SPE-183004-MS

A Methodology for Multilateral Wells Optimization - Field Case Study

Ivan Cetkovic, Majed Shammari, and Talal Sager, Saudi Aramco

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 7-10 November 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
During the recent decades, a significant number of multi-laterals wells with smart completions controlled
by different flow control technologies has been installed worldwide. This case study is based on a reservoir
developed completely with multi-lateral wells. Each well is completed with three to seven laterals with
different flow control technologies.
The study covers an analytical methodology and a multiphase flow model to optimize production that
has multi-lateral wells equipped with flow control devices. Optimizing the complexity of this system, and
understanding the contribution of each lateral during commingled production, has become a challenging
process and is the main objective of this study.
A multi-lateral well modelling process was developed to obtain a representative model, which can predict
accurate results under different operational conditions. The paper also covers a well test procedure, which
is essential to guarantee the good quality of the data and ensure representative results.
This methodology covers two main factors affecting multi-lateral productivity, which are a flow
dependent gas-oil ratio (GOR) rate and interference between the laterals.
The multilateral production optimization process was developed successfully to represent the operational
conditions and optimize the well for different scenarios based on their specific reservoir management
strategy. This model was extended successfully from a single to a multi-well model, including their actual
surface facility network. The model will be considered in future production strategy plans.

Introduction
Multilaterals wells with smart completions controlled by different flow control technologies offers
great operational flexibility where each lateral can be operated and optimized independently (Faisal4).
Understanding the contribution of each lateral in the complexity of this system was a major interim objective
of this study. In order to optimize, the system and predict accurate results under different operational
conditions a multilateral well modelling methodology was developed.

Wells Overview
The study was based on multi-lateral wells complete with Inflow Control Valves (ICV). As a general
description, the wells are completed with 3 (three) to 7 (seven) laterals and each lateral is isolated by packers
2 SPE-183004-MS

and controlled by an ICV, as shown in Figure 1. The productivity index ranges from 5 to 50 BPD/psi with
high GOR (1,000 to 5,000 Scf/Stb).

Figure 1—Multilateral Well Completion (ICV)

Multi-lateral Well Modelling

A multiphase surface system flow simulator that is able to optimize production from wells and networks
as an integrated system was adapted to generate and optimize the sub-surface multi-lateral well flow
behavior. This simulator is mainly used for surface network modelling and optimization, but the complex
sub-surface well system was modelled with this application, as shown in Figure 2. This complex simulation
model resolves and finds the optimum ICV pressure drop and diameter for each lateral for different inflow
performance conditions, such as different GOR rate dependent curves at different operational conditions.
The model was created as Black Oil (BO) model. In order to capture the friction, acceleration and fluid-
inflow effects a rigorous completion model was generated capturing the pressure drop across the different
sections, including the completion (U.W Ulaeto3). In each lateral, the flow and pressure drop through the
reservoir are determined in the horizontal section and, as well as, the annular flow between the casing and
tubing.

Figure 2—Multilateral Well Modelling – Multiphase Flow Simulator

Each ICV is represented with a choke model. More details on choke description need to be added to the
model in order to have a better pressure drop calculation for multiphase flow.
SPE-183004-MS 3

From a reservoir point of view each lateral is modelled through an Inflow curve (Vogel) considering a
GOR dependent rate. An Interference Factor (IF) will be described later, which captures and quantifies in
the model, the oil production potential difference from a well producing only from one lateral as opposed
to several laterals simultaneously.
The primary method for validating a model is to match it to an observed production well test. This
validation includes the requirement to represent flow and pressure at different operational conditions in
order to predict future or other different operational conditions (well head pressure, rates, drawdown, etc.).
A nodal analysis of a well model consists basically of two different curves-an inflow curve or IPR that
represents the flow rate and flowing bottomhole pressure at different conditions and an outflow curve that
represents the behavior of the pressure drop at different flow rates through the completion, as shown in
Figure 3.

Figure 3—Operational Point – Inflow and Outflow curves

The intersection of the inflow and outflow curves determines the operational point and is the point that
needs to be matched at different operational conditions as mentioned previously. For all the models, the
solution node has been considered located at the reservoir layer in order to separate the reservoir system
from the completion system.
The following work modeling process is proposed in order to obtain a representative model and obtain
good results, when running optimization scenarios:
a. Inflow Curve
b. Outflow Curve
c. Operating Equilibrium Point
d. Production Optimization

Inflow Curve
The Inflow Production Relationship curve (IPR) represents the pressure drop of the flow from the reservoir
into the wellbore. Vogel type curve was selected for all cases as the most representative for the high GOR
crude in the case study, as shown in Figure 4.
4 SPE-183004-MS

Figure 4—IPR Curve generation

Most of the field wells are equipped with permanent downhole pressure gauges. So, the FBHP (Flowing
Bottom Hole Pressure) can be read instantaneously, during the well test at different operational conditions
for each lateral and in composite production of all laterals.
As shown in Figure 4, the FBHP is measured at the gauge pressure. The pressure drop across the
completion plus the pressure drop across the ICV is calculated in order to understand wellbore pressure
drop through completion string to optimize production of individual laterals and combind laterals.
Most production tests in the field are conducted on each individual lateral, then on all laterals combined
(composite). Three different operational/choke settings are used during the production test.
Calibration of Vogel type curve requires rates (q) and flowing bottomhole pressure (Pwf) at different
conditions in order to generate the empirical curve. The productivity index (J) or PI is an indicator of the
lateral deliverability at a certain drawdown (SBHP-FBHP) conditions. Then the pressure drop across the
completion needs to be calculated in order to get an accurately calibrated FBHP.
Once the Pwf (FBHP) is calculated the Vogel curve is generated and adjusts in order to match the well
test data (rates vs Pwf). The variable used to adjust and match the well test data is the PI - productivity
Index (J) or PI.
As shown in Figure 5, the IPR curves are generated and adjusted for each lateral at different operational
conditions, in this case three different choke settings.

Figure 5—IPR Curves for each lateral

SPE-183004-MS 5

Outflow Curve
The outflow curve represents the pressure drop across the completion. As the node for all the cases has
been selected at the reservoir layer, the outflow represents the pressure drop for different rates from the
reservoir layer to the wellhead. The methodology that is proposed in this study is to validate the production
test; QC the rates and flowing pressure to ensure they are representative (stable) to calculate the pressure
drop across the system. Once the test periods are validated, multiple runs are performed applying all of the
standard flow correlations to determine, which correlation provides the best match. The best correlation
is the correlation that has the lowest standard deviation, considering that the friction factors and gravity
coefficients don't exceed the limits of +/- 0.15 and and +/- 5.0. For this case study, the best correlation was
Fancher and Brown with a standard deviation of 31.29 and a friction factor of 3.65 and a gravity coefficient
of 0.93, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1—Outflow correlations Sensitivities

Operating Equilibrium Point

The operating equilibrium point is the intersection between the inflow and outflow curves, which represents
the produced oil rate at a certain flowing bottomhole pressure. Matching actual observed rate and modelled
output rate at the operational conditions during the well test is then performed, as shown in Figure 6.
6 SPE-183004-MS

Figure 6—Operational Point

In Figure 7, the difference between the FBHP at differents well test rates can be observed, comparing
the modelled and real values. This is one of the most important variables to be matched at the different
operational conditions measured during the well test. The red columns represent the FBHP in the model,
the green column shows the difference of FBHP between the well test data and the model, and as can be
observed, the model successfully represents both variables under all the different operational conditions.
The blue columns represents the well test FBHP, the red columns the model FBHP.

Figure 7—FBHP at differents well test rates

In order to generate a representative model, two main variables need to be considered:

• Gas Oil Ratio (GOR) – Rate Dependent

• Interference Factor (IF)

GOR – Rate Dependent. In most of the nodal analysis models, there are two variables that are considered
constant in each flow rate or operational condition, these two variables are water cut (WCT) and Gas Oil
Ratio (GOR).
In this case, water cut was considered as a constant variable or even as zero as per the production, but it
is not the same case for the GOR. For some wells, the GOR increases in conjunction with oil rate increases,
as shown in Figure 8.
SPE-183004-MS 7

Figure 8—Pressure drop across the reservoir

This phenomenon is called GOR-dependent rate, meaning that if there is a change in the production rate
and pressure conditions, the GOR will also change. Figure 9 shows the typical behavior in some of the
wells that were analyzed. It is very important to capture this phenomenon in the model, because the GOR
value will be affected by the produced oil rate and significantly affect the pressure drop across the system.
The pressure behavior across the reservoir for different drawdowns varies: as the drawdown increases, it
generates a higher pressure drop across the well drainage area, which results in a lower pressure condition.

Figure 9—GOR – Rate Dependent

In Figure 10 and Figure 11, it can be observed that while the drawdown increases, more gas is liberated
in the system. The liberated gas affects the mobility of the two phase flow and is reflected in the relative
permeability of the system, as shown in Figure 10 and 11.

Figure 10—Differential Liberation

8 SPE-183004-MS

Figure 11—Relative Permeabilities (Krgo vs Krog)

Figure 11 represents how the relative permeability to the gas phase will increase, while gas phase
saturation increases due to more gas being liberated. So if we generate a higher drawdown, this will be
liberating more gas and make this phase moves easier. The GOR is a rate dependent variable as we have
observed in our wells as the oil rate increases the GOR will not remain constant, it will increase too.
Interference Factor (IF). In the typical production test program, the first flowing test is of the entire well,
so all the laterals are produced at the same time and then afterwards, each lateral is tested separately in
order to determine the specific productivity and fluid behavoiur of each lateral. Both total well and lateral
by lateral production tests are typically produced under several different operational conditions (i.e. choke
sizes). Figure 12 and Figure 13 illustrates the flow under these two different production test conditions.
Figure 12 illustrates the flow of the individual lateral and Figure 13 describes the flow of a well producing
with all laterals producing at the same time.

Figure 12—One Lateral Production

Figure 13—Commingle Production

It can be concluded that the total production the well produces from all laterals is typically less than the
sum of the individual lateral production rates. This is due to the interference effect between the laterals. It
is very simple to explain from the example in the two schematic diagrams, Figure 13 as compared to Figure
12, the flow produced by the three laterals in commingled showing that part of the production, which before
with just one lateral was going to the lateral in the middle, is now sharing parts of that flow with the two
laterals on either side.
An Interference Factor (IF) was generated in order to match the reduction in production observed from
the total well and match the model under different operational conditions (lateral / commingle).
SPE-183004-MS 9

During the production of only one lateral, the productivity index can be defined by a simple formula:

Where:
PI (L1): Productivity Index of Lateral 1 when only that lateral is producing, the rest of the laterals
are closed (BPD/psig)
qo (L1): The average oil rate measured from lateral 1 (BOPD)
Pws: Static Reservoir pressure (psig)
Pwf: Flowing Bottomhole pressure (psig)
When the well produces several laterals simultaneously, the total well Productivity Index is less than
the sum of individual PIs for each lateral. This reduction in the productivity can be explained by an
interference factor for each lateral under different operational or production conditions. In the absence of
observational data of the individual contribution of each lateral, it has been asumed that the difference in
total oil productivity measured from the well test, as compared to the models estimate, is proportional to
the sum of the interference factors:

Where:
Δqo (C): The oil rate difference between the measured produce oil under commingle conditions and
the commingle oil rate calculated by the model (BOPD).
IF(L1): Interference factor at lateral 1
IF(X): Interference factor at lateral X
On the other hand, it can be assumed that the interference factor for any individual for lateral is a relation
between its productivity index and the total well PI. The mathematical equation will be:

IF(Lx): Interference factor at lateral X

PI (Lx): Productivity Index of lateral X when only that lateral is producing, the rest of the laterals
are closed (BPD/psig)
Therefore the productivity index that was estimated on a lateral by lateral conditions PI(Lx) is affected
by interference factor of each lateral IF(Lx). The equation for the case of lateral 1 can be

as follow:
PI (L1/C): Productivity Index of lateral 1 producing in commingle (BPD/psig)
qo (L1): The average oil rate measured from lateral 1 (BOPD)
IF(L1): Interference factor at lateral 1
Pws: Static Reservoir pressure (psig)
Pwf: Flowing Bottomhole pressure (psig)
10 SPE-183004-MS

The Interference Factor is still under study and needs more technical and testing development. The actual
proposal is simple in the way that is only related to the productivity index of each well, when is known that
other paramenters, such as well distance, distance between laterals, length, diameter, drainage area shapes,
etc. will have different effects on the productivity index (Mutalik 2).

Production Optimization
The main objective of production optimization in this study is to identify the optimum oil and gas rates on
a well and field basis. On a well basis, the objective is to get optimum production to avoid high water cut
or high gas-oil ratio. On a field basis, the objective is to identify the optimum field rate, which satisfies
operational well constrains.
Well Optimization. Once the model has been matched, it is possible to optimize the well based on various
production targets, then run different scenarios to evaluate operational conditions. Three different example
scenarios are shown below:

• Scenario-01 (SCE-01): Maximum drawdown of 50 psig

• Scenario-02 (SCE-02): Maximum Gas Rate of 10.0 MMSCFD

• Scenario-03 (SCE-03): Maximum Oil Rate with a WHP not lower than 800 psig

Scenario-01. In this operational scenario, a possible "gas coning" situation was investigated, because of
the close proximity to a gas cap of the horizontal section. Critical gas coning calculations for the case study
determined the maximum allowable drawdown could be no higher than 50 psig. The optimization results
are shown in Table 2, where it was observed how the optimizer tool choked back the system through the
ICV in order to achieve a drawdown no higher than 50 psig.

Table 2—Scenario-01 Maximum Drawdown

Lateral Qo Qg GOR Drawdown ICV DP ICV

BPD MMSCFD SCF/STB psig psig SIZE
inches

Total 4,655 6.6 1,421 - - -

L1 1,634 1.2 721 50.0 825 0.27

L2 1,881 4.0 2,134 50.0 819 0.41

MB 1,139 1.4 1,250 50.0 824 0.26

In this case the model is calculating also the choke diameter needed to obtain this pressure drop.
Scenario-02. In this operational scenario, one of the separators at the production facilities needs to be
refurbished and for that reason, the maximum gas rate production at the gathering system has to be reduced
to 10.0 MMSCFD per well. The optimization results are shown in Table 3, where we can observe how the
ICV are choked back in order to achieve no more than 10.0 MMSCFD of gas. For this case, the model
choked back L2, the lateral with higher productivity index but higher GOR in order to minimize the gas
production and achieve the objective.

Table 3—Scenario-02 Maximum Gas Production

Lateral Qo Qg GOR Drawdown ICV DP ICV SIZE

BPD MMSCFD SCF/STB psig psig inches

Total 9,367 10.0 1,067 - - -

L1 5,942 5.5 928 186 120 0.9

SPE-183004-MS 11

Lateral Qo Qg GOR Drawdown ICV DP ICV SIZE

BPD MMSCFD SCF/STB psig psig inches

L2 98 0.2 1566 3 312 0.1

MB 3,326 4.3 1300 149 160 0.7

Scenario-03. In this operational scenario, it was considered to obtain a maximum oil production rate with a
wellhead pressure no lower than 800 psig in order to reach the minimum separator inlet pressure conditions.
In this scenario, shown in Table 4, we can observed how two of the ICVs remain fully open (L1 and MB),
while L2 is choked back in order to obtain the maximum oil rate with the operational restriction of 800
psig at the wellhead.

Table 4—Scenario-03 Maximum Oil Rate

Lateral Qo Qg GOR Drawdown ICV DP ICV SIZE

BPD MMSCFD SCF/STB psig psig inches

Total 10,368 12.5 1,205 - - -

L1 5,277 4.7 892 165 0 Full Open

L2 1,447 2.9 2,035 38 127 0.51

MB 3,645 4.8 1,329 163 0 Full Open

In this case L2 is choked back but allowing the optimum oil and gas ratio to flow working as an internal
gas lift system. This case shows one more time that the laterals with higher PI are not always the ones that
are going to contribute the higher oil rate to the system.
The final results of the three optimization scenarios are shown in Figure 14, where it can be observed
how flexible the system is to be able to achieve the optimum oil rate based on different operational and
reservoir constrains.

Figure 14—Scenarios Results

All three scenarios are based on calculations that can be performed to determine the optimum solution
at a specific point in time. To have a better understanding of the evolution of the model in time it needs to
be take into account or be connected to a reservoir simulator (Arashi1).
Field Optimization. The single well model was extended and tested with a simple integrated multi-
well model and surface facility, as shown in Figure 15. Any operational change in pressure, volume or
temperature on the surface conditions will affect the wells and reservoir behaviors and vice versa. If it is
projected to all the phases of the field life, from planning through development and operations, the need
of an intergatred model becomes more critical (Cetkovic 6). This model consists of three multilateral wells,
12 SPE-183004-MS

each with four laterals and a production flowline for each well of about 10 to 20 miles up to a three phase
separator.

Figure 15—Integrated Model (Well & Facility)

The main objective is to analyze and optimize the wells and lateral productivity, based on different
operational scenarios in order to meet the production targets.
Three different operational scenarios for the integrated model were proposed and analyzed:

• Sceanrio-01 (SCE-01): Maximum Field Oil Production

• Sceanrio-02 (SCE-02): Minimum Field Gas Production (10.0 MMSCFD)

• Sceanrio-03 (SCE-03): Minimum Field CO2 production of 1% (CO2<1%)

Scenario-01
The objective is to obtain the maximum oil production rate from the 3 multi-lateral wells with a minimum
inlet separator pressure of 250 psig. It can be observed in Figure 17, how the laterals from the different wells
are contributing in order to achieve a total production of 39,503 BOPD (Figure 16). For this case, most of
the ICV's are almost fully open to achieve the maximum oil production rate.

Figure 16—SCE 01 - Max Field Oil Production

SPE-183004-MS 13

Figure 17—SCE 01 - Oil Production by Well and Lateral

Scenario-02
The objective in this scenario is to produce not more than 10 MMSCFD of gas, because of an operational
restriction at the facilities. This gas production limit is approximately a third of the unconstrained gas rate
from Scenario 1, as shown in Figure 18. In order to meet the constraint of maximum gas production of the
field of 10 MMSCFD, it can be observed in Figure 19, that the ICV choke settings for each lateral of each
well are optimized to enable acheiving the target gas rate, while limiting the reduction of the oil production
to just 20,356 BOPD. Gas rate was reduced by 68%, but oil rate was only reduced by 48%.

Figure 18—SCE 02 - Minimum Field Gas Production

Figure 19—SCE 02 - Gas Production by Well and Lateral

Scenario-03
The objective is to limit CO2 content below 1% of the gas stream at separation conditions. In Scenario-03,
the ICVs are choked back in order to maximize oil production with a maximum CO2% production on a field
level at 1% (Figure 20). In this case, the field oil rate was optimized to 25,364 BOPD, as shown in Figure
16 and the laterals at each well were choked back as shown in Figure 21 in order to not produce more thatn
1% of CO2 at separation conditions.
14 SPE-183004-MS

Figure 20—SCE 03 – CO2 % by Well amd Lateral

Figure 21—SCE 03 – Minimum CO2%

Multilateral Well Test Design Workflow

To properly identify oil, gas and water production under different operational conditions for each lateral
under commingled production, four steps need to be followed in order to obtain the best quality data and
results.

• Well Test Planning and Coordination

• Well Test Design

• Well Model

• Well Test Program

Well Test Planning and Coordination. During the Well Test period, pressure, temperature and rates need to
be obtained on a real-time basis under the same operational conditions. For this reason, it is very important
to have close coordination between the different counter parts during the test operation in order to ensure
the requiered information is obtained during the test (Ibrahim 5). In order to calculate Productivity Index
(PI), drawdown, GOR, WCT under stable and representative conditions, all the previous variables, rates
and pressures (Qo, Qg, Qw, FBHP, WHP) need to be obtained and analyzed in real-time. Well Test outputs
need to be quality checked and analyzed through simple plots, such as shown in Figure 22:

• Rate vs Flowing Bottomhole Pressure (FBHP)

• Wellhead Pressure (WHP) vs Rate

• GOR vs Oil Rate (Test)

• GOR vs Oil Rate (History)

SPE-183004-MS 15

Figure 22—Well Test Variables

Well Test Design. The main objectives of the Well Test Design through a Pressure Transient Analysis (PTA)
application is to define and optimize the flow-after-flow and shut-in periods in order to obtain representative
data from the system. With the combination of an analytical and numerical model, as shown in Figure 20,
a better understanding of productivity index, rate dependent skin, wellbore storage, fracture geometries and
interference from the other laterals can be accomplished. Some applications allow the user to run the model
in real-time during the test in order to validate the data (Data QA/QC and datum correction) and redesign
the test or design some new optimization scenarios.

Figure 23—Analytical and Numerical Models

Well Model. Generating a well model before the production well test is performed, will give the engineer
the tool to have a better understanding, analyze, validate and optimize the results in real-time or during
the well test period of time. Generating a well model with previous well test data will help the engineer to
understand better the well productivity for each lateral and the interaction of each lateral during commingled
production.
Key variables such as Productivity Index (PI), drawdown, GOR or WCT dependent rate and interference
can be defined and optimized in a better way, if a previous model has been generated.
Depending on the objectives of the production well test and the results during the test, having a well
model can give the engineer the tool to evaluate a possible optimization scenario and run it on the same
production well test program. This will save time and costs on future well test programs.
16 SPE-183004-MS

Well Test Program. The multilateral well test is proposed in these types of wells to be divided in three
different stages, as shown in Table 5:

• Low drawdown

• High drawdown

• Build Up

Table 5—Multilateral Well Test Program

The program for the well test will be defined mainly to get the following information about the well:
– Reservoir Pressure (PWS)
– Productivity index (PI) of each lateral
– GOR and WCT dependent rates for each lateral and commingle
– Operational Conditions (Inflow & Outflow curves) for each lateral and commingle
A common multi-lateral well test program to obtain the information mentioned before can be defined,
as a number of flow-after-flow stages (depending on the number of laterals) at a low and high drawdown
followed by a buildup test, as shown in Figure 24.

Figure 24—Well Test Program

Low drawdown. The first period type for a Multilateral Well Test Program, as shown in Figure 24, is at a
low-drawdown conditions for all the laterals producing at the same time (commingled production).
SPE-183004-MS 17

At the beginning of the test (Period #1-Commingled) the well needs to be flowing at stable conditions
and for that reason it is recommended to flow the well for four weeks* at the same or a similar conditions
of well testing before conducting any testing in order to have a representative test. This means that the
operational test conditions should be very close to the normal operational conditions. One of the ways to
maintain similar operational and test conditions is to keep the well head pressure (WHP) during the test,
as same as, the normal operational condition.
Switching from commingled production to single lateral production at the same choke setting, it will
NOT maintain similar operational conditions for that particular lateral. After the first period (period#1)
under commingled production, each lateral needs to be tested on its own. As we can see in Figure 24, Lateral
A will be the second period (period#2), followed by Lateral B and Lateral C. In order to generate the less
unstable condictions at a wellbore level, it is proposed to select the lateral to be tested from the lower to
higher GOR. So the sequence of the laterals proposed is Lateral A, followed by Lateral B and then Lateral C.

High drawdown. This type of period is similar to Low drawdown period with the only difference that
beginning on period #5 the well will be producing in commingled conditions at a higher drawdown, so it
will require a period of stabilization that is not needed on period #1. The main objective of testing the well
at a higher drawdown is to have a better understanding of:

• Inflow and Outflow curves under Lateral and Commingled Flow Conditions (PI by Lateral)

• Estimate the possible GOR and WCT dependent rates

• Analyze the possible interference phenomenon under commingled productions conditions.

Buildup. In case that we need to determine reservoir parameters, such as formation flow capacity (Kh),
skin (S), fractures, reservoir boundaries, a buildup test must be designed in order to achieve this information
as shown in Figure 24.

Conclusions
A methodology and a model to optimize multi-lateral wells with Inflow Control Valves (ICV) through a
multiphase flow simulator was generated and validated. A Well Test Program is also proposed in order to
obtain better quality input data and therefore better optimization results.
In general some of the conclusions from this study are:

• A model through a multiphase flow simulator that represents the operational conditions and
optimizes the well production based on different scenarios was generated and validated.
• The optimization scenarios were tested through different production and operational conditions
(Oil rate, drawdown, Gas Rate, CO2) with good results and convergence.
• The multi-lateral well model was extended to include several multi-lateral wells and a surface
gathering system with good optimization results and convergence (Wells and Facilities as an
integrated system).
• A workflow to facilitate the data gathering and well model construction and optimization
(Standardization) was developed and presented in the paper.
• A Well Testing Program is proposed in order to achieve a better quality data for input to the
calibration of the model.
18 SPE-183004-MS

References
1. Arashi Ajayi and Mike KonopczynskiWellDynamics Int LTD, "Simulation of Intelligent Well
Completion Predicts Oil Recovery Increase in a Commingled Production Scenario: A Case
Study" Nigeria August 4-6, 2003.
2. Mutalik P.N. ans Joshi S.D. "Effect of Drainage Area Shapes on the Productivity of Horizontal
Wells" Houston 1988.
3. U. W. Ulaeto, M. Onyekonwu and S. Ikiensikimama, University of Port Harcourt "Improved
Deliverability model for Horizontal and Multilateral Wells", Nigeria August 2014.
4. Faisal M. Dossary, Saud A. Dawsari and Rayid S. Anazi, Saudi Aramco "Production Gain
and Optimization through the Implementation of Smart Well Completion Technology in Saudi
Aramco, Case Study" Netherlands March 2012.
5. Mohamed El Sayed Ibrahim, M. Al-Mutairi, M. Hassane, ADMA OPCO "Three – Zone
Commingle and Controlled Production Using Intelligent Well Completion" Abu dhabi UAE
November 2014.
6. Cetkovic I., Weatherford International; SPE 108132 "Look at the Behavior of the Reservoir, Well
and Facilities as an Integrated System" X LACPEC 07 Argentina, Buenos Aires 14-18 Apr 2007.