This template is provided to give authors a basic shell for preparing your

manuscript for submittal to a meeting or event. Styles have been included to

give you a basic idea of how your finalized paper will look before it is
published. All manuscripts submitted will be extracted from this template and
tagged into an XML format; standardized styles and fonts will be used when
laying out the final manuscript. Links will be added to your manuscript for
references, tables, and equations. Figures and tables should be placed
directly after the first paragraph they are mentioned in. The content of your
paper WILL NOT be changed.

SPE-188880-MS

Intelligent Completion or Well Intervention Robot?

Nathalia Alves Correa - UDESC, Tadeu Franca Pires Barcelos - UNISANTOS, Kazuo Miura - U_Tokyo, Jose
Ricardo Pelaquim Mendes - UNICAMP.

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 13-16 November 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 d oes 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
Well interventions represent one of the main operational expenditure (OPEX) in the O&G industry,
especially in offshore fields. Historically, high cost of semi submersible rigs or drillships and long time to
acomplish them have restricted the offshore well interventions. Based on this, the O&G industry has
developed technologies in order to perform offshore well interventions in an economically viable way.
Riserless well intervention (RLWI), intelligent completion (IC) and intervention robot (IR) are relatively
new technologies and recently gained importance in the O&G industry. Therefore, this paper details the
operations and values of IC, RLWI, and IR technologies. Moreover, we analyze and compare those
technologies, confronting them against the known production loss problems that require well intervention.
The objective is indicating which technologies are feasiable for the future well intervention on subsea
wells.

Keywords: riserless well intervention, intelligent completion, intervention robot, subsea well
intervention

Introduction
According with Suaznabar (2016), well production in a subsea oil well correspond to the longest phase
of the well’s life cycle. However, in this period, production decline may occur for two reasons. The first
is due to natural causes (e.g. decreasing reservoir pressure) and the second is because of abnormalities,
such as a deposit of solids in the flowlines and pipes. Figure 1 shows a generic profile of a well’s life cycle
as a function of cash flow (Y axis) and time (X axis). The oil production phase (orange area) is the only
phase that results in revenues for O&G industry, therefore the biggest challenge is to produce without
interruptions.
2 SPE-188880-MS

Figure 1 - Profile of a well life cycle. Source: adapted from Miura (2004) apud
Suaznabar (2016)

Suaznabar (2016) comments that, based on Figure 1, when the production loss increases and it becomes
not economically profitable, the well requires an intervention. However, well intervention represents one
of major OPEX for the O&G industry, especially in subsea wells, due to the high cost of rig and long time
required to accomplish it.
For Birkeland (2005), the importance of reliable and profitable intervention technic is a key factor for
the development of subsea wells in deep and ultra-deep waters. The subsea workover is expensive and
represent an important part of total recovery costs. Therefore, the industry is looking for methods for
reduce expenditure on these operations.
Between the 1990 and 2000, the O&G industry developed the intelligent completion (IC), Riserless
well intervention (RLWI), and intervention robot (IR) with the purpose of reducing the well intervention
cost and overcome the production loss problem in an efficient and appropriate way.
Suaznabar (2016) identified twenty-one production loss problems, and mapped them into three
categories: flow assurance issues, well integrity issues and reservoir issues.
In this paper, first we present IC, RLWI, and IR technologies. Following, we compare their
performance in solving the production loss problems. Then, we discuss the results of comparisson. Finally,
we summarize it in conclusion.

Intelligent Completion (IC)

Alimonti (2005) comments that the IC system introduced in the 90’s had the purpose of increase the
well performance through the management of reservoir flow directly from the surface, in order to avoid
maintenance operations, which lead to production interruption and additional workover cost.
According to Mathias (2013), Rodrigues (2005), Dossary et al (2016), Yadav e Surya (2012), Stalford
(2014) and Rodriguez (2010) the advantage of IC systems can be organized in three main aspect:
monitoring, flow control and production of multiple zones. The table 1 shows the characteristic of each
group.
The monitoring using the sensor has so much importance that it is not exclusivity of the IC anymore.
Nowadays, the same sensors are applied in conventional wells to monitor the reservoir behavior too.
Due to the capacity to control the flow through the remotely activated valve, it is possible to mitigate
the necessity of workover to control the reservoir. This can reduce the OPEX.
SPE-188880-MS 3

Multilateral well or well with multiple zones can exhibit the larger benefits with IC technology. This
is due to the ability of IC to produce more than one reservoir individually.

Table 1 – Three main aspects of IC

ASPECT OPERATION PROVIDED ADVANTAGE
Monitoring Uses sensors coupled to the • Facilitate reservoir control.
column that monitors in real • Maximize oil recovery and
time the reservoir data, retard water production.
especially pressure and
temperature.
Flow Control Sensor data and the capacity • Reduce the intervention.
to operate the valves • Retard the water
remotely, which enable breakthrough.
control the flow in real time. • Close the water or gas
producing zone
• Increase the lifetime of well.
• Lower operating expenses.
Production of Multiple The IC set has characteristic • Provide controlled production
Zones the selectivity of multiple zones in an isolated
way.

According to Rawding et (2008), Afolbi et al (2015), Kent et al (2014), Glandt (2013) and Rodrigues
(2005) the main expected benefits of IC installation is:
 Both water and gas controlled dump flood.
 Feasibility of recover oil from marginal wells.
 Better injection of chemical inhibitors.
 Provide sequencing optimization.
 Obtain behavior data from closed water or gas injection wells.
 Better control of injection of water or gas.
 Realization of self-gas lift.
 Better reservoir control in wells with long extensions.
 Avoid or retard the workover operations through remotely activation, which change the completion
configuration.
 Accelerate and optimize the initial well cleaning with multiple zones.
 In elevation and flow, it is possible to reduce energy consumption, increasing the well productive
and decrease the equipment wear.
 Reduction of operational risks.
 Increase in profit.
However, Rodrigues (2005) considers that IC system is complex, because is constituted by subsystems,
which have entropic characteristic; it means that they tend to lose communication between each other, due
to extremes conditions that are exposed. Thus, IC reliability is not sufficient, requirying workover at some
moment of production, to maintain the system communication.
In Schnitzler (2015), installing the IC in deep water is a complex operation that involve work with a
huge number of compounds and company services. The failure of only one compound or a wrong
procedure can lead to an unsuccessfully installation.
4 SPE-188880-MS

The IC has a higher CAPEX compared to conventional completion and the application of IC is not
recommended when it is not possible to obtain more 10% of recovery.
The well intervention performed in wells with IC requires heavy workover due to necessity to retrieve
entire production tubing to access the entire reservoir, leading to longer and more complex operations.
Thus, the OPEX in this type of well will be higher than a conventional well.
The IC system can lose its integrity with time. Subsequently, generating expenses with operations that
do not occur in conventional wells.
To sum up, according to Mathias (2005) it is indispensable a reservoir analyses and additional volume
estimate of hydrocarbon that is possible to recover, for determinate if is viable the installation of IC or the
conventional well is sufficient for oil production

Riserless Well Intervention (RLWI)

For Birkeland (2005), the importance of reliable and cost-effective intervention techniques is a key
factor to develop deepwater fields with subsea wells. Subsea interventions are costly, and represent an
important part of the total recovery costs. Therefore, the industry seeks to develop methods to reduce the
expenses of such operations. Figure 2 is an example of the Riserless Well Intervention System.

Figure 2 - Riserless light well intervention system. Source: Adapted from DICK
(2004, apud BIRKELAND, 2005)

According to Offshore Magazine (2016), RLWI was established in the North Sea in the late 1980s, and
since then it has become a well proven, mature, and recognized intervention method, with more than 1,100
wells intervened and an almost 30-year of track record. The RLWI was developed to increase the scope
of interventions that were historically limited because of the high cost of semi-submersible rigs. The RLWI
is a cost-effective method of intervening in subsea wells from a fit-to-purpose vessel without the need of
drilling rigs, risers or mooring. The lower intervention cost enables the operator to perform a higher
number of interventions, by switching from a reactive intervention mode to a proactive use of intervention
to maximize production.
SPE-188880-MS 5

Fjaertoft and Sonstabo (2011) comment that, the introduction of RLWI dramatically reduced the cost
of intervention per well, see Figure 3.

Figure 3 - Intervention cost per well with different techniques.

Source: Fjaertof & Sonstabo (2011)

According to Fjaertoft & Sonstabo (2011) all equipment required to access and control the well is
available at a low cost in a monohull vessel with dynamic position, and easily transportable between the
fields. Some examples of companies that develop the technology are Welltec, FMC Technologies,
EXPRO, PGS and Helix Group.
Fjaertoft & Sonstabo (2011) comment that Statoil was one of the first to adopt RLWI as part of the
IOR strategy, achieving remarkable results towards the final 60% recovery goal for its fields. According
to Offshore Magazine (2016), operators have been very successful using RLWI for increased production,
and the percentage gains are significant, reaching even 100% for stimulation treatments, and going even
significantly higher for operations like scale or other obstructions removal.
In addition, according to Marine Technology Magazine (2014), the RLWI system is compatible with
both horizontal and vertical Christmas trees. The operational set can be extended through the use of IRs
in horizontal wells.
The main challenge of technology is to identify all the risks associated with the well intervention and
to be able to control them. The limits of weather conditions in these operations are smaller on vessels than
on conventional rigs, and the frequency of helicopter landing is unreliable compared with a drilling rig.
6 SPE-188880-MS

In Table 2 shows the operations that can be performed by RLWI.

Table 2 - Operations that can be performed by RLWI.

OPERATIONS
Hydraulic intervention
Coiled tubing downlines
Bullheading
Scale treatments
Mechanical intervention
Pre-commissioning
New wells
Preparation of wells for deviation
Preparation of wells for recompletion
Wireline and slickline operations
Logging
Perforation of new production zones
Plug setting and removal
Leak detection and repair
Decommissioning
Water production control
Zone isolation
Pipeline intervention
Hydrate remediation

Intervention Robot (IR)

According to Hallundbækj (1994, 1995), the O&G industry has recognized the need and advantages of
horizontal drilling and wells with a high degree of inclination. The problem may occur when we need to
intervene in these wells with coiled tubing (CT) or wireline (WL). Logging large and highly inclined or
horizontal wells can be very difficult in addition to requiring long operational time and being of high cost.
A self-propelled device powered by WL developed in the 90’s, called “tractor” solved the problem of
tools deployment in highly deviated or horizontal wells. Many companies operated with tractor, for
example, Welltec, ALTUS Interventions, Qinterra Technologies, Kodiak Services Partenship and
Schlumberger.
We are denominating as intervention robot (IR), the self-propelled robotic device that can deploy tools
to the bottomhole and perform various operations (see Table 3) inside the horizontal or highly deviated
wells. Tractor and tools to perform bottomhole operations are example of IR.
According to Schwanitz (2009), one of the pioneering companies to adopt the technology was
StatoilHydro, which has achieved great benefits since the incorporation of the technology in 1996. IR
carry out approximately 80% of the wello interventions of the company. Reducing costs while increasing
intervention capacity has allowed StatoilHydro to expand the frequency and increase the scope of its
interventions, resulting in aggregate value now approaching $ 25-30 billion per year.
SPE-188880-MS 7

Table 3 - Operations that can be performed by IR.

OPERATIONS
Gas lift valve replacement
Logging
Milling
Perforation
Plug set & retrieve
Sand and debris removal
Scale removal
Sliding sleeve open & close
Tubing bore cleanning

For Schwanitz (2009) and Shawly (2010), the use of IR brings following advantages: reduction of time;
reduction of cost; and increase in the quality of data. It is possible due to smaller number of people
involved in operations; smaller amount of equipment and lower lifting loads of devices that ensures the
safety of workers.

Comparing Performance of Technologies against Production Loss Causes

Important aspect considered in a well design is the necessity for future well interventions. Knowing
why we have production losses that require well interventions helps to develop strategies to mitigate them.
Suaznabar (2016) identified twenty-one causes responsible for production losses as one can see in
Table 4.

Table 4- Well producion losses. Source: Adapted from Suaznabar (2016).

Flow problems Mechanical Failures Reservoir Problems
• Hydrate • Subsurface Safety Valve • Excessive water production
• Wax • Production Packer • Excessive gas production
• Asphaltene • Production Tubing • Fines migration
• Calcium carbonate* • Production Casing • Sand production
• Calcium sulfate* • Gas Lift Valve
• Barium sulfate* • Wellhead
• Strontium sulfate* • Christmas tree
• Naturally Occuring • Cement
Radioactive materials
(NORM)*
• Naphthenates
* Scale problems.

The 21 causes of production loss were classified into three categories: flow assurance issues, well
integrity issues, and reservoir issues. Flow assurance issues represent 61% of O&G industry concern, as
one can see in Figure 4
8 SPE-188880-MS

Figure 4 – Quantity of papers about three production loss categories converted in percentage,
interpreted as O&G industry concern about each category. Adapted from Suaznabar (2016)

The flow assurance issues are the restrictions or blockages that occur in oil flow from the reservoir
until the primary treatment unit. These restrictions are mainly due to the deposition of solids in the tubing
or flowline. The main factors that lead to the occurrence of deposition of solids are the composition of the
fluid, temperature and pressure. Table 5 shows the ability (or not) of IC, RWLI, and IC approaches to
solve problems of flow assurance.

Technology
Flow Assurance Issues
IC RLWI & IR
Asphaltenes
Wax Does not solve
Hydrates Does solve
Does not solve &
Scales and Naphtenates
IC degradation
Table 5 – Comparing IC and RLWI & IR Performance in solving Flow Assurance Issues.

Asphaltenes, wax and hydrates do not interfere in the IC since they are problems that occur mostly in
flowlines and wellhead, far from bottomhole where IC is installed. Actually, neither the RLWI nor the IR
approaches are not able to access flowlines; therefore, they do not solve these problems.
The formation of scales and naphthenates in a well with IC, can generate the degradation of the IC
system, directly affecting the operability of IC valves. Moreover, the treatment of these problems in wells
with IC will be slower and more complex due to, in most of cases, the necessity of tubing retrieve that
requires heavy workover. According to Juel (2009), using both the RLWI and IR associated to milling
technology, these problems can be solved economically sound.
Corneliussen (2006) comments that, the integrity of the equipment is defined as “the ability to keep the
oil flow under control until it reaches the processing facilities”. According to Fonseca (2012), in order “to
SPE-188880-MS 9

prevent any unintentional leakage”, the well should provide a "barrier envelope", called barriers integrated
set (BIS). The well integrity issues occur when any component of BIS leaks. Table 6 shows the
performance of IC, RLWI and IR in solving problems of well integrity.

Technology
Well Integrity Issues
IC RLWI & IR
Production Tubing Does solve
Production Casing Does not solve, but
Production Packer their failures are rare
Does not solve
Subsurface Safety
Valve Does solve
Gas Lift Valve
Table 6 – Comparing IC and RLWI & IR Performance in solving Well integrity issues

As it is possible to see in Table 6, IC is not able to solve any of the well integrity issues, even more, it
can make harder to repair, because the IC probably will require a heavy workover.
In contrast, IR can be used to replace gas lift valves, and subsurface safety valves. RLWI can identify
and repair leaks in production tubing.
Regarding reservoir issues, each reservoir has its unique characteristics, such as permeability, fluid
property, and production drive mechanism. In most of cases, issues related to the reservoir cannot be
solved through preventive actions. Exception is sanding issue; the sand production can and shall be solved
by installing sand control device in front of reservoir.
Table 7 shows the ability of IC, RLWI, and IR to solve reservoir issues.

Technology
Reservoir Issues
IC RLWI & IR
Excessive water production
Does solve Does solve
Excessive gas production
Does not solve &
Fines migration Does solve temporary
IC degradation
Sand production Sand control at well completion
Table 7 – Comparing IC and RLWI & IR Performance in solving Reservoir issues.

Results and Discussion

Well completion design shall seek low OPEX. The companies shall seek strategies to minimize well
intervention or, at least, make them easier by design, to solve all the causes of production loss. The well
completion design will reflect throughout the productive life of the well, and therefore, it is fundamental
to carry out the design with careful planning aiming at the extension of its useful life.
The RLWI is an example of an economical approach by replacing costly drilling rigs for simple
dynamic positioning vessels to perform the well interventions. One can perform wireline, for example, to
leakage detection and to repair in the tubing. In addition, both the RLWI and IR together are able to deploy
different tools to the bottomhole, being capable of solving all the identified problems of well integrity,
reservoir, and flow assurance. However, wells with IC may make the use of RLWI and IR difficult.
10 SPE-188880-MS

The scale, naphthenate, migration of fines, and excess of gas or water production can degrade the
performance of the IC system. The use of the IC system does not solve well integrity issues.
The IC is a complex system, which, due to its numerous components and the location where they are
installed in the well, failure and communication lost between the components may occur. In other words,
it has no sufficient reliability, besides presenting high risks in deepwater installation. The well
interventions that requires retrieving the production tubing, as IC installation, makes it more complex and
longer to solve. Furthermore, the use of IR and RLWI in well with IC is not effective.
In relation to 21 productions loss causes, the table 8 show the three technologies (IC, RLWI, and IR)
performance:

Table 8 – IC, RLWI and IR performance in relation to 21 productions loss problems.

TECHNOLOGY
Problems Solved by IC Problems Solved by RLWI Problems Solved by IR
• Excessive water and • Scale • Scale
gas production • Naphthenate • Naphthenate
• Production Tubing • Gas Lift Valve
• Production Case • Production Packer
• Excessive water and • Subsurface Safety
gas production Valve
• Fines Migration • Excessive water
• Sand Production production
• Excessive gas
production
• Fines migration
• Sand production

Conclusions
The implementation of IC requires high initial investment and until now, it does not have the expected
reliability, in the other words; it will fail at some moment during the well production. Among 21 problems
that generate production loss, we can perceive that IC solves only two of them and four of the problems
can degrade IC. Furthermore, wells with IC makes the solution difficult for some problems, for example,
it restricts the use of both the IR and RLWI approaches for interventions.
In other hand, the IR and RLWI together performs well intervention in an economically viable and
shorter operational time, meeting one of the objectives of the O&G industry that is producing oil with
lowest OPEX. In addition, theoretically, the IR and RLWI together solves all the 21 problems mapped by
Suaznabar (2016).

Abreviations
RLWI: Riserless Well Intervention
IR: Intervention Robot
IOR: Improved Oil Recovery
IC: Intelligent Completion
OPEX: Operational Expenditure
SPE-188880-MS 11

References
AFOLABI, F; YAHAYA, I; OKE, A; GEE, M; ESPARZA, R; ESTILETTE, F; NNEBOCHA, E.
Application of Intelligent Completion Solution in a Marginal Field-Okporhuru Field Case Study, Onshore
Niger Delta SPE 178756. In: NIGERIA ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE AND
EXHIBITION, 2015, Lagos, Nigéria, 4–6 Agosto.
ALIMONTI, C. Well Completion. In: PRATO, Roberto et al. Encyclopaedia of hydrocarbons -
exploration, production and transport. Roma: Marchesi Grafiche Editoriali S.p.a., 2005. P. 385-401.
BIRKELAND, S. Well integrity of subsea wells during light well interventions. 2005. Master Thesis,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.
CORNELIUSSEN, K. Well Safety Risk control in the Operational Phase of Offshore Wells. 2006. PhD
Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.
DOSSARY, K; JACOB, S; MUHAISH, A; SHAFIQ, M. Case Studies of Hydraulic Wet Connect
System for Pod ESP and Intelligent Completion Applications in Multilateral Wells SPE 182846. In: SPE
kingdom of Saudi Arabia annual technical symposium and exhibition, 2016, Dammam, Arábia Saudita,
25–28 April.
Finding petroleum: Welltec - precision robotics in the well. [s.l.]: [s.i], 2009. Avaible in:
http://www.findingpetroleum.com/n/Welltec-precision-robotics-in-thewell/fcd40504.aspx.
FJAERTOFT, L; SONSTABO, G. Success From Subsea Riserless Well Interventions SPE 143296. In:
SPE/ICoTA COILED TUBING & WELL INTERVENTION CONFRENCE AND EXHIBITION, 2011,
The Woodlands, Texas, 5-6 April.
GLADNT, C. Reservoir Aspects of Smart Wells SPE 81107. Em: SPE LATIN AMERICAN AND
CARIBBEAN PETROLEUM ENGINEERING CONFERENCE, 2003, Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, 27–30
April.
Helix Energy Solution. Avaible in: http://www.helixesg.com/well-intervention/riserless-intervention-
operations/. Acess in: 23 dez, 2016.
KAREN, B. Wireline-Tractor Milling Operations from a Riserless Light Well Intervention Vessel.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, [S.L], v. 62, n. 04, p.56-58, 1 abr. 2010.
KENT, A; BURKHEAD, D.W; BURTON, R.C; FURUI, K; ACTIS, S.C; BJORNEN, K;
CONSTANTINE, J.J; GILBERT, W.W; HODGE, R.M; LEDLOW, L.B; NOZAKI, M; VASSHUS, A;
ZHANG, T. Intelligent completion inside uncemented liner for selective highrate carbonate matrix
acidizing. Spe drilling & completion, [S.L], v. 29, n. 2, p 165-181, jun. 2017.
Marine technology news - Riserless light well intervention for deepwater wells. -: -, 24 fev. 2014
MATHIAS, M. Análise do sistema inteligente de completação e sua aplicabilidade na indústria do
petróleo. 2013. End-of-graduation-course paper, Universidade federal de Fluminense, Niterói.
Petrowiki. Sand control in intelligent wells. Available in:
http://petrowiki.org/sand_control_in_intelligent_wells. Acess in: 20 dez 2016.
RAWDING, J; KONOPCZYNSK, M. R. Application of Intelligent Well Completion for Controlled
Dumpflood in West Kuwait. In: SPE INTELLIGENT ENERGY CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION,
2008, Amsterdam, Holanda, 25–27 Fevereiro.
RODRIGUES, V. Fundamentos sobre completação com instrumentação e controle de subsuperfície –
Apostila de Completação Inteligente PETROBRAS/E&P-SSE/UN-BC/ST/EP, June, 2005.
Sbordone, A. Offshore Magazine – Riserless Light Well Intervention increases production, operating
efficiency. Available in: http://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/print/volume-76/issue-2/productions-
operations/riserless-light-well-intervention-increases-production-operating-efficiency.html. Acess in: 15
Jan, 2017.
SCHNITZLER, E; SILVA, D; MARQUES, F; DELBIM, F; VELLO, L; GONCALEZ, L; FONSECA,
T. Road to Success and Lessons Learned in Intelligent Completion Installations at the Santos Basin Pre-
12 SPE-188880-MS

salt Cluster SPE 174725. In: SPE ANNUAL TCHNICAL CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION, 2015,
Houston, Texas, 28-30 September.
STALFORD, H; AHMED, R; ARAMBULO, V. Intelligent Casing-Intelligent Formation (ICIF)
Design OTC 25161. Em: OFFSHORE TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE, 2014, Houston, Texas, 5–8
May.
SUAZANABAR, P. Diretrizes para Projeto de Poço Submarino para Reduzir e Facilitar a sua
Manutenibilidade. 2016. Master Thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas.
YADAV, V; SURYA, N. Evaluating the Performance of Intelligent Completion SPE 150408. In: SPE
INTELLIGENT ENERGY INTERNATIONAL, 2012, Utrecht, Netherlands, 27-29 March.