SPE 112923

Using a Discritized Well Model to Simulate Production Behavior in

Horizontal or Multi-Lateral Wells
Yuandong Wang, SPE, Dan Shan, SPE and Robin N. Heim, SPE, Schlumberger
Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 1923April2008.

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

Horizontal and multi-lateral wells have become increasingly important and represent a growing percentage of production
wells. They are used to maximize the well to reservoir contact and improve oil recovery in a cost efficient manner. This is
especially true for offshore fields where these wells are used to drain large areas with limited platform capacities. Commonly,
a horizontal well trajectory undergoes undulations that may result in special wellbore flow dynamics. In addition,
technologies such as intelligent completions can be used to regulate flow from various perforation intervals or producing
laterals.

Our recent field studies required the simulation of special wellbore dynamic behavior specific to horizontal/multi-lateral
wells. It is a significant challenge to capture such behavior in a simulation model. This paper covers the following issues of
horizontal/multi-lateral well simulation.

1. Special horizontal well flow dynamics exist that are associated with undulations in the wellbore trajectory and
consequent fluid holdups. This can result in certain dynamic flow behavior which affects pressure and,
consequently, production near the toe.
2. Interference between individual laterals in a well.
3. The use of inflow control devices such as intelligent completions with regulating valves that regulate production
from specific perforated intervals/laterals.

The simulation of these issues requires special techniques, such as the use of a discritized well model. A discritized well is
represented by multiple segments along the path of the wellbore. This option provides flexibility in the control of appropriate
parameters by segment to properly simulate the different issues that arise with horizontal/multi-lateral wells. In addition,
local grid refinement is often needed to accurately capture the well trajectory and detailed fluid flow and pressure profiles.

This paper discusses the previously mentioned horizontal/multi-lateral well fluid and completion dynamics and the approach
used to simulate them. Simulation results for successful actual field studies as well as semi-synthetic examples are presented.

Introduction

Horizontal and multi-lateral wells have become increasingly important and represent a growing percentage of production
wells. They are used to maximize well to reservoir contact and to improve oil recovery in a cost efficient manner. This is
especially true for offshore fields where these wells are used to drain large areas with limited platform capacities.

A typical horizontal well has a large perforated interval and produces from multiple formations. However, there are various
factors that may cause part of the perforated interval to not contribute to production. Discussed in this paper is one such
factor- pressure change in the wellbore due to undulations in well trjactory. Production logs are sometimes used to identify
problems with horizontal wells
1,2,3,4,5
. Accordingly, appropriate technologies can be applied to solve these problem, such as
shutting off the high water or gas entry perforations
5,6
.

2 SPE 112923
A horizontal well often undergoes undulations in the trajectory, resulting in additional pressure variation along the wellbore
path. Although this additional pressure change can be small (around 1 psi), it may have substantial effect on wellbore flow
dynamics and, consequently, well productivity. This is especially true for horizontal wells with very small pressure
drawdowns, e.g. near the toe of the well in reservoirs with high permeability. These special wellbore dynamics were
identified by production logs in one field study
1
. Simulation studies using special features such as local grid refinement, a
discritized well model and PLT reporting were conducted in order to incorporate the production logs. This inclusion
improved the history match and enhanced the models predictive power. Modeling of horizontal wells using production logs
has previously been discussed by other authors
1,4
.

Multi-lateral wells increase well to reservoir contact by allowing multiple deviated/horizontal well paths with different
orientations from one main well stem. However, laterals can interfere or compete with one another both through the wellbore
and within the reservoir. It is necessary to use a discritized well model to correctly model the connection and flow dynamics
in the laterals. The application of multi-lateral wells, the associated completion technology, and related simulation work have
increasingly been discussed in technical literature recently
7,8
.

It is possible to adjust flow from individual laterals to optimize well production (i.e. maximize oil production and reduce gas
and water production). In the case of some perforated intervals which produce large amounts of gas, control devices such as
intelligent completions with regulating valves can be applied to improve well performance. The practice of using intelligent
completions has received substantial attention as demonstrated by many technical papers
8,9,10
.

These various issues on horizontal and multi-segment wells are discussed in detail in this paper. Several simulation cases
have been run and the results are presented to illustrate these topics.

Simulation of Flow Dynamics in Horizontal Wells

In one field study, production logs were run on a few of the horizontal wells. The production log results from Well HW1
revealed some interesting flow phenomena. For this well, difficulties were experienced in matching the production history
during simulation. Prior analysis
1
of the production log of this well provided a reasonable explanation for the unusual
wellbore flow behavior. In this analysis, in order to incorporate the production log and consequently to improve the history
match, a discritized well model was used in the simulator. This model was used in a simplified manner, only a friction
multiplier was applied to certain segments to achieve the desired effect
1
, due to the constraints of running a large full field
simulation model.

In the following discussion, a variety of different simulation techniques were used to improve the history match to match
both the the production log and the production history. The techniques included local grid refinement and a discritized well
model. Simulation results using different techniques are compared to illustrate the improvement in the match of both the
production profile (in space) and production history (over time).

Well Descriptions: Trajectory and Fluid Holdups

Figure 1 illustrates the well trajectory of horizontal well HW1 in the field study. It contains an undulation near the toe. This
undulation results in slightly higher pressure at Point B within the wellbore. The production log shows fluid holdups along
the wellbore in colors with green, blue and red indicating oil, water and gas, respectively.


Figure 1 - The well trajectory and production log showing fluid holdups for Well HW1. The fluid color code is red for gas, green for
oil and blue for water. The trajectory is exaggerated in the vertical direction.
A
B
C
h=5ft
Toe
Heel
Fluid holdup
Well trajectory
Flow
F3/4
F2
F5
SPE 112923 3
Special Wellbore Flow Dynamics and Production Logs

Equations 1 and 2 show the pressures at Point B and C as related to the pressure at Point A.
BA A B
f gh p p + + =
1
(1)
1
CA A C
f gh p p + + = ) (
2 1
(2)
Where p
A
and p
B
and p
C
are the fluid pressures at point A, B and C, respectively;
1
and
2
are the average fluid density for
column AB and BC, respectively. Term g is the gravitational acceleration constant and term h is the height between Point A
and B. Terms f
BA
and f
CA
are the frictional losses due to flow from Point B to A and from Point C to A, respectively.

In this case, the depth difference between point A and B is approximately 5 ft. The pressure difference at Point B from the
fluid column (i.e. gh
1
) is approximately 1.5 to 2 psi. The pressure difference at Point C due to the density difference of the
two fluid columns (i.e. gh ) (
2 1
) can be as high as 0.6 psi if the fluid holdup is unfavorable.

Simulation results reveal that the pressure drawdown for this horizontal well is fairly small, about 1 psi near the toe of the
well. Therefore, the pressure variation from the fluid column at Point C at unfavorable conditions can significantly reduce
production at the toe, while the pressure increase at point B may result in reverse flow from the wellbore to the reservoir.
Figure 2 shows the production logs along with other log information for well HW1. The production log data show an inactive
toe with very little production, which supports the argument of reduced production due to the pressure variation at Point C.


Figure 2 - Production logs for well HW1: The tracks from left to right indicate 1) Fluid pressure, 2) Fluid holdups, 3) Connection
inflow rates, 4) Tubing flow rate profile, and 5) Formation. Fluid color code: red for gas, green for oil and blue for water.

Selection of Methods for Simulating the Horizontal Well Dynamics

Simulation attempts with conventional techniques did not yield acceptable matches to the well performance history. The
discritized well model with a friction multiplier was added to improve the match in the full field simulation
1
. The following
discussion explores the advantages of using discritized wells and local grid refinement.

The special well flow behavior (as observed in the production logs) associated with the trajectory undulation can only be
simulated correctly if the wellbore dynamics are simulated concurrently. A discritized well model serves this purpose. In the
full field model, the grid size is fairly large (200 ft) and the wellbore undulation in depth was lost in the model. To accurately
capture the wellbore flow dynamics, local grid refinement was necessary to accurately represent the well trajectory details. In
this study, the following four methods were used to simulate this horizontal well:
1) Traditional (i.e. no special features);
2) Local grid refinement;
3) A discritized well without local grid refinement; and
4) A discritized well with local grid refinement.
F5
Formation
F2
F3/4
4 SPE 112923
Figure 3 is a comparison of the the well trajectory in the simulation models without and with local grid refinement. The
refinement is 1:3 in both the K (vertical) and I (horizontal along the well) directions. It is obvious that the zigzags in the well
trajectory in the unrefined model (left) were smoothed with the addition of a local grid refinement (right). The undulation
near the toe is apparent in the grid-refined model. The local grid refinement also smoothed the fluid contacts and therefore
provided better representation of gas/water breakthrough time from various layers.


Figure 3 - The well trajectories in models. (a) without local grid refinement, and (b) with local grid refinement. The figures are
exaggerated in the Z direction to show the effects of grid refinement.

The simulation results for the four methods exhibit substantial differences in terms of well performance over time (history
match) and in space (along the wellbore as compared to production logs), as discussed in detail in the following sections.

Comparison of the Four Methods in Production History

The history matching simulations were conducted using oil rate control. This means the simulator is set to match the
historical oil rates and properties are varied until the simulated values for water and gas are closely matched to their
respective historical rates. Figure 4 shows the comparison of gas and water rate of the four methods for well HW1. The four
methods yield significant differences in gas and water rates. The methods using local grid refinement and the discritized well
yields simulation results which best match the wells production history. Simulation results from other methods match the
history very poorly, especially the gas rates. Hence, the improvement of the history match comes from the following two
effects.
1) More accurate representation of the well trajectory by local grid refinement, and
2) Appropriate modeling of well flow dynamics by using a discritized well.


Figure 4 History match and comparison of simulation results of four simulation methods for well HW1. (a) gas rate, and (b) water
rate. The dots indicate actual production history, and colored lines indicate simulation results using the various methods.



0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Day
G
a
s

R
a
t
e
,

M
S
C
F
/
d
a
y
History
LGR+DWM
No LGR/DWM
LGR Only
DWM Only
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Day
W
a
t
e
r

R
a
t
e
,

S
T
B
/
d
a
y
History
LGR+DWM
No LGR/DWM
LGR Only
DWM Only
PLT Taken
PLT Taken
(a)
(b)
With Local Grid
Refinement
Without Local
Grid Refinement
(a) (b)
SPE 112923 5

Comparison of the Four Methods in Terms of Production Profile

Simulation results for well HW1 are displayed in the format of a production log (PLT) at the time the real PLT was run.
Figure 5 shows the simulated tubing flow rate profiles along the wellbore for each of the four methods. The producing
formation is also indicated on the plots. Formations 3 and 4 were grouped in the study. Significant differences were observed
between each method.


Figure 5 Well production profiles of four simulations. (a) Tubing oil rates; (b) Tubing water rates; and (c) Tubing gas rates. The
producing formation is also indicated on the plots.

Reverse flow from the wellbore to the formation is observed near the toe in the two simulation runs where the discritized well
model was used. The columns in Figure 6 show the contribution of flow (oil and water) from each individual connection of a
grid block to the reservoir for the simulation method using both local grid refinement and discritized well techniques.
Reverse flow is indicated by negative values for a specific connection. This reverse flow results in a low total contribution of
fluid from the formation F2 near the toe, which was confirmed by the production log.

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34
Connection/Segment #
G
a
s

r
a
t
e
,

M
S
C
F
/
d
a
y
DWM+LGR
DWM Only
LGR Only
No LGR/DWM
0
100
200
300
400
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34
Connection/Segment #
W
a
t
e
r

r
a
t
e
,

S
T
B
/
d
a
y
DWM+LGR
DWM Only
LGR Only
No LGR/DWM
0
100
200
300
400
500
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34
Connection/Segment #
O
i
l

r
a
t
e
,

S
T
B
/
d
a
y
DWM+LGR
DWM Only
LGR Only
No LGR/DWM
(a) (b)
(c)
F5 F3/4 F2
Heel Toe
F5 F3/4 F2
Heel Toe
F5 F3/4 F2
Heel Toe
6 SPE 112923

Figure 6 Well production profiles for simulation with LGR and discritized well model (DWM). Columns indicate the rate
contribution from each connection, and the curves indicate tubing rate which is the cumulative of the connection production from
toe to heel. Negative value indicates flow from wellbore to formation. (a) Oil rate; and (b) Water rate.

The production log was run in 2006 (1430 days of simulation time) as indicated in Figure 4. The PLT log was run at three
rates and the results using the rate closest to that of the historical data were used. For comparison purpose, the rates from the
PLT were scaled to the actual historical rates to account for this slight difference in rate. Figure 7 shows the comparison
between the production logs and the simulation results for each of the four methods in terms of the contribution of (a) oil rate,
(b) gas rate, and (c) water rate from each formation. Formations 3 and 4 were grouped in the production allocation in the
study.

The method using both local grid refinement and a discritized well model yields a production profile significantly closer to
the production logs than the other methods. This is especially true of the gas production profile. The appropriate capture of
the well trajectory and wellbore flow dynamics cause the improvement in the simulated production profile.

Interestingly, the production log does not show any reverse flow from wellbore to formation, though it indicates low flow
rate from formation F2 near the toe which matches our best case. Further investigation should be exerted on this issue.


Figure 7 Comparison of the simulation results to the production log in terms of flow contribution from each formation for well HW1
at the date the PLT was taken. (a) oil rate; (b) gas rate; and (c) water rate.


Simulation of Multi-Lateral Wells

Multi-lateral wells were used to increase the well to reservoir contact while reducing drilling costs. In this field, each multi-
lateral well contains two laterals in different directions producing from the thin oil rim. Each lateral forms a production string
and therefore is independent from each other, i.e. the production from each lateral can be regulated independently.

Sometimes, there is a need to produce both laterals using one tubing string in the main stem due to the limited slots at the
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34
Connection Number C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n

w
a
t
e
r

r
a
t
e
,

S
T
B
/
d
a
y
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
T
u
b
i
n
g

w
a
t
e
r

r
a
t
e
,

S
T
B
/
d
a
y
Connection water rate
Tubing water rate
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34
Connection Number
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
i
l

r
a
t
e
,

S
T
B
/
d
a
y
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
T
u
b
i
n
g

o
i
l

r
a
t
e
,

S
T
B
/
d
a
y
Connection oil rate
Tubing oil rate
(a) (b)
F5 F3/4 F2
Heel Toe
F5 F3/4 F2
Heel Toe
(a) (b) (c)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
F5 F3/4 F2
Formation
O
i
l

R
a
t
e
,

S
T
B
/
d
a
y
PLT
DWM+LGR
DWM Only
LGR Only
No LGR/DWM
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
F5 F3/4 F2
Formation
G
a
s

R
a
t
e
,

M
S
C
F
/
d
a
y
PLT
DWM+LGR
DWM Only
LGR Only
No LGR/DWM
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
F5 F3/4 F2
Formation
W
a
t
e
r

R
a
t
e
,

S
T
B
/
d
a
y
PLT
DWM+LGR
DWM Only
LGR Only
No LGR/DWM
SPE 112923 7
platform. In this work, we investigated the interference between the laterals caused by production from the same tubing.
Interference between the laterals, if undesirable, should be eliminated or reduced. The use of intelligent completions can help
regulate this interference in certain situations. These topics are covered in detail in the discussion below.

Model Setup for the Multi-Lateral Wells

A well was set up in the model to investigate the effect of interference between laterals. A second lateral was added to the
horizontal well HW1 in the discussion above. The second lateral also produces oil from the oil rim. Figure 8 shows the
orientation of the two laterals of well HW1. Five scenarios, shown in Table-1, with different well configurations and
regulating methods were simulated and compared. This includes the use of intelligent completions. This particular
configuration of a multi-lateral well can only be correctly represented by the use of a discritized well model.

Table 1 - Five configurations involving laterals and control valves used in the simulation.
Scenario Laterals/Wells Control Valve
1 Single branch (Lateral 1) No
2 Two laterals No
3 Two laterals Lateral 1, Choking valve
4 Two laterals Both Laterals, Intelligent Completions
5 Two wells/producing strings Separate well heads




Figure 8 Multi-lateral well configuration showing the orientation of the two laterals.

The following well controls were used in the simulation:
Vertical flow profile curve (VFP curve) and tubing head pressure (THP).
Maximum gas rate (for each string).
Maximum oil rate to limit the peak initial production (for a few months).

Interference between the Laterals

Figure 9 shows the simulation results in terms of oil production for each of the five scenarios. The additional lateral in
Scenario 2 results in a large increase in incremental oil production over Scenario 1. Placing a choke in Lateral 1, which
produces at higher GOR as compared to Lateral 2, results in a small incremental gain in oil as shown in the relationship
between Scenario 2 and Scenario 3. With the exception of the choke in Lateral 1, all other well controls remain the same. The
contribution of oil rate from each connection for each of the two laterals for Scenarios 2 and 3 is shown in Figure 10. Lateral
1 is shown in Figure 10 (a) and Lateral 2 is shown in Figure 10 (b). The difference in production Lateral 2 illustrated in
Figure 10 (b) is cause solely by choking the production in Lateral 1.

Lateral 1
Lateral 2
Lateral 1
Lateral 2
8 SPE 112923
Scenario 4 involves the use of several regulating valves in the multi-lateral well and is discussed in detail in the following
section.

Scenario 5 is set up with each lateral producing from separate tubing strings that are isolated from each other. In other words,
each lateral acts as an independent well. All well constraints are kept the same as in the previous scenarios for each of the
two wells. To clarify, each independent well has the same pressure and rate constraints as the single muli-lateral well. In
this scenario the two wells combined will produce approximently 40% more oil than the multi-lateral well of Scenario 2.
Note that this may be optimistic as tubing size may need to be reduced slightly for this case.


Figure 9 Oil production for five scenarios. For Scenario 5, the production is for the two horizontal wells combined. For other
scenarios, the production is for a single well. (a) oil production rate, and (b) cumulative oil production.



Figure 10 The oil rate contribution from each connection/segment for each lateral illustrates the interference between the two
laterals. Scenario 2 (blue) has no control in the well. Scenario 3 (purple) has a choke valve in Lateral 1. (a) Lateral 1 where
production is reduced by choking; and (b) Lateral 2 where flow from each connection changes due to the operations in Lateral 1.

Effects of the Application of Intelligent Completion Technology

Scenario 4 incorporates 4 regulating valves per lateral into Scenario 2 to investigate the effect of intelligent completion
technology. A valve was placed every three segments from the toe to the heel of each lateral. These valves are regulated to
control excessive gas/water production from specific perforated intervals. For example, if a perforated interval near the toe
produces over a specified volume of gas, the valve near that interval (on the heel side) can be tuned to reduce the flow from
the toe. This practice will improve the well performance and consequently increase well oil production and field oil recovery.
All other well controls were kept the same as in Scenario 2.

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (Days)
O
i
l

R
a
t
e

(
S
T
B
/
D
A
Y
)
Sce 1: Single Branch
Sce 2: Two Laterals
Sce 3: Two Laterals, Choke Lateral 1
Sce 4: Two Laterals with Intelligent Completion
Sce 5: Two Horizontal Wells
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (Days)
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

O
i
l
,

X
1
0
0
0
(
S
T
B
)
Sce 1: Single Branch
Sce 2: Two Laterals
Sce 3: Two Laterals, Choke Lateral 1
Sce 4: Two Laterals with Intelligent Completion
Sce 5: Two Horizontal Wells
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Lateral 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
S
e
g
1
S
e
g
2
S
e
g
3
S
e
g
4
S
e
g
5
S
e
g
6
S
e
g
7
S
e
g
8
S
e
g
9
S
e
g
1
0
O
i
l

R
a
t
e

(
S
T
B
/
D
A
Y
)
Sce 2: Two laterals
Sce 3: Two Laterals,
Choke Lateral 1
Lateral 2
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
S
e
g
1
S
e
g
2
S
e
g
3
S
e
g
4
S
e
g
5
S
e
g
6
S
e
g
7
S
e
g
8
S
e
g
9
S
e
g
1
0
O
i
l

R
a
t
e

(
S
T
B
/
D
A
Y
)
Sce 2: Two Laterals
Sce 3: Two Laterals,
Choke Lateral 1
SPE 112923 9
Figure 9 shows the effects of a multi-lateral using intelligent completion technology. Scenario 4 performs significantly better
than Scenario 2, the base case multi-lateral.


Concluding Remarks

Some important observations are made from the simulation results. A discritized well model and local grid refinement are
necessary to adequately simulate the wellbore flow dynamics for horizontal wells and the interferences between the laterals
of multi-lateral wells. However, the addition of each of the two techniques requires more computation effort during the
simulation and sometimes it becomes impractical if simulations need to be run for a large full field model.

Horizontal Wells

The following observations are made for horizontal wells.
1. There are often undulations along the horizontal well trajectory. Sometimes these undulations are used to penetrate
and produce from multiple thin formations/layers with poor inter-layer communications. Simulation results indicate
the undulation will result slight pressure change (up to a few psi) in the wellbore. However, these undulations may
have a negative effect on well production.
2. For reservoirs with high permeability, the pressure drawdown for the horizontal well is small, especially near the
toe, as observed in the field studied. In such wells, the small pressure change due to the undulation in the wellbore
has substantial effects on the local perforated interval. Sometimes, it may cause reverse flow from the wellbore to
reservoir, and consequently result in reduced production near the toe.
3. The special well flow dynamics stated above are confirmed by production log. These flow dynamics can be
adequately captured in simulation only if the wellbore dynamics are modeled. A discritized well model can achieve
the goal. Local grid refinement is sometimes required to represent a detailed well trajectory.
4. With the use of a discritized well model and local grid refinement, the matches of simulation results to the
production profile (as compared to the production log) and to production history are significantly improved.

Multi-Lateral Wells

The following observations are made for multi-lateral wells based on the simulation results.
1. In simulation, the multi-lateral well and the associated wellbore dynamics can only be correctly represented using a
discritized well model. Without a discritized well model each lateral is connected to the other laterals at the kickoff
point for each lateral and up through the wellbore to the wellhead. Consequently, the pressure distribution along the
wellbore will be inaccurate, and accordingly, the production from each lateral.
2. The addition of one lateral significantly increased well production.
3. Intelligent completion technology using regulating valves can significantly improve well performance and optimize
well oil production.
4. Results from all scenarios show that an increase in either the number of laterals or regulating valves in the wellbore
will increase well production. The best scenario should be a multi-lateral well with separate tubing strings and an
intelligent completion in each lateral. Optimal number of laterals and valves is specific to each field.


Nomenclature

f friction loss
g Gravitational acceleration constant
h Height
p Pressure

Fluid density

LGR Local Grid Refinement
DWM Discritized Well Model
PLT Production Logging Tool (Test)


10 SPE 112923

References

1. Wang, Y., Moreno, J., and Harfoushian, J.H.: Using Production Logs to Calibrate Horizontal Wells in Reservoir
Simulation, SPE 110412, Presented at the 2007 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta,
Indonesia, 30 October1 November 2007.
2. Al Hamawi, M. et al.: Observations and Lessons Learned from a Set of Production Logging Data in Horizontal
Barefoot Completions, SPE 88705 presented at the 11th Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference,
10-13 October 2004.
3. Al-Isamail, M.S. et al.: Advances in Integrated Horizontal Production Logging in Openhole Completions, SPE 96980
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 9-12 October 2005.
4. Al-Fawwaz, A.A., Mubarak, H.K., and Zeybek, M.: Integration of Advanced Production and Image Logging in a High
GOR Horizontal Well with Assessment of Remedial Actions, SPE 93473 presented at the 14
th
SPE Middle East Oil &
Gas Show and Conference, Bahrain, 12-15 March 2005.
5. Al Beaiji, T.M. et al.: Identification of Water Entry with New Integrated Production Logging Tool in Challenging
Horizontal Wells, IPTC 10430 presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, 21-23
November 2005.
6. Al-Shahrani, F. et al.: Successful Water Shut-off in Open Hole Horizontal Well Using Inflatables, SPE 110968
presented at the 007 SPE Technical Symposium of Saudi Arabia Section, Dhahran, 7-8 May 2007
7. Kikuchi, S. and Fasaq, A.S.: Challenges, Lessons Learned, and Successful Implementations of Multilateral Completion
Technology Offshore Abu Dhabi, SPE 101385, Presented at the 2006 Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition
and Conference, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. 5-8 November 2006.
8. Hembling, D. et al: Swell packers: Enabling Openhole Intelligent and Multilateral Well Completions for Enhanced Oil
Recovery, IADC/SPE 100824, Presented at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology and Conference, Bangkok,
Thailand, 13-15 November 2006.
9. Almutairi, F.H., Davies, D.R. and Singh, S.: Enhancing Production from Thin Oil Column Reservoirs Using Intelligent
Completions, SPE110207, Presented at the 2007 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta,
Indonesia, 30 October 1 November 2007.
10. Lee, J. and Vachon, G.: Technology and Capability Required for Well-Centric Production Optimization, SPE107676,
Presented at the 2007 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 30 October 1
November 2007.