SPE-184328-MS

A Systematic Approach to Intelligent Well Performance Modelling Using

IPM Suite
Michael Edih, Erasmus Nnanna, and Cosmas Nwankwo, The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria
Limited

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 2– 4 August 2016.

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

Abstract
Intelligent well technology use Inflow Control Devices (ICDs), Inflow Control Valves (ICVs), and
measurement devices that provide opportunity for monitoring and control of production from different
reservoirs from the same wellbore. The common value drivers for the deployment of intelligent wells
include reduction in well count during field development; accelerated ultimate recovery (UR); and
accelerated production. Efficient and accurate modelling is therefore critical for the realisation of the full
benefits of intelligent wells in addition to other technologies like the use of geochemical finger printing.
In this paper, a simple workflow for modelling the performance of intelligent wells is presented. This
workflow identifies the limitation of current standalone PROSPER model and provides a window to easily
match the model to actual well test results, providing multiple calibration points and ensuring full
utilisation of the data made available by the intelligent well accessories like the permanent downhole
guage and downhole flowmeter. The workflow has been applied to carryout nodal analysis of both oil and
gas completions in the Niger Delta, Nigeria.
The modelling workflow is divided into two (2) aspects – the inflow modeling, for each inflow zone,
and the outflow modelling that captures the commingled production. The commngled outflow model is
used to generate the lift table for the GAP model.
The well deliverability and PQ curves are generated and plotted using the Openserver utility in IPM,
which can be used also to view the performance of the model against validated well test results.
Results of applying the workflow to two case studies in the Niger Delta were analysed. The model was
used to predict the expected performance of the wells at different surface choke sizes and ICV settings.
The model results (flow rate, flowing tubing head pressures, flowing bottomhole pressures) matched
closely (with maximum of 10% deviation) with the actual measured results, confirming the accuracy of
the recommended workflow.

Introduction
Intelligent completions strategy shortens the cycle time between data acquisition and the use of the
modelled and analysed data for decision making that could improve the well asset value. Where such
intelligent wells are coupled with Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems, they
2 SPE-184328-MS

provide the opportunity for remote operations capability which will reduce staff HSSE exposures in
difficult operating locations like the Niger Delta.
The intelligent well technologies use Inflow Control Devices (ICDs), Inflow Control Valves (ICVs),
and measurement devices that provide opportunity to control production from different completed
reservoirs. Common value wells include well count reduction, increased UR and accelerated production.
The benefits of intelligent completions include improved reservoir management and reduced well
intervention cost on lifecycle basis (Gao, et al., 2007). These benefits have been demonstrated in practical
applications, especially for multiple reservoirs where commingled production is the main production
strategy (Durlofsky & Khalid, 2002). The intelligent equipment installed is expected to maximise value
over the life of the well (Carlos, 2005).
In order to predict the performance of intelligent wells, the relationship between pressure and fluid flow
rates has to be established. Previous studies show that pressure distribution along the well greatly
influences the performance of intelligent completions, especially since flow is commingled (Kamkom &
Zhu, 2005).
A comprehensive model for intelligent well performance will consist of reservoir inflow model,
wellbore flow model as well to account for the impact of intelligent control components (Marwan & Ding,
2011). These set of mathematical equations are solved numerically or by using analytical techniques to
allocate production rates to the completed intervals.
Integrated Production System Model (IPSM) is a mathematical representation of interactions between
the reservoir, wellbore and surface facilities. The Petroleum Expert’s IPSM suite comprising MBAL
(material balance), PROSPER (nodal analysis), GAP (network modelling) and Openserver, RESOLVE etc
is an industry standard and gives fast and reliable results (Thomas, et al., 2012).
In order to forecast production from a well, it is essential to provide the pressure profile with respect
to cumulative fluid production from the well. This is done using the IPSM material balance tool. The
MBAL is connected to a well VLP/IPR curves and the surface equipment in GAP to provide a
comprehensive pressure drop analysis from the reservoir to the production manifold as well as carry out
forecast of well performance.
In order to comprehensively model an intelligent well, it is important to reflect the effect of the ICVs.
This affects both flow rates and pressure drop across producing intervals. The limitation of a standalone
PROSPER model is the inability to account for the impact of the ICVs. Although multilayer reservoir
inflow model can be selected in PROSPER and has been used in modelling wells with complex geometry
(Montero & Nwankwo, 2010), this cannot account for the pressure drop due to the presence of inflow
control valves and devices.
This paper presents a systematic approach to modelling the performance of an intelligent well while
providing opportunity to assess the impact of ICV openings. Although the model layout can be modified
to carry out performance forecast by including the Material Balance Model (MBAL), the scope of this
workflow is limited to modelling well performance at a given time. The metholody presented in this paper
improves the accuracy of a multi-layer model used in PROSPER (used in Montero & Nwankwo, 2010).
Workflow Summary
The workflow starts with building standalone PROSPER models that will be used as input to the inflow
element in GAP. PROSPER will also be used to build the commingled model up to the production packer.
This model will be used to generate lift curve in GAP.
Pressure drop between completed reservoir intervals can be modelled with a pipe of appropriate
geometry and configuration in GAP.
The well deliverability and PQ curves are plotted using Openserver, which can be used also to view
the performance of the model against accepted well test results.
The workflow for modelling the performance of an intelligent well is shown in Figure 1.
SPE-184328-MS 3

Figure 1—Modelling Workflow

Zonal Inflow/Outflow Modelling (PROSPER)

The first step in modelling an intelligent well performance is to define the reservoir properties and major
flow components of the well completion in PROSPER. A suitable inflow performance relationship (IPR)
is used to model the individual performance of all the reservoirs to be commingled. The result of Inflow
calculation (gas rate, IPR pressures and water rate) is then copied and exported into a GAP inflow element.
The individual IPR of the completed intervals should be updated in PROSPER with zonal test results.
The Tubing performance curve is generated in PROSPER with a multilayer IPR model that captures
the depth, fluid and reservoir properties of the individual intervals to be commingled. This model is also
used in PROSPER to define well outflow in the GAP layout.

Commingling with ICVs (GAP)

The major limitation to modelling intelligent well performance using only PROSPER is in capturing the
impact of the inflow control valves (ICVs) across each reservoir section (Figure 2 shows an inflow model
for a multilayer well completion in PROSPER). However, using GAP, a choke can be added across an
inflow element (with results from the IPR calculation entered). As shown in Figure-3, inflow elements are
used for individual reservoir. Also, the vertical lift performance of the well is modelled in GAP using
outflow only option in GAP.
4 SPE-184328-MS

Figure 2—Multilayer Model in PROSPER

Figure 3—PQ curve for Well-1 Sequential Testing

Performance Modelling (Openserver)

Openserver enables interaction between IPSM packages and Microsoft Excel. A composite VLP data
(Rate, VLP Pressure) is copied from a standalone well model. However, a composite IPR data (Rate and
Pressure at the top of shallowest Reservoir depth) with varying choke size can be obtained from GAP
using openserver.
Openserver can also be used to easily update the well model with actual test results. The application
of the workflow to model the performance of two wells (oil and gas) is shown in subsequent sections.
Production parameters (well head pressures, bottom-hole pressures and rates) from actual well test and
model are compared. A 10% maximum deviation between predicted and actual well test results was
observed.
Cases Description
The modelling workflow was used to assess the performance of two intelligent wells completed in the
Niger Delta. The wells have been completed as a Single String Multiple (SSM) commingled oil producer
equipped with Inflow Control (ICVs), dual-sensor permanent downhole gauges and zonal isolation
packers.
Well-1 is an intelligent oil well completed on three reservoirs (1A, 1B and 1C) drilled to a total depth
of 6,700 ftss. The well was completed as a Single String Multiple (SSM) commingled oil producer with
SPE-184328-MS 5

4-1/2⬙ production tubing equipped with Inflow Control Valves (ICVs), dual-sensor permanent downhole
gauges and zonal isolation swellable packers. Expandable Sand Screens (ESS) were installed in the three
reservoirs for sand control. Production packer was installed to prevent any annular communication with
the tubing.
The initial reservoir pressures were 3118, 3225, 3230 psi for 1A, 1B and 1C respectively. The well has
been tested with varying surface choke sizes with all ICVs in 100% open position. The completion
schematic for Well-1 is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 —Completion Schematics (Well-1)

Well-2 is an intelligent gas producer planned to be completed in 2 sand intervals (2A and 2B). The well
was drilled to a total length of 10,965 ftss with a maximum deviation of about 38 degrees. The well is
planned to be completed as a smart, deviated Single String Multiple (SSM) gas producer on reservoirs 2A,
and 2B with both sands commingled through the 51/2⬙ x 31/2⬙ 13% chrome tubing equipped with Inflow
Control Valves (ICVs) and Permanent Downhole Gauges (PDHGs). The functionality of the ICV for
6 SPE-184328-MS

downhole choking in this well is required to avoid crossflow since the deeper reservoir 2B is depleted with
current pressure less than 2A. The lower completion will be Expandable Sand Screen (ESS) combined
with blanks and swellable packers for zonal isolation. The well is designed for a planned potential of 90
MMscf/d.

Results
The workflow described above was applied to model the well performance for the case wells. The GAP
model layout for well-1 is shown in Figure 5. The reservoir inflow performance is copied from the
standalone PROSPER model and input in GAP. The pressure loss across the isolation (swellable) packer
between the reservoirs is modelled as a pipe acknowledging the configuration. The ICVs are modelled as
chokes with total inflow area equivalent to the flow area of the ICV in 100% open position. The outflow
performance is modelled with a well using VLP only. The model layout also includes the surface choke,
flowline and test separator.

Figure 5—Smart Well Model Layout in GAP (Well-1)

Single zone and commingled tests are carried out to determine the intervals deliverabilities.
In the single zone test, only one ICV is opened and the zone produced for 12 hours while other ICVs
are closed. The well is then switched to the test separator to record production parameters and bottomhole
pressures for all the zones. The process is repeated for the individual producing intervals. Table-1 shows
the comparison of the model configured to the single zone test.
SPE-184328-MS 7

Table 1—Single Zone Test and Model Performance

The plot of model wellhead pressure versus production rates (PQ curves) for the individual reservoirs
in Well-1 is shown in Figure 3. The plot shows the predicted performance of the well during sequential
testing of the inflow intervals. The performance of the model against actual data is shown in Figures 6–8.
The figures show the well head pressure (WHP) and flow rates from this methodology and measured
values.

Figure 6 —Well Head Pressure Vs Choke Size (Well-1)

8 SPE-184328-MS

Figure 7—Oil Rates Vs Choke Size (Well-1)

Figure 8 —Cummingled PQ Curve (Well-1)

In commingled test, all the ICVs are opened and well production and downhole parameters are
recorded as the well is produced to the test separator. The commingled production was done with all ICVs
in 100% open position.
Flowing Bottom Hole Pressures (FBHP) readings of the PDHG in the three (3) completed intervals
during the commingled flow also showed good comparison with values obtained from the GAP model.
The result for a fixed surface choke is shown in Table 2.
SPE-184328-MS 9

Table 2—FBHP Comparison at a Fixed Choke

Results obtained from geochemical fingerprinting used for back allocation showed good match to that
obtained using this methodology. The percentage contribution of the individual completion intervals from
GAP and that obtained from geochemical fingerprint of the cummingled sample is shown in Table 3.

Table 3—Allocation of Splits for Back Allocation (Well-1)

Comparion of the modelled oil rate and the test oil rate is shown in Figure 9. Linear regression gives
a R2 value of 0.9296 indicating a high confidence in the model results.

Figure 9 —Linear Regression of Actual vs Model Oil Rate

10 SPE-184328-MS

Also, the predicted commingled performance curve (VLP/IPR) is shown for the case study Well-2. In
addition the contribution of the individual zones can be seen in Figure 10.

Figure 10 —VLP/IPR Curve (Well-2)

Conclusions
A simple workflow for modelling the potential smart wells (completed with ICVs) has been presented.
The workflow eliminates the limitation of using a PROSPER standalone model. Also, the model can be
easily updated with actual production test for well surveillance purposes. The workflow can be modified
to include material model for well performance forecast in GAP.
The workflow has been applied to two wells in the Niger Delta and the result showed comparison with
measured field data. Production parameters, FTHP, and Rates from the model show good match with
actual measured data with a R2 value of 0.9296
The model also showed application to back allocation to the completed intervals. Results from the
metholody matched closely to split from geochemical fingerint analysis
Appreciation
The authors wish to thank the management of The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria
Limited for granting us permission to publish this paper.

Abbreviations
IPSM Integrated Production Systems Modelling
ICD Inflow Control Devices
ICV Inflow Control Valves
PQ Curve Pressure-Quantity Curve
SPE-184328-MS 11

IPR Inflow Performance Relationship

VLP Vertical Lift Performance
SSM Single String Multiple
PDHG Permanent Downhole Guage
ESS Espandable Sand Screen
Ftss Feet Subsea
FHBP Flowing Bottom-Hole Pressure

References
1. Carlos, A. G., 2005. Reservoir Management Employing Smart Wells: A review. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
2. Durlofsky, J. L. & Khalid, A., 2002. Optimization of Smart Well Control. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
3. Gao, C., Rajeswaran, T. & Edson, N., 2007. A Literature Review on Smart Well Technology. Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
4. Kamkom, K. & Zhu, D., 2005. Two Phase Correlation for Multilateral Well Deliverability. Society of Petroleum
Engineers
5. Kamkom, K. & Zhu, D., 2005. Two Phase Correlation for Multilateral Well Deliverability. Society of Petroleum
Engineers
6. Montero, J. & Nwankwo, C., 2010. Simulation of Dragon Wells in Thin Oil Rim Reservoirs Using Segmented Inflow
Approach.
7. Thomas, A. O., Shakioye, T., Edidiong, T. & Linus, N., 2012. Practical Application of the IPSM in Resolving Gas
Availability Challenges and Overall System Optimisation to Maximise Production. Society of Petroleum Engineers.