SPE-185513-MS

Real-Time Surveillance and Optimization of Wells with Intelligent

Completions in Ecuador

M. B. Villa, W. Liang, V. Gottumukkala, B. C. Gornescu, and C. Contreras, Schlumberger

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 18-19 May 2017.

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

Abstract
Producing from mature oil fields in Ecuador introduces many reservoir challenges, including multizone
oil production and artificial lift demands due to high water cut. Traditionally, dual-string completions with
sliding sleeves and dual electrical submersible pumps (ESP) were used to access different reservoir layers
and obtain back allocation with standard surface well testing.
One operator adopted intelligent completions (IC) well design with flow control valves and gauges that
allowed single-string configurations, reducing the number of ESPs required to address lift issues. Production
is commingled downstream from the flow control valves that independently adjust production from each
layer. Unlike traditional dual completions, this intelligent completion is versatile and simplifies workovers,
precluding the need to pull the entire lower completion.
High-frequency real-time gauge data acquired from intelligent completions is applied intermittently to
analyze pressure build tests and estimate reservoir properties.
The paper outlines the pilot project implemented to realize the value of the intelligent completions
by monitoring production parameters (layer flow rates, water cut, and productivity index) through 24/7
surveillance and periodic optimization using a software solution.
The software was connected to a real-time data source that gathered data from intelligent completions
(downhole pressure and temperature gauges, and valve position sensors) and automatically calculated
drawdown, fluid gradients, etc., in real time. It enabled users to study trends in real-time and historical data,
and set alarms for unexpected well production variations like increasing water cut, scaling, and slugging.
During the pilot project, optimization cases were performed and presented to the production team with
recommendations about choke positions to achieve the highest oil production.
Production engineers responded to the changes by modifying ESP frequency, changing valve choke
positions, and cycling valves to optimize production and improve operational efficiency.

Intelligent Completion Design

The intelligent completions (IC) in this pilot project are fully integrated systems that consist of multiposition
flow control valves, multiport packers, and pressure and temperature gauges for annular and tubing
2 SPE-185513-MS

measurements (Fig. 1). A single electrical submersible pump (ESP) is the artificial lift method chosen to
produce this mature field in Ecuador.

Figure 1—Intelligent Completion Schematic

This type of IC grants independent zonal operation of the flow control valve via hydraulic control
lines pressurized from surface. Each flow control device is equipped with fully open (position 1), fully
closed (position 0), and two variable choke settings at 33% and 66% (positions 2 & 3 respectively).
Annular isolation is obtained by tubing-conveyed, hydraulically set production packers with multiple bypass
configurations for hydraulic and electric lines.
Integrated systems are set inside a 7-in. production liner. Production from each layer (upper and lower)
flows into the lower 3.5-in. × 7-in. production tubing through the zone's flow control valve unless the
valve is in fully closed position. The ESP is installed on a 3.5-in. concentric string above the producing
zones, averting noise interference with intelligent completion sensors. IC design facilitates interventions
and isolates the reservoir from completion fluid damage during ESP re-installation.

Real-Time Surveillance System

Government approval for the intelligent completion design relied heavily on the ability to allocate
production to each layer with minimum or zero shut-in of the producing intervals. Obtaining independent
zonal pressure drops across each valve permits flow allocation calculation. The intelligent system
transmits real-time data to a client server and into the surveillance and optimization software for the
use of completions, production, and reservoir engineers (Fig. 2). The software significantly reduces the
SPE-185513-MS 3

decision-making process by minimizing data mining, transforming raw pressure and temperature data into
surveillance information that over time translates into knowledge applicable to both production and reservoir
domains (productivity index changes, reservoir pressure depletion, etc.)

Figure 2—Data Transmission

Water Hold-Up
Aggressive oil production in the brownfields of Ecuador comes at the expense of producing large volumes of
water. Pressure gauges installed in a vertical wellbore can be used to estimate water hold-up from calculated
pressure gradients:

(1)

Despite intrinsic factors (hydrostatic pressure, friction losses, and fluid slippage) in the pressure gradient
calculation, deviations from stable pressure gradient measurements give insight to oil, gas, and water
composition based on fluid densities at downhole conditions.
After installing an intelligent completion, several valve position combinations were tested and surface
water cuts compared to calculated water hold-ups: 1) lower zone fully open and upper zone closed; 2) lower
zone closed and upper zone fully open; and 3) lower zone in the smallest variable choke size and upper
zone fully open. Pressure gradient responses for each production combination are shown in Fig. 3 along
with water cut and water hold-up comparisons in Table 1.
4 SPE-185513-MS

Figure 3—Pressure gradients during valve position combinations

Table 1—Water Cut Hold-up vs Water

Calculated Water Hold-Up Reported Water Cut Difference

Combination 1: Lower Zone Only 80% 76% 4%

Combination 2: Upper Zone Only 0% 2% 2%

Combination 3: Commingled 50% 50% 0%

Trends in pressure behavior and pressure gradient (Fig. 4) can indicate that water injection into the upper
reservoir is affecting production from this well. Although the well is located approximately 2 km from
the nearest injector well, there is hydraulic communication between them. Water influx is speculated to
be mainly attributed to the upper layer because the lower-to-upper layer pressure gradient has remained
relatively constant while the ESP-to-upper layer pressure gradient has increased.

Figure 4—Downhole pressures and corresponding pressure gradients

The strategy proposed was to test both zones separately to determine production potential and water cut to
confirm the water injection influence in this part of the field. Build-up tests can be performed while closing
each zone with the intelligent completion annular pressure gauges.
SPE-185513-MS 5

Estimating Productivity Index and Average Reservoir Pressure

The software includes a custom algorithm that identifies stable pressure upon reaching pseudosteady-state
flow. When valves are cycled, flow rate is calculated at different valve positions, generating a step-rate test
that is used to draw an inflow performance relationship line to estimate productivity index (PI) and reservoir
pressure, P*. Shestoy et al. (2015) provides a detailed explanation of this method. For the tested well, the
workflow was performed when valve shifted from one position to another. The software estimates were in
line with the reservoir properties obtained by the operator (Table 2).

Table 2—Calculated PI and P* vs actual values

Well (Position) Calculated PI PI Calculated P* Reservoir Pressure

Well A (0 & 3) 1.03 0.98 2340 2348

Well C (1, 0 & 2) 4.53 4.40 2189 2137

Well D (1 & 2) 0.81 1.00 2383 2305

Flow Allocation
Operators in Ecuador schedule periodic surface well tests taken from the separator to estimate water, oil,
and gas production. Production logging is uneconomical as it requires pulling the ESP. In commingled
flow, separator tests are time-consuming as each zone must be independently tested, resulting in deferred
production and increased operational costs.
Back-allocation methodology used by the operator begins by performing a surface well test to obtain
total oil and water production. Oil and water rates are back-allocated to each zone based on oil API and
salinity. Individual oil and water rates are summed and equate to zonal liquid production. Fig. 5 is a graphical
representation of the allocation reported by the operator using this methodology.

Figure 5—Reported zonal production vs downhole annular pressure

On November 30, 2015, liquid production of the lower zone has more than doubled although the annular
pressure has remained constant. However, the concept of Inflow Performance Relationships states the
flowrate to be a function of the annulus pressure.
6 SPE-185513-MS

The software calculates volumetric flowrate by one of two models; Bernoulli's equation or Darcy's law,
depending on pressure differential across the flow control valve as detailed in Poe (2016). Darcy's model
utilizes the following equation:
(2)
The software system incorporates a mechanistic choke model that uses pressure drop and fluid density
across the valve to estimate liquid rate when valve is in choking position:

(3)

Mixture fluid density is obtained from the PVT inputs and correlations corrected to downhole conditions.
Results of zonal liquid rates for a commingled production period of 3 months are compared to the total
liquid production obtained from surface well test (Fig. 6). The IC was used to alter the operational conditions
on June 5; the lower valve position was modified to permit greater flow area (position 3 to 1). The software's
rate reconstruction workflow computes liquid rates per zone where zonal contributions reflect downhole
pressure behavior.

Figure 6—Software-calculated zonal fluid breakdown matches surface

well test data within 10% and multiphase meter test data within 1%.

Estimated total liquid production values have +/-10% accuracy when compared to actual well test and
+/-1% compared to multiphase meter test. The calculated flowrate is more accurate before the change in
valve position because in choked position, the software utilizes Bernoulli's equation and not a simple PI
model. Darcy's equation can give a good estimate for Q, if PI and reservoir pressure have not substantially
changed since their initial inputs.

Scale Identification
The ability to control the reservoir from surface relies on the integrity of the flow control valve system.
Scale build-up across the valve can obstruct flow ports and reduce production from the controlled zone.
Furthermore, scale deposition on the valve increases the likelihood of shifting mechanism malfunctions. In
wells with ESPs, it is crucial to mitigate flow control valve failures as contingency plans require pulling the
ESP before running a mechanical shifting tool.
SPE-185513-MS 7

Plugging across the flow control valve causes annular pressure to increase and tubing pressure to
decrease. Furthermore, delta pressure will increase while pressure ratio decreases. Monitoring of these
parameters aids in the identification of scale in a flow control device (Fig. 7).

Figure 7—Delta P and Pressure Ratio behaviors during scale build-up

For the well depicted in Fig. 7, production engineers were notified of the apparent scaling trend shown by
the pressure ratio alarm with the following recommendations: 1) actuate sleeve to break scale, 2) increase
flow area to reduce pressure drop and 3) inject scale inhibitor. The operator agreed and flow control valve
was actuated from surface to a larger choke size position.

Choke Position Optimization

Productivity index and average reservoir pressure calculations are stored in the database and replicated
in an analytical model that represents the wellbore completion. Once calibrated, the model and real-time
data can be used as a tool to do forward-modeling for changing valve positions, wellhead pressure, and
fluid phases in order to estimate production and pressure drops. Additionally, a built-in optimizer advises
optimum valve positions based on a predetermined set of constraints (limit drawdown, flow above bubble
point, or maximum liquid rate constraints), while accounting for wellbore interference.
Optimization cases were run and results presented to the operator detailing operational parameters for
valve position and ESP frequency. The software advised optimum valve positions on several wells that had
the potential to increase the oil rate by a few hundred barrels per day. Incremental oil production achieved
by implementing two optimized choke position recommendations increased the oil production by 15% of
the total oil production of the wells with intelligent completions (Fig. 8).
8 SPE-185513-MS

Figure 8—Oil production of optimizer vs actual production

Reservoir pressure and water cut differences in each layer directly impact oil production in commingled
wells. Even with the lower zone choke restriction, Well D oil production increases without increasing ESP
frequency. Choking reduces tubing pressure in the lower zone, allowing larger drawdowns from the upper
zone with 25% water cut. Although the total liquid rate is lower in the optimized case, oil production is
maximized.

Conclusion
A pilot test of intelligent completion downhole systems and software demonstrated the accuracy of the
technology as compare with conventional well testing and sampling. The project verified the system's ability
to:

• zonal water cut (within 4% of actual) and show trends, such as communication between injector
and producer wells
• accurately estimate zonal productivity index (within 5% for two wells and 20% for a third) and
average reservoir pressure (within 3%)
• compute zonal back-allocation for commingled production (within 10% compared to a well test
and 1% compared to multiphase meter test)
• identify scale buildup across downhole flow control valves and recommend mitigation steps

• optimize oil production with selective zonal flow control – recommending changes that improved
oil production in three wells by 15% by changing choke position.

Acknowledgements
This study was part of a large multidisciplinary and integrated effort. The authors would like to greatly
acknowledge colleagues who contributed to this work or facilitated publishing of the paper, especially Luis
Miguel Sandoval Neira for coordinating completions, production, and reservoir engineers with the asset
managers for their support in executing this project.

References
Shestov, S., Golenkin, M., Senkov, A., et al. 2015. Real-Time Production Optimization of an Intelligent Well Offshore,
Caspian Sea. Presented at the SPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference, Moscow, Russia, 26-28 October.
SPE-176648-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/176648-MS.
SPE-185513-MS 9

Poe, B., and Gottumukkala, V. 2016. Novel Methodology to Estimate Reservoir Pressure and Productivity Index in
Unconventional and Conventional Reservoir Using Production Data. Presented at the Offshore Technology Conference
Asia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 22-25 March. OTC-26429-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/26429-MS