Reliable and Interventionless
Intelligent Well Completion
Completion technology that reduces
operational risk and project cycle
time allows operators to exploit
hydrocarbon reserves economically.
The full-length paper discusses
development and application of an
intelligent well system that is reliable
and completely interventionless.
Introduction
Initial intelligent well completions
focused on the ability to control reser-
voir access remotely from surface facili-
ties to access multiple reservoirs with-
out the expense of workover operations.
Objectives were defined for a next gen-
eration intelligent well completion sys-
tem that would integrate all aspects of
the completion from sand control to
placing the well on production. Primary
objectives included the following.
• Maintain fluid-loss and well con-
S m a r t We l l s
trol at all times before production
begins.
• Eliminate mechanical post-com-
pletion intervention.
• Use simple, reliable technologies.
• Maximize production potential by
maintaining optimum flow areas.
System Development
Lower-Zone Completion. In the past,
lower-zone completions used mechani-
cal sleeves to gravel pack, isolate, and
produce the reservoir. These sleeves
were run concentrically inside the
lower-zone screen assembly and
mechanically manipulated after the
gravel pack was complete. Slickline or
coiled tubing was used to reopen the
sleeves for production. This system met
all the criteria for fluid loss and zone
control but was not interventionless.
The interventionless solution to this
problem was a derivative of systems
originally developed for the upper
zone. These systems included a pres-
sure-actuated fluid-loss control valve
(PAFCV) and an annular flow valve
(AFV). PAFCV technology was used
successfully in previous applications
where upper-zone isolation was
required and mechanical intervention
was not possible with the production
70
string in place. The PAFCV was run
closed and actuated by a pressure dif-
ferential from tubing to annulus. Once
open, the PAFCV allowed flow from
the annulus into the tubing through
flow ports. The valve could be run as
base pipe under the screen or included
in a concentric string across the pro-
ducing interval.
The AFV was designed to control a
different flow path. In the running posi-
tion, the AFV blocks flow from the con-
centric area below the valve to the con-
centric area above the valve. In common
applications, the AFV would be run
above the screen in the upper-zone flow
path, eliminating flow when closed.
Application of a preset differential pres-
sure shifts the internal piston to open a
bypass area and allows flow from the
concentric area below the valve to the
concentric area above the valve. The
valve enables backup mechanical access
down the long string to mechanically
shift the valve if required. The valve is
balanced until the production seals are
landed, preventing accidental actuation.
Both the PAFCV and the AFV were con-
sidered to be viable alternatives for the
upper-zone completion.
The primary difficulty in using either
of these technologies on the lower zone
was the inability to prevent upper-zone
treating pressures from actuating the
lower-zone fluid-loss device. Installing
an AFV and PAFCV in tandem present-
ed a unique solution to this problem.
The valves were aligned so that the
upper-zone treating pressure was rout-
ed into the inner diameter (ID) of the
lower zone and into an artifically creat-
ed concentric space above the lower-
zone AFV. During the gravel-pack/frac-
pack treatment, pressure is balanced
across the valves, eliminating the
chance of prematurely opening. This
valve combination was chosen as the
primary design for the interventionless
lower-zone completion.
Upper Zone. On the basis of flow
parameters and well economics, the
AFV was selected for interventionless
upper-zone completions. Use of these
This article, written by Assistant Tech-
nology Editor Karen Bybee, contains
highlights of paper OTC 14252,
“Reliable and Completely Intervention-
less Intelligent Well Completion Tech-
nology: Application and Field Study,”
by D.E. Johnson, D.M. Turner, SPE,
and D.J. Walker, SPE, OSCA Inc.,
and D. Harris and D. McDaniel,
Kerr-McGee, originally presented at
the 2002 Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, 6–9 May.
The paper has not been peer
reviewed. Copyright 2002 Offshore
Technology Conference.
devices would provide positive zonal
isolation of each zone after gravel-pack
operations and would maintain isola-
tion until production began. Both
zones could be selectively or simulta-
neously opened by applying pressure
down the tubing to create the required
opening pressure differential.
Downhole Flow Control
To meet the required flow-control
objective, available systems were ana-
lyzed for form, fit, and function. A
hydraulic control system was chosen
to meet the simplified technology
standard specified in the original
objectives. Two independent axial-
type sliding sleeves were selected. A
three-line control system that used one
independent control line to open each
of the sleeves and a common close line
that allowed complete and individual
operation of each valve assembly was
selected. Valve position indication was
based on pressure response and vol-
ume measurement. The valves were
developed with existing technology
found in current mechanical sleeves.
The hydraulic downhole flow-control
valve system was tested and certified
to 10,000-psi static differential and
2,500-psi cycling differential.
Case Histories
Case A. The first field trial was con-
ducted on a well with two productive
SEPTEMBER 2002
 intervals at depths greater than
12,000 ft measured depth and bottom-
hole pressures greater than 8,000 psi.
The lower zone was completed with a
high-rate water pack using a mechani-
cally actuated fluid-loss control system
for well and fluid-loss control. The
upper zone was a frac-pack completion
using a PAFCV. The PAFCV system is
actuated from the surface by use of a
pressure response and was designed for
actuation in intervals with no mechan-
ical means for manipulation.
S m a r t We l l s
72
After completion of both zones, the
hydraulic downhole flow-control sys-
tem was installed in preparation for
production activities. The system test-
ed and performed as designed. Once
the well was ready for production, the
schedule was to actuate the lower
mechanical fluid-loss device with
wireline and use pressure from the
surface to actuate the PAFCV on the
upper zone. Well production would
be controlled with the upper and
lower downhole flow-control valves.
However, because of debris in the sys-
tem, wireline was not able to get to
bottom, and coiled tubing was
required to clean out the wellbore.
The lower-zone mechanical fluid-loss
system was actuated with slickline.
Both zones were flow tested indepen-
dently during this process and have
been on production since July 2000
without incident.
Case B. This well was a dual-zone
completion in 95/8-in. casing with a
measured depth greater than
12,000 ft and pressure greater than
7,000 psi. Both zones were oil-pro-
ducing reservoirs completed with
high-rate water-pack treatments. The
lower interval used an AFV/PAFCV
combination for fluid-loss and well
control after treatment. An AFV with
an extended seal bore was used in the
upper interval to control the well and
simplify spacing out production seals
and landing the hanger.
After completing the lower zone, the
work string and sand-control equip-
ment were removed from the well, and
the new AFVs were tested success-
fully. The upper zone was treated
without incident. The AFV/PAFCV
provided well control while the down-
hole flow-control valves were in-
stalled. The system was installed suc-
cessfully in the 95/8-in. casing above
the upper gravel pack. The com-
pletion fluid was replaced with a
lighter packer fluid and the hanger
landed and locked. After successful-
ly testing the packer, downhole flow-
control valves were manipulated as
necessary, and pressure from the
surface was applied to actuate the
fluid-loss devices. Both zones were
flowed successfully.
Conclusions
1. A simple smart-well approach
provides necessary functionality with-
out extraneous features or unneces-
sary cost.
2. Additional capital cost of the new
smart-well equipment is estimated to
be approximately 20% of the total
completion-equipment cost.
3. The system provides total posi-
tive zonal isolation of the producing
reservoirs after each well is gravel
packed.
4. The system eliminates all slick-
line/mechanical intervention work
requirements below the tubing hanger
during and after the completion. JPT
SEPTEMBER 2002