SPE 113416

Modeling the Downhole Choking’s Impacts on Well Flow Performance and

Production Fluid Allocations of a Multiple-Zone Intelligent Well System
Kai Sun, Craig Coull, Jesse Constantine, Kenneth Albrecht, and Ricardo Tirado, Baker Oil Tools

Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition held in Rome, Italy, 9–12 June 2008.

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 intelligent well system (IWS) is normally operated with multiple-zone production/injection in the
commingled condition, which makes it difficult to predict the effect of IWS operations on well flow performance
and zonal deliverability. This is because: 1) The production string, downhole control equipment and isolation
tools separate production fluids into different flow paths (tubular/annulus), and the different flow paths have
different resistance to each zone’s outflow; 2) the reservoir and fluid properties of individual zones are normally
different, and these varying properties will cross-impact the outflow of each other’s zones when fluids are
commingled; 3) downhole choking operations will impact the wellbore pressure profile, thus impacting the
production profile from each zone; and 4) Simulate the fluid temperature profile and the effect on pressure and
flow profile for the IWS completion is a complex task. The current published works have not covered the whole
spectrum.

To address this situation, an analysis tool has been developed, combining the developed comprehensive thermal
model with integrated inflow performance relationship (IPR) technology and innovative operation point searching
algorithm. For any downhole choking operation scenario, the flow allocations and profiles of wellbore pressure,
temperature and fluid velocity can be predicted. This provides the operators insight into how to choke the
downhole valves to meet the production enhancement target. It also gives an insight of how we customized the
design of the downhole valve settings to achieve the production objectives. In addition, the threshold pressure at
commingle point to control crossflow can be predicted through this technology, which provides potential ability
to control/monitor possible crossflow of multiple-zone production through the intelligent well monitoring and
control system. For demonstration purpose, a potential case study of a typical deep-water two-zone IWS was
used for analysis. Model verifications were provided by comparison with the third-party software. Analysis and
comments of the comparison have been provided.
Introduction
The key properties of intelligent completions include the ability to monitor and remotely control
injection/production at downhole and the ability to respond quickly to unexpected changes in reservoir
performance. Fig.1 illustrates a typical two-zone IWS production well. The two production zones are isolated
and installed with sand-control equipment. Two downhole control valves are installed above the sand-control
system, where the upper downhole control valve is used to control the production from the upper zone, and the
lower downhole control valve is used to control the production from the lower zone. The lower downhole control
valve is shrouded and connects to a small outer-diameter (OD) concentric tubing to allow it control low zone
production. The concentric tubing is extended into the lower-zone sand screen. With this well configuration, the
production fluids from the two zones are separated into two flow paths. The production from the upper zone
flows into the annulus space formed by the OD of the concentric tubing and the inner diameter (ID) of the sand
screen/extension pipe/fluid-loss-control device, and passes through the casing/tubing annulus around the lower
2 SPE 113416

shrouded valve, and is controlled by the upper downhole control valve into the tubing. The production from the
lower zone flows through the concentric tubing, passes through the annulus space between the shroud ID and
lower control valve, and is controlled by the lower control valve into the tubing. The solid and dashed arrow lines
on Fig. 1 show the flow paths and directions of the production fluids for the upper zone and lower zone,
respectively. The ID side of upper control valve ports is the commingled point when both zones are commingled
production. The commingled fluid flows up through the tubing, starting from the upper control valve ports.

This type of completion configuration is unusual, compared to conventional wells, because of the downhole
control valve installation and multiple flow path separation. The reservoir and fluid properties of each zone are
normally different, i.e., pressure, temperature, productivity index, viscosity, density, etc. These varied properties
will create varied flow behavior along the flow path and cross-impact each zone’s outflow when fluids
commingled. The levels of the reservoir zones and varied different hydraulic IDs of the flow paths will cause
different hydrostatic and frictional pressure drops. Plus, modeling of downhole choke performance itself is not an
easy task, considering the hydrocarbon phase behavior under high-pressure/high-temperature and potential
multiphase flow conditions. Therefore, the approach of predicting the IWS well performance is challenging. In
this study, the IWS well performance relates to any flow performance within an IWS well system, including flow
allocations for each isolated zone, pressure profile along each flow path, fluids temperature profile, fluid
properties along the wellbore and zonal reservoir deliverability’s.

There have been many works that attempted to determine how to model IWS well performance. Vasper1
presented a method of using the nodal analysis and conventional gas lift design theory to predict IWS auto-gas lift
well performance. Konopczynski et al.2-3 applied nodal analysis technology to predict the performance of the
IWS well. To understand the downhole choking’s effect on well performance and also to design the control valve
choke settings, they proposed a method called “attenuated inflow performance relationship (IPR)” to combine the
control valve’s performance with each isolated reservoir unit’s IPR. This assisted in the complex task of nodal
analysis and performance optimization of the entire IWS well. Within these works, the frictional pressure drops
through the production conduit from each controlled zone to the nodal analysis solution node were normally
neglected to simplify the calculation. Sun et al.4 also proposed an analytical method for estimating and allocating
flow contribution for a two-zone IWS water injection well. Within this method, a comprehensive hydraulic
model was built based on a simplified node network of the entire IWS well system. The well performance and
flow distribution were generated by numerically approaching the chosen solution node’s pressure balance.

However, within these works, several technique gaps exist, influencing the accuracy of the prediction and
impeding applications of them:

• Fluid Temperature Impacts on IWS Well Performance. The fluid flowing temperature is changing along
the wellbore depth. This varied fluid temperature distribution will significantly impact the fluid
properties along the wellbore especially for the IWS producer, i.e., density, viscosity, solution gas-oil
ratio, or formation volume factor, and thus impact the fluid flow performance along the production
conduit. Within the introduced methods, the model for fluid temperature prediction and how it relates to
IWS well performance is not proposed. Actually the fluid temperature impacts on IWS well performance
have been neglected in most of those works2-4.

• Cross-Interference of Fluid Properties From Different Reservoir Units. Although the cross-interference
from different reservoir units and downhole choking can be addressed by the “attenuated IPR” or
“Integrated IPR” technology, the cross-interference of fluid properties from different reservoir units has
been neglected within the historically introduced methods. In an IWS well, the fluid properties from
different reservoir units are normally seen as different. The mixture fluid properties after commingled
production should have some relationship to the proportion of flow allocations from each reservoir unit.
Because the flow allocations from each reservoir unit at different choking operation scenarios are not
clear initially, the mixture fluid properties will also not be clear. In many of the historically introduced
methods, the same fluid properties of each reservoir unit or one series of mixture fluid properties were
assumed to generate outflow performance curve, and nodal analyzed the solution node. Thus, the
accuracy of the solution results might be unrealistic since different fluid properties will impact the fluid
SPE 113416 3

flow performance along the production conduit.

• Complex Completion and Varied Geometry Changes Impact on Flow. Within the historically introduced
methods, the IWS well performance analysis was performed either by neglecting the production conduit
frictional pressure drop of lower completion2-3, or by simplifying the production conduit as a single
hydraulic ID tubular/annulus flow path4. However, as shown in Fig.1, the hydraulic IDs for each
reservoir unit are changing along each isolated flow path as there are varied downhole tools installed, i.e.,
sand screen, flow-loss-control valve, shroud, etc. These hydraulic ID changes will generate different
constraints for reservoir fluid outflow and impact the IWS well performance. Therefore, full-well
modeling needs to be built to take into account all those tool geometry changes’ effects.

A comprehensive thermal model has been developed to perform fluid temperature and pressure profile predictions
along the production conduit. To address the issue of cross-interference of fluid properties from different
reservoir units, an innovative operation point searching algorithm has been developed. An analysis tool,
combining the developed comprehensive thermal model with the “Integrated IPR” technology and iterative
operation point searching algorithm, also has been developed. This tool is built based on detailed completion
information and, through it, any downhole tools and choking operation scenario’s impacts on IWS well
performance can be predicted. Therefore, the developed comprehensive tool provides more rigorous solutions on
IWS well performance than the historically introduced methods.
Method Description
The Comprehensive Thermal Model. The model is developed based on the first law of thermodynamics, where
fluid internal energy change was assumed to be equal to enthalpy change, then the fluid flowing temperature, fluid
flowing pressure, and the heat exchanges between the production fluid and circumstance can be represented by a
unified equation. To apply this technology, each flow path was divided into multiple small segments. And for
each divided segment, this unified equation was numerically solved (calculating the end pressure/temperature) by
inputting the initial conditions (pressure/temperature). Oil system correlations6-12 and z-factor correlation13-15
were used to simulate the P-v-T behavior of oil and gas. When flowing pressure deceases below the oil bubble
point, gas is released and multiphase flow behavior achieved. The thermal model provides options to apply
different multiphase flow models to estimate the initial pressure drop16-18, where the modified Hagedorn-Brown
model17 is chosen in this study.

Integrated IPR Technology. A novel nodal analysis technology called Integrated IPR technology was developed
to simplify the calculation. This technology is based on the assumption of pressure-system-balance, meaning that
when the production fluids from each zone are commingled, the pressure system at the commingled point is
balanced at steady-state flow condition. The key of this technology is to integrate each zone’s IPR with each flow
path’s and downhole control valve’s flow performance to generate pressure vs. flow-rate relationships
corresponding to the commingled production point. Based on the basic assumption of pressure-system-balance at
the commingled point, the generated pressure vs. flow-rate relationships can be combined together with the same
pressure. An outflow (lift) curve from commingled point to wellhead needs to be generated through the
single/multiphase TPR (tubing performance relationship) model. Then, the well production rate, zonal production
allocations and wellbore pressure profile can be predicted through the conventional nodal analysis technology by
choosing the commingled point as the solution node.

Operation Point Searching Algorithm. The issue of the Integrated IPR technology is that, when applying this
technology to calculate tubing outflow (lift) curve, the initial fluid properties (temperature, density, viscosity,
solution gas-oil ratio, WCUT, etc.) of the mixture production fluid are not clear because the production fluid
allocations from each zone are not clear at that stage. Therefore, the mixture fluid properties need to be assumed,
and the operating point predicted at the first time was the approximate value. To address this issue, an innovative
operation point searching algorism has been developed.
Potential Case Study of a Typical Deepwater Two-Zone Intelligent Well System: Demonstration of the
Modeling Technology and Its Relation to Control Valve Settings
To demonstrate the developed modeling technology in IWS well performance and its relation to downhole control
valve settings, a potential deepwater IWS two-zone producer was chosen as the study example. The well
4 SPE 113416

completion schematic is similar to Fig.1. The water depth is about 8,325 ft (2537.5 m). The reservoir
information was provided as shown in Table 1. Upper zone has productivity index of 1.11 bpd/psi, but higher
water cut of 75%. The lower zone has productivity index of 1.48 bpd/psi, and water cut of 5%. The upper zone is
controlled by a 4-1/2-in. valve and the lower zone is controlled by a 3-1/2-in. shroud valve. The production
contributions of each zone are determined by considering the reservoir management/optimization requirement and
the surface facilities’ constraint. The production target is to maximize oil production and adjust the liquid
production rate within the facility’s constraint. The separator capability is constraint to 10,000 bpd liquid rate,
and subsea wellhead pressure of 6,000 psi (413.7 bars). A customized IWS full wellbore well flow performance
simulation tool was built based on the planned well schematic as shown in Table 2.

Table. 1 Reservoir and production target Fig. 1 IWS well with sand control to selectively
information control production in multiple zones

Reservoir Information
Upper Zone 1.09 bpd/psi
Reservoir Pressure 17500 psi
Temp (mainbore) 257 F
Solution GOR 175 scf/std
Oil Bubble Point 1200 psi
Oil viscosity 13 cp
Oil Gravity 22 API
Gas S.G 0.8 (air=1)
Initial WCUT 75%
Mid. Perf (TVD) 24135 ft

Lower Zone 1.48 bpd/psi

Reservoir Pressure 17500 psi
Temp. (sidebore) 258 F
Solution GOR 205 scf/std
Oil Bubble Point 1200 psi
Oil viscosity 21 cp
Oil Gravity 23 API
Gas S.G 0.8 (air=1)
Initial WCUT 5%
Mid. Perf (TVD) 25861 ft
Operation Information
WHP 6000 psi
Completion string roughness 0.0018
Water Specific Heat 1.00 BTU/lbm-R
Oil Specific Heat 0.43 BTU/lbm-R
Gas Specific Heat 0.525 BTU/lbm-R
SPE 113416 5

Table. 2 Completion string and reservoir/operation information of the full wellbore model

Tub String abo. Tub str. Tub str. ID Casing Casing ID Wellbore MD Top MD Bot. Item Len. TVD Top TVD Bot.
Reservoir Information upHCMA port OD (in) (in) OD (in) (in) ID (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)

Upper Zone 1.092 bpd/psi WellHead -- -- -- -- -- Sea Floor 8325 -- -- 8325

Reservoir Pressure 17500 psi 4-1/2" tubing 4.500 3.826 9.875 8.625 12 8325 11500 3175 8325 11258
Temp (mainbore) 257 F 4-1/2" Safety Valve 7.125 3.740 9.875 8.625 12 11500 11510 10 11258 11268
Solution GOR 175 scf/std tubing 4.500 3.826 9.875 8.625 12 11510 23600 12090 11268 22472
Oil Bubble Point 1200 psi Packer 8.625 3.875 9.875 8.625 12 23600 23612 12 22472 22483
Oil viscosity 13 cp tubing 4.500 3.826 9.875 8.625 12 23612 23643 31 22483 22512
Oil Gravity 21.5 API Gauge mandrel: 5.800 3.875 9.875 8.625 12 23643 23651 8 22512 22519
Gas S.G 0.8 (air=1) Pup Joint: 4.500 3.826 9.875 8.625 12 23651 23657 6 22519 22525
Initial WCUT 75.00% Tubing: 4.500 3.826 9.875 8.625 12 23657 23712 55 22525 22576
Mid. Perf (TVD) 24135 ft Pup Joint: 4.500 3.826 9.875 8.625 12 23712 23718 6 22576 22582
Stepper Carrier 5.000 3.826 9.875 8.625 12 23718 23723 5 22582 22586
Lower Zone 1.476 bpd/psi 4-1/2 HCM-#: 7.125 3.688 9.875 8.625 12 23723 23735 12 22586 22597
Reservoir Pressure 17500 psi Choke Port Pos.: 5.855 3.688 9.875 8.625 12 23731 -- -- 22593 --
FlowPath to Up_Zone Tub str. Tub str. ID Casing Casing ID Wellbore MD Top MD Bot. Item Len. TVD Top TVD Bot.
Temp. (sidebore) 258 F (annulus flow) OD (in) (in) OD (in) (in) ID (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)

Solution GOR 205 scf/std Frac-pack packer 8.625 12 25050

Oil Bubble Point 1200 psi HCMA Choke Port Po 5.855 3.688 9.875 8.625 12 23731 -- -- 22593 --
Oil viscosity 21 cp HCMA Bottom 5.855 3.688 9.875 8.625 12 -- 23735 -- -- 22597
Oil Gravity 23 API Pup joint: 4.500 3.826 9.875 8.625 12 23735 23750 15 22597 22611
Gas S.G 0.8 (air=1) Cross-Over upper sid 4.500 3.826 9.875 8.625 12 23750 23751 1 22611 22612
Initial WCUT 5.00% Cross-Over lower side 3.500 3.826 9.875 8.625 12 23751 23752 1 22612 22613
Mid. Perf (TVD) 25861 ft Pup joint: 3.500 2.992 9.875 8.625 12 23752 23767 15 22613 22627
Operation Information 3-1/2 Shroud HCM-S 7.000 2.812 9.875 8.625 12 23767 23788 21 22627 22646
WHP 6000 psi 3-1/2 HCMS Port Pos 7.000 2.812 9.875 8.625 12 23767 23777 10 22627 22636
3-1/2 HCMS Port-Bot 7.000 2.812 9.875 8.625 12 23777 23782 5 22636 22641
Shroud/Perf. Pup 7.000 2.812 9.875 8.625 12 23782 23787 5 22641 22646
Crossover 7.625 x 4 1 7.000 2.812 9.875 8.625 12 23787 23788 1 22646 22646
Tubing to Up Frac-Pa 3.500 2.812 9.875 8.625 12 23788 25050 1262 22646 23816
CenTub Centub GP As. GP Ass. Wellbore Item
GP Item OD ID OD ID ID (in) MD (top) MD (Bot) length TVD Top TVD Bot
Snap Latch seal Asse 3.500 2.992 6.5 4.875 12 25050 25066 16 23816 23831
Extention 3.500 2.992 6.5 5.500 12 25066 25076 10 23831 23840
6-5/8x5-1/2x3-1/2 SA 3.500 2.992 6.5 4.61 12 25076 25081 4.5 23840 23844
Blank Pipe/Tub 3.500 2.992 6.5 4.67 12 25081 25190 109 23844 23945
Sand Screen Length 3.500 2.992 6.5 4.892 12 25190 25600 410 23945 24325
FlowPath to Tub str. Tub str. Casing Casing Wellbore MD Top MD Bot. Item TVD Top TVD Bot.
low_Zone (tubing OD (in) ID (in) OD (in) ID (in) ID (in) (ft) (ft) Len. (ft) (ft) (ft)
HCMA Choke Port Po 5.855 3.688 9.875 8.625 12 23731 -- -- 22593 --
HCMA Bottom 5.855 3.688 9.875 8.625 12 -- 23735 -- -- 22597
Pup joint: 4.500 3.826 9.875 8.625 12 23735 23750 15 22597 22611
Cross-Over upper sid 4.500 3.826 9.875 8.625 12 23750 23751 1 22611 22612
Cross-Over lower side 3.500 3.826 9.875 8.625 12 23751 23752 1 22612 22613
Pup joint: 3.500 2.992 9.875 8.625 12 23752 23767 15 22613 22627
3-1/2 Shroud HCM-S 7.000 2.812 9.875 8.625 12 23767 23788 21 22627 22646
3-1/2 HCMS Port Pos 4.280 2.812 7.000 6.004 12 23767 23777 10 22627 22636
3-1/2 HCMS Port-Bot 4.280 2.812 7.000 6.004 12 23777 23782 5 22636 22641
Shroud/Perf. Pup 3.500 2.812 7.000 6.004 12 23782 23787 5 22641 22646
Crossover 7.625 x 4 1 7.000 2.812 9.875 8.625 12 23787 23788 1 22646 22646
Tubing to Up Frac-Pa 3.500 2.812 9.875 8.625 12 23788 25050 1262 22646 23816
CenTub Centub GP As. GP Ass. Wellbore Item
GP Item OD ID OD ID ID (in) MD (top) MD (Bot) length TVD Top TVD Bot
Centre tub pup 3.500 2.992 7.840 4.875 12 25050 25066 16 23816 23831
Extention 3.500 2.992 7.840 5.500 12 25066 25076 10 23831 23840
6-5/8x5-1/2x3-1/2 SA 3.500 2.992 6.500 4.610 12 25076 25081 5 23840 23844
Blank Pipe/Tub 3.500 2.992 6.050 4.670 12 25081 25190 109 23844 23945
Up Sand Screen Leng 3.500 2.992 6.500 4.892 12 25190 25600 410 23945 24325
3.5 Tub Pup to CMP 3.500 2.992 6.500 4.892 12 25600 27100 1500 24325 25861
Valve Choking Sealbore Choke Choke Choke Choke Choke Choke Choke Choke Choke
Information ID (in) Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open
Up HCM-# 3.688 0.90% 20.0% 10.0% 7.0% 5.0% 3.0% 1.5% 0.9% 0.50%
Low Shroud HCM-# 2.812 100.0% 100.0% 15.0% 10.0% 7.0% 5.0% 3.0% 1.5% 1.0%

Multi-Scenario Analysis Choking Operations and Operating Point Determination. Downhole choking
coupled with adjusting the wellhead pressure is the main operating method for an IWS system to meet production
targets. One important feature of the developed modeling technology/tool is to predict the production allocations
6 SPE 113416

through the valves’ operations. For any downhole choking operation scenario, the flow allocations and profiles of
wellbore pressure, temperature and fluid velocity can be predicted. This provides the operators insight into how
to choke the downhole valves to meet the production enhancement target. Thus, the built model can be as the
guideline to optimize IWS operation to meet a production enhancement target. Fig. 2 shows the simulated result
of various chokings’ (keep lower valve fully open and choking the upper valve) impact on production fluid
distribution with constant wellhead pressure of 6,000 psi. Removing the water production, Fig. 3 shows the oil
production contributions from each zone for the same choking operation scenarios. If 10,000 bpd is the
separator’s constraint, a fully open lower valve and 0.9% open upper valve are recommended to maximize the
total oil production. Fig. 4 shows the simulated production contributions of the two zones at the recommended
choking operation scenario, where oil production from lower zone is about 6,100 bpd and oil production from
upper zone is about 900 bpd and the mixture water liquid ratio (WLR) is about 30%. This solution can be
compared with the both valves 100% open case (Fig. 5) (similar to the choice of conventional completion without
downhole control), in which, to meet the separator’s constraint (10,000 bpd), the wellhead pressure needs to
increase to 6,550 psi (451.6 bar), and the WLR will be increased to 36%, thus less oil is produced for the
conventional completion.

Sensitivity Analysis of Upper Valve Chokings: Wellhead Pressure - Sensitivity Analysis of Upper Valve Chokings: Wellhead Pressure -
6000psi; Lower Shrouded Control Valve 100 % Open 6000psi; Lower Shrouded Control Valve 100 % Open
12000 1800 12000

Total Oil Production Rates, STBD

Total Liquid Rate from both Zones, STBD
10000 1500 10000 Oil Production Rates from UpperSand, STBD
Liquid Rate from UpperSand, STBD Oil Production Rates (STBD)
Liquid Production Rates

Liquid Rate from Low erSand, STBD Oil Production Rates from Low erSand, STBD
Diff. Pressure thr. Upper

Diiferential Pressure thr. Upper Valve (psi)

8000 1200 8000
Valve (psi)
(STBD)

6000 900 6000

4000 600 4000

2000 300 2000

0 0 0
0.0% 2.5% 5.0% 7.5% 10.0% 12.5% 15.0% 17.5% 20.0% 0.0% 2.5% 5.0% 7.5% 10.0% 12.5% 15.0% 17.5% 20.0%
Upper Valve Open Positions (%) Upper Valve Open Positions (%)

Fig. 2 Multi-scenario analysis of choking Fig. 3 Multi-scenario analysis of choking

operation effects on production contributions operation effects on oil contributions

Production Contributions: Lower Shrouded Valve - 100% Open, Upper Valve- Production Contributions: Lower Shrouded Valve - 100% Open, Upper Valve-
0.9% Open, and WHP, 6000 psi 100% Open, and WHP, 6550 psi
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
15000 15000

17000 Total Liquid Rate from both Zones, 10074 STBD 17000 Total Liquid Rate from both Zones, 9982 STBD
Liquid Rate from Upper Zones, STBD Liquid Rate from Upper Zones, STBD
19000 Liquid Rate from Low er Zone, STBD 19000 Liquid Rate from Low er Zone, STBD
Along Hole MD (ft)

Along Hole MD (ft)

Flow Allocation from Upper Zone: - 3667 STBD Flow Allocation from Upper Zone: - 4420 STBD
21000 Flow Allocation from Low er Zone: - 6407 STBD 21000 Flow Allocation from Low er Zone: - 5562 STBD

23000 23000

25000 25000

27000 27000

29000 29000
Liquid Rates (STBD) Liquid Rates (STBD)

Fig. 4 Flow contributions at operation point

(upper valve 0.9% open, lower valve 100% Fig. 5 Flow contributions at both valves 100%
open, WHP 6,000psi) open (WHP 6,550 psi)
SPE 113416 7

Customize Choke Positions. Currently, the most popularly used downhole control valve is the type whose
choking positions are pre-designed with fixed open percentage. This provides flexibility to customize those fixed
choke ports based on the reservoir’s history data and well performance analysis. This allows finer adjustment of
production allocations and optimized IWS well performance. The developed model/tool can be used as the
reference tool to determine the fixed choke positions. For example, from Fig. 2, one of the upper 4-1/2-in. valve’s
choke positions can be pre-determined as 0.9% open. As the reservoir/fluid information will normally change
along the well’s life, those parameters could be used as uncertainties to multiple scenarios analyze the IWS well
performance and determine one series of choke open positions, which can meet the well’s production
enhancement target along its service life.

Tools Working Conditions. The downhole tools have their operation limits, for example constrained by the
design purpose, material chosen, etc. Therefore, simulating the working conditions of the tools is critical for
equipment selection and to avoid unexpected operating conditions and tool failures. The flowing profile, pressure
profile, temperature profile, fluid properties and zonal reservoir deliverability for any choking operating scenarios
can be simulated through the developed model. Fig. 6 is the simulated flowing pressure profile at the
recommended operation scenario, through which we can view the valves’ differential pressure and tools’ working
pressures. For example, at the recommended operation scenario, the predicted differential pressure through the
upper valve is about 1,358 psi (93.6 bars). Fig. 7 is the simulated flowing temperature profile. As has been
explained, the fluid properties were changing with the flowing pressure and temperature changes, and these
properties can be estimated through the oil system correlations6-12 by applying the simulated flowing
pressure/temperature as input information. The predicted temperature profile also provides us useful information
to estimate the tubing movement and packer load. Fig. 8 is the production fluid velocity profile, which can be
used to quick screen the erosion potential position along the wellbore. All these simulation results have given us
a view of the downhole tools’ working conditions and thus help us to avoid unexpected operating conditions and
tool failures.

Wellbore Pressure Profile: Lower Shrouded Valve - 100% Open, Upper Flowing Temperature Profile: Lower Shrouded Valve - 100% Open, Upper
Valve- 0.9% Open, and WHP, 6000 psi Valve- 0.9% Open, and WHP, 6000 psi
0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275
20000 8000

21000 Flow ing Pressure of Commingled Fluid (psi) 10000

Flow ing Pressure al. UpperSand Flow Path (psi)
22000 12000
Flow ing Pressure al. Low er Sand Flow Path (psi)
Along Hole MD (ft)

Along Hole MD (ft)

14000
23000 Differential Pressure thr. Upper Valve: - 1358 psi
Differential Pressure thr. Low er Valve: - 2 psi 16000 Commingle Point -
24000
upper HCMA port
18000
25000
20000 Flow ing Temp. of the Commingled Fluid (F)
26000
22000 Geo. Temp. (F)

27000 24000

28000 26000
Flowing Pressure (psi) Flowing Temperature (oF)

Fig. 6 Wellbore flowing pressure profile at Fig. 7 Wellbore flowing temperature profile at
operation point (upper valve 0.9% open, lower operation point (upper valve 0.9% open, lower
valve 100% open, WHP 6,000psi) valve 100% open, WHP 6000 psi)
8 SPE 113416

Production Flow Velocity Profile: Lower Shrouded Valve - 100% Open, Upper Integrated/Combine IPR: Lower Shrouded Valve - 100% Open, Upper Valve-
Valve- 0.9% Open, and WHP, 6000 psi 0.9% Open, and WHP, 6000 psi
18000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
16700 psi
20000

P ressure at Upper HCM S P ort (psi)

Flow ing Velocity of the Commingled Fluid (ft/sec) 17000 16300 psi - the threshold pressure of
21000
Fluid Velocity al. UpperSand Flow Path (ft/sec) commingle point for cross-flow
22000 Flow ing Velocity al. Low erSand Flow Path (ft/sec)
Along Hole MD (ft)

16000
23000 "Combined" Liquid Inflow Performance
Curve (STBD)
24000 "Integrate" Upper Sand Inflow
15000
Performance Curve (STBD)
25000 "Integrate" Lower Sand Inflow
Performance Curve (STBD)
14000
26000

27000
13000
28000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Flowing Velocity (ft/sec) Liquid Production Rates (STBD)

Fig. 8 Wellbore flowing velocity profile at Fig. 9 Wellbore flowing velocity profile at
operation point (upper valve 0.9% open, lower operation point (upper valve 0.9% open, lower
valve 100% open, WHP 6000 psi) valve 100% open, WHP 6000 psi)

Cross Flow Control. Although inter-layer cross-flow is seldom seen in IWSs, one of the concerns about
commingled production is the risk of potential cross-flow when the zonal reservoir properties are different from
each other. The integrated IPR procedure provides a way to predict potential cross-flow in commingled
production conditions. The integrated IPR curve of the upper zone in Fig. 9 shows that the commingle-point
pressure should not be allowed to be higher than 16,700 psi (1151.4 bars). If the pressure is higher than this
value, the flow rate of upper zone will be negative. Fig. 9 also shows that the flow rate from the lower zone will
be negative if the commingle-point pressure is higher than 16,300 psi (1123.8 bars). Therefore, for this intelligent
well system, 16,300 psi is the threshold commingled point pressure. When the pressure at the commingle point is
higher than this value, no oil is produced from the lower zone; instead, production fluid from the upper zone will
cross-flow into the lower zone. To ensure that oil from both zones is produced, the commingled point pressure
should be controlled to be lower than this threshold pressure. For example, the wellhead choke can be opened
larger to decrease the backpressure and thus decrease the commingle-point pressure. Downhole-choking the high-
pressure zone can also decrease the downstream pressure to avoid cross-flow.

In an IWS, downhole gauges are normally installed close to the commingle point to monitor the in-situ pressure
and temperature at this position. The monitoring data can be compared with the calculated threshold pressure to
determine if there is a possibility of inter-layer cross-flow.
Model Verification
The simulation results were comparing with some third-party nodal analysis software, WEM20. As those software
tools are not convenient to input all the detailed completion information, simplified well models were built with
the same reservoir information and similar completion data as the above case.

Figs. 10-12 are the simulated production allocation results of WEM20, when the wellhead pressure is kept at 6,000
psi and upper valve was kept at 100% open and lower valve were choking at 0.9%, 5% and 10% open separately.
These simulation results can be comparing with the results in Fig. 2, where the same reservoir information and
similar completion data and operation scenarios were used. As shown in Fig. 13, similar prediction results have
been given.
SPE 113416 9

Fig. 10 Flow distribution results by WEM20 Fig. 11 Flow distribution results by WEM20
(upper valve 0.9% open, lower valve 100% (upper valve 5% open, lower valve 100%
open, WHP 6000 psi) open, WHP 6000 psi)

Comparison of Modeling Result by Upper Valve Chokings:

Wellhead Pressure - psi; Lower Shrouded Control Valve % Open
12000
Liquid Production Rates (STBD)

10000 Total Liquid Rates by Developed Modeling Tech.

Upper Sand Liquid Rates by Developed Modeling Tech.
Low er Sand Liquid Rates by Developed Modeling Tech.
8000 Total Liquid Rates Predicted by WEM
Liquid Rate from Upper Sand by WEM
Liquid Rates from Low er Sand by WEM

6000

4000

2000

0
0.0% 2.5% 5.0% 7.5% 10.0% 12.5% 15.0% 17.5% 20.0%
Upper Valve Open Positions (%)

Fig. 12 Flow distribution results by WEM20 Fig. 13 Comparison of modeling results on

(upper valve 10% open, lower valve 100% flow distribution between the developed
open, WHP 6000 psi) modeling Tech. and WEM20

For example, when upper valve is 5% open, our model predicted the total liquid rate is about 11,026 bpd, upper
sand is about 4,819 bpd and lower sand is about 6,207 bpd; WEM predicted the total rate is about 10,747 bpd,
upper sand is about 4,908 bpd and lower sand is about 5,839 bpd. When upper valve is 10% open, our model
predicted the total liquid rate is about 11,073 bpd, upper sand is about 4,875 bpd and lower sand is about 6,198
bpd; WEM predicted the total rate is about 11,796 bpd, upper sand is about 4,967 bpd and lower sand is about
5,830 bpd. At the selected operation scenario (wellhead pressure = 6,000 psi; upper valve 100% open and lower
valve 0.9% open), our model predicted the total rates is about 10,074 bpd, upper sand is about 3,667 bpd and
lower sand is about 6,407 bpd; WEM predicted the total rate is about 9,772 bpd, upper sand is about 3,738 bpd
and lower sand is about 6,034 bpd. Table 3 lists the comparison of the simulation results for the two methods.
Overall, the differences of predicted production rates for both zones and each isolated zone are within ±6%.
10 SPE 113416

Table 3: Comparison of modeling results on flow distribution between the developed modeling
Tech. and WEM20

Wellhead (psi) 6000 psi

Upper Valve Open (%) 0.50% 0.9% 1.5% 3.0% 5.0% 7.0% 10.0% 20.0%
Choking Scenarios
Lower Valve Open (%) 100.0%
Developed Modeling Tech. 9307 10074 10574 10925 11026 11057 11073 11083
Total Liquid Rates
WEM 8970 9772 10289 10647 10747 10779 10796 10807
(STBD)
Difference (%) -3.62% -3.00% -2.70% -2.55% -2.53% -2.51% -2.50% -2.49%
Developed Modeling Tech. 2737 3667 4274 4698 4819 4855 4875 4887
Upper Sand Liquid
WEM 2768 3738 4359 4788 4908 4945 4967 4980
Rates (STBD)
Difference (%) 1.15% 1.94% 1.99% 1.92% 1.85% 1.85% 1.89% 1.91%
Developed Modeling Tech. 6571 6407 6300 6228 6207 6201 6198 6196
Lower Sand Liquid
WEM 6202 6034 5930 5859 5839 5833 5829 5827
Rates (STBD)
Difference (%) -5.61% -5.83% -5.87% -5.92% -5.93% -5.94% -5.95% -5.95%

The reason of the slightly differences of the predicted results is because of the completion information inputted in
the WEM and the valve’s discharge coefficient (Cd).

• Our model is a full wellbore model where the detailed completion information including the gravel pack
system (annulus/tubular flow paths and flow-loss-control valve) were inputted to simulate the flowing
profile. However, in the WEM model, the gravel pack system was simplified to only input sand screen
and concentric tub. Therefore, for example, in the WEM model, the pressure drop through the upper-zone
gravel-pack system was underestimated. This will lead to over-estimating this zone’s liquid production
rate. This can be viewed by comparing the predicted upper zone liquid rates in Fig. 13 and Table 3.
Among all the sensitivity analysis cases, the predicted liquid production rates of upper sand are within 1%
- 2% higher than our predicted results.

• In our model, we can input the Cd correlations regarding to the Reynolds number or flow rates based on
the flow test. But in the WEM model, constant Cd values for each choke positions were inputted.

Because the developed model used enthalpy technique, a comparison of the predicted production fluid
temperature is necessary. In order to more easily compare the thermal model technology, the simplified method
assuming a universal overall heat transfer coefficient was used. The universal overall heat transfer coefficient is
assumed to be 4.5 BTU/(hour-scf-F) along the wellbore to generate the flowing temperature profile as in Fig. 14,
where the chosen operation scenario is WHP 6,000 psi, lower valve kept 100% open and upper valve at 0.9% and
5% open, respectively. It shows that, at upper valve 0.9% open condition, our model predicted the flowing
temperature at wellhead is about 177ºF (80.6ºC); and WEM predicted the flowing wellhead temperature is about
163ºF (72.8ºC). And at upper valve 5% open condition, our model predicted the flowing wellhead temperature is
about 185ºF (85ºC); and WEM predicted the flowing wellhead temperature is about 169ºF (76.1ºC). Considering
the slight difference in completion information, the predicted production profile, the default fluid properties such
as oil/water/gas heat capacities, and also the divided segment numbers for simulation, we believe our model has
provided the prediction results in a reasonable range.
SPE 113416 11

Comparison of Flowing Temperature Profile: Lower Shrouded Valve - 100%

Open, Upper Valve- 0.9% Open, and WHP, 6000 psi Well Surveillant
100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 Data
8000

10000

Co his
s
ch r

rre tor
at ete
12000

ct y m
y am

pa a
o r ar

ra tch
m
st p
Flow ing Temp. w hen upper valve 0.9%
Along Hole MD (ft)

m
14000

h i ec t

et
open by developed model
Interface

er
or

s
C
Flow ing Temp. w hen upper valve 5%
16000 IWS well performance
open by developed model modeling
Flow ing Temp. w hen upper valve 0.9%
18000 open by WEM
Flow ing Temp. w hen upper valve 5%
IWS Well
20000 open by WEM

Reservoir Optimize IWS operation to meet

22000 production enhancement target

24000 Commingle Point -

upper HCMA port
26000
Flowing Temperature (oF)

Fig. 14 Comparison of predicted temperature Fig. 15 The process of the loop of IWS well
profile between the developed modeling Tech. production flow
and WEM (at operation scenario upper valve
0.9%, lower valve 100%, WHP 6,000 psi)

Discussion
The developed comprehensive thermal modeling technology provides us the ability to perform full-wellbore
modeling of the flow performance of advanced multilateral/multi-zone wells. Thus, it gives us insight into how
each downhole tool along the wellbore impacts the reservoir inflow or production fluid outflow. One obvious
benefit of the developed modeling technology/tool is its ability in rigorous modeling to provide zonal flow
allocations of a multilateral/multi-zone IWS well under commingled production conditions. By multi-scenario
analysis of the downhole and wellhead choking operations, the developed modeling technology/tool gives us
insight into how those operations impact the zonal flow contribution and well flow condition. This gives
operators valuable information as guidelines for selecting the optimal downhole and wellhead choking scenario to
optimize IWS well management and meet the production enhancement target. The modeling results include
flowing pressure, flowing temperature (even cement/casing/annulus fluid temperature), flowing velocity and fluid
properties profile along the production flow path. As explained in the demonstrated case history, this information
gives us the expected flowing wellbore conditions, and will help us to correct reservoir/wellbore parameters,
optimize production operations, avoid unexpected operating conditions and troubleshoot abnormal situations.
Thus, between the IWS equipment and reservoir, the developed modeling technology/tool can be worked as an
“Interface” as illustrated in Fig. 15. It can work not only as a “guideline” to optimize IWS well valves setting, but
also as a “viewer” for flowing wellbore conditions.

Then, the question is raised: Do operators think it is valuable for us to provide not only the IWS equipment but
also this customized “interface” for each completed IWS well? How do we integrate the developed “interface”
into real-time workflows to maximize IWS well value? Fig. 15 also shows the process of the loop of the IWS
well production flow, where the developed modeling technology could be a key to diagnosing the production
monitoring data (correct reservoir/wellbore parameters and history matching monitoring data) and recommend the
optimal choke settings.
Conclusion
Rigorous thermal modeling technologies have been developed by the Baker Oil Tools IWS group recently to
address the challenge of modeling advanced IWS well performance. The developed modeling technologies have
built an “interface” between the IWS equipment and reservoir, through which operators can not only use it as a
guideline to optimize IWS to meet production enhancement target, but also as a “viewer” for the flowing wellbore
condition, and thus use it to correct reservoir/wellbore parameters, optimize production operations, avoid
unexpected operating conditions and troubleshoot abnormal situations.
12 SPE 113416

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the management of Baker Oil Tools for permission to publish this work.

Reference

1. Vasper, A.: “Auto, Natural or In-Situ Gas Lift Systems Explained,” 2006 SPE International Oil & Gas
Conference and Exhibition in China, Beijing, China, 5-7 December 2006.

2. Konopczynski, M. and Ajayi, A.: “Design of Intelligent Well Downhole Valves for Adjustable Flow
Control,” 2004 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, 26-29 September 2004.

3. Konopczynski, M. and Ajayi, A.: “Applying Downhole Real-Time Data and Composite IPR Technology
to Optimize Production of Multiple-Zone Intelligent Wells,” 2007 SPE Digital Energy Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, TX, 11-12 April 2007.

4. Sun, K. and Konopczynski, M.: ”Prediction of Injection Fluid Distributions for Multiple Zones –
Intelligent Injection System,” 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX,
24-27 September 2006.

5. Sun, K. and Constantine, J.: “Intelligent Well Applications – Beyond the Mechanical Parts, the
Interaction Between Intelligent Well and Reservoir Optimization,” 2007 Baker Engineering Forum.

6. Standing, M.B.: “A Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlation for Mixtures of California Oils and

Gases,” Dill. and Prod. Prac., API, 1947.

7. Lasater, J.A.: “Bubble Point Pressure Correlation,” Trans., AIME (1958) 213, pp 379-381.

8. Vasquez, M. and Beggs, H.D.: “Correlations for Fluid Physical Property Prediction,” J. Pet. Tech., June
1980, pp 968-970.

9. Beal, C.: “The Viscosity of Air, Water, Natural gas, Crude Oil and Its Associated Gases at Oil Field
Temperatures and Pressures,” Trans., AIME (1946) 165, pp 94-115.

10. Beggs, H.D. and Robinson, J.R.: “Estimating the Viscosity of Crude Oil Systems,” J. Pet. Tech.,
September 1975, pp 1140-1141.

11. Baker, O. and Swerdloff, W.: “Finding Surface Tension of Hydrocarbon Liquids,” Oil and Gas J., January
1956.

12. Bradley, H.B. “Petroleum Engineering Handbook.” Richard-son, TX, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
1987.

13. Brill, J.P. and Beggs, H.D.: “Two-Phase Flow in Pipes,” INTERCOMP Course, The Hague, 1974.

14. Hall, K.R. and Yarborough, L.: “ A New Equations of State for Z-Factor Calculations,” Oil & Gas
Journal, June 1973, pp 82

15. Guo, B. and Ghalambor, A.: “Natural Gas Engineering Handbook,” Houston, TX, Gulf Publishing
Company, 2005.

16. Hagedorn, A.R. and Brown, K.E.: “Experimental Study of Pressure Gradients Occurring during
Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Small-Diameter Conduits,” J. Petroleum Technol. 1965, pp 475.
SPE 113416 13

17. Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P.: “A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes,” J. Petroleum Technol., May
1973, pp 607.

18. Guo, B., Lyons, W., and Ghalambor, A.: “Petroleum Production Engineering – a computer-assisted
approach.” Houston, TX: Elsevier, 2007.

19. Shoham, O.: “Mechanistic Modeling of Gas/Liquid Two-Phase Flow in Pipes.” Society of Petroleum
Engineers, 2006.

20. P.E. Moseley & Associates, Well Evaluation Model, 1988-2008.