SPE-193121-MS

Integrated Production Optimization Workflow Provides Robust Platform for

Significant Oil Gain to a Mature Oilfield

Mohamed Abdel-Basset, Schlumberger; Mishal Al-Mufarej, Majdi Al-Mutawa, Hom Chetri, Elred Anthony, and
Hamad Al-Zaabi, Kuwait Oil Company; Nelson Bolanos, Hector Ruiz, and Khalid Harami, Schlumberger

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 12-15 November 2018.

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
This paper demonstrates the production optimization methodology being used by Kuwait Oil Company to
increase production in one of its giant and mature fields by 18% over 5.0 years.
Production optimization is a continuous iterative process to improve production, especially in mature
fields. The North Kuwait Redevelopment team has adopted an integrated enhanced and structured process
to identify opportunities for production optimization with a pro-active approach focusing on flowing wells
and rig-less interventions to tackle production challenges and achieve production targets
Typical mature-field challenges are present. These include water flooding, produced water management,
artificial lift, with more than 1000 (vertical, deviated and horizontal) active wells, coupled with high
structure complexity and stratigraphic heterogeneity, tight sandstone and carbonate reservoirs, shortage
of work-over rigs. These challenges make the field appropriate to apply the production optimization
methodology outlined here.
The Heterogeneity Index (HI) process is utilized to rapidly demonstrate production gain opportunities, for
a giant mature North Kuwait Sabria field of approximately 1000 wells produce from different reservoirs. The
HI process provided a quick screening method of identifying preliminary candidate wells with anomalous
behavior (over/under performance) for further analysis and most importantly, provided the foundation for
the overall structured production approach. The results from this screening tool were utilized to identify
the families of type productivity problems at field and well levels with solution categories for production
enhancement. Representative wells were selected for detailed diagnostics based on the relevance and size
of productivity impact and the potential of its well deliverability. Once a few "top potential" wells were
identified, production engineering workflows were implemented to assess and forecast the potential of
production increase and to determine and evaluate the best intervention action.
This production optimization workflow is done in a consistent cycled process considering the ageing
condition of the mature field, and the aforementioned challenges.
Approximately 35% of the wells have been selected for further analysis over multiple production
optimization cycles spanning approximately 5.0 years. A detailed production engineering workflow
provided recommendations of various remedial intervention solutions to improve well production potential
2 SPE-193121-MS

via productivity enhancement, water shut-off/conformance, stimulation, additional and/or re-perforations,

and Artificial lift optimization. Other advanced technologies were applied to improve various strategies,
including completions, perforation, stimulation, and injection/production control. To date (Febrauary,
2018), recommendations for approximately 30% (300) wells have been executed, with a significant oil gain
of approximately 18 % of the total field production.

Introduction to SA Field
North Kuwait (Sabriyah) field was discovered and started production in late 1950's. It is located in the over
thrust belt of Northern Kuwait in the Arabian Basin. It has been on production for over sixty years from
Cretaceous reservoirs with approximately 1000 wells drilled todate from different reservoirs in terms of
rock type (carbonate and clastic) and drive mechanisms (depletion, active water drive, and water flooding)
in complex structure of highly faulted area. The main two reservoirs are Mauddoud carbonate, and Burgan
(Upper and Lower) sandstones. Both Maudoud and Upper Burgan reservoirs are originally depletion drive
and currently under Water flood for pressure support while Lower Burgan is an active water drive reservoir.
Each reservoir has sub multilayers where vertical communication may or may not exist as in Burgan and
Maoudoud reservoirs respectively (Figure 1).
The field has wide range of well completion types varing from simple vertical packerless single layer
pumped wells to horizontal openhole completed with Inflow Control Devices (ICD's), different wells
trajectories (vertical, deviated and horizontal). Natural flow represets approximately 15% of producing wells
and the remaining 80% of well count is under artificial lift with diverse lifting systems including gas lift
and lifting pumps (Electrical Submergible Pumps "ESP", sucker rod and progressive cavity pumps) with
ESP's representing the main artificial lift type with about 80% of artificialy lifted wells (Figure 2).

Figure 1—NK Field location and main reservoirs

SPE-193121-MS 3

Figure 2—NK Field Reservoir Production Contribution and Artificial Lift Ditribution

The main field production and reservoir challenges can be summaeized as follows:

• Increasing water production and need for efficient water conformance and management in
producers and injectors using different Water Shut Off (WSO) techniques

◦ Limited drawdown and total rate decline

◦ Adversely affecting natural flow and artificial lift wells performance

◦ Water handling capacity at facilities

◦ Need for WSO which add Rig Work over (RWO) cost and production deferment

• Reservoir pressure depletion and support (mainly MA & UB)

◦ Less NF wells and need for RWO to convert to artificial lift

◦ AL performance (uptime, prod. Deferment & high WO)

• Water flood surveillance, management and conformance control of water flood surveillance

• Artificial Lift challenges (design data, failures, down time)

◦ Significant RWO (~70%) related to AL (ESP/PCP failures)

◦ High oil production deferment due to artificial lift downtime

◦ Downtime is reservoir & operation related

◦ Frequent RWO (Cost & production deferment)

• Shortage of work over rigs (RWO) which contributes to significant production deferment due to:

◦ Delay in restoring oil production for pump (like to like) replacement which represents ~20 %
of RWO activities (ref. activities April – September 2014)
◦ Delay in execution of other required interventions (WSO, stimulation, zone transfer, etc)

• Reservoir accessibility for appropriate surveillance and intervention (PCP and ESP pumps
completion with few Y-Tool).
• Very complex multilayer reservoir structure with different depletion and different water cut

• Low Productivity issues for flank wells and need for effective stimulation techniques

• Different fluid PVT arealy and vertically (light to heavy)

4 SPE-193121-MS

Integrated and Structured Production Optimization Workflow Summary

The work flow used in the production optimization process on Field/Reservoir and well levels can be
summarized as follows (Figure 3):
1. Data gathering: reservoir information, drilling and completion details, well intervention evetns history,
production history, well schematic, fluid PVT properties, surveys (FBHP, SBHP, PLTs).
2. Identify possible gaps and opportunities:

◦ Prescreening of underperforming candidates using Heterogeneity Index (HI) tool enabled via
OFM (Oil Field Manager Software), which is normally done at field level and reservoir level.
Additional techniques could be used, based on reservoir/field production conditions e.g. PASS
techniques, applied in order to get better determination, classification and understanding of
production problematics.
◦ Ranking and selection of prescreened candidates to (High. Medium and Low) for further
detailed analysis using additional KPI's (e.g. well status on/off, reservoir intervention/
accessibility, recent PLT/PNC logs, rates "oil, water and liquid", oil CUM, WC, GOR, water
salinity, PVT, other existing plan, etc) as shown example in (Figure 4).
3. Detailed well analysis and diagnostics to properly understand the problem, same as qualification and
quantification of it's impact, and identify possible solutions in an integrated domains teamwork as
shown in (Figure 5 and Figure 7) via:

◦ Production history and ESP/PCP downhole gauges and surface data trend analysis.

◦ Review of available Logs

◦ Reviewing available PLTs and or PNC/TDT to identify production contribution and water inflow
profile along the perforated intervals / horizontal ICD's.
◦ Production Engineering: Wellbore modeling, Nodal analysis (e.g. WSO, zone transfer,
stimulation, perforation, etc), Perforation analysis, Stimulation analysis (acid or propped
hydraulic fracturing), decline curve analysis, pressure and rate transient analysis, etc
4. Solution Design and Recommendation: conceptual design of recommendaed solution (remedial
action) including any required data acquisition to support analysis (e.g. PLT, BHP, PNC, etc). Solution
could be in reservoir side (skin removal, stimulation, add and/or re-perforation, water shut off, water
injection requirements or adjusments, etc) or in the outflow/lifting side for improving artificial lift
(adjusting operating parameters "e.g. frequency, choke" or changing lifting system/type), or could be
both of reservoir and lifting sides as illustrated in (Figure 6).
5. Post job evaluation and follow up: after actions and job implementation, review the execution results
to evaluate the solution success and improve next similar analysis and executions with considering
the learning lessons.
Key success factor of implementing such work flow starting from problem understanding, conceptual
solution design and implementation of recommended intervention solution is the collabortation and
Multideciplinary Team Integration cycle between all concerned teams of Petroleum Engineering (Field
Development Group) and well intervention Operation (drilling, rig workover, rig-less operation teams) as
illustrated in (Figure 8).
SPE-193121-MS 5

Figure 3—Production Optimization Workflow (Field / Reservoir Level)

Figure 4—Additional Key Performance Indicators

6 SPE-193121-MS

Figure 5—Production Enhancement Process

Figure 6—Solution (remedial action) Design and Recommendation

SPE-193121-MS 7

Figure 7—Detailed Well Analysis Workflow

Figure 8—Multideciplinary Team Integration cycle (Petroleum Engineering and Operation)

Hetrogenity Index (HI) Concept

Definition: Heterogeneity Index (HI) analysis is the process of comparing individual well performance to
the average performance of its group as a function of time as explained in (Figure 10) and defined as:
8 SPE-193121-MS

A process was put in place for fast screening and capturing oil production gain opportunities in the North
Kuwait fields of Kuwait Oil Company.
In this analysis, well performance is compared at the wellbore level. Individual well performances can
be viewed as better as or worse than average and can be easily compared to each other with scatter plots.
Strength of this analysis is the ease with which changes in a well's performance can be identified. Sudden
changes in the trend of an HI curve may indicate a well and time where a work-over has been performed.
Knowing the frequency and type of stimulations performed can lead to an understanding of their positive
or negative impact on well behavior. The analysis helps determine a relationship between performance
improvement and stimulation treatment characteristics to assist in future treatment design.
The Heterogeneity Index (HI) process tool is utilized for quick prescreening method of identifying
preliminary candidate wells with anomalous behavior (over/under performance) of the variables under study
(e.g. liquid & oil rates, water & oil rates, pump uptime & liquid rate, GOR & oil rate, etc) for further
analysis which in turn demonstrate production gain opportunities in a very short period of time, in a large
mature fields with enough production history and different reservoirs, and most importantly, provides the
foundation for the overall Structure Production Approach.
This process; HI, can be run by utilizing OFM data management software. A Cross Hair Plot is also
utilized to show the comparison of the HI of two variables in the same plot, creating an easy way to identify
wells behaving differently from the average. The cross hair plot can be combined with X-Y Coordinated plot
which reproduces the location of the wells. Knowing the locations of High / low performing wells provides
another tool that can impose regional high and low performing areas over the reservoir/field under study.
Wells/areas that need more focus and detailed analysis to identify gaps and opportunities for production
enhancement (workover, stimulation intervention, reactivation) can be identified when combining the
results from HI Cross Hair analysis, petrophysical evaluation data (Kh, net to gross, etc) and remaining
reserves (Ref.1:Khaled Harami and Mohamed Abdel-Basset et al: Hetrogeneity Index and Fast Screening
Processes Used in a Large Mature Field Designed for Quick Production Gains, SPE 167350, KOGS 2013,
Kuwait).
So, the main function / target of HI process (as illustrated in Figure 11) is to:

• Defining Zones of interest with problematic characteristic.

◦ High Oil high Water: Increasing Liquid - good / bad Water – WSO possible candidates

◦ Low Oil Low Water: Decreasing liquid – stimulation / Re-perf / add perf or any other production
improvement intervention possible candidates.
◦ High Oil Low Water: Good performers

◦ Low Oil High Water: High Water and increasing – WSO possible candidates

• Identify Good performing areas

• Selection of candidates for further analysis and diagnostics for Production Enhancement

◦ Maximize well oil potential (Well's productivity, WSO, etc)

◦ Improve uptime time of Artificial lift and by turn minimize production deferment

The results from this screening tool were utilized to identify the families of productivity problems at
reservoir level, and additional fast screening and ranking were done at well level to identify candidates for
production enhancement. Representative Wells were selected for detailed diagnostics based on the relevance
SPE-193121-MS 9

and size of productivity impact, and the potential of its production rate or well deliverability. (Figure 11)
shows example of HI analysis on oil, water and liquid rates based on individual wells performance.
The same concept of HI has been run on Electrical Submergible PUMP (ESP) performance. The HI of
liquid production rate has been run versus ESP uptime to as a quick screening tool to identify high/low
performing ESP wells based on liquid and/or uptime performance. Example of ESP HI analysis is shown
in (Figure 12).
The Heterogeneity Index (HI) process is utilized to rapidly demonstrate production gain opportunities, for
a giant mature North Kuwait Sabriya field of approximately 600 wells produce from different reservoirs. The
HI process provided a quick screening method of identifying preliminary candidate wells with anomalous
behavior (over/under performance) for further analysis and most importantly, provided the foundation for
the overall structured production approach. The results from this screening tool were utilized to identify
the families of type productivity problems at field and well levels with solution categories for production
enhancement.
Once a prescreening has been performed, a ranking process is applied to prioritize the wells for
detailed review (High, Medium and Low) using other production and reservoir Key Performance Indicators
(KPI's) such as well status (open/close), Depletion of reservoir presuure and reservoir pressure level,
Productivity Index, oil rate, water cut, GOR, complexity of intervention / work over, well deviation, well
mechanical problems, rig-less reservoir accessibility, availability of production logs, rig-less or rig workover
intervention,… etc).
Following the ranking process and once a few "top potential" wells are identified for detailed diagnostics
based on the relevance and size of productivity impact and the potential of its well deliverability, then
production engineering workflows are implemented to assess and forecast the potential of production
increase and to determine and evaluate the best intervention action.

Overall Output Results from Application of this Optimization Workflow

This production optimization workflow is done in a consistent cycled process considering the ageing
condition of the mature field, and the aforementioned challenges.
Approximately 45% of the wells have been selected for further analysis over 5.0 production optimization
cycles spanning approximately 3.0 years (average of 6-8 months per each optimization cycle). A detailed
production engineering workflow provided recommendations of various remedial intervention solutions to
improve well production potential via productivity enhancement, water shut-off/conformance, stimulation,
additional and/or re-perforations, and Artificial lift optimization. Other advanced technologies were applied
to improve various strategies, including completions, perforation, stimulation, and injection/production
control. To date (December, 2016), recommendations for approximately 30% (140) wells have been
executed, with a significant oil gain of approximately 20 % of the total current field production (Figure 9).
10 SPE-193121-MS

Figure 9—Oil Gain History related to executions of Production optimization

process candidates (~20% of total field production as of December 2016)

Example of One Optimization Cycle

HI analysis has been run on total of ~ 500 oil wells included in the three main reservoirs of Sabriya field
(Maoudoud, Upper and Lower Burgan) based on oil, water and liquid production rates and cumulative
production.
Once a prescreening has been performed, a ranking process has been applied to prioritize the wells
for detailed review (High, Medium and Low) using other production and reservoir Key Performance
Indicators (KPI's) such as well status (open/close), depletion of reservoir presuure, reservoir pressure level,
Productivity Index, oil rate, water cut, GOR, complexity of intervention / work over, well deviation (vertical,
deviated, or horizontal, cased or openhole), well mechanical problems, rig-less reservoir accessibility,
availability of recent production logs, rig-less or rig workover intervention,… etc). Once few "top potential"
wells are identified, production engineering workflows were implemented in order to assess and forecast
the potential of production incremental and try to determine and evaluate the best probable action.
The process has yielded total of 85 initial prescreened candidates with 18 wells out of them ranked as
High priority for analysis after excluding 10 wells due to other existing plans based on check with the team.
These 18 wells include 8 wells ranked for potential productivity enhancement and 10 wells for potential
water shut off opportunities (Table 1). The further action / solution for production enhancement opportunity
will depend on output of the detailed well analysis. Opportunities could be as simple as surface back pressure
management (choke managememt or change manifold) or more complex as well as stimulation (acid wash,
acid matrix or fracture, or propped fracturing stimulaton), re-perforation & add perforation, zone transfer
(change reservoir in same wellbore), Conversion from NF to AL (gas lift, ESP, PCP, or sucker rod pum),
Water Shut Off, …etc
SPE-193121-MS 11

Figure 10—Concept of Heterogeneity Index (HI)

Figure 11—HI Analysis– Oil, Water and Liquid Rates Scatter plots
12 SPE-193121-MS

Figure 12—HI – ESP Liquid Vs Uptime Scatter plot

Table 1—Statistics of Prescreened ranked wells (H, M & L) of 1st prod. Optimization Cycle

Increasing Production through Electrical Submergible Pumps (ESP's)

Optimization Workflow
The majority of the wells are artificially lifted with ESP contributes ~80% of lifting methods. As the
major producing reservoirs (Maoudoud and upper Burgan) are very dynamic change due to waterflooding
response, so the need for structured and consistent workflow for continuous optimization of lifting methouds
is crusual for continuous production enhancement and meeting production target.
The ESP optimization process illustrated in (Figure 13) can be summarized as follows:
1. Candidates Screening & Selection: analysis of Maps of DeltaP (Difference between Reservoir static
Pressure and Bubble point pressure) to screen areas where wells can be production-enhanced mainly in
terms of increasing drawdown to increase production flow rate. The areas should have positive DeltaP
to ensure producing the wells above Bubble Point (obeying the reservoir drawdown management
SPE-193121-MS 13

strategy). This data must be integrated with PIP data, GOR production data, and waterflooding sectors
analysis. The selection criteria for ESP upsizing candidates are mainly as follows:

◦ Pump Intake Pressure (PIP) > Saturation / Bubble Pressure (Psat)

◦ Increase trend of PIP

◦ Water Cut < 50 %

◦ Good water flooding (Vodage Replacement Ratio "VRR") or aquifer support to reservoir
pressure and sweep effecincy
2. ESP Diagnostic and Optimization: Once the candidates are selected, first step is to analyze if well
can be beaned-up, or require VSD installation and/or pump upsize. Construction of single wellbore
model that includes choke model is the subsequent step before proceeding to pump diagnostic and
Nodal analysis that will define if the well should be beaned-up (increasing surface choke size if the
well has back pressure on choke) or needs increasing the pump frequency (via Variable Spreed Drive
"VSD") or pump upsizing (replacing existing pump with bigger size "more flow rate").
3. Deliverables: list of candidates for production increase opportunities with estimated oil gain.
To date (December, 2016), there are 16 candidate wells that have been upsized with average oil gain of
post upsizing ranges from 50 – 100% of pre-upsizing production.

Figure 13—Increasing Production through Electrical Submergible Pumps (ESP's) Optimization Workflow

ESP Health Check Workflow (Runlife >1000 days)

Sabriyah field had ~ 70 wells with good run life of more than 1000 days as of mid 2016. Some wells
show decreasing production trend during the recent last year(s), which in turn affects the overall field
production. In order to identify the main root cause behind this declining rate trend and optimize such
wells, a workflow has been implemented to determine whether the production decline is related either
to reservoir inflow performance (e.g. pressure support decrease and/or productivity issues) and/or pump
outflow performance (e.g. deterioration of pump effecincy, tubing leaks / circulation). The analysis is
14 SPE-193121-MS

based on ESP surface electrical and downhole pressure gauges data (Amperage, pump intake and discharge
pressures and tempratures, and surface wellhead pressure), produced fluids (water cut, gas oil ratio, fluids
density), and water injection / aquifer support. The following are the main process steps (Figure 14):
1. Candidates Screening & Selection: Select all the ESP wells with run life more than 1000 days and
perform trend analysis of production Delta Qliq (e.g. Last year - this year). Ranking from the highest
to the lowest liquid rate lost and select the top wells for further analysis.
2. Production, Injection & ESP Trend Analysis: Perform production/Injection and ESP data history
trend analysis using OFM for the variables that would cause the observed production drops such
as Qliq, wcut, GOR, THP, choke size, water injection rate of wells giving pressure support/ SBHP
from aquifer support/interference of new wells and ESP parameter (e.g. PD, PIP, frequency, motor
temperature and, current).
3. Identify the cause of production drop: Identify the root cause of production drop whether it is due
to pump deterioration / completion "circulation" / reservoir pressure / fluids change.
4. If pump related, ESP Diagnostic and Optimization: Build single well performance model and
estimate the loss on ESP head, and production before production decline (~1 year ago) versus
today. Plot the current operational point on the VSD curve and check if the pump is operating on
the recommended operational range or down thrust. Propose an action plan to optimize the ESP
performance.
5. Nodal Analysis: Use the well model to estimate the production gain of the recommendation. Discuss
the analysis and action plan with the SAFD team for implementation.

Figure 14—ESP Health Check Workflow

Following the workflow, out of 70 wells, the top 14 underperforming wells were selected, analyzed and
action plan recommended (e.g. Change the pump, upsize pump, choke management, VSD optimization,
and increase of wtare flood pressure support).for well optimization with estimated potential oil gain. Three
wells were executed by changing out the old deteriorated ESP's and replacing them by new same size ones,
as an elective pull in the 2nd half of 2016.
SPE-193121-MS 15

Results
The total production rate has been improved with added oil gain of ~85% more than the previous oil rate
just before changing to new ESP (Figure 15).

Figure 15—Results of ESP change outs based on Health check workflow

Forward Plan
The positive results of the analysis and recommendations supported the value of applying this structured
workflow for ESP health check evaluation during any stage of ESP run life. Moreover, this workflow is
shared and expanded to other KOC assets to maximize the benefit.

HI Process Candidates vs. Actual and Planned Subsurface Activities

A comparison between the prescreened candidates from the HI process and relative intervention
recommendations against the actual executed and planned subsurface rig and rig-less interventions during
1 year period (September 2013 - September 2014) has been carried out. The following were main outlines:

Objective
To demonstrate how fit is the Heterogeneity Index (HI) process to be utilized as part of the SAFD planning
of rig / rig-less subsurface activities.

Methodology
Compare the prescreened HI wells Vs. SAFD actual executed and planned interventions.

Input data

• HI prescreened candidates from 1st (July, 2013) and 2nd cycles (March, 2014) via OFM

• Actual / planned SA subsurface activities from Wellwork Evaluation & Planning (WEP)

• Finder (Well Data Browser)

16 SPE-193121-MS

Summary of Results (Figure 16)

• HI process screened candidates for well review contributes 53% and 38% of Actual executed and
planned activities respectively

◦ Last HI run in March 2014

◦ Another HI run would improve process contribution to Planned activities

• Pump replacement and new wells contribute 25 – 30% of total subsurface activities

◦ Pump (like to like) Replacement: 15 – 25%

◦ New Wells (completion, pump installations, etc): 5 – 10%

Figure 16—Summary of HI vs. Actual and planned SADF activities

Example of Detailed Well Analysis

The following is an example of detailed well analysis as output from one cycle of Production Optimization
Workflow Appliocation

Screening and Selection

The production optimization workflow was applied to identify candidates for water shut off in Lower Burgan
reservoir. The Heterogenity Index fast prescreening tool showed some well candidates where well-1 was
one of highest rank and selected for more detailed analysis (Figure 17).
SPE-193121-MS 17

Figure 17—HI Screening: Well-1 appers in Low Oil High Water area with high water anomaly

Production History Trend

Well-1 is located in the north area of Lower Burgan reservoir. It is completed as 6 1/8in horizontal open-
hole in one of Lower Burgan Coal sand layers with 17 × 5 ½" passive ICDs and 8 swell packers for external
open-hole isolation (9 inflow segments) with natural flow 3 ½" tubing completion. The well started with
high initial natural flow production in August 2012 with gradual decline in rates and wellhead pressure due
to gradual increase in water cut (WC) until ceased to flow naturally due to high WC (~80%) excedding the
well's natural flow lifting capacity.
The production history of well-1 can be summarized as follows (Figure 18):

• Initial production with high initial rate and low WC ~15%

• WC gradual increase to 75 – 80% in 1.5 years, resulted in liquid rate drop by ~50%, oil rate drop
by ~28% with wellhead pressure dropped from 700 to 250 Psig at same choke size
• Horizontal Production Log (PLT) was run after 8 months of initial production at WC 35% and
shown the following that both heal and Toe of the horizontal section contribute most of water at
WC ~50% and oil rate ~20% of total flow (Figure 19).
• Well ceased to flow naturaly in March 2014 (WHP = FLP = 80 psig, choke 32/64") at estimated
WC 75 – 80%.
18 SPE-193121-MS

Figure 18—Well-1 Production History Trend preand post WSO

Figure 19—Well 1 PLT Results (June 2013, WC 35%) and Inflatable packer setting depth for WSO

Multilayer Wellbore Modeling and Nodal Analysis Summary

The initial wellbore model has been built using the PLT data of June 2013 for calibration with the following
input data:

• The horizontal section has been subdivided to 3 sections (heal, middle and toe) for simplicity based
on PLT water inflow contribution.
• Three layers Vogel IPR using the downhole PLT's SBHP and FBHP data combined with ICDs
contribution from PLT analysis, and PVT data.
SPE-193121-MS 19

• Measured SBHP from PLT's Static period= 3600 Psia.

• Hagedorn Brown Multiphase flow correlation has been used for vertical pressure drop calculation
and Mechanistic (Achong) correlation for choke pressure drop. The final matched inflow / outflow
without any tuning
Then the same model was used to simulate the production test results of January 2014 (WC 56%) before
ceased to flow in March 2014, and got good match without tuning which validates the initial built model
to run nodal analysis.
WC Nodal analysis sensitivities showed that natural flow capacity would be limited to WC ~75 – 80 %
(assuming all other factors are fixed) as shown in (Figure 20). Nodal analysis came consistent with actual
performance as well already ceased to flow at ~ 75% in March 2014.

Figure 20—Well-1 WC Sensitivities for Natural Flow

Water Shut Off (WSO) Analysis and Execution

Since the well already had ceased to flow in March 2014 at minimum back pressure of ~ 80 psig, there was
no possibility to run PLT to identify current water inflow profile to evaluate WSO options unless to run it
with N2 lift to flow the well which was excluded due to its related uncertianity of results. Therefore, the
one year old PLT's water inflow profile was used for WSO analysis and decision to isolate the last 10 ICDs
from Toe side via rig-less mechanical isolation using Inflatable Packer technology run on Real-Time Coil
Tubing to ensure proper setting (inflation and sealing) of packer.

WSO Results

• WSO successfully enabled retrieval of natural flow which was confirmed by multi-rate Production
test after WSO.
• The well has retrieved its stable natural flow (NF) with restoring the deferred oil with extra oil gain
of ~20% more following reducing WC from ~80% down to 52% (-28%) confirmed by multiple
production tests over 2 months after WSO execution (Figure 18). The estimated cost pay back was
~ 7 days of production.
• The production after WSO has shown improvement of CUM oil trend by almost doubling it relative
to the last 2 months of production before ceasing to flow naturaly and WSO as shown in (Figure 21).
20 SPE-193121-MS

Figure 21—Well-1 CUM Oil after Rig-less WSO and retrieve NF

The summary of applied workflow is shown below in (Figure 22). This well together with other similar
WSO application have been presented in 2015's SPE Kuwait Oil and Gas Show conference (Ref.2: S.
Al-mosaileekh and M. Abdel-Basset; Successful Rig-less WSO in Horizontal Openhole ICD Completions
Using Latest Real-time Intervention Technologies and Multidisciplinary Team Efforts - North Kuwait,
SPE-175318-MS, KOGS 2015, Kuwait).
Summary of Analysis and WSO Results.

• Problem: Well ceased to flow at WC ~75 – 80% (March, 2014).

• Analysis: Well reviewed using June 2013 PLT (April, 2014).

• Proposed Solution: Rig-less WSO to isolate the Toe's 11 ICDs.

• Execution: May 2014 using Rea-time Coil Tubing and Inflatable packer technology.

• Results: Retrieved stable NF with WC reduced to from 80 to 52% (- ~28%).

SPE-193121-MS 21

Figure 22—Example of Production optimization work flow application (Well-1 WSO), SPE 175318

Conclusion and Wayforward

• Continued application of the structured and proactive approach of the Production Engineering
Enhancement Process enables proactive opportunity mapping, identification of production gaps,
and introduction of new technologies fit for purpose to help achieve production targets and
optimum reservoir management.
• Clearly and by using detailed and structured workflow analysis, a series of outputs and remedial
intervention solutions have been recommended such as water shut-off, conformance, stimulation,
perforations, artificial lift optimization, and other supporting recommendations to improve
production and injection strategies which is reflected in significant oil gain in tank along the process
cycles.
• To sustain and continue to achieve production optimization success, the process outlined above
needs to be embedded into the NOC's overall process and procedures, NOC leadership and
executives continuing support in the embedded said process's play also a key part in the strategic
success.
• Increased Knowledge and awareness can be gained by studying carefully the process used, it will
reinforce the message that YES, technology is important but also that the right people are even
more important, by placing both of these key ingredients into a systematic and well thought out
consistent approach you can deliver exceptional results, always of course supported by strong and
executive NOC leadership.
22 SPE-193121-MS

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the management of Kuwait Oil Company and Schlumberger Company
for their permission to publish this work. We also would like to expresse our gratitude to Hamad Al-Zaabi
(KOC NK Field Development Manager) for his continuous support for getting this integrated production
optimization workflow embedded in the KOC workflows as best bractices.

Nomenclature
SA : Sabriyah
UB : Upper Burgan Reservoir
LB : Lower Burgan Reservoir
MA : Maoudoud Reservoir
HI : Heterogeneity Index
PGOR : Production test (Gas-Oil- Rate tests)
WSO : Water Shutt Off
ESP - Electrical Submersible Pump
PCP : Progressive Cavity Pump
AL : Artificial lift
SBHP : Static Bottom Hole Pressure
FBHP : Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure
ICD : Inflow Control Device
RT : Real-Time
NF : Natural flow
WC : Water cut
GOR : Gas Oil Ration
PVT : Pressure, Volume & Temprature fluid properties
PLT - Production Logging Tool
NK : North Kuwait
RWO - Rig Workovers
NOC : National Oil Company
KOC : Kuwait Oil Company
SAFD : Sabriya Field Development Team

References
1. Khaled Harami, Mohamed Abdel-Basset et al: Hetrogeneity Index and Fast Screening Processes
Used in a Large Mature Field Designed for Quick Production Gains (SPE 167350, KOGS 2013,
Kuwait).
2. S.R. Al-mosaileekh, D. Al-Sirri, M.M. Al-Mufarrej, M. Al-Mutawa, Kuwait Oil Company; M.
Abdel-Basset, A. Benslimani, Schlumberger; Successful Rig-less WSO in Horizontal Openhole
ICD Completions Using Latest Real-time Intervention Technologies and Multidisciplinary Team
Efforts - North Kuwait (SPE-175318-MS, KOGS 2015, Kuwait)