TAML Multilaterals Guidebook July 1999

TAML Multilaterals Guidebook
Note: This document was prepared by the TAML network (Technical

Advancement of Multilaterals see www.taml.net for more information)
in July 1999, as a web-based tool. As the TAML website from that time is
no longer active, the tool has been re-compiled in January 2004 as a pdf
document for downloading and usage by TAML members.
Page 2 of 277

Table of Contents

TECHNICAL ADVANCEMENT OF MULTILATERAL WELLS......................................................................................1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................7
1.1 PRELIMINARIES............................................................................................................................................................................7
1.2 OBJECTIVES..................................................................................................................................................................................7
1.3 SCOPE OF THE GUIDE AND DATABASE .....................................................................................................................................7
1.4 GUIDE AND DATABASE DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................................................................8
1.5 FORMAT FOR THE GUIDE............................................................................................................................................................8
CHAPTER 2. BASIC FACTS ON MULTILATERALS........................................................................................................ 10
2.1 DEFINITION AND DESCRIPTION..............................................................................................................................................10
2.1.1 Definition......................................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.2 Geometry of Multi-lateral and Multi-Branched Wells....................................................................................... 10
2.2 HISTORICAL REVIEW................................................................................................................................................................12
2.3 CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM.......................................................................................................................................................13
2.3.1 Complexity Ranking.................................................................................................................................................... 14
2.3.2 Functionality Classification....................................................................................................................................... 14
2.3.3 Classification Code Examples ................................................................................................................................. 17
2.4 OVERVIEW OF CURRENT STATUS.........................................................................................................................................19
2.4.1 Statistics when, where, how, how many .......................................................................................................... 19
2.4.2 Proprietary Systems and their TAML Classification ........................................................................................ 21
2.4.3 Future Adaptations and Developments................................................................................................................ 22
2.5 BUSINESS CASE FLOWCHART ...............................................................................................................................................24
2.5.1 List of Benefits .............................................................................................................................................................. 24
2.5.2 Cost and Risk implications ....................................................................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER 3. DECIDING ON A MULTILATERAL............................................................................................................. 30
3.1 GENERAL CONDITIONS FAVORING ML SOLUTION...............................................................................................................30
3.2 BUSINESS BENEFIT ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................................................30
3.2.1 Process for determining business benefit .................................................................................................................... 30
3.2.2 Case studies for business benefits................................................................................................................................. 32
3.3 SCREENING PROCESS.................................................................................................................................................................37
3.3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................... 37
3.3.2 High level objectives....................................................................................................................................................... 38
3.3.3 Data gathering: reservoir and fluid characteristics.................................................................................................. 38
3.3.4 Well objectives and design criteria............................................................................................................................... 41
3.3.5 Evaluation and comparison of options........................................................................................................................ 41
3.3.6 Recommendation and final decision............................................................................................................................. 48
3.4 QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT (QRA) APPROACH.......................................................................................................48
3.4.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................... 48
3.4.2 QRA Methodology for Well Construction, Installation, Maintenance and Operation ........................................ 49
3.4.3 QRA Results...................................................................................................................................................................... 51
3.4.4 Case Studies: Risk Related Issues................................................................................................................................. 52
3.5 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.................................................................................................................................................54
3.6 MODELING OF MULTI-LATERAL PERFORMANCE..................................................................................................................55
3.6.1 Analytical Models............................................................................................................................................................ 55
3.6.2 Inflow for Vertical Wells................................................................................................................................................. 56
3.6.3 Inflow for Horizontal Wells............................................................................................................................................ 57
3.6.4 Flow in Multi -lateral Wells............................................................................................................................................ 58
3.7 TRADEMARKS.............................................................................................................................................................................71
Page 3 of 277

3.8 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................................................................71
CHAPTER 4. DESIGNING A MULTILATERAL.................................................................................................................. 74
4.1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................................................74
4.1.1 Cost Benefit Onshore/Offshore...................................................................................................................................... 74
4.1.2 Re-entry versus New Well............................................................................................................................................... 74
4.1.3 Creating Laterals............................................................................................................................................................. 75
4.1.4 General Considerations (with respect to drilling and completing ML/MB wells) ............................................... 75
4.2 JUNCTION....................................................................................................................................................................................76
4.2.1 TAML Classification Scheme......................................................................................................................................... 76
4.2.2 Level 1-Open Hole Trunk and Laterals. ...................................................................................................................... 76
4.2.3 Level 2- Cemented Trunk and Open Lateral ............................................................................................................... 78
4.2.4 Level 3- Cased Hole Trunk, Mechanically Supported............................................................................................... 78
4.2.5 Level 4- Mother-Bore & Lateral Cased & Cemented............................................................................................... 79
4.2.6 Level 5- Pressure Integrity at the Junction................................................................................................................. 79
4.2.7 Level 6- Pressure Integrity at the Junction................................................................................................................. 80
4.2.8 Level 6s- Downhole Splitter: Surface or Downhole.................................................................................................. 80
4.2.9 Kick Off Methods........................................................................................................................................................... 80
4.2.10 Casing Exit Options...................................................................................................................................................... 80
4.2.11 Section Milling Vs Window Milling............................................................................................................................ 80
4.2.12 Section Milling Advantages and Disadvantages................................................................................................... 81
4.2.13 Window Milling Advantages and Disadvantages................................................................................................. 82
4.2.14 Casing Exit Selection Guide. ....................................................................................................................................... 83
4.2.15 Types of Junctions and Isolation Design................................................................................................................... 84
4.2.16 Cemented Junction Level 4....................................................................................................................................... 85
4.3 LATERAL PLACEMENT ..............................................................................................................................................................87
4.3.1 Drilling Flat Wellbore Trajectories.............................................................................................................................. 88
4.3.2 Accurate Wellbore Placement ....................................................................................................................................... 88
4.3.3 Directional Profile Planning......................................................................................................................................... 88
4.3.4 Number of Completion Zones. ....................................................................................................................................... 89
4.4 JUNCTION INTEGRITY................................................................................................................................................................90
4.4.1 Lateral Entry Nipple System (LEN).............................................................................................................................. 91
4.4.2 Selective Re-Entry Tool (SRT)....................................................................................................................................... 92
4.4.3 Lateral Seal and Control System................................................................................................................................... 93
4.4.4 Mechanical tieback to the main casing string............................................................................................................ 93
4.4.5 Hydraulic seal of lateral from the main casing string............................................................................................... 94
4.4.6 Local Formation Damage.............................................................................................................................................. 95
4.4.7 Formation Characteristics at the Lateral Bore Kick -Off Junctions....................................................................... 95
4.4.8 Differential Pressure at the Junction........................................................................................................................... 95
4.4.9 Junction Tie-Back/Seal ................................................................................................................................................... 95
4.4.10 Junction Integrity and Risks........................................................................................................................................ 96
4.4.11 Potential Sand Production from the Junction........................................................................................................... 96
4.5 COMPLETION AND PRODUCTION CONTROL............................................................................................................................96
4.5.1 Desirable goals for the design of ML Completion Systems...................................................................................... 98
4.5.2 Completion systems ......................................................................................................................................................... 98
4.5.3 Completion requirement................................................................................................................................................. 99
4.5.4 Technical Criteria............................................................................................................................................................ 99
4.5.5 Completion Options.......................................................................................................................................................100
4.5.6 Completion Selection Parameters...............................................................................................................................100
4.5.7 Completion Design........................................................................................................................................................101
4.6 SELECTIVE ISOLATION.............................................................................................................................................................102
4.7 LATERAL COMPLETION...........................................................................................................................................................103
4.7.1 Possible lateral completions........................................................................................................................................103
4.7.2 Sand control/stimulation re-entry requirement for laterals linked to junction/completion specs. ..................104
4.8.1 Screening Process..........................................................................................................................................................106
4.8.2 Risk data, based on operational experience..............................................................................................................108
CHAPTER 5. CURRENT MULTILATERAL TECHNOLOGY......................................................................................111
5.1 INTRODUCTION TO VENDORS AND SPONSORS.....................................................................................................................111
5.2 DRILLING..................................................................................................................................................................................111
Page 4 of 277

5.2.1 Window Milling/Whipstocks and Associated Equipment........................................................................................111
5.2.2 Junction Integrity...........................................................................................................................................................124
5.2.3 Selective Access..............................................................................................................................................................125
5.3 LATERAL MONITORING AND CONTROL................................................................................................................................128
5.3.1 Vendors............................................................................................................................................................................128
5.3.2 Completion Tools and Control Sleeves......................................................................................................................128
5.3.3 Monitoring and Measuring Systems...........................................................................................................................131
5.3.4 Smart/ Intelligent Completions....................................................................................................................................139
5.2.5 Reeled Completions and Systems................................................................................................................................143
5.3.6 Reeled Systems ...............................................................................................................................................................146
5.3.7 Expandable Tubular Technology................................................................................................................................148
5.4 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................................................................148
5.4.1 Contact Information......................................................................................................................................................148
5.4.2 Other Documents ...........................................................................................................................................................151
CHAPTER 6. PLANNING MULTILATERAL WELL.......................................................................................................152
6.1. CONTRACTING CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................................................................................152
6.2. CONTRACTING SEQUENCE.....................................................................................................................................................152
6.3 PRE-QUALIFICATION...............................................................................................................................................................152
6.3.1. Evaluation Notes: .........................................................................................................................................................154
6.3.2. Pre-Qualification -- Definitions.................................................................................................................................154
6.3.3. Pre-Qualification -- Example Questionnaire...........................................................................................................155
6.3.4. Pre-Qualification Technical....................................................................................................................................161
6.3.5. Pre-Qualification Review.........................................................................................................................................162
6.3.6. OPTIONAL Pre-Qualification Financial Considerations..............................................................................164
6.3.7. Pre-Qualification Financial Considerations - Example.....................................................................................164
6.4. COMMERCIAL TENDER...........................................................................................................................................................169
6.4.1. Multi-Well Contract .....................................................................................................................................................171
6.5. SPECIFICATIONS AND EVALUATION DATA.........................................................................................................................177
6.5.1. Evaluation Data............................................................................................................................................................177
6.5.2. During the Contractor Tender Preparation.............................................................................................................178
6.6. EVALUATION...........................................................................................................................................................................178
6.7. QRA APPLICATIONS...............................................................................................................................................................179
6.7.1 QRA Applied to Evaluation of Multilateral Equipment and Services Vendor....................................................179
6.7.2 QRA Applied to Incentive Contracts:.........................................................................................................................179
CHAPTER 7. ESTABLISHING MULTILATERAL WELL .............................................................................................180
7.1 GENERIC MAIN PROCEDURES................................................................................................................................................180
7.2 CONTINGENCY PLANNING......................................................................................................................................................180
7.3 MAKING A JUNCTION..............................................................................................................................................................181
7.3.1 Example Generic Procedure for Placement and Orientation................................................................................181
7.3.2 Example Detailed Basic Procedure for Constructing an Isolated Junction........................................................181
7.3.3 Specific procedures for Anadrill Rapid Access Multilateral..................................................................................183
7.3.4 Debris Management ......................................................................................................................................................183
7.3.5 Junction Consolidation.................................................................................................................................................184
7.4 CASE STUDY: MULTILATERAL WELL INSTALLATION ON TROLL FROM A FLOATING RIG............................................184
7.4.1 Technology Requirements............................................................................................................................................184
7.4.2 Effect of Rig Heave on the Multilateral Operations. ...............................................................................................184
7.4.3 Weight on Bit and Depth Positioning.........................................................................................................................185
7.4.4 Placement of Downhole Equipment on Depth..........................................................................................................185
7.4.5 Horizontally Placed Junction......................................................................................................................................185
7.4.6 Unconsolidated Reservoir Sand..................................................................................................................................185
7.4.7 Field Installation Results..............................................................................................................................................185
7.5 SAFETY......................................................................................................................................................................................186
7.5.1 Well Control Procedures..............................................................................................................................................186
7.5.2 Technical Safety.............................................................................................................................................................186
7.5.3 Procedural Safety ..........................................................................................................................................................187
7.5.4 HSE Management (specific to ML wells) ..................................................................................................................187
7.6 CHECKLIST FOR PLANNING AND EXECUTION OF MULTILATERAL WELLS......................................................................188
Page 5 of 277

CHAPTER 8. OPERATING A MULTILATERAL WELL................................................................................................190
8.1 STARTING UP THE MULTILATERAL WELL...........................................................................................................................190
8.1.1 Completion Integrity.....................................................................................................................................................190
8.1.2 Clean-up..........................................................................................................................................................................190
8.1.3 Junction Integrity...........................................................................................................................................................191
8.2 MAINTENANCE AND TESTING.................................................................................................................................................192
8.2.1 Full Access Capability..................................................................................................................................................192
8.2.2 Intervention.....................................................................................................................................................................192
8.2.3 Well Treatments .............................................................................................................................................................192
8.2.4 Workovers .......................................................................................................................................................................192
8.3 RESERVOIR MONITORING, PRODUCTION ALLOCATION AND CONTROL..........................................................................192
8.3.1 Well Testing and Logging.............................................................................................................................................192
8.3.2 Production Logging.......................................................................................................................................................192
8.3.3 Pressure Build Up Testing ...........................................................................................................................................193
8.3.3 Production Allocation...................................................................................................................................................193
8.3.4 Performance Prediction................................................................................................................................................194
8.3.5 Branch Flow Control ....................................................................................................................................................194
8.4 ABANDONMENT .......................................................................................................................................................................195
8.4.1 Abandonment Objectives..............................................................................................................................................195
8.4.2 Testing of Abandonment Plugs....................................................................................................................................195
8.4.3 Abandonment of Lateral Branches.............................................................................................................................196
8.4.4 Methodology of Abandonment.....................................................................................................................................196
8.4.5 Cement Types to be used for Abandonment ..............................................................................................................197
8.4.6 References on Abandonment........................................................................................................................................197
8.5 SAFETY PARTICULAR TO ML WELL......................................................................................................................................197
8.6 EVERY DAY OPERATION..........................................................................................................................................................197
8.6.1 Production Allocation...................................................................................................................................................198
8.6.2 Crossflow during Shut in..............................................................................................................................................198
APPENDIX 1. RISK-BASED TIMES AND COSTS RESULTS. ......................................................................................199
A1.1 SUB SEA MULTI-LATERAL WELL......................................................................................................................................199
A1.1.1 Rig On Location..........................................................................................................................................................199
A1.1.2 Set Template.................................................................................................................................................................199
A1.1.3 Drill 36" Hole and Set 30" Casing (103 m - 165 m) .............................................................................................200
A1.1.4 Drill 17 1/2" Hole and Set 13 3/8" Casing (103 m - 1900 m) .............................................................................201
A1.1.5 Drill 12 1/4" Hole.......................................................................................................................................................202
A1.1.6 Run and Cement 9 5/8" Casing (100m - 2900m)..................................................................................................205
A1.1.7 Drill 8 1/2" Hole (Reservoir Section) (3000 m - 4500 m)...................................................................................207
A1.2 LOGGING 8 1/2" RESERVOIR SECTION (MAINBORE)......................................................................................................210
A1.2.1 Pipe Conveyed Combo (3000 m - 4500 m)...........................................................................................................210
A1.2.2 Pipe Conveyed RFT (3000 m - 4500 m) .................................................................................................................212
A1.2.3 Run and Cement 7" Liner (2900 m - 4500m) ........................................................................................................214
A1.2.4 Bottom Completion in Mainbore..............................................................................................................................215
A1.2.5 Run Pipe Conveyed CBL/CET (2900 m - 4500 m) ...............................................................................................217
A1.3 BUILD JUNCTION...................................................................................................................................................................219
A1.3.1 Set Whipstock ...............................................................................................................................................................219
A1.3.2 Set Whipstock ...............................................................................................................................................................220
A1.3.3 Drill 8 1/2" Lateral (Reservoir Section) (2870m - 3900m) ...............................................................................222
A1.4 LOGGING 8 1/2" RESERVOIR SECTION...............................................................................................................................225
A1.4.1 Pipe Conveyed Combo (2870m - 3900m) ...............................................................................................................225
A1.4.2 Pipe Conveyed RFT (2870m - 3900m) ....................................................................................................................227
A1.4.3 Recover Mainbore.......................................................................................................................................................228
A1.4.4 Run Top Section of Completion................................................................................................................................230
APPENDIX 2. ACTIVITY FLOWCHARTS ..........................................................................................................................232
A2.1 SUB SEA ML WELL..............................................................................................................................................................232
A2.2 DRILL SUB SEA WELL..........................................................................................................................................................233
A2.3 DRILL 12 1/4 HOLE (BASE CASE - SILICATECONVERTED TOOLS).............................................................................234
A2.4 SET 9 5/8 CASING..............................................................................................................................................................235
Page 6 of 277

A2.5 DRILL 8 1/2 HOLE (RESERVOIR SECTION).....................................................................................................................236
A2.6 SET 7" LINEAR (ACROSS RESERVOIR)...............................................................................................................................237
A2.7 COMPLETE MAINBORE.........................................................................................................................................................238
A2.8 BUILD JUNCTION...................................................................................................................................................................239
A2.9 RECOVER MAINBORE...........................................................................................................................................................240
APPENDIX 3. CASE STUDIES ..................................................................................................................................................241
A3.1 AERA, TAML LEVEL 6........................................................................................................................................................241
A3.2 ANETH FIELD UTAH, TAML LEVEL 1...............................................................................................................................242
A3.3 BRUNEI. TAML LEVEL 1 5 .................................................................................................................................................250
A3.4 DUNBAR.................................................................................................................................................................................257
A3.5 IDD EI SHARGI NORTH DOME,. TAML LEVEL 4.............................................................................................................260
A3.5.1 History:.........................................................................................................................................................................260
A3.5.2 Objectives:....................................................................................................................................................................260
A3.5.3 Well design requirements:.........................................................................................................................................260
A3.5.4 Sperry-Sun RMLS characteristics:...........................................................................................................................260
A3.5.5 Well Construction:......................................................................................................................................................260
A3.6 OSEBERG C-12, TAML LEVEL 5........................................................................................................................................262
A3.6.1 The Business Driver. ...................................................................................................................................................262
A3.6.2 Well Objectives. ...........................................................................................................................................................262
A3.6.3 System Description, Technical Requirements........................................................................................................262
A3.6.4 Well Completion, Production Performance. ..........................................................................................................263
A3.7 PRUDHOE BAY......................................................................................................................................................................264
A3.8 TROLL, TAML LEVEL 4: MULTILATERAL WELL INSTALLATION FROM A FLOATING RIG........................................265
A3.8.1 The Business Driver....................................................................................................................................................265
A3.8.2 Technology Requirements..........................................................................................................................................265
A3.8.3 Effect of Rig Heave on the Multilateral Operations. ............................................................................................265
A3.8.4 Weight on Bit and Depth Positioning......................................................................................................................265
A3.8.5 Placement of Downhole Equipment on Depth.......................................................................................................265
A3.8.6 Horizontally Placed Junction. ..................................................................................................................................266
A3.8.7 Unconsolidated Reservoir Sand...............................................................................................................................266
A3.8.8 Field Installation Results...........................................................................................................................................266
A3.9 SOUTH FURIOUS FIELD. TAML LEVEL 4.........................................................................................................................267
A3.9.1 Objectives:....................................................................................................................................................................267
A3.9.2 Well Design Considerations: ....................................................................................................................................267
A3.9.3 Junction Seal/Integrity:..............................................................................................................................................267
A3.9.4 Well Construction:......................................................................................................................................................267
A3.9.5 Problems and Lessons Learned:...............................................................................................................................267
APPENDIX 4. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................269
Chapter 1. Introduction Page 7 of 277

Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Preliminaries
Multi-lateral wells are not a new concept but their successful application has increased over the last decade.
Multi-laterals represent an alternative well construction strategy to complement vertical, inclined, horizontal
and extended reach well trajectories.
Multi-laterals can be utilised as a strategy for both new wells, as well as existing wells in oil and gas
reservoirs. A range of geometrical configurations are available to provide the optimum economic benefit in
specific reservoir scenarios. The complexity of the technology is also variable, depending upon well
requirements ranging from simple commingled side tracks, to complex multiple laterals, each offering
individual pressure isolation, flow control and intervention capabilities.
Whilst new technologies such as multi-laterals offer considerable benefits in certain scenarios, they do
introduce greater complexity in terms of the reservoir management / exploitation and the drilling /
completion of the wells. To date, many companies have applied multi-laterals but the diversity of
applications and engineering systems deployed, has created a variable learning curve for the industry.
1.2 Objectives
The objectives of the Guide are to promote the Advancement of Multi-lateral Technology (TAML) through
the share and dissemination of methodologies, technology and experience in relation to multi-laterals. It is
not intended that the Guide be prescriptive, but rather provide a framework for petroleum or project
engineers evaluating, designing or implementing multi-laterals in new or existing petroleum reservoir
developments.
The Guide therefore provides a focal point for the operating and service sectors to collate, review and
disseminate knowledge, and experience with multi-laterals. The form of the Guide utilises both conventional
media as hard copies, as well as electronic access, using a web-site to allow rapid updating and access to the
most current information available.
This should result in the site being the major source of data and information and hence a focus to drive
forwards the successful development and application of multi-laterals.
The organisation and deliverables of the TAML Project are shown in Figure 1.1.
* Project Manager/Lead Contractor
** Sub-contractor
Operating
Companies
Service
Companies
and
Vendors
Field Data
Product Info
Design Procedures
Design Data
Contractors
Well Service
Technology A/S *
Advanced Well
Associates Ltd **
Deliverables
Design Guide
ML Database
Technology
Transfer
Objectives
Efficient deployment
of multilaterals
Efficient technology
Proving/Development
Greater understanding
of the benefit/risk

Figure 1.1 TAML Project Structure, Deliverables and Objectives
1.3 Scope of the Guide and Database
The Guide recognises the need for a broad range of considerations and inputs for the successful design and
implementation of multi-laterals, and hence is multidisciplinary in perspective.
Chapter 1. Introduction Page 8 of 277

It covers the processes and criteria for:
Initial screening / validation of the application of a multi-lateral.
Assessment of the business case in terms of benefits, cost and risk.
The design process, criteria, options and considerations.
Multi-lateral project management and planning.
Operational implementation to drill and complete the multilateral.
Operation of the multi-lateral well through the entire life cycle.
The scope of the Guide is depicted in the chronological process is shown in Figure 1.2.
Screening
of
the
Application
Development
and
Assessment
of the
Business
Case
Design
Formulation
and
Configuration
Project
Planning
and
Management
Implementation
of the
Multilateral Well
Operation
and
Control
of the
Multilateral

Figure 1.2 Chronological Sequence of ML Project
1.4 Guide and Database Development
The development and maintenance of the multi-lateral Guide and Database is being conducted on behalf of a
consortium of operating and service companies by Well Service Technology a/s (WST). WST is lead
contractor, Project manager and ultimately will act as site custodian of the web-site for the TAML Guide and
Database.
Advanced Well Associates Ltd (AWA) is a partner on the project, subcontracted to WST to contribute its
expertise to the design guide, database and web-site, as well as having responsibility for document
production.
1.5 Format for the Guide
It is essential that the Guide and its associated database be continuously updated and accessible to sponsors,
to provide them with the greatest potential benefit from the commercial application of multi-laterals. The
Guide and its associated database will be available in both hard copy and electronic format, as shown in
Figure 1.3.
The Guide will be periodically reviewed and updated by the project contractor over the period 1998 - 2000.
Bound copies will be distributed to sponsors as updated. The Guide will also be available on a read-only
basis through the web-site. Access to the Guide through the web-site will be restricted to project sponsors.
The database will be formulated by WST and posted on the web-site. Sponsors will have the mechanism to
search and add to the entries on the database.
The mechanisms for data supply and access are depicted in Figure 1.3. The web-site will possess a notice
board to promote inter-company dialogue and information exchange.
Control of access, manipulation of data, quality and confidentiality will be implemented by the site
custodian.
Page 9 of 277

Field
Data
Product
Info.
Public
Domain
Info.
Operating
Companies
Vendors/
Service
Companies
TAML
Project
Contractors
Project
Coordinator/
Site
Custodian
ML
Design
Guide &
Database
Web
Site
Technical
Steering
Committee
Hard Copy
Updates
Deliverables
Database
Design Guide
Noticeboard
Data Source TAML Project Delivery Formats

Figure 1.3 TAML Project Input and Delivery Mechanisms
Chapter 2. Basic Facts on Multilaterals Page 10 of 277

Chapter 2. Basic Facts on Multilaterals
2.1 Definition and Description
2.1.1 Definition

The general definition of a multi-lateral well is one in which there is more than one horizontal or
near horizontal lateral well drilled from a single side (mother-bore) and connected back to a single
bore.
Generally a multi-branched well is one which has more than one branch well drilled from a single
site connected back to a single bore. The branch may be vertical horizontal, inclined or a
combination of the three. A multi-lateral well is always a multi-branched well however the reverse is
not necessarily true.
Multilateral completions improve reservoir drainage by allowing access to fractured or thin layer
reservoirs from existing wellbores without drilling new wells. Scenarios can range from simple
barefoot multilaterals to sophisticated multibranch, selective re-entry systems.
2.1.2 Geometry of Multi-lateral and Multi-Branched Wells

Generally the following naming convention is used to describe the well geometry of multi-lateral
wells
<configuration> <number of laterals>
The well configuration may be described as stacked, planar or opposed. For more complex
configurations a physical description may be used e.g. Y-well or herring bone. The number of
laterals may be described as dual-lateral, tri-lateral, quadrilateral etc.
Table 2.1 contains some of the well configurations that are possible in multilateral and multibranch
drilling.

Stacked Dual and Tri-Lateral

Dual-Opposed Lateral and Stacked Opposed
Quadrilateral

Planar Dual-lateral or planar Y-well

Planar Tri-Lateral

Planar Offset Quadrilateral

Planar Opposed Quadrilateral or Herring-Bone
Pattern

Stacked/ Inclined Tri-Lateral

Radial Quadrilateral

Radial Tri-lateral Extending from a primary
vertical wellbore

Stacked Radial Quadrilateral
Table 2.1: Various well configurations

2.2 Historical Review
The principle of initiating new wellbores from
existing wellbores is not a new one. Russian
engineers experimented with multilaterals in the
1950s as a development of horizontal drilling
practices. A Russian engineer Alexander
Grigoryan drilled the first Russian multilateral
well. The well had nine branches emanating
from the mother and subsequent mother bores.
A diagram of the well is depicted in Figure 2.1.
Another multilateral well was drilled in 1968 in
East Siberia with no more cases documented
until the mid-1980s. These early forms of
branched well drilling evolved from open-hole
sidetracking techniques that were used to avoid
obstacles encountered in the main wellbore. But
in the intervening years, it became apparent that
the drilling of several branches into a reservoir
from a main wellbore could result in additional
benefits in terms of improved drainage,
productivity and well economics.
At the present time there are two major areas
where multi-lateral drilling is used significantly;
Russia and America. In addition, the technique
is being increasingly adopted in the Middle East,
South America, Canada and Europe for both
new well applications and as a re-entry
technique in existing wells.

Figure 2.1: Russias first multilateral, 1953
In the Austin Chalk region of Texas, USA, ML wells have grown in popularity since the 1990s. A
number of operators have drilled open hole sidetracks from the main wellbore, with a view to
increasing production and exploiting irregular shaped leases. Between 1987 and mid 1995, 315
multilateral wells were drilled in the USA. The majority of these wells were in the Austin Chalk
region, although multi-laterals have also been drilled in Wyoming, California, New Mexico, and
Michigan. The growth of multilateral wells drilled in this period is illustrated on Figure 2.2:
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1987 - 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995* (6/95)
Years
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

W
e
l
l
s

Figure 2.2 Rate of US Multilateral Drilling (period 1987-1995). Total Wells: 315
In Western Canada, where ML activity has been increasing, many level 1 and 2 completion
systems have been installed.

In Europe, a number of Multi-Lateral wells have been drilled and completed since the mid-1990s.
Elf Aquitaine completed one of Europes first multi-lateral wells in 1984 in the Paris Basin, France.
This well was a three-legged multi-drain well. More recently, in 1995, the UKs North Seas first tri-
lateral was completed by Phillips Petroleum.
Recently, the first successful deployment of a level 5 system was performed on Norsk Hydros
Oseberg field in the North Sea. Table 2.2 shows a historical summary of multi-lateral development.
In recent years drilling and completion methods have become good enough to allow an every
increasing number of wells to be completed as multilaterals. The question that should be asked is
not whether a multilateral system is available, rather what type of multilateral, if any, is best suited
to the reservoir and production needs.

Year Operator Field Type Milestone
1953 Bashikiria, Russia Onshore
1957 Borislavneft, Ukraine Onshore
1950s Chernomorneft, Russia Onshore
1968 Markova, Eastern Siberia Onshore
1984 Elf Aquitane Eschau, France Onshore
1988 Louisiana, USA Onshore 10 laterals from one
single horizontal
wellbore
1989 Arabian Oil Co. Khafji, Saudi Arabia Offshore
1992 Maersk Kraka, Denmark Offshore First in North Sea
1993 ADCO Abu Dhabi Onshore
1993 Texaco Austin Chalk, USA Offshore
1993 Unocal Dos Cuadras, USA Offshore
1993 Maersk Dan, Denmark Offshore
1994 Mobil Galahad, UK Offshore First in UKCS
1995 Phillips Alison, UK Offshore First tri/quad lateral in
UKCS
1996 Petronas Bokor, Malaysia Offshore First tri-lateral well in
Asia (level 5)
1996 Norsk Hydro Oseberg, Norway Offshore First level 5 completion
installed
1997 PDO Shuaiba, Oman Onshore Record dual/tri-lateral
wells
Table 2.2: Summary of Multilateral Development
2.3 Classification System
The TAML classification is split into two tiers
Complexity ranking
Functional classification

2.3.1 Complexity Ranking
An indication of the ML/MB junction complexity is defined by a number between 1 and 6. In a well
that has more than one junction, the most complex one would be referred to. These complexity
ratings are illustrated in table 2.3.
2.3.2 Functionality Classification
The second tier is sub-divided into two sections
Well description
Junction description
The functionality classification provides more technical detail on the major ML/MB well attributes.
The system combines elements of the tier one classification to describe critical functionality
characteristics of the well.
Well Description
The well description is broken down into four major categories
1. New/Existing Well. Two distinct applications where issues such as the method of casing exit
and the ability of achieving pressure integrity at the junction require different approaches
2. Number of Junctions. Important to a wells complexity. Currently the majority of wells are
drilled dual lateral however as the technology advances and experience with the technology is
gained the average number of laterals drilled will increase.
3. Well Type (Producer with or without artificial lift, Injector or Multipurpose). The
functionality requirements of a producer are different from that of an injector, particularly the
levels of pressure integrity required at the junction and pressure exerted during well shut-in.
4. Completion Type (Single, Dual or Concentric Bore). Describes the completion above the
production packer, which will in turn have an impact on the type of equipment required at the
junction.
Table 2.4 gives the alphanumeric classification code used to describe the well.

Level Description Illustration
1 Open/ Unsupported Junction
Barefoot mother-bore & lateral or
slotted liner hung-off in either bore

2 Mother-bore Cased and Cemented
Lateral Open
Lateral either barefoot or with slotted
liner hung-off in open hole


3 Mother-bore Cased and Cemented
Lateral Cased but not Cemented
Lateral liner anchored to mother-bore
with liner hanger but not cemented

4 Mother-bore and Lateral Cased and
Cemented
Both bores cemented at the junction

5 Pressure Integrity at the Junction
Straddle packers or (integral)
mechanical casing seal
.(Cement is not acceptable)

6 Pressure Integrity at the Junction
Achieved with the casing
(Cement is NOT acceptable)

6S Downhole Splitter
Large main well bore with 2 (smaller)
lateral wellbores of equal size

Table 2.3: TAML Completion Complexity Rankings
Well Status Number of Junctions Well Type Completion Type
New 1 PA Producer with
artificial lift
S Single Bore
PN Producer with
natural lift

Existing 2 IN Injector D Dual Bore
3 MP Multipurpose C Concentric bore
Table 2.4: Well Description
Junction Description

The second area is the junction description, which focuses on the following

1. Connectivity. For a dual lateral, this indicator would be the same as that included in the Tier 1
ranking. Wells with more than one junction would have a unique level indicator for each
junction, which may or may not be similar. The most complex junction would determine the
overall well complexity ranking. In addition to level, a pressure rating would also be included
where applicable (e.g. Level 5 5000 psi)
2. Accessibility (No Selective Re-entry, Re-entry by Pulling Completion or Through Tubing
Re-entry). Describes the level of re-entry, which is catered for during the life cycle of the well.
Although window apertures can be re-entered on a trial and error basis by utilising bent joints, if
there is no fixed datum from which the aperture can be easily located the lateral is deemed to
have no re-entry capability. Table 2.5 illustrates the accessibility options.
3. Flow Control (None, Selective, Separate, Remote Monitoring or Remote Monitoring and
Control). Describes the degree of control over the production or injection fluid flow across the
junction. Monitoring includes any of the following:
Pressure
Temperature
Flow
Sand production
Scale deposition
Saturation profile
Seismic
SCSSSV status
Well integrity
Corrosion
Table 2.6 illustrates the flow control options. The junction description is given by the alphanumeric
classification codes using the letter or number highlighted, in Table 2.7.

Description Illustration
No selective re-entry

Re-entry by pulling completion

Through-tubing re-entry

Table 2.5 Examples of Accessibility Options

Description Illustration
Commingled

Selective

Separate

Table 2.6: Examples of the Flow Control Options
2.3.3 Classification Code Examples

Table 2.8 contains 2 examples of the classification codes.

Connectivity Accessibility Flow Control
Same categorisations as Tier
1 ranking system (plus
pressure rating if applicable)
Level 1
Level 2
Etc.
NR No selective re-entry
PR Re-entry by pulled
completion
TR Through tubing
completion
NON None
SEL Selective
SEP Separate
REM Remote monitoring
RMC Remote monitoring
and control
Table 2.7: Junction Description Al phanumeric Classification. Each junction is described
from bottom to top.

Complexity Rating Well Description Junction Description
Example 1: Level 2; Ranking N-1-PN-S/ 2-TR-SEL
Level 2
Mother-bore cased and
cemented; lateral open
N-1-PN-S
New well
One junction
Producer-Natural lift
Single bore completion
(above production packer)
2-TR-SEL
Through tubing re-entry
Selective Production
Example 2: Level 5; Ranking E-2-IN-D/2-PR-NON/5 (3,000 psi)-TR-SEP
Level 5
Pressure integrity at the (upper)
junction, achieved with the
completion
E-2-IN-D
Existing well
Two junctions
Injector
Dual bore completion
2-PR-NON
Re-entry by pulling completion
No flow control

5 (3,000 psi)-TR-SEP
(Upper junction)
Pressure integrity at the junction
(3,000 psi)
Through tubing re-entry
Separate production
Table 2.8 : Examples of TAML Classification

2.4 Overview of Current Status
2.4.1 Statistics when, where, how, how many

Currently, the number of multilateral wells of level 3 complexities and above makes up only a
small percentage of the total number of multilaterals drilled worldwide. The majority (>1000)
are of the more simple level 1 and 2 completions. This can be seen on figure 2.3, which
illustrates this graphically.
When we look more closely at the break up of the level 3 to 6, figure 2.4, it is clear that the
more complex ML systems are not in wide spread usage. This clearly indicates that
operators are nervous about utilizing multilateral completions of the higher complexity.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
W
e
l
l

N
u
m
b
e
r
s
Level 1-2 Level 3-6

Figure 2.3 Comparison of Level 1 -2 Completions versus Level 3-6 Completions.
Illustration of ML Drilling Activity Worldwide up to 1997
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6
N
u
m
b
e
r
s

o
f

W
e
l
l
s

Figure 2.4 The Number of Worldwide Level 3 to Level 6 Completions. Illustration of ML
Drilling Activity Worldwide in 1997
Examples of Level 3 and 4 Completions
1. Weyburn Unit, Saskatchewan, Canada (1995)
This field was discovered in 1954 however by 1992 several factors ruled out drilling more
vertical wells. Experiments with single laterals drilled underbalanced but many proved
uneconomical especially in thinner bedded, lower permeability reservoirs.

Operator PanCanadian next step was a program of dual lateral wells with the eventual aim
of using quad laterals in the lower quality Marley pay. In all, 25 quad laterals were drilled
underbalanced. They estimated that production was 40% better than the single lateral
programme, which more than made up for the 20% increased cost.
PanCanadian then proceeded to a quad-lateral well campaign, and the region selected was
the east end of the Weyburn formation. They chose this region due to the low production and
the fact that dual laterals proved uneconomical. Their plan was to drill two opposing build
sections, 180
o
apart. The well was termed a multiple-build system, which required
Mechanical simplicity
Access to either build section without sophisticated or expensive equipment
Running and cementing liners across each build section and back to the host wellbore
Full diameter entry to vertical well bore after cementing the liners over the build section
For these reasons, PanCanadian chose a system from Sperry-Sun called the Retrievable
Multi-Lateral System (RMLS). It has since been used on a further 16 quad laterals in the
Weyburn Unit.
2. Peace River, Alberta, Canada (1995)
The Peace River oil sands deposit in Alberta, Canada contains viscous, 7.5
o
API Crude
produced by expensive thermal recovery processes. During the 1990s, horizontal wells were
utilised to increase the economics of the field.
Shell Canada decided to try to use a pre-milled window in a vertical well, through which the
horizontal well could be drilled. They felt that this would provide a straight, vertical sump
section below the junction for artificial lift.
For these reasons Sperry-Suns Lateral Tie-Back (LTBS) system was chosen, the system
contained an orientable, pre-milled window and was installed in April 1995. The technology
was so successful that over the next 12 months Shell Canada installed a further 11 LTBS
systems.
3. Idd El Shargi North Dome Field, Qatar (1995)
The field has been producing since 1964. In 1995 the new field operator, Occidental
Petroleum of Qatar, and Qatar General Petroleum Corp. decided to drill multilateral wells.
They planned to re-enter each well bore selectively for reservoir management, and for this
reason Sperry-Suns RMLS system was chosen.
The first well that Occidental planned to use the Sperry-Sun system, cementing and tool
retrieval technologies on was to field test all the equipment. The well was completed as a
single horizontal producer.
The plan for the second, IS 75, was to complete it as a water injection well. The upper lateral
was drilled through the window into the Shuaiba A formation. However, production from the
well was so good that Occidental decided to complete the well as a producer. The option still
remained to complete the lower lateral through the main well bore.
The third well in the campaign to be completed was IS 76. This well fully exploited the
multilateral window system. IS 76 was completed as a bi-planar multilateral with medium
reach horizontal well bores in to both the Shuaiba A and B formations. The well was
completed as a 5 single producer with the ability to selectively re-enter either lateral. Each
lateral was independently stimulated with coiled tubing.
The following 2 wells were competed following the basic plan of IS 76. The costs were.
However, reduced because casing scraper runs, cement bond logs, clean outs and junk
basket trips were eliminated. Through Occidentals experience they conclude that the cost of
re-entering the lateral was about 30% of the cost of a single horizontal well. They also found

that long-term maintenance costs were favourably affected since both production horizons
could be assessed through the common wellbore.
4. Bokor Field, offshore Malaysia (1996)
In September 1996, PETRONAS Carigali drilled the first tri-lateral horizontal well in South
East Asia. Baker Hughes completed the TAML-level-5 well using their Cemented Root
system. The system was chosen because it met the following requirements
Selective production from each lateral
Full isolation of each lateral wellbore from the overburden formation
Sand exclusion
The Bokor well has two production tubing strings from the formation to the surface, with the
option of production from the third layer in one of the strings. Redundant pressure isolation
was achieved by running two strings from the upper and lower laterals to the surface. This
was to allow future coiled tubing operations in either of the two branches.
5. Eldfisk Field, Norwegian Sector, North Sea (1996)
During September 1996, Phillips Petroleum of Norway completed a bi-planar multilateral well
using a system with selective re-entry and isolation capabilities. The well had been
abandoned in 1984 until August 1996 when the exiting casing was section-milled at about
1,195 ft to allow re-drilling of the bi-planar well.
The system chosen by Phillips was a combination of Sperry-Suns and Dress Oil Tools
multilateral system primarily for selective isolation and shut in capabilities while maximizing
the production intervals. By using both systems, it allowed increased reservoir exposure
while permitting non-rig intervention and independent flow control. The combined system
also provided access to the primary casing, maintaining full bore access to the lateral, which
may be re-entered at any time during the life of the well.
The system made possible
The first commingled multilateral production in the Norwegian North Sea
First Norwegian North Sea well to utilise a pre-drilled lateral casing window
Economic exploitation of a tight formation
Successful isolation of the upper lateral while performing a 10,000 psi acid fracture
stimulation in the lower section
Coiled tubing post-completion lateral re0entry and stimulation
Example of Level 5 Wells
1. Oseberg C platform, Norwegian Sector, North Sea (1996)
From the Oseberg C platform Norsk Hydro identified more field targets than remaining
platform slots allowed. In May 1996, in Oseberg C-12 they decided to install Halliburtons
newly developed System 3000 using Weatherfords casing exit and whipstock technology.
This was the first well in the world which provided full bore re-entry access to a hydraulically
isolated lateral with a single casing size reduction, while maintaining the integrity of the main
wellbore.
The second well, Oseberg C-10, has been producing from the lateral since October 1996
and commingled production started in March 1997. The third well, Oseberg C-7, was
completed in March 1997 and commingled production began shortly thereafter.
2.4.2 Proprietary Systems and their TAML Classification


The table below illustrates the current multilateral systems available and how the systems
cross reference with the TAML classification:

Level Baker-
Hughes
TIW Sperry-Sun
Halliburton
Anadrill
Schlumbe
rger
Smith Red Baron
1 Open-hole
retrievable
whipstock
COBRA

Selective/ Non-Selective
Lateral Entry (SLE/ NSLE)
with open-hole/ inflatable
anchor
2 No name
yet
MLAS
MOLE
TTR

LTBS &
RMLS
RAPID
Connect
SLE with big bore prod.
packer
thru-tubing ML system
Hydraulic set full bore ML
system
3 Flow past
whipstock
FORMation
junction
Hook
Hanger
MLAS
MOLE
TTR
LTBS &
RMLS
System
3000
System
4501 w/o
cement
perforated ML whipstock
hollow whipstock ML
Selective/ Non-selective
ML Liner system thru-
tubing ML liner system
4 Cemented
root
Cemented
hook
hanger
MLAS
MOLE
TTR
LTBS &
RMLS
System
4501, 4502,
4503
RAPID
Access,
MLPS
hydraulic set full bore ML
system
SLE with big bore prod.
packer
Thru-tubing ML system
5 SRT
System
SHD
System
As above MSCS
System
5000
PCE MLR dual bore ML system
single selective ML
system
6 FORMation
junction
As above
6s Splitter
system,
Deepset
Splitter

Table 2.9: Proprietary Systems and their TAML classification
Notes:
TIW Systems relate primarily to the anchor and/or packer used in all cased hole situations
and, therefore, can be used with any completion of level 2 and above.
2.4.3 Future Adaptations and Developments

Recent developments, which will spur multilateral use, include
1. Latex cement. Due to its high tensile and flexural strength, durability and crack
resistance makes latex cement suitable for cementing the junction in multilateral wells. It
provides a better seal than normal cement. Also, due to better rheology, less shrinkage
and reduced permeability latex cement is better for gas migration control than regular
cement.

2. One trip milling systems. One trip milling systems with more accurately centred
windows and more effective management of debris will avoid problems later on in the
well life.
3. Intelligent completions. Intelligent completions will provide complete control and
monitoring of reservoir performance during a wells life with a minimum of intervention
operations.
4. Lateral stimulation and workover. Little has been done so far to address the problem
of stimulating a multilateral well. Several companies provide tools for re-entering
completed laterals with conventional drill string, but they have found little use in the field.
Only coiled tubing has been used to date for stimulating. To date, TIW, PCE, Dresser Oil
Tools, and Weatherford have developed multilateral selective re-entry systems. This
consists of an isolation plug in the main well bore and a selective whipstock, the MLR
system allows lateral bore access with CT string for logging, perforating, cleaning and
stimulating. Baker oil tools have also developed several systems for re-entering the
lateral and main bore through production tubing using coiled tubing or wireline.
Multilateral jobs with these systems are planned for the future
The future for multilateral technology is undisputed. Future challenges for ML wells, which
will increase their applicability.
1. Reliable multilateral equipment
2. Downhole lateral flow control and measurement
3. Data transmission
4. Application of ML technology to a wider variety of hole sizes
5. Fully cemented liner systems for total zonal isolation.
6. Formation damage must be minimised through the adoption of suitable drilling and
completion practices since this will optimise the productivity between/along laterals. If the
formation damage is minimised and / or the impairment mechanisms is overcome or
removed, the clean-up process has a greater chance of success.
7. Downhole separation equipment. Separation of gas from a lower lateral leg, right above
the junction, and inject it into an upper lateral for a downhole gas drive, will be one of the
more important ultimate aims of downhole separation technology.
8. Simpler systems as in Level 6
As multilateral technology coupled with intelligent completions, look-ahead look aside drilling
and coiled tubing drilling together with 4D seismic profiling, the ability to manage a reservoir
like a process plant will be attained. Drilling in real time will enable reacting pro-actively
rather than in retrospect, which is often too late.

2.5 Business Case Flowchart
The overall process to
generate the business
case for ML/MB wells:
Validate Application
of ML/MB in Concept
Pre-Design Screening
Analytical Model
Simulation
Economic Evaluation
Risk Weighting
Decision Tree
Analysis
Geometry for
Particular Reservoir
Type
Rank Alternatives
Identify Critical
Features
Rates and Sensitivity
to Geometry and
Reservoir Parameters
Production Profile
NPV DCF
Productivity NPV
Distribution
Operational and
Contingency
Planning

2.5.1 List of Benefits

A ML/MB well is defined as a well that has more than one branch drilled from a single site
and connected back to a single wellbore. Drilling ML/MB wells into a reservoir from a main
wellbore may offer various potential benefits such as a reduction in the number of wells,
improvements in both productivity and ultimate recovery, leading to enhanced economics in
both new and mature fields.
Nevertheless, the prime objectives are to access the recoverable reserves without incurring
large well development costs. The cost objectives may be difficult to satisfy with

conventional vertical or horizontal well technology when reservoir zones are thin or contain
unfavorable permeability barriers or faults. Because ML/MB technology uses the best
aspects of both conventional and horizontal well technology, many fields could benefit from
its application.
2.5.1.1 Technical and economic advantages

The technical advantages can be summarised as follows:
Reservoir exposure can be increased for production or injection strategies, especially in
heavy or viscous-oil, depleted naturally fractured and tight reservoirs.
Areal connectivity can be increased to reduce coning and cusping effects, reduce
sanding potential, increase vertical and horizontal sweep efficiencies and enhance
gravity drainage in reservoirs that have a high fluid-density mobility contrast
More efficient exploitation of complex geological features
Delineation of field periphery
Economic advantages:
Re-entry: cost of original well, casing and surface location have already been written off
or may be acquired at reduced cost
Offshore ML/MB strategies can provide more production/pay-section exposure for each
platform/template slot
Permit and planning costs can be reduced in comparison to operating from multiple sites
utilising conventional technology
ML/MB technology offers the potential to reduce CAPEX within a field development
strategy
The application of ML/MB can be used to increase productive reserves
2.5.1.2 Risks and disadvantages.

The application of any new technology carries elements of economic risk and technical
complexity.
Technical disadvantages:
Well intervention requirements
Reservoir monitoring and management
Drilling risk and reservoir description uncertainty
Issue of well control during drilling and production operations
Impairment and clean-up of individual lateral or branch
Economic disadvantages:
Concentrated investment and economic risk (i.e. the potential economic cost of losing
the mother wellbore or a lateral/branch in an ML/MB system)
Dependent on relatively new technology
OPEX is not well defined due to the risk element
2.5.2 Cost and Risk implications

Nowadays, completing wells using ML/MB technology may be achievable from a technical
point of view. However, when looking at the economic feasibility of the project, the risks and
costs associated with this emerging technology are still difficult to quantify e.g. the inherent
costs associated with the implementation (Capex) and maintenance (Opex) of the whole
system may be considerably higher than conventional completion strategies.

Capex/Opex considerations:

Planning resource requirements for a multi-lateral project is extensive compared to
conventional projects, since the technology is more complex and is still in its infancy. The
key point is to find out, what the operators want in terms of system design features to
provide added value to the field development. Service companies have developed level 3
and level 4 ML/MB hardware kits but these need to be customized to withstand specific
downhole reservoir conditions and situations. As a result the development costs of such
systems will increase significantly.
In addition to this, operational experience with respect to these highly complex completion
systems is just starting to be acquired however there is still a lot to be learned to improve the
current installation and maintenance procedures.
A critical assessment to reduce overall well costs can be summarized as follows:
Identify the reservoir parameters and conditions that are most likely to affect the
operational state of the system components so that design precautions can be taken to
resolve these potential problems at an early stage (e.g., near-wellbore effects, downhole
vibrations, production of abrasive solids, corrosion, scaling)
Identify and simulate the critical static and dynamic reservoir conditions that are most
likely to cause component failure (e.g., severe fluctuations in flow, pressure and temperature
regime)
Quantify the associated risk in terms of system (component) reliability by defining the
function of each downhole component and stating its relevance to the overall system and
well objectives (areas to focus on are: intervention and servicing requirements and back-
up functions)
Identify the additional components that are required to safely produce a ML/MB well in a
specific field application (this depends for a great deal on the attitude towards risk
management). Initiate the development of an industry-shared database to steadily
improve the selection, design and implementation techniques of ML/MB completion systems.
Finally, unless a system component or material is not critical in its function to provide
additional value to the overall production system it should be regarded as one
component more to possibly fail.
To demonstrate and complement the issues mentioned above, ML/MB drilling development
costs will eventually drop by reducing the number of wells to drain a reservoir. Table 1 below
shows the decrease in cost per lateral for single horizontal wells, dual, quad and six laterals
in Texacos Greater Aneth field.

Number of Laterals Total Cost ($) Cost per Lateral
($)
Single 385,000 385,000
Dual 505,000 253,000
Quad 700,000 175,000
Six 950,000 158,000


Dual laterals have more than doubled the production in the past, and quads have produced
nearly five times more oil. Whereas horizontal wells increase reserves by a factor of 1.5 to
1.7, multi-lateral wells increase probable reserves by a factor of nearly 2.3.
Risk assessment

As stated before the implications of costs for ML/MB wells during its production life are to a
great extent dependent upon the planned intervention and servicing operations. As the
number of ML/MB wells increase the issues of reservoir monitoring, maintaining adequate
well productivity or performing remedial operations become more important. The ability to
perform these operations is constrained by two major parameters: internal-diameter
restrictions and lateral/branch accessibility.
Level of risk
One can identify different levels of risk:
Task-performance risk1: High risk areas are the actual physical building of the junction and
drilling of the lateral for level 3+ ML/MB wells (e.g.: whipstock setting and milling, cementing
of junction and drilling lateral)
Task-performance risk2: High-risk areas include hydraulic fracturing, screen placement, and
through tubing operations once the ML/MB completion is in place. Lower risk areas include
operating sliding sleeve doors and setting plugs
Location risk: High-risk areas include operations performed in the upper lateral/branch
because production from the entire system is potentially at risk. Operations performed near
the junction in any of the laterals/branches are high risk because hydraulic integrity may be a
problem and production from all laterals/branches is potentially at risk.
Intervention risk and strategy
Once risk level is established the assessment process should determine whether
intervention risks can be eliminated or minimized by use of preventive measures or by
adopting a different intervention strategy to reduce associated cost. The following (technical)
points should be taken into account:
Is intervention really necessary or alternatives available? If reliable data are available for the
reservoir or well, the use of preventive measures or built-in options should be considered at
an early completion design phase to avoid any downtime at a later stage.
If intervention cannot be avoided can the extent of intervention be minimized? It may be
possible to reduce or simplify the number of operations required and thereby minimize non-
productive time with an alternative completion system or by adopting different intervention
techniques.
Are complex operations or new technologies required? If non-standard equipment
procedures and practices are adopted, the degree of risk and non-productive time incurred
will be affected, especially if the system is a prototype.
Can equipment be operated by CT, wireline or remote control? If equipment can be
manipulated without a full workover or by remote control, the intervention requirements will
be minimized.
Are back-up systems available? Any risk assessment should consider providing a back-up
system in the event of primary system failure and the consequent implications for access to
laterals/branches through a back-up system
Could problems with the regulatory authorities and resulting cost implications arise? Specific
safety requirements may need to be satisfied during the course of ML/MB intervention work.

How many laterals and or branches are required for a specific reservoir candidate? Take into
account geological and petro-physical constraints in conjunction with technical/economic
production objectives, since they tend to resolve the drainage or injection strategy, hence the
number of laterals required.
What level of complexity is required? Assess the lateral accessibility, isolation constraints.
What is the position of the lateral in the reservoir? Especially with respect to:
Depth limitations for coiled tubing and wireline operations.
Complexity and the tortuosity of the re-entry path.
Type of re-entry operation performed.
Type of re-entry equipment used in the well.
Physical properties and compatibility of the produced fluid from individual zones. Desirability
or feasibility to commingle*
Page 29 of 277

Chapter 3. Deciding on a Multilateral Page 30 of 277

Chapter 3. Deciding on a Multilateral
3.1 General Conditions Favoring ML solution
As described previously the benefits of using a multi-lateral well are directly linked to the ability to reach
multiple targets with a single well of multiple dimensionalities.
The conditions that favour or require the assessment of ML well options can be summarised as follows.
Geological
Simultaneous production from multiple reservoir units
isolated fault blocks
different reservoirs
heterogeneity
Fluid properties (fluid mobility effects, etc, linked to recovery process)
Recoverable volumes of unswept oil
Uncertainty in 3D structural geology
fault characteristics (seal, location)
reservoir geometry (size, aspect ratio, orientation)
naturally fractured reservoir
Limited sand strength gives limited draw-down
Process
Primary versus secondary recovery
Gas cusping or water coning
Oil rim
Sweep management
Additional areal appraisal requirements
Stimulation requirements
Previous production experience
Engineering
Artificial lift requirements
Intervention requirements
Limited slots
Reduction of template footprint
Extensive drilling experience
Reduced drilling costs and risks
3.2 Business Benefit Analysis
3.2.1 Process for determining business benefit
The value in applying ML solutions can be manifold but the business benefit must ultimately be quantified in
terms of some measures of economic value such as NPV, ROI, Payback period, etc. In addition, the
application of ML solutions has elements of risk associated with the relatively limited industry experience in
comparison with conventional well designs. However, there is a large amount of experience and competence
residing with operators, vendors and consultants that have already exploited and developed ML systems. One
way to reduce the risks involved is to build on collective industry experience and knowledge by making it
easily available and in a concise and convenient form, which is the main objective of the TAML ML Guide
and Database on Internet.

In Section 3, tools for estimating business benefit, i.e., evaluating cost, revenue and risk are described in
some detail. Figure 3.2.1 is a simple model to help visualise the well decision process for which the
business benefit is required.
Shared
Earth
Model
Core
Data
LOG
DATA
Seismic
EARTH MODELLING
PROCESS
Prod.
Data
CONNECTIVITY
MAP
WELL
DESIGN
WELL
LOCATION
RESERVOIR
DESCRIPTION
WELL
COST
MODEL
RESERVOIR
PERFORMANCE
SIMULATOR
NO
OK
NPV
OK?
DRILL

Figure 3.2.1 Interactive Well Design - Design Process Model
In the well-design decision process model shown in Figure 3.2.1 the work of the technical disciplines is
simplified and grouped into just 2 roles, i.e., earth modelling and well engineering. The well decision is
based on achieving a satisfactory NPV in an iterative process where geological data from seismic, production
and drilling is interpreted in a geological model building process. The geological model is the basis for a
reservoir description that, when combined with well path and completion design information provides the
reservoir connectivity map that allows well performance and reservoir recovery to be estimated. The
production and the well-cost estimates for the well are the basis for the NPV estimate. If the NPV is not
acceptable then a new well path (or in the case of a ML well, new well paths) and/or new well completion
can be selected and a new iteration started in order to find the acceptable or the optimum.
During the drilling of the well new information is available to the earth modelling process.
As measurement, interpretation and analysis/simulation tools are improved and new ones are developed the
ability to better integrate and, thereby, accelerate the flow of information in support of the decision process,
the closer the well-decision process is to being realtime. This is already the case in some limited but
nevertheless important applications such as geo-steering, selective perforation and seismic while drilling.
Increasingly in the future, final well decisions on well path and well completion will be taken in realtime as
new data is gathered during drilling for both updating of the earth model and re-estimating the economic
value or business benefit.
In the following Sections the various methods and tools available to help quantify the business benefit are
described and illustrated. In addition, documented case studies are summarised from the petroleum
engineering literature with hyperlinks to the TAML database where valuable details on existing ML well
installations are available.

Section 3.3 Screening Process provides a systematic weighted-score system for comparing the suitability of a
ML well in comparison to other well options where all the elements of the decision process in Figure 3.2.1
are illustrated with the help of the results of a case study.
Once the desirability of a ML well has been established by using a screening technique such as described in
Section 3.3, detailed engineering work is required to firm the cost estimates, optimise the well design with
respect to risk, cost and productivity.
Section 3.4 Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) Approach provides a description of tools which can be
applied to the detailed work of time and cost estimating for construction, installation, operation and
maintenance operations of a ML well. In addition, it describes an integrated risk-assessment methodology for
estimating the risked-weighted times and costs of these operations and identifying those activities of the total
operations that present the highest risk to project cost and time. The QRA approach provides a platform for
comparing various ML well solutions with other well options.
The same risk assessment approach can be applied to the well productivity estimates and risk-weighted
production profiles. Currently, most tools for estimating uncertainty in reservoir parameters are too complex
for obtaining risk-weighted production profiles. The easiest way to make such estimates is to generate many
equiprobable realisations of the reservoir permeability and then to apply simple well models as described in
Section
3.6 Modeling of Multi-lateral Performance. In this way a complete risk assessment of the business benefit
can be derived.
3.2.2 Case studies for business benefits
Prudhoe Bay Unit
Well Z-32B/L1 (https://taml.wst.no/root/db/report.asp?WID=104) has 2 TAML Level 2 branches in
same reservoir producing zone (faulted)
Other wells target 2 separate zones with vertical separation of 100ft.
Higher than anticipated average recovery
Average initial daily production rate 4650 bbl/well for 8 wells
Expected 2120 bbl/well!
Secondary targets 500000 to 1000000 bbls
Cost differential secondary lateral to single well 500 to 700 K$
Oseberg C
Well C12
In 1996 Norsk Hydro in conjunction with its service partners completed the worlds first multilateral well
with a cased and cemented junction and with fullbore access to both laterals.
The Business Driver
The business driver for this well was the lack of slots available on the C platform on the Oseberg Field,
which limited the possibilities for drilling new wells in the Ness Formation of the Brent Group needed to
recover additional reserves.
Because of several upgrades of process capacities with potentially high oil production rates, there was a
concern that unstable gas fronts could develop in the ORE Formation.
To utilise the full process capacity by producing additional reserves from Ness and reduce the production
from ORE accordingly was therefore considered beneficial.
However, the Ness reserves where somewhat uncertain and solutions with a lower cost than adding new slots
to Oseberg C where required by the operator. Typically, well productivity in ORE is ten times the well
productivity in Ness.

Multilateral wells offered the possibility of increasing the number of drainage points at a lower cost than
drilling new wells.
The well C-12 was one of the oil producers completed during the pre-drilling phase. Gas breakthrough will
occur in these types of mature production wells and leave considerable amounts of oil down flanks between
the wellbore and the oil-water contact. In order to recover this oil, a majority of the predrilled producers will
be side tracked into hor izontal wells. The procedure will be to place the horizontal section just 5 to 7 m
above the oil-water contact. In addition to the well C-12, a number of these predrilled wells are candidates
for multilateral wells, since one or more laterals can tap marginal reserves within the Ness Formation without
having to use dedicated slots.
Well Objectives
The Well Objectives for the first multilateral on Oseberg was as follows:
C-12A: Drill pilot hole to obtain accurate information on current oil-water contact, and structural and
stratigraphic information to determine the best location for Well C-12B and C-12C.
C-12B: Drill a horizontal well to produce oil from the sands within the ORE Formations.
C12-C: Drill a horizontal leg out of the parent wellbore C-12A to produce oil from the sands within the Ness
Formation.
System Description, Technical Requirements
The multilateral system was designed to provide three core capabilities:
Connectivity: The lateral is connected to the parent wellbore.
Isolation: The laterals and parent wellbore junctions are hydraulically or pressure isolated.
Accessibility: The completion allows selective fullbore re-entry access to laterals.
The current configuration operates in either new or existing 9 5/8 casing, allows drilling in 8 open hole,
and running a 7 production liner. The 7 liner is milled at the junction area by means of a specialised
process that provides the ability to recover the parent wellbore through a hollow whipstock which is a bored
out functional whipstock filled with a drillable low compressive strength core.
The following technical requirements were identified:
Full size hole dimension through pay zones.
Ability to separate production from each branch and allow commingled production.
Capability of providing multiple laterals from one parent wellbore.
Cemented liners in the parent wellbore and branches to facilitate:
Zonal isolation between junction and formation
Zonal isolation between different hydrocarbon bearing zones.
Ability to circulate liners during the running phase (Washing Down).
Lateral junction must be able to maintain borehole integrity in junction area.
Allow selective production and/or commingled production from parent wellbore and laterals.
Provide fullbore inner diameter access to laterals in order to facilitate zonal isolation.
Allow intervention in both the mainbore and laterals with wireline or coiled tubing.
Components in the junction area must be 13% chrome alloy if they remain in the well exposed to reservoir
fluids.

Well Completion, Production Performance
Norsk Hydro compared all multilateral technology available from the vendors to these requirements.
Halliburton was recommended for a contract award. A planning team consisting of personnel from Hydro,
Halliburton and Weatherford was constituted.
The C-12C was put on stream in May 1996, and in November 1996 the C-12B branch was opened for
commingled production with C-12C.

0
20
40
60m
0 150 300m
TARBERT
UPPER
NESS
LOWER
NESS
ETIVE
OSEBERG
RANNOCH
1800 3600
Gas
Oil
Water
Perforation
interval
C-12B
C-12C

SPE 38555: Geological X-section Along C12 Well Path
Notes:-
1) Halliburton System 3000 Completion System
used to sidetrack upper lateral.
2) Solid Whips tock used t o initially mill and
drill upper lateral set at 15 o left of highside.
Replaced with holl ow whipstock filled with
millable material at liner running stage.
Top of hollow whipstock
@ 3058m (10033 ft)
Norsk Hydro Oseberg C-12 A/B/C
Notes: -
3) BUR of upper lateral
5o/30m
4) Lateral inclination
46o at window
exit point.
Halliburton ML
packer set @
3062m (10046 ft)
Orientat ion 13o
left of highside
7 in Liner Hanger
tie-back
9 5/8 in Casing shoe
@ 3315m (10876 f t)
Orienting nipple
PBR and Seal Assembly
Ret rievable bridge plug
set @40m (131 ft)
below top of
7 in Liner
7 in Tubing
(13% Cr, L-80)
26 lb/ft
Production packer locat ed approximately
20m (66 ft) above the seal stem.
PBR and Seal Assembly
7 in Liner hanger tie-back @2991m (9813 ft)
Impact resist ant M-SealTM
Sealant placed around junct ion
7 in (13% Cr) Liner
8 1/2 in Hole
8 1/2 in Hole
C12-C upper lateral
deepest perforated
interval extending
t o 4630m (15190 ft)
7 in
Liner Shoe
@ 4662m
(15295 ft)
TD of
Upper Lateral
@ 4743m
(15561 ft)
C12-B
Main Lateral
7 in
Liner Shoe
@ 5266m
(17277 ft)
C12-A
Pilot Hole (plugged and sidetracked)
5) C12-C upper lateral final
inclination to 88 o
6) C12-C upper Lateral perf orated in two
stages
(early and late 1996) - lower lateral to be
commingled af ter removing bridge plug
(scheduled for 1997)

Well Schematics for Osberg C12

Troll (IADC/SPE 39369 1998)
Well H3 Multilateral Well Installation from a Floating Rig
In paper SPE 39369, the design, development, testing and installation of a multilateral well on Troll Olje gas
province is described. Troll Olje is operated by Norsk Hydro. It consists of the Troll Olje oil province and
the Troll Olje gas province.
The well described here is the first successful multilateral well installed from a floating rig.
The basis for the brief description given below is SPE 39369 together with a synopsis of the paper given in
JPT, July 1998.
The Business Driver
In Troll Olje gas province the oil is produced from a thin oil rim, approximately 13 m in thickness.
The multilateral well concept was introduced in the Troll Olje gas province primarily to increase the
drainage are for each well. When producing from two separate laterals, a lower drawdown pressure exists
throughout the horizontal section. Therefore, gas coning is less likely to occur, and higher production rates
can be sustained for a longer period of time. I addition, cost savings are substantial because of reduced well-
construction time for each horizontal reservoir drainage section and because of the reduced number of
completion strings, subsea well heads, and pipelines required for total field development.
Technology Requirements
Norsk Hydro based the initial planning of this multilateral well on the success of the first two Halliburton
multilateral system installations on the Oseberg Field. However, a multilateral well on Troll Olje would
present several new technological challenges not faces on Oseberg C. Immediate solutions were available for
some situations; however, unique scenarios needed further investigation and subsequent development of
special tools in some cases.
Effect of Rig Heave on the Multilateral Operations
The wells on Troll Olje are drilled from the semi-submersible drilling rig, Polar Pioneer. Several of the
operations performed while constructing a multilateral well require accurate positioning not easily achieved
from a floating vessel.
Weight on Bit and Depth Positioning
The most critical operation during the multilateral construction process is the reestablishment of the main
bore, where accurate WOB and depth position control are required when making a ledge on the inner surface
of the 7-in. liner at a very shallow angle. Available technologies where evaluated, however, it was clear that
a special tool to control the milling process had to be developed.
Placement of Downhole Equipment on Depth
Prior to milling through the 7-in. liner a mill guide (upside down whipstock) must be installed at the correct
depth, relative to the whipstock in the main bore. The complexity of this operation was compounded by the
fact that the junction was to be placed horizontally. To achieve the necessary depth control when first setting
the whipstock and later the mill guide, it would be necessary to modify a crossover to use between the 9 5/8-
in. and 10 -in casing as a no-go tag point on these runs.
Horizontally Placed J unction
Because the junction was to be placed horizontally, wireline surveys could not be run for equipment
orientation or depth control. Thus, a method to use a Measurement-While-Drilling (MWD) tool with a
circulating device below was required to obtain orientation.

Unconsolidated Reservoir Sand
Most of the sandstone on the Troll reservoir is poorly consolidated. Hence, all wells have been completed
with pre-packed screens. The unconsolidated nature of the reservoir sand and the fact that the junction had to
be placed in the reservoir created more challenges.
Lack of formation support when milling casing windows off whipstock required fine milling control. For
this, a subsea, downhole motion compensator from Weatherford Enterra Co. was used. A single hollow
whipstock that did not require retrieval was also used.
In order to avoid screen damage from milled casing windows when pushed down to total depth, shrouded-
type screens where used.
To avoid fluid loss when reopening wells after hydrostatic pressure isolation a fluid-loss-control device was
needed.
To avoid oil production and subsequent sand production through the junction geometry, formation treatment
was needed. Effecting a good cement sheath at and immediately below the junction is also critical to success.
A smooth and stable junction requires good cement to surround the 7-in. lateral liner. Therefore, 200 m of 7-
in. blank pipe was run above the screens. Two external casing packers were installed between the screens
and blank section to stop cement going down to the screen section. Also, a special stage-cement collar that
could be locked in the closed position was used.
Field Installation Results
The main bore was drilled as a conventional horizontal Troll Olje well.
The smooth milling action provided by the compensator resulted in very little mill wear.
A formation-consolidation treatment with thermosetting resin was performed to stabilise the junction rock.
To achieve fluid loss control the formation had to be fractured to complete the resin treatment.
The lateral branch 8 -in. hole was drilled to 4302 m in six runs. No problems where experienced when
passing the window.
The junction was cemented with specially formulated cement.
The main bore was re-established successfully with the mill guide which was pulled before opening up the
pilot hole to full bore hole 7-in. liner and a packer plug mill removed the isolation plug in the multilateral
packer, see fig. 1
Fig. 2 illustrates the final well geometry and the producing horizons. All multilateral operations were
performed according to plan without any deviations and with very little downtime.
Production has been as high as 3498 m3/D with no evidence of sand production.
Pickerill (Arco British, Southern North Sea)
(See also SPE 38629 1997)
Tight gas from aeolian dune sandstones (Rotliegendes and Leman formations)
Average field porosity 12%
0.1 to 10 mD permeability
initial reservoir pressure 4000psia
initial reservoir temperature 204 F @ 8900 ft
reservoir simulation showed improved recovery by 15 Bcf from Z1 and Z2 around 48/11b-A3 (not in TAML
DB yet!)
dual lateral sidetracks from suspended 48/11b-A3 low gas production from Z1 & Z2 and high water cut from
Z3 & Z4
low cost since suspended downhole
production 18.5 MMcf/D with expected 10Bcf incremental recovery
33% of GIIP was in 2 poor quality zones with estimated 42% recovery

average expected recovery for rest of field was 70%
target identified with possible sealing fault between 2 highs
ML gave insurance of recovery at same cost as equivalent horizontal
avoided gas contract penalties due to better knowledge at time of gas-sales contract signing
3.3 Screening Process
3.3.1 Introduction
The Oxford English Dictionary has several definitions of to screen of which the closest to that required
here is: to screen: to examine systematically in order to discover something, e.g. a persons suitability for a
post or the presence or absence of a substance or disease.
Screening, with respect to multi-lateral well applications, is the process by which field operators identify and
prioritise fields or wells, as to their suitability as candidates for application of multi-lateral technology. The
short-listed candidates can then be subjected to more rigorous technical, financial and strategic analysis
related to the technical performance of both reservoir and well, the economic return of the project and the
ability to complement existing field development strategies. The screening process should be performed at
the appropriate level of detail and rigour to allow quick identification of the best candidates. Screening does
not offer a total solution and it is possible that some marginal candidates may escape recognition. However,
it is expected that a good screening process would identify most fields, which could benefit from multi-
lateral wells, most of the time.
There are many advantages of using wells with multiple horizontal laterals which come from:
larger exposure of reservoir rock to the well bore
connection of separated reservoir features
alteration of the drainage pattern of hydrocarbons
field appraisal from improved sampling of reservoir
reduction in drilling and completion costs and risks
The following table summarises specific applications under the above generic headings:

tight reservoirs Increased exposure
of reservoir to well bore viscous oil reservoirs
gas storage

naturally fractured reservoirs Connection of laterally or
vertically distributed
features
multiple compartmentalization
multiple layers
Modified drainage pattern sweep improvement (e.g. infill drilling, novel offset
line drive)
reduced water coning or gas cusping
oil rims
capture efficiency oil bank (e.g. gravity stabilized
gas injection, GSGI)
novel injector/producer wells (e.g. satellite or
marginal field developments; late field reservoir
depressurisation)

Field appraisal use horizontal laterals to sample in the horizontal
dimension useful to appraise stratigraphic traps
Drilling costs & risks fewer surface wellheads lead to reduced
environmental impact on land
reduced number of slots required for offshore
development
drilling risk above reservoir reduced with fewer
penetrations of drilling hazards
Table 3.3.1 Application
There are five steps in the screening process. They are shown at the following figure.
High Level Objectives;
strategic, economic &
technical
Reservoir and Fluid
Data
State Well Objectives
and
Design Criteria
Evaluation and
Comparison
of Options
Final Recommendation

Figure 3.3.1 Five Steps in Screening Process
Now we examine the five steps in turn.
3.3.2 High level objectives
As a first step the overall objectives governing the use of well technology in general should be summarised
from a business and technical viewpoint. These objectives must be included later when evaluating specific
well proposals:
strategic objectives such as desire to gain a competitive edge through use of new technology, increase in
reserves per surface wellhead, reduction in environmental footprint etc.
economic objectives such as decrease in development cost per barrel, operating cost per barrel, acceleration
of production profile etc.
technical objectives such as improvement in IOR/waterflood performance, reduction in pressure draw down
at wells, access to multiple targets, additional exploration/appraisal information by extending laterals to
the edge of known hydrocarbon leg or into poorly delineated compartments etc.
3.3.3 Data gathering: reservoir and fluid characteristics
Data gathering for screening is best kept simple. One approach is to use a warm-up questionnaire covering
key features that influence choice of well type. After the questionnaire tables of fluid properties, rock
properties, key depths, pressures and temperatures should be compiled and a compact map and cross section
through the field obtained.
The questionnaire does not cover every critical factor influencing the field development concerning, for
example, the geology or the corrosivity of the well bore fluids. It focuses on factors that discriminate
between different types of development well.
The results of the questionnaire may indicate that the field can be efficiently developed simply using
conventional technology with vertical or moderately deviated wells. Alternatively it may be that it is a

candidate for horizontal well bores which could be combined into multi-laterals. This topic is amplified
below.

Question Considerations
1. What is the reservoir fluid? Class of hydrocarbon heavy oil, light oil, volatile oil,
retrograde gas condensate, wet gas or dry gas? Fluid
mobility affects production mechanism and well
configuration.
2. Is the formation naturally fractured and
if so to what extent and at what
orientation?
If fractured, the stress field becomes important for well
orientation.
3. Is the reservoir productivity adequate or
is extensive stimulation required?
Hydraulic fracturing or acidisation routinely required and
will influence the length and orientation of horizontal well
bores.
4. Have horizontal wells been drilled
previously in this field?
Experience with horizontal wells will be valuable in
deciding the feasibility of a multi-lateral.
5. Is the hydrocarbon column vertically
continuous?
Single massive column or a layered/laminated reservoir
will have different well requirements.
6. Are there nearby contacts, either gas-
oil, gas-water or oil-water contacts?
Coning or cresting behaviour will influence well type and
distance of completion interval from fluid contacts.
7. Is the reservoir fairly homogeneous or
quite heterogeneous? If heterogeneous
is sand continuity understood?
If the rock properties are very variable with low net-to-
gross ratio it may be difficult to keep the horizontal well
bore within the productive zone.
8. Have drilling problems been
experienced in drilling exploration,
appraisal or development wells to date?
Has completion equipment been
installed successfully?
The feasibility of drilling each section of hole quickly and
safely will influence the decision to try more complex
wells. It is important to find good casing seats at the right
depth above the reservoir and competent, stable locations
for junctions.
9. Is the faulting style and orientation well
defined and understood?
In a heavily faulted and compartmentalized reservoir it
may be difficult to keep horizontal well bores within the
reservoir layer.
10. Is the field offshore or onshore? Field location affects well costs and slot availability.
11. Is the hydrocarbon production
mechanism primary depletion or is
there secondary recovery using gas or
water injection?
If present, injectors will have an influence on multi-lateral
branch spacing and orientation.
12. At which stage of the life cycle is the
field? Exploration, appraisal,
development or production? If at
production stage what fraction of
reserves has been produced?
If the field is well advanced in the life cycle then multi-
laterals are likely to be infill wells or sidetracks from
existing wells.
13. Is artificial lift required? There may be savings, both capital and operational if
production is combined into fewer well bores to surface.
Table 3.3.2: Questionnaire

The questionnaire in Table 3.3.2 is designed to give an initial feel for the nature of the reservoir and the
characteristics that influence the selection of the type of development well
As an illustration the following tables show the tabular data for a small, oil field with sample average values
Table 3.4.3 and the reservoir fluid properties in Table 3.3.4.

Reservoir properties
Depth to top reservoir 3050m
Average gross thickness 100m
Net-to-Gross ratio 80%
Number of distinct flow units 1
Porosity 0.20
Water saturation 0.25
Horizontal permeability 100 mD
Vertical permeability 10 mD
STOIIP 100 million stb

Fluid properties
Saturation pressure 2000 psia
Reservoir pressure 4650 psia at 3180mss
Reservoir temperature 100 deg C
Viscosity at reservoir pressure 3.6 cP
Viscosity at bubble point cP

Gas-oil ratio above bubble point 300 scf/stb
Formation volume factor at
reservoir pressure
1.08 rb/stb
Formation volume factor at
bubble point
1.1 rb/stb

Fluid Contacts
Gas-oil contact 3080m
Oil water contact 3180m
Table 3.3.3 Tabular Data for Small Oil Field
The field is relatively simple and highly under-saturated with strong bottom water drive and unconsolidated
sandstone formation as shown in Figure 3.3.2.

Figure 3.3.2 Field Map and Cross Section
3.3.4 Well objectives and design criteria
A multi-lateral well project must have a well-defined objective(s) and if there is more than one objective then
the relative priority and interrelationships of the objectives should be clearly defined. The following are
some examples of objectives for multi-lateral wells.

Type of objective Example
Production Well to produce at a long term stable rate of 2000 m
3
/d or have a stabilised PI
of 100 m
3
/d/bar
Geometrical Well to have first lateral 1000m long, i.d. 216 mm, second lateral 500m long,
i.d. 152 mm
Cost/Value Drilling & Completion time not to exceed 50 days, cost not to exceed $10
million, project NPV to be $10 million
Reserves Well to access and produce 1 million m
3
of oil in its lifetime
Isolation Well to have isolation capability so that branches can be individually shut in
Re-entry Well to have re-entry capability with coiled tubing or slim tubing for stimulation
and reservoir management
Intelligent well Well to have in situ monitoring and control
Table 3.3.5: Well Objectives and Design Criteria
3.3.5 Evaluation and comparison of options
Each question in Table 3.3.2 has been assigned a weight indicating the relative importance of the question
for application of horizontal or multi-lateral wells.
The questions in Table 3.3.2 above can be weighted 1-10 and the results scored 0-10. The scores can then be
weighted, summed and scaled to give an overall indication of suitability. The minimum weight is chosen to
be one as a weight of zero would eliminate the question from the list as having no relevance.
The first step is to examine the producability characteristics that favour horizontal (or high angle) well bores
in the reservoir independently of whether they should be combined into multi-laterals. The following
explains the rationale of the scoring system for this step, Table 3.3.6.

Scoring criteria Parameter Weight
Low end 0 High end -10
1. Fluid 5 Dry gas very high
mobility, vertical well
usually ok
Heavy oil low mobility,
benefits from increased
exposure
2. Fractured 10 Unfractured formation
with adequate matrix
permeability
Intensely fractured with
low matrix porosity and
permeability
3. Productive 6 Vertical wells can achieve
economic rates
Low productivity
vertical wells require
stimulation to be
economic
4. Previous
successful
Horizontal Wells
5 First horizontal well is
risky
Confidence if track record
in place
5. Continuous
column
5 Discontinuous
hydrocarbon column
indicative of restricted
flow vertically
Continuous column
should be capable of
vertical movement
6. Nearby contacts 8 If there are no contacts
either above or below
hydrocarbon then no
coning possibility

Horizontal well reduces
coning effects if contact
nearby
7. Heterogeneity 3 Low net to gross reduces
effective vertical perm.
Homogeneous usually has
reasonable vertical perm.
Table 3.3.6: Relative Advancement of Key Characteristics
The results of the score for this example are as follows:

Parameter Weight Score Weighted Score
1. Fluid Light oil 5 4 20
2. Fractured No 10 0 0
3. Productive Yes 6 3 18
4. Previous
Horizontal
Wells
No 5 0 0
5. Continuous
Column
Yes 5 7 35
6. Nearby Contacts Yes 8 7 56
7. Heterogeneity Massive
sand
3 8 24

Total 42 153
(maximum possible weighted score 42 x 10 = 420)
Table 3.3.7: Weighted Score in Screening Process
The above example scores 153/420 = 36% indicating that horizontal well bores may be advantageous, mostly
due to the proximity of contacts (56 out of 153 points). This id more clearly demonstrated in Figure 3.3.3
below where the actual and maximum possible weighted scores are displayed as a histogram.
Suitability of a Horizontal Wellbore
24
56
18
20
30
80
50
50
60
100
50
35
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Heterogeneity
Nearby Contacts
Continuous Column
Previous H.W.
Productive
Fractured
Fluid
P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
Score
Maximum
Score
Weighted
Score

Figure 3.3.3 Histogram Depiction of Weighted Scores
The second step looks at the operational and/or logistical suitability of combining several well bores into one
common trunk to surface

Scoring criteria Parameter Weight
Low end 0 High end -10
8. Drilling problems 5 Easy drilling from surface
to reservoir less
incentive to get the most
from each connection
from surface to reservoir
Difficult drilling gives
incentive to minimise
number of connections
from surface to reservoir
9. Faults 4 Absence of faults means
reservoir could be drained
by a single long bore hole
Presence of faults means
compartments which are
better drained by separate
bore holes
10. Location 4 Onshore pad space
relatively inexpensive
Offshore slots expensive
11. Injectors 3 Water injectors can make
it difficult to locate
No injectors gives more
freedom in locating

laterals laterals
12. Life Cycle 2 Early in life cycle less
knowledge of reservoir
and greater risk
Late in life cycle is best
time to add lateral side
tracks
13. Artificial Lift 4 No artificial lift in use Extensive artificial lift
means incentive to
concentrate expenditure
on fewer well bores
Table 3.3.8: Weighted Scores Operational Issues
Scoring for this example gives:

Parameter Weight Score Weighted Score
8. Drilling
problems
no 5 0 0
9. Faults One large
throw fault
4 7 28
10. Location Offshore 4 7 28
11. Injectors Yes 3 5 15
12. Life Cycle Development
phase
2 3 6
13. Artificial Lift yes 4 5 20
Total 22 97
(maximum possible weighted score 22 x 10 = 220)
Table 3.3.9: Example Weighted Scores Operational Issues
The score, when scaled, gives 97/220 = 44% reasonably but not overwhelmingly, favouring the concept of
combining well bores into a multi-lateral with one conduit to surface.
In the above example there are three options that could be tested
1. four vertical wells, two on each side of the fault
2. two horizontal wells, one on each side of the fault
3. a dual-opposed multi-lateral which combines the two horizontal wells as shown below in Figure 3.3.4.

Figure 3.3.4 Dual Opposed Multilateral Placed in Example Reservoir
Suitability of a Horizontal Wellbore
6
15
40
20
30
40
40
50
20
28
28
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Artifial Lift
Life Cycle
Injectors
Location
Faults
Drilling Problems
P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
Score
Maximum Score
Weighted Score

Figure 3.3.5 Histogram Depiction of Weighted Scores in Operational Assessment
The STOIIP of 100 million stock tank barrels is distributed 45 mstb on the west side of the fault, 55 mstb on
the east side. Each compartment is modelled as a box-like reservoir with the dimensions:

West Side East Side
Dimension along the horizontal well bore 1500 m 1500 m
Dimension perpendicular to the horizontal well bore 700 m 800 m

Vertical thickness 61 m 66 m
Table 3.3.10: Compartment Dimensions
The productivity index of each well type is:

PI b/d/psi PI m
3
/d/bar
Vertical well west side of fault 4.7 10.8
Vertical well east side of fault 5.1 11.8
Horizontal well west side of fault 13.6 31.4
Horizontal well east side of fault 13.9 32.1
Dual opposed multi-lateral 27.5 63.4
Table 3.3.11: PI Variation between Compartment for Various Well Types
For a drawdown of 500 psi (55 bar) the three scenarios will produce at the following stabilised rates:

b/d m
3
/d
Vertical wells 22,000 3498
Horizontal wells 37,500 5962
Dual opposed multi-lateral 33,000 (tubing restricted) 4770
Table 3.3.12: Stabilised Rates
The plateau rates have been reduced to minimise water coning/cresting from the aquifer leading to the
following production profiles over ten years (rates quoted in000 b/d):
Year Vertical wells Horizontal wells Dual opposed multi-lateral
1 16 26 22
2 16 26 22
3 16 18.2 22
4 16 12.7 13.3
5 12.6 8.9 9.5
6 9.9 6.2 6.8
7 7.8 4.4 5.0
8 6.1 3.1 3.7
9 4.8 2.1 2.7
10 3.8 1.5 2.1
Total (million barrels) 39.8 39.9 39.8
Table 3.3.13: Production Profile Prediction of Well Types for 10-Year Period


Production Profiles
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

R
a
t
e

i
n

'
0
0
0

b
/
d
Vertical Wells
Horizontal Wells
Dual Opposed Multi-Lateral

Figure 3.3.6 Production Profile Forecast
The cost of a vertical well in this example is $12.2 million, a 1000m horizontal costs $16.3 million and a
dual opposed multi-lateral costs $20.4 million. In summary

Vertical wells Horizontal wells Dual opposed multi-lateral
Cost per well($m) 12.2 16.3 20.4
Number of wells 4 2 1
Total well cost($m) 48.8 32.6 20.4
Table 3.3.14: Total Well-Cost Projections of the Options
It is not necessary to perform an economic analysis to see that the vertical well case is inferior to both the
horizontal well and the multi-lateral cases; the plateau rate is less and the total well costs are substantially
greater. To compare the horizontal well and the multi-lateral cases a pre-tax incremental economic analysis
is required. If the case of two horizontal wells is taken as the base case, the cash flow analysis is as follows:
Year Capex
$m
Incremental
oil rate,
000 b/d
AIR
$m
ICF
$m
Mid-year
discount
factor
DAIR
$m
Discounted
ICF
$m
1 -12.2 -4 -21.90 -9.70 0.962 -21.07 -8.87
2 -4 -21.90 -21.90 0.891 -19.51 -19.51
3 3.8 20.81 20.81 0.825 17.16 17.16
4 0.56 3.07 3.07 0.764 2.34 2.34
5 0.58 3.19 3.19 0.707 2.25 2.25
6 0.56 3.05 3.05 0.655 2.00 2.00
7 0.63 3.45 3.45 0.606 2.09 2.09
8 0.64 3.51 3.51 0.561 1.97 1.97

9 0.56 3.06 3.06 0.520 1.59 1.59
10 0.60 3.29 3.29 0.481 1.58 1.58
Tota
l
-0.07 -0.38 11.82 6.97 -9.59 2.61
Notes:
Oil price $15/barrel
Discount rate 8%
AIR - Annual Incremental Revenue
ICF Incremental Cash Flow (Revenue Costs)
DAIR - Mid year discounted Annual Incremental Revenue
Table 3.3.15: Economic Comparison
The multi-lateral option has NPV $2.61 greater than the two horizontal well option. The inferior rate profile
is more than compensated by the lower well cost. This could be even better if the restriction on plateau flow
rate were de-bottlenecked so that the multi-lateral case had the same flow rate as the two horizontal well
case.
3.3.6 Recommendation and final decision
The result of the technical and economic analysis will hopefully show that there are several viable options.
The risks of each option should now be considered. This may lead to the rejection of an otherwise promising
proposal for which the risks are too great to be worth considering further.
In the example discussed above the recommendation would be that two options are carried forward for more
detailed analysis. There is a drilling risk due to the presence of a fault just above the crest of the reservoir
and a well positioning risk within the reservoir but neither of these is serious enough to reject either option.
A pilot hole may be required to reduce the well positioning risk, which will change the economics but not the
conclusions. All significant risks must be identified and analyzed in more detail prior to implementation.
3.4 Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) Approach
3.4.1 Introduction
Quantitative risk assessment is a powerful decision-support methodology for the well decision process since
there is typically large uncertainties and risks associated with the detailed earth modelling and well
engineering processes which are normally not adequately covered by simple contingency factors on cost and
high-low-mean estimates on production. Some examples follow.
The ML systems available currently have risks associated with the operations (e.g., window orientation,
window milling, whipstock retrieval, main bore re-entry) and equipment reliability (e.g., whipstocks,
packers, sliding sleeves). These risks can result in additional costs due to delays to the well construction
process that can be as large as the cost to plug back and sidetrack to redo a section of the well.
On the reservoir side, there are uncertainties in the depth of formations for window setting, the integrity of
formations, pore-pressure distribution, saturation profiles, permeability distributions and numerous other
factors that can affect the design, construction, installation and operation of ML wells as well as their
productivity and reserves basis.
The Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) approach may be used to achieve three objectives during the
planning phase of a ML well project.

Identify the Risks and Hazards that have the largest impact on overall project costs and production/sales
revenues.
Perform a risked-based evaluation of various options for performing portions of the Construct, Evaluate,
Install and Operate/Maintain Phases of the operation including comparing vendors.
Compare ML well options with other well candidates (e.g., single horizontal , ERD, etc) in a screening
process
By identifying the risks with the largest effect on the overall project time, cost and production, engineering
effort can be directed to those areas of the operation that will have the largest cost impact through risk
reduction. This approach is particularly illuminating for solutions based on newly developed technologies for
which field experience is limited or where well operations and reservoir predictions are highly risky or
uncertain.
3.4.2 QRA Methodology for Well Construction, Installation, Maintenance and Operation
The methodology of the QRA process is aimed at creating a risked-based cost model of the well. Developing
this model requires input from a multi-disciplinary team. To facilitate the work of the multi-disciplinary
team, a structured process is used to develop the QRA model.
1. Introduction to Project. Introductory meeting(s) in which expert QRA facilitators are introduced to the
project to which the QRA process will be applied. At these meetings an introduction to the QRA process
is given and the multi-disciplinary team is identified. The meeting(s) are normally led by the client
company project co-ordinator who is typically a drilling superintendent or asset development manager,
etc.
2. Group Work Meetings Process Flowcharting. The multi-disciplinary team meets to map out the
main activities of the well construction, installation, evaluation and operations/maintenance processes in
logical flowcharts. These flowcharts are used as the fundamental basis to create the QRA model. The
flowcharts provide an easily visualised logical sequence of the operation as events, hazards and
consequences. During this flowcharting the possible operational hazards are identified by a HAZID-type
process. For each hazard, the consequences are determined by the experts of the multi-disciplinary team
and evaluated in terms of rig-time delay and additional costs. See Section 5 for flowcharts generated
during a typical ML project. The flowcharts are used as the basis for the risk model, step5. The
meetings are led by the QRA facilitators.
3. Data Gathering of Cost and Historical Probability Data. This portion of the process involves
gathering of cost and time data for each of the process steps identified during the flowcharting. For each
of the probabilities, a database search is performed to determine if accurate historical data on the
probabilities is available and the values of the historical probabilities. The work is performed by the well
engineer responsible.
4. Group Work Meeting Probabilities and Flowchart Review. At meeting(s) of the multi-disciplinary
team the finalised logical process flowcharts are presented, and final modifications made if required.
The historical probability data is reviewed and possibly modified as per the judgement of the experts in
the multi-disciplinary team. For probabilities involving the application of new technology, probability
values are applied as per the judgement of the multi-disciplinary team. Assigning the probability values
is a rather demanding process, especially for those involving the application of new technology and
unlikely events. Therefore, probability distributions are assigned to those probabilities for which
significant uncertainty exists. In the case of new technologies, equipment or procedures, the available
data is very limited and typically, a simple three-point distribution is applied. These meetings are also led
by the QRA facilitators.
5. Development of the QRA model. The data collected during the data gathering is further structured and
linked in spreadsheets, forming a model reflecting the sequence logic of the flowcharts and taking into
account the risks represented by the identified hazards. The work is performed by the QRA facilitators
but ideally the well-cost model should take the standard well-cost model as the starting point.

Modifications that account for the risks in the operations are then easily transparent and personnel will
have a good starting point for understanding the model and applying in future cases.
6. Presentation Preliminary Results . Meeting of the multi-disciplinary team to review preliminary results
of the QRA model and identify any areas in which further refinement is required. This meeting is lead by
the QRA facilitators.
7. Sensitivity Analysis . Monte Carlo or similar statistical simulation techniques can be applied in the QRA
model with the aid of spreadsheet add-ins such as @RISK from Palisade. A regression sensitivity
analysis is performed on the results of the simulation to determine critical aspects of the operation with
regards to the overall project. This work is performed by the QRA facilitators.

3.4.3 QRA Results
The results of the QRA process are aimed at facilitating sound decisions on project direction based on risked-
based economics. The following results of the QRA process help to direct this decision-making process.
1. Risk-based times and costs for all activities. The risked and un-risked cost and risked time are
calculated for the overall projects. These cost and time is broken down into the important phases of the
project.
2. Identification of activities and risks critical to overall success. Sensitivity analysis (Figure 3.4.3.1)
using Monte Carlo simulation techniques are used to determine the activities that pose the greatest risk to
the overall project economics.
3. Economic basis for directing engineering efforts. The results of the sensitivity analysis can then be
used as a basis for directing engineering efforts towards those activities that contribute significantly to
the economic risk of overall project.
4. Risked based economics to evaluate the benefits and risks of new technology. There is often
resistance to the implementation of new technologies that can lead to significant cost savings. This
resistance is in part based on the difficulty in quantifying the risked involved in the implementation of
new technologies. The QRA process provides a method of quantifying this risk and making a sound
management judgement on proper use of new technology.
5. An editable risk model that can be applied to similar situations. The QRA model produced as an
Excel spreadsheet. This spreadsheet is easily editable by commonly available office computers. This
allows the risk model to be easily used for other similar projects and to be modified as the projects
develop.
The team effort used in the QRA approach described above has several additional benefits that become
apparent as a result of the multi-disciplinary team approach. These benefits include the following:
1. Logical Process Flowcharts. The logical flowcharts of the process provide an easily understandable tool
for visualising the process. The flowcharts include the logical consequences of operational hazards.
These flowcharts have proven beneficial during planning stages of projects in concentrating engineering
effort towards achieving the overall goals of the project. During the operational phase they allow the
consequences of hazards to be easily understood by operational personnel. This improves the focus on
avoiding those hazards. The flowcharts provide a powerful aid to multi-disciplinary communication.
2. Elimination of Emotion from the Decision-Making Process. The logical flowcharting process and the
structured methodology remove much of the emotion from the design and decision making process. The
design process can more easily move forward by creating the logical flowcharts for different options and
allowing a detached evaluation of those options.
3. Better Communication and Understanding of the Overall Process. Communication within the
different disciplines involved in the process is improved by bringing the parties together in the Group
Work Meetings. This improved communication has been cited as a major benefit of the QRA process;
team members better understand the work that is being performed in another discipline.

Fishing
Unsuccessful
Tool/Cable
Failure
BHA
stuck
Tool/Cable
Failure
Tool/Cable
Failure
Stuck
Tool/Cable
Failure
Tool/Cable
Failure
Stuck
Install Tree
Cuttings
Buildup
Cuttings
Buildup
Unacceptable
FIT
Poor Net to Gross
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90

Figure 3.4.3.1. Sample Sensitivity Results
3.4.4 Case Studies: Risk Related Issues
Prudoe Bay (IADC/SPE 39388 1998)
Pressure containment due to cutting a hole in casing! (precise knowledge of pressure distribution)
High build rates if branches are close ( conservative drilling engineering for selection of mud-motor bent
housing to guarantee build rates)
Whipstock retrieval (better equipment and procedures)
Co-mingled production ( depending on TAML level can get reservoir crossflow depending on pressure
differentials in the reservoir)

Pickerill (SPE 38629 1997)
(dry gas, Southern North Sea)
Horizontal vs ML
Uncertain fault (existence, seal, etc)
Unrisked costs similar
Dual side track from suspended well 48/11b-A3
Horizontal well length 3500 ft vs 2 laterals at 2400 and 1200 ft
Increased recovery from 42 to 47% with 15MMcf/D
Risked incremental reserves of 15Bcf
Operational risks
A3 suspended since 1991
Uncertain 9 5/8 casing condition (wear, no cement bond log)
hazardous drilling in Haupt dolomite- previous stuck pipe and gas kick experience
no reliable core data to judge long-term competency of junction formation location Werr anhydrite

formation pressures , formation damage
Well design
First leg (Z)completed open hole with no re-entry requirements
Second leg (Y) drilled out of first leg and completed with slotted liner
Well path altered while drilling because of unexpected pressure depletion in Zones 1 and 2
(AWPT!)
Results
18.5 MMcf/D average
4.4 Bcf to time of publication
expected incremental reserves 10 Bcf
avoided gas contract penalties
Oseberg C
(See also

A3.6 Oseberg C-12, TAML Level 5.)
Risk Mitigation
Detailed engineering
Component testing
Prototype full-scale testing
Manufacturing QC
Operations
Junction inclination below 65 degrees for wireline access to both laterals
Same landing string for installation and retrieval of all depth critical components
Junction in a tangent section
Set 133/8 casing deeper than usual to avoid differential sticking while PCL operations in the reservoir
sections
Run CBL in junction area
QC check on mixibility and pumpability of formation sealant for junction area
Troll Olje Gas Province
Effect of Heave on ML Operations SPE 39370 1998
Special tool to control position for re-establishment of mainbore
Placement of downhole equipment (whipstock and mill guide)on depth
Horizontal junction no wireline surveys possible use MWD
Unconsolidated Reservoir Sand
Hollow Whipstock (new technology) SPE 39367
Subsea Downhole Motion Compensator (SMDC
TM
) new technology
Running Screens through 95/8 CEW
Pushed down with drill collars - 70 tonnes
Shrouded screens not pre-packed to avoid damage.
Fluid Loss After Re-establishing the Main Bore
Filter cake collapse when closed in
Large fluid losses experienced
Annulus-pressure-operated circulating valve and fluid loss control device new technology
Potential Sand Production from Junction
Formation treatment (thermosetting resin chosen)
Stage cementing above screens around junction
Main Bore construction 50.9 days
Lateral construction 37.7 days
Completion 7.6 days
Initial Production 22000 bbl/d
3.5 Roles and Responsibilities
Process Management list:
Planning
Execution
Post well analysis

PROJECT RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX
Stage Activity R A C I
Reservoir Analysis and Target
Determination of Type Well
Casing Design
Directional Program
Mud Program
Cement Program
Planning Bit Program
HS & E Management
Well Schedule
3rd Party Planning
Materials & Logistics
Completion Design
Invoice Control
Engineering
Project Management
Rig Site Operations
Drilling Program and Ops.
Logging / Survey
Casing and Cementing
Mud Logging and Data Acq.
Filtration Svcs.
BHOO Wellsite Coordination
Execute Daily Reporting
Invoice Processing
HS & E Tracking/Monitoring
3rd Party Execution
Completion Phase
Logistics
Project Management

Operator
Third Party
Drill Contr.
All Parties
ML Vendor

Rig Site Operations
Review, Analysis and Optimize
Analyze Feedback to Team
& Technical End of Well Report
Improve BHOO Supplemental EoW Report
"R" = RESPONSIBILITY : Who has the Responsibility for decisions and the work process
"A" = AUTHORITY : Who has the delegation of Authority
: This is the level that Authority has been delegated
: Empowerment puts Authority down to the correct level
"C" = CONSULT : Consultation with (input & feedback) with subject matter experts
: For best result, Consultation occurs before decision or action is taken
"I" = INFORM : Informing partners of actions or decisions taken
: Informing can occur after decision or action is taken

3.6 Modeling of Multi-lateral Performance
Modelling the performance of multi-lateral wells uses both analytical and numerical methods. The analytical
methods are easily and quickly implemented but only work for basic well types in simple reservoir
descriptions while the numerical methods use a more realistic reservoir model but can be time consuming to
build and expensive in computer resources and license fees. Those methods are complimentary in a phased
approach to screening.
3.6.1 Analytical Models
The production rate from a well depends on inflow performance from the reservoir into the well bore and lift
performance in the well bore and tubing from formation to surface. The inflow performance is expressed as

flowing bottom hole pressure (P
wf
) versus flow rate and is referred to as the Inflow Performance
Relationship (IPR). Similarly the Vertical Lift Performance (VLP) is also expressed as flowing bottom hole
pressure (P
wf
) versus flow rate in the tubing usually defined for a given value of surface pressure at the top
of the tubing.
A simple example, for which the IPR is a straight line with an inverse slope of 10 stb/d/psi, is shown. This
inverse slope is usually called the Productivity Index (PI) for which the symbol J is often used in the
literature. In general P
wf
in terms of reservoir deliverability decreases with increasing rate as more
drawdown from reservoir pressure is required and it may have some curvature at higher rates. Above a
certain rate P
wf
from the VLP curve increases with increasing rate, higher pressure being required to
overcome friction and drive the fluid through the tubing.
The production rate is determined by the intersection of the IPR curve with the VLP curve as shown. Both
the IPR and the VLP curves vary as reservoir pressure and produced fluid composition vary; determining the
point of intersection is a dynamic exercise. In this chapter the focus is on the inflow performance of
multilateral wells, but it is useful to remember that achieving high precision for the IPR curve has to be
balanced against the precision of the VLP.
3.6.2 Inflow for Vertical Wells
Two types of flow regimes are used in radial flow problems, steady state (SS) with a constant pressure outer
boundary and pseudo steady state (PSS) with a no-flow outer boundary (1). The productivity index defined
for SS and PSS differs slightly in the pressure value used to represent the outer boundary or bulk reservoir
pressure. The definitions for SS and PSS are:
wf e
SS SS
p p
q
PI J
,
wf
PSS PSS
p p
q
PI J

where
q Flow rate, b/d
e
p

Pressure at the boundary, psi
p Average pressure in drainage area, psi
wf
p Flowing well bore pressure, psi

Figure 3.6.1: Well performance, IPR & VLP
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 10000 20000 30000
Rate, stb/d
P- wf,
psi a IPR
VLP

For a vertical well at the centre of a disk shaped reservoir completed over the full thickness of the reservoir
the pseudo-steady state PI is:
,
_
s
kh
r
r
B
J v
4
3
- ln
00708 . 0
w
e
o
o

where
k Horizontal permeability, mD
h Reservoir thickness, feet
o
oil viscosity, cP
B
o
oil formation factor, rb/stb
r
e
external radius, feet
r
w
wellbore radius, feet
s skin due to damage and completion efficiency
For such a well, the inflow profile is uniform over the completed interval assuming the fluid is of low
compressibility.
3.6.3 Inflow for Horizontal Wells
Similar correlations are available for horizontal wells in disc- or box-like geometries with either pseudo-
steady state or steady state boundary conditions. These correlations are summarised in chapters 3 & 7
(2)
.

The most widely used correlation for Steady State is that of Joshi, later modified by Economides. The
relationship (mixed steady state in the horizontal plane and pseudo-steady state in the vertical plane) is:

( ) [ ] [ ]
) 2 /( ) / ( 1
2 2
) /( 2
2
w
o o h
r h In L h
L
a
L
a
In
B p h k
h
q
+ + +

,
( )
[ ]
4
2 25 . 0 5 . 0
2
L r
L
a
eh
+ + ,
where
L horizontal well length (ft)
r
ev
and r
eh
drainage radius of vertical and horizontal wells respectively (ft)
p pressure drop from drainage boundary to the wellbore (psi)
q
h
flowrate of a horizontal well (b/d)

Figure 3.6.2: Theoretical Flow Convergence to Horizontal Wellbore
However, even for a horizontal well with uniform flow efficiency per unit length, the inflow is no longer
uniform over the completed interval, hemispherical flow at the heel and the toe giving a greater contribution
than radial flow at the middle. Estimation of this inflow profile can be done numerically by dividing the well
into segments and calculating the inflow for each segment. In practice there are many mechanisms which
cause actual wells to have rather variable inflow profiles and examples of hemispherical flow from the toe
are quite rare.
3.6.4 Flow in Multi-lateral Wells
Prediction of multi-lateral well performance uses more complex correlations of which the following can be
used:
Borisov
(2)
, 1954
This method is a useful demonstration of the capability of multi-laterals to increase production and reserves,
in a regularly shaped homogeneous reservoir with single-phase fluid and simple well shapes. The expression
represents an early analytical correlation suitable for short radius drain holes with the drain hole heels
coming to the same point in space as shown below for a case with six drain holes. This method is similar to
Joshis steady-state correlation for a single horizontal well.

Figure 3.6.3: Symmetrical Radial Laterals Borisov
(2)

Raghavan and co-authors
(3)
, 1990 &
(4)
, 1995
Work done by Joshi and Raghavan
(3)
assumed that the branches come to the same point in space. This work
was then extended in 1995 by Raghavan and Ambastha
(4)
with a gap introduced between the heels of the
drain holes. The drain holes are now arranged in opposing pairs, which must be of the same length, but
members of different pairs can be of different lengths. An example with a total of four drainholes is shown
below:

Figure 3.6.4: Quasi-symmetrical Lateral Placement as per Raghavan etc
(3)

SWP Method
Since 1994 Chen, Tehrani and Peden
(5,6)
have adapted their Slant Well Productivity (SWP) model to handle
multi-lateral wells analytically. Because their method is partially numerical it can handle an arbitrary well
configuration at any orientation in the reservoir. There are still some restrictions to reservoir geometry and
the solution is valid for the semi-steady state period of uniform pressure decline: these restrictions will be
removed in future versions of SWP. Heterogeneity is handled by their uniformisation procedure
(6)
, which
ensures that the solution for P
wf
is the same as that expected of a heterogeneous reservoir.
An example of input to the SWP programme for a dual-lateral well is:
INPUT
3200.,3200.,116.06 x,y,z dimensions of box
2000.,2000.,200. permeabilities, k
x
, k
y
, k
z

1
0.23,10000 wellbore radius, target rate
2 number of branches
500.,1500.,1600.,1600.,58.03,58.03 x
1
, x
2
, y
1
, y
2,
z
1
, z
2
of first branch
and the programme presents its results as:

RESULTS WBHP drop from the average reservoir pressure 19.8821
Larsen Method
(7)

In 1996 Larsen
(7)
presented results that enable well productivity to be calculated for a number of multi-
lateral well types based on computations of pseudo-radial skin factors. It predicts well productivity close to
that predicted by Tehrani and Chen.
Method of Ozkan, Yildiz and Kuchuk
(8)

In June 1998 Ozkan, Yildif and Kuchuk
(8)
presented an interesting new development which generalised the
work of Raghavan and Ambastha so that much more general configurations can be considered and well test
analysis of dual-laterals can be carried out. At the time of writing (August 1998) this method had not been
evaluated enough to include in the comparison presented below.
Petroleum engineers working in field operations or asset teams usually use Joshis correlation to screen
horizontal well productivity. The correlation is easily set up on a spreadsheet and users are aware that it may
give a conservative estimate, which is acceptable while screening horizontal well opportunities.
There is no equivalent to Joshis simple correlation with which to screen multi-lateral wells and engineers
should use techniques such as SWP for multi-lateral wells. In the next section, the discussion moves on to
the next step for engineers in the field: this is to predict the performance of multi-lateral wells in a reservoir
simulation finite difference model as used to predict production profiles and reserves.
Numerical Models
The analytical tools discussed in 3.6.1 Analytical Models are used in the initial stages of understanding and
predicting the multi-lateral well performance. In field applications, more reliance is placed on numerical
methods because of their flexibility in handling the irregularity in geometry and heterogeneity in actual
reservoirs that cannot be modelled in an efficient way analytically. However, the use of a numerical reservoir
simulator requires special treatment of the wells, since the simulator uses a discrete representation of the
reservoir in terms of gridblocks with finite sizes. Consequently, the user must be cautious when using such
numerical tools and an understanding of inherent sources of errors in the coupling of well models and
reservoir flow models is required. In particular, this is important when simulating multi-lateral wells with
advanced completions, because the interference between different laterals and influence on the overall
performance from different completion components becomes much stronger than for conventional wells.
An overview of the different numerical methods used in simulation of advanced wells is presented below.
1. The Peaceman Approach.
If the gridblocks where the well is completed are sufficiently small, the well may be represented by putting
the gridblock pressure equal to the flowing bottom hole pressure. This is obviously not correct if the
gridblock represents a substantial portion of the reservoir, hence a well model of the form shown below
(which is consistent with the equations in section 3.6.1.1) will be needed to connect the well to the gridblock
where it is completed. For illustration, the well model is stated for a vertical well completed over the entire
thickness of the gridblock and producing a single fluid from an isotropic reservoir.
( ) p p
S
r
r
B
kh
q
w
w
+
,
_
0
0
ln
2

In this formula, q is well flow rate, kh is permeability thickness of the grid block, B is fluid formation
volume factor, is fluid viscosity, S is a well skin factor, r
w
is well radius, p
w
is well pressure, p
0
is gridblock
pressure and r
0
is some representative distance from the well. But, r
0
is a priori undetermined, and a method
to evaluate it is needed. In the Peaceman approach (used by most commercial reservoir simulators in one
form or another), r
0
is used to calibrate the numerical well model. More specifically, for an idealized case
where an analytical solution is known, the simulator solution computed with the same gridlock sizes as

wanted in the more realistic cases is compared to this analytical solution, and r
0
is adjusted until a match
between the analytical and numerical solution is achieved. This value, called the equivalent gridblock radius,
is then used in the above formula for simulating the real reservoir performance.
The Peaceman approach as described above is relying upon the existence of an analytical solution in the
evaluation of r
0
. In his original publication
(9)
, Peaceman used a semi-steady-state solution for a single
vertical well producing at a constant rate from a homogeneous isotropic gridblock, where the influence from
boundaries and other surrounding wells could be ignored. Subsequently, the method was generalized to
allow an-isotropic reservoirs and the following expression for the equivalent gridblock radius r
0
,
(10)
is
obtained:
,
_
+
1
]
1
k k
k
z
k
x
r
z x
z x
y
1 1
28 . 0
2 2
0

Here, the well is parallel to the y-axes.
The method was also generalized to allow more complicated geometries and well configurations
(11),(12),(13)
.
The Peaceman approach has gained a lot of attention, and extensions to include horizontal and deviated
wells, influence from boundaries and other wells, and irregularly shaped gridblocks etc can be found in the
literature, e.g.
(14), (15)
. Nevertheless, more research needs to be done on well models for irregular (Voronoi,
PEBI) grids in 3D. In
(16)
however, Palagi and Aziz present a fairly general method for including boundary
effects and other wells in irregularly shaped 2D grids. First, they re-write the above equation as
( ) ( ) ( ) p p p p
S
r
r
B
kh
q
av w av
w
0
0
ln
2

+
,
_

where p
av
is the average reservoir pressure after a given time, which can be calculated analytically when the
initial reservoir pressure is given. Furthermore, assuming that superposition can be applied, the well pressure
deviation from initial pressure can also be calculated analytically as a summation of pressure influences from
individual surrounding wells. Together, this gives an analytical expression for p
av
p
w
, canceling out the
initial pressure. Then the term p
av
p
0
is calculated numerically as in any Peaceman approach, and r
0
can be
solved for.
In general, it is possible to obtain expressions for r
0
as long as an analytical formula for a model problem
resembling the real reservoir situation is available. One such approach is given by Joshi
(17)
, Babu & Odeh in
(18)
for horizontal wells. Even if an analytical solution is not available, a fine grid simulation can be used
instead of the analytical one (Palagi & Aziz
(16)
), however, this is more CPU demanding. Yet another
approach, where a pseudo-skin factor is used in the calibration between a numerical result and an analytical
one, is given by Chen et al in
(5), (6)
. This method is described in more detail below.
All of the Peaceman approaches are based on idealized assumptions when an equivalent radius is computed
by comparing a numerical solution with an analytical or fine gridded numerical solution.
In order to include non-ideal effects, the well skin factor S may be used. In addition to traditional formation
damage effects, such skin models exist in the literature for a well that is only partially penetrating a gridblock
(19)
, when the well is not parallel to the gridblock faces (deviated wells)
(20)
, and fluid flow convergence in the
vicinity of perforations
(21)
to mention some of these skin factors.
2. SWP Model.
The SWP (Slant Well Productivity) Model is a hybrid technique where first, a single-well model using the
well configurations likely to be used in the full-field model is defined
(22)
. The shape of this model is cuboid
or box-like, normally of comparable thickness and drainage area to the drainage volume of a well in the full-
field model and the models are referred to here as box models. Using SWP-ML, as described in 3.6.1, an

estimate is made of the pseudo-skin corrections required to achieve an accurate PI and bottom-hole pressure.
It is then assumed that similar corrective pseudo-skins will be required for wells in the full-field model,
provided the reservoir boundaries and gridding are similar in the box and the full-field models. An example
using the SWP Model is given in Section 3.6.1.11.
3. Nextwell.
Recent progress in graphical user interfacing has resulted in more interactive methods in the determination of
well models. One such method is described in
(23)
, where the user can define a well path interactively in a
reservoir simulator grid and also select an appropriate near well region. From this, Nextwell automatically
refines this near well grid and computes the connection factors to be used in the coarse grid representing the
entire reservoir.
4. Eclipse Multi Segment Well Model.
The flow inside a well and the flow in the reservoir remote from the well are modelled by different
simplified conservation laws (flow correlations). Inside the well, the momentum conservation laws across
flow restrictions are highly non linear relationships between flow rates and pressure drops, while in the
porous medium remote from wells, the more linear Darcys law applies. Furthermore, a steady state
assumption inside the well is usually adequate when simulating the reservoir performance over a long period
of time, since the well flow transients in comparison occur on a small time scale. On the other hand, as
completion technology is developing through e.g. multilateral completions, inflow control devices, down
hole separators and pumps, the individual completion details have an increasingly stronger impact on the
overall flow behaviour of the well. Consequently, more detailed models for the individual completion
components and the interaction between them are needed, which in turn has resulted in a need for distinct
discretisations of the reservoir and the well completion in the simulators. Two approaches along these ideas
have been introduced, which are discussed below (Eclipse Multi Segment Well Model, Network Models).
In
(24)
, a new version of the GeoQuests Eclipse reservoir simulator is described, where the well is
represented using a separate segmentation discretisation (Eclipse Multi Segment Well Model). This
method still uses connection factors based on the Peaceman approach to couple the reservoir gridblock with
the well segments, and the user may choose which flow correlation to be used in each segment. Both
reservoir unknowns and well unknowns are solved simultaneously and fully implicit. Consequently, no direct
steady state assumption is made inside the wellbore, although the correlations employed there are also steady
state correlations. Nevertheless, the effect of mass accumulation inside the well (well storage effects) is
captured by this methodology.
5. Network Models.
In the second approach (e.g. HoSim
(25)
developed by Norsk Hydro, Brekke
(26)
and NETool,), the well
model is defined as a separate module through a network discretisation of the well completion. The well is
then represented as a distribution of nodes. Pairs of such nodes may be interconnected by an arc, which is
specified by the user through an appropriate pressure drop correlation. Based on a steady state assumption,
fixed inflow performance relationships (IPRs) and given boundary conditions, the flow through the network
is computed such that mass and momentum are conserved. This method offers the user a high degree of
flexibility, since the well network is treated by a separate computer program with a graphical user interface.
Consequently, it is easy to perform fast sensitivity calculations on the well performance as a function of
individual completion components.
The network model can also be coupled to a reservoir simulator through an iterative solution technique,
(27)
.
In each grid block connection a network node is defined, which represents the sand face between the well
and the formation, where also the boundary conditions for the reservoir simulator can be specified. An
iteration process between the two simulators is then invoked until convergence is achieved on pressures and
flow rates at the sand face. This technique is different from the Peaceman coupling techniques discussed
previously, since it is more explicit in nature, and since the use of a Peaceman type formula is less dominant.
The full consequence of this has yet to be investigated thoroughly in field case studies.

When a steady-state assumption is adequate for the flow inside the well, which is frequently the case, it is
also reasonable to assume that a steady-state assumption applies at a distance away from the wellbore. In
such cases, the near-well region may be included in the network together with the well completion, provided
an upscaling algorithm for reservoir permeabilities can be defined for the arcs that join the remote reservoir
node (the external node in the network) and the uttermost completion node. Such an upscaling algorithm was
developed in
(28)
for regular (Cartesian) distributions of permeability values around the well, and is was
generalized to scattered permeability distributions for simulations of a Troll well
(29)
.
The approach discussed above is adopted by Well Service Technology in a network simulator called
NETool, which allows loops in the network. This enables the inclusion of concurrent flow inside and outside
the liner. Furthermore, the network in NETool is locally 2D in the sense that arcs from the reservoir can join
the arcs representing the well completion from different directions around the circumference of the well. In
particular, the accuracy of the procedure for upscaling of permeabilities to be used in the arcs representing
the reservoir will increase as the number of arcs around the circumference increases, since each arc
represents only a portion (sector) of the whole circumference. Furthermore, different fluids may enter the
wellbore from different directions through these arcs. Consequently, a more realistic description of multi-
phase flow towards the wellbore can be achieved. The use of a Peaceman approach is completely avoided by
this method.
This approach can also be applied as a screening tool for determination of optimal well paths and well
completions, where even remote portions of the reservoir are included in the network. Of course, this is done
at the price of reduced accuracy, as usual in any screening tool.
Well Simulatiom While Drlling
A majour advantage of such a network simulator is that it is fast compared to conventional 3D simulators,
since the network is mainly locally 1D or at most locally 2D. Combined with novel technology developments
within distributed computing, object oriented programming and 3D graphics, this approach can also be used
while the well is being drilled by utilizing MWD data.
Methodology
This guide recommends a hybrid technique of first setting up single-well models using the well
configurations likely to be used in the full-field model
(9)
. The shape of this model is cuboid or box-like,
normally of comparable thickness and drainage area to the drainage volume of a well in the full-field model
and the models are referred to here as box models. Using SWP-ML, as described in 3.6.1, an estimate is
made of the pseudo-skin corrections required to achieve an accurate PI and bottom-hole pressure. It is then
assumed that similar corrective pseudo-skins will be required for wells in the full-field model, provided the
reservoir boundaries and gridding are similar in the box and the full-field models.
(a) Model design and gridding.
Engineers modelling horizontal and multi-lateral wells have used Local Grid Refinement (LGR) in the past,
hoping that this would improve the accuracy of their predictions. The SWP-ML program has reduced this
requirement so the use of LGR should be driven by the needs of accurate reservoir description or modelling
of fluid contact movement rather than those of well modelling. There are many other sources of inaccuracy
in estimating flowing bottom hole pressure and it may be counter-productive to focus on reducing one source
of error when other sources are making a much larger contribution.
(b) Pressure losses due to friction
There are well defined and evaluated procedures for including the effect of friction in the horizontal
producing interval
(10)
. These methods usually assume homogeneous flow and neglect the effect of slippage -
as discussed in 3.3.2. A comparison of ten methods of estimating total pressure drop along the wellbore
presented by Nghiem et al
(11)
showed that the Eclipse estimate fell centrally among a rather broad range of
estimates. Many of these estimates rigorously incorporated the effect of multi-phase flow. This leads us to
assume that Eclipse provided a realistic estimate of pressure loss due to friction i.e. single phase flow but for
cases with complex multi-phase flow in the producing wellbore it is expected to be unreliable.

(c) Vertical lift performance (VLP) curves
Wellbore hydraulic curves are used in determining flowing bottom hole pressure. They are subject to error
especially if the flow regime of a gas/liquid mixture is in the slug or churn flow regime. In a producing field
they should be calibrated using a pressure traverse from a production or injection well.
Multi-lateral wells sometimes have long sections of blank pipe leading to a junction which in some
applications is well above the reservoir. In these cases lift curves have to be developed for these sections and
combined at the junction using network modelling techniques.
Worked Examples of Modelling the Performance of Multi-Laterals
In this section the use of modelling techniques is presented and some difficulties encountered in their
application to advanced wells are discussed.
Horizontal well
Impact of Grid Selection and Adjustment using Pseudo Skins
In this section the effect of reservoir model gridding on well performance predictions is examined. This is
conducted in some detail for horizontal wells and the same methods and issues will apply to multi-lateral
wells.
The process is first illustrated using a 2000 long, 5.52 ID horizontal well, placed at mid-plane of a reservoir
with the rock and fluid properties shown in table.
RESERVOIR
Dimensions x 8000 ft
y 8000 ft
z 23.212 ft
for multilatf circular r
e
4514 ft
Permeability x 200 mD
y 200 mD
z 20 mD
Net-to-Gross ratio 1.0
GRID NX . NY . NZ 80 x 80 x 5
DX, DY 100
DZ 4.64
FLUID
Reservoir fluid viscosity 1.0 cP
Formation volume factor 1.0 rb/stb
Reservoir fluid density 0.94
Table 3.6.1: Reservoir Data for Worked Example
The performance of the well is compared using a proprietary analytical model (BP-Mutilat), a numerical
simulator (Eclipse) and the SWD modification which applied a pseudo skin correction.
For this well the analytical method predicts a PI = 17.0 stb/d/psi. An input data file is first used which takes
the permeability thickness (kh) for each connection as defined in the cell and sets the connection skin to zero.

The simulator results in a PI = 19.3 stb/d/psi. The PI is reduced to the analytical value by introducing a
pseudo-skin. It is found that a pseudo-skin of 4.5 at each connection results in the well having the PI
predicted by SWP-ML, 17.4 stb/d/psi. Note that the horizontal well PI is less sensitive to skin than a vertical
well: the term to which the skin adds in the denominator is much larger than the Log
e
(r
e
/r
w
) term used in
vertical well PI (as in 3.6.1.1 above) and a skin =4.5 was required to achieve a 10% reduction in PI. Each of
these methods can predict the flow profile along the horizontal well - the profile has a minimum at the centre
with hemi-spherical flow at the ends causing a maximum at the toe and the heel, irrespective of the method
used as shown in Figure 3.6.5 below.
Figure 3.6.5: Flow profile for Horizontal
lateral comparison of methods
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Distance along well,
feet
BP-multilat
SWP-ML
ECLIPSE

From Figure 3.6.5 it can be seem that the finite difference simulator under-predicts the flow rate at the ends
of the lateral. In principle, this can be corrected by reducing the pseudo skin at the connections near the tips
but given other uncertainties, this is not recommended for field applications.
The example chosen has a large well-to-reservoir aspect ratio (ratio of horizontal lateral length to vertical
separation of no-flow boundaries, corrected for k
v
/k
h
ratio). The value is (2000/23.212).( k
v
/k
h
) = 27 which
causes the pseudo-skin to be quite large.
Effect of Frictional Pressure Loss
Wellbore friction for a well 2000 long, ID 5.52, roughness equivalent to new tubing ( = 0.0006) with
connections in range I=7-26, J=16 & K=3 is defined as:
Assuming a 20,000 stb/d oil rate and allowing the GOR to increase to stimulate gas breakthrough the
following comparison of the results from a finite difference simulator with those from Beggs & Brill and
Duklers method was respectively obtained, Figure 3.6.6.

Figure 3.6.6: Lateral Pressure loss
behaviour due to friction
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
GOR, scf/stb
dp,
psi
dp, B&B
dp, Dukler
dp, Eclipse

Although the magnitudes of pressure loss are in broad agreement, the shape of the simulator result is quite
different from the multi-phase flow calculation and further investigation is necessary by analysing the lift
curves.
The lift curves used in the wellbore friction simulation cover a GOR range 500-4000 scf/stb and rates up to
30,000 stb/d. The plot of pressure drop versus oil rate for a range of GOR is shown in Figure 3.6.7.

Figure 3.6.7: VLP curves for
7" from 9058'
0.00E+00
5.00E+02
1.00E+03
1.50E+03
2.00E+03
2.50E+03
3.00E+03
3.50E+03
4.00E+03
0.00E+00 5.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.50E+04 2.00E+04 2.50E+04 3.00E+04
Rate, b/d
Flowing
BHP, psia
GOR 500
GOR 1000
GOR 2000
GOR 3000
GOR 4000

Dual Opposed Multi-lateral
In early 1995 the analytical method was adapted to model multi-lateral well types as shown below. The
pressure drop due to multi-lateral wells is solved using the principle of superposition and the pressure drop at
any point in the reservoir is the sum of pressure drops at that point created by each branch.
For each configuration a simple box-like reservoir simulation
model was created and the results were compared with the
analytical prediction
A symmetrical dual-opposed multi-lateral has been modelled
using the methods described in detail in 3.6.3.1.
A dual opposed multi-lateral, each branch 1000 long separated
by a 200 gap equivalent to a single lateral (3.6.3.1was modelled
using the three methods. A pseudo-skin of 1.0 gave good
agreement between simulator PI and that from the analytical
method. The inflow profiles for the three methods are compared
in the following figure - at this separation of 200 the heels of the
branches experience additional flow and the advantage over a
single 2000 horizontal well can be seen.

Figure 3.6.8: Dual Opposed Multi-lateral
Configuration

Flow profile for dual-opposed well, 3 methods
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Distance along well, feet
BP-multilat
SWP-ML
ECLIPSE

Figure 3.6.9
Modelling friction as in 3.6.3.1.2, with each 1000 branch producing 10000 b/d, a pressure loss of 2 psi is
estimated initially (GOR 930 scf/stb) but rises to 6 psi in each branch when the GOR has reached 2600
scf/stb.
NETool
The NETOOL simulator calculates the flow inside the well, through the well completions and flow through
the formation in the vicinity of the well. The user can specify all completion details and select appropriate
correlations for pressure drops in the completion components. In addition NETOOL contains an up scaling
algorithm for representation of the reservoir properties in the near well region.
Some results of a well simulation with NETool for a large Norwegian field are accessible through
http://www.wst.no/presentations/NeTool/netool.pdf (Note: no longer available at January 2004) where well
influx rates and pressure profiles are shown for various well path locations within a reservoir segment
described by permeability on an irregular grid and for various flow rates.
For example, the up-scaled permeability distributions for three different well paths in the formation as a
function of the distance from the toe of the horizontal section in Figure 3.6.10.
These permeabilities were up-scaled computed from Eclipse grid format data for use in the NETool model of
the well bore that was discretised into 60 segments of equal length.
The sandface influx along the well is shown in Figure 3.6.11 for each of the 3 well paths for a total well flow
rate of 30000 barrels/day.
The pressure at the sand face as a function of distance along the well is shown for the second well path where
total flowrates, Q, between 10000 and 50000 barrels/day have been used.

Figure 3.6.10 Permeability versus distance from the toe of well for 3 wellpaths

Figure 3.6.11 Sandface influx versus distance along well for total flow rate of 30000 Bbl/day

Figure 3.6.12 Pressure drop at the sand face along the well for 10000< Q<50000 Bbl/day
The network model that is the kernel of the NETool software has the following advantages
steady-state network-based well-hydraulics simulator for very fast (on a PC) calculation of fluid flow (multi-
phase) through well completions
well completion is represented by a distribution of nodes interconnected by flow
channels
user can choose an appropriate pressure drop correlation for each flow channel:
in the formation
through slotted liners and screens
in annular regions (gravel packed)
in pipes
across chokes
through downhole separators
through and around logging tools (PLT)
Typical NETool Applications
Evaluation of Multi Laterals
Finding Optimal Perforation Design
Finding Optimal Well Trajectory
Evaluation of Inflow Control Devices
PLT Interpretation
Evaluation of downhole separation
Figure 3.6.13 shows a schematic of the network configuration used in NETool for computing the pressure
drop across nodes linking nodes in the near wellbore, annulus, completion elements and the wellbore.

p
F
p
F
p
an
p
S
p
S
p = p
f
+ p
a
Formation
Annulus
Well
Pressure drop
correlation

Figure 3.6.13 Network formulation for pressure drop between nodes
3.7 Trademarks
Nextwell
Trademark of Smedvig Technologies
Eclipse
Trademark of Geoquest
HoSim
Trade Mark of Baker Jardine & Associates, Ltd
NETool
TM

Trademark of Well Service Technology
3.8 References
1. Economides MJ, Hill AD and Ehlig-Economides C, Petroleum Production Systems, Prentice Hall, 1994.
2. Joshi, SD Horizontal Well Technology PennWell Books, Tulsa 1991, ISBN 0-87814-350-5.
3. Joshi, SD and Raghavan, R Productivity of Multiple Drainholes or Horizontal Wells SPE 21263,
November 1990
4. Raghavan, R and Ambastha, AK An Assessment of the Productivity of Multi-Lateral Completions,
CIM 95-90.
5. Chen G, Tehrani DH and Peden JM Calculation of Well Productivity in a Reservoir Simulator (I), SPE
29121, presented at the 1995 SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation in San Antonio, Texas , 12-15
February 1995.
6. Chen G, Tehrani DH and Peden JM Calculation of Well Productivity in a Reservoir Simulator (II),
SPE 29932, presented at the 1995 International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, P.R.China,
14-17 November 1995.
7. Larsen L ,Productivity Computations for Multilateral, Branched and Other Generalized and Extended
Well Concepts, SPE 36754, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition held in
Denver USA, 6-9 October, 1996.

8. Ozkan, L., Yildiz, T. and Kuchuk, F.J.:Transient Pressure Behaviour of Dual-Lateral Wells SPE
Journal (June 1998) 181.
9. Peaceman, D.W.: Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numerical Reservoir Simulation, SPEJ
(June 78).
10. Peaceman, D.W.: Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numerical Reservoir Simulation with
Nonsquare Grid Blocks and Anisotropic Permeability, SPEJ (June 1983).
11. Peaceman, D.W.: Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numerical Reservoir Simulation Part 3:
Some Additional Well Geometries, paper SPE 16976, 1987.
12. Peaceman, D.W.: Representation of a Horizontal Well in Numerical Reservoir Simulation, paper SPE
21217, 1991.
13. Peaceman, D.W.: A New Method for Representing Multiple Wells With Arbitrary Rates in Numerical
reservoir Simulation, paper SPE 29120, 1995.
14. Kunianski, J. and Hillestad, J.G.: Reservoir Simulation Using Bottom Hole Pressure Boundary
Conditions, SPEJ (December 1990)
15. Lee, S.H. and Milliken, W.J.: The Productivity Index of an Inclined Well in Finite Difference Reservoir
Simulation, paper SPE 25247, 1993.
16. Palagi, C.L. and Aziz, K.: Use of Voronoi Grid in Reservoir Simulation, paper SPE 22889, 1991.
17. Joshi, S.D.: Augmentation of Well Productivity with Slant and Horizontal Wells, JPT (June 1988).
18. Babu, D.K. and Odeh A.S.: Productivity of a Horizontal Well, SPE Res. Eng., (November 1989)
19. Odeh, A.S.: An Equation for calculating Skin Factor Due To Restricted entry, JPT (June 1980)
20. Cinco, H., Miller, F.G. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: Unsteady-State Pressure Distribution Created by a
Directionally Drilled Well, JPT (November 1975).
21. Karakas, M. and Tariq, S.M.: Semianalytical Productivity Models for Perforated Completions, paper
SPE 18247, 1988.
22. Gallivan JD, Hewitt NR, Peden JM, Tehrani D & Tweedie AAP, Quantifying the Benefits of Multi-
Lateral Producing Wells, SPE30441, paper presented at the Offshore Europe Oil & Gas Exhibition &
Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland 5-8 September 1995
23. Alvestad, J., Christoffersen, K.R. and Holing, K.: Interactive Well Modeling: Examples of Model Based
trajectory and Completion Design; Single and Multi-lateral Wells, paper SPE 35502.
24. Aanonsen, S.A., Barkve, T., Johansen, T.: Simulating Advanced Wells with Eclipse Multi-Segment
Well Model" paper at GeoQuest Seminar, Cannes, France, 1998.
25. HoSim User Guide, Oslo, August 1995.
26. Ouyang, L-B. and Aziz, K.: Reservoir/Wellbore Coupling for Wells with Arbitrary Configuration, 15
th

Stanford Reservoir Simulation Workshop, May 1998.
27. Brekke, K., Johansen, T and Olufsen R., A New Modular Approach to Comprehensive Simulation of
Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 26518.
28. Brekke, K.: Horizontal Well Productivity and Risk Assessment, PhD Dissertation, The University of
Tulsa, 1996.
29. Boukanov I, Network Simulator Testing and Development, Well Service Technology Client (Norsk
Hydro) Report, Bergen 1998.
30. Novy RA,Pressure drop in horizontal wells: when can they be ignored?, SPE 24941, SPE Reservoir
Engineering, p29, Feb 1995.
Page 73 of 277

31. Nghiem L, Collins DA & Sharma R, Seventh SPE Comparative Solution Project: Modelling of
Horizontal Wells in Reservoir Simulation, SPE 21221, paper presented at the 11th SPE Symposium on
Reservoir Simulation, Anaheim California, Feb 17-20, 1991

Chapter 4. Designing a Multilateral Page 74 of 277

Chapter 4. Designing a Multilateral
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 Cost Benefit Onshore/Offshore
In this chapter considerations for the design of new wells or adding a branch to an existing well in an onshore or
offshore environment. ML/MB well configurations can be applied in both onshore and offshore field
developments. However, justification for either option will vary, according to the following criteria:
Onshore
Logistics less constrained
Cost may not justify complex engineering
Balance incremental cost with benefit /complexity
Lower production rates /lower operating cost
Environmental benefit may be restricted
Offshore
Logistically more demanding
Induced production downtime may not justify ML/MB application
Benefit of slot reduction
May need to add ML/MB wells to give strategic cover to production plateau
Operating cost /intervention for sub-sea may justify greater complexity /isolation re-entry, etc
Risk and uncertainty structure is more complex due to all of the above
Cost/Benefit Analysis to Design Basis for a ML/MB Well
Financial drivers in a cost/benefit analysis for developing the design basis a ML/MB well are
additional cost of the ML operations and equipment compared to a standard well
however, reduced cost of second lateral versus operational and equipment costs of a separate new
well
added value in terms of additional production
added value in terms of accelerated production
additional risk due to additional operations, such as window milling
ML/MB technology has been used in a variety of scenarios such as infill field development where
available slots are limited, field life extension by accessing the newly defined reserves and deep-water
developments. Generally ML/MBs can be divided into two categories:
4.1.2 Re-entry versus New Well
Typical Considerations:

Re-entry
An existing well is re-entered and multiple
branches drilled off the existing wellbore
Fast-track access to by-passed oil
Relatively cheap way of selective targeting of
reservoir
Shorter well life but multiple re-targeting
Benefits of slot reduction
New Well
Less restricted by an existing parent wellbore
configuration (i.e. KOP, BUR, dimensions,
casing integrity, size, etc)
More costly operation but it also offers a higher
degree of flexibility towards fit for purpose
technology for the entire system (i.e. junction
location, type, etc)
No design limitations about protection of existing
parent wellbore productivity, accessibility
and isolation equipment
4.1.3 Creating Laterals
The method used to initiate the lateral leg from the parent wellbore will depend on whether the parent
well is cased or open hole, whether the well is a pre-planned ML/MB (new development) or re-entry,
and what the final design of the ML/MB completion will be. In certain cases if the ML/MB aspect of
the well has been planned from the start, special casing joints, pre-spaced and pre-oriented with
respect to the target formations, may already be installed in the well to allow easier lateral installation
capabilities using a whipstock.
If the well is a pre-planned ML/MB, other considerations should include:
1. The careful spacing of casing with respect to the target formations to ensure that casing collars or
centralizers do not impede with window cutting. However, the selection of the approximate
junction depth with respect to the target to allow for reasonable angle build rate range will
mitigate this requirement.
2. The careful consideration of the dogleg where the whipstock is to be set (since it can be difficult
to retrieve the whipstock if the dogleg is too high).
In the case of re-entries, it will not be possible to pre-plan these factors, and the ML/MB team should gather as
much as information as possible about the section from which they will be sidetracking. This information should
include:
1. Access to junction depth
2. Casing condition
3. Cement integrity
4. Formation properties
If the wellbore section is cased, then an exit to create the lateral junction can be by
Junction Exit Basic Exit Creation Method
Section Milling mill a section, set a cement plug and use a motor to orient and drill off the plug in the
desired direction
Window Milling set an orientated retrievable whipstock, cut a window and initiate the kick-off
Pull Casing pull casing string and kick off in an open hole with a whipstock or cement plug
4.1.4 General Considerations (with respect to drilling and completing ML/MB wells)
A very detailed list of specific considerations is given in 7.6 Checklist for Planning and Execution of
Multilateral Wells

4.2 Junction
Multilateral completion options are expanding rapidly because of improving junction creation
technology. Several different methods of ML/MB junction construction have been developed by the
industry and are described in detail in Chapter 5. While each method has various advantages and
limitations, the final goal is to produce the lateral wellbores with desired flow rate, plus wellbore
control and re-entry capabilities equal to conventional monobore wells.
The need to have the same level of workover and control flexibility in lateral wells as conventional
monobores has fuelled development of new completion equipment. Current ML completion
equipment allows varied level of well control and re-entry capabilities depending on the type of
junction created.
4.2.1 TAML Classification Scheme
The following classification scheme has been decided for ML/MB and developed by companies with
ML experience. Standardized nomenclature and classification of MLs are shown below:
Trunk (or
mainbore)
Junction
Lateral

The various approaches in ML/MB development with respect to completion phase planning and
Junction Creation/Completion Options favored by the industry can be summarized as follows
4.2.2 Level 1-Open Hole Trunk and Laterals.
Hundreds of wells completed
Enhances reservoir drainage
Consolidated formations
Exploits short to intermediate radius technology
Low completion cost
Lateral access limited
Production control limited
Minimum project



4.2.3 Level 2- Cemented Trunk and Open Lateral
Full opening main bore access
Reservoir exploitation applications
Junction not mechanically supported
Low completion cost
Formation support required
Lateral re-entry potential

4.2.4 Level 3- Cased Hole Trunk, Mechanically Supported.
Junction mechanically supported
Low completion cost
Lateral liner anchored to mother-bore with a liner
hanger but not cemented.
Non cemented junction
Mainbore and lateral re-entry access


4.2.5 Level 4- Mother-Bore & Lateral Cased & Cemented
Both bores cemented at the Junction
Mechanically supported junction-tubulars and
cement
No hydraulic integrity at the Junction
Low completion cost
Full bore access to main bore AND lateral
Consolidated or unconsolidated formations

4.2.6 Level 5- Pressure Integrity at the Junction
Hydraulic isolation at the Junction
Mainbore and lateral re-entry access
Consolidated or unconsolidated formations
Pressure Integrity achieved with the Completion
Cement is NOT acceptable


4.2.7 Level 6- Pressure Integrity at the Junction
Unconsolidated and consolidated formations Pressure
Integrity achieved with the Casing Hydraulic integrity at
the Junction Cement is NOT acceptable Full bore access
to main bore AND lateral

4.2.8 Level 6s - Downhole Splitter: Surface or Downhole
Large main wellbore with two (2) or more smaller lateral
bores Hydraulic integrity at the Junction Full bore access
to main bore AND lateral Unconsolidated and
Consolidated formations See Amoco Valhall well A20 in
the database

The various approaches in ML/MB developments regarding well planning and drilling considerations
favored by the industry can be summarized as follows.
4.2.9 Kick Off Methods
All Methods involve orientation of BHA
Open Hole
Jetting(Soft Formation)
Low/High Side
Cement Plug (Open Hole)
Oriented Time Drilling
Casing Exit
Section Milling
Whipstock(Permanent or Retrievable)
4.2.10 Casing Exit Options
Section Milling
Window Milling
Conventional Window Cutting
Cemented Whipstock
One Trip Window Cutting
Coil Tubing Window Cutting
Multilateral Applications
Pre-cut/Composite Wrapped Window Casing
Joints
Prefabricated Sealed Junctions
4.2.11 Section Milling Vs Window Milling
Section Milling-Remove casing/liner
Extended reach applications
Change in casing program due to casing problems
Remove bad cement liner/casing
No casing pressure integrity (corrosion)
Window Milling-Exit Casing/liner
Maximize reservoir potential, extend life of
existing fields
Problem zones not exposed, reduce project cost
Smaller environmental footprints

Multilateral w/liner hanger system Add & complete another zone (Multilateral)

4.2.12 Section Milling Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages
Lower headroom
No magnetic interference
Multiple open hole laterals
Low side kick off can be
accomplished
Not recommended with windows
Lower cost than window
Depending upon cement quality and
logistics
Disadvantage
Not a positive KOP
More metal debris
Risk of poor cement plug
Difficult to obtain quality cement job under
certain conditions
Risk of running into lower stub
40
(12m)
Gyro High Side Magnetic
20
(6m)
20
(6m)
5
(1.5m)
+5 degrees
hole angle
at KOP
5
(1
.5
m
)
20
(6m)

Kick Off Survey Requirements (Minimum)

4.2.13 Window Milling Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages
Positive kick off
Lower risk
Less metal debris than full
section
Potential for multilateral
Retrievable whipstock
Disadvantages
Magnetic Interference
Higher initial cost
Risk of non-retrieval if critical to re-enter wellbore
below
Higher headroom requirements

D
R
I
L
L
E
D

R
A
D
I
U
S
E
F
F
E
C
T
I
V
E

R
A
D
I
U
S
Open Hole
Off Bottom
Sectioned Casing
Off CMT Plug
Whipstock Exit
From Rat Hole
Can be compressed
with INC or gyro
SVY SENSOR
@ min 5
SVY SENSOR
SVY SENSOR
KOP POINT
KOP POINT
KOP POINT
TARGET CENTER
40
56
66
43
16
97
36
25
21
5

Head Room Vs Kick Off Method (Short Radius)

4.2.14 Casing Exit Selection Guide.
Pre- Job
Sheets?
Post-Job
Sheets?
Flexible
Contingency
Planning?
Multi-
string
Casing?
LowSide
Kick-Off?
Shallow
Sidetrack?
Hard
Unstable
Formation?
Access
Lower
Well?
Multi-
Lateral?
Cement
Limitations?
Casing
Limitations?
Pump
Limitations?
Blind
Kick-Off?
High
Rig Cost?
Fluid
Limitations?
CBL
Results
at KOP?
CCL
Results
at KOP?
S
t
a
r
t
Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Section Milling Window Milling
No No
No
No No
No Yes No
No No No No
No No No
No

Casing Exit Selection Guide
Scenario Recommendation
Flexible Contingency Planning
Allows for 360 degree orientation to kick off;
Orientation can be corrected in case of:
Different motor selection
Unknown target (flexibility in motor selection)
Unknown formation at KOP
Change of KOP direction possible without changing depth
Section Milling
Low side Kick-Off
Less DLS?
Key seating less likely?
Change of KOP direction possible without changing depth
Less problems re-entering KOP
Keep in mind that Low side Kick-Off is often not recommended for Multilateral wells
Section Milling
Shallow sidetrack
Less DLS
Vertical deepening project
Less KOP re-entry problems
Section Milling
Casing limitations
Corroded casing
Perforations
New casing program
Section Milling/Pilot
Milling
CCL or CBL Results at KOP
Cementing is already planned
No correction of KOP due to casing collar
No CCL available
Section Milling

Multiple Casing Strings
Less tools for milling
More cuttings
Hole cleaning problems
Bad pump units
Pump limitations
Economics (time; rig construction work etc.)
Window Milling
Cement Considerations :
No cement plug needed for Kick-Off
Better success rate when CBL shows bad cement
Oil-base mud systems
Reservoir concerns (KOP in payzone)
Improved well control & safety
Economics
Temperature
Window Milling
Soft formation:
Less borehole stability problems
More cuttings
Improved guidance with whipstock
Window Milling
High Rig Cost
One-Trip window cutting system
Less Time
Less hole cleaning problems
Window Milling
Fluid Considerations
Low cost fluid system
Less hole cleaning requirements
Temperature
Window Milling
4.2.15 Types of Junctions and Isolation Design
Junction construction and isolation design fall into two basic categories: isolated and non-isolated
junctions. Isolated junctions have both mechanical stability and hydraulic integrity while non-isolated
junctions have only mechanical stability.
Factors that must be taken into account in determining junction and completion design are:
Formation characteristics of lateral production zone,
Formation characteristics of the zone in which the casing exit is located,
Expected pressure differential at the junction,
Pressure differences between upper lateral zone and lower main bore production zone, and
Access requirements into mainbore and lateral during lifecycle of well.
These factors, individually or collectively, along with the overall well objective and operating
parameters, can determine what type of junction is required. Each lateral well junction must be
evaluated using these parameters to determine production of the well.
The different ML junction creation methods have various levels of complexity, with the cemented
junction (TAML Level 4) providing the most versatile platform for completion designs with currently
available technologies.

4.2.16 Cemented Junction Level 4
The cemented junction is typically more stable mechanically than non-cemented multilateral
junctions.
An example of this type of junction is the cemented junction, which can be constructed in both new
and re-entry wells, and forms the basis for a number of multilateral completions, including
hydraulically sealed completions. The cemented junction is formed by milling a window in the main
wellbore casing, drilling the lateral, cementing a liner in the lateral, and washing over the liner overlap
to leave full bore access at the junction. A ML case history from Offshore California, USA is shown
below.
The casing exit out of the main wellbore is formed utilizing a ML whipstock assembly anchored in a
ML packer with orienting profile. After the mainbore exit window is completed, the lateral well bore
is drilled and completion liner placed. The lateral liner is cemented with the top positioned
approximately 20 ft. above the exit window in the mainbore casing. The ML whipstock assembly
remains in place throughout this operation. The liner top is then pilot milled-or washed over, cut and
pulled- to approximately 5 ft. above the window. The remaining liner lap and ML whipstock are
removed by washing over. The ML washover shoe engages the control sub located below the ML
whipstock and the entire ML whipstock assembly is retrieved together with the cut liner stub trapped
inside the washover shoe.
The result is a cemented junction with the full
lateral liner and mainbore ID. The cement around
the junction and liner provides mechanical
stability and the ML packer provides the datum
point for the installation of multilateral
completion systems that allow various
completion scenarios and re-entry abilities. This
technique can be used in consecutive applications
in the same wellbore if desired.
A well recently completed by Petronas Caragali
in Malaysia employed the cemented system for
two lateral branches from the main bore. The
lower lateral was completed as a cemented root;
commingling production from the lower main
bore well.

Cemented Junction

A sliding sleeve was positioned across the
window in the production tubing to allow shut
off of the lateral if desired. The top cemented the
third lateral of well was completed utilizing
equipment which allowed for a sealed pressure
integrity junction. This additional equipment
allowed the upper lateral to be produced without
commingling with the lower two laterals via a
dual completion tubing string to surface.
A cemented junction requires special ML
equipment, which evolved from the special
requirements and demands in generating a ML
junction.
The ML Whipstock was specifically designed for
multilateral operations in order to reduce trips,
increase ease of whipstock retrievably and
improved debris management. This unique
design allows the window milling whipstock to
be cemented in place and retrieved during the
same trip as the liner stub washover operation.

Cemented Root System
The ML whipstock assembly consists of the ML whipstock, excluder sub, control sub, unloader valve,
space out joint, shear type disconnect, second excluder sub, and ML drilling anchor, refer figure
below showing an open hole junction (15 left of high side), Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Developed to
enhance recoverability of whipstocks, this assembly is run in hole with the starter mill shear pinned to
the whipstock. The drilling anchor lands in the ML packer bore and the orienting profile of the
drilling anchor mates with the profile in the ML packer bore to orient the whipstock in the correct
direction. The anchor is then latched into the packer. The starter mill is sheared and the exit window
created. The lateral is drilled and the liner is run and cemented in place.

Open hole junction (whipstock)
The junction is then formed by washing over the liner stub and the whipstock with the ML rotary
shoe. The rotary shoe engages the control sub below the whipstock and the entire ML whipstock
assembly and liner stub are retrieved together. A cemented junction with mechanical stability has
been created and a multilateral completion can now be installed.
4.3 Lateral Placement
The requirements for accurate well placement are derived from the need to optimize well production
and cumulative oil from horizontal oil producers. Accurate well placement is particularly important in
wells with thin oil columns and large gas caps and /or aquifers and in wells with thin beds and
complexly folded and faulted reservoirs.
Multilateral wells are often used to drill smaller oil accumulations that would not be commercial if
drilled with a conventional horizontal well. Accurate well placement is, therefore, important to
optimize the net present value for laterals drilled into small reservoirs.
Special geosteering tools have been and are being developed to meet the challenge of accurate well
placement. Steerable mud motors have been instrumented to provide real-time information about rock
and fluid properties, and the directional behavior of the drilling assembly. By moving the sensors
forward to the bit itself it is possible to respond faster to geological changes. In addition to Steerable
Motors, Rotary Steerable Systems may also assist in the ability of the BHA to optimize well paths.
However, there are some limitations in the rotating BHA components across the casing whipstocks
used in the window, and build/turn rates developed by rotary steerable systems may be insufficient to
properly initiate drilling of the branches of the well.
Baker Hughes Inteq has developed a Rotary Closed Loop System (RCLS). The system was field
tested successfully for Agip in Italy in the beginning of December 1996. The RCLS is designed to
steer in any desired direction during continuos rotation of the drillstring. Programming and changes of
the drilling direction as well as the desired dogleg severity will be adjusted from surface via negative
mud pulse techniques. Directional control is established through adjusting the force from the three
stabilizer blades on the wellbore.

The stabilizer has a rotation of approximately 1 rev/min, providing steering abilities during continuos
rotation of the drill string. The downlink is executed while drilling which ensures maximum drilling
performance.
High dogleg severitys, which result from hole corrections to find or re-enter the reservoir pay in a
conventional steering assembly may severely limit the horizontal reach and the final wellbore length
exposed to the reservoir. Therefore, the bottomhole assemblies should be articulated or smaller in OD
and shorter.
Smoother wellpaths resulting from geosteering will also be of great benefit with respect to future well
intervention, since present well intervention techniques have limitations in highly deviated wells, due
to friction force build up.
Tortuous wellpaths increase the penetration limitation. Openhole sidetracks always remain an option
in the accurate placement of the wellbore.
Geosteering and BHA drilling practices can provide significant operational problems with regards to
the implementation of multilateral wells. Some of these potential problems are:
4.3.1 Drilling Flat Wellbore Trajectories
Flat wellbore trajectories (very straight, non- tortuous horizontal sections) can be achieved with a bit
or near bit inclination measurements in an FEWD system.
Pros
A flat trajectory allows a longer horizontal
section to be drilled
A flat trajectory reduces pipe drag
A flat trajectory reduces damage risk to main
bore casing strings that contain multilateral
equipment (windows, latches etc)
More horizontal section relates to more lateral
possibilities
Cons
Without a flat trajectory, horizontal sections are
reduced
Without a flat trajectory, significant rig time can
be induced
Without a flat trajectory, damage can occur to
casing strings and Multilateral running tools.
4.3.2 Accurate Wellbore Placement
Highly accurate survey information for extended reach, northern latitude multilateral wells may not be
possible through conventional magnetic MWD sensors. Future technologies such as MWD Gyro and
In Field Referencing should be explored to ensure highly accurate Multilateral placement.
Pros
Precisely knowing the bottom hole location of the
main bore and every lateral can help in
increasing production
Precisely knowing the bottomhole location of the
main bore and every lateral assists in future
geological target selection.
Accurate survey information can be critical in
prevention of water coning or breakthrough
on laterals.
Accurate survey information can be critical in
collision avoidance
Cons
Too large of conventional ellipses can cause
collision situations
Inaccurate TVD data can lead to premature
watering of the bore and /or laterals
Main bores with many laterals can significantly
increase magnetic survey interference
4.3.3 Directional Profile Planning
During the planning of each well, a directional drilling profile is developed which allows exiting the
window at the optimal inclination and azimuth for subsequent drilling and completion. In general, the

directional profile allows for placement of the window joint in a near horizontal plane, with a lateral
window exit tolerance of 30 left or right of high side. By positioning the well along the desired
trajectory, actual window joint installation tolerances can be accommodated and still allow for drilling
to the specified geological objective.
In addition, by setting the window exit at or near horizontal, the dogleg severity (DLS) required to
effectively build off the drilling whipstock into new formation can be limited to under 7/100-ft. In
practice DLSs in the 3-4 /100-ft range are routinely achieved, allowing for trouble free running of
drilling assemblies, production liners, stimulation tools, production logs, and pressure surveying
instruments through the window exit.
Another critical element of the directional planning for each well is the physical positioning of the
mainbore casing landing point and the multilateral window joint.
Because the wells are geo-steered to casing setting depth, a sufficient long hole distance must be
provided to enable accurate positioning of the casing shoe while at the same time permitting the
placement of the window joint at the optimal location for drilling along the upper section of the
formation. The drawing below illustrates the openhole log response that was recorded while drilling
along each lateral. The centerline of each lateral is the final directional well path calculated from the
MWD surveys ref. figure shown below. Generally the window exit is positioned 10-15 ft. (3-4.6m)
above the depth at which the lateral will be geo-steered along the top of the reservoir. This allows the
window opening to be positioned on the high side of the hole, creating a slight uphill exit from the
window opening. This ensures that the tool assemblies that must be run into the primary wellbore do
not inadvertently exit the primary wellbore into a lateral. In addition, because directional assemblies
are coming directly off a drilling whipstock, there is a natural tendency for the tool string to build up
to the required horizontal depth for steering without the need to continuously orient the motor tool
face to high side. The result is smoother well profile through the window exit.
4.3.4 Number of Completion Zones.
Another consideration that must be addressed during the planning phase is the total number of
completion zones that will be established in the well. Presently, only two intervals are being
completed in the Shuaiba development. Because the wells drilled to date have entered the target
reservoir at angles in excess of 75 degrees, the along-hole distance required for installation of
completion assemblies has been quit generous-typically 150-250 ft. (46-76 m). However, if a quad-
lateral were to be planned (as may be done in future), then placement of the window exits to allow for
multiple entry points in the reservoir becomes more critical. In this case orienting the window exit
directions in a predefined orientation from the high side would be preferred. This will allow for
directional survey instrument confirmation of the exit point in addition to the longitudinal positioning
achieved by the latch coupling.

Geosteering the Shuaiba well
4.4 Junction Integrity
For many ML/MB well applications, achieving a mechanically stable junction between the main well
bore and branch is critical, not only to meeting pressure integrity requirements during the initial
completion, but also to maintaining control of the individual lateral sections during future
interventions.
The increasing uses of multi laterals in the North Sea and elsewhere has created a need to develop
completion equipment that can allow for the following:
Mechanical connectivity between the main wellbore casing and lateral well liners. All commercial
(ML) systems on the market endeavor to provide this mechanical connectivity from parent
wellbore to lateral liner, through either a lateral tie-back hanger, or a cemented lateral transition
joint.
Hydraulic seal between the lateral and the main casing.
Easy re-entry back into the lateral or mainbore to carry out remedial or stimulation operations.
Increase the mechanical strength of the junction.
Effect a true mechanical and hydraulic seal across the junction.
Ultimately allow for the deployment of an intelligent completion system that allows for remote
control of production/injection in either the main bore or the lateral/laterals.
Selective re-entry access to laterals preferably without rig intervention
Selective lateral isolation, preferably without rig intervention
ML completion systems from the major providers vary greatly in their system specifications, features,
and application and commercial equipment field experience. Thus, direct comparisons of proprietary
ML systems are difficult, and do not fit neatly into similar categories.

The major service companies efforts to create single systems to meet all the operators criteria are in
varying stages of readiness.
Current technology is available to provide a cemented junction at the entrance to the lateral. However,
there is concern about the ability to get a good cement job especially if the kick off point is at a high
angle or horizontal. The long-term stability of a cemented junction and its ability to hold pressure are
also in doubt. Re-entry can also be a problem especially if the casing in the cemented lateral tries to
come back into the main well bore due to shifting of the formation or residual stresses in the liner
which may have been included while creating the junction.
Since 1996, three different completion systems designed to allow for a true hydraulic seal and/or
control at the junction in a ML well have been field tested in the North Sea/World.
These systems are mentioned below:
4.4.1 Lateral Entry Nipple System (LEN)
This is one of the simplest types of completion. In
it a Lateral Entry Nipple is located at the junction.
The main disadvantage of this system is that it
does not give hydraulic integrity at the junction so
sand/solids production at a later stage in the life
of the well may become a problem. This could be
designed around by locating sand screens above
the LEN and having separation sleeve installed in
the LEN. Production is then diverted through the
screens and the separation sleeve is only pulled
when well intervention is required.


LEN completion system
4.4.2 Selective Re-Entry Tool (SRT)
This equipment allows for the
commingled production or
injection in a multi lateral well.
Prior to washing over the 7 liner
to create a cemented junction a
packer with an extended upper
seal bore is run into the lateral
and set. A viscous fluid pill is
placed above the packer to
protect it from debris and the
liner washed over to create a
cemented junction. Following
clean up operations the well is
now ready to accept the
Selective Re-entry Tool. It has
several advantages over the
Lateral Nipple System
mentioned above.


4.4.3 Lateral Seal and Control System
This equipment allows for the commingled production or
injection in a multilateral well. Prior to washing over the 7
liner to create a cemented junction a packer with an extended
upper seal bore is run into the lateral and set. A viscous fluid
pill is placed above the packer to protect it from debris and the
liner washed over creating a cemented junction. Following
clean-up operations the well is now ready to accept the
Selective Re-entry Tool. It has several advantages over the
previous SRT system mentioned above

Lateral Seal and Control System
4.4.4 Mechanical tieback to the main casing string.
Mechanical tieback defined as means of mechanically connecting the lateral liner to the main casing.
The first such mechanical system was Sperry-Suns LTBS, designed to permit multiple laterals to be
drilled, lined and tied-back to the parent casing bore, without use of cement.
The hanger of this system lands outside the parent casing string, and a movable gate is trapped and
locked in place, leaving the parent wellbore full open and completely unobstructed. The whipstock
can be moved from the first drilled window to the next one, in any order desired. This system was not
originally designed to provide a hydraulic seal. However, the window-hanger tolerances are
controlled in order to prevent wellbore solids from entering into the parent wellbore through the
closed window juncture region.
A mechanical tieback system currently available restricts the liner size and ID of the hanger. Several
mechanical hanger systems that have been installed to this date included a staged cementing
procedure in the lateral to assure a measure of hydraulic sealing integrity for the lateral juncture. Each
of these cemented applications have required re-entry into the lateral in order to drill out the wiper
dart and stage cementing equipment, and all such applications have been successfully completed. As
of today however, such mechanical hanger systems of the original design will require ECPs to

provide a hydraulic seal at the junction. However, there is several potential difficulties in getting the
ECPs placed and inflated in the needed area.
Cementing the juncture is an option, but not a requirement of the mechanical tieback system.
Mechanical tie back of the hanger is accomplished within a specially designed, pre-milled casing
window, which receives and attaches the lateral tieback hanger onto the OD of the casing. Once
landed in place, the hanger is locked in the landed position; and no further cementing or mechanical
operations are required.
Pros
Provides mechanical tie-back of the lateral liner
to the parent wellbore casing string
Eliminates the need for cementing operations
when junction seal is not required.
Eliminates certain higher risk milling operations
Provides an unrestricted and full ID within the
main-bore for certain type mechanical hanger
systems.
Cons
Does not provide hydraulic isolation without the
additional procedures of staged lateral
cementing options.
Reduced exit bit size and reduced liner diameter
because of tool design, function, and
geometry
Sand control applications may require lateral
cementing operations for complete sand
exclusion, depending upon specific sand
exclusion design required.
Applications
Hanging screens, slotted liner, perforated pipe, etc. in the lateral, without need for cement
Reducing exposure time in time-sensitive or fluid-sensitive reservoirs
Completions in lower permeability or fractured reservoirs
Thermal and heavy oil reservoir applications.
4.4.5 Hydraulic seal of lateral from the main casing string
Hydraulic seal, defined as a system that will provide a hydraulic seal with sufficient differential
pressure retaining capability to achieve a high pressure junction, can for the time only be achieved by
sophisticated completion methods. No ML systems available today provide an integral casing to
formation seal within the lateral juncture other than the use of various types of cement. A ML
completion system that is provided by Baker is available which utilizes a dual string completion
system to provide hydraulic integrity across the junction, firstly provided by cement and secondly
provided by packers placed in the main and lateral wellbores which are stung into by the completion
system block. This system is still in the prototype stage with the first such completion done in the UK
in 1997.
A cemented junction can be used for zone isolation of different laterals in production wells. The long-
term hydraulic integrity of the cemented junction is not reliably documented as only 12 (approx.) such
lateral completions have been done to-date with varying degrees of success. The cemented junction
may prove an adequate seal for many types of reservoirs that require medium pressure differential
ratings across the lateral junction.
Today, sand control requires a degree of hydraulic isolation between the mainbore and productive
zone, to control flow and prevent the migration of formation sand and gravel pack into the wellbore.
Cemented lateral junctions may be suffic ient to provide the hydraulic isolation in certain reservoirs
and production conditions. In some cases however, it may not be practical or sufficient to rely upon
conventional cement technology at the junction to retain formation sand. It may be necessary for
proper sand control in some multilateral completions to provide a true hydraulic seal at the lateral
junction, or use of dual string completion systems. In some North Sea applications with simultaneous
injection and production, a high-pressure sealed junction will be a requirement.
Hydraulic seals have been accomplished with stacked completions using a metal-to-metal seal and
packer inside the parent bore casing. But these completions are essentially just a twist on selective
multiple zone completions with isolated lateral well bores in place of traditional perforations. This

method can provide effective sealing for isolating the parent wellbore from the lateral or a
sophisticated Baker completion system can be applied as mentioned above.
Pros for: (hydraulic seal at the junction)
Provide seal between laterals and mainbore
Satisfy barrier philosophies
Separates zones/laterals with pressure
differentials
Intervention strategies are enhanced as a form of
zone isolation can be applied to each
respective lateral
Cons
Time consuming completion installation
Space out of the dual system is critical
Reduced wellbore after completion means relying
on slim intervention methods
Debris from pre-completion installation
procedures can be detrimental to the
installation itself
Reliability figures have not been established for this method, but can be based upon field experience
with existing completion seal technologies. (Some systems incorporate permanently installed
moveable parts to regain lateral access)
4.4.6 Local Formation Damage
It is believed that there will be less formation damage occurring in a series of short horizontal laterals,
than is expected in one long horizontal lateral. Two factors influence this.
1. The first is the increasing circulation pressure along the horizontal section as it is drilled. It causes
a higher and higher overbalance condition that can allow deeper filtrate invasion.
2. The second is a time factor. There is more drilling time in a long horizontal section than there is in
each of the two more short laterals. This contributes to more mechanical grinding of cuttings and
to larger cumulative volume of filtrate invasion.
Incremental formation damage may occur in open laterals while drilling subsequent laterals.
4.4.7 Formation Characteristics at the Lateral Bore Kick-Off Junctions
As with conventional wells, the wellbore stability must be considered when choosing whether or not
to case the hole. In addition, with a multilateral system, the geology at the junction of the lateral bores
must also be closely scrutinized. The most flexible multilateral completions are those designed with
the junction kick-off point located in a strong, competent, consolidated formation.
However, if geology or other downhole conditions preclude this ideal scenario, mechanical support
and, perhaps, hydraulic isolation must be included as part of the completion design.
4.4.8 Differential Pressure at the Junction
Even if the lateral junction is initially competent, the completion design must take into consideration
how the formation will respond as the well is produced and pressure drawdown occurs. It is not
enough to just provide support during the initial few months of the well production; multilaterals must
be designed for the life of the well. If the junction formation cannot retain its integrity as pressure
drawdown occurs, hydraulic isolation of the junction may need to be considered.
4.4.9 Junction Tie -Back/Seal
If the reservoir consists of sand-shale sequences, fluid communication in the vertical direction is
extremely poor. Therefore, it is more beneficial to drill highly deviated wells (60 to 70 degrees) than
horizontal wells. The deviated well/laterals would encounter increasing reservoir pressure with
increasing depth. Consequently, the seal integrity of the Y junction (the point where the lateral
connects to the main well) is a crucial consideration.

4.4.10 Junction Integrity and Risks
At the time of planning and implementation, careful evaluation of all available systems in the market
lead us to believe that none of them are capable of guaranteeing a perfect hydraulic seal at the
junction. An imperfect seal at the junction raises the risk of internal blowout and /or loss of control of
well production. The design does not assume a perfectly sealed junction and the following measures
need to be taken to ensure a satisfactory result:
isolate gas sands by using cemented casing
cement the junction using a special recipe of surfactant-latex cement
set the junction as deep as possible for maximum formation integrity strength
use optimum mudweight to minimize hole instability and fluid losses, hence retaining the
formation integrity as much as possible
locate junction in shale layer at least 30 to 40 ft thick
ensure junction is located away from major faults [To this end, borehole images were obtained to
assist in the fine-tuning of junction location depth.
shorten the lateral by some 200 to 300 ft, if necessary [This to ensure that the maximum influx
pressure would not jeopardize the formation/faults integrity at junction.]
4.4.11 Potential Sand Production from the Junction
With the junction placed in the unconsolidated sand reservoir, the potential exists for oil production
and subsequent sand production through the junction geometry. It would be necessary, therefore, to
employ a formation treatment that would prevent sand production by either strengthening or
preventing flow through the matrix-or by a combination of both options. Affecting a good cement
sheath in and right below the junction may be critical to achieve total success.
4.5 Completion and production control
Multilateral systems are wells with more than one lateral leg branching into the formation(s).
This general definition gives rise to several configurations as shown listed and pictured below:
a) Multi-branched wells
b) Fork wells
c) Several laterals branching into one horizontal main hole
d) Several laterals branching into one vertical main hole
e) Dual opposing laterals
f) Stacked laterals

a) Multi-Branch
d) Laterals from
Vertical Bore
b) Fork
e) Dual Opposing
Laterals
c) Laterals from
Horizontal Bore
f) Stacked Laterals

ML/MB well configurations
Selection of the most beneficial well system for a given reservoir is the challenge. The available
systems can be and have been classified according to drilling (curvature, work-over vs. coiled tubing
rig, conventional vs. slimhole), completion (cased and perforated or slotted liner vs. open hole),
production, and reservoir engineering aspects.
For reservoir engineering, the degree of communication of the drainage areas of the individual
branches is probably the most substantial issue. Three major categories can be envisioned, and
combinations of these are all possible:
Draining of a single layer in which areal permeability anisotropy is critical (Option 1),
Draining of several (stacked) layers, which may or may not communicate (Option 2),
Draining of several compartments, which may or may not communicate (Option 3).
Option 2 favors a vertical main hole, whereas option 1 and 3 favor a horizontal main hole, with the
exception of multi-branch wells (including the limiting case of dual opposing laterals)
For production engineering, important issues are whether the well is produced with artificial lift and
the degree to which the imposed pressure drawdown is affected by the friction pressure drop inside
the horizontal well.
For example, opposing laterals of smaller length may be preferred over a single horizontal well in the
same direction if the drawdown is of the same relative magnitude as the pressure drop in the well.
(A 1,500-ft horizontal well of reasonable diameter would result in a few tens of psi pressure drop
caused almost entirely by friction). If conversely, the drawdown is considerable (several hundred psi)
these opposing laterals may be unnecessary, and a single, longer, horizontal leg may be adequate.
A more important aspect, however, is the degree of selective wellbore management supported by the
type of well completion. Thus, the following three configurations can be envisioned:
Commingled production
Commingled production but individual branches can be shut off by gates and can be re-entered easily.
Underground gathering systems, replete with appropriately sized chokes, can be installed.
Individual production tubings tied back to the surface.
These production options correspond to the previously mentioned reservoir engineering issues
because the need for selective wellbore management increases with increasing communication of the

drained portions of the reservoir. For example, a well system draining different layers will require the
management of individual layer or branches selectively, if pore pressures and layer and/or fluid
properties in the individual layers differ widely. Numerous completion options, several of them
already applied in the field support individual applications. In selecting the completion, of appropriate
wellbore management should be assessed first according to the reservoir type and planned production
scenario. The remaining options should then be ranked in order of economics and operation and
economic risks.
4.5.1 Desirable goals for the design of ML Completion Systems
The following lists some desirable goals for the design of new multilateral systems:
Re-entry access to selected lateral must be possible without drilling rig intervention (e.g. coiled tubing
unit or workover unit).
The number of trips for installation and services of lateral completions should be minimized.
The overall system should be capable of allowing the installation of multiple (2 to 5) laterals from a
common wellbore.
The system should allow laterals to be initiated from a wellbore at any inclination.
It should be possible to place the exit window joints in vertical, inclined, or horizontal orientation and
it should be possible to orient the window exit azimuth after it has been fixed in place.
The system must be usable for both new completions and in existing well re-entries.
Must be compatible with cementing operations for liners and/or slotted liners for sand control.
The system should incorporate one or more methods to enable it to be washed or circulated to bottom.
The system should accommodate rotate while being run in and while on bottom before it is fixed or
cemented in place.
System components, which would exit the lateral window junction, should accommodate high build
rates (45-60deg/100ft).
The overall system should have tools and procedures identified or available for all routine well
interventions (perforations, logging, cement, squeezing, isolation, stimulation, production
logging, etc)
Use conventional/proven technology where available and to be cost competitive.
A reliable method for departing a parent wellbore in a desired direction to drill a directional or
horizontal branch from the parent wellbore.
Selective re-entry: provide reliable means to select and re-enter any of the branches from the parent
wellbore for the purpose of extending, testing, logging, stimulating, remedial work and servicing
any branch independently of the parent wellbore or any of the other branches
Hydraulic seal: the lateral branches and parent wellbore junctions are hydraulically sealed.
Mechanical integrity: the lateral branch is connected to the parent wellbore
Selective isolation: providing means to isolate the branching wellbores from each other and from the
parent wellbore
Guaranteed production from lower lateral(s)
Commingled production; production commingled through a single wellbore extended to the surface.
Means to run liners or screens, in any of the branching wellbores to maintain wellbore stability, sand
control, or for selective production along the length of the branching wellbore, without
obstructing access to any of the other branches or parent wellbore
Multilateral wells increase reservoir exposure even beyond the dramatic improvement offered by a
single horizontal well especially when multiple directions are required to reach all reservoir
compartments.
The main purpose of multilateral horizontal wells is to improve well productivity and/or hydrocarbon
recovery with a lower capital investment.
4.5.2 Completion systems
At the present time, most of the major service companies manufacture other forms of
multilateral/multi-branch well drilling and completion systems. The completion systems that are

currently being supplied range in complexity from simple, openhole sidetracks to elaborate systems
with cemented laterals and selective branch re-entry devices. Before choosing any particular system,
the operator needs to ensure that reservoir parameters, economics and the overall field development
strategy are considered as part of an initial screening process. Once the well objectives have been
finalized, a list of requirements for the completion can be set and the system can then be selected on
the basis of meeting those requirements. In this chapter, the completion screening process is examined
as follows:
4.5.3 Completion requirement.
Initially, the completion requirement must be assessed. The completion requirements of
multilateral/multi-branch systems have been summarized into six options:
Integrity of the branch junction and ability to cement the branches.
Accessibility for equipment and tools into primary wellbore and branches.
Selectivity for re-entry and production situations.
Isolation of specific laterals and specific zones within laterals
Flexibility to work in a number of applications
Increase wellbore exposure within reservoir significantly and economically.
These requirements will naturally vary, depending on the specific application and the degree of
integrity, access, selectivity or control required, but the system which is selected should at least meet
some of the primary technical and economic criteria which are defined in more details, as follows:
4.5.4 Technical Criteria
The following lists the technical criteria to be applied to the screening process:
The system should provide adequate wellbore integrity and must comply with the relevant safety
regulations in the area.
The system should provide a reliable exit method along the desired trajectory for drilling and
completion operations carried out from the primary wellbore, on drill pipe and/or coiled tubing.
The system should allow for selective re-entry of some or all of the branches from the primary
wellbore, for the purpose of extending, testing, logging, stimulating, servicing, repairing,
isolating, monitoring, re-completing and/or abandoning any branches or the primary wellbore or
any other branches.
There should be provision for regulations and isolation of the flow from each of the branches into the
primary wellbore and between branches.
It should be possible to run cemented or non-cemented liners (with/without ECPs), in any of
branches to maintain wellbore integrity, control sand production and /or provide selective
production/injection options, without obstructing access to other branches or the primary
wellbore. If a cemented liner option is deemed critical, the degree of hydraulic and mechanical
integrity required at the window/branch junction should be established at an early stage of the
design phase.
It should be possible to incorporate artificial lift options within the system for gas/liquid separation or
de-watering purposes.
The design of the system should be flexible enough to allow for modifications, in the event of
reservoir conditions changing over time. It should also be easily adapted to short-, medium- or
long-radius directional drilling and be supplied in a number of casing and hole sizes.
If the target are widely different in their physical properties, the system may have to incorporate
smaller-diameter, individual production strings if commingling of fluids is not possible,
Where a re-entry well is being considered, the system should be compatible with existing equipment,
in relation to access, integrity, load constraints and production requirements.
The system should be reliable and robust, capable of surviving conventional drilling, completion and
servicing operations. The system should be kept as simple as possible.

4.5.5 Completion Options
After consideration of the completion requirements, the various completion options should be
appraised to ensure compatibility with the well objectives. The completion equipment which is
eventually selected should satisfy the five critical well objectives listed below:
Safety in operation and for future abandonment
Well performance optimization
Minimization of unwanted fluid production
Integrity and reliability, which will ensure limited intervention with extended production.
Minimization of initial completion costs, production costs and remedial costs.
4.5.6 Completion Selection Parameters.
In the selection process for a completion system, production constraints will strongly influence the
final choice. The main production parameters, which affect the selection of a particular completion
system, are discussed as follows:
Wellbore/Reservoir Interface.
This parameter will determine the completion type that is applied (e.g. open hole, slotted liner,
cemented and perforated casing). In a re-entry situation, the selection of new interface will also be
influenced by the existing completion string.
If the existing completion tubing is adequate, a through tubing re-entry technique may be applied. An
open hole completion with commingled production is the simplest form of well to drill and complete
for the multilateral /multi-branch situation.
However, the formation under consideration must be competent, since remedial work could prove to
be expensive. At the next stage of complexity, a slotted liner completion may be applied in one or
more of the laterals, to control sand production and /or provide a degree of wellbore support at
relatively low cost. Simple on/off isolation can be achieved in the laterals by incorporating ECPs and
SSDs. Zonal isolation may be possible via the use of ECPs and blank tubing sections, but
stimulation options will be limited.
Formation damage considerations may be an important factor in selecting this type of completion,
where the reservoir is low permeability and/or contains natural fractures. Cased and cemented
completions offer the highest degree of mechanical and hydraulic integrity. This type of system is
necessary for reservoirs that require proper zonal isolation and/or hydraulic stimulation. However, this
completion method is also the most expensive option and full cementation of all the branches may not
be possible.
Degree of commingled production.
If high differential pressure exists between branches or produced fluid from a number of branches are
incompatible, it may be necessary to have separate production strings within the same wellbore (i.e.
non-commingled flow). By using separate fluid conduits the contributions from each reservoir zones
can be monitored accurately and re-entry operations are simplified. The expense of additional tubing
to surface can be minimized by using a single, main production strings and a diverter assembly for
selective re-entry.
Production control and/or isolation.
The degree of control required in the system will determine how complex the completion is going to
be. At the base level, branches can be isolated by placing plugs and or packers. If SSDs have been
installed, these can be opened and closed as production constraints dictate. Where pressure and flow
containment is important (e.g. if hydraulic fracturing is being considered), mechanical and hydraulic
integrity will be required and cemented branches may be of prime concern. Effective stimulation

treatments may need a circulation capacity, in which case two sets of SSDs will be required per
interval.
Re-entering producer
If there is likely to be a future requirement for de-scaling operations, SSD manipulation for
production control, re-completion as a result of changing reservoir conditions or the implementation
of a revised production strategy, re-entry will be necessary. In these cases, the completion must be
accessible to drill and/or coiled tubing conveyed tools.
Flowchart guide to completion selection
After consideration of the production parameters, a number of completion options may be available
for a particular application. The accompanying flowchart shown below can be used as a general guide
to the completion options that are currently available.
Multi-well Systems
Splitter System
Multilateral/Multi-branch Systems
NewWells Existing Wells
Through tubing
re-entry
Cased and cemented
mainbore
Openhole
mainbore
Openhole
sidetrack
Commingled
production
Isolated
sidetrack
Completed
openhole
sidetrack
No sidetrack
re-entry
Re-entry
Selective
re-entry
Openhole
sidetrack
No sidetrack
re-entry
Re-entry
Selective
re-entry
Dual
completion
Re-entry
No sidetrack
re-entry
Completed
openhole
sidetrack
Completed
and cased
sidetrack
Dual lateral
completion
Limited entry
Cemented
branch

Completion Options for New Wells & Re-Entry Applications
4.5.7 Completion Design.
After reviewing the completion requirements and various completion options capable of satisfying
these requirements, the completion can be designed to meet the desired well objectives.
The initial design constraints are imposed by factors that dictate the number and orientation of the
branches to be drilled and completed, and these factors can include:
1. Geological constraints. The structure and stratigraphy of the reservoir target(s) and potential
problem zones which may be encountered along the proposed well trajectory will have a major
influence on multilateral/multi-branch well geometry.
2. Productivity constraints. Productivity variations between reservoir targets will influence the
degree of reservoir exposure required within each target to meet well objectives. The close
proximity of gas cap and/or aquifer will also influence the degree of exposure and drawdown
required.

3. Location constraints. The location(s) available for well placement will influence well trajectories
and completion design, both in new well and re-entry situations. On subsea templates with limited
slot availability, completion systems that maximize existing slot usage and require minimum
intervention will be favored.
The finalized completion design strategy will vary according to the specific application, the well
objectives for a particular development and as a result of the factors outlined earlier.
4.6 Selective isolation
Selective isolation (flow control) is achieved through proper completion design and installation.
Several completion technologies have matured and are now available to provide selective flow control
of the multilateral completion. Selective isolation typically has been implemented using rig and non-
rig down-hole intervention equipment and procedures.
Certain Non-Intervention, or Real-time flow control technologies are now emerging, which permit
remote, surface automated monitoring and control of well flow, without well intervention.
In particular, with subsea wells, intervention costs are prohibitive so remote operation of the
downhole valve system to control flows from laterals is very attractive.
Non-rig intervention and real-time intervention are of increasing interest for their greater flexibility
and promise of permitting routine and ongoing reservoir management with the favorable economic
impact on multilateral projects such capabilities provide to the operator. Selective isolation (flow
control) completions may be divided into three broad categories:
Selective Flow Completions with no access into lateral. The completion is designed to regulate
flow from the lateral completion, using packers in the mainbore above and below the lateral.
Sliding sleeves or ported nipples permit flow control from the lateral, but do not permit lateral
access. Access past the sliding sleeve(s) to the lower portion of the wellbore is possible. The
flowstream from each zone is commingled into one completion string. Monobore completions are
possible using this design.
Lateral Access Nipples for lateral access. The completion is designed to use lateral access nipples,
placed within the lateral junction. Packers above and below the access nipple seal and permit flow
control of the lateral flowstream. Profiles within the access nipple permit through-tubing
whipstock setting and lateral entry operations. Operations through (below) the lateral access
nipple are still permitted. The flowstream from each zone is commingled into one completion
string. Monobore completions are possible using this design.
Multi-String Completion Systems for non-commingled flow. Multi-string completion systems
permit dual lateral wells to be completed using a dual packer and isolated production strings for
both completion zones of the well. This provides a sealed wellbore juncture for injection or
stimulation. Flow control is possible due to completely separate flowsteams. In addition, re-entry
is possible using the multi-string completion approach.
Access during Drilling, Completion, and Workover Operations. What are the short-and long term
access requirements for each lateral. Multilateral system access capabilities vary dramatically.
Some allow access only while the lateral is being drilled with access lost when operations on
subsequent laterals are started. Other systems allow selective future access with special tools or
allow continuous access capabilities.
Zonal isolation/completion. As with lateral access concerns, what are the zonal isolation
requirements between the laterals, and along individual laterals. Some multilateral systems
provide no zonalisolation, while others potentially provide complete isolation capability.
Production profile. A central drawdown or injection point for multiple laterals may be better than
one drawdown or injection point for one long lateral.

4.7 Lateral completion
4.7.1 Possible lateral completions.
Well Intervention and Operational Management
During the production life cycle of a multilateral/multi-branch well, intervention operations are likely
to be required for reservoir monitoring, maintaining adequate well productivity and /or performing
remedial operations. As the number of multilateral/multi-branch wells being drilled and completed
has increased, so the issue of well intervention and servicing has become more important. As part of
the screening process, the well design and completion requirements must also take account of these
intervention activities.
Reservoir Management/Well Servicing.
Typical intervention operations may include:
Extending existing or drilling additional laterals/branches
Perforating additional intervals in laterals/branches
Unloading /stimulating laterals/branches
Performing logging operations and/or video inspections in one or more lateral/branch
Clean-up operations
Setting and pulling plugs
Operating SSDs, SRTs, chokes or valves for flow control and/or isolation purposes
Remedial operations
Spotting chemicals
Hydraulic fracturing
Re-completion
Abandonment of a particular lateral/branch
In summary, the success of multilateral/multi-branch well intervention operation is dependent on the
ability to:
Selectively re-enter the desired lateral/branch and perform the required operation in isolation if
necessary.
Isolate problematic zones within a given lateral/branch and perform the required operation selectively.
Isolate and/or abandon any given lateral/branch independently, without causing any detrimental
effects to the remaining laterals/branches within the system.
It is important to note that isolation may be achieved at the junction or at some point along the length
of the lateral/branch. This depends on 1) the type of completion system and equipment employed, 2)
the type of intervention/servicing operations being performed, and 3) the degree of hydraulic integrity
provided by the completion system, particularly at the junction.
Operational Constraints
The ability to perform some of these operations will be constrained by two major parameter-internal
diameter restrictions and lateral/branch accessibility.
Internal diameter restrictions. Internal diameter restrictions imposed by the completion tubing and
drift diameters of SSDs, SRTs, chokes, nipple profiles, etc. This is particularly important in
systems that may be restricted by smaller diameter laterals in lower parts of the network.
Lateral/Branch Accessibility. The degree of accessibility to the laterals/branches will be dependent
on the complexity and orientation of the completion system. Stages of accessibility may be
considered as follows:
Simple, openhole completions with commingled production may be re-entered with a bent-
sub or openhole retrievable whipstock, but at the risk of encountering hole stability problems
or incurring formation damage.

Non-accessible completions (e.g. ECP and SSD combination) offer a selective isolation
and/or production option, but entry into the laterals/branches to perform remedial operations
is only possible by removing the completion equipment from the main wellbore.
Limited entry completions offer access to one lateral through an exit window which is pre-cut
in a special slotted casing containing a perforated diverter (e.g. kick-plate dual-lateral)
Selective re-entry completions may contain a diverter/gate assembly, which allows
laterals/branches to be accessed or closed off selectively from the primary tubing system. A
number of completion (e.g. slotted liners, screens) and intervention options are possible, but
overall system becomes very complicated and expensive when a large number of laterals and
branches are involved. Operational and economic risk factors will also be higher for this type
of system.
Dual .completion systems comprise two independent tubing strings, which can be used to
carry out separate functions within the same primary wellbore. Two incompatible reservoir
may be produced independently to surface through a single string or one string can be used
for production while the other is used for injection.
Splitter and multi-well completion systems can be re-entered without requiring a separate
diverter/deflector and have an independent intervention capability and hydraulic integrity,
similar to the dual-completion system. The splitter system is an extension of conventional
well technology and can be fully cemented to surface. Hydraulic fracturing could be carried
out as a re-entry operation, but the completion/cementation costs are high and correct tubing
string sizing is crucial, since casing size will be constrained by the conductor diameter.

4.7.2 Sand control/stimulation re-entry requirement for laterals linked to junction/completion
specs.
Gravel packing of horizontal wells is an expensive, time consuming completion technique. Wire
wrapped/prepacked or sintered metal screens suffer from the same disadvantages as conventional
slotted/predrilled liners but can be more adversely damaged by drilling debris/mud cake and are more
susceptible to damage during run-in or suffer cut-out due to transient production.
The EST sand screen is deployed directly against the sand face or against the perforation. Particles are
trapped by the screen and cannot escape once they have impinged the screen. This ensures that
particles accumulate in front of the screen to protect it from persistent particle impingement. The
screen design ensures that plugging is minimized.
Increasingly operators are deferring sand control installation until necessary. This avoids high capital
investment on sand control equipment early in the well project and ensures that early production
levels from the well are maximized. This philosophy requires a remedial sand control techniques for
when sand control is required later in well life.
Because the EST sand screen can expand it can be deployed through tubing to remedially isolate sand
production zones, perforations or cut-out screens. Since the EST sand screens eliminate the annulus it
will have the largest through-bore of any mechanical sand control device. This will facilitate access to
the lower end of laterals and minimize production choking effects.
Running Screens through 9-5/8-Casing Exit Window.
Pre-packed screens have been installed on all Troll Olje wells to date. To reach TD in the long
horizontal sections, the screens are pushed down with a string of drill collars, using weights of up to
70 tons on the screen hanger. Screen damage from the milled casing window was considered a
potential problem. It was decided that it would be beneficial to use shrouded type screens instead of
pre-packed screens, pending successful testing in a simulated junction geometry model.

Sand Control and Completion Strategy
In the past, sand exclusion was achieved with internal gravel packs, which were a major cause of
impairment to well productivity. To optimize productivity in the main well, new completion
initiatives can be employed. Reference is made to well SF-27 in the South Furious field, offshore the
state of Sabah in Malaysia
Firstly, the long completion interval (3300 ft along hole) of the main well was perforated in a single
trip, resulting in a significant cost savings. The presence of partially depleted sands caused post-
perforation losses and sized calcium carbonate was used for fluid loss control. Subsequently, a
specially configured wash-pipe was used to run-in and selectively set a series of packers and
downhole sand exclusion screens. The wash-pipe was subsequently employed in a zone-by-zone acid
wash to remove the Calcium Carbonate loss circulation material. After completing the acid wash, the
wash-pipe was pulled to a position above the knock-out isolation valve, allowing the valve to close.
The main reason for this procedure is that if heavy losses were to occur, the conventional HEC
(Hydroxyl Ethyl Cellulose) alone would be insufficient to remedy the situation. For formation damage
migration, the immediate placement of solid loss circulation material followed by acid clean-up is
more effective than running the risk of spotting multiple pills of HEC with the eventual use of
Calcium Carbonate.
Note that the use of downhole screen without gravel packing was founded on the understanding that
sand production in the South Furious field would be limited and of a transient nature.

Perforation with pre-packed screens
When deciding on a ML/MB development strategy, various well options have to be assessed by a
screening application, to ensure that all economic and technical objectives will be satisfied.

Through the use of a screening process/QRA process based on critical appraisal of the available field
data, the advantage and risk must be defined and manageable options can then be selected from a
number of feasible development options.
Critical operations to be identified as setting the packer, changing out the whipstocks, drilling through
the lateral liner back into the mainbore, running and pulling the diverter and setting the window
bushing. Each operation must be evaluated and the risk of failure considered. Assessment of the
impact on the project outcome for each risk to be used to calculate the cost and time associated with
implementing contingency procedures and the production delivery calculated. This work is to lead to
the development of a decision tree, which clearly identifies the route to be taken and the expected
outcome i.e. which wellbore or combination of wellbores would be delivered, should any of the risks
materialize.
Abandon Lateral
Recover Mainbore
Abandon Lateral
Recover Mainbore
Abandon
Mainbore
Abandon One Bore
Abandon One Bore
Success!
Extra Days/Equipment
$ ???
$ ???
$ ???
$ ???
$ ???
Run Window
Bushing
Run/Pull F/S
Diverter
Drill through
7 Liner
Pull Solid W/S
Run HollowW/S
Set ML Packer
Mill Window

Decision tree identification of ML/MB routes
4.8.1 Screening Process.
The screening process for ML/MB well applications should be considered as a series of analytical
steps which start with the basic philosophy. See screening process illustrated below.
1. Why has a ML/MB strategy been selected?
To increase reserve/well ratio?
To increase efficiency and decrease development costs?
To delay water/gas production?
To improve EOR/waterflood performance?
As an exploration delineation tool?

For environmental reason?
2. Define, prioritize and assess the economic and technical objectives for a ML/MB branch strategy.
For example:
Re-entry to reduce costs and make efficient use of existing infrastructure.
Access multiple targets.
Intersect naturally fractured zones within the target zones.
3. Analyze the available field data (e.g. geophysics, geology, well logs, historical field data sets,
offset well data, etc) to ensure the objectives can be met in terms of technical feasibility and
acceptable risk.
Can multiple wells be drilled without problems?
Can all the objectives be met or will a compromise solution be required?
Is a suitable well configuration already apparent at this stage?
4. Define the well design criteria and propose a number of alternative ML/MB strategies for critical
evaluation. What is required from the system?
Production/injection requirement?
Isolation requirement at junction or along the lateral/branch?
Accessibility by wireline, CT and/or drill pipe?
Selective re-entry access?
Commingled flow, selective production or dual-completion?
Flow control requirements at junction or along the lateral/branch?
Artificial lift requirements?
Monitoring and diagnostic requirements?
Well clean-up arrangements?
Sand control requirements?
5. Evaluate the design options that are proposed and compare each against the screening criteria:
Project well performance from modeling scenarios (e.g. cumulative production rates of
gas/oil/water, predicted well life).
Projected development costs (e.g. drilling, completion and production equipment costs).
Economic modeling (e.g. profit, investment ratio, net present value).
Risk analysis related to each phase of the project (e.g. drilling, completion, production, and re-
entry).
6. At this stage it should be possible to identify an optimum solution for the particular application
and make recommendations based on sound analytical principles.
7. If the degree of risk and uncertainty in the screening process are deemed to be small in relation to
the ability to satisfy the project objectives, a final decision can be made. However, if the degree of
risk and uncertainty are deemed to be unacceptably high, further evaluation work will be required
before a final decision is made. This situation may arise if there is uncertainty about the data
quality/accuracy or confidence in the interpretation of data.

Define ML/MB
Develop Strategy Objectives
Economic Objectives of Well
Assemble Data Set for the Application
Technical Objectives of Well
Prioritize and Assess Objectives in Terms of Economic and Technical Feasibility
Define Well Design Criteria and Propose a number of
Alternative ML/MB Strategies for Critical Evaluation
Design Options
- Configurations?
- Commingle v. Separate?
- Drilling Systemv. Completion System?
- Re-Entry v. NewWell?
Screening Criteria
- Projected Development Costs?
- Projected Well Performance?
- Economic Modeling?
- Risk Analysis?
Comparison and Evaluation Process - Identify OptimumSolution?
Recommendation?
Degree of Risk Acceptable?
- Uncertainty?
Additional Analysis/Evaluation Required?
Final
Decision

Screening process to develop strategy objectives
4.8.2 Risk data, based on operational experience
Milling of window in existing casing
When operators decide to exploit their existing assets by sidetracking horizontal wellbores from
existing vertical wells, there are two methods for achieving exit:
One method is milling out a section of casing, spot a cement plug, and then directionally kick-off the
cement plug out of the milled section. Another method is to set a whipstock, mill a window through
the casing, then initiate the side track horizontal wellbore out the casing window. Whipstocks may be
anchored in a production packer, or they may incorporate their own slips to anchor them in the casing.
The retrievable whipstock method is costly and difficult due to the following reasons:
The large amount of casing that must be milled.
The low reliability of retrievable whipstocks
The difficulty of re-positioning the whipstock is exactly the right place for re-accessing the desired
wellbore.
Sperry Sun Drilling Services (SSDS) has investigated the results of several whipstock jobs and
concluded that lateral drilling of conventional whipstocks has many uncertainties. The initial concern
is whether you will be able to drill a lateral that you can ensure re-entry into. In addition, with each
wellbore desired, the kick-off point must be moved progressively higher, making artificial lift more
difficult and potentially exposing the drilling operation to unstable rock formation.
SSDS found that only 4% of the sidetracks done went straight down the whipstock face as expected.
Some sidetracks roll off left, some right, some did into the whipstock and kicks out etc. Due to these
findings SSDS made a Re-Entry Drilling System (RDS) milling assembly that will be commercially

released the fall of 1996. The RDS milling assembly mills a window in the casing that is accurately
placed compared to a latch coupling.
Thereafter the lateral can be milled with standard rock bit. SSDS do not have any reference to risk yet,
since this tool has still not been run in the field.
Commercial drilling jobs are uncertain and might need several runs to exit the casing. The
possibilities of getting stuck with the drilling assembly are the same as for standard sidetrack. The
only difference is the possible loss of the main bore that is critical to the multilateral well but harmless
to a sidetrack.
Standard drilling and milling techniques will open up a window with rough edges which can/could
jam the drilling assembly or destroy the screens and inflatables (such as packers etc) as they are
passing through the window.
Risk of abandonment of mainbore or lateral during drilling operations and possible
contingencies.
The risk of abandonment of the mainbore is dependent of the lateral exit, the drilling whipstock and
its retrievability, and the retrievability of other tools such as the lateral liner hanger, service tools, etc.
The consequences of loosing the mainbore and /or lateral are dependent on the money being invested
in drilling, liner, completion and the novelty (price) of the completion equipment being installed.
To reduce the risk in Multi Lateral drilling it seems advisable to drill the mainbore to the bottom of
the 9-5/8 or 7 shoe (dependent of the well configuration), thereafter drill, line and complete the
upper lateral and continue downwards. The most critical consequence by abandonment would then be
losing the mainbore below the current lateral. If as suggested above, the main bore below has not been
completed or drilled to TD yet such loss is limited. For a multilateral well with 3-5 branches drilled
from bottom and up the cost involved with abandonment is critical to the project and the risk itself
could limit the number of laterals.
The worst scenario is to become stuck with the drill string while drilling through the casing or exiting
the lateral window since this leaves no obvious possibilities of cutting and pulling the drillpipe. The
consequences of this would be to cut the drillpipe above the BHA and do a conventional sidetrack
above the planned lateral. If such event happens, as the drill string is out in the lateral similar will only
cause in and open hole sidetrack.
Experience of washing over and/or pulling the whipstock is important since failures due to such may
cause a time consuming fishing/milling job and could at worst result in a lost mainbore.
Twist off drill pipe in open hole while drilling lateral section
Conventional fishing techniques can be performed in the lateral and conventional open-hole side
tracking of stuck drill string are feasible providing this is sufficient open-hole return lateral exit point
and top of fish.
Not being able to pull whipstock with hydraulic pulling tool or spear
The design of the whipstock and the pulling tools should be field proven or run through extensive
testing prior to being used in a high cost North Sea well. This to reduce the risk of retrieving
problems.
Sperry Sun system has designed contingency systems into them to aid milling or other fishing
technique.
Problems getting the completion in the ground
The best way of climbing this ladder should be to use several trips on the initial installation, not trying
to install a much as possible in one run as have been common practice in the North Sea for the last
decade.

The plug in the liner top does not come back out after the completion is run
The topic of this part of the study is a discussion of the consequences and possible solutions for being
able to pull the isolation plug from a liner that has been installed in a branch of a multilateral.
This incident is a possible incident that would be significant to the success of a multi lateral
application. For example, if the lateral is inaccessible after being drilled and completed then the
section will become completely unproducable without much chance of recovery. This would occur if
the isolation plug placed in a particular lateral during a multi lateral application couldnt be retrieved
due to downhole problems.
The risk factors for such an event have not been modeled statistically but some of the risk factors
leading to the incident would be:
Debris settling on the plug which cannot be removed.
Mechanical failure with the plug itself
Buckling near or in the liner access area which prevents plug removal.
Access to the branch itself is difficult or restricted (in worst case not possible)
Pressure differential across the plug prevents plug release
Latch or fish mechanism on top of the plug is damaged.
If completion allows through tubing intervention into the lateral (Dual Bore Completion or LRS or
MLE systems) then it may be possible to deploy coiled tubing motor and milling equipment.
If this is not the case, solutions to such an incident also have not been modeled. To identify the actual
risk however some further factors would have to be;
Fishing operations lead to prevention of further access into the lateral.
Isolation method at the branch is jeopardized or destroyed. (cement sheath, packer, ECP, etc)
Intelligent valves or sleeves are damaged
Communication to intelligent valves or sleeves is damaged or destroyed. (I.e. The electrical cables on
the outside of the liner lose integrity)
The causes and possible complications listed above only represent a short list of the most obvious
factors. To provide solutions to the problem would require a significantly more in-depth study of the
drilling/completion processes and the historic reliability of the isolation plugs in question in a highly
deviated environment. This study should be performed with both coiled tubing and snubbing in mind
and should be apart of the total intervention strategy.
It is recommended to perform such a study during planning of the lateral itself as fishing and
intervention can be significantly complicated by high dogleg severity during drilling and poor lateral
accessibility caused by the completion.
Page 111 of 277

111/37 09/01/2004
Chapter 5. Current Multilateral Technology
5.1 Introduction to Vendors and Sponsors
Multilateral systems and services are available from a number of Vendors many of whom are
Sponsors of the TAML Guide and Database website. The descriptions of equipment and
services provided here is NOT intended to remove the need for direct contact with Vendors
for the most recent and accurate information. See, for example, the following
Vendor/Sponsors websites
TIW Corporation (www.tiwtools.com)
Baker Hughes (www.bakerhughes.com)
Sperry Sun (www.sperry-sun.com)
Smith International(www.smithdrilling.com)
Weatherford (www.weatherford.com)
Altinex (www.altinex.no)
In addition to this Chapter, descriptions of the ML equipment offerings and examples of
various TAML-level well applications can also be accessed on this web site by the following
avenues.
Go to the Database page at https://taml.wst.no/root/db/ (Note: no longer available at January
2004).
B. To view a list with links to all the wells currently in the database where a particular Vendor
system has been used - select the highlighted number of entries.
(Please note that every attempt is being made to make the database as complete as possible
for wells classified as TAML-levels 4-6 and particularly interesting or novel wells at any
TAML level. Nevertheless there will always be wells that are not entered into the database in
spite of the best efforts of WST and the Sponsors. The Vendors involved may have
information that they can provide about these wells and they should be looked upon as an
important source of additional information.)
The case study descriptions provided in Appendix 3. Case Studies of the guide also contain
valuable information about the Vendors.
The following information is not exhaustive but does cover the main suppliers and
technologies
5.2 Drilling
5.2.1 Window Milling/Whipstocks and Associated Equipment
Milling operations are critical to multilateral well construction and represent one of the areas
of very high risk. Numerous case studies have described problems that arise in connection
with milling and the associated problem of mainbore access hindered by milling debris. One
trip milling with more accurately centred windows and more effective debris management
could avoid later problems. There are several systems currently available to mill in one trip.
TIW Corporation
SS-WSM-BB Big Bore Packer Mono Bore Permanent & Retrievable
Whipstock Packers
Chapter 5. Current MultilateralTechnology Page 112 of 277

TTRTM Thru Tubing Retrievable Window Milling System
MLASTM Multi-Lateral Access System
COBRATM Coiled Tubing Operational Bending Radial Application
Baker Hughes
Window Master
TM

Sperry-Sun
Re-entry Drilling System (RDS)
Smith Drilling &
Completions
TrackMaster
TM

Millennium
TM

Anadrill
Rapid Access
TM

TIW Corporation
SS-WSM-BB Big Bore Packer Mono Bore Permanent & Retrievable Whipstock Packers
The TIW Big Bore packer system is intended for use in existing mono bore wells where
production from the zone below the established lateral is desired, and it is also desired to
maintain the whipstock packer orientation for future re-entry purposes. Seal bores are
available with the packer to facilitate various completion options. The large bore through the
packer is therefore its main feature.
The SS-WSM-BB packer can be set using mechanical, hydraulic or wireline setting tools.
The orientation stinger features a releasable positive latch that locks into the integral latch
profile of the packer. After the lateral has been drilled, the latch assemble can be removed to
allow for production operations through the large packer bore. The surface adjustable spline
assembly allows for adjustments in 5-degree increments, which provide 72 variations over
360 degrees for accurate directional settings.
In addition to the permanent system, a retrievable Big Bore packer system is also available.
The same large bores are available should the packer be used for production operations prior
to retrieval. Using the specially designed retrievable tool, retrieval is accomplished by means
of a straight pick-up pull.
TTR
TM
Thru Tubing Retrievable Window Milling System
The TIW Thru Tubing Retrievable Window Milling System allows the operator to employ
and/or manipulate from the surface all necessary window milling tools into the main well-
bore through, and without the removal of, existing production tubing. The tools can include
anchors, bridge plugs, whipstocks, mills, bits and other necessary equipment.
The TTR Systems equipment is designed for running and setting, using electric wireline
explosive charge setting tools, conventional or coiled-tubing-conveyed hydraulic setting tools.
All window-milling tools are retrievable, leaving the main wellbore unobstructed. The anchor
and/or whipstock assembly can also be selectively removed if desired.

The heart of the TTR Window Milling
System is its anchor. The TTR Anchor is
capable of being run through tubing prior to
setting in the casing. Fully retrievable and
having bi-directional, non-rotational slip
mechanisms and orientation slot, this system
is capable of being run and set at any
inclination angle.
Most of TIWs whipstock packers can be set
mechanically, hydraulically or on wireline
without modif ication. The choice of method
is through the setting tool and not the packer
or anchor.
TTR system components at the various key
points of the window milling operations are
shown.

Figure 5.1 TIW Thru Tubing Retrievable
System
MLAS
TM
Multi-Lateral Access System
The field-proven MLAS provides specialised methods and
equipment for opening low-stress casing windows for drilling
multiple lateral wellbores that extend from vertical, high-angle
and/or horizontal wellbores. It employs a system of specialised
casing joints and well tools that permit selective azimuthal or
rotational departure points from one or more high-strength,
composite-material casing joints strategically positioned in the
primary wellbore. . The MLAS is intended for use in new wells, or
where a liner is run as part of a re-completion. In either case, it is
essential that the depth of the future lateral be known at the time of
installation of the MLAS.
The Multi-Lateral Access System is designed for maximum
flexibility. It utilises tools that are conveyed and operated by either a
conventional rotary or coiled-tubing drilling system. Lateral drilling
can proceed in any sequence, when multiple systems have been
installed in the casing/liner string.
The composite-material exit joints require no special milling tools for
opening the windows. For the casing exit, the same fixed head PDC
type bit and drilling assemble planned for the curve drilling can be
used. This eliminates the often required multiple milling trips and
related special tools. The low-stress opening procedure minimizes
vibrations, which might affect the cement bond between the
departure joint and the formation. This helps reduce one of the major
risks of the junction.
PROFILE
COMPOSITE COMPOSITE
JOINT JOINT
BIASED EDGE BIASED EDGE
ORIENTATION/ ORIENTATION/
LOCATOR SLOT LOCATOR SLOT

Figure 5.2 MLAS

The first half of the MLAS System is the Departure Joint. The composite portion of the joint is a cross-
wound laminate construction of hydrid carbon/glass filaments and epoxy that possesses temperature and
strength ratings (tensile, compressive, burst and collapse) which are compatible with most well operations.
The composite portion is connected and bonded to steel end sections that are furnished with suitable casing
connections. Adjacent the lower end of the Departure Joint is a profile having an upward facing biased edge
terminating in an orientation/locator slot which is instrumental for the subsequent positioning of the second
half of the MLAS System. Once positioned (and optionally cemented) within the well bore, the radial
location of the orientation/locator slot of each Departure Joint may be determined by conventional MWD or
gyroscopic survey means and recorded for further references.
There have been 25 MLAS window joint systems installed and drilled out.
MOLE
TM
Multiple Optional Lateral Entry System is very similar to MLAS but doesnt use composite
materials in the window exits of the specialised casing joints. In this case conventional milling tools and
procedures are needed to establish the exit window. As with the MLAS, the ability to predetermine the
window location is required.

Figure 5.3 MOLE installation sequence
COBRA
TM
Coiled Tubing Operational Bending Radial Application
(SYSTEM IS IN THE DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE, WITH LIMITED COMMERCIAL FIELD USE)
The COBRA system was developed for a heavy oil application requested by Imperial Oil Resources, Ltd. in
Canada. The Ultra-Short Radius U US SR R d dr ri il ll li in ng g a as ss se em mb bl ly y delivers the necessary guide & articulation in
order to bore holes from vertical to a 90 degree angle with coiled tubing and jet drilling technology. The
transition from vertical to horizontal is accomplished in approximately 18 inches.
The COBRA system makes use of abrasive jet milling to remove casing wall (section exit) and under
reaming to provide for the articulation of the coiled tubing.

The USR drilling assembly contains coiled tubing packed in a canister in a length required in order to
create the lateral. As many laterals as required may be drilled at the casing exit location in order to give a
star-like drainage pattern around the well bore.
Once the casing section has been created and the under-reaming is complete, then the curve and lateral
operation is carried out in 5 steps as follows.
Set the TIW ANCHOR at the desired depth
Run the TIW USR ASSEMBLY and locate in the ANCHOR
Apply compressive weight to engage collet in the ANCHOR
Release Coil tubing by rotation and initiate jet drilling while continuing to set-down weight on the coil
tubing until desired reach is obtained
Pick straight up to retrieve entire assembly
The advantages of the COBRA system are expected to be
Vertical well bores can be converted to horizontal
Multiple lateral drain holes from existing vertical or deviated wells
Adds increased production to pre-existing wells
Reduces drilling and production costs
Can penetrate near well bore damage
Multiple use from same tool & simple design
Short radius enables pinpoint zone location
The Window Cutting Products Division of TIW was created to extend the existing drilling and completion
services. This division provides a complete line of tools and services to complement the whipstock-type
window cutting procedures, as performed by milling company service personnel.
TIW installations as of 1.4.99
SYSTEM NUMBER
SS-WSM-BB 60+
TTR 1
MLAS 25 installed
3 drilled out
MOLE 0
COBRA prototype

Contact TIW Corporation for more information.
Baker Hughes

The Baker Hughes Window Master
TM
is a one trip milling system which can start, mill and ream the window
in one round trip, substantially reducing rig time. (See figure 5.1). The system incorporates two watermelon
mills and the Baker Hughes Metal Muncher

window mill. On the watermelon mills and within the milling
assembly there are flexible joints that are designed to reduce BHA bending stresses, while the patented
deflection ramp design on the whipstock face ensures that the milling assembly stays on track.

Figure 5.2 Baker Hughes Windowmaster
The Window Master
TM
system can be combined with a variety of anchor/ packer configurations which
creates either permanent and retrievable, one or two trip systems. The bottom trip anchor system allows for
360
o
orientation prior to activation of the anchor. The anchor can be set against any plug/ packer or liner
hanger in the wellbore.
More general information about Baker Systems is available through the following sections
4.2.16 Cemented Junction Level 4
4.4.1 Lateral Entry Nipple System (LEN)
4.4.2 Selective Re-Entry Tool (SRT)
4.4.3 Lateral Seal and Control System
Generic Baker Systems and Installation Steps
Liner
Hydraulic Set Retainer
Production Packer
Millout Extension
XO
Non-Sealing Locator Seal Mandrel
Perforated Pup Joint
Baker Model MLZXP Liner Packer
with MLHR Profile and PBR
Liner Hanger

Level 3
Perforated pipe hydraulic access only to mainbore.
ML packer not retrieved
1. Prepare wellbore run CBL/USIT logs and
casing scraper
2. Run and set ML packer, confirm orientation
3. Run whipstock, engage in packer and mill
window
4. Drill lateral
5. Recover whipstock
6. Run slotted liner with bent joint into lateral and
hang off
7. Run production packer and tieback into liner

Liner
Production Packer
Millout Extension
XO
Perforated Pup Joint
Liner Hanger
Level 3
Perforated pipe hydraulic access only to mainbore.
ML packer retrieved.
1. Prepare wellbore - run CBL/USIT logs and
casing scraper
2. Run, orient, and set ML whipstock/packer
3. Mill window
4. Drill lateral
5. Recover whipstock/packer
6. Run slotted liner with bent joint into lateral and
hang off
Liner
Production Packer
Millout Extension
XO
Baker Hook Hanger System

Level 3 Hook Anchor System
Hydraulic and mechanical access to mainbore.
ML not packer retrieved.
1. ML packer retrieved Prepare wellbore - run
CBL/USIT logs and casing scraper
window
4. Drill lateral
5. Recover whipstock
6. Run Hook Hanger on liner with bent joint into
lateral and hang off
7. Run clean up string to clean up mainbore

Liner
Production Packer
Millout Extension
XO

Level 3 Hook Anchor System
Hydraulic and mechanical access to mainbore.
casing scraper
2. Run, orient, and set ML whipstock/packer
3. Mill window
4. Drill lateral
6. Run Hook Hanger on liner with bent joint into
lateral and hang off
7. Run clean up string to clean up mainbore
Liner
Production Packer
Millout Extension
XO
Baker CMU Sliding Sleeve
Blast Joints

Level 4 System
Hydraulic and mechanical access to mainbore
Hydraulic access only to lateral.
ML packer part of completion.
casing scraper
window [2]
4. Drill lateral
5. Run and cement liner in lateral
6. Washover liner and recover ML whipstock [3]
7. Clean-out mainbore w/full gauge mill
8. Run completion and stab into ML packer

Liner
Production Packer
Millout Extension
XO
Baker CMU Sliding Sleeve
Baker Lateral Entry Nipple

Level 4 System
Hydraulic and mechanical access to mainbore and
lateral.
casing scraper
window [2]
4. Drill lateral
8. Run completion w/LEN and stab into ML
packer
Liner
Production Packer
Millout Extension
XO

Level 4 Hook Hanger System
lateral.
casing scraper
2. Run, orient, and set ML whipstock/packer and
mill window
3. Drill lateral
5. Run Hook Hanger liner with bent joint into
lateral
6. Spot suspension pill in mainbore below
junction
7. Run cementing string, sting into liner PBR,
cement lateral liner
8. Clean-out lateral and mainbore [2]
9. Run completion and stab into liner

Liner
Production Packer
Millout Extension
XO
Baker SRT System with
Integral Seal Assembly
Baker DAB Retainer Production Packer
with Extended Upper Seal Bore
Scoophead Diverter
Millout
Extension
XO
Baker Model MLHR Orientation
Production Anchor with Seal Assembly

Level 4 System +
Level 5 Completion Commingled
lateral.
casing scraper
window [2]
4. Drill lateral
6. Run and set packer and debris catcher in
lateral, spot suspension pill
9. Run Scoophead diverter on DP, orient, latch in
ML packer, and test
10. Retrieve debris barrier insert
11. Run SRT, orient, and engage into Scoophead.
Liner
Baker GT Dual Packer
Baker DAB Retainer Production Packer
with Extended Upper Seal Bore
Baker Model MLHR Orientation
Production Anchor with Seal Assembly
Millout
Extension
XO
Scoophead Diverter

Level 4 System
Level 5 Completion - Dual
lateral.
casing scraper
window [2]
4. Drill lateral
6. Run and set packer and debris catcher in
lateral, spot suspension pill
9. Run Scoophead diverter on DP, orient, latch in
ML packer, and test
10. Retrieve debris barrier insert
11. Run dual completion and engage into
Scoophead.
Contact Baker Hughes for more information.

Sperry-Sun
This constrained milling system was primarily
developed for drilling ML/MB wells from existing
wellbores, however it can be used in new wells,
providing the casing latch coupling has been installed
into the primary casing string to provide a location and
orientation capability. The Sperry-Sun latch coupling
offers a non-restricted ID and enables standard tools and
operations to be run through the coupling.
The window system is contained in a gimbaled bearing
housing that can be indexed to mill the window aperture
in three passes. This enables a precision centered
window profile to be machined without the problems of
mill walk and off-center apertures that are generally
associated with unconstrained systems. By centering the
machine and the aperture more accurately, re-entry
operations, cementing capabilities and junction integrity
can be enhanced. Once the milling process has been
completed, the RDS is removed and conventional
technology is used to drill and complete the lateral.

Figure 5.3: Sperry Sun RDS
4501 Perforated Whipstock System
This system, originally developed between Halliburton and Weatherford, involves a different approach to
installing a multilateral junction than previously applied. It does not involve cutting, washing over, and
retrieving the whipstock and liner stub as most of the over level 3 and 4 systems. This reduces the risk of
losing the mainbore at a trade-off of eliminating mechanical access to the mainbore.
Following is the basic installation sequence:
1. Determine cement top with log(s) of choice.
2. Run casing scraper and gauge ring to below junction depth.
3. Run whipstock and packer to depth, orient and set packer.
4. Mill and dress (widen and lengthen) window (3 mill runs)
5. [Perform LOT, drill curve and lateral.]
6. Run liner. Cement liner for level 4 ML. Do not cement for a level 3 ML.
7. [Continue lateral drilling and completion operations.]
8. Run oriented guns on WL, DP, or CT. Perforate casing and face of whipstock to regain hydraulic access
to mainbore.
9. Complete well.

Level 3 Installation of 4501 System No
cement around liner
Level 4 Installation of 4501 System
Cement around liner
Level 5 MSCS completion system

The system is the completion components designed to
upgrade a level 4 junction to a level 5. The basic
installation procedure follows.
1. Make-up window joint in casing.
2. Run casing, orient, and cement.
3. Pull window sleeve.
4. Run mainbore debris barrier.
5. Run and set ML whipstock.
6. Engage in latch coupling
7. Run drilling BHA and mill window.
8. Drill lateral.
9. Run and cement liner in lateral.
10. Run debris barrier in lateral.
11. Mill over and recover liner top and ML whipstock [3
trips].
12. Clean-out mainbore with full gauge mill.
13. Install workover whipstock.
14. Dress window with mill.
15. Pull lateral debris barrier.
16. Run and set packer in lateral.
17. Pull whipstock and mainbore debris barrier [2 trips].
18. Run and set packer in mainbore.
19. Run and latch dual bore deflector.
20. Run upper completion w/vector block.
21. Set and test packers.

Contact Sperry-Sun (www.sperry-sun.com) for more information.

Smith Drilling & Completions
Unlike conventional whipstocks, the face of the Smith
International Trackmaster has multiple ramps with
different tapers. A radical ramp at the top allows mill
hook-up and expedites initial engagement with the casing.
The ramp is ensured at higher B.U.R. by a straight surface
with no taper for trouble free milling. Below the straight
section, a conventional low angle ramp further deflects
the mills towards the formation. Below that is a mid ramp
accelerator with a radical departure to deflect the mill
even further into the formation to drill the rat hole in
gauge. This enables a full size window to be completed in
minimal time, providing a full-gauge rathole for the
directional assembly.

Figure 5.4: Smith Trackmaster
Contact Smith Drilling & Completions (www.smith.com) for more information.
5.2.2 Junction Integrity
In cased wells, the integrity of the cement is one of the most important factors as it provides casing support
and zonal isolation. In many instances cement can not be used as a pressure seal at the multilateral junction
as often the seal is not good enough. Three solutions have been found to this problem
Latex cement developed by BJ Oilfield Services
Thermosetting resins developed by WeCam
Junction Sealant Halliburton
BJ Oilfield Services Latex Cement
BJ first tried to use latex cement, with a styrene/ butadiene ratio of 60/40, in June `96 on the first multilateral
well drilled by the Sarawak Shell Sdn. Bhd/ Sabah Shell Petroleum Oil Company in the Asia Pacific. The
latex cement was used during construction of a Baker Hughes cemented root multilateral. The following
properties made is suitable for this well
High tensile strength
High flexural strength
Durability
Crack resistance
Less shrinkage
Better rheology
Reduced permeability
The well was a dual lateral well with two 7 in. liners. The latex cement slurry was pumped down at a rate of
6 bbl/ min with average pressure of 750 psi. A cement log was run 48 hours later indicating that the bond
was excellent throughout the liner section. 72 hours later the liner stub was cut with a rotary mill shoe and
retrieved with the guidestock. The liner stub was still intact and the cement had few cracks. The well was
successfully completed and is producing at the expected rate.
Contact Baker Hughes (www.bakerhughes.com) for more information
WeCem Thermosetting resins
This product was developed by Norwegian company WeCem. It was applied to sealing and reinforcing a
horizontal multilateral well junction for Norsk Hydro in the Troll Field. The well was completed in a highly
permeable, unconsolidated sand with Halliburton equipment during the summer of 1997. After milling of the

window the primary casing and drilling ahead by 10 meters 10 cubic meters of resin was injected to
strengthen the junction.
The resin is a polyester-based fluid which is very thin in its uncured form, thus enabling it to enter the
smaller pores of a reservoir before curing into a solid. The reaction mixture is comprised of resin, the
initiator, and the retarder. All are mixed at surface before being pumped downhole. At high temperatures the
mixture becomes less viscous, thus at downhole conditions where viscosity is of great importance, the
viscosity is greatly reduced. The resin has good mechanical properties with better compressive and tensile
strength than cement (10 times stronger than fibre reinforced cement)
Contact Norsk Hydro ASA (www.hyrdo.com/en) for more information
Halliburton ZoneSeal
TM
Isolation Process
This system has been developed by Halliburton to provide zonal isolation for the life of a well. They use
high quality, stable foam cement that offers the following
Ultra lightweight
Excellent Strengths
Ductility
Good displacement efficiency
Insulation qualities
Fluid loss and free water control
Stability to cross flows
The following are the main components used in the ZoneSeal
TM
Isolation Process
Datawin and OptiCem realtime
TM
. On-site certified specialist uses a laptop computer to capture well data
and monitor the job in realtime
Nitrogen unit. Uses an automated system for precise control and ramping of nitrogen rate to meet job
specification
Cement unit. Uses Automated Density Control (ADC) system to produce consistent slurry at the desired
density, and it controls both the injection unit and the nitrogen unit based on the rate of slurry production
Injection unit. Adds a proprietary Halliburton surfactant blend of foaming agent and stabilizer
Foam generator. Adds mix energy to the slurry to create a stable foam
Contact Halliburton (www.halliburton.com) for more information.
5.2.3 Selective Access
The Millennium Multilateral System has a Selective Lateral Re-entry Guide for re-entering any specific
lateral. The guide is oriented with a retrievable orienting anchor and positioned to the required depth by
means of drill collar extensions. It is run on a special assembly and latched into the Millennium Packer.
Once latch in is confirmed the running tool is released by applying weight and shearing safety pins.
A similar approach is used in the Millennium Open Hole Selective Multilateral System where the anchor
assembly is a retrievable-inflatable device.
Sperry-Sun
Sperry-Sun have designed a Lateral Re-entry System (LRS) which provides lateral isolation and lateral re-
entry capabilities for logging, perforating or other workover activities. The system provides a flow path for
fluids from each leg of the well and a re-entry access and/or isolation capability for each leg using through
tubing tools.
The system uses the whipstock landing profile to orientate the pre-milled tubing window (LRS) across the
junction between the primary well bore and the selected lateral. Control can be achieved in the following
ways
Re-entry of existing lateral through the tubing window, to position chokes or plugs (see figure 5.4)
Straddle of the LRS internally to seal off or choke flow from the lateral while still retaining access to the
lower legs ( see figure 5.5)

Dual completion style devices to provide internal hydraulic integrity separate from the LTBS and RMLS
The LRS is a big bore device and even after installation of internal straddle devices, full bore through tubing
access is maintained.
The LRS window is designed for placement of a tubing deflection device for re-entry in a particular leg, or
for triggering a kick-over deflection tool to allow CT re-entry. This allows access to all legs for workover,
stimulation, clean-up or logging activities

Figure 5.5: LRS Re-entry
window
Figure 5.6: TPI Lateral isolation
sleeve installed for shut off or
flow control
Figure 5.7: LRS through tubing
workover for logging,
perforating or stimulation
Contact Sperry-Sun (www.sperry-sun.com) for more information.
Pressure Control Engineering (PCE)
The system is similar to the Sperry Sun LRS previously described. PCE identified several key problem areas
which were crucial during the design phase
All equipment for post completion re-entry would have to pass through the upper completion
A means of diverting coiled tubing tools into the lateral branch was required
A location for these through tubing tools is required , as most laterals branch out of the larger diameter lower
liner section
Whatever was used could not be permanent as rig access may be required at a later date
The system provides a means of
Gaining selective access to any lateral bore
Enabling coil tubing to perform any of the functions listed without the use of drill rig
Monitor performance in all parts of the well
Perform stimulation work to assist production
Perform stimulation work to assist production
Control production by means of isolation
To do this through the restrictions of an upper completion at any time during the production phase
Hydraulic isolation of lateral bores
Although the system was initially developed for integration into wells fitted with the Sperry Sun LTBS, it
can also be used in new well applications, providing that a location, orientation and locking profile has been
incorporated into the casing/ liner below the proposed or pre-cut window location. In existing wells where
sidetrack re-entry wells are planned, the system can be used once the sidetrack has been drilled, completed
and the whipstock retrieved, the whipstock packer can be used to provide a location/ orientation/ locking
capability for the MLR system and enable future intervention work to be performed.
The system has already been used successfully in a number of reported applications in conjunction with
Sperry Sun

For NAM, Holland
The system was used successfully in the Rotterdam Field, Well RTD 14, which was a stacked dual
lateral incorporating the MLR system with a Sperry Sun LTBS window joint. PCE claim that the
worlds first selective re-entry was performed in RTD 14, during February 1996
Occidental, offshore Qatar
In the Idd El Shargi North Dome field, on well IS76 and Is77, the MLR system was used in these
stacked dual laterals with Sperry Suns RMLS
As part of the continuous improvement program, PCE list four areas that have been or will be further
researched
1. A system has been developed which precludes the need to use packers above and below the junction. It
does not utilise the drilling system and can be orientated using PCEs own latch/ orientation device, to
provide a system which is positively locked set
2. A project has been identified which will consider utilisation of the same whipstock deployment design to
incorporate within the liner or tubing string and thus provide a means of performing though-tubing,
coiled tubing drilling with existing equipment
3. A method has been established which can be used to position an MLR nipple where the lateral has been
drilled from an existing well bore with no means of casing latch or orientation
4. A prototype dual completion system incorporating artificial lift is also under development
Contact Pressure Control Engineering for more information.
Baker Hughes Inteq
Baker Hughes has developed a tool for selective entry of TAML level 5 multi laterals called the Selective
Re-entry Tool (SRT). It is designed to provide selective re-entry into any branch of a multi lateral well.
When combined with a Scoophead diverter and lateral tie back assembly the system can provide hydraulic
isolation of the junction. It is the SRT which behaves as the change over point from single string tubing
completion at surface to dual string below. The SRT has a lock and orientation profile, located at the top of
the tool, which is used to land and position the diverter. The diverter is used to select which wellbore is to be
re-entered.
Features/ Benefits of the SRT
Enables selective re-entry into mainbore or lateral well for workover
Positive selection on diverter tool ensures correct entry into desired wellbore
Allows commingled production from each lateral well with pressure isolated junctions
5,000 psi internal pressure rating
When the SRT is combined with a scoophead diverter :
allows pressure isolation junction with commingled production
allows large tubing size completion into lateral and mainbore
scoophead design allows re-entry into lateral with alternative BHAs

Figure 5.8 Baker Hughes SRT

Secure Oil Tools
The Secure system for Level-2 ,3 and 4 all incorporate a method of re-entry access using a depth profile and
a orientation profile. Because of the pre-milled window section, access to any number of laterals is
achievable using the same mechanical indicators as used when setting whipstocks and drilling out the
laterals. The whipstocks used for positive selective re-entry are located and set either mechanically or
hydraulically. The Secure system is full casing I.D. through the window sections to allow running standard
O.D. completion equipment and /or production whipstocks to allow re-entry to lower laterals.
5.3 Lateral Monitoring and Control
5.3.1 Vendors
Remotely controlled completion tools/ sleeves
PES mini hydraulic
Baker Hughes
Petroline
Ocre
Subtech
Smedvig Technology AS
PDG sensors
Schlumberger Wireline and Testing Well Watcher
Exal Reservoir Services sureflo
WGPT
Phoenix
Sensor Highway
Smart well systems
Baker Hughes/ Schlumberger ICS
Baker/Altinex ICD
PES/ Halliburton SCRAMS
ABB/ Sperry Sun/ Dresser ARMS
Aker Maritime IPC
Smedvig PROMAC
Reeled completions
CAMCO
Baker Hughes
5.3.2 Completion Tools and Control Sleeves
Petroleum Engineering Services Ltd.
PES have developed a system called the Mini-Hydraulic
TM
System. It provides control of any device that
may have more than one operating mode or position with a single hydraulic line dedicated to each device e.g.
tubing mounted ball valves and sliding sleeves. The following illustrations are a sliding sleeve and a
lubricator valve which have been modified to incorporate the Mini-Hydraulic
TM
System.

D
E
A
A
B
C
22
12
12
55 & 57
SYSTEM
MINI-HYDRAULICS
10
11
10
7
4
8
6
13
5
Z
55
40
46
41
30
34
5
Y
37 & 49
32
2
26
54
28
39
36
35 & 48
33
38
31
29
45
25
50
44
24
FMJ TERTIARY
JAM NUT
FITTING
V
5
23
3
47
1
21
20
19
52
17
51
16
15
14
5
4
X
18
55 & 57
27
V
9
58 (Not Shown)
56

C
B
A
D
X
7
1
2
FMJ Jam
Nut Fitting
Mini-Hydraulic
System
3
8
16
13
16
11
19
17
14
17
12
8
18
18
15
5
6
Y
4
7
18
15
18
9
9
Slot for Hydraulic
Control Line
shown 30 degrees
out of position
9
10
Z

Features
High operating forces: 10000 20000 lbs for driving the device in both directions
Adapted for use at any practical setting depth
Heart of system: miniature 4 way two position valve changes state depending on amplitude of control line
pressure to selectively direct control line pressure to either side of a balanced piston
Applications
Suitable for onshore or offshore well locations where only a few on/off tools are desired and clean downhole
conditions apply
For applications where gauge reliability is considered critical , then it may be better to provide gauges on a
separate line that to multi-drop them onto the SCRAMS line due to the number of non-redundant
connections required
The following table contains data on the Mini-Hydraulic
TM
System:
Communication Locomotive Redundancy Control Multi-
Power Resolution Drop
hydraulic hydraulic no on/off no

TEC PDG Segnet Relative Positive
Electronics Compatibility Communication Cost Feedback
no no* no low indirect
*gauges can be included in the completion but require a separate I-wire to be run for this purpose.
Contact Petroleum Engineering Services Ltd. for more information

Baker Hughes
Baker Hughes have a range of completion tools which have been electronically enhanced and can be
actuated by pulse communication technology. Once the tools are in position in the well they are actuated on
receipt of specific commands sent from a portable terminal unit. The following tools are available for
actuation by pulse communication
Permanent packer
Two types of retrievable packer
Sliding sleeve
Disappearing plug
Petroline (awaiting information)
Valve/ completion tools
Contact Petroline (www.petroline.es) for more information
Ocre (awaiting information)
Perforating system
Contact Ocre for more information.
Subtech
Subtech are in the early stages of developing intelligent well completion
systems. The first system to be developed will be based on downhole
sensor systems, where they will implement their fully electrically operated
inflow valve. The three components that SubTech have available at the
moment are as follows:
1. Hydraulic Operated Multiple Down Hole Valve System. This
system has been developed to hydraulically manipulate up to 4
individual down hole valves via one control line. Any of the valves can
be operated, and hydraulic manipulated from surface to effect closure
or open a selected valve. If the system is to be combined with down
hole electronic sensors to measure temperature and pressure, the system
can be implemented with a Subtech permanent gauge system. Subtech
have two options for monitoring the downhole flow.


2. Cobra System. This system is fully electrical offering wireline, coiled
tubing or well tractor retrieval valve and electronics, without pulling
the completion. It is based on a semi-permanent reservoir monitoring
system that has been installed in 5 North Sea wells. Several valves can
be installed down hole and each of these can be manipulated from the
surface. Each valve can contain one or more high accuracy pressure
and temperature sensors, which offers reservoir monitoring. The system
can also be installed as a permanent feature and can be used as an
adjustable gas lift and/ or circulation valve.

3. Electro Hydraulic System. The third Subtech system combines the
hydraulic operated multiple down hole valve system and the Cobra
system, the electro hydraulic system. This can either be supplied with a
replaceable valve/ sensor package or as a permanently installed valve/
sensor package to control and route the hydraulic pressure to the valve
to be operated.

Contact Subtech (www.subtech.com)for more information.
5.3.3 Monitoring and Measuring Systems
Several companies offer state-of-the-art sensor technology that is compatible with smart well systems
1. CSM Associates Ltd.
2. Sensor Highway
3. AEA Technology
4. Smedvig
5. Schlumberger
6. Exal
7. Camco
CSM Associates
Microseismic utilises one or more of the following
Rapid stain/ stress release due to brittle failure
Requires a stress/ strain state change through pore fluid pressure, mechanical deformation, change in
material properties
Events located (x,y,z,t) using P & S-wave arrivals and particle motion
Waveform analysis provides radius, energy and stress release, failure mechanism and stress state
Most events are shear failure on pre-existing structures
Seismic monitoring has several applications with regards to reservoir management
Long term reservoir monitoring
Monitoring pressure front movement during depletion
Identification of undepleted zones

Delineation of active fault structures
Compaction monitoring
Trigger for repeat 3D surveys
Waterflood/ injection monitoring
Monitoring pressure front movement
Identification of fracture flow anisotropy
Positioning and orientation of injector/ producer wells
The theory and processing of passive seismic sensors is well developed and proven. Permanent sensors and
available for land wells and temporary deployment using multi level VSP tools offshore.
CSMA currently have three tools available, MS7, MS8 and MS9 SLIM 4 component microseismic sondes.
The features of theses systems are
Designed for permanent installation
Models are rated to 80
o
C, 175
o
C and 200
o
C for continuous deployment
10, 100 and 1000 V/g sensitivity available
high gain accelerometers with resolution down to <5 mg
1 11/16 in. diameter
uses industry standard 7 core logging cable or customer defined specials
The figure below illustrates a microseismic sonde and the accompanying table gives technical details for the
three available tools.

MS7, MS8 & MS9 - SLIM 4 COMPONENT MICROSEISMIC BOREHOLE TOOLS
Parameter MS7 MS8 MS9
Operating temperature 80C 175C 200C
Pressure rating 350 Bar 350 Bar 350 Bar
Pressure housing materials S.Steel/Al Bronze S.Steel/Al Bronze S.Steel/Al Bronze
Operational life expectancy 5 years 5 years 5 years
Sonde diameter 43 mm 43 mm 43 mm
Sonde length 90 cm 90 cm 90 cm
Cable head Sealed pressure as MS7 as MS7
Cable head length 35 cm 35 cm 35 cm
Cable head diameter 43 mm 43 mm 43 mm
Cable head weak point 4500 lbs 4500 lbs 4500 lbs
Logging cable Standard 7 core logging cable Standard 7 core logging cable Standard 7 core logging cable
Frequency range *(3) 1 - 1300 Hz (-3dB) 1 Hz - 900 Hz(-3dB) 10 - 1000 Hz (-3dB)
Sensor accelerometers CSMA 9.041.003 CSMA 9.041.002 CSMA 9.041.002
Sonde output 10/100/1000 V/g surface
selected
1000 V/g 1000 V/g
Sensor resolution <10 g <5 g <5 g
Electronic system noise *(1) <2 g <1 g <2 g
Electronic system noise *(2) 2 g 2.2 g 5 g
Sensor transverse sensitivity 100% 100% 100%
Power supply requirement *(4) 15V @ 50mA 15V @ 50mA
*1 @50C @25C @25C
*2 @80C @150C @150C

*3 n/a @175C @200C
*4 The MS7 includes a surface receiver for the current loop which is limited to 1500 metres of logging
cable (sonde/surface unit). This surface unit also powers the tool.
Contact CSM Associates for more information.
Sensor Highway
The use of optical sensors for down-hole measuring is becoming more widespread. Sensor highway have
developed several options/ techniques for optical sensors
Sensor Highway Conduit Concept
This provides a reliable method of installing optical sensors that allows the thin filament sensors to be placed
in the well utilising fluid drag. The conduit is best placed in a u-tube into the well at the time of completion
and the optical fibre sensors can be installed at any time using fluid drag

The system offers the following advantages
Cable dimensions are kept to a minimum
Down hole splices in the optical fibre are eliminated
Sensors can be installed at any time after the well has been completed
Sensors can be replaced if they fail
Sensors can be upgraded during the life of the well
Sensors cab be buffered using specially formulated fluids that are placed in the conduit
Current Installations
69 installations to date
California 43
Canada 17
Indonesia 7
Venezuela 2
Data available at all times
More accurate profile
Non-intrusive technique
Much lower costs on horizontal wells
Monitors well integrity

Thermal Profiling Sensors
These have been installed in Horizontal
Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD)
wells through the Sensor Highway conduit.
The factors that have contributed to the
success of the Thermal Profiling Sensors
have been
Well designs that minimise the effects of
tubing movement on the optical sensors
Protection of the conduit
Simple completions

ICCT Completion with Sensor Highway
Further work is been planned which will include
Development of systems where the conduit is installed either outside or as an integral part of the slotted liner
Development of steam injection wells which are equipped with optical sensors and can be re-configured to
give optimum steam delivery
Future Developments from Sensor Highway
Sensor Highway are looking at ways to allow transfer of distributed temperature measurements in a range of
environments from on-shore shallow horizontal wells to more complex wells in Europe. The system design
will include
Greater extent of real time monitoring than that performed by conventional single point sensors
Ability to continuously log the well across one or more producing intervals
Possibility to accurately map trends in the behaviour of the well with time
Identify water or solids ingress into the well
The new design will be suitable for
1. Completion for continuous logging of horizontal wells in a water flood field
2. Continuous production logging of a cross flow water injector/producer
Penetrated Temperature Logging
Completion (PTLC)

Penetrated Temperature Logging
Completion (PTLC). Concentric Crossflow
Producer/Injector
Contact Sensor Highway for more information.
AEA Technology and Wood Group Petroleum Technology
AEA and WGPT have been working on developing Electrochemical Down hole Sensors. The system
combines Wood Groups MIDAS data system and existing AEA technologies from history of gas screening
and work in nuclear plant cooling systems. Demand to provide better scale management and sensors has
fuelled this development, the following are potentially useful features of the system
Detect ionic species and pH
Permanent deployment
Temperature stability
Overcome fouling problems
Compatible with existing hardware


AEA and WGPT have developed an outline product specification and conducted a feasibility study to assess
the following requirements
Modular design
Integrated into MIDAS system
Detect pH, Cl
-
and temperature
Adaptable for other ionic species
In situ cleaning
Operate up to 120
o
C for minimum of 5 years
Currently they have a prototype electrochemical sensor available. The sensor has the following applications
Scale management
Early warning of propensity to scaling
Well management
Monitor remedial chemical treatments
Monitor acid fracture operations
Reservoir management and oil recovery
Flood front monitoring
Zone identification
Detect and monitor injected tracers
(MIC)
The sensor will be incorporated into a monitoring system to provide an integrated scale management system
which will have the following objectives and benefits
Objectives
Reduce the impact of scale through early detection
Provide analysis on line
Apply chemicals at the point of build up
Treat scale in a closed loop system
No well interventions
Benefits
Treatment occurs before damage is done
Constant monitoring and treatment possible
Time from detection to analysis to treatment is minimal
Problem is halted at source
No deferred production
Smedig currently have three systems which are applicable to lateral monitoring and control.
1. Permanent Downhole Monitoring System(PDMS)

This system has been developed by Smedvig over the last 10 years. The PDMS gives around the clock access
to down hole information from any office location which
Gives improved reservoir management
Improves modelling and planning
Gives high recovery
Long life time
Improves safety
Less well intervention

Gives the ultimate use of resources
Gives good economy
Low investment
High reliability
Fewer personnel involved
No hazardous equipment
Uses unique technology
Provides more and better data and unlimited
geographical access
The system has been widely installed as illustrated in the Figure below
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
N
o
.

o
f

G
a
u
g
e
s
1
9
8
7
1
9
8
8
1
9
8
9
1
9
9
0
1
9
9
1
1
9
9
2
1
9
9
3
1
9
9
4
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
6
Year

Number of Smedvig Permanent Gauge Installation per Year, up to August 26, 1996
The system features the following components which can be provided as stand alone subsystems or as a
complete system
DACQUS
Permanent down hole gauge
Gauge carrier
Down hole cable
Cable protectors
Wellhead pressure barrier
Subsea electrical connector
2. Reservoir Quartz Pressure Gauge (RQPG 180/130)
Smedvig have designed two quartz
crystal gauges for installation in
permanent HP/HT oil and gas
reservoirs, the RQPG 130 and RQPG
180. The gauges continuously transmit
digitised pressure and temperature data
from the reservoir to the surface, where
the data can be monitored and
processed.

They are robust, reliable and small in size which makes them suitable for all wells down to 1 minimum bore
regardless of application. The RQPG operated in high temperature reservoirs (130 180
o
C) and the RQPG
130 is for all temperatures below this. It can also be designed in a retrievable version, RQPG 180R. The
following features are true of the RQPG gauge
Ultimate performance innovative technology gives high resolution and stability, limiting measurement
uncertainty to less than 0.015% FS
improved response dynamic modelling and compensation provides true P/T output in wells with
fluctuating temperatures

HP/HT compatibility safe operation at 125 MPa (18,000 psig) at 180
o
C or up to 140 MPa (20,000 psig) at
160
o
C.
Digital telemetry unidirectional signal telemetry operates down hole sensors on monoconductor cables over
10,000 m in length
Tandem capability up to three down hole gauges can be operated by a single conductor. The small physical
size, slender 25mm outside diameter and short length, enables use in deep slim-hole wells, and as a
retrievable unit in a side pocket mandrel
3. Down-Hole Data Acquisition and Management System (DACQUS)
This system is Smedvigs exclusive windows
based, real time well data logging system, designed
to run on any PC network. The icon for DACQUS
sits on the desktop of the PC and it gives
immediate access to current down-hole temperature
and pressure from well equipped with permanent
down hole monitoring systems. As down hole
measurements are constantly updated, the system
builds a historical data bank that can be accessed
by scrolling in the monitoring window. It can be
run with the following operating systems
DOS
UNIX
OS-2
Windows
NT

The following are the features of the DACQUS system
Real time operation and monitoring from
shore
Compatibility with all down-hole gauges
Complete range of gauge interfaces
Multi channel system for more than 40
gauges
Continuous scanning of data every second
Sampling on set time and delta-P mode
Link to platform network
User friendliness with no need for training
Customised system configuration and
installation
System access from anywhere
Contact Smedvig Technology AS (www.smedvig.no) for more information.
Exal Reservoir Services
Exal have developed a permanent down-hole flow meter which is applicable to lateral monitoring and which
has been used at BPs Wytch Farm. It works in combination with ESPs which are critically dependant on
adequate motor cooling and operation below the up-thrust limit, two factors which are flow rate dependant.
The flow meter was developed in conjunction with BP and operates on the venturi principal. There are no
moving parts with the flow meter and therefore, it has inherent reliability. This fact, coupled with minimal
permanent pressure loss characteristics, makes venturi meters suited to down-hole applications.
The tool measures gross flow rate, knowledge of water cut is assumed. The following are the system features
High accuracy shear quartz pressure/ temperature gauges are mounted on a carrier
Two of the gauges monitor throat and pump discharge pressures, enabling calculation of the venturi pressure
differential and thus flow rate.
Third gauge monitors external or pump suction pressure/ temperature
Gage frequency outputs are transmitted to surface through a single standard instrument cable every three
seconds

At surface, a range of parameters, including pump head efficiency and cumulative production are computed
on line and logged.
From testing at Wytch Farm, Exal/ BP concluded that the permanent flow meter system proved to be a
valuable diagnostic tool during well commissioning and normal production operations. The real time data it
provided has been vital in quick diagnosis of the following
cases of pump operating in reverse rotation
occurrence of a downward cycle
poor well performance caused by pump suction blockage.
Without the data provided by the flow meter system, a premature failure of the well F19 ESP system
probably would have occurred.
In the future Exal and BP are planning to develop the capability to measure water cut for future installations.
Contact Exal Reservoir Services for more information.
Camco Ltd Products and Services
Camco have developed a variable window inflow control valve that is
applicable to smart well systems. It is versatile and flexible and
provides remote operation and real time monitoring and control of well
bore fluids. It can be used in any operation from remote platform to
deepwater, sub-sea completions.
The valve is designed for use with Camcos standard completion and
safety equipment, the IDPS systems use a high volume ICV featuring
Camcos exclusive Variable Window Technology and can be operated
hydraulically or electronically. These systems are used in conjunction
with a subsurface monitoring system that is housed in a side pocket
mandrel specifically for the system.
The following are the features of the system
choice of electric or hydraulic operating modes
real time pressure/ temperature monitoring
wireless retrievable variable window inflow control valve
economy minimum cost to retrieve
retrievability

Contact Camco Ltd Products and Services for more information.
Schlumberger (awaiting information)
5.3.4 Smart/ Intelligent Completions
The idea for smart well completions is to enable the operator to control and monitor hydrocarbon production
from the surface in either multiple zones from a single wellbore or an individual lateral in a multi lateral
system. This enables the recovery of a large percent of hydrocarbons from a reservoir with a minimum
number of interventions.
The main components common to all Smart well systems are as follows
Surface/ subsea acquisition, control and interface systems
Adjustable flow control valve devices
Down hole quartz pressure/ temperatures gauges
Intra zone flow meters
Fibre orifice gas lift device
Fibre optic sensors for measuring purposes and data transport (optional)
Retrievable production/ isolation packers
Tubing encased conductors and surface wellhead outlet
Smart well technology offers several advantages, it can be seen as an opportunity to improve project
economics by:

Reducing of future intervention cost
Acceleration of production, this can be seen on figures 3 and 4
Increase recovery
It can also offer the following advantages
Improved well/ reservoir performance monitoring
Reduced operating costs
Risks associated with intervention are minimised especially in leveraged wellbores e.g. subsea,
multilateral and extended reach
Commingling of production from multiple zones
Optimise down hole gas lift
Selective production
Control of injection profile
Perform selective build-up tests while continuing to produce from other zones
Conduct interventionless completion deployment
In combination with multi-lateral technology smart well technology can optimise reservoir management by
providing ability to
Determine zonal contributions
Shut and choke back each zone to minimise water or gas production
Control cross flow
The disadvantages of smart/ intelligent completions are
High capital cost e.g. the procurement of the actual smart completion and installation costs
Application of new technology without a proven track record
Usability/ reliability?
Operating cost can compound due to increased sophistication of the equipment
Difficulty in application of smart technology e.g. Has the technology been an evolution rather than a
development for an application?
There are also technology gaps which need to be resolved before the use of smart well technology will
become more widespread
Understanding the reservoir
Life cycle modelling economies
Building knowledge bases
Developing management systems
Infrastructure
Standardisation
Integrating fibre-optics
Addressing laterals
Hardware
Minimised cable count
Lower cost systems
Several companies offer Smart Well solutions and they are discussed next.

Intelligent Completion System (ICS)

Baker Hughes and Schlumberger have signed an agreement covering the joint development and marketing of
the initial phase of Intelligent Completion Systems (ICS). They expect to deploy their first system in the 4
th

quarter of 1998.
It will bring together Schlumbergers experience of down hole electronics and systems integration and Baker
Hughes completions engineering expertise. ICS will combine reliable down hole sensors with remote control
down hole flow.
To get all of the benefits of smart well completions, the ICS system must be integrated into the overall
project development from the beginning. An ICS team will be formed to facilitate ICS application
engineering and interact with the overall project management team.
Contact Baker Hughes (www.bakerhughes.com) and Schlumberger Wireline and Testing (www.slb.com) for
more information.
Surface Controlled Reservoir Analysis and Management System

SCRAMS was initially developed by PES, but the alliance with Halliburton brings together PES with its
established record of development focused and engineering resources and Halliburtons experience with
multilateral, high pressure and high temperature and deepwater completions.

The Halliburton/ PES alliance will employ the intelligent completion system developed by PES. The
technology will then be installed as part of the total completion package offered by Halliburton and may also
include their multi lateral and deep water systems.
The SCRAMS system is capable of managing down hole sensors and flow control components in real time
via electric cables from surface. The system uses the SEGNET protocol developed by PES and operating
software, to communicate individually with each sensor and component, manage data acquisition, logging,
control and diagnostic functions, chronologically records of all information and communication instructions
then stores all the data for later use.
SCRAMS employ permanently installed down hole electric cables to provide power and to communicate
with each down hole sensor and well tool using the SEGNET protocol. Down hole tools may be driven
electrically, or permanently installed hydraulic lines may be used in conjunction with solenoid valves to
selectively manipulate each device.
There are several developments being planned for the SCRAMS system
The integration of quartz pressure and temperature transducers
Sufficient flow testing of the ICV will permit dual gauges to be used to provide zonal flow measurements,
given single phase flow or detailed knowledge of the produced fluid properties
Integration of additional sensor types will be included in the near future to provide operators with a
comprehensive reservoir management tool
Downhole power generation systems utilising integrated turbine flowmeters/ generators
Advanced control systems which used wireline telemetry
Contact Petroleum Engineering Services Ltd. for more information.
Active Reservoir Management System
The alliance will offer a totally integrated
package which will manage and control
the reservoirs performance. The system
will operate from an offshore platform or
an onshore location. Communication
links will be extended via satellite to give
visibility at locations worldwide. The
package will include a sub-sea controls
system, the only one in the market.
The development of the components
required for the 1
st
package is underway
and it is expected that fully integrated
systems testing will commence in 1998.
Technology enhancements will be made
to the phase 1 package as the alliance
maintains its position on the leading
technology S-curve. The package will
also be able to handle additional
components such as
Down hole injection systems
Gas lift valves
Down hole pumping systems
Where required for specific requirements.

Contact ABB Seatec (www.abbc.com) for more information.

Interactive Production Control
The objective for the development of IPC by Maritime Well Services AS is to deliver a system which will
allow interactive production control. The system will have the following objective to deliver simple and
accurate data measurements, such as pressure and temperature, via more complex tasks such as downhole
sand detection and multiphase flow measurements to a full interactive production control system where
contributions from different zones are accurately measured and the inflow is controlled by choke
Xpipe
TM
: Downhole Communication Channel
XPipe is a new pipe concept that allows joints of pipe with conduits in the pipe wall to be jointed together
through the use of a unique coupling. The conduits are designed for transmission of both power and signal
transmission (hydraulic, electric or fibre optics) does not require time consuming clamping. This makes
XPipe ideal for use in long horizontal and multi-branched wells where one would hesitate to run externally
clamped control-lines as part of the completion.
7" 40-bar concept is being developed and is expected to be available early year 2000. There are also plans
for a 5 1/2" version.
Initial test of a 40 bar (burst) concept was successful. A series of joints were run in the test-well conduits and
pipe was pressure tested according to plan. Fluid was pumped through the conduits.
Running procedure and running time is similar to normal pipe.
Advantages of this concept include:
Continuous injection of chemicals for scale control and
inhibition at the toe of the horizontal/ multi-branched
well
Incorporation of conductor cables for control of downhole
valves and sensors
Monitoring of sensors for data gathering and diagnostics
from individual branches of the well
Will facilitate installation and removal of fibre optical
cables without pulling the completion
Can be combined with sand screen completions

Contact Altinex AS (www.altinex.no) for more information
5.2.5 Reeled Completions and Systems
This section is divided into two distinctive and separate areas:
1. Reeled Completions
reeled tubing as the production conduit
(Camco)
2. Reeled Systems for
well servicing: workover and intervention
drilling purposes: well deepening or extension or drilling of additional laterals
(Baker Hughes Inteq, Transocean, Schlumberger Dowell)
Reeled/ Spoolable Completions
Spoolable completions provide an alternative to jointed pipe and externally upset coiled tubing strings for
well completions. They also provide a viable and cost effective alternatice for both initial and through tubing
completions.

Camco Products and Services first introduced Spoolable completions in 1992 featuring fixed, centre set,
tubing retrievable gas lift and safety valves.
Advantages
The main benefits of spoolable CT completions are
Improved production hydraulics
Reduced intervention time
Cost savings
Ability to perform live well interventions
Take full advantage of speed and ease of
deployment of CT into wells
The completion string fitted with the completion accessories is simply spooled off the reel, over the guide
arch, and into the well using conventional CT and well control equipment. It is often the case that the
completion can be run under pressure, eliminating the need to kill the well, minimising the risk of formation
damage.
Surface Equipment
The main surface components required to run the spoolable completions are as follows
Injector head
Reel
Hydraulic power pack
Blowout prevention stack and pack off
assembly
Control console
CT Equipment Rig Up
The rig from top to bottom consists of the existing tubing hanger consists of
CT hanger
Gate valve
BOPs
A length of lubricator
Pack-off
Injector head
The injector head is determined by the length of the lower seal assembly. The lower seal assembly is coupled
to the CT using the coiled tubing connector. Installations where the CT completion is hung in the existing
production tubing will require a work window or similar means in the rig up for coupling the upper hanger
assembly to the CT.
Spoolable Completion Equipment
Spoolable completion equipment is rated for 500 psi working pressure and 300
o
F working temperature.
These products are designed to deal with bending stresses when spooled and remain flush with the
completion string OD for the capability to run live.
The main components of the Spoolable Completion, which can be used in various combinations to come up
with a variety of completion designs are
Gas lift valves
CTS-I
CTS TRGLV
CTS - WRGLV
Hydraulic Communication
Internal control line
External control line
CTS TRDP Spoolable Safety Valve
Future developments planned for control
Coiled tubing wall conduit
Concentric coiled tubing
Existing hydraulic control
Contact Camco Ltd Products and Services for more information.

An important design goal of
the system is that the main
barrier to downhole
instrumentation and control of
production is the high risk in
the critical early part of the
development before the
production is at plateau/ The
IPC system is aimed at
minimising the initial cost and
risk.

Contact Maritime Well Services AS for more information.

Production Monitoring and Control (PROMAC)

Smedvig Technology AS have developed a smart well completion which is based
on Smedvigs permanent downhole monitoring system(PDMS).
Using PROMAC engineers can maintain full control of pressure and temperature
and gain accurate P/T information in the tubing, reservoir zones and hydraulic
supply lines. The system also provides information about the position of the control
valve sleeve. When additional sensors are attached, PROMAC can provide water
cut, sand detection and multiphase flow and chemical data.
Main function principles
all hydraulic sleeve actuation
all electronic P/T monitoring
no shared electro-hydraulic functions
step-less sleeve position from RQPG
hydraulic switch-over valve
axial piston sleeve positioning
WL or CT operation as backup
Retrievable zone isolation packers
Contact Smedvig Technology AS (www.smedvig.com) for more information

5.3.6 Reeled Systems
There are three main companies which provide reeled systems for CTD drilling and servicing of multi
laterals: Baker Hughes Inteq, Transocean and Dowell Schlumberger. However several equipment providers
have systems that are specifically designed to carry out multilateral well construction operations by means
of coiled tubing. These have already been described in the Chapter 5.1
(eg, TIWs COBRATM
TM
, TTRTM
TM
and MLASTM
TM
systems)
Baker Hughes
The Copernicus
TM
and the Galileo
TM
rigs are modular skid mounted purpose built CTD rigs for respectively
offshore and onshore operations. Both rigs have their own facility to handle CT as well as jointed pipe. The
rigs also include a fluid system for overbalanced and underbalanced drilling operations. Both rigs are
designed for drilling underbalanced re-entries and new slim hole wells. Due to centralised process control,
automation and multi-skilled personnel, a crew of 2 x 6 men is sufficient for underbalanced CTD with N
2
.
BHI have a 3 in. and 3 1/8 in. CT BHA with a wireline MWD and a joystick controlled novel orienting

device. BHI have been involved in numerous CTD jobs worldwide and have also a field proven downhole
CTD BHA system. BHI claims to have developed a 2 7/8 in. short radius CT BHA.

Transocean
The Chameleon
TM
is a purpose built trailer mounted CTD rig designed to operate onshore.. The Transocean
surface design is radically different than the standard or hybrid CTD units. In an attempt to reduce coil
fatigue they have placed the reel directly on top of the injector head. The latest version of the Chameleon
can actually rotate the reel on top of the injector in an attempt to improve hole-cleaning conditions .The
system is mainly designed for re-entry underbalanced work and slimhole wells. Thanks to centralised process
control, automation and multi-skilling, a crew of 12 is sufficient for UB CTD with N2. Transocean have 3
in. and 4 in. CT BHAs with a wireline MWD and joystick controlled orienting tool powered by two
hydraulic control lines. Transocean have been involved in numerous CTD jobs.

Dowell Schlumberger
Dowell operates the VIPER
TM
which incorporates an electrical orienting assembly, directional/ inclinational/
gamma ray/ pressure assembly and CT wireline telemetry. The system uses wireline telemetry which speeds
data transmission and allows the VIPER
TM
to operate in all fluid environments. It incorporates annular
pressure sensors, which aid the operator in maintaining optimum bottomhole pressure. To prevent the motor
from stalling differential pressure is measured. Gamma ray sensors provide formation evaluation and depth
correlation data. The casing collar locator provides depth correlation inside the casing. The system offers
improved CTD penetration rates and rapid data updates for underbalanced, short radius, conventional re-
entry and through tubing re-entry-drilling applications. It also provides fast and accurate tool-face orientation
control. Dowell have gained a lot of conventional CTD experience in North America and the recent
development of the VIPER
TM
system will allow them to further expand their world-wide CTD portfolio.

5.3.7 Expandable Tubular Technology
Halliburton and Shell are jointly developing this technology based on Shells original expandable tubular
technology. Although still in its infancy, it is evolving rapidly. The technology will
enable operators to access reservoirs that cannot be reached economically using currently available
technology
expandable systems allow operators to drill deeper vertical wells and farther extended reach deviated wells
smaller hole size that expandables allow means the wells can be drilled more economically
previously deemed impractical drilling of deepwater wells will be a viable possibility
expandable tubulars will meet the challenges of drilling in the sub-salt environments of the gulf of Mexico
technology will give new life to old wellbores by increasing the burst rating or repairing damaged casing by
cladding the inside of the existing tubulars
Two conceptual designs have been developed
13 3/8 in. system which can be run inside 16 in. casing and expanded to approximately 14 in. ID
a 7 5/8 in. system that can be run inside 9 5/8 in. casing and can be expanded to about 8 1/10 in. ID.
Full scale testing will be carried out throughout 1998. Development of the tools will continue through most
of 1999 and the first field trials are scheduled for the first half of 1999 with the first application some time
later that year.
5.4 References
5.4.1 Contact Information
ABB Seatec
Tel:
+44 1275 810 100
Fax:
+44 1275 851 467
Altinex AS
Tel:
+47 55 52 50 60
Fax: +47 55 52 50 51
Web: http://www.altinex.no/
Email: leif.bjermeland@altinex.no
TAML site: http://taml.wst.no/all/vendors/Baker/
Anadrill
Web: http://www.slb.com/
Baker Hughes
Tel:
+44-1224 226 036
Fax: +44-1224 226 003
Web: http://www.bhi.com/
Email: jim.hewson@inteq.bhi-net.com
TAML site: http://taml.wst.no/all/vendors/Baker/

Camco Ltd Products and Services
Tel UK:
+44 1224 726 3970
Fax UK:
+44-1224 770 432
Tel USA:
+1 713 747 4000
Fax USA:
+1 713 747 6751
CSM Associates
Tel:
+44-1209 860 141
Fax:
+44-1209 861 013
Web: http://www.csma.co.uk/
Email: jcowles@csma.co.uk
Exal Reservoir Services
Tel:
+44-1224 214 763
Fax:
+44-1224 214 745
Halliburton
Tel:
+44-1224 778 185
Fax:
+44-1224 778 328
Web: www.halliburton.com/SPE
Maritime Well Services AS
Tel:
+47 51 81 90 00
Fax:
+47 51 81 90 10
Web: http://www.mws.no/
Norsk Hydro ASA
Web: http://www.hydro.com/
Email: Odin.B.Henrikssen@nho.hydro.com
Ocre
Tel:
+44 1224 793 032
Fax:
+44 1224 227 819
Email: ocre@ocre.akermar.com
Petroleum Engineering Services Ltd.
Tel:
+44 1224 793 000
Fax:
+44 1224 793 193
Web: http://www.pes.co.uk/
Petroline
Tel:
+44 1224 423 423

Fax:
+44 1224 423 200
Web: http://www.petroline.co.uk/
Email: techserv@petroline.co.uk
Pressure Control Engineering
Tel:
+44 1202 631 817
Fax:
+44 1202 631 708
Web: http://www.bhi.com/
Email: sales@pce.co.uk
TAML site: http://www.pce.co.uk/
Sarawak Shell Sdn. Bhd/ Sabah Shell Petroleum Oil Company
TAML site: https://taml.wst.no/root/db/operators.asp
Schlumberger Wireline and Testing
Tel:
+44 1224 406 000
Fax:
+44 1224 773 298
Web: http://www.slb.com/
Sensor Highway
Tel:
+44 1264 337 766; +47 1224 622 866
Fax:
+47 1264 337 765
Tel:
+47 51 81 88 00
Fax: +47 51 81 88 04
Web: www.smedvig.no
Email: harald.schmidt@smedtech.com
Tel:
+1 218 233 5719
Fax: +1 218 233 5730
Web: http://www.smithdrilling.com/
Email: rseale@smith-intl.com
TAML site: http://taml.wst.no/all/vendors/Smith/
Sperry-Sun
Tel:
+44-1224 727 244
Fax:
+44-1224 724 359
Web: http://www.sperry-sun.com/
Email: DHamer@sperry-sun.com
Page 151 of 277

TAML site: http://taml.wst.no/all/vendors/Sperry_Halliburton/
Subtech
Web: http://www.subtech.no/
Email: Henning.Hansen@subtech.no
TIW Corporation
Tel: +1 713 729 2110
Fax: +1 713 728 4767
Web: http://www.tiwtools.com/
Email: Gary.Briggs@tiwtools.com
TAML site: http://taml.wst.no/all/vendors/TIW/
Weatherford
Web: http://www.weatherford.com/
Email: Andrew.Barry@weatherford.com
TAML site: http://taml.wst.no/all/vendors/Weatherford/
5.4.2 Other Documents
1. Harts Petroleum Internation Staff Report, New Enabling Technologies Spur Multilateral Use, PEI
2. Abdul-Rahman and Chong ,Cementing Multilateral Wells with Latex Cement, JPT Aug 1997
3. Stracke, Neme, Leismeer and Buytaert, A New Concept for Multibranch Technology, JPT July 1997
4. Button, Worlds First Through Tubing Multilateral Intervention System Installed, Offshore May 1996
5. Button, New Developments in Multilateral Re-entry Systems
6. PCE, New Tool Allows Selective Re-entry, World Oil May 1997
7. Neff, Milling Technique a Critical First Decision in Re-entry Drilling, Offshore April 1997
8. Antczak, Smith, Roberts, Lowson and Norris, Implementing an Advanced Multilateral System with
Coiled Tubing Accessiblility, JPT June 1997
9. Brockman and Gann, Multilateral Completions prepare to Take Off, PEI January 1996
10. Hogg, Advanced Junction Technology Expands Multilateral Completions, PEI July 1997
11. Hills, Future Considerations for Multilateral Technology, PEI August 1997
12. Longbottom, Dale and Waddle, Multilateral Well Completion System Advances, JPT July 1997
13. Jabs, Expanding Options for Complex Multilateral Completions, JPT July 1998
14. Walz,Development of a Versatile, Low Cost Multi-Lateral Solution for Prudhoe Bay
SPE/IADC 37674, Amsterdam, 1997
Chapter 6. Planning Multilateral Well Page 152 of 277

Chapter 6. Planning Multilateral Well
6.1. Contracting Considerations
Although costs are important, at this stage in the evolution of multilateral operations, the key consideration
should be in obtaining a successful multilateral installation for the technical requirements of a specific
application. A low-cost solution that is applied unsuccessfully is not a good option. Penalty clauses should
be applied very carefully to minimize use of short-cuts that may tend to compromise chances of success.
As the technology evolves and the experience base, especially in Levels 3 and above, increases, optimizing
costs and operations will become a priority.
Contracting considerations for multilateral operations includes the following:
Number of wells, well type, reservoirs, or fields where it will be applied.
Scope of the contract
Multilateral system requirements TAML Level.
Junction depth range, which is a key consideration for determining the timing needed for lump sum
calculations.
Size range requirements
Metallurgical requirements
Companys Multilateral Experience
Level of comfort with the various contracting schemes
Pre-Qualification tendering
Local Contractor Experience
Management Directives
Pre-Qualification requirements
Local Country and Oil Directorate requirements
6.2. Contracting Sequence
1. Pre-Qualification Allows solicitation of all potential multilateral Contractors to determine
qualifications and rankings.
2. Tendering Obtaining detailed commercial and technical data for specific multilateral requirements.
3. Evaluation Selection of multilateral Vendor.
6.3 Pre-Qualification
The Pre-Qualification process is used to short-list potential multilateral Contractors based on specific
Company criteria. This phase is optional and is typically only used for multi-well contracts and for the
higher TAML level systems. The basis should include:
Technical Capabilities The capability of providing specific multilateral systems to satisfy well
requirements. This would include systems for different TAML levels,
mainbore sizes, and metallurgical requirements.
Contractor Experience Local and worldwide experience in installing specific multilateral systems.
Experience should include wells where Contractor was lead contractor for
multilateral installation.
Contractor Support/Infrastructure Proximity and availability of research/design/manufacturing infrastructure
as well as engineering and field support personnel.
Service Capability The capability to provide all facets of multilateral equipment, services, and
tools. If a 3
rd
party provides equipment or services, a long-term contractual

arrangement with prior experience together must be well documented.
Quality Control Database The Contractor must demonstrate their internal review and analysis process
for all tool and operational problems. Clear steps must be documented to
help avoid similar problems in the future. This also includes documentation
of adherence to applicable ISO, API, etc. standards.
Health, Safety, and Environment The Contractor must demonstrate appropriate HSE policies, training, and
practices.

One method is to develop a set of questions/statements for each item that identify specific selection criteria.
For each question develop answers with different levels of compliance [EXCEED, MEETS, or REJECT] to
your Companys criteria. For example:
CRITERIA: Document your Companys capability to provide multilateral equipment
services.
EXCEED: Contractor provides all equipment, tools, and services needed
for multilateral installation without support of 3
rd
party Contractor.
MEETS: Contractor provides all equipment, tools, and services needed
for multilateral installation with limited support of one or more 3
rd
party
Contractor. Contractor must demonstrate long-term contractual relationship
and prior experience of a minimum 2 years and 3 multilateral wells with
each 3
rd
party Contractor.
REJECT: Contractor provides all equipment, tools, and services needed
for multilateral installation with major support of one or more 3
rd
party
Contractor. Contractors contractual relationship and prior experience is less
than 2 years and 3 multilateral wells with each 3
rd
party Contractor.
NOTE: Years of relationship and number of wells is at Company discretion.

RESPONSES TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE WILL BE MARKED AS FOLLOWS
2 points for each response that exceeds the requirements (EXCEED)
1 point for each response that meets the requirements (MEETS)
0 points for each response that fails the requirements (REJECT)
Each criterion should be ranked as CRITICAL, VERY IMPORTANT, IMPORTANT, or DESIREABLE.
Each item is weighted, with the following meaning:
4 Critical A mandatory requirement without which use of the equipment shall not be considered.
Absence, non-conformance or failure of this feature would have potentially catastrophic
consequences in terms of the well, the installation and the personnel on board.
3 - Very Important
A REQUIREMENT WITHOUT WHICH USE THE EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT BE
CONSIDERED FOR ROUTINE OPERATIONS. ABSENCE, NON-CONFORMANCE OR
FAILURE OF THIS FEATURE WOULD RESULT IN THE DEVICE BEING
RENDERED INCAPABLE OF FULFILLING ITS PRIMARY FUNCTION, HAVING
MAJOR ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES AS A RESULT OF SUSPENSION OF
NORMAL WELL OPERATIONS AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR MAJOR WELL
INTERVENTION.
2 Important Plays a significant role and is unlikely to be omitted from the selected equipment.
Absence, non conformance or failure of this feature would not have immediate impact
on well operations and would not require major well intervention to correct but would be
sub optimal to the economic life cycle requirements of the well.
1 Desirable Has positive merit but may be dispensed with without significant detriment to

performance. This feature enhances the overall specification of the device but is not
essential to the device fulfilling its primary function.
6.3.1. Evaluation Notes:
The weighted scores are summed with the highest ranked companies invited to tender.
Vendors that are scored unacceptable (REJECT) on any ONE response weighted as CRITICAL, or on
any THREE responses weighted as VERY IMPORTANT, may be excluded from the tender exercise at
the review team's discretion irrespective of overall ranking.
6.3.2. Pre -Qualification -- Definitions
Include a section that identifies all terms that may potentially be miss-interpreted. Following are some
example definitions.
Full Life Cycle - The period of time, in which the device is in the well, including its
installation and retrieval.
Device - The piece of equipment to which the text or data applies.
Operating Environment - The set of conditions that the device is exposed to during its full life
cycle.
Functionality - The definition or description of the performance with associated
properties, characteristics and limits of a product or service.
Shall - Is used to indicate requirements that must be satisfied in order to comply
with this requirement.
Should - Is used to indicate requirements that are preferred. Alternatives shall be
clearly identified as such and shall be supported with objective evidence.
May - Is used to indicate that a provision is optional.
Operator - Indicates Operator and its Joint Venture Partners.
Vendor - Indicates the provider of equipment and services identified in this
document.
Functional Specification - The document that specifies the totality of needs expressed by features,
characteristics, process conditions, boundaries, and exclusion defining
the performance of a product or service, including the quality assurance
requirements.
Compatible - Able to exist together without adversely affecting performance or expect
lifecycle.
Non-Standard - The most economical Fit-for Purpose solution that meets all of the
defined criteria.
Standard - The most economical solution that meets all the defined criteria without
design modifications and is either available from current stock or within a
pre-defined time period.

Technical Specifications
-
The documentation that is provided by the Vendor for the purpose of
communicating and demonstrating to the Operator all of the design,
construction and operational features of the device and any accessories
relevant to achieving compliance with the functional specifications and/or
the introduction of new solutions.
System - Defined as the complete multilateral package including all equipment and
servi ces.
Field-proven - Indicates that the relevant operation, device, or system has been
successfully used in a well. Note that having successfully run one size of
a system does not qualify other sizes as being field-proven.
LOCAL AREA For this document is the
geographical area within
close proximity to
subject field(s) or
operational
headquarters of
Operator------
United
Kingdom
Texas Nigeria
REGIONAL AREA For this document is the
larger geographical area
comprising several
regions.
North Sea or
North
Sea/Europe
Gulf of Mexico
or North
America
West Africa or
West Africa/
Europe
6.3.3. Pre -Qualification -- Example Questionnaire
Following is an example set of questions. The questions cover:
Services
Equipment and Materials
Quality Control/Quality Assurance
Research and Development (Design/Modifications)
Manufacturing
Fishing Equipment
Contingency Tools and Services
Training
Subcontractors Alliance Partners
Health, Safety, and Environment
The questions require that certain support documentation must also accompany the Pre-Qualification Tender.
The weighting for each item will depend on the application and Company requirements.

SERVICES
Following are some questions concerning your ability to provide services.
BASE OF OPERATIONS
Describe your support facilities available within the LOCAL AREA. These facilities are where your engineering
and field personnel are based which would support the planning and installation operations. Also, identify other
facilities that are not within the LOCAL AREA but may be used, as operations require.
EXCEED: All support personnel are based in the LOCAL AREA.
MEETS: All support personnel are based within the LOCAL AREA or REGIONAL AREA.
REJECT: Limited support in the LOCAL AREA or REGIONAL AREA.
Weighting: 4
PROJECT SUPPORT ORGANIZATION
Describe the team or type of organization Vendor would put in place to install a multilateral junction including
engineering support, equipment manufacturing, field operations support, operator liaison, etc. If Vendor has
previous experience with similar contracts, describe how Vendor supported those contracts.
EXCEED: Vendor can demonstrate the application of dedicated support teams to manage similar contracts for
other Operators.
MEETS: Vendor has a support organization, but does not intend to put a dedicated Operator Team in place.
REJECT: Vendor plans to rely on other organizations for support.
Weighting: 3
CONCURRENT JOBS
Identify the total expected multilateral junctions to be installed by Vendor in time period within LOCAL AREA.
How many concurrent operations can be handled? Also, identify approximate number of current support
personnel (engineering and operational).
EXCEED: Four or more
MEETS: Three.
REJECT: One to two.
Weighting: 4

EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS
Describe what alloys are available for the downhole components (chromes, stainless steels, etc.). Also, identify
which alloys have been used.
EXCEED: All typical oilfield alloys are available and have been used.
MEETS: Most of the common oilfield alloys are available and have been used.
REJECT: Not satisfying the MEETS criteria.
Weighting: 2


QUALITY CONTROL - QUALITY ASSURANCE
QA/QC
Describe your Quality Control - Quality Assurance programs. Please identify specific standards (API, ISO
9001, etc.) for which Vendor is currently certified. Identify any other material tracking programs you follow.
EXCEED: Certified API and ISO 9001 and have a materials tracking system compatible with Operator's system
MEETS: At least certified API and ISO 9001.
REJECT: Not ISO 9001 or API certified.
Weighting: 4
QRA
Describe the documentation, analysis, and action process for system problems (non-productive time). Describe
your procedures for quantification of operational time and risk for the installation of a multilateral junction.
EXCEED: Document every problem and maintain a worldwide database. Have a committee that reviews each
incident and actively pursues solutions. Have an unbiased in-house procedure showing all potential risks and
consequences/solutions of each operation.
MEETS: Document main problems and maintain a local database. Have a committee that reviews main
incidents and actively pursues solutions. Have an unbiased in-house procedure showing all potential risks and
consequences/solutions of each operation.
REJECT: No identified method of tracking problems. No in-house risk assessment.
Weighting: 4


R&D (DESIGN)
CAPABILITY
Describe Vendor's R&D and design capability. Identify whether it is in-house or 3
rd
Party. For 3
rd
Party R&D,
describe relationship.
EXCEED: Have in-house R&D and design facility.
MEETS: Have in-house R&D facilities for key components.
REJECT: Use only 3
rd
party R&D facilities.
Weighting: 3
LOCATION
Identify the location of your R&D and engineering design facilities. Describe how local Nigerian R&D
requirements are relayed back to the R&D function of Vendor.
EXCEED: R&D organization is based in LOCAL AREA.
MEETS: R&D organization is not based in LOCAL AREA. Local engineers advise R&D on local requirements.
REJECT: Cannot satisfy MEETS Criteria.
Weighting: 2
ACCESS
Describe your access to your companies' R&D services. For multi-function/discipline R&D facilities, identify
your priority, access method and usage allocation.
EXCEED: Have a dedicated R&D organization
MEETS: Have an R&D organization with good access and high priority utilization.
Weighting: 3


MANUFACTURING
LOCATION
Identify location of manufacturing for key components.
EXCEED: Manufacturing is based in LOCAL AREA.
MEETS: Manufacturing is not based in LOCAL AREA. In-house standards are in place to minimize logistical
considerations (delays, etc.)
Weighting: 2
LEAD-TIME
Please describe the lead time requirements for placing orders to when the equipment and services are ready.
Consider your final location as your warehouse in the LOCAL AREA. Lead-time should include any design,
manufacturing, shipment, and stack-up testing at receiving end.
EXCEED: Procedures, operational checks, and back-up sources insure that all delivery times are met without
compromise of quality. Lead-times for all components are known and verifiable.
MEETS: Procedures and operational checks insure minimal delays. Delivery times reflect potential delays.
Lead-times for all components are known and verifiable.
Weighting: 4
TESTING
Describe in-house and 3
rd
party testing procedures for all multilateral equipment manufactured and/or assembled
at your facilities. Identify all documentation performed.
EXCEED: Have a well-documented in-house and/or 3
rd
party testing program which exceeds industry standards.
MEETS: Have a well-documented in-house and/or 3
rd
party testing program which meets industry standards.
Weighting: 4

FISHING EQUIPMENT
Describe the extent of fishing tools and services that you provide for your multilateral installation operations.
This should focus on all tools not normally part of a drilling operation and should address both intentional and
incidental fishing operations.
EXCEED: Provide a minimum of two methods to recover all specialized downhole tools required to create a
multilateral junction. Vendor (in-house and/or 3
rd
party) personnel are also trained to fish these tools. Have
well-documented fishing procedures established.
MEETS: Provide a minimum of one method to recover all specialized downhole tools required to create a
multilateral junction. Vendor (in-house and/or 3
rd
party) personnel are also trained to fish these tools. Have
well-documented fishing procedures established.
Weighting: 4


CONTINGENCY TOOLS AND SERVICES
Describe the extent of contingency tools and services that you provide for your multilateral installation
operations to ensure success. This should focus on all tools and services not normally part of the basic
multilateral system, but are provided on a contingency basis to address potential installation problems. An
example would be a second multilateral-packer is available if the first one leaks.
EXCEED: Provide a minimum of two contingency procedures for identified multilateral system installation
risks. Vendor (in-house and/or 3
rd
party) personnel are trained to implement contingency procedures. Have
well-documented contingency procedures established.
MEETS: Provide a minimum of one contingency procedure for identified multilateral system installation risks.
Vendor (in-house and/or 3
rd
party) personnel are trained to implement contingency procedures. Have well-
documented contingency procedures established.
Weighting: 4

TRAINING
Describe all training that is available for your personnel and for 3
rd
party personnel (Operator, rig personnel,
etc.) pertaining to your multilateral systems.
EXCEED: Has in-house training programs tailored to specific personnel for each multilateral system.
MEETS: Has in-house training programs tailored to specific personnel for each multilateral system.
REJECT: Has no training program.
Weighting: 3


SUBCONTRACTORS ALLIANCE PARTNERS
MANUFACTURING
Describe your companies use of subcontractors in the manufacturing of your multilateral equipment. In the case
of alliances, identify term, structure, and accountability. If an alliance partnership exists, it must have been in
place for a minimum of one year prior to the tendering of this document.
EXCEED: Uses no subcontractors or has a long-term documented working relationship (alliance partnership)
with subcontractor. All subcontractors or alliance partners must have same QA/QC certifications (ISO 9001,
etc.) as Vendor. Alliances must have been in place more than three years prior to date of this tender.
MEETS: May use more than one subcontractor. All subcontractors or alliance partners have same QA/QC
certifications (ISO 9001, etc.) as Vendor. Alliances must have been in place more than one year prior to date of
this tender.
REJECT: Does not satisfy MEETS criteria.
Weighting: 3
SERVICES
Describe your companies use of subcontractors for providing services for your multilateral installation
operations. In the case of alliances, identify term, structure, and accountability. If an alliance partnership exists,
it must have been in place for a minimum of one year prior to tendering of this document.
EXCEED: Uses no subcontractors or has a long-term documented working relationship (alliance) with
subcontractor. All subcontractors or alliance partners have same QA/QC certifications (ISO 9001, etc.) as
Vendor. Alliances must have been in place more than three years prior to date of this tender. The Alliance must
have successfully executed over five multilateral jobs within prior three years.
MEETS: May use more than one subcontractor. All subcontractors or alliance partners have same QA/QC
certifications (ISO 9001, etc.) as Vendor. Alliances must have been in place more than one year prior to date of
this tender. The Alliance must have successfully executed two or more multilateral jobs within prior year.
Weighting: 4

HEALTH, SAFETY, AND ENVIRONMENT (HSE)
Briefly describe your companies HSE policies, training, and incident review process.
EXCEED: Has an in-house HSE group that coordinates the implementation of all policies and training. Group
is also responsible for the incident review and reporting process. Vendor also has a periodic 3
rd
party audit of
HSE commitment.
MEETS: Has an in-house HSE group that coordinates the implementation of all policies and training. Group is
also responsible for the incident review and reporting process.
Weighting: 4

6.3.4. Pre -Qualification Technical
A second part of the Pre-Qualification Questionnaire involves determining the Vendors capability in
providing the desired multilateral system(s). This can take two approaches where either the application or
desired multilateral system is specified.

Application
This involves completely describing the expected field applications to be covered in the Tender. The
following list shows the general data that should be provided to the Vendors. Specific data may not be
available so general ranges can be used. The amount of data will also depend on the number of wells or
fields covered by the Tender document.
Well type(s) producer, injector, single, dual, etc.
Reservoir depths
Casing sizes, weight, grades, and setting depths
Completion tubing sizes
Potential junction depths
Produced fluids and compositions (for metallurgical considerations)
Mechanical access requirements to mainbore and each lateral
Pressure profile during lifecycle of well (drilling, completion, stimulation, production, etc.) for internal
versus external p calculations for junction depth and pressure rating selection
Pore, Fracture, and Temperature gradients
TAML System level(s)
Delivery Requirements
Other site- or Company- specific requirement
System
This involves completely describing the ML system(s) specifications to be covered in the Tender. The
following list shows the general data that should be provided to the Vendors. Application data, listed above,
should also be included to help clarify potential requirements. The amount of data will also depend on the
number of wells or fields covered by the Tender document.
TAML System level(s)
Well type(s) producer, injector, single, dual, etc.
Casing size, weight, and grade
Metallurgy and elastomer requirements
Completion tubing size
Mechanical access requirements to mainbore and each lateral
Pressure profile during lifecycle of well (drilling, completion, stimulation, production, etc.) for internal
versus external p calculations for junction depth and pressure rating selection
Delivery Requirements
Other site- or Company- specific requirement
Each Vendor must identify their capabilities to provide specific multilateral systems. Detailed drawings,
specifications, operational steps, and example wells. Vendors should identify use of both new and field-
proven components within the systems specified. Ratings for systems are as follows:
2 for an EXCEED response - Able to provide 'field-proven' multilateral system
1 for an ACCEPT response - Able to provide multilateral system with some non-'field-proven'
components
0 for a REJECT response - Not able to provide multilateral system as specified
6.3.5. Pre -Qualification Review
The following Tables show summaries of the requested Pre-Qualification data. The letters A through G
represent different Vendors. Weighting Factors (WF) listed are examples only and must be determined for
each Tender. Columns E, F, and G provide an example input.

Pre-Qualification - Technical Capabilities Ability to Provide
Vendor A B C D E F G WF
[Level 4, 9-5/8 13 Chrome]
2 2 2 4
[Level 4, 7 13 Chrome]
2 2 1 3
[Level 4, 9-5/8 25 Chrome]
1 1 2 4
[Level 4, 7 25 Chrome]
0 1 2 2

SUBTOTAL 18 20 21 24
The following Table summarizes each Vendors overall capability to provide the desired level of multilateral
services. As identified before, responses to this questionnaire will be marked as follows:
2 points for each response that exceeds the requirements (EXCEED)
1 point for each response that meets the requirements (MEETS)
0 points for each response that fails the requirements (REJECT)
The letters A through G represent different Vendors. Weighting Factors (WF) listed are examples only
and must be determined for each Tender. Columns E, F, and G provide an example input.
Pre-Qualification - Technical Capabilities and Infrastructure
Vendor A B C D E F G WF
Services - Base of operations 2 1 2 4
Services - Project Support Organization 2 2 2 3
Services Concurrent jobs 2 1 2 4
Equipment and Materials 2 2 2 2
QA/QC 2 2 2 4
QRA 2 2 2 4
R&D (Design) Capability 1 2 2 3
R&D (Design) Location 1 1 2 2
R&D (Design) Access 2 1 2 3
Manufacturing Location 1 2 1 2
Manufacturing - Lead-Time 2 0 2 4
Manufacturing - Testing 2 2 2 4
Fishing Equipment 2 1 2 4
Contingency Equipment and Services 2 1 2 4
Training 1 2 2 3
Subcontractors - Manufacturing 2 1 2 3
Subcontractors - Services 2 2 2 4
Health Safety & Environment 2 2 2 4
SUBTOTAL 112 90 120 122

Proper weighing of the above data will allow Operators to generate a short list of Vendors capable of
providing the desired multilateral equipment and services based on Operator-specific criteria. The next step
is to generate a Commercial Tender.

6.3.6. OPTIONAL Pre-Qualification Financial Considerations
A financial review of each Vendor may be required depending on the scope of the potential contract. For
one or two wells, it may be ignored. However, for multi-well programs and/or long-term contracts, a
financial review should be performed in order to ensure that the Vendor has enough financial strength to
support the contract and its requirements. Following is an example structure for this review. All or part can
be used in a tender.
6.3.7. Pre -Qualification Financial Considerations - Example
CONTENTS
Vendor Details.
Financial.
Vendor Experience.
Other Information.
Vendor Details
Name and Address of Registered Office
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
Date Of Completion (D/M/Y) _____________________________________
Name and position of focal point for this questionnaire
Name Job Title Telephone No.
_______________________ _____________________________ _____________________

Vendor's Principal Business _______________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Name and address of "Ultimate Holding Company _________________________________
(if responder is a subsidiary of a group) ______________________________________
______________________________________
(Applicable to Joint Venture Vendors only). Please show below the names of the ultimate "Holding Company
Subsidiaries" together with their percentage holdings in the joint venture.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
List of major shareholders and percentage shareholding (other than those given above).
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
World Wide Web Site Address (if applicable) ________________________________
Please attach a copy of your organization structure
Should current details of the Corporate Structure of your organization be unavailable, please show below names of
"companies" within the group together with percentage shareholdings.

For example: Ultimate Holding Co.
|
Immediate Holding Co.
|
Parent Co.
|
-------------------------------------------------------------
| | | |

Subsidiary Co.s.
Financial
Please complete all the following questions and attach documents indicated as appropriate:
Bankers Details:
Name: _______________________________________
Address: _______________________________________
_______________________________________
Date Account Established: _______________________________________
Do we have your permission to take up bank references if so required? Yes/No
Audited accounts for the last two years are attached (Enter dates) Yes/No
19_______
19_______
Please provide translations where accounts are not published in English.
Audited accounts of the ultimate "Holding Company" for the last two
years are attached (Enter Dates) Yes/No/N.A.
19_______
19_______
** If it is a joint venture company, audited accounts should be submitted for both Joint Venture parties and joint
"Holding Companies".
Date next set of audited accounts likely to be available (MM/YY) ________________
Published Interim Statement Attached? Yes/No/N.A.
If audited accounts are not available or are for a period ending more than six months ago please provide a copy of
Vendor's latest management accounts, or alternatively complete Appendix attached.
Management accounts are attached Yes/No
Appendix completed Yes/No
Would your "Holding Company" (if appropriate) provide a guarantee of your performance
if so required? (The form of the guarantee will be specified by us). Yes/No/N.A.
Are borrowings including overdraft secured on any assets of Vendor? Yes/No
If yes, please state amount of charge $______________
Level of current overdraft facility $______________
Extent of overdraft fluctuations in last 12 months Highest $______________
Lowest $______________
Other significant financial arrangements if not detailed in Vendor Annual Accounts e.g. Third-party borrowings.

Only to be completed if latest management accounts not available.
Appendix-Summary Of Current Financial Position

Vendor Name:
Period Covered :
$000's **
Turnover __________________
Operating Profit __________________
Interest Payable __________________
Profit Before Tax __________________
Tax __________________
Extraordinary Items __________________
__________________
Fixed Assets
Tangible
Intangible
Investments __________________
__________________
Current Assets
Stocks
Group Companies
Investments
Other Debtors
Cash __________________
__________________
Creditors Falling Due Within One Year
Overdraft
Loans and Debentures
Group Companies
Provisions Accruals And
Deferred Income
Trade Creditors
Other ___________________
___________________
Creditors Falling Due After More Than One Year
Loans And Debentures:
- Medium Term
- Long Term
Group Companies
Provisions Accruals And
Deferred Income (Excluding Tax)
Taxation
Deferred Tax Provision
Other ___________________
___________________
___________________
Allotted Share Capital
Share Premium Account

Other Reserves (Describe) ___________________
Profit and Loss Account ___________________
___________________
Vendor's Experience
Please list major contracts executed in the last three years or current under the following headings (substitute
your own schedules if you wish):
Current Contracts
Client/ Type of Value Start Completion
Location Work $000's Date Date
________________ ______________ _____________ _________ ____________
________________ ______________ _____________ _________ ____________
________________ ______________ _____________ _________ ____________
________________ ______________ _____________ _________ ____________
________________ ______________ _____________ _________ ____________
________________ ______________ _____________ _________ ____________
Previous Contracts
________________ ______________ _____________ _________ ____________
________________ ______________ _____________ _________ ____________
________________ ______________ _____________ _________ ____________
________________ ______________ _____________ _________ ____________
________________ ______________ _____________ _________ ____________
________________ ______________ _____________ _________ ____________
Other Work
________________ ______________ _____________ _________ ____________
________________ ______________ _____________ _________ ____________
________________ ______________ _____________ _________ ____________
________________ ______________ _____________ _________ ____________
________________ ______________ _____________ _________ ____________
Please list below any submissions you have made to this Company or its subsidiaries or affiliates in the last
two years other than those listed above.
______________________________________________________________________________________
__________
______________________________________________________________________________________
__________
______________________________________________________________________________________
__________

______________________________________________________________________________________
__________
______________________________________________________________________________________
__________
______________________________________________________________________________________
__________
______________________________________________________________________________________
__________
______________________________________________________________________________________
__________
Other Information
Please give details of any major changes or expansion plans in which Vendor is currently involved.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
__________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
__________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
__________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
__________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
__________

_______________________________________________________________________________________
__________
Any other information that you consider relevant or wish to provide.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
__________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
__________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
__________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
__________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
__________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
__________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
__________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
__________
6.4. Commercial Tender
After the qualified multilateral Vendors have been identified, the Commercial Tender can then be prepared.
This document is used to primarily evaluate the relative economics associated with each potential Vendors
solution(s). If no separate pre-qualification tender is done, then this document will incorporate the
appropriate sections necessary to determine the technical and other relevant capabilities of each Vendor.

The form of commercial tender as well as costing structure depends on the scope of the project as shown in
the following Figure. It shows the basic decision tree to determine how a tender might be structured.
Number or Types
of Wells
Similar Design Requirements
Field/Reservoir
Junction Depth
Casing Program
Junction Specifications (Level, etc.)
Variable Design Requirements
Field/Reservoir
Junction Depth
Casing Program
Junction Specifications (Level, etc.)
Lump Sum Basis
Lump Sum Equipment (Sales items including
backup)
Lump Sum Installation Services
All Backup and Contingency Tools and
Services
Standby times (unlimited or fixed)
Engineering Services
Tiered pay-out based on milestones achieved
Advantages
Fixed cost for successful installation
Minimal accounting required
Disadvantages
Costs include contingency time for Contractor
ML System and junction depth specific
Difficult to account for learning curve without
special clauses for multiple wells
Use of new technologies/improvements may
require contractual review for multiple wells
May pay for back-up (depends on re-
salability)
Variations
Bonuses for success and/or installation time
improvements
Penalties for failure or excess ML-related NPT
Catalog Basis
Catalog Pricing for Equipment (Sales items)
Catalog Pricing for Installation Services
Catalog Pricing for All Backup and
Contingency Tools and Services as used
Engineering Services (incremental)
Advantages
Accurate costs for successful installation (no
built-in Contractor contingencies)
ML System type and junction depth can be
varied
Easier to account for learning curve without
special clauses for multiple wells
Use of new technologies/improvements can
be more readily applied for multiple wells
Disadvantages
Maximum accounting required
No limit on cost
salability)
Variations
improvements
Modified Lump Sum Basis
Key Consideration - allow proper cost and
scope definition for different ML junction
requirements (size, type, metallurgy, depth)
Lump Sum Equipment (Sales items)
Backup Equipment
Installation Services including Backup and
Contingency Tools and Services
- Lump Sum component for one-of charges
(run/depth charges, re-dressing, etc.)
- Dayrate component for all personnel and
rental tool daily costs
- Equipment Standby time (optional) for
non-ML operation time
- Personnel Standby time (optional) or
Catalog-basis for non-ML operation time
Installation Days (defined for each well)
Advantages
Relatively fixed cost for installation
Potential use of back-up in later wells
Contingency time for Contractor not required
Contract structure allows for varied ML
System and junction depths
Learning curve and use of new technologies/
improvements can be accommodated
Disadvantages
May pay for back-up (depends on re-salability)
Variations
improvements
Optional NPT Services Dayrate for charges after
defined Installation Days
Catalog Basis
Catalog Pricing for Equipment (Sales
items)
Catalog Pricing for Installation Services
Catalog Pricing for All Backup and
Contingency Tools and Services as used
Advantages
Accurate costs for successful installation
(no built-in Contractor contingencies)
ML System type and junction depth can
be varied
Easier to account for learning curve
without special clauses for multiple wells
Use of new technologies/improvements
can be applied for multiple wells
Disadvantages
Maximum accounting required
No limit on cost
salability)
Variations
Bonuses for success and/or installation
time improvements
Penalties for failure or excess ML-related
NPT
Lump Sum Basis
Lump Sum Equipment (Sales items +
backup)
Lump Sum Installation
All Backup and Contingency Tools and
Services
Standby times
Engineering Services
Tiered pay-out based on milestones
achieved
Advantages
Fixed cost for successful installation
Disadvantages
Costs include contingency time for
Contractor
ML System and junction depth specific -
Difficult to account for learning curve
without special clauses for multiple wells
Use of new technologies/improvements
may require contractual review for
multiple wells
salability)
Variations
Bonuses for success and/or installation
time improvements
Penalties for failure or excess ML-
related NPT
2+
1


6.4.1. Multi-Well Contract
Following is an example of information requested for a multi-well Contract.
1. Technical and Cost Data Required
1.1. Several types of data will be required from each Vendor to determine the best system based on
technical specifications, economics, operational timing, and operational risk mitigation.
1.2. A generic well with pre-defined specifications will be the basis for this review.
1.2.1. [Note to reader a generic well is used for evaluation purposes as it may be difficult, if not
impossible, to define well and operational requirements sufficiently for all potential
applications to be covered by the Contract. Thus, the generic well should be representative of
one or more expected applications. Detailed field information, including pressures,
temperatures, fluid properties, and metallurgical requirements should be included in the
Tender to give Vendors an understanding of the potential ML scope and equipment
requirements.]
1.2.2. The detailed reviews will be done on the 9-5/8" and 7MAINBOREs multilateral commodities.
1.2.3. Vendor shall provide costs for each system that will allow for calculation of total ML
installation costs independent of junction depth.
1.3. The data requested will be required for each option available by the Vendor that satisfies
Company's requirements. Please limit options to major system changes where possible. Please
prioritize systems and show 'Best Solution' and '2
nd
Best Solution'. Company reserves the right to
re-classify systems as it deems fit. All potential multilateral systems, however, shall be covered by
Contract.
1.4. Identify system variations for new wells compared to re-entry wells.
1.5. For each system, list prior experience including Company Name, Location, Junction Depth, and
Date Run. If over twenty wells, show local and regional experiences with summaries of other wells.
If the system is new, state 'New System'.
2. Technical/Operational Data
2.1. System description with detailed specifications and operational limits. Diagrams with key
measurements are requested. An equipment list shall be included with components identified as
either primary or contingency/back-up. Also, include a diagram that shows final wellbore
configuration with Vendor-provided and Company-provided equipment clearly identified.
2.2. Detailed step-by-step operations from well preparation to Vendor release.
2.3. For all multilateral commodities, describe all operational limitations.
2.3.1. Examples include:
1) packer torque limits;

2) shear up and down ratings for a tools with shear screws/pins,
3) tool tripping speeds,
4) dogleg severity limits, etc.
2.4. Operational timings for each operational step. Three values are requested:
1. Expected case what the operation normally takes
2. Low case what the operation would take without problems, delays etc.
3. High case reasonable worst case scenario if certain steps must be repeated, etc.
2.4.1. If the multilateral commodities require a step that increases the time of a normally performed
operation, identify the incremental time.
2.4.1.1. For example, [Step 4 - Run 9-5/8" casing with special centralizers and window joint and
orient with gyro - estimated incremental time = 5 hours].
2.5. Potential problems for each step. For example,
2.5.1. Step 12 -- Run in hole with multilateral packer on drillpipe desired depth.
2.5.2. Potential problems --
1 - unable to reach depth without excessive drag,
2 - packer sets prematurely,
3 - unable to set packer,
4 - packer does not pressure test,
5 - packer does not hold weight, etc.
2.6. For each identified problem, identify probability of occurrence.
2.6.1. Use 10% as a base value. [base risk value to be set by Company]
2.6.2. Support other values with actual reliability data. For example

2 premature packer settings in 65 runs = 3.2 %.

3 failures in retrieving whipstock in first attempt in 12 tries = 25%.
2.7. For each identified problem, identify consequence(s) and remedial steps required to return to the
planned steps.
2.7.1. Multilateral packer sets too high.
2.7.1.1. Consequence 1 -- packer is in wrong location to begin JUNCTION.
2.7.1.2. Remedial step 1 --
- Pull out of hole with running tool;
- Pick up packer retrieval tool and trip in hole;
- Engage and release packer and pull out of hole;
- Trip in hole with bit and full gauge string mill to below window depth and pull out of
hole;
- Pick up new multilateral packer and trip in hole to depth and set.
2.7.2. For each remedial step, identify operational timing.
2.7.2.1. For each remedial step, identify probability of success in one attempt. Use actual
reliability statistics where available.
2.7.2.2. Operational timings for each remedial step. Three values are requested:
1. Expected case what the operation normally takes
2. Low case what the operation would take without problems, delays etc.
3. High case reasonable worst case scenario if certain steps must be repeated, etc.

2.7.3. For each problem, identify the ultimate consequence and new starting point for operations to
continue if normal prescribed remedial efforts are unsuccessful.
2.7.3.1. Unable to retrieve whipstock -- loss physical and hydraulic access to mainbore --
catastrophic -- redrill mainbore as lateral.
3. Example Operational List With Risks
3.1. Following is an example operation list. It is to be used as a format and does not necessarily include
all consequences, etc for the operations covered.
Co
de
Activ
ity
Sub
Activity/Hazard
Proba
bility
Ope
ratio
nal
Tim
e
(day
s)
Trip
Tim
e
(day
s)
Ope
ratio
nal
Tim
e
(day
s)
Trip
Tim
e
(day
s)
Ope
ratio
nal
Tim
e
(day
s)
Trip
Tim
e
(day
s)
Consequence Exp
ecte
d
Tim
e
(day
s)
Low Expected High
1 Run CBL, CCL, GR, and USIT
log over junction area
100% 0.25 0.50 0.4 0.70 0.5 1.00 Log 8 hr 1.10
1.1 Poor cement at
junction depth
15% 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.20 0.00 Change KOP 0.015
2 Run 9-5/8" casing scraper and
run gauge ring
100% 0.20 1.01 0.30 1.01 0.40 2.01 Run scraper and WL
gauge run
1.31
2.1 Unable to run gauge
to required depth
5% 0.10 0.50 0.10 0.50 0.20 0.50 Change KOP 0.03
2.2 Run new casing
scraper and gauge
ring
2% 0.10 1.21 0.15 1.41 0.10 1.81 Run scraper and WL
gauge run
0.03
3 Run and set ML packer 100% 0.10 1.21 0.40 1.21 0.50 2.42 1.61
3.1 Set at incorrect depth 2% 0.10 2.00 0.20 2.0 0.40 3.00 Evaluate, if
unacceptable, recover
and loop to 3
0.044
3.2 Packer does not set 2% 0.05 0.54 0.15 0.54 0.25 1.08 POOH, pick up back-
up, loop to 3
0.046
3.3 Packer does not test 2% 0.05 0.54 0.15 0.54 0.25 1.08 Test, POOH, Set 2nd
packer (loop to 3)
0.046
4 Confirm Packer Anchor
Orientation (on MWD)
100% 0.05 0.80 0.10 1.00 0.20 1.30 1.10
4.1 Unable to confirm
orientation
2% 0.10 0.42 0.20 0.65 0.40 0.84 POOH, check anchor,
rerun (loop to 4)
0.04
4.2 MWD/Gyro failure 5% 0.10 0.42 0.20 0.65 0.50 0.84 POOH, Loop to 4 0.10


Co
de
Activi
ty
Sub
Activity/Hazard
Probabi
lities
(%)
Oper
ation
al
Time
(days
)
Trip
Time
(days
)
Oper
ation
al
Time
(days
)
Trip
Time
(days
)
Oper
ation
al
Time
(days
)
Trip
Time
(days
)
Consequence Expe
cted
Time
(days
)
L E H Low Expected High
1 Run CBL, CCL, GR, and USIT log
over junction area
100 0.25 0.50 0.4 0.70 0.5 1.00 Log 8 hr 1.10
1.1 Poor cement at
junction depth
15
0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.20 0.00 Change KOP 0.015
2 Run 9-5/8" casing scraper and run
gauge rin g
100 0.20 1.01 0.30 1.01 0.40 2.01 Run scraper and WL
gauge run
1.31
2.1 Unable to run gauge to
required depth
5 0.10 0.50 0.10 0.50 0.20 0.50 Change KOP 0.03
2.2 Run new casing
scraper and gauge ring
2 0.10 1.21 0.15 1.41 0.10 1.81 Run scraper and WL
gauge run
0.03
3 Run and set ML packer 100 0.10 1.21 0.40 1.21 0.50 2.42 1.61
3.1 Set at incorrect depth 2 0.10 2.00 0.20 2.0 0.40 3.00 Evaluate, if
unacceptable, recover
and loop to 3
0.044
3.2 Packer does not set 2 0.05 0.54 0.15 0.54 0.25 1.08 POOH, pick up back-
up, loop to 3
0.046
3.3 Packer does not test 2 0.05 0.54 0.15 0.54 0.25 1.08 Test, POOH, Set 2nd
packer (loop to 3)
0.046
4 Confirm Packer Anchor
Orientation (on MWD)
100 0.05 0.80 0.10 1.00 0.20 1.30 1.10
4.1 Unable to confirm
orientation
2 0.10 0.42 0.20 0.65 0.40 0.84 POOH, check anchor,
rerun (loop to 4)
0.04
4.2 MWD/Gyro failure 5 0.10 0.42 0.20 0.65 0.50 0.84 POOH, Loop to 4 0.10

4. Special EQUIPMENT
4.1. Identify special EQUIPMENT available that would potentially enhance specific operations that are
not part of the normal [basic] package.

For example, special milling EQUIPMENT, subsea drillstring motion compensator for subsea
wells, etc.
4.2. List incremental costs, potential timesavings, potential risk reduction, and EQUIPMENT it replaces
or enhances.
5. Load out lists
5.1. For each system, specify a load out list.
5.2. EQUIPMENT, primary, backup, and contingency, to be sent to the WELLSITE.
5.3. EQUIPMENT, contingency, to remain at shore base [Vendor or the Company].
6. Personnel Requirements
6.1. For each operational step, identify rig personnel requirements by responsibility.
6.2. Vendor shall submit a form detailing of Vendor's proposed Management and Organization to be
based in the work location.
6.3. Such information must, as a minimum, contain the following in the order listed:
6.4. Organigram -- An organization chart showing the Vendor's proposed local organization, including
line responsibility/reporting.

6.5. Key position Responsibilities -- Responsibilities of the key positions within Vendor's proposed
organization. The person(s) who act as focal points for safety matters must be highlighted both on
the Site at supervisory level and in headquarters at management level.
6.6. Minimum Qualifications -- Details of the minimum qualifications, training requirements and
experience which Vendor would use as the basic criteria in the selection of personnel to perform the
Work, including those for the position assigned the tasks of being the safety focal point.
6.7. Resumes of Proposed Personnel -- Resumes of personnel proposed to supervise and perform the
work detailing each persons name, qualifications, years of relevant experience, levels of
responsibility held and employment history with dates. Vendor shall clearly state whether the
availability of the proposed personnel is firm or not firm.
6.8. Quantities of Proposed Personnel -- List quantities of proposed personnel required.
6.9. Records -- Details of records which Vendor would keep, samples of certificates and the like.
7. Cost Information
Identify system costs. Costs should be specified for all systems individually. Specify costs in the
following formats.
7.1. Lump Sum Basis
'Standard' And 'Non-Standard' Systems --
LUMP SUM EQUIPMENT COST -- The basic system including necessary completion
EQUIPMENT. This cost shall include one complete set of BACKUP EQUIPMENT that
remains property of Company if not used.
LUMP SUM INSTALLATION COST shall cover all rental equipment, personnel charges, and
contingency equipment/services required by Vendor to install ML junction and ML completion
components. This cost shall also include all anticipated standby costs for equipment and
personnel. [Option Vendor sets limit on standby time and identifies a STANDBY DAYRATE
for excess days.]
ENGINEERING SERVICE COSTS to cover costs for planning the ML job, quoted on a
DAYRATE basis.
7.2. Modified Lump Sum Basis
'Standard' And 'Non-Standard' Systems --
LUMP SUM EQUIPMENT COST -- The basic system including necessary completion
EQUIPMENT.
BACKUP EQUIPMENT COST A catalog list of backup equipment chargeable only if used.
The backup tools remain the property of the Vendor if not used and are only charged if used.
LUMP SUM INSTALLATION COST shall cover all rental equipment, personnel charges, and
contingency equipment/services required by Vendor to install ML junction and ML completion
components.
_ LUMP SUM OPERATIONAL COST shall cover one-of charges (run/depth, re-dressing,
etc.)
_ OPERATIONAL DAYRATE for all personnel and rental tool daily charges. Optional
Apply a 'REDUCED OPERATING DAYRATE' when the Vendor Multilateral Team is at
the worksite and is active after 'pre-defined time period' is reached. The time period will be
mutually agreed to by the Company and Vendor on a well by well basis.
_ EQUIPMENT STANDBY DAYRATE chargeable for rental tools during non-ML
operational time.
_ PERSONNEL STANDBY DAYRATE catalog list of costs for Vendor personnel during
non-ML operational time.

ENGINEERING SERVICE COSTS to cover costs for planning the ML job, quoted on a
dayrate basis.
7.3. Catalogue Listing.
'Standard' And 'Non-Standard' Systems
This should list the price breakdown of all system components including all optional, backup,
and contingency GOODS and SERVICEs that may be required.
Include enough detail to allow identifying the system components that may need to be modified
to accommodate changes in metallurgical requirements.
Components that are comprised of more than part (sub-components) can be identified and priced
as one component. The list must show specifically what the sub-components are included.
_ E.g. multilateral packer (Model XXX packer, anchor profile sub, etc.)
[Optional] Include in a separate price list, multilateral tools and accessories available for other
MAINBORE sizes.
7.4. Pricing Structure
The following pricing structure and conditions shall be included:
1. Prices for GOODS meeting the enclosed FUNCTIONAL Specifications and Operating
Environment conditions based on Vendor's International Sales Pricing System and standard
product group lead-time.
2. In addition, Vendor shall offer his entire range of EQUIPMENT in the same product groups
as the FUNCTIONAL Specifications, i.e. covering the full range of options, including
alternative materialgrades and seal variations, for each product proposed to meet the scope
of supply.

These items shall be listed independently to those items proposed to meet the scope of
supply and shall also be based on Vendor's International Sales Pricing System.
3. The following options are required

- Ex-Works Price (Vendor's International Sales Pricing System, less discount)

- Delivered Price, (DDP)
4. Proposed sliding scale increase, per product, in the event that the Company requests
deliveries that are within Vendor's standard lead time. This scale should be expressed as a
percentage against number of weeks improved against Vendor's quoted lead times.
5. Proposed sliding scale discount for multiple unit purchases.
6. Proposed mark-up for stockholding.
7. Further to the requirements above, Vendor shall submit a full range of all associated
manipulation tools (pulling and running tools), spare parts and consumables per type,
including spares and consumables used for manipulation tools and pricing based on Vendor's
International Sales Pricing System.
8. All manipulation tools to include not only purchase price but also rental rates. Rental
schedule to demonstrate effects of multiple day rentals.

9. If so requested by the Company, Vendor shall demonstrate pricing history of new
EQUIPMENT.
10. Manufacturing lead times per product group defined within the scope of this ENQUIRY.
11. Hourly rates for refurbishment such as: cleaning, inspection, repair and testing and for
shipping, administration etc.
12. Applicable Engineer day rates for running EQUIPMENT into the well.
13. Proposals for the buy back of back-up or excess EQUIPMENT, where applicable.
14. Metallurgical -- identify incremental cost factor for alternative to base metallurgical
requirements.
6.5. Specifications and Evaluation Data
The following identifies an example of the basic well data used to evaluate potential ML systems.
6.5.1. Evaluation Data
Following is the default data to be used in the operational and timing estimates.
Basic Well Data
Item Example
JUNCTION DEPTH: 8,000-ft measured depth, 6,500-ft TVD
Base casing: 9-5/8" 47-ppf.
Hole inclination at the JUNCTION: 32
Desired window orientation: 10 left of high side
Fracture pressure at JUNCTION DEPTH: 5,200-psi (0.75 - 0.8 psi/ft gradient)
Maximum wellbore DLS: 6.5/100-ft
Limits for liner and accessories 4-1/2" pre-pack liner
Tools run through window (window should be sized to
handle.)
8-1/2" angle-build & stabilized assemblies and
to run a 7" liner with centralizers
Normal trip speeds. For handling special multilateral
EQUIPMENT and BHA's, Vendor is responsible for
providing best estimate of incremental handling and
running times. (E.g. tripping in with whipstock packer
assembly, pulling out and laying down washover pipe
assembly, etc.)
900-fph
Wireline trip speeds for = 3,000-fph plus 12-hour RU/RD
Optional Drilling Unit Cost Basis (estimated average
all-in rate)
Rig Cost - Semi-Submersible =
Rig Cost - Jack-up =
Rig Cost Platform =

$ 125,000
$ 85,000
$ 45,000
$ 10,000

Rig Cost - Land =
Survey Data As available or example well paths
6.5.2. During the Contractor Tender Preparation
Set up a meeting time one week after the Tenders are submitted to each Contractor to allow for any
clarifications. In these meetings, the Company should not give direct answers to the Contractors.
Questions/comments and resulting answers should be documented and sent to all Contractors at the same
time. [Care must be taken to ensure that all Contractors receive the same information to ensure an
unbiased tender.]
Contractors are invited to request clarifications, etc. in writing during their Tender preparation phase.
All questions and clarifications must then be sent to all Contractors. However, to ensure that critical
questions/clarifications that could impact how the Tenders are prepared are not raised too close to the
Tender deadline to be properly addressed by Company, a deadline for questions must be set. Typically
two weeks prior to the deadline is reasonable.
A second meeting with the Contractors is advisable to ensure that each Contractor has interpreted the
Tender properly and is satisfying the terms specified. This should involve each Contractor making
separate presentations of their proposed equipment and services. [Note this is optional, but is more
important if several systems are offered.]
Within the Tender, include as many fill-in-the-blank tables and forms to insure that all Contractors
provide data in a format that can be more readily evaluated by the Company. Also, provide the Tender
documents in electronic format that will allow each Contractor to fill in data and comment on contractual
terms.
6.6. Evaluation
Although costs are important, at this stage in the evolution of multilateral operations, the key consideration
should be in obtaining a successful multilateral installation for the technical requirements of a specific
application. A low-cost solution that is applied unsuccessfully is not a good option. Penalty clauses should
be applied very carefully to minimize use of short-cuts that may tend to compromise chances of success.
As the technology evolves and the experience base increases, especially in Levels 3 and above, optimizing
costs and operations will become a priority.
The final step is the overall evaluation of the Tenders received. The following are some hints to assist in the
process.
It is best to create specific input forms that must be filled in by the Vendor. This would include
equipment lists, personnel lists, and cost breakdowns. These forms can be on spreadsheets that can then
be provided to the Company with the Tender.
Normally, completeness in Tender preparation is a requirement and poorly prepared or incomplete
Tenders may be grounds for disqualification. However, due to the limited number of Vendors of multi-
lateral equipment and services, this should be considered a last resort. Experience has shown that no
matter how clear the Tender package appears to be, clarifications will be requested from each Vendor.
Thus, this step could be used to allow Vendors to supplement/clarify their Tender (without adjusting
costs) to bring it up to the required standards.
Be sure that the evaluation of the tenders is performed as specified in the Tender package to minimize
possibilities of intentional or unintentional bias. This allows the Vendors foreknowledge of the
evaluation criteria and thus can adjust their Tender structure accordingly. With this in mind, it becomes
important that the criteria is representative of the majority of the multi-lateral systems to be used. This
will help to prevent Vendors from specifying inappropriately low costs on some multi-lateral systems
and components (to win the Tender) while quoting overly high costs on the other multi-lateral systems
and components.
Page 179 of 277

6.7. QRA Applications
6.7.1 QRA Applied to Evaluation of Multilateral Equipment and Services Vendor
The complexity of multilateral well construction, installation and workovers/interventions introduces
additional risks and costs relative to single well solutions. The case studies throughout the guide illustrate the
risks and the resulting problems that can arise especially in connection with window milling, junction
construction, recovering the mainbore and re-accessing laterals. The database contains important information
on the planned and actual times to carry out these operations for the different TAML classification levels.
Multilateral designs are often specific to the particular field/reservoir situation and the numbers of previous
multilateral wells is limited for the more complex TAML levels. Consequently, it is not easy to estimate
reliable overall contingency factors for rig time and cost without carrying out a detailed quantitative analysis
of all the multilateral operations with regard to rig time and risk as outlined in 3.4 Quantitative Risk
Assessment (QRA) Approach
In the case of multilateral equipment and services, it may be important to do a comparative assessment of the
risks due to the multilateral operations and their possible impact on other operations like formation
evaluation and interventions. There can be a significant difference between vendors depending on the
solutions they may propose and the difference may be very dependent on details.
The results of a QRA to compare the risked time and cost associated with ML equipment and services
tenders provides a valuable additional view on rig time and costs since it gives information on the impact
of an important (from a risk standpoint) component to the total time and cost for the well.
6.7.2 QRA Applied to Incentive Contracts:
Incentive terms are finding increasing use for drilling contracts. These incentive terms are an important
subject of negotiation between the Operator and Contractor. For drilling campaigns with a large number of
very similar wells the discussions can be dominated by the performance improvements expected due to
cumulative experience.
In the case of multilateral wells both the technology and the applications are changing rapidly and there is an
expectation that changes from well to well could be so large that the improvements due to experience may
not be so important factors as the details of the particular well design. In such cases it can be in the interest of
both the Operator and the Contractor to apply the QRA approach for every well as input to setting the base
case for the incentive terms.
If this approach is applied jointly by an Operator/Contractor Alliance, it would have the benefit of requiring
an understanding and acceptance on both parts of the source and nature of the risks that can impact overall
performance and provide a quantitative basis for establishing a win-win relationship.
Chapter 7. Establishing Multilateral Well Page 180 of 277

Chapter 7. Establishing Multilateral Well
7.1 Generic Main Procedures
Preparation of mainbore for multilateral
Present well status
Define the exit point for the lateral
Drill and set the 7 liner
Operations after the installation of 7 liner
MLT packer running and setting procedures
Run the ML Packer and Single Hollow Whipstock assembly
Orient ML Packer and Single Hollow Whipstock assembly
Set ML Packer and Single Hollow Whipstock assembly
Window milling procedures
Run Start Mill and initiate window
Run Mill assembly
Drilling the lateral branch
Drill 8 1\2 hole to target objectives
Liner running procedures
Wiper trip
Prepare and run 7 liner
Set liner hanger
Liner cementing procedures
First Stage cement job and inflation of casing annulus packer
Second Stage cement job
Pressure test liner lap
Re-establishing the parent wellbore
Install mill guide using running tool
Run skirted mill to establish pilot hole
Run round nose mill to mill through whipstock
Retrieve mill anchor
Run mill to open up pilot hole
Run packer plug mill

The above generic procedures will vary in detail depending on the choice of ML system to be installed and
details must be obtained from the Vendors for the particular technology available or expected to be available
when the well will be constructed.
7.2 Contingency Planning
7.2.1 Contingency Identification and Analysis
Contingencies are normally described as a part of the specific well plan and established based on
Vendor experience
Specific field experience
Hazard identification analysis HAZID
Hazardous operational analysis HAZOP
Quantitative Risk Assessment QRA

In many cases the execution of the above activities is scheduled as part of the preparation for drilling only
after the well has been approved. In Chapter 3 a QRA method was described for establishing the risked time
and cost for well options as part of the well decision process, i.e., much earlier.
With reference to the same flow charts and spreadsheets provided in Chapter 3 many of the possible
problems that can arise are identified in the QRA process and the appropriate responses given in some detail
in both the flowcharts and spreadsheet time and cost models.
This forms a good basis for an analysis of all the contingencies for the construction process of an approved
well and in formats that are useful for detailed well planning and under the actual operations. Details specific
to the selected Vendors equipment and procedures can be added as required and supplementary flowcharts
can be prepared to cover those items which may not have been included in the decision making process due
to a low probability of occurrence. Such items would normally be standard for any well and are not in the
scope of this Guide.
As an example of how the QRA results can utilised through all phases of the well planning and construction,
it is valuable for drilling supervisory personnel to have all the contingency items included in detailed
flowcharts as a reference document while drilling. In addition to aiding communication with operations on a
daily basis and preparing for each section of the well, the highly visual format of flowcharts is helpful for
communicating with land-based personnel, and reporting, etc. This is equally relevant for drilling
performance and HSE indicators.
7.3 Making a Junction
7.3.1 Example Generic Procedure for Placement and Orientation
Make up running string with MLP running tool, stabilisers, crossovers, MWD sub, lifting sub.
Orient key for MWD (and any back-up tool) relative to the running tool
Make up tailpipe and space out so that ML packer lands at correct depth.
Pick up MLP and whipstock assembly
Check the MLP and install required pip tags for depth control
RIH monitoring drag. Stop RIH if sudden weight loss. POOH and condition hole.
Stop at desired depth above the liner (e.g., 5m) using MWD-GR
Turn pipe as desired and work down torque to orient whipstock face relative to the high side of the casing
exit joint
Circulate for MWD signals and continue RIH.
Tag liner PBR with tailpipe and verify depth.
Pick up and mark pipe. Confirm MLP and whipstock orientation.
Run gyro if discrepancies in depth/orientation measurements.
Pressure up as required to set MLP
Weight up as required to set whipstock
POOH.
7.3.2 Example Detailed Basic Procedure for Constructing an Isolated Junction
This procedure assumes that the junction points for the laterals are in 9-5/8 casing. This casing may have been set and
cemented after drilling a 12-1/4 open hole (new well scenario) or may be in an existing well. If the well is a re-
completion, the condition of the casing and the cement behind it must be taken into account. The steps are as follows:

1. Run ML packer with solid whipstock on starter mill
2. Once on depth, orient packer to (ideally) 15% left of high side. Pressure up on drill pipe and set packer. Shear
starter mill and start milling window. Pull out of hole with starter mill. Note: The packer has an orienting nipple
made up below it in order that a diverter can be set to allow access to the lateral with service tools, if required. This
nipple also allows a window bushing to be set across the packer, which in turn, allows the setting of a diverter for
through-tubing access to the lateral ( see Step 16).
3. Run in hole (RIH ) with window mill and watermelon mills and open window to full size. Pull out of hole
(POOH). RIH with second watermelon mill assembly and dress window. POOH.
4. Drill 8-1/2 lateral to total depth.
5. RIH with retrieving tool and pull solid whipstock. POOH.
6. RIH with hollow, filled whipstock on running tool. Set same in packer (it will orient automatically and latch into
top of packer). POOH with running tool
7. RIH with 7 liner bottomhole assembly (BHA) as follows:
Float Shoe
Shoe Track
Float Collar
Baffle Adapter
Liner
ES Stage Cementer
Liner
Joints of densely centralised liner (this will sit across the whipstock/ window). Note: Spiroliser type centralisers
spaced approximately 8.2ft apart should be used on these joints.
Liner Hanger Assembly.
8. When liner is on bottom, perform first stage cement job using standard Class G cement. Bump plugs and allow
first stage cement to set up.
9. Pressure up and open ES Stage Cementer and perform second stage cement job using M-Seal. Allow second stage
to set up for between 24 and 48 hours (depending on hole parameters). Test liner lap in accordance with local
procedures.
10. RIH and clean up 7 liner. POOH. Drill 6 hole and cement 4-1/2 liner, if planned.
11. RIH with mill anchor, mill guide, and skirted mill assembly to junction area. Orient mill anchor and circulate to set
mill anchor. Shear out skirted mill and commence to time mill in ledge in 7 liner. Once skirted mill has
penetrated required distance, POOH.
12. RIH with pilot mill assembly to open a pilot hole through the liner and hollow whipstock. POOH with pilot mill
and mill anchor (pilot mill BHA includes collet-retrieving tool, which releases mill anchor when pulling the pilot
mill back).
13. RIH with mill to open hollow whipstock and packer bore to full ID (approximately 6.00 in). POOH.
14. RIH with packer plug mill and mill packer plug to finally re-establish main wellbore. Clean up hollow whipstock
and packer ID with watermelon mills, which are made up in packer plug mill BHA.
15. If the well is to be completed with 5-1/2 or smaller tubing, run and set appropriately sized window bushing in the
orientation nipple below the packer so that the window bushing straddles the lateral junction. The window bushing
will reduce the ID through the packer /hollow whipstock to allow a through-tubing deflector to be run,
16. The window bushing contains an orientation nipple that will allow a diverter to be set through the production
tubing, thus allowing access to the lateral using wireline or coiled tubing.
17. If more than one junction is to be constructed, repeat steps 1 to 15 as necessary.
If the junction is to be constructed in an existing well, it is imperative that the casing is in good condition and that there
is good cement behind it. Depending on the cement bond log evaluation, it may be necessary to perform a cement
squeeze to ensure good cementation at the junction.

7.3.3 Specific procedures for Anadrill Rapid Access Multilateral
(See also http://taml.wst.no/all/vendors/Anadrill/Anadrill_RA_SLT_side_view.pdf. Note: no longer
available at January 2004)
7.3.4 Debris Management
Definition: man made or natural solids in the wellbore that impede production and well operations that are
too small to fish conventionally.
Types of Debris: cuttings, fines, hardened cement, aluminium, steel, rubber, scale, proppant, precipitates
and loss containment materials
Multilateral well construction requires a mix of completions operations and drilling operations that depends
on the sequencing of the operations for construction of the mainbore, junction and lateral as well as the
choice of ML system and completion.
Although drilling equipment is designed to function in debris filled environment it is not necessarily robust
to debris in critical areas like the junction where equipment and hole geometry are important. Typically
completion equipment is not designed to be tolerant to debris.
Recommendations/Contingencies
When tripping in and out of the window there should always be a Service Company Directional
Driller/ MLT expert present.
The first 10-m out of the window should be drilled as a tangent e.g. rotary mode. Use a maximum
string rpm of 30. No top stabiliser should be run on top of the PDM BHA.
It is recommended to always run steerable BHAs with MWD across the junction including cleanout
BHAs. If rotary BHAs are to be run, all components must be checked with respect to junction
geometry.
It must be verified that all BHA components are suitable for running in and out of the window, i.e. that
they have rounded shoulders and no edges that could hang up in the window.
Always line up the motor to highside when going through the window area (both when running in and
coming out of the hole).
Special tools like junk subs, casing scrapers, or any square shouldered item should not be run below
the top of the window.
Any special LCM chemicals to be pumped into the lateral must be approved by the Service Company
representative and also be spotted minimum 300 m below the window (this to avoid setting
anything behind the Hollow Whipstock and preventing trouble free removal of this at a later stage,
if required).
Arco Alaska has used a diamond bit combined with a high-RPM PDC bit for through-tubing window
milling .The combination gives small enough chips to be transported in the reduced flow cross-
section with the coiled tubing.
Stringent cleaning procedures, e.g., run several scrapers and junk baskets in tandem and keep running
them until they return clean. (Beware that this doesnt ensure that all debris has been removed.)
Isolate the laterals during drilling/milling operations
Use debris barriers and baskets. Wireline retrievable useful.
Use hydrostatic bailers to clean a debris barrier, i.e., to suck up debris.
Reverse circulation while milling
QC fluid properties designed to carry/suspend debris
Use magnetic separation systems on surface (return flow shakers) and mud pump strainers
Example Problems Encountered
Stuck across window
Unable to access window
Track out of window
Debris from milling and wash over falling into the motherbore.

Difficulty breaking the glass disc in the debris barrier due to limited weight available (junction
inclination 60
0
) and lack of pressure differential due reservoir pressure below.
Liner stub twists off
ML whipstock stuck/pulls apart
Deformation of liner top
Lost cutters
Unable to latch debris catcher, whipstock/diverter, ML Packer
Unable to pull ML packer
Packer failure, premature setting
7.3.5 Junction Consolidation
Applications arise where it is unavoidable to place the junction at locations that do not satisfy all the
recommended criteria for selecting the junction depth and location as described in Chapter 4.
One such situation is the location of the junction in an unconsolidated reservoir sand such as in the Troll
field.
In this case some remedial work to the formation is required in the junction area in order to achieve a stable
junction and maintain its integrity over the life of the well. Junction integrity may also be a critical factor for
a cost-effective permanent well abandonment at the end of the life of the well.
Consolidation techniques include
Hydro-carbon-based resins, water control chemicals, ultrafine cements and thermosetting resins.
The suitability of a particular consolidation system requires both engineering and lab analysis.
The consolidation fluids must be injected into the formation and be functional when in contact with
formation fluids and drilling mud. The junction geometry, orientation and depth (temperature) need to be
considered for tailoring the composition of the consolidation fluids and injection equipment such that surface
and downhole properties such as viscosity are acceptable.
7.4 Case Study: Multilateral Well Installation on Troll from a Floating Rig.
In paper SPE 39369, the design, development, testing and installation of a multilateral well on Troll Olje gas province is
described. Troll Olje is operated by Norsk Hydro. It consists of the Troll Olje oil province and the Troll Olje gas
province.
The basis for the brief description given below is SPE 39369 together with a synopsis of the paper given in JPT, July
1998.
7.4.1 Technology Requirements
present several new technological challenges not faced on Oseberg C. Immediate solutions were available for
7.4.2 Effect of Rig Heave on the Multilateral Operations.

7.4.3 Weight on Bit and Depth Positioning.
The most critical operation during the multilateral construction process is the re-establishment of the main
7.4.4 Placement of Downhole Equipment on Depth
7.4.5 Horizontally Placed Junction
7.4.6 Unconsolidated Reservoir Sand
Most of the sandstone on the Troll reservoir is poorly consolidated. Hence, all wells have been completed with
prepacked screens. The unconsolidated nature of the reservoir sand and the fact that the junction had to be placed in the
reservoir created more challenges.
this, a subsea, downhole motion compensator from Weathford Enterra Co. was used. A single hollow
needed.
was needed. Affecting a good cement sheath at and immediately below the junction is also critical to success.
7.4.7 Field Installation Results.
A formation-consolidation treatment with thermosetting resin was performed to stabilise the junction rock. To achieve
fluid loss control the formation had to be fractured to complete the resin treatment.

7.5 Safety
7.5.1 Well Control Procedures
Special consideration should be given to the issues surrounding well control for multi-branched wells and the
work to be included in the well implementation plan and rig-crew training. Provided reliable hydraulic
isolation is maintained, existing well-control methodology could apply and each well bore treated separately.
Otherwise, calculations need to account for the weakest formation in either bore, possible influx from two
bores and the different mud weights in both bores.
Existing kick prevention methods can be used if the equivalent circulating density is relatively high, as are
swab and surge pressures, and kick intensity can be high. Kick detection would rely on the existing warning
signs, pit gain and increased return flow where pit gain is more sensitive to low intensity kicks and flow is
more sensitive to high intensity kicks.
The active bore indications would be a drilling break, shut-in casing pressure being greater than the shut in
drill-pipe pressure and shut-in drill-pipe pressure remaining steady whilst shut-in casing pressure increases
during volumetric control. Warning signs of an in-flux from the static well bore would be shut-in drill-pipe
pressure equal to shut-in casing pressure (both shut in casing pressure and shut-in drill-pipe pressure
increasing during volumetric control).
Either Wait and Weight or Drillers Method can be used depending on influx migration rate, company
policy, etc. It should be noted that if the kick is from the static bore then the depth of the kick should be
taken from the junction. Care needs to be taken to assess the weakest point in either well bore as killing to
the junction could lead to losses in one of the bores. An Excel spreadsheet may be developed to provide ease
of calculating and a hard-copy provided for hand calculations.
The highest risk area to be challenged is when re-entering the main well bore after completing the lateral, as
by then the fluid would have been in the main bore for a month and its condition would be unknown. If there
had been any leak at the shoe track there was the potential for hydrocarbons to be directly below the
junction. If this was the case an underbalanced situation could occur when running in the hole. This is also
the first time that both bores of the well will be in communication with each other.
7.5.2 Technical Safety
Safety as a specific issue for multilateral wells is primarily focused on junction creation and integrity, the
related issue of well abandonment and blowout conditions
Junction creation and integrity assessment may be assumed to be equivalent to a normal casing shoe and
hence, well control contingency items will be very similar. The junction is technically the most complicated
part of the construction process and hence, has significant elements of risk that have been highlighted in
previous sections (Chapter 4). The first level of risk mitigation is well design and in particular, the junction
depth, orientation, formation, i.e., all parameters that can impact pressure and the well control. The junction
is also critical to the successful performance of the well and all operations (interventions and workovers)
planned or expected during production including final abandonment.
During the construction it is necessary to consider the possibility for junction damage due operations in the
junction and through the junction exits into the laterals.
Well abandonment is covered in some detail in Chapter 8 but it is generally an area of very limited
experience. A contingency for abandonment in accordance with current regulations is necessary in case
complete failure of the well requires a cut-pipe and abandon in the 9
5/8
casing section. In a simple
approach as shown in the abandonment flow chart of Chapter 8 the lateral is treated as a very large
perforation of the reservoir, cement is set in and above the junction and the production casing is cut and
pulled for further cementing of the well. This view is very well justified if the junction is in the reservoir.
This approach of removing casing strings will require attention to the pressures and formation properties in
the upper portions of the well.

The issue of blow-out may be special for multi-lateral wells since the contingencies may have to deal with
the open-hole potential of two isolated reservoir sections that may require relief well drilling if bull-heading
is unsuccessful.
7.5.3 Procedural Safety
Safety issues to be addressed in detailed wellplans
Pre-job safety meetings for all job sequences
Clean out lateral displace to brine
Monitor pit volumes closely when displacing to seawater
Monitor gas continuously during cleanup
Kill mud available
Perforating mainbore/lateral
Precautions for handling explosives
Personnel restrictions during make-up of guns
Precautions on using shear rams for guns/cable
Firing pressures for TCP guns in different laterals, isolation testing
Install completion and test
Personnel exposurer during packer setting and leak testing
Live guns in hole
Annulus pressure control
7.5.4 HSE Management (specific to ML wells)
Well Abandonment
Abandonment Objectives
To permanently isolate the productive zone, potential thief zone and/or other permeable zones both from
each other and from the surface.
To inflict minimal damage to the formation whenever possible, making future re-entry to the abandoned
zone economically feasible, should costs/benefits requirements change in the future.
Legal Requirements (General)
Legal requirements differ from country to country; some countries appearing to be stricter than others,
however as a guideline the minimum requirements are generally as follows:
Perforation Shut off (Cased hole)
During abandonment the existing perforations must be shut off with a pressure tight plug. This can be a
cement plug, a resin plug, a bridge plug or a combination of these options. Also in the case of cement or
resin plugs these should be placed across or above the perforations.
The legal minimum column of the plug above the perforations depends on whether it is placed across or
above the perforations and whether a bridge plug is installed first before placing the cement above it.
If no bridge plug is used then cement or resin may be placed from 50 meters below the perforations to 50
meters above the perforations covering the perforations completely.
If a bridge plug is used then it can be placed above the perforations and 50 meters of cement must be placed
on top of the plug.
And finally a cement plug only can be used above the perforations as long as it is a minimum of 100 meters
in length.

Zone shut off (Uncased hole or slotted Liner or screen)
Cement must be placed completely over the liner or screen and rise to above the zone to 100 meters.
Cement may be placed over the last 50 meters provided another 50 meters in a continuous length is above a
cemented tailpipe or liner.
A 100-meter cement plug may be placed in a cemented liner above the zone to be isolated.
And finally if a bridge plug is placed in a cemented liner above the zone and 50 meters of cement is placed
on top of the bridge plug.
N.B. For both the above scenarios this is the primary abandonment plug only for one zone, if the whole well
is being totally abandoned then further plugs are required higher up the well.
Testing of Abandonment Plugs
Normal requirement is a 10,000kg-weight test and/or 50-kg/cm2-inflow test for a variable period of time
dependent on the legal requirements from country to country.
The above is a rough prcis and interpretation of legal requirements for the Netherlands, Denmark, United
Kingdom and Norwegian offshore and land requirements, the relevant regulations and regulatory bodies for
each country must be consulted before operations commence.
7.6 Checklist for Planning and Execution of Multilateral Wells
From Multilateral Well Planning (SPE 39245 1997)
Profile Planning for Junction Placement and Orientation
Optimal length and spacing of laterals
Placement of window in tangent section (minimum 20m)
Minimum 1 casing joint per window
Minimum DLS to avoid over stressing window area when running casing in mainbore
(recommended maximum DLS 15
o
/30m)
Inclination at junction (avoid critical angles 45-65 degrees)
Lateral trajectory should not require drill string rotation until BHA is through the window
DLS off the whipstock should be limited to avoid re-entry problems when running a lateral liner
or PLT
Include a small inclination (at least 5 degrees) to allow orientation by gravity high-side steering
tools for departure from a vertical wellbore
Drilling Sequence
Top down reduces the risk of loosing access to a previously drilled section due to failure or problems
with lateral sections above
Hole Considerations
Maximum diameter of casing string is largest at the window joints
Casing running issues to insure the window lands at required depth
hole stability
time sensitive swelling-shales
pack-off potential/excessive fill (hole cleaning?)
excessive filter cake
torque and drag
Drag running the lateral
Temperature effects on sealing components (internal pressure sleeves, hydraulic retrieval tools)
Chemical compatibility of equipment and downhole tools with all fluids (drilling mud, cement,
pre-flushes, completion fluids and formation fluids)
Good drilling practice for hole cleaning
Avoid setting window at problem formation depths
Well Control
Page 189 of 277

Drilling sequence may be dictated by the pressures of formations penetrated by laterals
Casing design
Maximum expected differential pressure (e.g., during cementing or liner- hanger setting) should be
compared with pressure ratings of window joint internal sleeve seals
Centralisers on the window joint or the one below can interfere with drilling the lateral
Window-joint orientation options
Simple Vertical Application, Casing to Surface wireline steering tool connected to orientation tool
Vertical Application, Liner Run on Drill-pipe and Hung Off
Horizontal Application, Casing to Surface
Horizontal Application, Liner Run on Drill-pipe and Hung Off
Cementing Procedures
Casing to Surface, One Window Joint
Casing to Surface, Multiple Window Joints
Liner Run on Drill-pipe and Hung Off, One Window Joint
Liner Run on Drill-pipe and Hung Off, Multiple Window Joints
Special Applications ( casing or liner rotation reqired with window orientation)
Bit Selection
Milled-tooth bit required for the initial lateral drillout off the whipstock.
Otherwise choice is free
Lateral Liner
Diameter is ML System determined
Liner rotation may be necessary (check liner running system)
Use best practice drilling procedures for optimal hole condition
Beware of junction or whipstock limitations on liner accessories
Contingency Planning
Apply QRA process to identify and focus on issues of consequence and cross discipline
Use HAZID process to focus on operational preparedness and cross-vendor interdependence
Use HAZOP to eliminate problems, reduce risk and enhance safety and performance
Track performance during operations,
Compare with plan,
Feedback for continuous improvement

Chapter 8. Operating a Multilateral Well Page 190 of 277

Chapter 8. Operating a Multilateral Well
This chapter describes the processes and operations involved after a multilateral well has been completed and handed
over to Production. No single set of procedures or recommendations is good for all TAML as these would have to be
not only TAML level specific, or even vendor specific, but would have to be solution and well specific. The contents of
this chapter will consequently reflect more general guidelines and experience than procedures or recommendations.
8.1 Starting Up the Multilateral Well
8.1.1 Completion Integrity
With respect to pressure integrity, the completion in this context is defined as the part of the tubing and
downhole equipment that is above the production packer. Consequently, the same safety requirements will
apply as for a conventional well. For the installed downhole equipment, all barriers involved in the various
parts of the completion phase should be tested according to the existing and expected pressures and company
safety philosophy.
Maximum expected pressure differential across the packer may be calculated from
Pressure testing of tubing hanger based on an annulus pressure test, potential tubing leak and design rating on the
X-mas tree.
Reservoir pressure minus fluid column pressure of fluid in the annulus.
Leaking tubing, equal to wellhead shut -in pressure plus hydrostatic pressure of fluid in the annulus minus
reservoir pressure.
The final test of the completion should include all actual test pressures for all actual barriers relevant for the
production phase and for the removal of the BOP and installation of the X-mas tree.
8.1.2 Clean-up
Due to milling operations etc. there is significantly more metal debris in a multilateral than in a conventional
well. As experienced by a North Sea operator, producing the initial flow through a production choke may
plug it up and the use of a clean-up choke is recommended. Emphasis should be put on accurate
measurements of the back produced completion fluid or mud as this is one of the few indicators of how much
of the laterals that has been cleaned up.
Starting up a new well with production logging tools in the tubing is in most cases not recommended due to
the possible damage of equipment. However, there is an increasing number of wells that are being installed
with down hole pressure gauges above the production packer. This measurement during the clean up phase
can provide vital information for the understanding of the quality of the multilateral drilling and completion
job. Norsk Hydro who has downhole pressure gauges installed on their ML-wells strongly recommends this.
Problems have been experienced when cleaning up a multilateral well where the productivity indexes of the
individual laterals have been significantly different. As clean out efficiency is not only a question of
differential pressure, but even more of kinematics, it is important to ensure sufficient flow rates in each
lateral. Experience from Norsk Hydros Oseberg Field has shown that a more efficient clean-up has been
achieved when allowing the laterals with the lowest PI to be produced first and thereby ensuring a maximum
flowrate and clean-up efficiency. This has been achieved by closing off the stronger laterals with plugs or
sleeves (Norsk Hydro, Oseberg C).
Vital information about the reservoirs and the laterals can be acquired and total operation performance
improved if one lateral is started up at the time during the initial clean-up:
Gives control of the flow from the different production zones.
The laterals can be monitored independently without interference from the other laterals.
Potentially sand producing intervals can be located and a sand free rate established for each lateral.
Result in higher flowrates, which give better clean-up.
Gives indications of junction integrity and consolidation of junction.

Enable monitoring of volume of back produced completion fluid from each lateral, which can be
related to length of producing interval.
However, starting up the laterals independently is most often not done due to the extra cost, time and
operational risk involved.
The initial bean-up has to be conducted with care due to the complexity and uncertainty often related to the
building of the junction and its integrity. There are several ways to initiate production from a well in
overbalance. On some fields the normal practice is to bullhead gas to kick the well off. Important factors to
be considered at this stage are
Maximum allowable pressure to be exerted inside the lateral junction.
Maximum pressure differential with respect to type of cement slurry.
Potential for formation damage.
Tracers may be used to qualitatively detect how the different laterals are producing. By placing the tracers on
the perforation guns or on the screens and analyse the produced fluid, it is possible to establish how far out in
the laterals fluids are being produced. The result can be used to determine if further actions (e.g. a coiled
tubing clean up intervention) are required.
The cleanliness requirements for the start up phase are not found to be different for multilateral wells than
for conventional wells.
8.1.3 Junction Integrity
Junction integrity is in this context defined as the junctions ability to withstand pressure differences between
the junction and the external pressure (reservoir pressure at junction depth) and between junction and the
different laterals. Testing of the junction integrity prior to the start up phase (pressure testing, cement bond
logs etc) is covered by Chapters 4 and 5.
The integrity of the junction with respect to the external pressure at junction depth will normally be tested for
higher inner pressure during the drilling and completion phase. For production wells, further pressure tests
are normally inappropriate as it could damage the junction sealant and in any case is not in the direction of
flow that causes concern. With the exception of level 6 equipment, it is almost impossible, if not impossible
to get an accurate junction integrity test. The junction may at best be regarded as squeezed perforations in the
casing and therefore one must rely on the formation integrity rather than the casing or junction integrity.
As the well is started up, the inner pressure will be lowered as the overbalance at the junction is replaced
with the flowing bottomhole pressure resulting from the drawdown and reduced hydrostatic head.
Consequently, the bean up phase will be critical in the life of a multilateral well and emphasis should be put
on this as described above.
The general experience of Mobil is that multilateral wells in carbonate reservoirs see no junction collapse
problems. In sands, however, the presence of shales interbedded with the sand necessitates some sort of
mechanical integrity (casing through the junction) and this is generally recommended. In unconsolidated
sands where several LTBS systems are installed, they have not seen problems.
Tracers may be added to the drilling mud in the lateral drill in phase. The tracers will follow the fluid into the
near wellbore formation and be produced back if there is flow through or passed the junction. Analysis of the
back produced fluid will indicate if the junction integrity is acceptable.
Downhole video cameras have been used to inspect the junction throughout the multilateral operation (Ref.
SPE 36488, 38546). As an example todays downhole video equipment comprises 1 11/16 OD 3m long
tools with a rating of 700 bar and 110
o
C. However, the video camera will only provide information about
the inner surfaces, which in many cases may not be descriptive of the actual pressure integr ity of the
junction. It may also be difficult to achieve sufficiently clear fluids as experienced by Norsk Hydro on the
Oseberg Field.

8.2 Maintenance and testing
8.2.1 Full Access Capability
The potential need for future workovers requiring access into one or more of the production bores is an
important consideration when designing a multilateral completion. For wells with laterals in homogenous
reservoirs where formation damage or workovers are not expected, access can be sacrificed for a less
complex completion solution unless production logging is required. For laterals with e.g. heterogeneous pay
zones, early breakthroughs or gas or water or with fluid compositions causing reduced productivity or
deposition of scale, optimum well life is often achievable only through periodic cleanouts or stimulations.
At present, multilateral options for re-entry applications include advanced-complexity designs that offer
selective through-tubing access into all production bores. Vendors and techniques for entering a lateral is
described in Chapter 5.
8.2.2 Intervention
REQUIRE INPUT
8.2.3 Well Treatments
One of the main difficulties when pumping remedial fluids into any well is how to place it in the correct zone.
Obviously the placement uncertainties are enhanced by the introduction of two or more laterals when no downhole flow
control is installed. In many of the wells that have been reported it has been possible to plug off the main bore and to
straddle the upper laterals. However, this may be expensive and time consuming. On one of the Oseberg C dual lateral
wells, Norsk Hydro discovered significant scale build up at the junction. The idea to scale squeezing only the upper
lateral was abandoned due to Based on the assumption that injected fluid will be distributed according to the
productivity indexes, the well was bullheaded. The post-operation caliper log indicated that the job had been a success.
stimulations, scale squeeze, fracing
Have to use plugs to isolate the branch not to be treated.
8.2.4 Workovers
REQUIRE INPUT
8.3 Reservoir Monitoring, Production Allocation and Control
Producing different zones through different branches in the same well increases the complexity of reservoir
management and production control. In order to maintain an updated reservoir model, the reservoir engineer
needs information on from where and in which quantities the fluid phases are being produced. Also, for the
production technologist to detect and avoid potential production problems and to be up front with the well
status, quality production monitoring and phase allocation is essential.
8.3.1 Well Testing and Logging
8.3.2 Production Logging
Production profile monitoring has been done on several installations by using both wireline and coiled tubing. Based on
the experience from several operators, some items may be noted:
Logging the contributions without entering each lateral provides important and vital information.
Combining the measured contribution, geological knowledge and LWD data, it is possible to
establish a production profile in each lateral. Unless information on detailed fluid phase
contributions along the lateral bore is required this may provide a good alternative for logging
each lateral.

Logging a lower bore while simultaneously flowing an upper bore may cause hazardous wear on the
logging equipment. The main bore of a Norsk Hydro multilateral was logged on wireline. The
flow through a choke from the upper bore repeatedly moved the wire against one of the many
edges in the junction completion. The logging string was barely recovered as the wire showed
extensive wear and could easily been cut off.
With all laterals open and no diverter systems installed it may be difficult to identify which lateral is
being entered (SPE 39242). Using radioactive markers at specific depths or patterns in the lateral
completions together with a gamma ray and an indexing kick over tool may be a low cost but
useful means in determining and entering the correct lateral.
Care needs to be given on proper centralisation for the PLT logging tool.
The completion string needs to be designed for re-entry, e.g. a lateral entry nipple would have to be
designed for proper collapse of the PLT tool and centralisers moving across upwards and
downwards
PLT logging should be carried out at several rates as the contribution from the different laterals is not
necessarily linear. The productivity index will be constant, but due to the different reservoir
pressures the contribution ratio will be a function of the production rate (see Chapter 8.3.2).
8.3.3 Pressure Build Up Testing
The transient pressure relationship of a multilateral system is influenced by the reservoir characteristics and
wellbore hydraulics of the individual laterals. As rock and fluid properties as well as the reservoir pressure,
geometry and boundary conditions may vary considerably from one zone to another, the interaction between
the branches after shut in may very well blur/mask/obscure ?? the build up data and the reservoir
characterisation. It has been reported that equivalent single-layer models can be used to analyse non-isolated
lateral pressure build up data (SPE 28376). However, the non-uniqueness problem, especially with individual
layer property interpretation, is found to be inherent. Consequently, for pressure build up testing of
multilateral it is recommended to test one branch at the time if possible.
8.3.3 Production Allocation
Production allocation, i.e. determination of quantity and origin of the produced phases, is essential for
optimum drainage of an oil reservoir. The production allocation is based on production tests carried out at
regular intervals. For multilateral wells, the monitoring of flow at surface gives very limited indications of
the contributions from the branches. Online multiphase flow monitoring on each lateral would offer the
opportunity to measure pressure and 3 phase flow in each of the well branches giving a complete diagnostic
set of data. However, as cost effective and high reliability equipment for this purpose is currently not
available, other approaches must be evaluated.
If a downhole flow control system is installed together with a downhole pressure gauge, the laterals may be
production tested one at the time on a regular basis. Combining the test separator flowing data with the
reservoir and bottomhole pressures, the individual IPRs (Inflow Performance Relationship) can be deduced.
If there is no downhole control system installed, the lateral IPRs must be taken from the PLT data. It is
important to notice that the IPR is not a direct measure of the production distribution from the laterals. With
basis in the basic IPR-equation
Q = PI x (P
res
BHP)

it is clear that the production distribution will be a function of the reservoir pressure of the individual laterals.
However, the individual IPRs can be combined to give an estimate of the production distribution. This is
shown on a well with two laterals A and B and reservoir pressures of 244 and 262 bar and a PI of 300 and
100 Sm3/D/bar, respectively.
1. Plot the IPR for each lateral with bottomhole pressure (BHP) as a function of production rate (Q) using
the lateral specific productivity index (PI). See line A and B as shown in Figure A.
2. Make sure that the BHP is calculated using the lateral specific reservoir pressure.

3. Sum up the production rates as a function of BHP as shown with the Total Production line.
4. The production distribution and the bottomhole pressure at a specific total production rate can then be
found by reading off the values at the Total Production line.
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Production Rate (Sm3/D)
B
H
P

(
b
a
r
)
Total Production
A
B

Some of the downhole flow control systems that are being developed include up stream and down stream
measurements of pressure and temperature. Given single phase flow, it is possible to get an estimate of the
flow rate. However, the moment a second phase is introduced, these measurements need an additional
measurement (e.g. total density, water cut, gas fraction etc.) to meet a reasonable degree of accuracy.
Several projects are currently ongoing to enable downhole multiphase monitoring (ref. SPE 35559).
Combining metering techniques such as capacitance, inductance, venturi and gamma density meters together
with pressure measurements, it may be possible to achieve an acceptable level of accuracy for the downhole
multiphase meter. Topside multiphase meters have a 10% uncertainty in liquid and gas flow rates, and 5% in
absolute uncertainty in water in liquid ratio. However, due to the amount of intelligence needed for signal
interpretation in the complex multiphase flow regimes, it has been difficult to find proven technology
(microprocessors, microcontrollers) that can work under the high temperature conditions downhole.
8.3.4 Performance Prediction
See Chapter 3.
8.3.5 Branch Flow Control
Producing a multilateral well means producing from zones of different characteristics and performance. The
individual laterals may develop in opposite directions with respect to pressure, water cut, gas break through,
sand production, fluid composition, production chemistry. The laterals evolution may require actions such as
choking back, chemical treatment, periodic shut in etc. which may involve restrictions on the other laterals.
Further, shutting in a multilateral well set of cross flow between the branches, which might have a
detrimental effect on the well performance. Enabling flow control of the different laterals may reduce the
impact of the restrictions from one lateral on another.
In order tot control the flow from or to the different branches, the branches have to be sealed of and diverted
through different choking mechanism. Figure A indicates some possible solutions. The choking mechanisms
can be divided into:
Surface controlled and
Manually installed or operated.

Surface Controlled Branch Control
Equipment has been and is currently being developed that enable operation from the surface of downhole
movable tools by means of hydraulic, electric or electro-hydraulic power. The list below shows a list of
potential vendors
SCRAMS

Surface Controlled Reservoir Analysis &
Management System
PES/Halliburton
IPC

Integrated Production Control Aker Maritime / Sintef
PROMAC

Production Monitoring and Control System Smedvig Technologies
ARMS

Active Reservoir Management System Dresser / ABB Seatec / Sperry-Sun
PCV

Production Control Valve Subsurface Technology
FIRST

Camco / Schlumberger
This list is not complete as there exists additional projects that are ongoing. The operational specifications
and design parameters for the products available or up coming are presented in Appendix 8.A.
Manually Operated Branch Control
The flow can be controlled using sleeves or chokes operated on coiled tubing, wireline or pipe. Halliburton
has together with Norsk Hydro developed a tool for inflow control of two branches which has been used on
the Oseberg C multilateral wells. The tool as shown in Figure B, consists of a bottom no-go nipple for
hanging of a plug or a choke for control of the lower lateral, a packer element, a ported nipple for installation
of a blanking sleeve or a ported choking sleeve for control of the upper lateral, and the upper packer. The
entire sleeve assembly is retrievable and has been operated 4 times on a 0.46 heptacable.
An example from Norsk Hydros Oseberg Field well is shown in Figure B. The upper lateral can be
controlled using a straddle with a choking mechanism. The straddle is placed inside a sleeve with ports that
together with the straddle is isolating the upper lateral. The lower lateral can be choked back installing a
restriction in nipple profiles below the straddle.
8.4 Abandonment
8.4.1 Abandonment Objectives
To quickly review the main objectives of abandonment of a zone, and although the wording may differ slightly in
individual operating companies/areas it can usually be described as follows:
Firstly, to permanently isolate the productive zone, potential thief zone and/or other permeable zones both from each
other and from the surface.
Secondly, to inflict minimal damage to the formation whenever possible, making future re-entry to the abandoned zone
economically feasible, should costs/benefits requirements change in the future.
8.4.2 Testing of Abandonment Plugs
Normal requirement is a 10,000kg-weight test and/or 50-kg/cm2-inflow test for a variable period of time
dependent on the legal requirements from country to country.

The above is a rough prcis and interpretation of legal requirements for the Netherlands, Denmark, United
Kingdom and Norwegian offshore and land requirements, the relevant regulations and regulatory bodies for
each country must be consulted before operations commence.
8.4.3 Abandonme nt of Lateral Branches
Methods for isolation of branches with significant water or gas production include
Installing a plug near the connecting points.
Installing sleeves or patches across specified intervals.
Cementing of the entire lateral bore.
Installing a plug in the lateral bore near the connecting points tend to shut off the immediate inflow into the
junction, but the lateral bore will remain as a conduit to flow. Analytical models have been used to assess
this problem (SPE 37374, 35711).
Depending of the depth of the junction, it should be OK with standard deep set plug and cement
below/above.
8.4.4 Methodology of Abandonment
It is not the purpose of this document to recommend the different methods of getting the cement or bridge
plugs for shut off to the required depths. However as a guideline Coiled tubing or small diameter pipe from a
small workover rig has normally been an efficient and cost effective method.
With the new style of multi lateral wells coiled tubing may prove to be problematical especially if rotation of
the string is required to gain access to the sidetrack or because the possible greater depths and much longer
step outs prohibit the use of coiled tubing.
Below is a short discussion on Bridge plug types and Cement types, which have been successfully used for
well abandonment.
Well Cleaning
In all cases mentioned below, efficient well cleaning with chemicals, solvents, high pressure jetting, sand
blasting or whatever, is extremely critical before any abandonment operation is carried out to remove
asphaltines, solids, scales, etc., from inside and outside the well bore to ensure the bridge plugs and cement
have a good bond with whatever they are being set in.
Bridge plugs
Mechanical Bridge Plug
Best success has been achieved using hydro mechanical bridge plugs with the elastomer being carefully
chosen to suit the temperature requirements of the setting depth to allow the elastomer to fill any pits or
indentations in the casing or liner wall. Cement can then be immediately placed on top of the bridge plug
removing the need to pull out of hole to change the tool string before cementing takes place. However well
internal diameter restrictions may preclude the use of mechanical bridge plugs.
Inflatable Bridge Plugs
There are two types of inflatable bridge plugs in use, namely fluid and cement inflatable plugs.
The fluid bridge plugs are not considered legally as a mechanical bridge plug and can only be used as a
platform for the setting of cement plug.
A cement inflatable bridge plug provides a seal, which is not expected to deflate, linked to the cement placed
on top the cement inflatable bridge plugs and can be regarded, as providing the two seals legally required.
Inflatable bridge plugs are problematic (and expensive) when being handled and should only be considered
currently for special cases.

8.4.5 Cement Types to be used for Abandonment
Gasblok Type Cement
Gas migration through cement is the primary cause of failure in abandoned wells.
The problem is twofold namely shrinkage and loss of hydrostatic head while setting.
In combating the problem of shrinkage the conclusion has been reached that the best additive to cement is
Rubber latex, the principle being that the shrinkage is compensated for by the expansion of the rubber latex
granules in the cement slurry. Two products are currently available Gascheck (Halco) and Gasblok (Sclum)
The second problem, loss of hydrostatic head while setting allows gas to invade and form channels during
the period between the start of the set and complete hardening of the cement. There is now a product
available called Right angle set (RAS) Gasblok, which is proving particularly good for gas well problems
and horizontal wells however it is only currently useful in low temperature wells.
Class G Systems
Normal class G can be considered for not too highly deviated wells (up to35deg dev) with gas free wells.
Resin Systems
Shell have carried out and continue to carry out research into the use of resin systems for well shutoff where
the resin has normally a week long setting time and remains sufficiently fluid to heal up behind any gas
bubbles which may migrate through the resin.
However contact with water remains a problem with these systems, ruining the system should there be any
water contact, so the system at present can only be considered for water free wells at present.
8.4.6 References on Abandonment
UKOOA. Guidelines for the Suspension and Abandonment of wells - June 1994- Issue 1
Netherlands. Further rules, Mining Regulations Continental shelf Abandonment of Bore holes, by the
Minister of Economic Affairs dated 18/6/92
Netherlands. Further rules, Mining Regulations 1964 Abandonment of Bore holes, by the Minister of
Economic Affairs dated 18/6/92
Shell Expro code of Practice (issue 12)
SPE paper 26897 (Nov 1993) A unique experimental study reveals how to prevent gas migration in a
cemented annulus.
8.5 Safety Particular to ML well
REQUIRE INPUT
8.6 Every day operation
The general experience from operators with a production history from multilateral wells is that the daily
operations are not very different compared to a conventional well. However, there are some issues that can
be emphasised, such as
Production allocation
Cross flow during shut in
Page 198 of 277

8.6.1 Production Allocation
The difficulties of production allocation are significantly enhanced by the introduction of multilateral wells.
As mentioned above, it may be possible to achieve fair production allocation accuracy if the individual
branch PI is known. If downhole flow control equipment is installed, this can be achieved by testing one
branch at the time. It may be possible to calculate the downhole flow rate based on a choke equation and up-
and down stream pressure gauges, but results so far have shown these measurements to be too inaccurate.
Analytical near wellbore inflow models may be used to estimate a productivity index (Chapter 3), but these
are often far too inaccurate for allocation purposes.
Running a PLT will give accurate an PI and can be used in combination with a bottom hole pressure gauge to
give sufficiently accurate rate allocations, as experienced by Norsk Hydro on the Oseberg Field. The time
dependency of the PI may however necessitate frequent logging operations, which may be beyond what is
economically acceptable.
8.6.2 Crossflow during Shut in
The pressure differences between the laterals will cause cross flow if they are not isolated through a branch
control system. This may lead to several production problems:
Productive zones may experience reduced productivity due to reversed flow.
Injected seawater mixing with seawater deposit scale in the wellbore and in the near well region. As
the flow may be reversed, the productive oil zones might be flooded and productivity altered.
Undersaturated oil may deposit asphaltenes if break through gas is mixed in and cause productivity
reduction.
To be up-front with potential production problems it is important to:
Understand the PI differences and the pressure differences between the laterals in order to foresee the
magnitude of the crossflow.
Be aware of the type fluids being produced from each lateral and how these interact with each other.
Appendix 1. Risk-Based Times and Costs Results. Page 199 of 277

Appendix 1. Risk-Based Times and Costs Results.
Cost Days
Spread Dayrate 1,200,000 1
A1.1 Sub Sea Multi-Lateral Well
A1.1.1 Rig On Location
Activity
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

%

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

Cost
R
i
s
k
e
d

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

Risked
Costs
Comment
Move Rig 100 3.00 3,600,000 3.00 3,600,000 Includes 22% NPT (Non
Productive Time)
Handling Boats 100 700,000 700,000 Vega Well
Positioning 100 340,000 340,000 Vega Well
Seabed Survey
and Repair
100 250,000 250,000 From Maersk for
Positioning Gallant legs
Total 3.00 4,890,000
A1.1.2 Set Template
Activity
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

%

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

Cost
R
i
s
k
e
d

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

Risked
Costs
Comment
Total 4.45 70,431,842


A1.1.3 Drill 36" Hole and Set 30" Casing (103 m - 165 m)
Activity
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

%

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

Cost
R
i
s
k
e
d

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

R
i
s
k
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

Comment
Drill 36" Hole 100 1.90 2,280,000 1.90 2,280,000 Includes gyro survey and
22% NPT.
Mud Materials 100 202,000 202,000 Baroid Estimate.
Run and Cement
30" Casing
100 0.70 840,000 0.70 840,000 Includes NPT.
Casing and
Associated
Equipment
100 409,200 409,200 DrillQuip Multitread. 6
joints @ 4960 GBP/joint,
10% transport
Cement Material
and Service
100 567,883 567,883 Dowell Estimate.
Run BOP 100 1.20 1,440,000 1.20 1,440,000 Includes NPT.
Drill out Shoe,
Perform FIT
100 0.70 840,000 0.70 840,000 Includes NPT.
Total 4.50 6,579,083


A1.1.4 Drill 17 1/2" Hole and Set 13 3/8" Casing (103 m - 1900 m)
Activity
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

%

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

Cost
R
i
s
k
e
d

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

R
i
s
k
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

Comment
Drill 17 1/2" Hole 100 8.00 9,600,000 8.00 9,600,000 Includes gyro survey and
22% NPT.
Mud Materials 100 1,137,062 0.00 1,137,062 Baroid Estimate
Reach Acceptable
Depth?
5 3.10 6,093,194 0.16 304,660
Ream to 26" Hole
Size
1.50 1,800,000 Time for Wiper Trip on 17
1/2" Hole
Run and Cement
20" Casing
1.00 1,200,000 Use time to run and
cement 17 1/2" casing
20" Casing
Material
1,402,864 950 m @1575 GPB/39 ft
joint DrillQuip Multithread
Cement Materials 970,330 Usecost for cement 13
3/8" casing
Drill Out, Perform
FIT
0.60 720,000 Use 13 3/8" Casing time
Run and Cement
13 3/8" Casing
100 1.00 1,200,000 1.00 1,200,000 Includes NPT (Non
Productive Time)
Casing and
Associated
Equipment
100 1,951,703 0.00 1,951,703 110.95$/m, 10%
transport, 20%
accessories
Cement Material
and Service
100 970,330 0.00 970,330 Dowell Estimate
Drill out Shoe,
Perform FIT
100 0.60 720,000 0.60 720,000 Includes NPT (Non
Productive Time)
Total 9.76 15,883,755


A1.1.5 Drill 12 1/4" Hole
Activity
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

%

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

Cost
R
i
s
k
e
d

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

R
i
s
k
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

Comment
Drill 12 1/4" Hole 100 7.50 9,457,500 7.50 9,457,500 Includes Gyro Survey.
Does not include NPT.
Mud Materials 100 2,800,065 0.00 2,800,065 Baroid Estimate
Stable Borehole? 2.5 7.30 14,270,496 0.18 356,762 Stability Modeling indicates
no problems, Lolita 2 has
not experienced problems.
More Drill Time 100 2.07 2,612,330 25% of risked drilling time.
Mud Costs 100 700,016 25% of mud cost.
Stuck? 75 6.98 14,610,866 If we have borehole
stability problems, high
odds of getting stuck.
Agreement on 70-75%
BHA Lost in Hole
Charges
100 4,156,088
Cut Pipe 100 0.75 945,750 estimated time for one
wireline cutter run, pulling
cut pipe included in
cmeneting time.
Service Cost to
Cut Pipe
100 130,000 Estimate based on three
men three days on rig plus
explosives.
Sidetrack 100 2.08 2,627,083 basically cementing time.
Cementing Cost
(Material and
Service)
100 15,000 neat G cmenet
Redrill 50% of
Section
100 4.14 6,736,944
Cuttings Buildup 0 6.25 11,120,828 0.00 0 Low probablity, as the
basic plan includes actions
for dealing with cuttings
buildup. Plan to use good
drilling practices. Numbers
presented 20%
Rotate and
Circulate,
condition mud
100 0.75 945,750 4 x occasions: conducting
3 circ's each time @ avg of
90 mins.

Pump Limit
Reached?
5 0.52 653,083 Low chance of exeeding
pump capacity on this
section
More Circulating
Time
100 0.52 653,083 25% longer time on 25% of
hole section.
Need to Change
Mud System?
40 0.17 1,050,186 Chance of exeeding
capacity of two centriges
on Endevour
Mixing and
circulating time
100 0.17 210,167 Assume: Depth 7700 m,
585.5 m3 hole capacity,
pumprate 1100 gpm
Mud Costs 100 840,020 30% of cost of mud for the
hole section.
Backream 100 1.92 2,416,917 If we get to cutting buildup
we will backream. Trips 1-
2 @ 3hrs/trip, Trips 3-4 @
10 hrs/trip, trips 5-7 @ 30
hrs/trip
Agreement on 70-75%
Tight? 100 0.41 510,705 0.41 510,705
Backream out
one trip
100 0.41 510,705 Slow Wiper Trip out of
hole.
Losses 20 0.69 1,286,947 0.14 257,389
More Drilling
Time
100 0.69 866,938 3 @ pills/place and
circulate 5 1/2 hrs.
Higher Mud
Costs
100 420,010 15% of mud cost for hole
section.
Suffecient WOB
available?
0 2.07 3,312,346 0.00 0 Drilling Engineering
Simulations.
Extra Drilling
Time
100 2.07 2,612,330 25% of risked drilling time.
Additional Mud
Costs
100 700,016 25% of mud cost.
Torque Limit
Reached?
2 2.07 3,312,346 0.04 66,247 Drilling Engineering
Simulations.
Extra Drilling
Time
100 2.07 2,612,330 25% of risked drilling time.
Additional Mud
Costs
100 700,016 25% of mud cost.
Steering
Problem?
2 1.00 1,261,000 0.02 25,220

More Drilling
Time Required
100.
00
1.00 1,261,000
Totals 8.29 13,473,889


A1.1.6 Run and Cement 9 5/8" Casing (100m - 2900m)
Activity
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

%

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

Cost
R
i
s
k
e
d

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

R
i
s
k
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

Comment
Run 9 5/8"
Casing
100 0.75 900,000 0.75 900,000 Wiper trip included in
drilling time.
Casing and
Associated
Equipment
100 11,195,62
0
11,195,620 1481 NOK/m, 10%
transportation, 20%
accessories
Unable to Reach
Acceptable TD?
5 1.90 2,280,000 0.10 114,000 Acceptable depth into
chalk, high odds to get
down.
Pull Casing 100 0.75 900,000 Assume Same Time to
Pull as Run.
Wiper Trip on DP 100 0.40 480,000 Slow Wiper Trip.
Rerun Casing 100 0.75 900,000
Premilled
Window in
Casing?
33 1.40 5,727,707 0.46 1,890,143
Installation of
Window at
Surface
100 0.08 105,083
Orient while RIH 100 0.21 262,708
Orient downhole
and retrieve
Pulser
100 0.50 630,500
Window
Equipment and
Service
100 4,000,000 Cost of Sperry ML
system.
Wrong
Orientation?
1.5 1.58 1,961,000 from Sperry 2 times in
150 operations.
Exta Time
Steering
100 1.00 1,261,000 1 extra day steering if
window oriented
incorrectly
Extra Trip to Pull
Isolation Plug
100 0.58 700,000 To conider the posibility
of the tools failing into the
lateral rather than
following mainbore.
Retrieve HRT
sleeve
100 0.58 700,000 Bit will not pass HRT
(internal sleeve in
Window)

Cement 100 0.38 456,000 0.38 456,000 Includes 22% NPT.
Cement
Chemicals and
Service
100 994,768 0.00 994,768
Test BOP 100 0.41 492,000 0.41 492,000 Includes 22% NPT.
Run USIT log 100 1.22 1,460,000 1.22 1,460,000 on PLC
USIT service 100 1,079,000 1,079,000
Poor Cement? 10 1.79 2,275,000 0.18 227,500
Perf and
Squeeze
100 1.79 2,150,000
Perf and
Squeeze Material
and Service
100 125,000
Drill Out Shoe,
Perform FIT
100 0.46 552,000 0.46 552,000
Unacceptable
FIT?
5 33.1
9
55,902,80
5
1.66 2,795,140
Drill 8 1/2"
Intermediate Hole
100 11.9
1
18,995,68
0
half time used to drill 8
1/2" mainbore
Set 7" drilling
liner in mainbore
100 3.23 7,204,610 same as liner running
and cementing cost
Drill 8 1/2"
Intermediate Hole
100 11.9
1
18,995,68
0
half time used to drill 8
1/2" mainbore
Contingency
Casing Scheme
100 3.23 7,204,610 same as liner running
and cementing cost
Estimate
increase for
Recovering
Mainbore
100 2.92 3,502,225 Assumed that the risk
was 4 times as high
Totals 5.61 22,156,171


A1.1.7 Drill 8 1/2" Hole (Reservoir Section) (3000 m - 4500 m)
Activity
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

%

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

Cost
R
i
s
k
e
d

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

R
i
s
k
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

Comment
Drill 8 1/2" Hole 100 21.61 27,250,210 21.61 27,250,210 Includes 5 days coring.
Mud Costs 100 625,364 625,364 Half of Baroid Estimate
for 8 1/2" Hole (hald
mud costs used on
lateral)
Stable Borehole? 0 18.26 26,788,217 0.00 0 Very stable formation
More Drill Time 100 6.45 8,137,821 25% of risked drilling
time
Mud Costs 100 156,341 25% of mud costs.
Agreement on 70-75%
BHA Lost in Hole
Charges
100 4,156,088
wireline cutter run,
pulling cut pipe included
in cmeneting time.
Servie Cost to
Cut Pipe
100 130,000 Estimate based on
three men three days
on rig plus explosives.
Sidetrack 100 2.08 2,627,083 basically cementing
time.
Cementing Cost
(Material and
Service)
100 15,000 neat G cement
Redrill 50% of
section
100 12.91 16,784,819 50% of risked cost to
drill section.
Cuttings Buildup 10 10.18 14,784,395 1.02 1,478,439 Small hole, higher
velocity
Rotate and
Circulate,
condition mud
100 0.75 945,750 4 x occasions:
conducting 3 circ's each
time @ avg of 90 mins.
Pump Limit
Reached?
0 1.29 1,627,564

More Circulating
Time
100 1.29 1,627,564 10% longer for 50% of
the section (risked
times)
Need to Change
Mud System?
10 0.13 345,234
Mixing and
circulating time
100 0.13 157,625 Only circ time. Mud to
be delivered to rig
premixed.
Mud Costs 100 187,609 30% of mud cost for
section.
Backream 100 3.13 3,940,625 If we get to cutting
buildup we will
backream. 5 trips @
15hrs each.
Stuck? 40 15.74 24,658,740
Losses 30 0.69 1,179,620 0.21 353,886 Bryne stacked sands at
different permeabilities.
More Drilling
Time
100.
00
0.69 866,938 3 @ pills/place and
Higher Mud
Costs
100 312,682 50% of mud cost for
section.
Suffecient WOB
available?
0 6.45 8,294,162 0.00 0 Torque and Drag
calculations
More Drilling
Time
100 6.45 8,137,821 25% of risked drilling
time
Additional Mud
Costs
100 156,341 25% of mud costs.
Torque Limit
Reached?
1 6.45 8,294,162 0.06 82,942 Torque and Drag
calculations
More Drilling
Time
time
Additional Mud
Costs
100 156,341 25% of mud costs.
Steering
Problem?
10 1.25 1,576,250 0.13 157,625 Bryne stacked sands.
More Drilling
Time Required
100 1.25 1,576,250
Poor Net to
Gross?
10 27.90 36,211,721 2.79 3,621,172 Based on LWD logs.
Assume kick off is near
9 5/8" Shoe
Kick off 100 2.08 2,627,083 basically cementing
costs.
Cementing Cost
(Material and Service)
15,000 neat G cmenet

Redrill Section 100 25.81 33,569,638
Totals 25.81 33,569,638


A1.2 Logging 8 1/2" Reservoir Section (Mainbore)
A1.2.1 Pipe Conveyed Combo (3000 m - 4500 m)
Activity
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

%

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

Cost
R
i
s
k
e
d

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

R
i
s
k
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

Comment
Rig up for PCL Logging 100 0.04 65,931 0.04 65,931
RIH w/ tools on DP to Casing
Shoe
100 0.47 749,174 0.47 749,174
Depth Charge 100 166,948 166,948
Install SES, RIH w/ stinger and
latch
100 0.13 200,783 0.13 200,783
Communication Failure? 2 1.28 2,031,776 0.03 40,636
POOH and Repair Failure 100 0.68 1,081,819
RIH w/tools on DP to Casing
Shoe
100 0.47 749,174
latch
100 0.13 200,783
Log Down until SES reaches
shoe or end of section
100 0.44 689,103 0.44 689,103
Survey Charge 100 52,593 52,593
Tool/Cable Failure? 20 1.75 3,510,688 0.35 702,138 Failure halfway
through logging
POOH Repair Failure 100 0.90 2,175,545
Shoe
100 0.47 749,174
latch
100 0.13 200,783
Communication Failure? 2 1.28 2,031,776
Shoe
100 0.47 749,174
latch
100 0.13 200,783
RIH to failure point 100 0.22 344,552 assume failure halfway
through section.
Logging up til SES at Surface 100 0.44 689,103 0.44 689,103

Survey Charge 100 37,907 37,907
Remove SES, POOH w/
stinger
100 0.13 134,851 0.13 134,851
POOH w/ tools on DP 100 0.47 749,174 0.47 749,174
Totals 2.49 4,278,341


A1.2.2 Pipe Conveyed RFT (3000 m - 4500 m)
Activity
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

%

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

Cost
R
i
s
k
e
d

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

R
i
s
k
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

Comment
POOH w/ tools on DP 100 0.04 65,931 0.04 65,931
Shoe
100 0.47 749,174 0.47 749,174
Depth Charge 100 166,948 166,948
latch
100 0.13 200,783 0.13 200,783
Shoe
100 0.47 749,174
latch
100 0.13 200,783
Trip Down through open hole 100 0.44 689,103 0.44 689,103
Survey Charge 100 52,593 52,593
Take RFT Readings while trip
down
100 0.50 769,822 0.50 769,822
Tool/Cable Failure? 30 1.75 3,510,688 0.52 1,053,207
Shoe
100 0.47 749,174
latch
100 0.13 200,783
Shoe
100 0.47 749,174
latch
100 0.13 200,783
through section.
Trip up through open hole 100 0.44 689,103 0.44 689,103
Survey Charge 100 52,593 52,593
Take RFT Readings while trip up 100 0.50 769,822 0.50 769,822

Remove SES, POOH w/ stinger 100 0.13 134,851 0.13 134,851
POOH w/ tools on DP 100 0.47 749,174 0.47 749,174
Totals 3.66 6,183,739


A1.2.3 Run and Cement 7" Liner (2900 m - 4500m)
Activity
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

%

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

Cost
R
i
s
k
e
d

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

R
i
s
k
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

Comment
Wiper Trip 100 1.28 1,536,000 1.28 1,536,000
Run 7" Liner 100 1.28 1,536,000 1.28 1,536,000 Does not include 22%
NPT
Liner and
Associated
Equipment
100 1,575,658 1,575,658 89 $/m, 10% transport,
20% assoc. eqip. +
200,000 NODECO
Unable to Reach
TD?
1 3.84 4,608,000 0.04 46,080 Very low chance not to
get to bottom
Pull Liner 100 1.28 1,536,000 Use same time as
running liner.
Wiper Trip on DP 100 1.28 1,536,000
Rerun Liner 100 1.28 1,536,000
Cement 100 0.42 504,000 0.42 504,000
Cement
Chemicals and
Service
100 1,754,872 0.00 1,754,872 Dowell Estimate.
POOH liner
running string
100 0.21 252,000 0.21 252,000
Totals 3.23 7,204,610


A1.2.4 Bottom Completion in Mainbore
Activity
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

%

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

Cost
R
i
s
k
e
d

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

R
i
s
k
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

Comment
Liner Scrapper/Cleanup
Trip
100 2.03 2,436,000 2.03 2,436,000 Performed as
two runs.
Completion Fluid 100 5,064,828 0.00 5,064,828 Baroid
Estimate.
Run CBL/CET and Gyro 100 1.99 3,503,218 1.99 3,503,218 As calculated
below.
Run Selective Completion
Components
100
Completion Assembly Cost 100 1,987,920 0.00 1,987,920 @
88000$/zone
1st Assembly 100 1.11 1,336,735 1.11 1,336,735
RIH perf and completion
assembly
100 0.30 360,000
Set Service Packer 100 0.13 150,000 includes
correlating
depth
Spot Light Fluid in DP 100 0.04 50,000
Perforate 100 0.02 25,000
Release Service Packer 100 0.02 25,000
Reverse out light fluid 100 0.04 50,000
Set Packer 100 0.04 50,000
POOH guns 98 0.50 600,000
Guns Free? 2 1.61 1,936,735
POOH assembly 100 0.50 600,000
Rerun assembly 100 1.11 1,336,735
Number of Zones 3
Suceeding Assemblies
Assembly
100 2.41 2,887,917 2.41 2,887,917
assembly
100 0.30 360,000
Set Service Packer 100 0.13 150,000
Spot Light Fluid in DP 100 0.04 50,000
Perforate 100 0.02 25,000

Release Service Packer 100 0.02 25,000
Reverse out light fluid 100 0.04 50,000
Stab in Assembly 100 0.04 50,000
Problems Stabbing in? 2 1.09 1,310,000
Modify Equipment 100 0.25 300,000
RIH Completion Assembly 100 0.30 360,000
Set Packer 100 0.04 50,000
POOH guns 98 0.50 600,000
Guns Free? 2 2.91 3,487,917
Rerun assembly 100 2.41 2,887,917
Set Isolation Packer 100 1.08 1,300,000 1.08 1,300,000
Isolation Packer
Equipment and Service
100 0.00 0 Included in Day
Rate.
Packer does not set/test? 5 1.14 1,368,421 0.06 68,421
Re-run packer 100 1.14 1,368,421
Circulate Well to Mud 100 0.33 400,000 0.33 400,000
Mud Materials 100 0 0.00 0 Included in
Mud and
Completion
Fluid Costs.
Totals 9.02 18,985,038


A1.2.5 Run Pipe Conveyed CBL/CET (2900 m - 4500 m)
Activity
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

%

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

Cost
R
i
s
k
e
d

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

R
i
s
k
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

Comment
RIH w/ tools on DP to Casing Shoe 100 0.45 708,150 0.45 708,150
Depth Charge 100 166,948 166,948
latch
100 0.12 193,398 0.12 193,398
RIH w/tools on DP to Casing Shoe 100 0.45 193,398
latch
100 0.24 385,576
Log Down until SES reaches shoe
or end of section
100 0.24 385,576 0.24 385,576
Survey Charge 100 58,855 58,855
Tool/Cable Failure? 20 1.49 3,060,322 0.30 612,064 Failure
halfway
through
logging
RIH w/ tools on DP to Casing Shoe 100 0.45 708,150
latch
100 0.12 192,788
latch
100 0.24 385,576
RIH to failure point 100 0.12 192,788 assume
failure
halfway
through
section.
Survey Charge 100 0 58,855

POOH w/ tools on DP 100 0.45 708,150 0.45 708,150
Totals 1.99 3,503,218


A1.3 Build Junction
A1.3.1 Set Whipstock
Activity
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

%

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

Cost
R
i
s
k
e
d

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

R
i
s
k
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

Comment
Set Whipstock 100 0.67 800,000 0.67 800,000 One trip system.
Whipstock and
Associated Equipment
100 6,024,000 0.00 6,024,000 Average cost of whole
ML package. .
Premilled Window? 33 0.01 70,000 0.00 23,100
Difficulties in Latching
Whipstock?
10 0.06 700,000 Difficulties are due to
cement in the latch.
Cleanup Run 100 0.58 700,000
Mill through Casing? 67 0.06 246,365 0.04 165,065
Incorrect Orientation 2 2.00 8,212,165 one instance in
approx. 60 operations.
Extra time due to More
Steering
100 1.00 1,200,000
Extra time running
completion
100 1.00 7,012,165
Incorrect Depth 1 1.71 8,212,165 Good depth ensuring
methods. In this case
there is a relatively
large depth tolerence.
Pull Whipstock 100 1.00 1,200,000
Rerun Whipstock 100 0.71 7,012,165 Risked Cost to Run
Whipstock.
Totals 0.71 7,012,165


A1.3.2 Set Whipstock
Activity
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

%

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

Cost
R
i
s
k
e
d

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

R
i
s
k
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

Comment
Test BOP 100 0.41 492,000 0.41 492,000 Includes NPT.
Premilled
Window?
33 0.08 100,000 0.03 33,000
Drill out Premilled
Window
100 0.08 100,000 Vendor says no extra time
required. Some time for
going slow. Use rock bit
for this as whipstock
damages PDC.
Mill through
Casing?
67 3.01 3,787,333 2.02 2,537,513
Mill Window 100 2.53 3,036,000 Three trip system.
Milling Material
and Service
100 0 Multilateral System Cost
included above.
Whipstock
Moves/Rotates?
2 1.71 8,212,165 One failure in approx 60
jobs, due to bad loal
machining.
Pull Whipstock 100 1.00 1,200,000
Rerun Whipstock 100 0.71 7,012,165 Risked Cost to Run
Whipstock.
Stuck BHA? 1 29.3
1
40,558,97
7

Fishing 100 4.00 4,800,000
Fishing
Unsuccessful?
50 50.6
1
71,517,95
4

Set Whipstock 100 0.71 7,012,165 Risked Cost to Set
Whipstock
Mill Window 100 2.49 3,110,513 Risked Cost to Mill
Window
Drill 8 1/2"
Motherbore
100 25.8
1
10,462,08
0
Risked Cost to Drill
Motherbore
Log Motherbore 100 6.15 10,462,08
0

Set 7" Liner 100 3.23 8,213,559 Risked Cost to Set 7"
Liner
Complete
Motherbore
100 9.02 21,180,27
1
Risked Cost for Lower
Completion

Build Junction 100 3.20 11,077,28
7
Risked Cost to Build
Junction
Twist off? 2 1.00 1,200,000 Concensus of opinion, not
likely but it does happen.
Fishing 100 1.00 1,200,000
Poor Window? 15 0.88 1,050,000
Extra Run with
Watermellon Mill
100 0.88 1,050,000
Perform Leak off
Test
100 0.04 48,000 0.04 48,000
Poor FIT? 0 1.79 2,273,000 0.00 0 If problem it was sqeezed
after USIT log.
Perf and Squeeze 100 1.79 2,148,000 Same as after USIT Log
Perf and Squeeze
Service
100 125,000 Same as after USIT Log
Totals 2.49 3,110,513

Total Build
Junction

3.20 10,122,678


A1.3.3 Drill 8 1/2" Lateral (Reservoir Section) (2870m - 3900m)
Activity
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

%

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

Cost
R
i
s
k
e
d

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

R
i
s
k
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

Comment
Drill 8 1/2" Hole 100 14.84 18,713,240 14.84 18,713,240 Includes 5 days coring.
Mud Costs 100 625,364 625,364 Half of Baroid Estimate
for 8 1/2" Hole (hald mud
costs used on lateral)
Stable
Borehole?
0 12.15 19,040,999 0.00 0 Very stable formation
More Drill Time 100 4.01 5,054,750 25% of risked drilling
time
Mud Costs 100 156,341 25% of mud costs.
Agreement on 70-75%
BHA Lost in
Hole Charges
100 4,156,088
wireline cutter run,
pulling cut pipe included
in cmeneting time.
Servie Cost to
Cut Pipe
100 130,000 Estimate based on three
men three days on rig
plus explosives.
Sidetrack 100 2.08 2,627,083 basically cementing time.
Cementing
Cost (Material
and Service)
100 15,000 neat G cement
Redrill 50% of
section
100 8.02 10,565,955 50% of risked cost to drill
section.
Cuttings
Buildup
10 8.23 12,296,849 0.82 1,229,685 Small hole, higher
velocity
Rotate and
Circulate,
condition mud
100 0.75 945,750 4 x occasions:
conducting 3 circ's each
time @ avg of 90 mins.
Pump Limit
Reached?
0 0.80 1,010,950

More
Circulating
Time
100 0.80 1,010,950 10% longer for 50% of
the section (risked times)
Need to
Change Mud
System?
10 0.13 345,234
Mixing and
circulating time
100 0.13 157,625 Only circ time. Mud to
be delivered to rig
premixed.
Mud Costs 100 187,609 30% of mud cost for
section.
Backream 100 3.13 3,940,625 If we get to cutting
buildup we will
backream. 5 trips @
15hrs each.
Stuck? 40 10.85 18,439,877
Losses 30 0.69 1,179,620 0.21 353,886 stacked sands at
different permeabilities.
More Drilling
Time
100 0.69 866,938 3 @ pills/place and
Higher Mud
Costs
100 312,682 50% of mud cost for
section.
Suffecient
WOB
available?
0 4.01 5,211,091 0.00 0 Torque and Drag
calculations
More Drilling
Time
time
Additional Mud
Costs
100 156,341 25% of mud costs.
Torque Limit
Reached?
1 4.01 5,211,091 0.04 52,111 Torque and Drag
calculations
More Drilling
Time
time
Additional Mud
Costs
100 156,341 25% of mud costs.
Steering
Problem?
10 1.25 1,576,250 0.13 157,625 stacked sands.
More Drilling
Time Required
100 1.25 1,576,250
Poor Net to
Gross?
0 18.12 23,773,994 0.00 0 No geologic sidetrack
option for the lateral
Kick off 100 2.08 2,627,083 basically cementing
costs.

Cementing Cost
(Material and
Service)
15,000 neat G cmenet
Redrill Section 100.
00
16.03 21,131,911
Totals 16.03 21,131,911


A1.4 Logging 8 1/2" Reservoir Section
A1.4.1 Pipe Conveyed Combo (2870m - 3900m)
Activity
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

%

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

Cost
R
i
s
k
e
d

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

R
i
s
k
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

Comment
Shoe
100 0.44 700,824 0.44 700,824
Depth Charge 100 144,882 144,882
latch
100 0.12 192,080 0.12 192,080
Shoe
100 0.44 700,824
latch
100 0.12 192,080
Log Down until SES reaches
shoe or end of section
100 0.31 496,682 0.31 496,682
Survey Charge 100 52,593 52,593
Tool/Cable Failure? 20 1.55 3,153,530 0.31 630,706 Failure halfway
through
logging
Shoe
100 0.44 700,824
latch
100 0.12 192,080
Shoe
100 0.44 700,824
latch
100 0.12 192,080
through section.

Survey Charge 100 37,907 37,907
Remove SES, POOH w/
stinger
100 0.12 126,148 0.12 126,148
POOH w/ tools on DP 100 0.44 700,824 0.44 700,824
Totals 2.13 3,683,613

A1.4.2 Pipe Conveyed RFT (2870m - 3900m)
Activity
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

%

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

Cost
R
i
s
k
e
d

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

R
i
s
k
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

Commen
t
POOH w/ tools on DP 100 0.04 65,931 0.04 65,931
RIH w/ tools on DP to Casing Shoe 100 0.44 700,824 0.44 700,824
Depth Charge 100 144,882 144,882
Install SES, RIH w/ stinger and latch 100 0.12 192,080 0.12 192,080
Install SES, RIH w/ stinger and latch 100 0.12 192,080
Trip Down through open hole 100 0.31 496,682 0.31 496,682
Survey Charge 100 52,593 52,593
Take RFT Readings while trip down 100 0.50 769,822 0.50 769,822
Tool/Cable Failure? 30 1.55 3,153,530 0.47 946,059
RIH w/ tools on DP to Casing Shoe 100 0.44 700,824
RIH to failure point 100 0.16 248,341 assume failure
halfway through
section.
Trip up through open hole 100 0.31 496,682 0.31 496,682
Survey Charge 100 37,907 37,907
Take RFT Readings while trip up 100 0.50 769,822 0.50 769,822
POOH w/ tools on DP 100 0.44 700,824 0.44 700,824
Totals 3.29 5,538,610

A1.4.3 Recover Mainbore
Activity
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

%

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

Cost
R
i
s
k
e
d

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

R
i
s
k
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

Comment
Wash Over Whipstock? 67 1.19 1,691,699 0.80 1,133,438
Retrieve Whipstock 100 0.75 900,000
Whipstock Stuck? 1.75 0.75 900,000 Two times in 150
operations.
One extra trip with jars 100 0.75 900,000 Fished as pieces.
BHA stuck? 1 40.89 75,194,881
Extra Time Fishing 100 4.00 4,800,000
Fishing Unsuccessful? 50 73.79 140,789,763
Set Whipstock 100 0.71 7,012,165 Risked Cost to
Set Whipstock
Mill Window 100 2.49 3,110,513 Risked Cost to
Mill Window
Drill 8 1/2" Motherbore 100 25.81 41,637,065 Risked Cost to
Drill Motherbore
Log Motherbore 100 6.15 10,462,080
Set 7" Liner 100 3.23 8,213,559 Risked Cost to
Set 7" Liner
Complete Motherbore 100 9.02 21,180,271 Risked Cost for
Lower Completion
Build Junction 100 3.20 11,077,287 Risked Cost to
Build Junction
Drill 8 1/2" Lateral 100 16.03 26,142,936
Log 8 1/2" Lateral 100 5.42 9,222,223
Recover Mainbore 100 1.72 2,731,666
Twist Off? 2 1.00 1,200,000
Fishing 100 1.00 1,200,000
Mill Through
Whipstock?
33 1.03 1,369,974 0.34 452,092 Risked Cost to
Run Whipstock.
Mill through Hollow
Whipstock.
100 0.75 900,000 One trip milling.
Mill Guide Left in Hole? 10 0.58 700,000
One fishing run 100 0.58 700,000

BHA stuck? 0.5 40.89 75,194,881
Extra Time Fishing 100 4.00 4,800,000
Fishing Unsuccessful? 50 73.79 140,789,763
Set Whipstock 100 0.71 7,012,165 Risked Cost to
Set Whipstock
Mill Window 100 2.49 3,110,513 Risked Cost to
Mill Window
Drill 8 1/2" Motherbore 100 25.81 41,637,065 Risked Cost to
Drill Motherbore
Log Motherbore 100 6.15 10,462,080
Set 7" Liner 100 3.23 8,213,559 Risked Cost to
Set 7" Liner
Complete Motherbore 100 9.02 21,180,271 Risked Cost for
Lower Completion
Build Junction 100 3.20 11,077,287 Risked Cost to
Build Junction
Drill 8 1/2" Lateral 100 16.03 26,142,936
Log 8 1/2" Lateral 100 5.42 9,222,223
Recover Mainbore 100 1.72 2,731,666
Twist off? 2 1.00 1,200,000
Fishing 100 1.00 1,200,000
Pull Insolation Plug 100 0.58 700,000 0.58 700,000
Totals 1.72 2,285,530

A1.4.4 Run Top Section of Completion
Activity
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

%

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

Cost
R
i
s
k
e
d

T
i
m
e
,

d
a
y
s

R
i
s
k
e
d

C
o
s
t
s

Comment
assembly
100 0.30 360,000 0.30 360,000
Completion Assembly 100 662640.00 0.00 662,640
Set Service Packer 100 0.13 150,000 0.13 150,000
Spot Light Fluid in DP 100 0.04 50,000 0.04 50,000
Perforate 100 0.02 25,000 0.02 25,000
Release Service Packer 100 0.02 25,000 0.02 25,000
Reverse out light fluid 100 0.04 50,000 0.04 50,000
Stab in Assembly 100 0.04 50,000 0.04 50,000
Problems Stabbing in? 2 1.09 1,310,000 0.02 26,200
Modify Equipment 100 0.25 300,000
RIH Completion Assembly 100 0.30 360,000
Set Packer 100 0.04 50,000 0.04 50,000
POOH guns 98 0.50 600,000 0.49 588,000
Guns Free? 2 2.91 3,487,917 0.06 69,758
Rerun assembly 100 2.41 2,887,917
RIH tubing 100 1.67 2,000,000 1.67 2,000,000 rough
estimate.
Tubing and associated
equipment
100 3500000.00 3,500,000
Circulate in Packer Fluid 100 0.75 900,000 0.75 900,000 rough
estimate
Stab in 100 0.04 50,000 0.04 50,000
Set Packer 100 0.04 50,000 0.04 50,000
CT Gas Lift and Startup of
Well
100 2.00 2,400,000 2.00 2,400,000
Service and Equipment Cost 100 500,000 0.00 500,000 Dowell
Estimate
Page 231 of 277

RD BOP 100 1.22 1,464,000 1.22 1,464,000 Incluededs
22% NPT.
Totals 6.92 12,970,598

Appendix 2. Activity Flowcharts Page 232 of 277

Appendix 2. Activity Flowcharts
A2.1 Sub Sea ML Well
Move Rig on Location
Drill Well
Good
Net to Gross?
Yes
Complete Well
and Startup
No
Geological
Sidetrack
Install Flowline and
Tie Back
Produce Well
Good
Connectivity?
Abandon
Well
Yes
Yes
No
No Yes
No
Perform Work
Over Operation
Well Failure?
Flowline
Failure?
Requires
Replacement?
Repair
Flowline
Good Net
to Gross?
Complete Well
and Startup
Work Over
Sidetrack
Yes
No
No
Yes


A2.2 Drill Sub Sea Well
Drill 36" Hole
Set 30" Conductor
Pre Milled
Window?
Drill
Lateral?
Orient Casing
Stuck Across
Window?
Set Isolation
Plug
Mainbore Lost.
Sidetrack
Drill 17 1/2" Hole
Set 13 3/8" Csg
Reach
Acceptable
Depth?
Ream to 26"
Set 20" Csg
No
Yes
Drill 12 1/4''
Run/Cement
9 5/8'' Casing
Yes
Drill 8 1/2"
(Mainbore)
No
Set 7" Liner
Complete
Mainbore
Run Rest of
Completion
and Startup
No
Build Junction
Drill 8 1/2"
(Lateral)
Evalutate
8 1/2" Section
Evalutate
8 1/2" Section
Recover
Mainbore
Yes
Motherbore &
Lateral Lost.
Kickoff for
new Motherbore
No
Yes
Suck BHA?
Yes
No


A2.3 Drill 12 1/4 Hole (Base Case - SilicateConverted Tools)
Stuck?
Extra Time
and Mud Cost
Steering
Problems?
Torque Limit
Reached?
More Drilling
Time
Required
Prepare for
Logging and
Casing
Yes
No No
Yes
Drill 12
1/4Hole
Stabile
Borehole?
Extra Time
and Mud Cost
No
Cuttings
Buildup?
Rotate and
Circulate
Pump /Line
Limitation?
Stuck?
Cut pipe and
Sidetrack
Longer
Circulation
Time
Extra Time
and Mud Cost
Losses?
Mix new Mud
and Change
out Mud
Backream
Yes
Mud Change
Required?
Yes
Yes
No
No No
No
Yes Yes
Yes
No
Sufficient WOB
available?
Yes
No
Sidetrack
Required?
Sidetrack Yes
No
Backeam out
1. Trip
Tight?
No
Yes
No
Yes


A2.4 Set 9 5/8 Casing
Wiper Tip
Run 9 5/8
Casing
Pull Casing
Condition Hole
Able to
Reach Chalk
+ 100m?
Cement
Run USIT
and Gyro
Perf . &
Squeeze
Good
Cement?
Drill Out Shoe
Perform FIT
Acceptable
FIT?
Drill 8 1/2
Hole
Drill 8 1/2 to
Bottom Chalk
Set 5 Liner Drill 6
Res. Sec.
Set 7 Liner
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes


A2.5 Drill 8 1/2 Hole (Reservoir Section)
Drill 8
1/2Hole
Stabile
Borehole?
Extra Time
and Mud Cost
No
Cuttings
Buildup?
Rotate and
Circulate
Pump /Line
Limitation?
Stuck?
Mix new Mud
and Change
out Mud
Cut pipe and
Sidetrack
Longer
Circulation
Time
Extra Time
and Mud
Tools
Extra Time
and Mud Cost
Backream
Stuck?
Losses?
Mud Change
Required?
Steering
Problems?
Torque Limit
Reached?
More Drilling
Time
Required
Prepare for
Logging and
Liner
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No No
Yes
Yes


A2.6 Set 7" Linear (Across Reservoir)
Pull Liner
and
Condition Hole
Liner Set High
Pull?
Completion
Reach
Acceptable
Depth?
Run Liner
Cement
Yes
No No
Yes


A2.7 Complete Mainbore
CU Mainbore
Set Isolation
Packer
Go back to Mud
Run Lower
Compleiton in
Mainbore


A2.8 Build Junction
Set
Whipstock
Correct
Orientation?
No
Yes
Mill Casing
Mill Out
Pre Drilled Window
Yes
Stuck BHA?
Poor Window?
Twist Off?
Whipstock
Rotates/
Moves?
Yes
Yes
More Drilling
Time Required
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Motherbore Lost.
Use Lateral as
Motherbore
Premilled
Window?
No
Drill 8 1/2"
(Lateral)
No
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Succesful?
Yes
No
Correct Depth?
No
Yes
Good Pressure
Test?
Yes
Fish Whipstock
and Packer

Page 240 of 277

A2.9 Recover Mainbore
Retrieve
Whipstock
Stuck BHA?
Poor Window?
Twist Off?
Whipstock
Stuck
Yes
More Drilling
Time Required
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Motherbore &
Lateral Lost.
Run Rest of
Completion
No
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Succesful?
Yes
No
Contingency
Fishing
(as pieces)
Yes

Appendix 3. Case Studies Page 241 of 277

Appendix 3. Case Studies
A3.1 Aera, TAML Level 6

Project Objectives:
This was the first field deployment of the FORMation Junction
TM
; a method to create a level 6 (Junction
sealed with casing) Multilateral well using reforming technology. The FORMation Junction
TM
, configured
with a 9 5/8 top connection with two 7 legs, was to be run in on the 9 5/8 casing string. In the running
in mode [with the FORMation Junction
TM
in the preformed condition], the assembly can drift through 13
3/8 casing and 12 1/4 openhole. In this deployment, 14 casing was the standard with 13 openhole.
After reforming the FORMation Junction
TM
, the junction and 9 5/8 casing was to be cemented in place.
Two 6 openhole horizontal sections were then to be drilled and the well completed with 4 1/2 slotted
liners.
Project Details:
Project Date: September 1998 Deviation at the junction: 92 deg
Well Location: Onshore California Junction setting depth: 1,588 ft
Formation/Lithology: Stacked Sandstone Lateral #1: 7 shoe depth: 1,851 ft.
Well Type: New Well 6 openhole, 1,715 ft long
Junction Type: FORMation Junction
TM
Lateral #2: 7 shoe depth: 1,620 ft.
Size: 9 5/8 top connection, two 7 legs 6openhole, 2,016 ft long
Main Bore Csg. Size: 9-5/8" , 36 lb/ft
Under reamed section: 17, 100 ft long

Multilateral Case History
Onshore California. Level 6
Project Results:
This first field deployment of the FORMation Junction
TM
was completed successfully with all project
objectives being met. The FORMation Junction
TM
was run on the 9 5/8 casing and position in the 17
under reamed section. After swaging the lateral leg #1 to full size the FORMation Junction
TM
and casing
string was cemented in place. Two 6 openhole horizontal sections, were then drilled and the well
completed with 4 1/2 slotted liners sealed inside the two 7 legs of the FORMation Junction
TM
.


A3.2 Aneth Field Utah, TAML Level 1








A3.3 Brunei. TAML Level 1 5







A3.4 Dunbar
See case history overleaf, and also SPE paper number 50675 Drilling of an intermediate radius long lateral
in the Dunbar field.



A3.5 Idd EI Shargi North Dome,. TAML Level 4
A3.5.1 History:
Native formation permeability 1-5 mD
Average porosity 18-26%
Isolated reservoirs with excellent rock mechanical integrity between
Minimal pressure differential between reservoirs
Vertical wells have average 350 BOPD but up to 3500 BOPD if faults intersected
Only 2% recovery of 20 billion barrels OOIP since 1964
A3.5.2 Objectives:
Multilateral wells to develop Shuaiba A&B limestone reservoirs
Enhance well productivity by intersecting multiple faults
Produce both reservoirs comingled
A3.5.3 Well design requirements:
Full bore access to each lateral during drilling
9
5/8
in. casing with 5 in. production tubing
Selective re-entry with common tool sizes after completion
Tubing retrievable down-hole safety valve
Top-down construction with upper lateral first due to well control constraints
A3.5.4 Sperry-Sun RMLS characteristics:
Repeatable selective re-entry for any number of laterals
Radially and longitudinally selective locating nipple (latch coupling) for precise positioning of drilling and
completion tools opposite pre-milled casing windows
Installation of retrievable deflection devices (drilling, completion and production whipstocks)
Transition joint for lining and cementing the secondary lateral back to the mainbore
A3.5.5 Well Construction:
Lateral Drilling
Top down
Upper lateral drilled to depth and cased off
Short liner installed to create a mechanical junction
Casing Window Positioning and Orientation
Determine exact measured depth for each window exit from open-hole logs

Make up casing string and first window joint
Rotate pipe to correct magnetic orientation(If more than one window joint use scribe line to next window
joint and install orientation subassemblies)
Run casing until window joint is at a hole inclination of approximately 20
o

Gyro check shot to insure that the window exit is on high side of hole
Further gyro check shots as required by well profile
Land and cement pipe and check window exit orientation for possible alterations to the directional
profile of the lateral.
Cementing
Production casing cemented with a isolation sleeve across the window exit requires a flexible cement-
wiper plug passes through a 6
5/8
in. restriction
Junction Construction
Run retrieving tool for isolation sleeve with MWD to check window exit orientation
Run whipstock with latch mechanism for depth and orientation control
Run 8 in. milled tooth bit with directional-drilling assembly (bent-housing motor and MWD)
Drill through window exit and hold 5-7
o
/100 ft. for 150 ft.
POOH
Run insert-cutter bit with formation-evaluation WD package and continue drilling to depth
Log formation
Install short (250 ft.) 7 in. liner to form junction
Cement liner into the mainbore
ECP prevents cement from flowing down into the formation
Cement has latex and fiber additives for durability and fracture resistance
Wash over transition joint and recover debris

A3.6 Oseberg C-12, TAML Level 5
In 1996 Norsk Hydro in conjunction with its service partners completed the Worlds first multilateral well
with a cased and cemented junction and with fullbore access to both laterals.
A3.6.1 The Business Driver.
The business driver for this well was the lack of slots available on the C platform on the Oseberg Field,
which limited the possibilities for drilling new wells in the Ness Formation of the Brent Group needed to
recover additional reserves.
Because of several upgrades of process capacities with potentially high oil production rates, there was a
concern that unstable gas fronts could develop in the ORE Formation.
To utilise the full process capacity by producing additional reserves from Ness and reduce the production
from ORE accordingly was therefore considered beneficial.
However, the Ness reserves where somewhat uncertain and solutions with a lower cost than adding new slots
to Oseberg C where required by the operator. Typically, well productivity in ORE is ten times the well
productivity in Ness.
Multilateral wells offered the possibility of increasing the number of drainage points at a lower cost than
drilling new wells.
The well C-12 was one of the oil producers completed during the predrilling phase. Gas breakthrough will
occur in these types of mature production wells and leave considerable amounts of oil down flanks between
the wellbore and the oil-water contact. In order to recover this oil, a majority of the predrilled producers will
be side tracked into horizontal wells. The procedure will be to place the horizontal section just 5 to 7m
above the oil-water contact. In addition to the well C-12, a number of these predrilled wells are candidates
for multilateral wells, since one or more laterals can tap marginal reserves within the Ness Formation without
having to use dedicated slots.
A3.6.2 Well Objectives.
The Well Objectives for the first multilateral on Oseberg was as follows:
C-12A: Drill pilot hole to obtain accurate information on current oil-water contact, and structural and
stratigraphic information to determine the best location for Well C-12B and C-12C.
C-12B: Drill a horizontal well to produce oil from the sands within the ORE Formations.
C12-C: Drill a horizontal leg out of the parent wellbore C-12A to produce oil from the sands within the Ness
Formation.
A3.6.3 System Description, Technical Requirements
The multilateral system was designed to provide three core capabilities:
Connectivity: The lateral is connected to the parent wellbore.
Isolation: The laterals and parent wellbore junctions are hydraulically or pressure isolated.
Accessibility: The completion allows selective fullbore re-entry access to laterals.
The current configuration operates in either new or existing 9 5/8 casing, allows drilling in 8 open hole,
and running a 7 production liner. The 7 liner is milled at the junction area by means of a specialised
process that provides the ability to recover the parent wellbore through a hollow whipstock which is a bored
out functional whipstock filled with a drillable low compressive strength core.

The following technical requirement were identified:
Full size hole dimension through pay zones.
Ability to separate production from each branch and allow commingled production.
Capability of providing multiple laterals from one parent wellbore.
Cemented liners in the parent wellbore and branches to facilitate:
Zonal isolation between junction and formation
Zonal isolation between different hydrocarbon bearing zones.
Ability to circulate liners during the running phase (Washing Down).
Lateral junction must be able to maintain borehole integrity in junction area.
Allow selective production and/or commingled production from parent wellbore and laterals.
Provide fullbore inner diameter access to laterals in order to facilitate zonal isolation.
Allow intervention in both the mainbore and laterals with wireline or coiled tubing.
Components in the junction area must be 13% chrome alloy if they remain in the well exposed to
reservoir fluids.
A3.6.4 Well Completion, Production Performance.
Norsk Hydro compared all multilateral technology available from the vendors to these requirements.
Halliburton was recommended for a contract award. A planning team consisting of personnel from Hydro,
Halliburton and Weathford was constituted.
The C-12C was put on stream in May 1996, and in November 1996 the C-12B branch was opened for
commingled production with C-12C.
Information to be provided by Norsk Hydro.

A3.7 Prudhoe Bay
(No information currently available)

A3.8 Troll, TAML Level 4: Multilateral Well Installation from a Floating Rig
In paper SPE 39369, the design, development, testing and installation of a multilateral well on Troll Olje gas
province is described. Troll Olje is operated by Norsk Hydro. It consists of the Troll Olje oil province and
the Troll Olje gas province.
The basis for the brief description given below is SPE 39369 together with a synopsis of the paper given in
JPT, July 1998.
A3.8.1 The Business Driver
In Troll Olje gas province the oil is produced from a thin oil rim, approximately 13 m in thickness.
The multilateral well concept was introduced in the Troll Olje gas province primarily to increase the
drainage are for each well. When producing from two separate laterals, a lower drawdown pressure exists
throughout the horizontal section. Therefore, gas coning is less likely to occur, and higher production rates
can be sustained for a longer period of time. I addition, cost savings are substantial because of reduced well-
construction time for each horizontal reservoir drainage section and because of the reduced number of
completion strings, subsea well heads, and pipelines required for total field development.
A3.8.2 Technology Requirements.
present several new technological challenges not faces on Oseberg C. Immediate solutions were available for
A3.8.3 Effect of Rig Heave on the Multilateral Operations.
A3.8.4 Weight on Bit and Depth Positioning.
The most critical operation during the multilateral construction process is the reestablishment of the main
A3.8.5 Placement of Downhole Equipment on Depth.

A3.8.6 Horizontally Placed Junction.
A3.8.7 Unconsolidated Reservoir Sand.
Most of the sandstone on the Troll reservoir is poorly consolidated. Hence, all wells have been completed
with prepacked screens. The unconsolidated nature of the reservoir sand and the fact that the junction had to
be placed in the reservoir created more challenges.
this, a subsea, downhole motion compensator from Weathford Enterra Co. was used. A single hollow
needed.
was needed. Effecting a good cement sheath at and immediately below the junction is also critical to success.
A3.8.8 Field Installation Results.
A formation-consolidation treatment with thermosetting resin was performed to stabilise the junction rock.
To achieve fluid loss control the formation had to be fractured to complete the resin treatment.
The lateral branch 8 -in. hole was drilled to 4302 m in six runs. No problems where experienced when
passing the window.
The junction was cemented with specially formulated cement.
The main bore was re-established successfully with the mill guide which was pulled before opening up the
pilot hole to full bore hole 7-in. liner and a packer plug mill removed the isolation plug in the multilateral
packer, see fig. 1
Fig. 2 illustrates the final well geometry and the producing horizons. All multilateral operations were
performed according to plan without any deviations and with very little downtime.
Production has been as high as 3498 m3/D with no evidence of sand production.

A3.9 South Furious Field. TAML Level 4
A3.9.1 Objectives:
Infill development
improved drainage in complex geology (many compartments and limited slots)
technology qualification for future developments
A3.9.2 Well Design Considerations:
Sand Completion and Completion Strategy:
Previous completions used gravel packs and limited well productivity
Long lateral perforated in a single run
Sized calcium carbonate as fluid loss control fluid
Set selectively a series of packers and screens with wash pipe
Zone by zone acid wash to remove salt
A3.9.3 Junction Seal/Integrity:
Reservoir is sand-shale sequences
Wells are drilled highly deviated (60-70 degrees) increasing pressure with depth
Seal at junction required against internal blowout potential
Gas zones isolated with cemented casing
Latex cement at junction
Junction located in thick +10m) stable shale as deep as possible for formation strength
Avoid majour faults (use borehole images)
Adjust lateral length /depth to limit maximum pressure as necessary
A3.9.4 Well Construction:
Link to flow charts
A3.9.5 Problems and Lessons Learned:
Liner-washover operation- the liner stub jammed and twisted off inside the rotary washover shoe
resulted in 4 trips + trips to remove debris
Clean-up of mainbore hindered by 10m of debris on top of glass disk.
Lesson: debris management critical for milling and washover operations in order to assure re-access of
mainbore.
Recommendation in SPE 38030:
Page 268 of 277

complete mainbore after removal of the lateral liner stub by using a large-bore MLP (see section
5.2.1) in order to allow completion equipment to be run through the MLP. This allows the glass disk
to be placed higher and eliminates the need for a debris catcher.
Refine pilot mill to take into account the complex geometries of liner stub and satting-sleeve/casing
combination.
Appendix 4. References Page 269 of 277

Appendix 4. References

ID Authors Title Source1 Source2 Date ProprietarySystem
Keywords
1 "Adam, Berry" Underbalanced Coiled Tubing Sidetrack Successful OG
1995-12-18 "coiled tubing, sidetrack, case study, underbalanced"
2 "Adbul-Rahman, Chong" Cementing Multilateral Wells with Latex Cement
JP 1997-08 "cement, multilateral"
3 "Alvestad, Christoffersen,holing" Interactive Well Modelling: Examples of Model
Based Trajectory and Completion Design; Single and Multi-lateral Wells SPE 35502 1996
"interactive, modelling, horizontal,multilateral"
4 Auburt Variations in Multilateral-well Design and Execution JP 1998-
07 "design, multilateral, classification"
5 "Avocato, Jackson, Jones Murphy" Optimising Slot Usage on a Minimum Facilities
Platform SPE 30346 1995 "slots, multiple, design"
6 "Azoba, Akinmoladun Rothenhofer, Kent, Nawfal" World Record Dual- and Tri-
lateral Wells SPE 39240 1997 Baker "dual lateral, tri lateral, multilateral, drilling,
completion, case study"
7 Bell Multilateral System with Full Re-entry Access Installed WO 1996-
06 Halliburton "dual lateral, re-entry"
8 "Bell Jr., Hinkel, Bunyak Payne, Hood III" Application of Innovative Extended
Reach and Horizontal Drilling in Oilfield Development SPE 27463 1994
"extended reach, horizontal, completion, case study, drilling"
9 "Bokhari, Katch, Kyei Werngren" Improved Recovery from Tight Gas Sands with
Multilateral Drilling JP 1998-07 "multilateral ,case study,
drilling"
10 BP's Downhole Talk Staff Pompano Multilateral BP 1996-04
Baker "completion, schematic, multilateral"
11 BP's Downhole Talk Staff BP's First Accessible Multi-Lateral in Alaska BP
1996-05 Baker "multilateral, design, case study, costs"
12 "Brockman, Gann" Multilateral Completions Prepare to Take Off PEI
1996-01 "multilateral , completion, drilling"
13 Button New Developments in Multi-lateral Re-entry Systems JNOC 1997-
05 "multilateral, re-entry"
14 "Chambers, Mueller Grossmann" Well Completion Design and Operations for a
Deep Horizontal Well with Multiple Fractures SPE 30417 1995 "horizontal,
fractures, completion, drilling"
15 "Chen, Tehrani, Peden" Calculation of Well Productivity in a Reservoir Simulator (I)
SPE 29121 1995 "productivity, simulator"
16 Collins "Single-size Reduction Offers Workover, Completion Advantages" PEI
1996-01 "multilateral, drilling, re-entry, schematic"

17 "Comeau, Pustanyk, Smith Gilles" Lateral Tie-back System Increases Reservoir
Exposure WO 1995-07 Sperry-Sun LTBS/RMLS "multilateral,
horizontal, case study, drilling, completion"
18 "Cooney, Rogers, Stacey Stephens" "Case History of a Dual Opposed-Bore, Dual
Horizontal Well in the Austin Chalk Formation of South Texas" SPE 21985 1993
"dual lateral, horizontal, design"
19 Daniel Exploring New Developments in Multilateral Re-entry Systems CEE
1996-06 "multilateral, re-entry, systems, applications, requirements"
20 Daniel New Developments in Multilateral Re-entry Systems CEE 1996-
06 "requirements, schematics, multilateral"
21 "Dearing, Ali" Drill-in Fluid Selection Crucial to Well Productivity PEI
1996-01 "drilling, fluids, systems, openhole"
22 DeLuca Multilateral Completions on the Verge of Mainstream OF 1997-
04 "multilateral, benefits, configurations"
23 "Dickinson W., Dickinson R." Horizontal Radial Drilling System SPE 13949
1985 "water-jet, drilling, horizontal, radials, logging, completion"
24 "Dickinson W., Anderson Dickinson R" The Ultrashort-Radius System SPE 14804
1989 "multiple, radials, horizontal, drilling, completion"
25 "Dickinson W., Herrera Dickinson R, Dees, Dykstra" Slim Hole Multiple Radials
Drilled with Coiled Tubing SPE 23639 1992 "water-jet, drilling, radials,
multiple, coiled tubing, horizontal"
26 "Dickinson W., Dykstra,Nordlund, Dickinson Wade" "Coiled-tubing Radials Placed
by Water-jet Drilling: Field Results, Theory and Practice" SPE 26348 1993
"water-jet, coiled tubing, multiple, radials, case study, modelling"
27 Diggins Multilateral Advances JOT "multilateral, case
study, schematic"
28 Diggins A Proposed Multi-Lateral Well Classification Matrix WO 1997-
11 "TAML, multilateral"
29 "Dittoe, Retnanto Economides" An Analysis of Reserves Enhancement in Petroleum
Reservoirs with Horizontal and Multi-Lateral Wells SPE 37037 1996
"horizontal, multilateral, productivity, economics"
30 Dresser Oil Tools Staff Dresser Oil Tools and Sperry Sun Drilling services Install First
North Seal Lateral Re-Entry System 1996-10 Dresser LRS Sperry
LTBS "multilateral, re-entry, dual lateral, drilling, completion"
31 Dresser Oil Tools Staff Multilateral Completions
"multilateral, completion"
32 "Du, Stewart" Transient Pressure Response of Horizontal Wells in Layered and
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs with Dual -Porosity Behaviour SPE 24682 1992
"dual porosity, transient, pressure, modelling"
33 "Ehling-Economides, Mowat, Corbett" Techniques for Multibranched Well Trajectory
Design in the Context of a Three-Dimensional Reservoir Model SPE 35505 1996
"design, multilateral, modelling"

34 "Eide, Brinkhorst, Volker Burge, Ewen" Further Advances in Coiled Tubing Drilling
JP 1995-05 "coiled tubing, horizontal, re-entry, case study"
35 El-Sadek Application of Short-Radius Horizontal Hole Drilling SPE 25593
1993 "horizontal, drilling, design"
36 Euroil Staff Report Multi-lateral Focus EU 1995-10
multilateral
37 Euroil Staff Report Multilateral Thinking EU 1998-02
"multilateral, intelligent, completion"
38 Feneyrou French Three Leg Multidrain Well Improves Recovery OG
1984-10-01 "tri lateral, schematic, design, case study"
39 Fox Alison's Tri-lateral Triumph OE 1995-11 "tri
lateral, gas, design"
40 "Fraser, Reid, Williamson Enriquez Jr." A Study of the Effect of Drilling Fines on
Reservoir Performance JP 1996-03 "reservoir impairment, fines,
drilling fluids"
41 "Freeman, Gronas, Berge Durst, Luke" Multilateral Installation from a Floating Rig
JP 1998-07 Halliburton "multilateral, floating rig, gas design"
42 "Gallivan, Hewitt, Olsen Peden, Tehrani, Tweedie" Quantifying the Benefits of
Multi-Lateral Producing Wells SPE 30441 1995 "multilateral, economics,
modelling"
43 Gallivan Advanced Wells: Present and Future AWRG
"multilateral, intelligent, modelling"
44 "Gary, Doremus" Technical and Economical Feasibility of Coiled Tubing Drilling
SPE 30490 1995 "coiled tubing, economics, flowchart, feasibility"
45 Graves Multiple Horizontal Drainholes can Improve Production OG 1994-
02-14 "horizontal, multilateral, types"
46 Hall Multi-lateral Horizontal Wells Optimizing a 5-Spot Waterflood SPE 35210
1996 "multilateral, horizontal, short, radius, design, applications"
47 Halliburton Staff BP/ARCO and Halliburton to Install First Integrated Multi-
Lateral System with One-size Casing Reduction www 1995-07-19 Halliburton
"multilateral, drilling, completion"
48 Halliburton Staff Halliburton Installs World's First Multilateral System with Full
Re-entry Access www 1996-05-06 Halliburton System 3000
"multilateral, system"
49 Halliburton Staff Norsk Hydro and Halliburton Complete Multiple Re-entry
Multilaterals from Single Platform www 1997-03-14 Halliburton System
3000 "multilateral, re-entry, multiple"
50 Halliburton Staff Multilateral Technology (MLT) Overview www
"multilateral, system, benefits"
51 Halliburton Staff Multilateral Systems www
"multilateral, project planning, systems"

52 Halliburton Staff Halliburton Performance Profiles www
Halliburton "multilateral, re-entry"
53 Hallundbaek Reduction of Cost with New Intervention Technology: Well Tractors
SPE 30405 1995 "well tractor, serving, horizontal, intervention"
54 Hamer Multi-lateral Systems Update CEE 1996-06
"multilateral, completion, systems, tie-back"
55 Hardman "Multi-lateral Drilling Past, Present and Future" JOT
"multilateral, history, developments"
56 Hay Multilateral Completions JOT "multilateral
,completion, systems"
57 Hogg Advanced Junction Technology Expands Multilateral Completion Options
PEI 1997-07 "multilateral, junction, design, options"
58 Horne Engineering Evaluation for Development of a Heavy Oil Reservoir in an
Offshore Environment SPE 14610 1986 "evaluate, reservoir, drilling,
technology, screening"
59 "Hovda, Haugland, Waddell Leknes" World's First Application of Multilateral System
Combining Cased and Cemented Junction with Full Bore Access to Both LateralsSPE 36488
1996 Halliburton/Weatherford "multilateral, case study, planning"
60 "Ismail, El-Khatib" Multi-Lateral Horizontal Drilling Problems and Solutions
Experienced Offshore Abu Dhabi SPE 36252 1996 "multilateral,
experience, solutions, problems, horizontal"
61 Jabs Expanding Options for Complex Multilateral Completions JP
1998-07 "multilateral, completions, junctions"
62 Jones Re-entry of Existing Wells for Drilling and Completion of Multi-Lateral Wells
SPE 29362 1995 "re-entry, multilateral, future, completions"
63 Joshi A Review of Horizontal Well and Drainhole Technology SPE 16868 1987
"horizontal, drainhole, case study, reservoir engineering"
64 "Joshi, Raghavan" Productivity of Multiple Drainholes or Horizontal Wells SPE
21263 1990 "horizontal, completions, multiple, drainholes"
65 "Kong, Xu, Lu" Pressure Transient Analysis for Horizontal Well and Multi-branched
Horizontal Wells SPE 37069 1996 "horizontal, pressure transient,"
66 "Konopczynski, Hughes Best" A Novel Approach to Initiating Multi-Lateral Horizontal
Wells SPE 29385 1995 "multilateral, initiation, re-entry, horizontal"
67 "Kostol, Ostvang" Completion and Workover of Horizontal and Extended Reach
Wells in the Statfjord Field SPE 28559 1995 "extended reach, horizontal,
case study, completion"
68 Kuchuk Pressure Behaviour of Horizontal Wells in Multilayer Reservoirs with Crossflow
SPE 22731 1991 "horizontal, crossflow, pressure, multilayered"
69 Kumamoto Application of Short-Radius Lateral Drilling Technology in the Divided
Neutral Zone Beneath Saudi Arabia and Kuwait SPE 21345 1991 "short radius,
multilateral, case study"

70 "Landrum, Crawford" Effect of Drainhole Drilling on Production Capacity SPE
437 1951 "modelling, drainhole, productivity"
71 "Lane, Early, Holtslag" Cost Effective Field Development Planning and Risk
Assessment SPE 28891 1994 "risk management, application, leading edge,
planning"
72 Larsen "Production Computations for Multilateral, Branched and Other Generalized
Extended Well Concepts" SPE 36754 1996
73 "Latiff, van Elk, Majit, Short Untam, Latiff S, Haron" Planning the First Triple-Lateral
Horizontal Well in South East Asia SPE 36407 1996
74 Lawson Multilateral-well Planning JP 1998-07
75 "Leazer, Marquez" Short-Radius Drilling Expands Horizontal Well Applications
PEI 1995-04
76 Le Blanc "Limiting, Treating Formation Damage in Horizontal, Extended Reach
Wells" OF 1996-06
77 "Leising, Hearn, Rike, Doremus" Side-tracking Technology for Coiled Tubing
Drilling SPE 30486 1995
78 Longbottom Developing and Testing of a Multi-Lateral System SPE 35545
1996 "systems, design, multilaterals, testing, completions"
79 "Longbottom, Dale, Waddell Bruha, Roberts" "Developing, Testing, and Field Case
Histories of Multilateral Completion Systems" SPE 36994 1996 "multilateral,
completions, development, case study"
80 Lowson Multi-lateral Well Planning SPE 39245 1997 "planning,
multilateral, drilling, completion"
81 "Mackay, Bustami, Abdou" Horizontal Well With Two Lateral Holes in Layered
Limestone Reservoir: Performance and Test Interpretation SPE 25594 1993
82 McCabe Horizontal Well Opens up Troll Oil Development OI
1990-10
83 "McMann, Lipp, Pruski Cooney" Development of the Brookeland Field Austin
Chalk Drilling Dual Lateral Horizontal Wells SPE 26355 1993
84 Mobil Staff Drilling and Well Productivity www
85 Murphy Multilateral Dilemmas OE 1998-06
86 "Nazzal, Rehbock, Miller" "Development, Testing and Field History of a True One
Trip Casing Exit System" SPE 25662 1996
87 Neff Milling Technique a Critical First Decision in Re-entry Drilling OF
1997-04
88 "Njaerheim, Breivik, Rovde Kvale, Kvamme, Bjoerneli" Multilateral Well in Low
Productivity Zones JP 1998-07
89 Offenbacher "Drilling Technology, 2000" JP 1996-05
90 Offshore Staff Report Trilateral Horizontal Wells add 10 Million Bbl for Unocal
OF 1993-12

91 Offshore Staff Report First Asian Dual Horizontal Drilled on Bongkot OF
1997-04
92 Oil and Gas Staff Report Texaco Sets Horizontal Well Marks OG
1992-07-06
93 Oil and Gas Staff Report Texaco Claims Record for Horizontal Displacement
OG 1993-03-01
94 Oil and Gas Staff Report UPRC to Test Texaco Trilateral Horizontal Well OG
1993-11-15
95 Oil and Gas Staff Report World's First Trilateral Horizontal Wells on Stream
OG 1993-11-29
96 "Oppermann, Grant" Gannet C: Geological Risks in a Marginal Field Development
SPE 28835 1994
97 "Pearce, johnston, Godfrey" "Horizontal Well Drilled into Deep, Hot, Austin Chalk"
OG 1995-04-03
98 PEI Staff Report First Retrievable Multilateral System Installed Offshore Qatar
PEI 1996-12
99 "Permadi, Wibowo, Permadi" Inflow Performance of a Stacked-Multilateral Well
JP 1998-07
100 Petrophysics Staff Report Petrophysics Petro Jet Multi Radial and Extended Reach
System CEE 1996-06 "water-jet, drilling, multilaterals, radials, ultra
short, extended"
101 "Pittard, Weeks, wasson" Slimhole Horizontal Re-entries Provide Alternative to
New Drills PEI 1992-11
102 Prats Effect of Vertical Fractures on Reservoir Behaviour - Incompressible Fluid Case
SPE 1575 1960 "vertical, fractures, modelling"
103 "Ramsey, Shipp" Formation Brines - New Fluids for Drilling and Completions
PEI 1996-01
104 "Retnanto, Economides" Performance of Multiple Horizontal Well Laterals in
Low to Medium Permeability Reservoirs SPE 29647 1995
105 "Retnanto, Frick, Brand Economides" Optimal Configurations of Multiple-Lateral
Horizontal Wells SPE 35712 1996
106 Ross B. Three Methods of Achieving a True Hydraulic Seal/Control Across a Junction in
a Multi Lateral Well SPE 36993 1996
107 "Ross K.C., Deom, Nazzal" Medium Radius Assemblies Drill Unique Well Profiles
WO 1992-03
108 "Salas, Clifford, Jenkins" Brief: Multilateral Well Performance Prediction SPE
37374 1996
109 "Salas, Clifford, Jenkins" Multilateral Well Performance Prediction SPE
35711 1996 "mulitlateral, reservoir, applications, performance"
110 Secure Oil Tools Staff Multi-lateral Production Systems www


111 Shell Staff Kinabalu Field Reserves www 1997-04-02
112 "Smith J., Economides, Frick" Reducing Economic Risk In Arielle Anistopic
Formations with Multiple-Lateral Horizontal Wells SPE 30647 1995
113 "Smith R., Hayes, Wilkin" The Lateral Tie-Back System: The Ability to Drill and
Case Multiple Laterals SPE 37436 1994
114 "Smith, Tweedie, Gallivan" Evaluating the Performance of Multi-Lateral Producing
Wells: Cost Benefits and Potential Risks SPE 38974 1997 "multilateral,
performance, prediction, economics"
115 "Spath, Ozkan, Raghavan" An Efficient Algorithm for Computation of Well
Responses in Commingled Reservoirs SPE 21550 1994
116 Sperry-Sun Staff "Installs its First 9 5/8 in. MSCS, MSCS Dualbore and MSCS
Vector Block in a 9 5/8 in. LTBS Junction" www 1998-02-18 Sperry-Sun
LTBS
117 Sperry-Sun Staff Multilateral Drilling and Completions www
Speery Sun LTBS/RMLS
118 Stangeland Splitter Wellhead Systems EU 1995-02
119 "Suzuki, Nanba" Horizontal Well Pressure Transient Behavior in Stratified
Reservoirs SPE 22732 1991
120 "Talk, Wooten, Lewis Talbot" Special Liner Design Improves Dual Lateral Horizontal
Well OG 1992-08-31
121 "Taylor, Russell" Case Histories: Drilling and Completing Multilateral Horizontal
Wells in the Middle East SPE 39243 1997 Halliburton "drilling, completion,
techniques, multilateral, horizontal"
122 "Taylor, Russell" Multilateral Technologies Increase Operational Efficiency in
Middle East OG 1998-03-16
123 Teel Drill Multiple Wells from One Surface Wellbore WO 1993-11

124 Themig Planning and Evaluation are Crucial to Multilateral Wells PEI
1996-01
125 Thomas M. Downhole Delivery EU 1996-02
126 Thomas M. Branching Out EU 1997-02
127 "Tovar, Callander, Bottazzi" Alternative Completionand Intervention Options for
Multilateral Wells JNOC 1997-05 "completion, technology,
mulitlateral"
128 "Triolo, Mathes" Review of Multi-lateral Drilling and Stimulation Program
SPE 39242 1997 "horizontal, multilateral, drilling, program, re-entry"
129 "Tubel, Hopmann" Intelligent Completion for Oil and Gas Production Control in
Subsea Multi-Lateral Well Applications SPE 36582 1996
130 "Vestaik, Fidtje, Faure" Casing Window Milling with Abrasive Fluid Jet SPE 30453
1995

131 "Vij, Narasaiah, Walia, Singh" Adopting Multilateral Technology JP
1998-07
132 "Vo, Madden" Performance Evaluation of Trilateral Wells: Field Examples SPE
28376 1995
133 von Flatern Operators are Ready for more Sophisticated Multilateral Well
Technology PEI 1996-01
134 von Flatern Multilaterals Remain a Gulf Mystery OE 1998-01

135 Wilson Multilateral Applications Economics and Case Histories CED 1997-
05-19 "multilateral, economics, applications, case study"
136 "Yokoyoma, Arima" Pilot Development of Tight limestone Reservoir in the Khafki
Field SPE 19488 1988

TAML Multilaterals Guidebook July 1999

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

TAML Multilaterals Guidebook July 1999

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

TAML Multilaterals Guidebook

Note: This document was prepared by the TAML network (Technical

Вам также может понравиться