Porosity *
0.12 to 0.17
0.63
1 to 100
0.45
2,776
23
5,971
6955
5085.30
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
[ 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
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
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
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
No modifications are made to the simulation model, thus the EDIT keyword is omitted.
3.3.4
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
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
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
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
COPT
CWPR
CWPT
FOPR
FOPT
FWPR
FWPT
FOE
Field Oil Efficiency; signifies the field recovery factor (the percentage of oil
that has been recovered)
3.3.8
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
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)
= 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.)
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
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 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
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 ]
32
[ ID: 51124915 ]
3.5.8
Economic Evaluation
33
[ ID: 51124915 ]
110 (61)
ROYALTY (%)
10
10
20
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 %
5%
10%
35
[ ID: 51124915 ]
(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.
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
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.
[ ID: 51124915 ]
FWPT (MSTB)
FOE
FWCT
18,199.91
582.25
14 %
6.2 %
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
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.
44
[ ID: 51124915 ]
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
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
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.
Reservoir Variability
[ 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
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)
COMMINGLED DEVIATED
13, 833
Isolated Zone
FOPT (MSTB) with Isolated 20, 678.46
12,444.27
zone
without 21,170.32
19,765.75
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.
52
[ ID: 51124915 ]
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 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
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 field water cut that is retained below the 90% mark (84.5%), thus extending field life.
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
1,571.145
1,583.694
2500
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 ($764,513,000). Though
NPV usually underestimates the value of IWC technology (59), it is considered adequate for
the purpose of this research.
Thus, the project of IWC adaptation on the Chevron Field X is proven to be both technically
and economically feasible.
4.3.9
Sensitivity Analysis
Table 4.11: Field Output Data from Sensitivity analysis (Well diameter)
Variable
Standard size
Increase by20%
Reduce by15%
0.708
0.8496
0.6018
FOPT (MSTB)
28,133.78
28,158.01
28,123.62
FWPT (MSTB)
23,820.56
23,937.11
23,711.81
As shown in Figure 4.21 and Table 4.11, the effect of the liner size on oil production is
negligible, as long as the difference in diameter is within prescribed limits ( 20%).
However, the bigger the well diameter, the higher the production volume. Thus, it should be
ensured that the diameter of the Intelligent Well is as large as practicable.
57
[ ID: 51124915 ]
30000
25000
FOPT (MSTB)
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
122
273
426
578
731
884
1034
1187
1338
1491
1642
1795
1948
2100
2253
2404
2557
2710
2860
3013
3164
3317
3469
3622
TIME (DAYS)
Figure 4.21: Plot of sensitivity analysis of varying Well Diameter
o Effect of Varying Oil Price on NPV
Table 4.12: Field Output Data from Sensitivity analysis (Oil Price)
Variable
Standard size
Increase by 15%
Reduce by20%
110
126.50
88
NPV ($)
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 ]
25000
FOPT (MSTB)
20000
FOPT for 80% WATER CUT
FOPT for 90% WATER CUT
15000
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)
Standard limit
Increase by 5%
Reduce by10%
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 ]
FOPT (MSTB)
20000
FOPT for SKIN 1
15000
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
SIL 1
model;
where
flow
assurance
mitigation
is
Availability
Maintainability)
analysis process.
All members of staff must
undergo intensive training
2
Human Error
SIL 1
developments.
Technical
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
subcomponents/equipment
SIL 2
monitor
due to HPHT
the
performance,
SIS SIL 3
acting
on
soon
as
deviations
as
detected.
Install
only
hardware
from
measures
of
onset.
Some
redundancy
introduced
may
to
be
improve
62
be
installed
in
[ ID: 51124915 ]
Selection
Failure
5
of
the
the
more
gauge,
transmission
of
hydraulic
and SIL 2
system,
over
communication.
dedicated
SIL 3
electronic
circuits.
Sensitivity analysis should
be carried out to predict
6
SIL 1
occur,
and
contingency
prepare
plans
SIL 2
for
63
[ ID: 51124915 ]
64
DECISION DRIVER
-Maximum Oil Production
-Minimum Water Production
-Reliability etc
CENTRAL CONTROL
SYSTEM
[ ID: 51124915 ]
Objective of
Field/Well defined?
NO
YES
Desired Deliverable on
track?
NO
YES
Downhole Sensors
-Gather data
Temperatur
Pressure
NO
YES
Trigger ICD
Modify Design
and Update ICD
NO
Trigger Alarm To
Notify Personnel
Required
Option/Solution
met?
YES 65
[ 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:
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
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.
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
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
6* /
77
[ ID: 51124915 ]
20000
14.7
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
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 ]
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'/
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
0.708 1* 2 1*
79
'Y'/
'Y/
'Y'/
[ ID: 51124915 ]
'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'/
'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'
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
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 ]
85
[ ID: 51124915 ]
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
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
($)
0
200750000
201300000
200750000
200750000
200750000
201300000
200750000
200750000
200701600
194188500
ROYALTY
(10%)
0
20075000
20130000
20075000
20075000
20075000
20130000
20075000
20075000
20070160
19418850
TAXABLE
INCOME($)
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
$764,512,514.6
YEAR
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
OIL
PRODUCTION
(MSTB/YR)
0
12765.25
7433.06
2115.96
1299.74
1006.56
822.18
695.92
609
550.68
511.9
ROYALTY
(10%)
0
140417750
81763660
23275560
WATER
PRODUCTION
(MSTB/YR)
0
1783.561
5134.111
3014.8
2744.868
2897.36
3044.25
3171.32
3282
3350.8
3399.96
TAXABLE
INCOME($)
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
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
89
[ ID: 51124915 ]
IDENTIFIED RISKS
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Human Error
17
18
19
20
21
22
Software Failure
23
24
25
26
27
90