SPE-188732-MS

Smart Well Completion Optimization in Multilateral Wells

J. O. Arukhe, F. Khelaiwi, O. Isichei, and A. A. Dhubaiki, Saudi Aramco

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 13-16 November 2017.

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
The ability of smart well completions (SWCs) to best function as intended in the field, has led to renewed
focus on smart well completion optimization opportunities. The action of inflow control valves (ICVs)
is key to improved management of flux imbalance and premature production delay of unwanted fluids
from contributing laterals of the intelligent wells. Difficulty with the use of ICVs includes the complexity
to determine all possible combinations of valve settings (given 11 possible positions per valve on each
lateral). Imposing specific wellbore pressure profiles in dual or trilateral well completions, to control
production, or achieve pressure responses within ideal electrical submersible pump (ESP) operational
ranges for continuous uninterrupted functioning of the smart wells is even more challenging. Real-time
data acquired during SWC tests at various combinations of valve positions was modelled to determine
contributions from motherbores and/or laterals in 11 smart wells. The ICV positions and surface chokes were
controlled, while flow rate, wellhead pressure/temperature, and intake pressure/temperature were measured.
From the tests, the optimal settings for individual or commingled flow were determined in real time from the
network models (objective functions include minimizing water, maximizing oil, subject to staying within
effective ESP intake pressures). Tests showed wells with up to 34% and 57% basic sediment and water
(BS&W) from the motherbore and lateral respectively and corresponding normalized rates of 1.539/1.138.
Implementing results of the model resulted in a normalized oil gain of 3.800 and 27% BS&W reduction
from both laterals. The model yielded the optimization parameters, which resulted in choking back drainage
points to achieve the water cut reduction and realize the oil gain. Test data revealed an accuracy of more than
90% match between calculated and measured flow rates of targeted drainage points. The results confirm
that modeling ICV completions to determine optimum valve positions and rate targets is possible for an
entire SWC or specific laterals.

Introduction
The need for actively keeping an eye on production as well as assessing, and controlling production
in real time with reduced interruptions has led to the increasing application of smart wells. The smart
well completions or intelligent wells employ a combination of prevailing contemporary technologies such
as permanent downhole monitoring systems, electric submersible pumps, and multiphase flow meters
(MPFMs), to provide the opportunity to respond to changing conditions. The technologies allow the
2 SPE-188732-MS

acquisition of flow rate, downhole temperature, and pressure data for proactive/active production control of
reservoir and well bore flow in multi-lateral wells. Inflow control valves (ICVs) in the completions enable
control of reservoir flow behavior by adjusting to different opening positions in response to remote action
and according to the downhole measurements. The action of the ICVs at their different positions impose
specific pressure profiles across the wellbore as they adjust to restrict or shutoff flow from a specific lateral
or the motherbore. The action of the ICVs is key to improved management of flux imbalance, and premature
production delay of unwanted fluids from contributing laterals of the intelligent wells. The ability of smart
well completions (SWCs) to best function as intended in this field, has led to a renewed focus on smart well
completion optimization opportunities.

The Challenges with the Use of ICVs

The difficulty with the use of ICVs includes the complexity to determine by human mind alone, all possible
valve settings because each valve often has 11 possible positions (i.e., 0 to10). In a dual lateral alone, the
possible number of valve combinations is 121 (i.e., 112), 1331 (i.e., 113) for a trilateral or 14,641 (i.e., 114) for
a smart well completion with four laterals. Again, manually imposing a specific wellbore pressure profile,
such as choking a valve could typically cut down production or reduce the bottom-hole pressure beyond the
requirement, especially for a well with a functioning ESP. Imposing specific wellbore pressure profiles in
dual or tri laterals, to control production, or achieve pressure responses within ideal ESP operational ranges
for continuous uninterrupted functioning of the smart wells could be even more challenging.
Assess the smart wells to change the valve settings when required could prove quite challenging with
imprecise (trial by error) methods that involve relatively large number of possible valve positions. Where
time and resources are scarce as in many land and offshore environments, precise and accurate means
of evaluating ICV positions with production conditions will be invaluable. Smart well completions with
ESPs often require the services of at least an ESP operation technician to operate the ESPs at safe enough
intake pressures to keep the ESPs from trips and to avoid motor underload or overload resulting in potential
downthrust or upthrust pump wear. An additional caution to exercise is the care to work around the
subsurface safety valve (SSSV) in the emergency shutdown (ESD) system during the change of ICV to
avoid closing and shutting down production from the smart wells during the tests.

Addressing the Challenges with Production Tests and a Steady State Model
The main objective was to understand the production contributions of each lateral of the SWCs, with an
initial focus of reducing water production and increasing oil gain. The laterals of the SWCs were mostly
completed in the same reservoir. On the field, the SWCs were cycled by changing ICV positions and
recording fluid and gas contributions after a stabilization period for each valve position. The production
tests revealed fluid rates change with variations in differential pressure across each choke position. The tests
of the SWC were subsequently modeled with a steady state software as a surface network. The tests were
conducted for each SWC. The optimal commingled settings to improve the well performance (reduce WC/
GOR, improve oil, and stay within efficient ESP intake pressure) were determined. Data obtained for one
of the SWCs is presented in Table 1.
SPE-188732-MS 3

Table 1—Test data Obtained from One of the Smart Well Completions

The Production Tests

Production contributions were assessed individually from the motherbore, lateral separately, and jointly for
the commingled case. The ICV positions and surface chokes were controlled, while flow rate, wellhead
pressure/ temperature, and intake pressure/temperature were measured. To evaluate the contribution from
the motherbore, the upper valve (which is close to the tie point) was closed, while the lower valve was opened
at valve positions 5, 8, and 10. The test parameters (i.e., in Test 1, Test 2, and Test 3) were successively
measured as recorded in Table 1 after each stabilization period to register contributions from the motherbore
while the lateral was shut. At Test 3, the lower valve was fully open and the upper valve was fully closed,
representing maximum motherbore flow only. At the fully open motherbore flow, water-cut was recorded as
34%, while the normalized fluid rate was 1.539. Tests 4, 5, and 6 are records of the lateral contributions while
the motherbore was shut. To test the lateral, the upper valve was opened at the same valve positions as before,
i.e., at positions 5, 8, and 10 while the lower valve was completely closed. At each valve position when the
lateral was opened, water cut range was between 55% and 57%. Test 6 is a record of the fully open lateral
(i.e., upper valve of the lateral was fully open), when the lower valve of the motherbore was completely
closed. Water production was 56% from the lateral at its fully open condition, whereas its normalized fluid
contribution was significant at 1.486, indicating some possibility to minimize the water and maximize oil
flow from the zone. During Test 7 in the commingled case when both lower and upper valves were fully
open, water production was recorded as 47% upon stabilization as shown in Table 1. The cumulative area
open to flow for each choke position is represented in Table 2 in square inches and as a percentage of full
open.
4 SPE-188732-MS

Table 2—Choke Positions

The Steady State Model Development

The production test for the motherbore was fed into the model as shown in Figure 2. Real-time data acquired
during the SWC tests at various combinations of valve positions was modelled to determine contributions
from motherbores and/or laterals in the 11 smart wells. For calibration, the model was run to ensure it
matched the results from the lateral and well tests. The top node is the intake pressure from the sensor
reading (of the ESP). With the reservoir pressure and pressure, volume, temperature (PVT) properties of
the oil known, the choke size on the motherbore (ICV_MB) was modelled as the inflow was calculated.

Motherbore contribution:
The lateral was initially disabled in the model at the tie-in point and the intake pressure and flowrate was
matched to the test as in Figure 1. To estimate PI for the motherbore contribution, the flowrate and the
corresponding drawdown are required. The drawdown related to a given flowrate is the difference between
the reservoir pressure and FBHP. The FBHP determination was iterative and based on an assumed distance
between the source and valve inlet. Thereafter, the motherbore was disabled in the model by shutting the
upper valve while also matching model results to the lateral contribution.
SPE-188732-MS 5

Figure 1—The lateral was initially disabled at the tie-in point and the intake pressure and flowrate were matched to the test

Figure 2—The input screen for the production IPR and PVT

Lateral contribution:
With the lateral enabled, the model assumes a FBHP for the fluid rate in the lateral at any given rate, which
allows the estimation of the PI for the lateral, with the motherbore shut-in or disabled. Subsequently, the
model was setup with test data obtained as both lateral and motherbore valves are enabled or opened when
the well is flowed for the commingled case assessment.
6 SPE-188732-MS

Commingled contribution:
The model setup for the commingled case is shown in Figure 3. Both lateral and motherbore are flowed
together by enabling or opening the respective valves and flowing the smart well. Like before, the model
assumes a FBHP for the commingled fluid rate, which allows the estimation of the PI. A plot of the reservoir
pressures and productivity indices for both the lateral and motherbore is shown in Figure 4. Both the
motherbore and the lateral penetrate the same reservoir as their identical pressures reveal.

Figure 3—The model setup for the commingled case

Figure 4—Reservoir pressures and productivity indices for both the motherbore and lateral

With the available intake pressure from the sensor and both valves enabled, the model was solved in
the commingled case to evaluate production contribution from both the lateral and motherbore. The split
for each lateral and motherbore was obtained. The solver detailed results for oil, water, and gas confirmed
the production tests for the commingled case as Figure 5 shows. The estimated FBHP of L1 was lower
than the MB's; therefore, LI also revealed a higher rate, with 59% fluid contribution, compared with the
SPE-188732-MS 7

motherbore's 41% fluid contribution. The relatively higher water cut for LI suggested the need for some
further optimization.

Figure 5—Evaluating production contribution with both valves enabled

The error from the model, i.e., the difference between the total production contribution from the model
and the production test was 0.89% for the liquid rate. The production split between the motherbore and the
lateral as illustrated in Figure 6 was useful in optimizing the gains (i.e., maximizing the oil and minimizing
the water production) from the smart well completion. Figure 6 is the un-optimized understanding of the
lateral contribution.

Figure 6—Non-optimized production split between the motherbore and the lateral

Based on the results of the model, the SWC was left at MB-10, L1-2. The plot of the optimized production
given in Figure 7 showed that water cut was effectively reduced to 24%, whereas oil production increased
by 21%.
8 SPE-188732-MS

Figure 7—Optimized production split between the motherbore and the lateral

Results
The production tests showed up to 34% and 57% basic sediment and water (BS&W) from the motherbore
and lateral respectively with corresponding 1.539/1.138 normalized fluid rate. Based on the results from the
production split, which showed considerable water production from L1, the obvious action was to choke
back L1 to reduce the water production from this lateral, while keeping the motherbore open. To achieve the
required cut in water production, choke sensitivity positions according to Table 2 were successively applied
in the model for the best combinations of minimizing water and maximizing oil contributions from the smart
well completion. Total rate, water cut, and intake pressures were parameters to optimize in the sensitivities.
Implementing results of the model resulted in a normalized oil gain of 3.8 and 24-27% BS&W reduction
from both laterals. The model yielded optimization parameters, which resulted in choking back drainage
points to achieve the water cut reduction and realize the oil gain. The SWC was left at MB-10, L1-2 based
on the model's prediction. Test data showed more than 90% match between calculated and measured flow
rates of the targeted drainage points.

ESP Operation and Challenges with Operating ESPs

A main objective of ESPs is to lower the bottom-hole flowing pressure (FBHP) to allow more production
from the well. By allowing fluid into the pump at the reduced intake pressure and discharging the fluid
at a much higher pressure, the pump is able to lift fluid rates from the well beyond rates possible from
natural flow. Simply put, the ESP is introduced at a given depth in the well to lower the bottom-hole flowing
pressure to a target FBHP so that the pump delivers at the designed head, which is actually the difference
between the pressure at the ESP's discharge and its intake pressure. In supplying the designed head, the
pump serves as a means of artificially boosting the reservoir pressure (Vachon & Furui, 2005). The lifted
gradient from the bottom of the well will be the same up to the depth of the pump. At the pump's depth
of installation where the pump is working, the pump will supply the designed head or drawdown (ΔP) to
deliver at higher rates than the well would naturally deliver.
While choking the downhole valve of the SWC, care was required to remain within the ESP's pressure
range of operation. In running the model, an additional constraint to satisfy was the intake pressure of the
ESP required for the smooth functioning of the pump. So once the optimal setting was found, the intake
pressure for this setting is of interest as well. If the intake pressure is too low, the valve setting may require
SPE-188732-MS 9

adjustments so as to increase this intake pressure and keep the ESP operational. Motor under- or over-load
leads to downthrust or upthrust pump wear when the ESP operates outsides its recommended range. In
trying to optimize production by reducing water, it is worthwhile to remember to do so at high enough intake
pressures for the smooth running of the ESPs. When high water-cut laterals are kept open, the resulting
hydrostatic pressure increase could lead to reduced intake pressures.

Future Work
Possibilities for further work include modeling SWCs with high GOR, multiple laterals, or SWCs with
permanent downhole monitoring systems (PDHMS) to optimize the value from the SWCs. Optimizing
SWCs with laterals that drain different reservoirs would be interesting from the standpoint of managing
and understanding flux balance (in clastics and sandstone reservoirs), delaying undesirable fluids and
maximizing oil production and/or reserves.

Conclusion
The use of smart well optimization was employed to enhance water-cut reduction and vertical lift
improvements from more uniform production and drawdown. The probability of sweep efficiency
improvements is increased from implementing the provision of optimal valve settings for the SWCs.
Potential oil gains and rate acceleration are often immediately realizable from using real time data to model
and optimize the SWCs. The results confirm that modeling ICV completions to determine optimum valve
positions and rate targets is possible for an entire SWC or specific laterals. The computational tool adds
more value to SWC control because it helps to also predict the extent of production contributions from
specific laterals or bottom-hole pressure (BHP) reduction for better management of flux imbalance and
premature production of unwanted fluids. Intake pressures fluctuate as ICV positions change in response to
increases in water cut. Field experience is usually vital in estimating such changes but the requirement for
the pressure response to fall within the recommended ESP operational range is crucial both for the pumps’
uninterrupted functioning and the life of the pumps. Therefore, the model also helps engineers ascertain the
intake pressures from changing the downhole valves’ openings, so that the SWC operation stays within the
zone of the operating intake pressures for the ESPs. In the longer term, better ultimate recovery, reduced
operating expenditure and capital expenditure can be anticipated from cuts in well visits, well intervention,
and well counts from the SWC optimization.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the special help from Wendell De Landro and Musa Alnafisah who helped
to review the paper.

Nomenclature
BS&W = basic sediments and water
DP = delta P, i.e., drawdown (this is reservoir pressure less flowing bottom-hole
pressure), psi.
ESD = emergency shut down system
ESP = electrical submersible pump
FBHP = flowing bottom-hole pressure, psi
GOR = gas-oil ratio, scf/bbl
ICV = inflow control valves
L1 = lateral
MB = motherbore
MPFM = multiphase flow meter
10 SPE-188732-MS

PDHMS = permanent downhole monitoring system

PI = Productivity Index, b/d/psi.
PVT = pressure, volume, temperature
SSSV = subsurface safety valve
SWC = smart well completion
WC = water cut

References
Vachon, G. P. & Furui, K. (2005, January 1). Production Optimization in ESP Completions with Intelligent Well Technology
by Using Downhole Chokes to Optimize ESP Performance. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/93621-MS