Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPELACP/proceedings-pdf/07LACPEC/All-07LACPEC/SPE-107629-MS/1815176/spe-107629-ms.

pdf/1 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico user on 11 March 2021

SPE 107629

Advanced Numerical Simulator To Predict Productivity for Conventional and

Nonconventional Well Architecture
Eduardo Pacheco, Rene Castro, and M.Y. Soliman, Halliburton, and Fernando Flores-Avila, PEMEX

Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers

Introduction
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Latin American and Caribbean Multilateral wells represent the advanced state of the art in
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 15–18 April 2007.
drilling technology; in addition, the oil and gas industry has
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, as
made a dramatic improvement in well performance.
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to Multilateral wells place more than one borehole in contact
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at with the reservoir. While they cost more than conventional
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
single-hole wells, they deliver much greater production, letting
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is operators increase the recovery factor and reduce well count,
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 while reducing the development cost per barrel. From the
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
drilling side, we consider four factors that help in multilateral
technology:
Abstract • Rotary steerable systems with 100% variable
The production of oil and gas will continue to be the most deflection without hydraulic dependency.
important components of the energy industry for the next • Navigation technology with advanced point-the-bit
several decades. The increasing demand for hydrocarbons is and on-the-fly control with computer systems and
moving oil-industry operators to explore all possibilities for real-time communications links between the surface
increasing oil and gas production. This includes exploring and rotary steerable tools for high-speed control of
unconventional resources and investigating unconventional deflection.
well architecture. These approaches include drilling in low- • The logging while drilling (LWD) and measurement
permeability oil and tight-gas formations. The use of while drilling (MWD) tools, with data letting
multilateral and horizontal wells has been increasing. operators take total control of drilling parameters
Fracturing horizontal wells has gained significant acceptance. from surface and bottom.
Multilateral wells where the various laterals have complex • Real-time operation and evaluation that allow
paths are gaining momentum as a viable way of producing operators to use remote control of the operation by
hydrocarbon reservoirs. multidisciplinary teams.
Analytical and semi-analytical solutions for horizontal and
multilaterals wells have been presented in the literature. Innovations in rotary steerable tool technology have
Because of the complexity of the problem those solutions expanded its use to multilateral wells. Fig. 1 illustrates the key
greatly simplify the problem to the extent that they are usually components.
of limited value and application. The complexity of the actual
reservoirs and well trajectory under mature conditions require
more advanced solutions to realistically simulate well
trajectories and well completions like acid fracturing and
hydraulic fractures. Realistic simulation of complex reservoirs
and wells will enable better economic analysis and decisions,
provided that simulation is outstanding.
In this paper we first discuss our simulation approach that
balances the goal of reaching realistic simulation while
maintaining the practicality of an engineering approach. We
also present several case histories of production analysis for
multilaterals and horizontal wells using a robust, stable
numerical simulator, multiple–block well completion and local
refinements.

Fig. 1—Rotary steerable tool schematic.

2 SPE 107629

Fig. 2 illustrates the challenges of drilling technology

applied to multilateral drilling.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPELACP/proceedings-pdf/07LACPEC/All-07LACPEC/SPE-107629-MS/1815176/spe-107629-ms.pdf/1 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico user on 11 March 2021
Fig. 2—Challenges of multilateral wells.
Fig. 3—Schematic illustrating multilateral technology.
Multilateral wells use, in an effective manner, the
evolution of the drilling and completion technology. They Multilaterals Classification Matrix
have these potential value drivers: The main and lateral bore design can be vertical, directional,
• Reducing the numbers of wells. or horizontal, with multilateral system selection based on the
• Optimizing production. individual requirement of the reservoir.
• Reducing drilling cost. The Technology Advancement for Multilaterals (TAML)
has established a classification matrix to describe multilaterals
• Reducing environmental impact on surface.
junction complexity and wells type. This classification can be
• Increasing the incremental reserves for the reservoir.
described by levels as follows:
• Increasing reservoir exposure.
• Enabling multiple reservoirs to be produced TAML Level 1: Openhole, unsupported junctions/sidetracks.
simultaneously. TAML Level 2: Motherboard with cased and cemented
(cement or equivalent) with barefoot or drop
Fig. 3 shows the terminology found in a multilateral well. liner completion/ lateral open.
TAML Level 3: Motherboard cased and cemented (cement
or equivalent)/ lateral liner cased and
“anchored” to the mainbore but not
cemented.
TAML Level 4: Motherboard and lateral cased and cemented
(cement or equivalent) /both bores cemented
to the junction.
TAML Level 5: Pressure integrity at junctions (mechanical
completion/isolation).
TAML Level 6: Pressure integrity at junctions (full access to
mainbore and lateral).

Fig. 4 shows the multilateral classification matrix or levels

of complexity.
SPE 107629 3

rudimentary attempts at multilaterals had been made since the

1930s.
Compared to other wells in the same field, 66/45 was 1.5
times more expensive, but it penetrated 5.5 times the pay
thickness and produced 17 times more oil each day.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPELACP/proceedings-pdf/07LACPEC/All-07LACPEC/SPE-107629-MS/1815176/spe-107629-ms.pdf/1 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico user on 11 March 2021
Grigoryan’s success with the 66/45 well inspired the Soviets
to drill an additional 110 multilateral wells in their oil fields
during the next 27 years, with Grigoryan drilling 30 of them
himself.
Later the technology spread throughout the world. Fig. 5
shows the areas of major activity for drilling multilateral
wells.

Fig. 5—Multilateral well activity.

We can plot the TAML levels around the world to

understand the knowledge in applying this technology, as
shown in Fig. 6.

Number of
NUMBER OFJunctions
JUNTIONthrough 2004
UP TO 2004
5000 5000

Fig. 4—TAML classification levels. 4500

4000
History 3500
In 1949, Alexander Grigoryan1 was, to authors’ knowledge,
3000
the first to propose and work on multilateral technology. He
2500
became involved in the theoretical work of American scientist 2000
2000
L. Yuren, who maintained that increased production could be
1500
achieved by increasing borehole diameter in the productive
1000
zone. Grigoryan took the theory a step further and proposed 500
272
72 24
branching the borehole in the productive zone to increase 500

surface exposure. Grigoryan put his theory into practice in the 0

LEVEL-1 LEVEL-2 LEVEL-3 LEVEL-4 LEVEL-5 LEVEL-6
former USSR’s Bashkiria field (today’s Bashkortostan field).
LEVEL TAML
There, in 1953, he used downhole turbodrills without rotating
drillstrings to drill Well 66/45 in the Bashkiria Ishimabainefti Fig. 6—Distribution of multilateral activities based on type.
field. His target was the Akavassky horizon, an interval that
ranged from 10 to 60 m (32.8 to 196.8 ft) in thickness. He
drilled the main bore to a total depth of 575 m (1,886.4 ft), just Multilateral Wells Production
above the pay zone, and then drilled nine branches from the In the last 10 years, production engineers have not had all the
open borehole without cement bridges or whipstocks. When necessary tools for proper multilaterals well production
completed, the well had nine producing laterals with a evaluation, even though they started with good mathematical
maximum horizontal reach from kickoff point of 136 m (446.1 approximation from J.P. Borisov.2 Borisov presented a
ft). It was the world’s first truly multilateral well, although mathematical principles related to evaluating production from
4 SPE 107629

multiple deviation holes. R. Rhagavan and S.D. Joshi3 provide Conservation of water
the guidelines to assess the productivity of horizontal-well ∂ ⎛ Sw ⎞ ⎛M ⎞
⎜φ ⎟⎟ − ∇.⎜⎜ w (∇ p w − ρ w G )⎟⎟ = Q w (3)
∂ t ⎜⎝ β w
completions by drilling multiple drainholes.
J.R. Salas4 developed a simplified analytical model that ⎠ ⎝ βw ⎠
may be used to give a quick and approximate assessment of

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPELACP/proceedings-pdf/07LACPEC/All-07LACPEC/SPE-107629-MS/1815176/spe-107629-ms.pdf/1 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico user on 11 March 2021
the productivity of different multilateral well configurations. The saturations of the various phases are related based on the
In his model, Salas assumed that the multi-lateral wells are following constraint:
drilled in a homogeneous infinite slab Reservoir. He also
assumed the presence of a single phase flow. These S g + S o + S w =1 (4)
assumptions would of course limit the usability of the model.
More recently, T. Yildiz5 presented experimental and
theoretical calculations to apply in multilaterals and dual The individual phase pressures are related through the
horizontal well performance in really anisotropic reservoirs. capillary pressures:
Later, experimental results were conducted in an electrical p w = p o − p cow (5)
model (3-D electrolytic model) to validate the model. p g = p o − p cog (6)
In most cases, the authors are limited to evaluating
K kr
multilateral well performance under high restrictions. If we M= (7)
add several real factors like depletion and multiphase μ
condition, our conclusion is that we need a tool for filling the
industry necessities. The discrete equations are solved using a robust, full-
Newton iteration. All multiple-block well completions and
Numerical Simulator for Multilateral Wells local grid refinements are solved in a fully coupled manner.
This numerical simulator for multilateral wells is a 3- This makes the model extremely stable.
dimensional, 4-phase, non-isothermal, multiwell black oil and In the case of injection of a conformance fluid or to
“pseudo-compositional” simulator. The reservoir simulator is monitor a fracturing fluid, the treatment fluid flow is
linked to a commercially available numerical wellbore simulated. For example the conformance fluid phase consists
simulator. The simulator is used to calculate wellbore of water, monomer, polymer and activator components. Water
temperature and pressure profile during the injection of fluids, phase and conformance fluid phase are assumed to be slightly
thus accounting for the cool down of the formation during a miscible, which means that relative permeability, effective
sustained injection of fluid. In additional, it incorporates densities, and viscosities of these two phases are not
simulation of chemical processes like monomers, polymers, independent. No mass transfer of components between the
activators, and crosslinkers.6 water phase and the conformance fluid phase is assumed.
The simulator is built in with a comprehensive PVT Hence conservation of water is solved separately for the water
module for multiphase simulation, especially in near-critical phase and for the conformance-fluid phase. Three additional
fluid environment to handle black-oil reservoirs, volatile-oil equations representing conservations of components of the
reservoirs, lean- and rich-gas condensate reservoirs, and dry- conformance fluid must be solved:
gas reservoirs. A relative-permeability module provides the
capability for effective multiphase simulation, including Conservation of water in conformance fluid phase:
correlation and capability to input capillary pressure data. The
∂ ⎛ Sc ⎞ ⎛M ⎞
program provides visualization 2-D areal and cross-sectional ⎜⎜ φ ρ cST f w ⎟⎟ − ∇.⎜⎜ c ρ cST f w (∇ p c − ρ c G )⎟⎟ = Qc ρ cST f w
fluid front, 3-D full of sectional views, and can handle ∂ t ⎝ βc ⎠ ⎝ βc ⎠
vertical, horizontal, and multilateral wells with a special (8)
screen to input directional drilling data.
Conservation of monomer/polymer in conformance fluid
Simulator Equations phase:
The simulator solves the following fluid flow equations:
∂ ⎛ Sc ⎞ ⎛M ⎞
⎜⎜ φ ρ cST f w ⎟⎟ − ∇.⎜⎜ c ρ cST f w (∇ p c − ρ c G )⎟⎟ = Qc ρ cST f m − p
The partial differential equations controlling the flow fluid ∂ t ⎝ βc ⎠ ⎝ βc ⎠
are: (9)
Conservation of oil: Conservation of activator in conformance fluid phase:
∂ ⎛ So ⎞ ⎛M ⎞ ∂ ⎛ Sc ⎞ ⎛M ⎞
⎜φ ⎟⎟ − ∇.⎜⎜ o (∇ p o − ρ o G )⎟⎟ = Qo (1) ⎜⎜ φ ρ cST f w ⎟⎟ − ∇.⎜⎜ c ρ cST f w (∇ p c − ρ c G )⎟⎟ = Qc ρ cST f a
∂ t ⎜⎝ β o ⎠ ⎝ βo ⎠ ∂ t ⎝ βc ⎠ ⎝ βc ⎠
(10)
Conservation of gas
∂ ⎛⎜ ⎛ R s S o ⎞⎞ ⎛R M ⎞
φ⎜
∂ t ⎜⎝ ⎜⎝ β o ⎟
( ( ))
+ E g S g ⎟⎟ ⎟ − ∇.⎜⎜ s o (∇ p o − ρ o G )⎟⎟ − − ∇. M g E g ∇ p g − ρ g G = Q g + R s Qo In addition, the simulator solves the energy equation
⎠⎠ ⎝ βo ⎠
during the non-isothermal simulations.
(2)
SPE 107629 5

Application Case 1 Table 1—Simulator Input Data for Case 1

The main objective in drilling the multilateral well MLT-1 Fluid Type Oil
Formation Sandstone
was to introduce a new concept of non-conventional wells to Reservoir Pressure 2,985 psi
optimize the recovery factor of this area. The well was Reservoir Temperature 158°F
designed by a multidisciplinary team including all disciplines

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPELACP/proceedings-pdf/07LACPEC/All-07LACPEC/SPE-107629-MS/1815176/spe-107629-ms.pdf/1 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico user on 11 March 2021
of petroleum engineering.

Trajectories
The MLT is designed with three arms. Due to the complexity
of this area, first it will be important to have a pilot well to
target the formations. Fig. 7 is a cross-section showing the
planning well. The drilling project is shown in Fig. 8. The
input data for the simulator is presented in Table 1. The well
representation in ZX plot is shown in Fig. 9.

Fig. 9—Well representation in ZX plot.

Simulation Results
The simulation was run to predict gas, oil, and water
production and bottomhole pressures over a year-long period.
The results are shown in Fig. 10. After 365 days, the
simulation does not show vertical interference with a Kv=0.08
md. Fig. 11 shows the oil saturation in both 2- and 3-
dimensional views.

Fig. 7—Planning trajectories for well MLT-1.

Fig. 10—Plot of Case 1 simulation results (BHP, Qg, Qo, and Qw).

Fig. 8—Drilling project for well MLT-1.

Fig. 11—2-D and 3-D views of oil saturation for Case 1.

6 SPE 107629

Application Case 2—Well C139H

The main objective for Case 2 was to evaluate oil-water
contact as function of time. The formation is a naturally
fractured formation and most of the vertical wells showed
quick water production.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPELACP/proceedings-pdf/07LACPEC/All-07LACPEC/SPE-107629-MS/1815176/spe-107629-ms.pdf/1 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico user on 11 March 2021
The Case 2 input data for the simulator is presented in
Table 2. The actual water-oil contact is at 5759.8 m, as shown
in Fig. 12.
The natural fracture formation parameters are:
• Dual porosity omega = 0.35
• Dual porosity lambda = 0.00001
• Dual porosity radius for lambda = 0.3048 m Fig. 14—The blue area is the major anisotropy where multilateral
well will be placed.
Fig. 13 shows the grid map where geology shows the
presence of permeability distribution in the reservoir. The
formation permeability of the highlighted area in Fig. 13 Simulation Results
shows an area where both kx and ky (the horizontal The simulation was run for Case 2, to predict gas, oil, and
permeability in the x and y directions) are different from the water production and bottomhole pressures over a 6-year
rest of the reservoir and equal to 70 md. period. The results are shown in Fig. 15. These results can be
Fig. 14 shows the location of the major anisotropy where compared with the simulation for a vertical well, C137, in
the multilateral well will be placed. Fig. 16. In comparison, Fig. 15 (Case 2) shows a very
significant delay in water production, while maintaining a
Table 2—Simulator Input Data for Case 2 higher oil production rate.
Fluid Type Oil
Formation Limestone
Reservoir Pressure 3,269 psi
Reservoir Temperature 287.6°F

Fig. 12—Schematic of layer distribution in the reservoir as well as the Fig. 15—Multilateral well production simulation.
water oil contact at 5759.8 m.

Fig. 13—Grid map where geology shows an anisotropy area with

kx and ky are 70 md.

Fig. 16—Pressure vs. time plot for a vertical well C137.

SPE 107629 7

The superior performance of the multilateral wells is Conclusions

because of the large flow area of the multilateral wells which • A simulator for use in multilateral wells evaluation is a
would allow the production of high rate of oil while imposing state of the art tool, including homogeneous and
a small pressure gradient around the wellbore. This small anisotropic reservoirs.
pressure gradient is the main reason for the delayed water • This simulator can handle homogeneous formations and

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPELACP/proceedings-pdf/07LACPEC/All-07LACPEC/SPE-107629-MS/1815176/spe-107629-ms.pdf/1 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico user on 11 March 2021
coning. Fig. 17 shows a cross-section of the water saturation naturally fractured formations.
plot vs. time. This figure shows that even when the vertical • In the simulator grid, input changes can also be made for
well is invaded, the multilateral well continues producing at fracture intensities, porosities, and permeabilities.
higher rates and does not produce water.
References
1. OEC (OEC Society) Ocean Star Offshore Drilling Rig and
Museum, located in Galveston Texas USA, information on the
Bashkira Field in Southern Russia.
2. Borisov, J.P.: “Oil Production using Horizontal and Multiple
Deviation Wells,” Moskva, Nedra (1964) 80-93.
3. Raghavan, R., Joshi, S. D.: “Productivity of Multiple Drainholes
or Fractured Horizontal Wells,” SPE Formation Evaluation
Journal, March 1993, 11–16.
4. Salas, J.R., Clifford, P.J., and Jenkins, D.P.: “Multilateral Well
Performance Prediction,” SPE 35711 presented at the 1996 SPE
Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, 22–24 May.
5. Yildiz, T.: “Multilateral Horizontal Well Productivity,” paper
SPE 94223 presented at the 2005 SPE Europec/EAGE Annual
Fig. 17—Water saturation plot. Conference, Madrid, Spain, 13–16 June.
6. Ansah, J., Soliman, M.Y., Ali, S., Moreno, C., Jorquera, R., and
Warren, J., “Optimization of Conformance Decisions Using a
New Well-Intervention Simulator,” paper SPE 99697 presented
at the 2006 SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 22–26 April.