SPE-185098-MS

Gas Lift Production Benchmarking Using IPR Risked Inflow Modeling: Case
Study

Suat Bagci, Baker Hughes

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Oklahoma City Oil and Gas Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 27–31 March 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
Ensuring effective production benchmarking studies and field management requires a through and
continuing understanding of the reservoir performance. Deviations from anticipated performance must be
recognized and, if necessary, corrected before they impact the expected life cycle performance and value
of the project.
This study was performed to establish (Inflow Performance Relationship) IPR risked modeling for
a variety of completion options and to assess the likely well performance under gas lift production
benchmarking of a field. The IPR risked inflow modeling used the Monte Carlo simulation method to
define the range of potential outcomes associated with uncertainties in key reservoir and completion input
data. Skin data for the completion options being considered, i.e., Open Hole Gravel Pack (OHGP), Cased
Hole Frac-Pack (CHFP) and Cased Hole Gravel Pack/Internal Gravel Pack (CHGP/IGP) were then used to
establish the probabilistic distribution, which could then be used in combination with reservoir uncertainty
data to perform the risk-based inflow modeling.
The results of the risk-based IPR modeling showed that the completion options for the CHFP proved to
be the best overall performer. The CHGP/IGP completion proved to be the least effective, primarily because
of the high skin associated with this type of completion. The OHGP completion compared closely to the
CHFP, but the greater probability of higher skin resulted in poorer performance compared to the CHFP.
Tornado analysis was carried out to highlight the parameter leading to the greatest uncertainty in well
performance. This analysis proved that permeability, in most cases, had greater negative impact on well
performance than skin when there was a higher permeability layer in the reservoir. It should be noted that
this can reverse; skin can be the most significant negative factor for lower permeability ranges. In all cases,
skin had the greatest positive impact on well performance due to negative values of skin for all completion
types. To validate the model, well test data was used to validate the probabilistic skin model results for
CHFP completion.
The gas lift modeling was carried out based on IPR Risked inflow modeling to reduce the gas lift design
uncertainties for vertical and deviated wells. Gas lift was extremely beneficial in the lower productivity
index (PI) or higher water cut (WC) wells. Impact of gas injection depth on oil production was assessed for
each reservoir layer at various stages of the field life.
2 SPE-185098-MS

Introduction
Due to increasing number of brown fields and lessening of huge oil discoveries maximizing oil recoveries
by artificial lift techniques can be compensating factor to balance the demand to supply ratio. Gas lift has
become a preferred choice of artificial lift to improve well productivity and economics, particularly for
offshore wells with short life expectancies and offshore platform whereby every square inch costs thousands
of dollars and space is limited. The ideal depth for injecting gas may change with time as the well's pressures,
fluid type, and productivity change. Multiple gas lift valves are usually installed in a well to ensure optimal
production during these changing conditions.
Inflow performance is one of the significant components to quantify the reservoir's capability to
produce hydrocarbon. There are two commonly-used quantities to represent reservoir inflow performance:
productivity index (PI) and inflow performance relationship (IPR). Both relate fluid flow rate to pressure
difference between bottomhole and reservoir. Much effort has been made on developing the PI and IPR
solutions suitable for specific circumstances since Darcy proposed the simple and useful Darcy's law in
1856. As a consequence, various correlations for PI and IPR calculation have been proposed from simple
analytical solutions to rigorous numerical formulations (Choi, et al, 2008). The correlations become more
and more complicated and rigorous in order to accurately describe inflow performance for complex well
geometries. They can provide a better prediction or estimation of inflow performance, though they would
be costly and computationally demanding. On the other side, researchers have tried to simplify the complex
solutions into analytical forms through extensive case studies. These provide a useful tool for the researchers
and engineers to make quick estimations although they are confined to limited conditions.
IPR Risked model was developed to provide a simplified and practical tool to handle IPR Risk Analysis
in oil and gas wells with horizontal or vertical orientation using stochastic methods and Excel VBA for
Windows as development platform. Model theoretical foundation and philosophy are based in Monte
Carlo simulation techniques and Tornado sensitivity plots. This tool can be used in concept screening
and production optimization. IPR Risked model can be used for vertical and horizontal oil and gas wells
using Darcy, Non-Darcy Gas and Babu and Odeh (1989) inflow models depending on fluid type and well
orientation variables selected. The sand face completion options were identified to facilitate full quantitative
analysis based on the lifecycle costs, risk and productivity.
With any sand face completion there is a level of risk associated with its design and installation and these
need to be considered as part of the selection process. It is important to evaluate which sand completion
options require minimal cost and installation time. There are a number of sand face completion design risks
that need to be considered:

• Sand failure prediction – is sand failure predicted to occur and will sand control be required or not.

• Selecting the appropriate completion and designing it such that if downhole sand control is applied
it prevents sand production whilst minimizing the pressure drop across the sand face.
• Production conditions – will the formation properties be within the expected range and if not what
is the likelihood that there will be a need to apply a higher drawdown at the sandface which will
increase the risk of sand production. There is always a risk of higher drawdowns being applied
to obtain the required production but lowest possible skins should limit the need for excessive
drawdowns.
• Selection of drilling and completion fluids to minimize formation damage, maintain wellbore
stability and allow effective well cleanup on completion of the well.
Artificial lift can maintain and improve the production performance by compensating for the current high
reservoir energy levels and adding significant reserves in the long term by combating the negative lift impact
of increasing water cuts. The inflow performance is a function of formation and fluid properties, sandface
completion method and reservoir pressure. Production well systems analysis techniques and available
SPE-185098-MS 3

softwares can be used to evaluate the expected performance of completions equipped with the artificial
lift options under review. However, the analyses of sand face completion and artificial lift options can
be complex since there are often many variables and unknown factors. For example, when assessing the
performance of a gas lift installation, the injection gas/liquid ratio is as unknown factor. Actual design
processes typically involve several design iterations to evaluate sensitivities and to enable the necessary
level of confidence to be attained.
Although artificial lift systems may be installed later in the filed life of a well or reservoir, there are
clear benefits in preparing for artificial lift when planning the construction of a well. Relatively small
modifications to the well configuration during the well design can provide flexibility and enhancements
which benefit the long term production capacity of a well. The selection of the most appropriate artificial
lift option will depend on economic evaluation to determine the most profitable and sensitivity analysis to
assess the robustness.
This study contains description of an approach to optimization of oil production in deep offshore field
conditions and presents a way of developing the production mode for the projected development wells
operated using the gas lift method. A method of solving the optimization tasks is suggested:

• Sand face completion options risks evaluation with respect to the field development conditions
and the project drivers,
• Risk based inflow modeling for a variety of completion options as well as to assess the likely well
performance under gas lift.

Reservoir Description
The studied field is located in 4000 ft of water and will be developed using floating drilling and production
facilities. The current base development concept assumptions for the development option screening phase
are:

• Utilize a Tension Leg Platform with an integrated drilling rig

• Initial development plan will consist of 12 production wells and 4 water injection wells

The reservoir has main pay zone (Zone – A) as given in Table 1.

Table 1—Summary of reservoir pay zone

Pay Zone Total Vertical Depth (TVD) (ft) Average Net Pay (ft) Comment

A 28,000 140 Oil bearing sands

Table 2 presents fluid property data used for this study.

4 SPE-185098-MS

Table 2—Reservoir fluid properties

Property Units Zone-A

Reservoir Depth ft 28005 28064

Reservoir Thickness ft 129-173

Reservoir Pressure psia 15861 15900

Permeability md 1 to 100

Reservoir Temperature 211 237

GOR scf/stb 437 464

API ° 29.8 27.9

Bubble Point psia 1771 1826

Produced Water Salinity ppm TDS 39,400 52,000*

Viscosity at Reservoir Conditions cp 2.5 3.0

Stock-tank WAT °F 90.1 -

Pour Point °F < 40 < 40

Asphaltene Content wt % 4.9 6.4

Asphaltene Onset Pressure psia - 4000

The projected well production data to be used during the options screening phase is given in Table 3.

Table 3—Projected well production data

Parameter Value

Maximum Oil Production Rate (BOPD) 7500

Total Liquids Production Rate (BFPD) 8000

Gas Production Rate (MMSCFD) 2.8

Gas Lift Gas Injection Rate (MMSCFD) 7.5

Producing GOR (SCF/BBL) 450

Conceptual Completion Design

In conceptual completion design, the key design driver with respect to the sand face completion is the
completion longevity and productivity. This is because the well production rates are expected to be relatively
low and field life will be long with a cumulative production of 20 million barrels of oil per well being
produced over the field life. Consequently there is a need to minimise the frequency of workovers which
will be costly and complex given the water depth and the depth of the reservoir.
The potential for sand production will determine the need for downhole sand control or not. Based on
the currently available data and the uncertainties associated with it is considered that sand control will be
required in the field development wells. A sand face completion ranking exercise has been completed based
on the key selection criteria for the studied field. Five potential sand face completion options were identified
at the outset of the study and these are; Cased Hole Frac-Pack (CHFP), Open Hole Gravel Pack (OHGP),
Internal Gravel Pack (IGP) and/or Cased Hole Gravel Pack (CHGP) and Open Hole Expandable Screen
(ESS). These options have been evaluated using several approaches to establish and overall option rank and
recommendation based on the key selection criteria and the field conditions.
SPE-185098-MS 5

Completion Productivity
Completion productivity has been evaluated in terms of completion skin and well productivity (PI). This
study identified that out of the options reviewed, Frac-Pack completions provide the lowest skins and hence
the best PIs. This result is due to the stimulation benefit given by the fracture in the comparatively low
formation permeability expected in the field. If the formation permeability is at the high end of expectations
the productivity benefit of a frac pack declines and open hole gravel packs and expandable screens would
become higher ranked productivity options. Open hole completions would be more productive than a frac
pack if the well deviation is increased as they will have increased reservoir-wellbore communication. The
lower drawdown that would be expected with frac packs will also make this option more resistant to fines
migration which is considered to be a risk for the field development. This risk of fines is due to the presence
of Kaolinite and Illite clays in the core samples analysed.
The risks to completion productivity have been evaluated qualitatively using a ranking analysis and
deterministically using fault trees based on peer reviewed risked probabilities. Fault trees were used to
evaluate the risked productivities by quantifying the risk of a problem occurring (plugging, loss in sand
control, water breakthrough). In addition the ability to remediate the problem through a workover or side-
track was considered along with the impact that these would have on well productivity. It should be noted that
the risks to productivity are impacted by the quality of the installation and the well operating criteria. Both
approaches completed independently indicate that a frac pack completion offers the best well productivity.
This was because frac packs were identified to have a lower risk of plugging and screen failure. Although
the flowing conditions in a frac pack at the screen are more inductive to screen erosion and failure than
other options, due to a more concentrated inflow profile, it was identified that the field flowing conditions
are within industry suggested erosion limits even under worst case conditions.

Completion Reliability
The field development is expected to have a life of 40 years and ideally the sand face completion will last
the full life of the development. Completion reliability data has been reviewed from a number of sources
including the George King database (King, et al, 2003, Tiffin, et. al, 1998) which is widely applied in
the industry. Little of the data identified is directly applicable to the well conditions. Hence the available
data need to be used with caution. Much of the data in the George King database is for wells with limited
productive well life history, the average well productive life is about 4 years. For the non Frac-Pack
completion options in particular there is limited well and failure data. The most relevant data from the
database indicates a completion life of at least 11 years is feasible for a Frac-Pack and CHGP/IGP. A shorter
life is expected for the other options being considered. The well completions that have shown this length
of life are still understood to have been producing under conditions that are harsher than those that will be
experienced on field with respect to screen erosion the principal failure mode in sand controlled completions.
Screen erosion analysis for the field conditions has been carried out, this indicates that in the proposed
wells comparatively low velocities will be experienced at the screen and that these should be below industry
recommended limits in all but the worst of cases. Completion failure by erosion should therefore be
low in proposed wells and that the database completion longevities should represent a low case for field
development. Low velocities around the sand face would also suggest a low risk of screen or gravel plugging.
For this reason it is suggested that the expected completion life should be greater than that identified as
the most applicable from within the sand face completion reliability database. Based on the analysis it is
considered that completion longevity for proposed wells is as shown in Table 4.
6 SPE-185098-MS

Table 4—Well completion reliability and workover requirements

Completion Option Well longevity, years Number of workovers over 40 year field life

Frac-Pack 22 1

OHGP 16 2

OHGP/Frac-Pack 19 2

CHGP/IGP 22 1

ESS 13 3

Included in Table 4 is the number of workovers that would be required based on the expected completion
longevity over a 40 year well life? The requirements for workovers and the mode of workover have been
evaluated based on peer reviewed expectations on failure probabilities, modes of failure, the ability to
complete a repair based on the failure mode and the need to side-track if a repair is not feasible.
Completing any repair in the planned wells will be difficult and costly given the water depth and the
depth of the reservoir. The only remedial workover that could be completed in the event of sand control
failure is considered to be setting a plug between the intervals to isolate the lower reservoir interval. If the
problem occurs in the upper interval isolation would not be possible and a side-track would be required.
Hence in many cases when a problem occurs the only option will be to side-track the well. This is further
complicated by the fact that it will be difficult under the field conditions to identify the cause of the problem
using PLT logs. The analysis of workover risks has addressed this by identifying when repairs are required
that the feasibility of doing a repair is assigned a low probability such that the requirement to side-track has
a higher probability. Given the predicted completion longevities the Frac-Pack completion is identified to
provide better completion longevity than the other options.
Overall the results indicate that when the completion options are evaluated against the key sand face
selection criteria that Frac-Pack completions offer the longest completion longevity, 22 years. Frac-Pack
completions also have the lowest risked productivity impairment compared to the other options considered.
Frac-Pack completions however will be more demanding in terms of mitigating installation risks due to their
increased complexity. It is important to note that sand face completion reliability/longevity on proposed
wells will depend critically on the quality of the installation, that is the successful creation of the fracture
and achieving a good annular pack. The flow conditions on wells in terms of the potential for screen erosion
resulting in loss in sand control are considered to be low compared to industry recommended limits. Hence
providing the completions are installed successfully and plugging due to fines is prevented the completions
should have a high reliability and therefore long intervention free production lives.

Productivity Risks
As well as investigating the potential problems with sand production with each sand option, it is important
to also look at potential benefits or penalties in well productivity for the various options even if sand is
not produced. When comparing sand face completion techniques the principal differentiating factor with
respect to well inflow performance in the near wellbore pressure drop is normally defined in terms of a
skin factor. In vertical/deviated producers such as those planned for the production wells it is the formation
damage and restrictions between the sand face and the wellbore that will be key.
Skin data for the completion options being considered in the field development i.e. Frac-Pack, OHGP,
CHGP/IGP and ESS was taken from the internal skin data base as well as from SPE paper (Wehunt, 2003).
The data for each completion was then used to establish the probabilistic distribution, which could then be
used in combination with reservoir uncertainty data to perform the risk based modelling. Figure 1 shows
the skin distribution for an Open Hole Gravel Pack (OHGP) completion. The data clearly fits with a "Log
Normal" distribution, however there is a slight departure from a true "Log Normal" distribution from the P75
SPE-185098-MS 7

– P85 region which would when applied in the risk based inflow model analysis will cause a slightly more
pessimistic estimation of inflow performance. Figure 2 shows the skin distribution for a Cased-Hole Frac-
Pack completion. Skin distribution data for Cased-Hole Gravel Pack or Internal Gravel Pack completion
is presented in Figure 3.

Figure 1—Skin distribution data for OHGP completion

Figure 2—Skin distribution data for CHFP completion

8 SPE-185098-MS

Figure 3—Skin distribution data for CHGP/IGP completion

For each option the completion performance can be summarised in terms of a skin factor as shown in
Table 5. This value can be used in a risk based analysis on other reservoir parameters to calculate a range
of inflow performance for each completion option.

Table 5—Summary of completion skin factors

Mean Skin
Type of Completion Standard Deviation Shift Distribution
(including shift) (excluding shift)

OHGP 8.66 4.56 1.46 4.1 Log Normal

CHFP 6.46 2.56 1.02 3.9 Log Normal

CHGP/IGP 18.8 15.2 1.12 3.6 Log Normal

ESS 0.45 -0.15 1.76 0.6 Log Normal

From the data analysed the expandable sand screen completions appear to offer the best well performance
based on skin followed by Frac-Pack and OHGP with CHGP/IGP having a significantly worse skin than
the others. It is considered that the mechanical skin factors for expandable screen would be similar to those
for Frac-Pack if deviation skin is accounted for. Similarly, the mechanical skin for OHGP would be slightly
greater than indicated.

Generation of Risked-Based Productivity Index (PI)

After selection of the inflow model due to type of well geometry and reservoir fluid, the tool enables one
to specify values for the uncertain and independent or relatively independent variables that contribute to
the random calculation of inflow. Since the model is probabilistic, the data must include minimum and
maximum values, indeed a measure of central tendency (mode) and the type of random distribution to frame
each of the uncertain variables. The model allows entering the values for the variables that are going to
be considered constant/deterministic (non-probabilistic) during the simulation. Reservoir pressure (Pr) and
wellbore radius (rw) will remain constant while bottom hole flowing pressure (Pwf) will be decremented
SPE-185098-MS 9

automatically. The Pwf value is intended to be the initial value. The model simulates and generates the data
required to plot and report the results of the simulation, once input data has been entered. At the end of the
simulation run, the model is designed to display a family of IPR plots for variable cumulative distribution
values for each curve. Each particular IPR graph has been generated for a single value of the cumulative
distribution function ranging from 5 to 90 probability percentiles. In addition to the IPR plot, the model
uses Babu and Odeh (1998) productivity index inflow theory for horizontal oil or gas well and also enables
the generation of a family of PI plots for probability percentiles.
This study was focused on the main producing zone (Zone – A). This zone to be completed was used to
define the uncertainty input data table in order to carry out the risk based IPR modelling study. The objective
of risk analysis to identify potential problems that could affect an outcome of interest and develop plans that
minimise the risk of an unfavourable result. The risk identification phase deals with collecting data about
the project and pinpointing the parameters that could potentially affect the results. Assessing those risks
involves measuring the effects of those parameters, and how likely they are to produce different outcomes.
Once the effect of the different parameters is quantified, plans can be made to deal with those risks, e.g.
mitigating, managing or ignoring them.
The purpose of this section is to generate risk-based PI estimation for proposed wells to be drilled in the
field, considering different completion options. The following parameters were identified for which the risk
should be assessed, which are the following:

• permeability

• net pay thickness

• oil viscosity

• oil formation volume factor

• drainage radius

• wellbore radius

• skin

In risk assessment, in order to assess the effect of different parameters on deliverability, we need
to calculate it as the parameters change, and assign some probability of occurrence to the results. For
illustration purposes, let us consider the simplest case possible, i.e. when the effect of two independent
parameters needs to be examined. In that case, we can calculate the PI for the different values the parameter
using Darcy equation. If we know the probabilities of those values, we can account for them to weight
the outcomes in such a way that we can calculate the probabilities for the deliverability results. We have
a probability distribution for the input variable, and we have to choose a representative sample from it
to generate an approximation that is representative of the output variable's distribution. For sampling the
input parameters, Monte Carlo methods are commonly used. Monte Carlo sampling is based on drawing
random values for the input parameters from their probability distributions, using them for the calculations
needed, and then generating a distribution with the results. Continuous probability distribution modeling
was used with distribution of the different variables based on the available field data and then sampling
them many times, until distribution of results does not vary significantly when results for additional samples
are introduced.
The modeling was done with distribution of the different variables, based on the available field data, and
then sampling them many times, until distribution of results does not vary significantly when results for
additional samples are introduced. Table 6 summarizes the suggested input data for the risked-based IPR
10 SPE-185098-MS

model in order to carry out PI analysis. The data was taken from the available log, core and test data for
the wells drilled previously in the field.

Table 6—Uncertainty reservoir parameters for producing Zone – A

Parameters Low Case Most Likely Case High Case Distribution

Permeability (mD) 5 100 300 Triangular

Net Thickness (ft) 129 138 173 Triangular

Oil Viscosity (cp) 1.72 2.18 2.63 Triangular

FvF (rb/STB) 1.220 1.225 1.234 Triangular

re (ft) 500 1665 3000 Triangular

rw (ft) 0.51 0.51 0.51 Constant

Type of Completion Mean Standard Deviation Shift Distribution

Skin for OHGP 8.66 1.46 4.1 Log Normal

Skin for CHFP 6.46 1.02 3.9 Log Normal

Skin for CHGP/IGP 18.8 1.12 3.6 Log Normal

The following series of plots shows the outcome from the risked based IPR modelling for the following
three completion types for each producing Zone – A:

• OHGP (Open Hole Gravel Pack)

• CHFP (Cased Hole Frac-Pack)

• CHGP (Cased Hole Gravel Pack) or IGP (Internal Gravel Pack)

Figures 4 summarises the results from the risk based PI analysis performed for each of the above
completion types and producing Zone – A.

Figure 4—Probabilistic PI values (Zone – A)

Both the CHFP and the OHGP represent the favoured completion options for all three reservoirs analysed.
Common among all the reservoirs for these completions is that the CHFP completion slightly out performs
the OHGP completion up to around the P80 region at which point the lines invert. It appears that at the
SPE-185098-MS 11

higher probability ranges where the highest values of permeability and net thickness are encountered skin is
having less of an impact on the PI outcome. The PI model calculates on the basis of one thousand iterations
for each uncertainty input variable to create the distribution. It appears that the reason for the inversion could
be a direct result of minor differences in the data dispersion. Checking the data each key input parameter,
i.e. permeability, net thickness and fluid properties all have much the same minimum, maximum and mean
value, indicating each completion model has the same range with some minor variance around the mean
value. Therefore it can be concluded that the PI values being calculated above the P80 range are essentially
converging on the same value for both OHGP & CHFP completions.
Completion production performance was evaluated as part of the benchmarking study. Risked-based PI
values for each completion type were generated using corresponding skin values. In this study, the impact
of various uncertainties was also evaluated probabilistically in order to determine a risked productivity
index (PI) for various completion options being considered. For producing Zone – A, the risked PIs are
summarised in Table 7.

Table 7—Risked PIs for completion options

Producing Zone PROBABILITY PI (CHFP) PI (OHGP) PI (CHGP/IGP)

P10 1.30 0.65 0.46

Zone-A P50 4.65 3.79 2.06

P90 11.85 12.65 6.94

The risked PI results indicate that frac pack completions generally offer best results in terms of
well performance particularly if the reservoir and fluid characteristics come in at the low range of the
expectations, which is where the benefit of the stimulation effect resulting from the fracture is experienced.
If reservoir and fluid characteristics are at the high end of the expected ranges (P90) the stimulation benefit
provided by the frac is offset by the additional inflow area provided by the OHGP and the OHGP results
in a slightly better performance than for the Frac-Pack.
In order to minimise fines migration and prevent water breakthrough it is critical to minimise the
drawdown at the sand face. Completing the evaluation in terms of PI provides a direct indication of the
relative levels of drawdown required to generate the required target production rate of 7500 bbls/d. The
drawdown required to generate a production rate of 7500 bbls/d is shown by reservoir interval in Table 8.
From this it can be seen that a drawdown of several 1000 psi is possible even at the most likely reservoir
conditions. At these drawdown levels fines migration is likely to occur if there is a presence of mobile fines
within the reservoir and the risk of water coning is increased. Drawdown could be reduced by increasing
the reservoir-wellbore connectivity by drilling more highly deviated wells and completing them open hole,
but whether this is feasible in terms of maintaining a stable wellbore during the completion at the extreme
field conditions would require further investigation.

Table 8—Drawdown summary for a rate of 7500 bbl/day

Drawdown, psi

Producing Zone PROBABILITY CHFP OHGP CHGP/IGP

P10 5769 11538 -

Zone - A P50 1613 1979 3641

P90 633 593 1081

12 SPE-185098-MS

Tornado Plot Analysis

The Tornado plot analysis highlights the impact each uncertainty value has on the resulting calculated PI
for each completion and each producing zones of the field. Figure 5, 6 and 7 shows sample tornado plots
for completion type of OHGP, CHFP and CHGP/IGP to be used in Zone – A.

Figure 5—Tornado plot for OHGP completion (Zone – A)

Figure 6—Tornado plot for CHFP completion (Zone – A)

SPE-185098-MS 13

Figure 7—Tornado plot for CHGP/IGP completion (Zone – A)

In summary, the result of the tornado plot analysis for each completion type and producing zones show
that for the higher permeable layers the most significant parameter resulting in a reduction in productivity
is skin followed by permeability. Skin overall has the largest impact due to the range of skin uncertainty
with each completion model. Each completion type has supporting skin data suggesting that negative skins
have been achieved, probably as a result of stimulation post completion. However in some cases the skin
value has been measured in excess of 250. As would be expected the negative skin has the potential to
significantly increase production, albeit with allow probability outcome. However, there appears to be a
position common to Zone – A whereby the highest skin values have less of an impact on productivity when
compared to reduced permeability.
Viscosity uncertainty also has a significant impact often showing reductions in the order of 30% and
increases of around 60% when compared with the most likely case. The uncertainty over net thickness (h)
also appears to be relatively significant with a productivity impact of +/- 15% in most cases. Least significant
overall are the radius of investigation (re) and formation volume factor (FvF) with variances of +/- 5-10%
at most with almost negligible impact in better quality reservoir units.

Gas Lift Modeling and Optimization

The gas lift modeling was carried out based on Risk Based IPR model input data in order to reduce the
gas lift design uncertainties for both proposed vertical and deviated wells. The results of this modeling are
as follows:

• Gas lift design calculations suggest up to 3-5 number of gas lift valves (unloading + orifice) will
be required at different stages in the field life.
• Gas lift will be extremely beneficial in the lower PI or higher water cut wells. A negligible impact
of deviation has been observed on gas lift design as compared with vertical well.
• Gas lift will not be beneficial at current reservoir pressure without water production for Zone-A
Frac-Pack completed wells for the mean PI.
Table 9 presents the input PVT data for producing zone A of the reservoir which were used to build
the wellbore models for gas lift design. Gas lift design was carried out with vertical and deviated well for
producing zone.
14 SPE-185098-MS

Table 9—Input PVT Data

Input Parameters

Producing Zone Solution GOR Oil Gravity Gas Gravity Water Salinity H2S CO2 N2

scf/STB API sp. gravity ppm mole% mole% mole%

Zone – A 408.2 28.9 0.781 52000 0 0.05 0.15

Table 10 shows the details of downhole equipment for proposed vertical and deviated wells used in this
analysis.

Table 10—Downhole equipment data for proposed vertical and deviated Wells

Downhole Equipment
Producing Zone Tubing Roughness, inch
Vertical Wells Deviated Wells

6-5/8″ (28ppf) tubing from 0 to 6-5/8″ (28ppf) tubing from 0 to

6,500 ft 6,500 ft

5-1/2″ (23ppf) tubing from 6,500 to 5-1/2″ (23ppf) tubing from 6,500 to
Zone – A 0.0022
20,666 ft 22,000 ft

4-1/2″ (13.5ppf) tubing from 20,666 4-1/2″ (13.5ppf) tubing from 22,000
to 28,000 ft to 31,126 ft

Table 11 shows the gas lift design data used for this study.

Table 11—Gas lift design input data

Input Parameters Value Unit

Maximum Gas Available 9 (MMscf/day)

Maximum Gas During Unloading 2 (MMscf/day)

Flowing Top Node Pressure 300 (psig)

Unloading Top Node Pressure 300 (psig)

Operating Injection Pressure 3500 (psig)

Kick-Off Injection Pressure 3500 (psig)

Desired dP Across Valve 250 (psi)

Maximum Depth Of Injection 20,000 (TVD) 21,142 (MD) (feet)

Water Cut 0-95 (percent)

Minimum Spacing 250 (feet)

Static Gradient Of Load Fluid (10.5 ppg) 0.546 (psi/ft)

Valve Manufacturer Camco

Valve Type BKT-1

Valve Specification Carbide

Gas Lift design was performed by varying reservoir pressure, productivity index (PI) and water cut (WC).
The reservoir pressure was varied from 15,900 psi to 8,000 psig in declining order. Similarly, WC was also
varied from 0% up to 95 %, however variation of PI was governed by the minimum and maximum values of
PI from risked based probabilistic curve. The impact of deviation was also assessed in each well of different
producing zones and was found that deviation profile having minimal effect on gas lift design.
SPE-185098-MS 15

Vertical Well Completed in Zone – A

Figure 8 shows the depth of required orifice valve at different stages in the life cycle of the field. The plot
also shows the impact of variation in PI on gas lift design. Considering the design with mean PI case of
CHFP completion, the gas can be injected at around 12,000 ft of depth at current reservoir pressure; however
an orifice at deeper depth would be required in late life of the field. It can be observed that the threshold
limit of PI is 8.0 STB/day/psi at current reservoir pressure and 0% WC for gas lift design. Gas lift would
not be beneficial, if value of PI is more than 8.0 STB/day/psi at current reservoir pressure and 0% water
cut. As before with 10,000 psi of reservoir pressure, the effect of gas lift exhibits the same trend; however
the incremental gain are less due to less energy from the reservoir. An erratic no flow behaviour with 95%
of WC was observed. It shows that the well will not flow at 9.0 MMscf/day gas injection.

Figure 8—Design depth of orifice valve for vertical well completed in Zone – A

Figure 9 shows the requirement of number of gas lift valves in vertical well. Design calculations suggest
up to 3 – 5 gas lift valves (unloading + orifice) would be required at different stages in field life. One
exceptional case requiring 6 gas lift valves to make short 500 ft step to reach a target 20,000 ft injection
depth.
16 SPE-185098-MS

Figure 9—Number of GL valves required in vertical well completed in Zone – A

An increment in oil production with GL was also assessed. Figure 10 shows incremental oil production
with gas lift as compared with natural flowing rate at current reservoir pressure. As expected a decrease
trend in incremental oil production is observed with increasing PI. Similar assessments were carried out at
lower reservoir pressures by considering the declining of reservoir pressure in life cycle of the field. The
trend of incremental oil rate with PI exhibits normal behaviour with reducing return at increased PI. It also
suggests that gas lift will be extremely beneficial at higher water cut and at lower PI. At reservoir pressure
of 10,000 psi, the trend reverses with increasing PI due to the well's inability to flow naturally.

Figure 10—Incremental oil production with GL from vertical well completed in Zone – A
SPE-185098-MS 17

Deviated Well Completed in Zone – A

Similar approach was applied to carry out gas lift design and optimization for deviated well to be completed
in Zone-A. It was observed that there is minimal effect of deviation on gas lift design. Figure 11 shows
the depth of required orifice valve at different stages of in field life cycle for deviated well completed in
Zone – A. The threshold limit of PI is 9.0 STB/day/psi at current reservoir pressure for gas lift design. Gas
lift would not be beneficial if value of PI is more than 9.0 STB/day/psi at current reservoir pressure and
0% of water cut.

Figure 11—Design depth of orifice valve for deviated well completed in Zone – A

Figure 12 shows the requirement of number of gas lift valves in deviated well to be completed in Zone –
A. Design calculations suggest up to 3 – 5 gas lift valves (unloading + orifice) would be required at different
stages in life cycle of the field.

Figure 12—Number of GL valves required in deviated well completed in Zone – A

18 SPE-185098-MS

Figure 13 shows incremental oil production with gas lift as compared with natural flowing rate at current
reservoir pressure. As expected a decrease trend in incremental oil production is observed with increasing PI.

Figure 13—Incremental oil production with GL from deviated well completed in Zone – A

Gas Injection Depth Optimization

Impact of gas injection depth on oil production was performed for producing zone at various stages of life
cycle of the field based on declining of the reservoir pressure. Incremental oil rate was estimated from base
case rate using 3,500 ft of gas injection depth. The gas injection rate was assumed as 9.0 MMscf/day for
this analysis. Incremental oil was estimated for low, mean and high PI well competed in Zone – A. The
PI values were taken from probability curve of CHFP completion option such as Low PI = 1.30 STB/day/
psi, Mean PI = 5.77 STB/day/psi and High PI = 11.85 STB/day/psi. Maximum depth of gas injection was
restricted at optimized gas injection depths as shown in Table 12 based on gas lift design with mean case
of PI at different assumed reservoir pressures.

Table 12—Optimized gas injection depths at mean PI of 5.77 STB/day/psi (Zone – A)

Reservoir Pressure (psi) Optimized Gas Injection Depth (ft)

15,900 11,600

13,000 13,800

10,000 19,200

8,000 20,000

Figure 14 shows incremental oil rates with increase in gas injection depth for reservoir pressure of 15,900
psi and water cut of 0% case. It is worth noting that increase in gas injection depth is not beneficial for mean
and high PI wells to be completed in Zone – A at current reservoir pressure and 0 % water cut; however
as reservoir pressure depletes, a deeper gas injection is becoming quite useful to increase oil rate from the
SPE-185098-MS 19

well with all cases of PI. At current reservoir pressure and 0% water cut, the mean and high PI wells have
enough energy to produce naturally, so benefit from gas lift is minimal. It also decreases oil rate after certain
depth of injection (9,000 ft) due to introduction of additional friction.

Figure 14—Impact of gas injection depth on oil rate (Zone – A, Pr=15,900 psi, WC=0%)

Figure 15 also shows incremental oil rates with increase in gas injection depth when reservoir pressure
depleted to 13,000 psi and water cut of 0% case. These curves reverse at depleted reservoir pressure (13,000
psi); which suggests high PI wells will benefit maximum with increase in gas lift injection depth. However,
low PI wells have too low energy even with gas lift extra production as compared with high PI wells.

Figure 15—Impact of gas injection depth on oil rate (Zone-A, Pr=13,000 psi & WC=0%)

Figure 16 shows impact of gas injection depth at various reservoir pressures in life cycle of the field based
on production strategy and declining of the reservoir pressure in the field. Incremental oil production at low
20 SPE-185098-MS

PI values is restricted by the maximum injection depth constraint of 20,000 ft TVD due to the exiting casing
design and the value of PI itself. However an orifice at deeper depth would be required in late life of the field.

Figure 16—Impact of gas injection depth at various reservoir pressures (Zone – A)

These curves reverse at depleted reservoir pressures (10,000 psi and 8,000 psi); which suggests high PI
wells will benefit maximum with increase in gas lift injection depth and increasing water cut. However, low
PI wells have too low energy even with gas lift to give extra production as compared with high PI wells.
Well will cease to flow, if gas is injected at less than 7,500 ft TVD depth at 8,000 psi of reservoir pressure
with 50% WC. At 95% WC and 8,000 psi of reservoir pressure, the required depth of injection should be
20,000 ft TVD to flow the well.

Conclusions
• Skin data analysis showed that the Cased Hole Frac-Pack has lowest mean skin value overall.

• Risked based IPR modeling showed that the Cased Hole Frac-Pack completion returns the best well
performance at the lower permeability range (<P80) for all projected producing zones in the field.
• Open Hole Gravel Pack and Cased Hole Frac-Pack completions are just effective at the higher
probability range (>P80) due to the lower skin values being much the same in each case. Cased Hole
Gravel Pack and/or Internal Gravel Pack completions are the least favoured completion options
due to the increased probability of high skin.
• Tornado plot analysis showed that the dominating factor in increased productivity is skin followed
by permeability for the uncertainty ranges considered for all producing zones. Tornado plots
showed that for producing Zone – A, permeability has a greater impact in PI reduction than high
skin for the uncertainty ranges considered.
• Gas lift design calculations concluded up to 3-5 number of gas lift valves (unloading + orifice) are
required at different stages of the life cycle of the field to gain more production.
• Gas lift is extremely beneficial in the lower PI and/or higher water cut wells completed in each
producing zones. A negligible impact of deviation has been observed on gas lift design as compared
with vertical well.
• Gas lift will not be beneficial at current reservoir pressure without water production for Zone – A
to be completed with CHFP completion for the mean PI.
SPE-185098-MS 21

Acknowledgements
The author thanks Baker Hughes – Geoscience and Petroleum Engineering (GPE) management for allowing
presenting and publishing this paper.

References
Babu, D.K. and Odeh, A.S., "Productivity of a Horizontal Well," SPE Reservoir Engineering, Vol. 4 No. 4, 417 – 421,
Nov. 1989.
Choi, S.K., Ouyang, L.B. and Huang W.S., "A Comprehensive Comparative Study on Analytical PI/IPR Correlations,"
SPE 116850, 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 21-24 September 2008.
King, G.E. Wildt, P.J. and Connell, E.O., "Sand Control Completion Reliability and Failure Rate Comparison with a
Multi-Thousand Well Database," SPE 84262, SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 5-8
October 2003.
Tiffin, D.L., King, G.E., and Lareso, R.E., "New Criteria for Gravel and Screen Selection for Sand Control, SPE 39437,
SPE Formation Damage Control Conference, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18-19 February 1998.
Wehunt, C.D. "Well Performance with Operating Limits Under Reservoir and Completion Uncertainties," SPE 84501,
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 5-8 October 2004.