.

m m
.

Societyof PetroleumEngineem

SPE 39750

Inflow Performance of a Stacked Multilateral Well

P. Perrnadi, SPE, Institut Teknologi Bandung; W. Wibowo, lnstitut Teknologi Bandung; and A. K. Permadi, SPE, Institut
Teknologi Bandung

-ght 1~, Sacialy of Paboleum Enginaam, Inc.

hydrmdics evaluation in the performance prediction. It is
~ls papar was pmwmd for prasantation at the 1S9S SPE Asia Pacific Confarenca on partitiarly important to production engineers in an attempt
Intagratad Modelling for Aaaat Management held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 23-24 March
Im. to optimize and design the production equipments.
Thfs papaf w salactad fcf presentation by an SPE Pwram @mmlttaa following Waw of
~n contati in an abatmct aubmlttad by the author(s). Contants of the papar, as
Introduction
~ hava not baan Aawad by the Soclaty C4 P*laum Engineara and am aubjact to
~ by tha author(s) Tha matarial, as pmsan~, * nd nacassarily raflact any Horizontal well technology today enables us to drill more
poaftion of tha Sociaty of Patroleum Enginaars, Ita officers, or mambm. Papain pmsantad at
SPE maatings am subjact bY publication * by Edtirial Commit&as or tha Socia(y of than one lateral holes through a single vertical parent hole.
Pabolaum Enginaam. Electronic mprodudon, distdbtin, or timge of any part of this papar
for can-al pu~ ~ the wdttan conaant of tha Sociaty of P-urn Enginaars is
Such a well is called as a multilateral well. There are many
@ibW. Pefrnission to reproduce in print is ~ ta an abstra~ of nc4 mom than ~ configurations that can be made, such as stacked laterals,
~ ~cms -y n~ h copiad. The atict must mntain conspicuous
~adgmant C4*em and by whom the papar was pwntad. Writs Librarian, SPE, PO. opposing dual laterals, parallel dual laterals, quad laterals,
~ ~, Richamlaon, TX 750S3-3S36, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
and star well. Different mnfiguration of multilateral wells
have actually Wn implemented in some oiI fields.-s The
Abstract results are mostly encouraging and economically viable.
The use of multilateral well is becoming an emerging method A stacked multilateral well is the one that has more than
to improve oil rmve~ efficiently. A stacked mdtilated well one lateral hole, each penetrating a single productive horizon.
can produce fluids horn two or more separate productive Therefore, two or more layers that are not in communication
zones. Unlike a commingled vertical well, ifiow vertidly can be produced using this multilateral well system.
pe~ce tilationship (IPR) of a mdtilateral system is The purpose of drilling a lateral hole in each layer is to create
influenced by wellbore hydraulics of the horizontal boreholes. a greater formation exposure for fluids to flow into the
As a rock and fluid properties may vary considerably from wellbore. The advantages are higher well productivity, slower
one zone to another, construction of the composite IPR wodd water encroachment and less wells to drill.
time a necessity in an efirt to evaluate and optimize the The oil from each layer can be produced separately using
production performance. multi-string or simultanausly through a single tubing string
The purpose of the present study is to investigate the effect employing one-way check valve below the junction to avoid
of pressure losses along the horizontal wellbores on inflow crossflow.
performance of a mtitilateral well system. A mathematical Like a single lateral or horizontal well, a mdtilateral well
model is used here to caltiate pressure losses within the can be subject to productivity reduction due to pressure losses
wellbores and the productivity indices as well. A procedure to along the lateral holes. This work investigates the effect of
construct the composite ~ of a mdtilateral well and a wellbore hydraulics on inflow performance of a stacked dual
method to predict the production decline are presented. lateral well. Although the flowing fluids considered in this
A parametric study of wellbore hydraulics of a mdtilateral study is a single phase, the resutts might increase our
well system has been conducted. In general, results obtained understanding of the ifiuence of wellbore hydraulics on
ahow that increasing pressure losses in the lateral holes lads stacked multilateral well system. The trend can be extended
to the IPR cmve shifting downward and reduced daily oil to cases of mdtiphase flow systems.
production. These demonstrate that production rate
estimadon for a given multilateral well wodd be too Approach of the Study
optimistic when pressure losses are omitted. No such work on WeIl system and Pressure Drop Calculation. In the present
stacked mdtilateral wells has been reported in the pertinent study we use a dual stacked lateral; each penetrating a single
literature. productive layer. The two layers considered have different
Overall, this paper provides some information to better reservoir properties and produce single phase fluids. They
understand the application of multilateral well technology have hydraulic communication only at the junction as shown
and to improve our knowledge of the importance of wellbore schematically in Fig. 1. It is assumed that no crossflow occurs

245
2 P. PERMADI, W. WIBOWO, A. K. PERMADI
through the junction at any time. Both layers are produced at
the same flowing pressure at the junction.
It is also assumed that variables known are reservoir
properties of the two layers. Wellbore hydraulics parameters
will be varied. For a value of total production rate desired at
the junction, we can determine the flow rate for each lateral
hole, flowing pressure at the junction, and distributions of
pressure and flow rate along the lateral holes through nodal
anaIysis Calcdations. Fig. 2 represents the flow chart for the
ddation procedure.
A common single phase flow equatione is used to calculate
pressure losses aIong the curved section of the holes. For the
lateral hole sections, pressure drops due to friction are
cal~ted using a method of Penmatcha et al,,7 assuming
productivity index per unit length of each layer is constant
along its entire lateral hole. Whereas the productivity index is
estimated by employing an inflow equation available in the
Literature.s Eventily, what we want from the nodal analysis
dhtions are values of flowing pressure at the junction and
flow rate at the heel end of each lateral hole.
Inflow Performance. Inflow performance indicates the
capacity of a reservoir in giving its fluids at a given
bottomhole condition. It defines the relationship between flow
rate and flowing pressure at the sandface. For itilnite
wellbore conductivity cases, or for cases with no pressure loss
along the horizontal wellbore, taking a reference point of the
sandface at the heel end would be reliable. However, when
sigriificant pressure losses exist within the wellbore, it would
be diffictit to choose the reference point because the pressure
drop increases with flow rate.
In the present study, we arbitrarily choose the junction as
the reference point for both layers. Since we assume no
crossflow at the junction, an average reservoir pressure as
approximated below is used to predict the production
performance. Therefore, we define the productivity index, J,
for the well system as the following,
J*= t ............................................ .....(l)
P: P~
where
p,= JIPrI +JIIPrII
r ........................!......................(2)
JI+JII
Production Decline. We assume here that the reservoirs both
have no flow boundaries. For the purpose of investigating the
Muence of wellbore hydraulics on the production
performance, previmly developed equations is used. The
equation has been succeafully validated using field data of
horizontal weils. In the present study, we employ the formula
with the appropriate definition of productivity index and
average reservoir pressure as given in Eqs. (1) and (2),
246
SPE 39750
respectively. Thus, the decline equation becomes
P; P@
(3)
............................................ ....
.
t= 1 5.615ROt
~+
J Vbt+ ct
where
~BOi$ihi
~0 = i=l .......................T...............7...n....(4)
i~l$i hi
i~l+i ~ti hi
~= h, ............................................ -(5)
-: .. ..
and n is the number of layers which is 2 (two) for the dual
stacked laterals.
Data Used
Fig. 1 represents schematically the well system and shows
some symbols used. Table 1 contains the data of reservoir
properties and geometries employed, Again, the oil produced
is assumed as a single phase viscous oil for both layers. The
permeabilities are relatively high to give a somewhat wider
range of achievable production rate. The wellbore lengths
below the junction are fixed and are typical of a field case.
Ordy wellbore diameters and relative roughness of the lateral
holes are varied. The lateral sections are completed as open
holes. We believe, of course, that lateral hole length and flow
rate also control the magnitude of pressure losses but the
sensitivity study is limited herein to the diameter and the hole
roughness. The results expected, however, may represent
qualitatively the trend of the effect of wellbore hydraulics on
ifiow performance.
Results and Discussion
Three different lateral hole sizes, 6.0, 4.5, and 3.0 inches,
were employed in this study. The absolute roughness ranges
from 0.0 to 0.2 inch. me maximum roughness used is
intended to represent an extremely high ftiction that might
possibly exist at the wellbore surface.
Neglecting pressure losses within the lateral holes, it has
been calculated that the productivity indices (PIs) are about
6.8 and 10 STB/d/psi, respectively, for Layers I and 11. The
difference in productivity indices due to different wellbore
diameters used are very small. For example, Layer I gives PI
= 6.83 and 6.71 STB/d/psi for d~ = 6.0 in. and 3.0 in.,
respectively. Layer II yields PI = 10.26 and 10.10 STB/Wpsi,
respectively, for d~ = 6.0 in. and 3.0 in, Also, since Layer II
has a higher resetvoir pressure, this layer will dominate the
production at high flowing pressures at the junction as
depicted in the results shown later.
Fig 3 shows results of the IPR for the three wellbore
SPE 39750 INFLOW PERFORMANCE OF A STACKED MULTILATERALWELL 3
.

diametem having G= O. There is almost no tierence redts have been shown in this paper, the inflow performance
obtained for 6.O-in. and 4.5-in hole sizes. The use of smaller curve is sMed downward as pressure drops increase,
diameter, i.e. 3.O-in. in this case, reduces the productivity indicating a decrease in the well productivity.
very slightly. An increase in fictional losses Mer reduces A tier study shodd be performed for cases of
the productivity of the well, partitiarly at intermediate to multiphase fluids and other types of mdtilateral well as well
very high rates (see Figs 4 through 6). This is indicated by with a longer total lateral length.
increased differences in producing rate at a given flowing
P~ by increasing the value of the wellbore absolute Nomenclature
roughness. Interesting retits obtained for these particular B. = oil formation volume factor, rb/STB
cases regarding the weI1 productivity are that the use of 6.0- Q = total compressibility, psi-1
in. and 4.5-in. hole sizes makes no difference, except at h = reservoir thickness, fi
excessive degrees of frictional losses due to both very rough dw = wellbore diameter, in.
-es and very high flow rates (= Fig. 6). H = vertical distance from the junction to horizontal
As shown in Table 1, the wellbore length of 1600 and wellbore axis, ft
2000 fi for layer I and II, respectively, maybe categorized as J = productivity index, STB/d/psi
medium radius multilateral. The resdts discussed above Jr = productivity index of Layer I, STB/d/psi
indicate that the well productivity is about insensitive to Jn = productivity index of Layer II, STB/d/psi
wellbore diameter larger than 4.5 inches. J* = average productivity index measured at ~,
To substantiate the effect of friction due to wellbore STB/dlpsi
surface roughness on the flow performance, retits of k = horizontal permeability, @
caltiation wem plotted in Fig!&7 through 9 for hole sizes of k. = vertical permeability, mD
3.0,4.5, and 6.0 inches, respectively. For the largest diameter 41 = measured wellbore length of the cuwe section
used, the effect is none even with the extreme roughness directed to Layer I, ft
rendition (see Fig. 7). Whilst, the well system with a /n = measured weI1bore length of the curve section
diameter of 4.5 in demonstrates practically insignificant directed to Layer II, R
Auction of the productivity caused by frictional effects. A L = lateral length, R
considerable decrease in productivity, however, occurs for the P, = reservoir pressure, psi
well with a 3.O-in. bomhole diameter as exhibited in Fig. 9, P; = average reservoir pressure defied by Eq. (2)
partidarly at high rates, As we can see in this case, the Pwf = welfbore flowing pressure, psi
IPR is sMed downward as frictional losses increase. Ml = wellbore flowing pressure at heel end in layer I, psi
Fig 10 shows a production decline comparison of results Mu = wellbore flowing pressure at heel end in layer II,
for 6.O-in and 3.O-inhole sizes at a constant PW = 200 Psi. psi
-s with G = O and s = 0.2 in. are demonstrated. For the
qt = tow rate of the two layers, STB/d
6.O-in lateral holes, the influence of friction due to a very ~ = flow rate coming out from layer I, STB/d
high surface roughness on the performance is not seen. This w = flow rate coming out from layer II, STB/d
again suggests that the pressure drops occurred along this SG = specific gravity
large lateral holes are very small. In contrast the well system SPI = specific productivity index, STB/psi/ft
with wellbore diameter of 3.O-in suffers a significant Vb, = total bulk volume, tuft.
production loss due to friction when it is produced initially at x = reservoir width, fi
a high rate. Ye = reservoir length, ft
F, = absolute roughness, in.
Concluding Remarks
p = viscosity, cp
Although the study cases are limited to single-phase fluid
$ porosity, fiction
flow and intermediate length of the lateral holes, they address
X = summation
an important aspect of wellbore hydrmdics in the application
of mtitilateral wells.
References
Overall, the retita obtained and discussed above 1. Meehan, N. D.: Technology Vital for Horizontal Well Success;
demonstrate that the dual stacked lateral wells evaluated with Oil & Gas Journal, (Dec. 11, 1995) 3946.
relatively large borehole diameters do not experience serious 2. Bakes, A. P., Douglas, W. R., Rasmussen, C. J., and Tracy, K.
wellbore hydraulic problems. However, when sigtilcant F.: Horizontal Wells in Yemen Make a Marginal Field
pressure drops, represented in this study by using a smaller Economic; paper SPE 37058 presented at the 1996
hole size, a high surface roughness and high flow rates, exist International Conference on Horizontal Well Teelmology,
within the Iaterat holes then wellbore hydraulic calculation Calgary, Canada, Nov. 18-20.
shodd be incorporated in the performance prediction. As 3. Yurkiw, F. J., Gihnour, G. J., Wasslen, R. D., and Churcher, P.

247
4 P. PERMADI, W. WIBOWO, A. K. PERMADI SPE 3B750

L.: MdtiIateral Underbahmced Drilling for Field Optimization 8. Permadi, P.: ~actical Methods to Forecast Production
Wayburn Unit, Saskatchewan, CanadaV paper SPE 37040 Performance of Horizontal Wells; paper SPE 29310 presented
presented at the 1996 International Cotierence on Horizontal at the 1995 SPE Asia PacKlc Oil & Gas Cotiaence, KuaIa
Well Technology, Calgary, Canada, Nov. 18-20. Lumpur, Malaysi% Mar. 20-22.
4. Vo, D. T. and Madda M. V.: Performance Evaluation of
Trilateral Wells: Field Examples: SP~ (Feb. 1995) 22-28. S1 Metric Conversion Factora
5. Longbottow J. R., Dale, D., Waddell, K., Bda, S., and Cp x 1.0* E-03 = pas
Roberts, J.: ~velopmen4 Testing, and Field Case Histories of ft X 3.048* E-01 = m
Mtitilateral Well Completion Systems: pa~r SPE 36994
fiz x 9.290 304* E 02 = m2
presented at the 1996 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference,
A&laide, Australia Oct. 28-31. & X 2.831685 E-02 = m3
6. Brow K. E.: The Technolo~ of Afificial Lzfi Methods, vol. 1, in. x 2.54* E+OO= cm
PermWeIl Publishing Co., TUIW OK (1977) 95-97. md x 9.869233 E-04 = pmz
7. Pemnatcha, V. R, Arbabi, S., and Aziz, K.: Effwt of Pressure psi x 6.894757 E+OO= IcPa
Drop in Horizontal Wells and Optimum Well Length: paper
SPE 37494 presented at the 1997 SPE Production Operations dnversion bctor is exacl

Symposim Oldahoma City, OK, Mar, 9-11.

TABLE 1 WELLBORE AND RESERVOIR PARAMETERS

Parameters Layer I Layer II
K, ft 2500 2500
Ye, ft 4500 4500
L, ft 1600 2000
dw, in. 6.0 ; 4.5 ; 3.0 6.0 ; 4.5 ; 3.0
E, in. 0.0 ; 0.05; 0.1 ; 0.2 0.0 ; 0.05 ; 0.1 ; 0.2
SGOil 0.890 0.895
~, Cp 36 29
k, md 1100 910
k, md 660 605
h, ft 45 55
Bo, rb/STB 1.05 1.06
$, fraction 0.34 0.32
P,, psi 1200 1425
Q, psi- 1.2 X104 1.5 X105
!, ft 650 850
H, ft 400 500

248
SPE 397% INFLOW PERFORMANCE OF A STACKED MULTILATERALWELL 5

To wellhead

-a .IL T
qt

Junction

H.

~Impermeable layer \~L*I ~

J ------ ------ ------ .- -i
LAYER II
Pwfrr

Fig. 1- Schematic representation of the dual stacked lateral well.

I Given: I
rock and fluid properties for each layer,
qt. wellbore geometry, surface rough nesses

4
Assume Pwf@ junction

r , I
+
calculate APt.,,6iong fI and determine pwfl
I %

b
Divide L, into segments, calculate SPI, AP ~.,,,
ql - ZAql Aq, or rate distribution along Ll,8nd ~Aql
w

unction I

*
calculate A PI.,, along t,, and determine pW frt

&I
qll - XAqll
Divide

No
Aq,, or rate
L,, into

IfAbs
segments,
distribution

(E Aq,,
*
calculate
along
Spl.
L,, , and EAqll

- q,, ) < tOlerance

ApIo,t.

fAbs (q! + q]]) < q,+ toleran

A End

Fig. 2- Flowchart diagram for calculating flow performance.

249
6 P. PERMADI, W. WIBOWO, A. K. PERMADI SPE 39750

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Production Rate, b/d

Fig. 3- Effect of wellbore pressure losses on the IPR of a dual stacked laterals for three different wellbore diameters and at absolute
roughness, c = 0.0.

1400
+dw = 6.0 in
1200 +dw = 4.5 in
+dw = 3.0 in

z 400

200

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Production Rate, b/d

Fig.4- Effect of wellbore pressure losses on the IPR of a dual stacked laterals for three different wellbore diameters and at absolute
roughness, E E 0.06 in.

250
SPE 39750 INFLOW PERFORMANCE OF A STACKED MULTILATERAL WELL
7

1400

1200

2 400

200

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Production Rate, b/d

Hg. S - Effect of wellbore pressure losses on the IPR of a dual stacked laterals for three different wellbore diameters and at absolute
roughness, G= 0.1 in.

1400

1200

200

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Production Rate, b/d

Fig. 6- Effect of wellbore pressure losses on the IPR of a dual stacked laterals for three different wellbore diameters and at absolute
roughness, s = 0.2 in.

251
8 P. PERMADI, W. WIBOWO, A. K. PERMADI SPE 397S0

1400
+ &= 0.05
+&.().1()
1200
-E- &.0.20
+ &= 0.00
,- 1000
Ur
Q

800

600

400

200

,
0 ,
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Production Rate, b/d

Fig. 7 -No weflbore pressure loss effect on the IPR of a dual stacked laterals is seen for 6.O-in diameter at various welibore absolute
roughnesses.

1400

1200

.
.: 800
c

: 600

z 400

200

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Production Rate, b/d

Fig. 8 - Insignificant effect of wellbore hydrauncs on the IPR for the system with 4.5-in wellbore diameter at various absolute
roughnesses.

252
 9
SPE 397- INFLOW PERFORMANCE OF A STACKED MULTILATERAL WELL

1400
1 + &= 0.05

1
+&=o.lo
-R--E
*E=
.0.20
0.00

200
1~
0 I 1 I 1
r-l 5000 10000 15000 20000
Production Rate, b/d

Fig. 9- Effect of we[lbore hydraulics on the IPR for the system with 3.O-in wel[bore d-ter at various absolute roughnesses.

--cjw=3in;s=0.2in

-- dw = 3 in ;S = 0.0 in
... --- dw=6.0 in; s= O.2in

dw=6.0 in; s= O.Oin

5000- -

0-, r 1 1 t

80 120 160 200

0 40
Time, days

Fig. 10- Comparison of production performance of a dual stacked laterals for different wellbore diameters and absolute roughnesses.

253