Should "Proactive" or "Reactive" Control be Chosen for Intelligent Well Management?

Abstract

Abstract Intelligent Well (IW) Technology combines zonal production control using Interval Control Valves (ICVs) together with installation of appropriate flow monitoring devices to improve well and field performance management. Zonal flow control can maximise produced oil value, minimise unwanted fluids or a combination of both objectives. We have previously shown[1] that a minimum degree of un-evenness of an invading fluid front is needed for effective ICV control. This work studies scenarios to identify when "Proactive" rather than "Reactive" ICV choking policy can add greater value. Reservoir scenarios were created in which inter-zone connection, permeability contrast between zones, zonal length and other reservoir parameters were systematically varied. The interaction between the aquifer and reservoir was observed when producing these reservoirs with a horizontal IW using a range of "Reactive" and "Proactive" choking policies. An example of successful "Proactive Control" is when the wellbore is intersected by a high-permeability channel. Here, early water or gas breakthrough leads to unwanted fluid being produced along with reduced volume of oil. Too early choking (or being "too Proactive") can result in losing oil as the "Good Water" is also blocked. "Proactive Control" will also be successful when reduced water or gas inflow is required due to tubing or surface handling limitations. The key factor in successful Single Well "Proactive Control" is that other zone(s) can compensate for the loss of fluid from the choked zone(s). Its value thus increases when Artificial Lift is installed. The value of "Proactive Control" is well known in multiple well scenarios. Here, value creation requires even-flood front management of an injected fluid at the field level. There is also the opportunity for other wells to supply extra oil production capacity when a (single) well is choked. The results from this study can be used to screen for scenarios suitable for "Proactive Control", increasing the range of Intelligent Well Technology applications. 1. Introduction The Intelligent Well system Technology (IWsT) has developed out of a need to improve reservoir and remote well management. Multi-zone, intelligent-well completions contain appropriate monitoring devices located between zonal isolation packers. They control the flow into or out of each zone with Interval Control Valves (ICVs). Managing the future reservoir performance based on correct decision taking requires a model that accurately reflects the behavior of the reservoir system. Common reservoir management objectives are to reduce risk, increase production and reserves, maximise recovery and minimise capital and operating costs. IWsT has been shown to be capable of managing geological uncertainty1. Operating at or near real-time allows operators to fine-tune the performance of the whole production system by reconfiguring the well's completion system. The ultimate goal for this continuous monitoring of the reservoir is to implement a proactive reservoir management technique.[2] The "Added Value" from an Intelligent Well depends on the optimum implementation of well control. It is best applied in a suitable reservoir1 with an appropriate measurement and control system for the ICVs included as part of the well's completion. In this paper we will examine the impact of two, different, IWsT well management policies on the reservoir performance. This study will help determine which technique should be chosen when specifying the requirements for an effective, Intelligent Well management system.