WHOC12-363

Integrated Advanced Well Completion Design Implementation Helps To Quantify Uncertainty and Optimize Well Performance in a Heavy Oil Field in the GOM
D., GARCA GAVITO
PEMEX

A. E., FREITES
Schlumberger

F., RODRIGUEZ
PEMEX L. A., CARRILLO PEMEX

R. J, CARVAJAL
Schlumberger M. A., ROMERO Schlumberger

This paper has been selected for presentation and/or publication in the proceedings for the 2012 World Heavy Oil Congress [WHOC12]. The authors of this material have been cleared by all interested companies/employers/clients to authorize dmg events (Canada) inc., the congress producer, to make this material available to the attendees of WHOC12 and other relevant industry personnel. which were systematically evaluated using sensitivity and uncertainty analysis (equal spacing and Central Composite sampler respectively). A process of "proxy" training and Abstract optimization was then carried out to completions with ICDs The independence in the design of well positions, and cased hole. The module of Uncertainty and Optimization geometries and completions in the reservoir frame has been of Petrel was successfully used to support the automated one of the main concerns of the petroleum industry in process. general. Up to this moment it had been almost impossible to develop an integrated approach that led to the optimization The results were compared with a conventional well of well performances. This kind of approach is critically considered in the original field development plan and showed needed for heavy and extra-heavy oil reservoirs, where nonthat options of multilateral wells with open hole and conventional wells and different completion configurations horizontal wells with ICDs dramatically increase the oil have to be considered in order to overcome production recovery and improve water production control. The time to problems (the mobility ratio is adverse to the oil and water perform the analysis was reduced in more than 70% in cut is usually very high). comparison with regular studies for well position and geometry. This project comes up to solve this issue and presents a new methodology that brings the world of reservoir simulation and well completion design closer together and Introduction allows to automatically run several different combinations of well spatial positions and geometries (vertical, deviated, Historically, well design has been an area of continuous horizontal and multilateral) and the optimization of ICDs discussion and research; the lack of tools and workflows to and cased holes configurations. perform a complete evaluation of all the factors involved (well position, geometry and completions) has made of this an Three wells were fully designed in a heavy oil field in the inefficient and unreliable process. Gulf of Mxico (carbonates), using advanced reservoir simulation options like sector modeling (SM), local grid refinement (LGR) and well segmentation. Each well Currently, in the work team, a regular well design study could encompassed up to 9 unknown parameters for an open hole take 2-3 months and will go first to a reservoir simulation

model to make discrete tests over a few possible location and well geometries and then to analytical tools for completions, where complex well-reservoir system interactions are not considered. In other words, the process is carried out in a series of almost independent steps.

The main objective of this project was to tackle down this way to work by developing an integrated methodology that allows an effective evaluation of multiple well geometries, positions and completions configurations to identify the optimum way to produce a highly complex heavy oil field located in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM).

This field has no production wells and the information available was generated for a simulation study directed to the design of a development strategy. The simulation grid was built using the information gathered for two exploration wells and encompasses a total of 174.276 active cells (corner point geometry) with the following dimensions: 150x150 areal and variable size in vertical direction with approximately 10 m through the production formation and 95 m in the cells located below the water-oil contact (-4228 m). The average pressure was estimated in 215.3 Kg/cm2 at a reference depth of -3800 m. The reservoir is under-saturated (Pb=55 Kg/cm2) and the fluid density is of 11 oAPI approximately.

Let us give a brief description of every phase of the workflow we propose before going deeper into them. The purpose of Phase 1 is to prepare a model to achieve the detail needed for the design of a well completion. Generally, operators companies build simulation models for their fields, in order to establish their developments plans. These models are usually too coarse for well design and need to be refined. However, refining could be a tricky process and it is necessary to be aware of the changes in production profiles while doing it. Phase 2 represents the first major task in the workflow, where multiple combinations of well geometries and positions are explored simultaneously: the result of this stage will allow advancing to the next phase with the best possible options with open hole. In Phase 3 completions with ICDs and Cased Hole are considered; the inner as an alternative to control water production and the latter as the regular completion used in the GOM.

Phase 1. Base Model Preparation

Definition of areas of interest After receiving and validating the simulation model of the field, the area of interest for new wells was defined. The selection of this area could be constrained by many reasons: environmental, budget, rig availability, etcetera; however, if it is assumed that none of this are actual limitations, as it was the case in the field we worked on, a simple set of equations known as the Combined Rock Quality Index (ROI) could be used to rapidly evaluate the reservoir in terms of its possible production potential.
SOMPV Dx Dy Dz NTG PORO SOIL Sor ..(1)
AVEPERM PORO

Directional wells (deviated 30o) with open hole were considered in the original study and used as a comparison basis for the ones designed in this project. The developed workflow will be explained for one of the three well we designed in this project. For the other two just the final results are shown.

Methodology and Results

The last releases of Petrel, where a whole range of new options regarding well completions have been included, have opened a window of opportunities for the development of an integrated, statistically supported approach for well design, allowing testing more well alternatives in less time. Figure 1 presents the workflow developed in the Advanced Well Completion Design Project, as it was called for PEMEX.

RQI 0.0314

.(2)

ROI 3 PRESSURE RQI SOMPV (3)

Three phases were carefully depicted, each one with specific but closely related tasks. All processes were performed in the same platform and using the same simulator (ECLIPSE100). This is one of the most important differences in the methodology we propose and regular studies for well design. As it was stated before, the design of well geometries and completions were done using different tools, according to the different levels of detail required in every stage of the process. As a consequence, the workflow tend to be divided in a series of almost independent steps, while our methodology is carried out using nothing but the combination of Petrel/ECLIPSE100, keeping the input of one stage as the direct result of the previous one.

By using the calculator of Petrel we can add constraints related to the distance to the faults and WOC to the previous equations in order to eliminate these zones from the group of candidates to drill new wells; this is an effective technique to guarantee that the results will not violate any physical or operational limitation. Figure 2 shows an example of how the grid will look after generating this property. Sector model and refinement

The original grid was too coarse to perform a well design, giving the fact that it is a detailed task where production behavior and water flow need to be followed accurately; Local Grid Refinement (LGR) had to be considered. To allow capturing all the effects wanted to study we used a refinement of 3x3x4, producing cells of 50x50x3 m approximately. This produced important increases in simulation time making impossible to refine the whole model. We then decided to focus on sector models with Flux Boundary for every single

well (we are designing three wells for which three sector models will be needed). It is well known that after a LGR the permeability distribution is practically unaltered since the process makes a simple splitting of the cells. To avoid that, we upscaled the refined area based on the geologic model (see Figure 3). The results between the refined and the refined-upscaled models were compared showing increases in the water production for all cases. This result was expected since the permeability anisotropy generally contributes with the water flow in heavy oil reservoirs. No relative permeability curves end-point upscaling was performed.

comingling of branches and long horizontal production sections.

Automatic creation of simulation cases

Using the Uncertainty and Optimization module of Petrel a workflow was built to automate the processes of sensitivity and uncertainty. This workflow was designed to be the key of an efficient and standardized methodology, very simple to use and that requires a minimum amount of information to be run. Hundreds of data files with different alternatives of multisegmented wells could be generated with just one "click" and systematic, organized and statistically supported studies could be easily performed.

Phase 2. Geometry and Position of Open Hole Wells

Design of Base Wells Once the sector models are extracted we can continue with the design of "Base Wells". These wells were the different base geometries we want to evaluate (vertical, deviated 700 and horizontal); laterals could be added to the latter two. All these options were parameterized as a variable named "Well Type" (TP). For each TP three versions were built, every one related to the length of the well (long, medium and short); this was the second variable: "Length of the Well Type" (LH).

The workflow (for this stage) consists in 54 lines of code, encompassing all the processes related to the wells spatial positions and geometries. The first 44 lines correspond to the well selection. In practical terms we had 9 different base wells to test (3 TP, each one in its versions long, medium and short). A code number was assigned to each well as the combination of the TP and LH. Depending on the value that every variable will take in every run of the experiment matrix (we will talk about it in the following step) a well will be chosen to be tested. Then that well will pass through the Laterals addition process (if applicable). Conditional were place in the code to avoid inconsistencies such as vertical wells with laterals.

Areal (North-South, DY- East-West, DX) and vertical (DZ) displacements , the number (NumLaterals), length (LongLaterals) and azimuth of the laterals and the maximum liquid production rate completed the list of nine uncertainty variables over which the study for open hole wells was to be performed. Parameterizing the variables and assigning ranges to every one of them will allow to control and narrow the study to one we can effectively control and analyze.

The spatial positions variables (DX, DY, DZ) ranges are constrained by the size of the sector model and the refined zone themselves. Consider that we are recording the Flux Boundary Conditions over a sector and that inside of it an LGR exists (see Figure 4); a well cannot be placed in both the refined and non-refined areas; this is a limitation of ECLIPSE100. So, it is up to the engineer in charge of the study to create a sector and a LGR big enough to cover all the locations that can be interesting to test while designing the well.

Later on, the Move Well process (included in the version 2011.1 of Petrel) will displace the well from its original position to test a given volume. The displaced well will enter the Well segmentation utility to establish calculation nodes. As it was stated before, this process is very important since it takes into account all the components of the pressure drop, bringing more accuracy to the results. The well is then prepared to be included in the correspondent development strategy and simulation case. In other words, the output of this workflow is a data file with a determined configuration that can be run directly from Petrel or exported and run from the Simulation Launcher.

Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis

Notice that all the rest but the liquid production rate are geometry-related variables. The type of well and its length are especially important for heavy oil reservoir; maximum contact between the wells and the reservoir is usually wanted to increase the productivity index of these and decreasing the pressure drawdown in the system. For all well types, an advanced option of ECLIPSE100 known as Well Segmentation was used, in order to simulate accurately the pressure drops in terms of friction, acceleration and gravitation in the wellbore. This is a key factor when calculating flow in

One of the most important goals to be achieved in this project was to reduce the time to complete a full well design study. As a consequence, it is necessary to determine which of the initial group of variables we have to focus on. A sensitivity analysis will rapidly allow the identification of the parameters having major impact over the cumulative oil (NP) and water production (WP) in the horizon of prediction (15 years); it important to point out that this kind of analysis is only useful to dismiss parameters when it is assumed that the variable will not have a bigger effect interacting with other variables than by itself. We used the "Equal spacing sampler" with two sample points to perform this part of the study. Figure 5 shows the Tornado plot we obtained after running the process for one of the wells

under in design. The azimuth and the displacement in the EastWest direction seemed to have a marginal effect over the NP and were dismissed for the upcoming processes. The reduced group of 7 variables was considered for the Uncertainty analysis and sampled using a Fractional Central Composite experiment. This method allows a deep exploration of the sampling space, testing points in the extremes and center of the uncertainty range of every variable and taking into account 2nd factor interactions between them, even though they can be confounded with 3rd factor interactions [1].

Phase 3. Completions optimization

Well completion designs After finishing the open hole hierarchy we wanted to study the effect of different kind of completions over the production profile. We considered two types of completions, in addition to the open hole we deeply studied in the previous phase. The first one was the cased hole (TCYD); this is the most common kind of completion used in the GOM. Although, it is not expected to act as a production optimizer, the location of the perforations could help control water production, which is the bigger problem in the study.

Hierarchy of open hole wells

Multiple alternatives of well geometries and positions with open hole were generated and run in ECLIPSE100 (Figure 6); this led to hierarchy the best possible combinations of parameters for an improved NP. Figure 6 presents the results of NP and WP (purple bars) for different well types proved in one of the sector models we worked on. The yellow bar located to the left of the graph represents the cumulative oil recovered with the original well considered in the development plan of the field and is kept as reference for comparison purposes. The blue line defines the type of well; for example, code 1 corresponds to vertical wells, code 3 to deviated 700 and code 4 to horizontals. The number of laterals attached to every well is given by the red line.

On the other hand we have the Inflow Control Devices (ICDs), which are thought to control the pressure profile along the wells in order to improve its performance. Both the cased hole and the ICDs are options completely supported by Petrel, program that offers the possibility of rapidly configuring, parameterizing and exporting them to the simulator; the accuracy of the calculations will be improved by the use of Well segmentation.

This kind of plots are very useful to understand the general behavior of the different well alternatives, as it actually happens in this case, where horizontal/multilateral wells report a much better recovery of oil and water control than deviated or vertical ones. A well with approximately 1.0 Km of horizontal section with two laterals of 500 m of length, displaced to the north of the field and the top of the formation (see Figure 7) and operating at its maximum possible liquid production rate, reported the best NP an excellent water production control. Other interesting alternatives are given by those which did not produce any water in the 15 years of prediction. For instance, the same well described before will not produce any water if the limit liquid production rate is reduced to the minimum of its uncertainty range.

At this point a question came to our minds: which wells to use for adding this completions? The natural way to go would have been to take the best well found in the uncertainty analysis with open hole, but, is it really possible to add ICDs to the full extension of a multilateral well? And moreover, is it possible to perforate more than 2 km of length? The inner is extremely difficult; the experience gained at some locations worldwide (Saudi Arabia for instance) suggests that for making operationally possible to place ICDs in a multilateral well it is necessary to restrict the flow at some sections of the well, generating a configuration like the one shown in Figure 8. As a consequence the main advantage of this kind of well, the increased well-reservoir contact is lost. The latter almost impossible, having as a reference that the common length of perforations in the GOM is approximately 60 m. The decision then was to migrate to other well options.

Proxy generation and Optimization

From the operational point of view it is also important to take a look on the horizontal wells instead of multilateral, given the complexity of the latter. The best horizontal well will produce 3 MMBls of oil less than the best multilateral and 5 MMBls more of water. The question is: it is reasonable to assume the risk of drilling a multilateral well considering the production behavior shown in this study? This could be only answer by performing an economical analysis.

For the addition of ICDs we used the best horizontal well found in the uncertainty analysis. The study of this completion was made with base in three parameters, which were thought to control the entire production process. The variables were: 1) xcross section multiplier: this is a very important since it has direct influence over the flow passing through the devices. A multiplier greater than one will decrease the pressure drop between the reservoir and the well with respect to the original cross area of the device (0.013525 ft2) , while a multiplier smaller than one will increase the pressure drop and restrict more the flow to the well. 2) Valves per compartment and 3) space between packers, will also help to control the pressure drop and the contribution of different sections of the reservoir to the global production.

In order to save time for the optimization of the ICDs configuration we decided to train a quadratic proxy. 15 runs training runs were generated with a Central Composite sampler by using a simple workflow in Petrel. 5 validation runs were used to test the accuracy of the analytical model, obtaining an excellent approach (less than 2% of error). The optimization was performed over the proxy, showing that a configuration with 277 m between packers, 3 devices per compartment and x-cross section of 0.002705 ft2 will represent the best possible ICDs scenario in terms of NP and water control (Figure 9). Figure 10 shows the comparison between the base well (the one considered in the original field development plan), the best horizontal well with open hole and the same well completed with the optimized configuration of ICDs. The NP was increased in more than 2 MMBls and the water production reduced in almost 3 MMBls by the addition of this devices.

maximization of the production could only be achieved by using horizontal/multilateral wells. For the first case a horizontal well with ICDs showed to be the best option, followed by a multilateral and a horizontal well with open hole.

For the second case (Figure 15), the multilateral well reported the best NP with a dramatic improvement of 495% with respect to the base case. Notice than in this case, the ICDs did not had the same impact they had in the previous sectors. This was mainly because the well was located so close to the aquifer that there were no time see the equilibration of the pressure profile offered for this kind of devices.

For the cased hole completion we decided to use a highly deviated 70o well and train a proxy with two variables: 1) depth and 2) length of the perforations. 9 training runs were generated with a Central composite sampler and 3 with a Montecarlo sampler for validation. The error of the proxy when trying to reproduce the simulation behavior was less than 3%, reliable enough to be used for optimization.

To sum up the importance of this last couple of wells it is must be point out that they were placed in zones were marginal production wells were expected, but thanks to this study they are now considered as keys in the development of the field.

Significance of subject matter

For the very first time in Latin America a project of Advanced Well Completion Design using numerical simulation and using static and dynamic characterization models has been successfully carried out. The methodology efficiently supports statistic studies of well position, geometry and completions, allowing the engineers to evaluate multiple alternatives in a short time. The automated process is very easy to understand and requires of a small amount of input data to be run, so, the proposed solution could be used by engineers with minimum knowledge of Petrel.

Figure 11 presents the NP and WP for the optimized configuration with cased hole (length of the perforations: 200 ft and depth: 14600 ft) and compare it with the base well and the deviated well with open hole. The optimized scenario allowed an important improvement of the production profile by controlling more effectively the water inflow.

Conclusions
Results analysis An integrated approach for the connection between the reservoir simulation model and well completion design was successfully generated and tested. Automated, easy to use, workflows for sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of well positions, geometries and optimization of ICDs and Cased Hole configurations were designed. Multiple scenarios of open hole wells and optimized ICDs and Cased Hole configurations were compared with the conventional wells considered in the original field development plan and substantial improvements on the NP and water production controls were found. The time required to complete the process of well design was dramatically decrease, saving up to 70%.

Figure 12 presents the best alternatives we found in the study as a percentage of increment/decrement of water and oil production of the base well. In practical terms, we are comparing the final alternatives a drilling/completion engineer would have available to decide the geometry, position and completion of a new well.

Improvements of the NP and water production control were reached. A multilateral well increased the recovery of oil in more than 14 MMBls (85%); the reason of such a big change in the production profile was that the multilateral well requires a smaller reservoir-well pressure drop (see Figure 13) than the base well to achieve the same liquid rate, slowing down the advance of water from the aquifer. A simpler alternative as the horizontal well with ICDs also showed to be a great option for this sector model. However, as it was stated before, only by performing and economical analysis a final decision could be made.

Acknowledgement
We would like to thank to all the personnel working at the "Subdireccin de Gestion Recursos Tcnicos" of PEMEX for their collaboration and support at every stage of the project,

Figure 14 and 15 show the final results obtained for the other two wells we analyzed in this study. Both of them were located in zones with extreme water problems and, as a result, the

particularly Dr. Daniel Garca Gavito, for his support during the development of the work.

Nomenclature
Dx, Dy, Dz: cell dimensions. NTG: Net to gross. PORO: Porosity. SOIL: Oil saturation Sor: Residual oil saturation. SOMPV: Pore volume saturated with mobile oil. RQI: Reservoir quality index. AVEPERM: Average permeability. PRESSURE: Reservoir pressure. ROI: Combined Rock Quality Index.

REFERENCES
1.
Petrel 2011.1 Help. Uncertainty and Optimization Module.

Figure 1. Methodology for the Advanced Well Completion Design.

Figure 2. Areas of interest in a field of the GOM.

Figure 3. Refined Vs Refined and Upscale sector model.

Figure 4. Sector model and refinement.

Figure 5. Tornado Plot.

Well I Hierarchy of Well Types

With base on Np, Wp
50 5

45 40 35

40.67 40.67 34.7 34.7 31.25 31.25

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

43.83 43.83
4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Np, Wp (MMBls)

30
25

2
20 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2

1 1

5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Case_284 Base_105 Base_114 Base_88 Base_122 Base_112 Base_82 Base_90 Base_80 Base_86 Base_76 Base_120 Base_124 Base_118 Base_108 Base_78 Base_110 Base_132 Base_135 Base_131 Base_129 Base_137 Base_59 Base_127 Base_136 Base_126 Base_130 Base_134 Base_128 Base_133 Base_103 Base_280 Base_247 Base_75 Base_95 Base_71 Base_97 Base_67 Base_73 Base_101 Base_243 Base_63 Base_244 Base_61 Base_93 Base_125 Base_242 Base_150 Base_152 Base_249 Base_142 Base_148 Base_147 Base_250 Base_115 Base_113 Base_83 Base_144 Base_146 Base_151 Base_81 Base_248 Base_141
Cases

NP (MMBls)

WP (MMBls)

TP

Number of Laterals

Figure 6. Hierarchy of well types with open hole wells.

Figure 7. Well in its original position (blue) Vs Well in its optimized position (red)

Figure 8. Configuration of ICDs in a multilateral well.

Figure 9. Optimized ICDs configuration.

10

Well 1 Comparison of Original Wells Vs ICD's Best Configuration

40.67 31.25
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 WP (MMBls)
NP (MMBls)

42.96

16.59 8.4 5.64

Original

Horizontal Open Hole

Horizontal with ICD's

Figure 10. Comparison of original wells Vs ICDs optimized configuration.

Well 1 Comparison of Original Wells Vs TCYD's Best Configuration

38.31

31.25

34.9

40

35 30
25

WP (MMBls)
NP (MMBls)

16.59 11.3 8.96

20 15 10 5
0

Original

Deviated 70o with open hole

Deviated 70o with Cased Hole

Figure 11. Comparison of original wells Vs TCYDs optimized configuration.

11

Figure 12. Comparison between best alternatives for well 1.

Figure 13. Comparison of Reservoir-Well pressure drops for the base well and the best multilateral.

12

Figure 14. Comparison between best alternatives for well 2.

Figure 15. Comparison of best alternatives for well 3.

13