Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Advances (from conventional wells to horizontal and then multi-lateral) in well architecture for maximising reservoir contact
have been paralleled by advances in completion equipment development of both "Passive" Inflow Control Devices (ICDs)
and "Active" Interval Control Valves (ICVs). These devices provide a range of fluid-flow control-options that can enhance
the reservoir sweep efficiency and increase reserves. ICVs were initially employed for controlled, commingled production
from multiple reservoirs; while ICDs were developed to counteract the "Heel-Toe" Effect. The variety of their reservoir
applications has since proliferated, so that their application areas now overlap. It has become both complex and time
consuming to select between ICVs or ICDs for a wells completion.
This publication along with a companion paper summarises the results of a comprehensive, comparison study of the
functionality and applicability of the two technologies. It maps out a workflow of the selection process based on the thorough
analysis of the ICD and ICV advantages in major reservoir, production, operation and economic areas. Detailed analysis of
the modelling, gas and oil field applications, equipment costs and installation risks, long term reliability and technical
performance are covered. The systematic approach and tabulated results of this comparison forms the basis of a screening
tool of the potential applicable control technology for a wide range of situations.
The selection framework can be applied by both production technologists and reservoir engineers when choosing
between Passive or Active flow control in advanced wells. The value of these guidelines is illustrated by their application
to synthetic and real field case studies.
1 Introduction
Increasing well-reservoir contact has a number of potential advantages in terms of well productivity, drainage area,
sweep efficiency and delayed water or gas breakthrough. However, such long, possibly multilateral, Extreme Reservoir
Contact (ERC) wells bring not only advantages by replacing several conventional wells; but also present new challenges in
terms of drilling and completion due to the increasing length and complexity of the wells exposure to the reservoir [1]. The
situation with respect to reservoir management is less black and white. An ERC well improves the sweep efficiency and
delays water or gas breakthrough by reducing the localized drawdown and distributing fluid flux over a greater wellbore
length; but it will also present difficulties when reservoir drainage control is required.
Production from a conventional well is normally controlled at the surface by the wellhead choke; increasing the total
oil production by reducing the production rate of a high water cut, conventional well afflicted by water coning. Such simple
measures do not work with an ERC well, since maximization of well-reservoir contact does not by itself guarantee uniform
reservoir drainage. Premature breakthrough of water or gas occurs due to:
1. Reservoir permeability heterogeneity.
2. Variations in the distance between the wellbore and fluid contacts e.g. due to multiple fluid contacts, an inclined
wellbore, a tilted oil-water contact, etc.
3. Variations in reservoir pressure in different regions of the reservoir penetrated by the wellbore.
4. The heel-toe effect that leads to a difference in the specific influx rate between the heel and the toe of the well,
especially when the reservoir is homogeneous.
IPTC 12145
Downhole flow control, employing either Interval Control Valves (ICVs) or Inflow Control Devices (ICDs), has
proven to be a practical solution to the above problems. An:
o ICV is a downhole flow control valve which is operated remotely (from the surface) through a hydraulic, electric or
electro-hydraulic actuation system. Different ICV trim designs and functionality ranging from on/off to infinitely
positioned valves are commercially available. Hundreds of wells around the world are now equipped with remotely
operated ICVs of varying complexity and capabilities. They are used, for example, to actively control inflow from (or
injection to) multiple completion intervals (zones) in a common reservoir or different reservoirs.
o ICD is a passive flow restriction mounted on a screen joint to control the fluid flow path from the reservoir into the
flow conduit. An ICDs ability to equalise the inflow along the well length is due to the difference of the physical
laws governing fluid flow in (1) the reservoir and (2) through the ICD. Each provider of this technology has a unique
design for the pressure drop creation. These currently include: Nozzles, Orifices, Tubes and Helical and Labyrinth
Channels. The size of the ICDs restriction is set prior to or at the time of well completion. Options for later
adjustment of the flow restrictions diameter are not currently available without intervention. Despite this, ICDs have
been installed in hundreds of wells during the last ten years and are now considered to be a mature, well completion
technology.
The drivers that gave rise to the development of the ICV and ICD technologies were quite different. The first ICV
applications were to allow the controlled, commingled production of multiple reservoirs via a single flow conduit [2-14];
while ICDs were developed to counteract the heel-toe effect discussed above [15, 16]. The application area of both
technologies has increased dramatically since these early applications. Reservoir studies and subsequent field experience
have confirmed the value of both ICD and ICV application to mitigate inflow or injection imbalance and to optimise well and
field management [17, 21].
IPTC 12145
6.
7.
8.
and ICV completions design. However, unlike ICVs, the fixed nature of ICD completions makes its
"equalisation" efficiency highly dependent on the operating flow rate. This efficiency will decrease if the
well operates at a lower flow rate from the design flow rate.
e. ICD completions can control many intervals within a zone as well as a number of zones of varying
productivity along the wellbore. The limit to such completion is the minimum ICD restriction size that can
practically be applied with the minimum risk of erosion, plugging or emulsion creation potential. ICV
completions are limited by the number of valves that can be installed in a single completion.
Value of information Indications of gas and water influx or rate allocation is an advantage which can be gained in
both ICV and ICD completions when equipped with appropriate gauges [27]. Recently, fibre optic for Distributed
Temperature Sensing (DTS) was also installed in an ICD completion [26]. However, the value of information from
ICVs can be increased due to the ability to remotely control the flow rate of individual zones in addition to
measuring data. This gives ICVs the advantage over ICDs.
Multilateral well applications ICVs can currently only be installed in the wells mother bore due to limitations of
available control umbilical technology to connect to both the mother bore and laterals at the junction. ICDs can be
installed to equalise the flow within individual laterals. This difference in applicability leads to the integration of
both technologies for optimum completion of multilateral wells.
Multiple reservoir management Both ICVs & ICDs [28] have been applied to equalise the inflow from multiple
layers within a single reservoir or multiple reservoirs. The optimum choice between these two technologies for a
particular well will depend on the specific reservoir, fluid and completion architecture. However, ICVs have been
proven to optimally control the commingled production and prevent the cross flow between multiple reservoirs.
ICVs also allowed gas and water transfer between different layers for sweep improvement and pressure support.
ICDs have a limited capability to perform these tasks.
This paper provides an equivalent level of detail for the remaining, more operationally oriented factors (Figure 1).
IPTC 12145
flow and the valve itself. Each of these main components consists of several subcomponents e.g. a hydraulically operated
ICV consists of: a moving sleeve or ball containing the valve opening trim, a hydraulic chamber to translate the hydraulic
pulses into mechanical movement of the valve and a stationary housing. The failure of any of the five, main ICV components
(or their subcomponents) is considered a system failure. However, the ICV is installed as part of a much larger well or field
infrastructure. It will be unable to achieve its objective if external components such as a gravel pack or a packer that are not
part of the ICV system fail. This type of failure is a called mission failure [37-39].
This concept of mission and system failure can also be applied to ICD completions. The failure of the ICDs
flow restriction due to erosion or plugging is a system failure since this is the main component in the ICD equipment. In
addition to the ICD flow restriction failure, failure of a Stand-Alone-Screen, gravel pack or annular flow isolation, which is
used in conjunction with ICDs, can thus be considered to be a mission failure.
In this paper we will restrict our comparison to the ICVs valve reliability with that of the ICDs flow restriction.
The different ICD designs (Nozzles, Orifices, Tubes and Helical and Labyrinth channels) vary in there resistance to
erosion and plugging. Slurry flow testing has indicated that the nozzle and orifice designs are more prone to erosion than the
helical channel design [44]. However, despite this, the available information on the downhole inflow distribution of all ICD
completions with a variety of flow restriction designs has indicated an equalised fluid influx along the length of the ICD
completion [46-50]. E.g. A flowmeter survey run after 4 months production in a well completed with nozzle-type ICDs
indicated a near uniform contribution along the wellbore [46]. The well was completed in a sandstone reservoir and produced
at a flow rate of 6-7 M stbo/d (~ 110 stbo/d/ICD joint).
The long term benefits of ICD completions were observed some five years after the introduction of ICD technology
by a 4-D seismic survey conducted in 2003 on the Troll West oil rim. This survey indicated that the wells completed with
ICDs maintained excellent equalisation of the approaching gas front [51-53], despite that these wells having been produced at
super-critical flow rates with a high GOR. Erosion of the helical, channel-type ICDs would be expected to result in localised
high gas concentrations which would have been detected by the seismic survey.
Sand, scale or asphaltene deposition can cause ICD plugging. However, the plugging potential of ICDs due to sand
deposition can be reduced by the utilisation of Stand-Alone-Screen (SAS) or gravel packs. These completions prevent
production of those sand particles sufficiently large to plug the ICDs flow restriction. Further, a minimum flow restriction
diameter can be introduced into the ICD design process to minimise the plugging risk if the sand control measures fail. Scale
and asphaltene plugging has to be chemically prevented or treated since it can not be held back mechanically. ICD
plugging has not been reported to-date; even though screen plugging is a problem frequently observed in sand control
completions [54- 55]. However, both the inflow rate per screen joint and the annular flow rate are considerably lower in an
ICD completion than in a typical (conventional) sand control completion. A reduced rate of screen plugging is therefore
expected. Note that, in the context of this paper, screen plugging represents a mission failure rather than an ICD system
failure.
A common ICD design is used for both production and injection, apart from one of the nozzle-type ICDs. This
nozzle-ICD design for injection minimises jetting, and subsequent erosion of the ICD chamber-shroud (deflector), by
mounting the nozzles on the jacket welded around the base pipe {Figure 2 [45]}.
Erosion of the ICV trim or shroud can lead to failure of the ICV to maintain the desired pressure drop. The ICV trim
design can be modified to minimise such erosion effects [41-43]. Partial or complete plugging of an ICV due to deposition of
scale, asphaltene, etc. can be minimised by regularly cycling the valve through its various settings. Inability to adjust the
valve to the required position is a significant cause of ICV system failure. Such failure can be due to the valve or to any of
the components that make up the actuation system. Unfortunately, the industry reported ICV reliability data does not
distinguish between these two types of failure. However, it clearly indicates that the actuation system and the valve operation
mechanism are the main factors affecting the ICV reliability. Hydraulically actuated valves have a higher reliability
compared to electrically actuated valves [39]. They usually have a limited number of settings, while the electrically driven
valves can offer any desired setting between the fully closed and fully open positions. The sophistication of an electrical
system is often compounded with multiple pressure and temperature gauges installed at each interval. The additional
complexity of such systems (i.e. the additional components) can greatly reduce the system reliability [37-40]. Statoil
reported a mission failure rate (this includes system failures) of 25 % on the early systems installed in the Snorre A and B
platforms [57]. Later statistics reported a system failure rate of 39 % for 36 valves installed in the Snorre B [58].
However, more recent ICV installations have resulted in increased ICV system reliability. Shell reported a
doubling of the number of valves installed between 2003 and 2006 with a very limited increase in the number of failures
{Figure 3 and [56]}. The 5 year survivability for the ICV system is currently 96 % for the all-hydraulic control system.
Despite this improvement in ICV reliability, the ICD has an intrinsically simple design with a reduced risk of failure
compared to the more complex ICV. Further, the impact of an ICD failure on the well performance is much lower than an
ICV failure (chapter 3).
IPTC 12145
formation damage is reduced by not exposing the reservoir to the workover fluid. Recently, the combination of an ICD with a
hydro-mechanical valve system which isolates the flow path between the screens and the ICD was reported [60]. This may be
suitable for isolating the formation during completion installation.
The ICV thus has the advantage over the ICD for isolating the formation from the fluid in the inner tubing string and
providing a two-way, flow isolation barrier.
IPTC 12145
1.
2.
ICDs equalizing effect ensures uniform placement of the acid or inhibitor, making ICDs advantageous in
matrix acidising treatments of an individual reservoir. However, this advantage is not risk free as the ICDs
flow restriction may become plugged by:
a. Debris released by the acid from the tubuling wall and carried to the ICD during the acid treatment.
b. Spent acid flowing back into the well carrying formation solids and/or emulsions, both of which can be
created by the acid treatment.
There is a second type of acidising treatment - fracture acidising. A basic requirement for this treatment type is that
the relatively large volumes of treatment fluid are injected at a sufficiently high rate and pressure that the formation is
fractured, at least during part of the treatment schedule. This can be achieved by an ICV while an ICD will restrict the ability
to fracture the well [45].
ICVs have a much wider range of applications compared to ICDs, though ICDs do have the advantage for the
specific application of matrix treatment to a single reservoir.
2.
Risks encountered during the installation of an ICD or an ICV completion can vary greatly.
ICD completion risks include the:
a. Completion string becoming stuck before reaching the intended depth. This is of particular concern if a variable
ICD flow restriction design, blank pipe or packers are included in the completion design.
b. Screens or ICD flow restrictions becoming plugged or damaged. This risk can be mitigated using the industrys
standard installation procedures for SAS e.g. aggressive cleaning of the drilled hole, special treatment of the
completion fluid, use of degradable protection film around the screen, rigorous centralisation, etc.
c. External (mechanical or hydraulic) packers that fail to set. This packer setting risk has been solved by the use of
self-energizing, swell packers.
ICV installation is a more complex process; requiring dedicated handling procedures and specially trained
personnel. Handling the valve equipment itself is not the main issue compared to the integrated control and
monitoring systems which require a longer installation time compared to ICDs. Mounting the valve and gauges in
IPTC 12145
the appropriate locations and clamping the control lines to the tubing string together with multiple packer feedthroughs are a challenging task requiring great care. The risks involved with an ICV completion include:
a. Damage to the ICV system components.
b. Improper coupling of hydraulic or electric lines. These two factors can lead to complete or partial loss of the
ICV control and/or the monitoring system data transmission.
c. Early setting of the isolation packers requires a fishing operation to retrieve the tubing string.
A detailed risk analysis should be conducted prior to the installation of both ICVs and ICDs. However, the overall
installation risk to the long term performance of ICVs is higher than for ICDs. Some of the ICV system failures highlighted
in earlier (section 2.2) can be attributed to installation damage.
It is clear that an ICD completion installation is simpler and more reliable.
3 Case Study-1
A channelised, heterogeneous reservoir model, representative of a reservoir located in the North Sea was used to
study the performance of ICD and ICV applications and to provide the basis for the selection process (Figure 4). The
reservoir is developed with a horizontal wellbore which crosses two distinctive high permeability channels with permeability
ranging from 1 to 4,100 mD without distinctive layering or fluid flow barriers (Figure 5 and Table 2). The porosity and
permeability values were distributed stochastically throughout the reservoir containing oil with density of 19 API, viscosity
of 10.1 cP at the reservoir temperature and solution gas ratio (Rs) of 260 scf/stb. An aquifer provides pressure support.
The initial (base case) well (conventional) completion was perforated along the full wellbore length and had a maximum
liquid production rate of 12,600 stlb/d. The well had an uneven, fluid influx rate along the wellbore, causing irregular water
movement in the reservoir and water breakthrough at various points along the wellbore.
Both ICV and ICD completions were installed to optimise the well performance and to verify some of the above
claimed advantages for the two technologies.
ICDs were installed to:
Equalize the fluid influx rate along the wellbore.
Equalize the water encroachment towards the well to enhance the reservoir sweep efficiency.
Minimize the annular flow that might result from the SAS or ICD completions without Annular Flow Isolation
(AFI)
Two ICVs were installed to separate the two high permeability channels. The heel ICV had a 4 in. diameter flow
opening while the toe ICV had a 3 in. diameter flow opening. They were operated to:
Control the contribution from each channel zone after water breakthrough.
Minimise the water production.
IPTC 12145
IPTC 12145
impose the maximum allowable drawdown until the water flow rate reduced to a specified limit (10, 50 or 400 sm3/d). This
zone was then shut and the toe zone fully opened.
The SAS completion (Figure 11 and Figure 12) resulted in slow and irregular cleaning of the wellbore. The ICV
completion indicated a better performance as a higher drawdown was applied to each zone. The ICV application also
illustrated the need to identify the optimum point to switch between the zones excessive time spent on zonal clean-up may
result in deferred oil production without any noticeable benefits from an extension of the cleaning process.
The ICD completion, which had AFI installed at every second joint, gave the best clean up performance. This is due
to the ICDs ability to encourage the lower permeability zones to contribute to the flow earlier in the well life. This ability was
confirmed when a similar recovery was obtained when layering was introduced along the wellbore. However, ICVs do have
the ability to impose a higher drawdown to lift-off the mud cake at a specific zone. A significant value for this drawdown
across the mud cake is more difficult to achieve with an ICD completion. This aspect will be reported later.
D. Equipment Cost:
The heterogeneous reservoir illustrated in Figure 4 could be either a soft sandstone or a strong carbonate formation
situated at 6,800 ft depth. The 2,400 ft completion section has either a full ICD completion or two ICVs controlling the
contribution from the two high permeability zones. Only the above completion elements are included in the ICD and ICV
cost calculation (Table 4) since the remainder of the completion will be similar. The ICD cost [75] is approximately 30 %
higher than that of a SAS completion (cost ~ $400/ft. for 5 in. equipment [76]); while an on/off ICV costs around
$200,000. Table 4 indicates that a two ICV completion has a higher capital cost than an ICD completion for the example
illustrated. The soft sand is expected to collapse around the ICD-screen, where it can act as annular flow isolation,
eliminating the need to install external packers. The installed AFI was therefore limited to 4 packers to isolate the highly
heterogeneous zones. Note: the monitoring system can be applied to both completions and was not included in the
assessment,
E. Gas lift:
The reservoir model was divided into two layers: an oil layer at the bottom and a separate gas layer at the top. The
well was located near the oil water contact (OWC) to represent a poorly performing producer with high water cut production.
The well quickly ceased to flow against a wellhead pressure of 335 psi due to the high water cut. The objective of the study is
to show that the gas lift zone can be used to improve the oil production. This concept is field proven using a wireline
serviceable choke installed in a side pocket mandrel and an ICV. This study allowed the gas to flow through an ICD or an
ICV to lift the well. The ICD had a fixed restriction throughout the well life while the ICV flow restriction required careful
optimisation to inject gas at the correct conditions so as to give improved well performance against a gradually increasing
operating, wellhead pressure (335, 360 and 380 psi).
The ICV allowed the gas injection to optimally cope with the changing water cut and increasing operating wellhead
pressure limit, while the less optimum gas injection via the ICD lead to an earlier decline in production for the ICD
completion (Figure 13 and Figure 14). In this study, the low uncertainty in the reservoir properties and the application of an
optimum ICD restriction size assisted the ICD completion in this case; a factor which is uncommon in practice.
10
IPTC 12145
across 3 layers while SAS was applied across the lowest productivity and pressure layer. This ensured equalisation of the
fluid influx into the wellbore (Figure 15). Further, crossflow between the reservoir layers, as would have occurred with five,
conventionally completed producers, was eliminated by the ability of the ICD completion to maintain the commingled
bottom hole pressure below the reservoir pressure of all producing zones. Although this completion helped delay the water
breakthrough (Figure 16), it also significantly reduced the oil production due to the limited contribution from the low
productivity layer. Applying this completion strategy to all the wells in the field resulted in 3.9 % increase in cumulative oil
production compared to the conventional well completion.
However, the ICV completions proved superior in their ability to enhance the field performance due to their inherent
ability to "optimally" manage the production from (or injection to) multiple layers (Table 6).
6 Conclusions
Factors controlling the selection between ICVs and ICDs have been reviewed. Figure 1 and Table 10 provide a
framework which can be used when comparing ICV and ICD technology. A total of 17 factors were considered, from which
the following conclusions were drawn:
1. Reservoir description uncertainty ICVs prove to deliver higher recovery and reduced risk compared with ICDs as it
can be adjusted to manage unforeseen circumstances.
2. More flexible development ICVs allow more flexible field development strategies to be employed and actions to be
implemented in real time.
3. Number of controllable zones The number of ICDs which can be installed in a horizontal section is limited by the
number of packers, cost and/or drag forces limiting the reach of the completion string.
4. Inner flow conduit diameter The larger flow conduit diameter gives the ICD an advantage over ICV for comparable
borehole sizes.
5. Formation permeability Both ICVs & ICDs are capable of equalising the inflow from (or outflow into) heterogeneous
reservoirs. However, ICD application in low permeability reservoirs greatly reduces the well productivity unlike ICVs.
Simultaneous analysis of other parameters along with the formation permeability is often required to make proper
selection decision between the two technologies such as:
IPTC 12145
11
i. Fluid phases: While both ICVs and ICDs can equally be used to manage the produced oil and gas or the
injected gas flow distribution, ICDs are more useful in reducing volumes of associated gas cap gas while ICVs
are preferred for controlling water production.
ii. Productivity variation: ICD completions can passively control a number of zones of varying productivity along
the wellbore. ICV completions are limited by the number of valves that can be installed in a single completion.
6. Value of information Indications of gas and water influx or rate allocation is an advantage which can be gained in both
ICV and ICD completions if equipped with appropriate gauges [27]. However, an ICV can be a source of information
and act in response to newly identified behaviours due to its added functionality.
7. Multilateral well applications ICVs can currently only be installed in the wells mother bore while ICDs can be
installed to equalise the flow within individual laterals. ICVs have been proven to optimally control the commingled
production and prevent the cross flow between multiple reservoirs. ICDs have a limited capability to perform these tasks.
8. Multiple reservoir management Both ICVs & ICDs are capable of equalising the inflow from multiple layers within a
single reservoir or multiple reservoirs. The optimum choice between these two technologies for a particular well will
depend on the specific reservoir and completion architecture. However, ICVs provide greater flexibility to cope with
changing well and reservoir behaviour.
9. Modelling tool availability ICVs can reliably be modelled in current reservoir and network simulators while current
ICD completion modelling capabilities have limitations.
10. Long term equipment reliability An ICD is simpler and hence more reliable than an ICV.
11. Reservoir isolation barrier ICV are being used as reservoir isolation barriers.
12. Improved clean-up ICDs encourage low productivity intervals contribution to the flow which improve the total
productive length of the wellbore faster. ICVs have the advantage when a high filter cake lift-off pressure is required.
13. Selective Acidising and scale treatment ICVs allow both matrix and fracture acidising and help eliminate coiled tubing
requirement in newly completed wells.
14. Equipment cost An ICV is more expensive compared to an ICD due to its greater functionality. However, full
economic quantification of the value associated with each completion remains a field specific task.
15. Installation risks ICD completions installation is simpler and more reliable than ICVs with manageable risks.
16. Gas lift ICVs can control inflow of gas-cap gas or gas from a separate reservoir to lift a poorly performing oil well.
17. Gas field ICVs have an advantage over ICDs and have been successfully applied to wells completed in many gas
fields.
Single well and full field case studies have been developed to illustrate the value of ICVs and ICDs in improving
both oil and gas production. These studies supported the conclusions drawn in this comparison.
7 Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Tor Sukkestad of WellDynamics and Faisal Nughaimish of Saudi Aramco for their valuable
comments. WellDynamics is highly appreciated for initiation of the project and funding of one of the authors, along with
other sponsors of the Added Value from Intelligent Field & Well system Technology JIP at Heriot-Watt University. The
authors also would like to thank Saudi Aramco for funding one of the authors together with Schlumberger Information
Systems, Petroleum Experts and the AGR Group for providing access to their software.
8 Nomenclature
AFI: Annular Flow Isolation
BHP: Bottom Hole Pressure
ERC: Extreme Reservoir Contact
GOR: Gas-Oil Ratio
GWC: Gas-Water Contact
ICV: Interval Control Valve
ICD: Inflow Control Device
MRM: Multiple Reservoir Management
OWC: Oil-Water Contact
PI: Productivity Index
SAS: Stand-Alone-Screen
SSD: Sliding Side Door
WGR: Water-Gas Ratio
stbo/d: stock tank barrels of oil per day
stbl/d: stock tank barrels of liquid per day
stbw/d: stock tank barrels of water per day
12
IPTC 12145
9 References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Saggaf, M. M., "A Vision for Future Upstream Technologies, Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 60, No. 3, pp. 54-55, 9498, paper SPE 109323.
Akram, N., et al.: Intelligent Well Technology in Mature Assets, paper SPE 71822 presented at the Offshore Europe
Conference, Aberdeen, UK, 4-7 September 2001.
Jackson Nielsen, V.B., et al.: Aconcagua, Camden Hills, and King's Peak Fields, Gulf of Mexico, Employ Intelligent
Completion Technology in Unique Field-Development Scenario, SPE Production & Facilities, November 2002, pp. 236-240.
Skilbrei, O., et al.: Case History of a 5 Zone Multi-Drop Hydraulic Control Intelligent Offshore Completion in Brunei, paper
OTC 15191 presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 5-8 May 2003.
Lehle, G., et al.: Optimizing Marginal Subsea Well Developments Through Application of Intelligent Completions, paper OTC
15193 presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 5-8 May 2003.
Constantine, J.: Installation and Application of an Intelligent Completion in the EA Field, Offshore Nigeria, paper SPE 90397
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 26-29 September 2004.
Guatelli, V. J., et al.: The Planning and Installation of a Hydraulically Operated (Intelligent) Completion - Offshore NW
Australia, paper SPE 88507 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Perth, Australia, 18-20
October 2004.
Dolle, N., et al.: Gas Management, Reservoir Surveillance, and Smart Wells-An Integrated Solution for the Bugan Field, paper
SPE 96429 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 9-12 October 2005.
Lau, H.C., et al.: Intelligent Internal Gas Injection Wells Revitalise Mature S.W. Ampa Field, paper SPE 72108 presented at
the SPE Asia Pacific Improved Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 6-9 October 2001.
Betancourt, S., et al. : Natural Gas-Lift: Theory and Practice, paper SPE 74391 presented at the SPE International Petroleum
Conference and Exhibition in Mexico, Villahermosa, Mexico, 10-12 February 2002.
Al-Kasim, F.T., et al.: Remotely Controlled In-Situ Gas Lift on the Norne Subsea Field, paper SPE 77660 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29 September-2 October 2002.
Clarke, A., et al.: Case Study: Lennox - The Race to Produce Oil Prior To Gas Cap Blowdown, paper SPE 100126 presented at
the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, 12-15 June 2006.
Jin, L., et al.: Smart Completion Design with Internal Gas Lifting Proven Economical for an Oil Development Project in Brunei
Shell, paper SPE 92891 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 5-7 April
2005.
Bogaert, P.M., et al.: Improving Oil Production Using Smart Fields Technology in the SF30 Satellite Oil Development Offshore
Malaysia, paper OTC 16162 presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 3-6 May 2004.
Haaland, A., et al.: Completion Technology on Troll-Innovation and Simplicity, paper OTC 17113 presented at the
2005 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 25 May 2005.
Henriksen, K.H., et al.: Case Study: The Application of Inflow Control Devices in the Troll Oil Field, paper SPE 100308
presented at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, 12-15 June 2006.
Brouwer, D.R., et al.: "Dynamic Optimization of Waterflooding With Smart Wells Using Optimal Control Theory", paper SPE
78278 published at the SPE Journal, Volume 9, Number 4, pp. 391-402, December 2004.
Alhuthali, A. H., et al.: Optimal Waterflood Management Using Rate Control, paper SPE 102478 published at the SPE
Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering Journal, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 539-551, October 2007.
Jansen, J.D., et al.: "Smart Well Solutions for Thin Oil Rims: Inflow Switching and the Smart Stinger Completion", paper SPE
77942 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Melbourne, Australia, 8-10 October 2002.
Augustine, J., et al.: Worlds First Gravel-Packed Uniform Inflow Control Completion, paper SPE 103195 presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 24-27 September 2006.
Raffn, A.G., et al.: ICD Screen Technology Used To Optimize Waterflooding in Injector Well, paper SPE 106018 presented at
the Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 31 March-3 April 2007.
Gao, G., et al.: A Literature Review on Smart Well Technology, paper 106011 presented at the Production and Operations
Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 31 March-3 April 2007.
Birchenko, V.M., et al.: Advanced Wells: How to Make a Choice between Passive and Active Inflow-Control Completions,
paper SPE 115742 presented at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 21-24
September 2008.
Al-Ahmadi, H. : Effective Water Production Control Through Utilizing ECP and Passive ICD Completion Technologies: Case
Histories, paper SPE 120822 presented at the 2008 SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium, AlKhobar, Saudi Arabia,
10 12 May 2008.
Leemhuis, A. P. et al.: "Gas Coning Control for Smart Wells Using a Dynamic Coupled Well-Reservoir Simulator," paper SPE
112234 presented at the 2008 Intelligent Energy Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 25-27 February 2008.
Digital Energy journal, web access: http://www.digitalenergyjournal.com/displaynews.php?NewsID=729&.
Leskens, M. et al.: "Downhole Multiphase Metering in Wells by Means of Soft-Sensing," paper SPE 112046 presented at the
2008 SPE Intelligent Energy Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 25-27 February 2008.
IPTC 12145
13
28. Zaikin, I. et al.: Well Productivity and Oil Recovery Enhancement in East and West Siberian Fields as a Result of Inflow
Control Technology and Application, paper IADC/SPE 115109 presented at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology
Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 25 27 August 2008.
29. Holmes, J. et al.: "Application of a Multisegment Well Model to Simulate Flow in Advanced Wells" SPE 50646 presented at the
1998 SPE European Petroleum Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 1998.
30. HoJeen, S. and Dogru, Ali., Modeling of Equalizer Production System and Smart Well Applications in Full-Field Studies,
paper SPE 111288 presented at the 2007 SPE/EAGE Reservoir Characterization and Simulation Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE,
28-31 October 2007.
31. Wan, J., Coupled Well and Reservoir Simulation Models to Optimize Completion Design and Operations for Subsurface
Control, paper SPE 113635 presented at the 2008 Europec/EAGE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Rome, Italy, 912 June 2008.
32. Skarsholt, L. T., et al.: Use of Advanced Completion Solutions to Maximise Reservoir Potential - Experiences in The Snorre
Field, paper SPE 92255 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 23-25 February 2005.
33. Naus, M.M.J.J., et al.: Optimization of Commingled Production Using Infinitely Variable Inflow Control Valves, paper SPE
90959, SPE Production & Operations Journal, Volume 21, Number 2, pp. 293-301, May 2006.
34. Ouyang, L.B., et al.: An Evaluation of Well Completion Impacts on the Performance of Horizontal and Multilateral Wells,
paper SPE 96530 presented at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 9-12 October
2005.
35. Alkhelaiwi, F T., et al.: "Inflow Control Devices: Application and Value Quantification of a Developing Technology," SPE
108700 Presented at the 2007 International Oil Conference Exhibition, Veracruze, Mexico, 27-30 June 2007.
36. Schlumberger Eclipse 2008TM User Manual.
37. Matheson, D., et al.: Reliability Assurance, Managing the Growth of Intelligent Completion Technology, paper SPE 84327
presented at the 2003 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 5-8 October 2003.
38. Darkeley, B. K. et al.: Application of Reliability Analysis Techniques to Intelligent Wells, paper OTC 13028 presented at the
2001 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 30 April-3 May 2001.
39. Ajayi, A., et al.: An Innovative Way of Integrating Reliability of Intelligent Well Completion Systems With Reservoir
Modelling, paper SPE 94400 presented at Offshore Europe 2005, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, 6-9 September 2005.
40. Aggrey, G. H., et al.: Data Richness and Reliability in Smart Fields Management Is There Value?, paper presented at the
2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 24-27 September 2006.
41. McCasland, M., et al.: Predicting and Mitigating Erosion of Downhole Flow-Control Equipment in Water-Injector
Completions, paper SPE 90179 presented at the 2004 SPE Annual Technical conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA,
26-29 September 2004.
42. Barrilleaux, M., et al.: Downhole Flow Control for High Rate Water Injection Applications, paper SPE 112143 presented at the
2008 SPE Intelligent Energy Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 25-27 February 2008.
43. Bussear, T., et al.: Design and Qualification of a Remotely-Operated, Downhole Flow Control System for High-Rate Water
Injection in Deepwater, paper SPE 88563 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Perth,
Australia, 18-20 October 2004.
44. Visosky, J. M., et al.: Examining Erosion Potential of Various Inflow Control Devices to Determine Duration of Performance,
paper SPE 110667 presented at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, USA, 11-14
November 2007.
45. Haeberle, D. C., et al.: Application of Flow-Control Devices for Water Injection in the Erha Field, paper SPE 112726
presented at the 2008 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Orlando, Florida, USA, 4-6 March 2008.
46. Raffn, A. G., et al.: Case Histories of Improved Horizontal Well Cleanup and Sweep Efficiency With Nozzle-Based Inflow
Control Devices in Sandstone and Carbonate Reservoirs, paper OTC 19172 presented at the 2008 Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 5-8 May 2008.
47. Amaral, A. S., et al.: Equalization of the Water Injection Profile of a Subsea Horizontal Well: A Case History, paper SPE
112283 presented at the 2008 SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana,
USA, 13-15 February 2008.
48. El-Abd, S., et al.: New Completion Technology As A Catalyst to Improve Oil Recovery, paper SPE 113563 presented at the
2008 Indian Oil and Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition, Mambai, India, 4-6 March 2008.
49. Hembling, D., et al.: Advanced Well Completions Result in Enhanced Well Productivity and Recovery in Saudi Aramcos
Offshore Fields, paper SPE 108877 presented at the 2007 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta,
Indonesia, 30 October-1 November 2007.
50. Helmy, M. W. et al.: Application of New Technology in the Completion of ERD Wells, Sakhalin-1 Development, paper SPE
103587 presented at the 2006 SPE Russian Oil & Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, Russia, 3-6 October 2006.
51. Madsen, T., and Abtahi, M., Handling the Oil Zone on Troll, paper OTC 17109 presented at the 2005 Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 2-5 May 2005.
52. Bertrand, A., et al.: Gas-Oil Contact Monitoring at Troll Using High Resolution 4D Analysis and Neural Networks, paper Z-99
presented at the EAGE 67th Conference and Exhibition, Madrid, Spain, 13-16 June 2005.
53. Jones, R. D., et al.: Troll West Oilfield Development-How a Giant Gas Field Became the Largest Oil Field in the NCS through
Innovative Field and Technology Development, paper IADC/SPE 112616 presented at the 2008 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Orlando, Florida, USA, 4-6 March 2008.
54. Tronvoll, J. and Sonstebo, E. F., Productivity Effects of Drawdown and Depletion in Open Hole Completions: Do Screens
Plug?, paper SPE 38191 presented at the 1997 SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hage, The Netherlands, 2-3
June 1997.
14
IPTC 12145
55. Arukhe, J., et al.: Horizontal Screen Failures in Unconsolidated, High-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs: Reversing the
Trend, paper SPE 97299 presented at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 9-12
October 2005.
56. De Best, L., et al.: Smart FieldsMaking the Most of our Assets, paper SPE 103575 presented at the 2006 SPE Russian Oil
and Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, Russia, 3-6 October 2006.
57. Skarsholt, L. T., Use of Advanced Completion Solutions to Maximise Reservoir Potential Experiences in The Snorre Field,
paper SPE/IADC 92255 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 23-25 February 2005.
58. Kulkarni, R. N., et al.: Smart-Well Monitoring and Control: Snorre B Experience, paper SPE 109629 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, USA, 11-14 November 2007.
59. Stair, C.D., et al.: Na Kika Completions Overview: Challenges and Accomplishments, paper OTC 16228 presented at the
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 3-6 May 2004.
60. Coronado, M. P., et al.: Next-Generation Sand Screen Enables Drill-in Sandface Completions, paper SPE 113539 presented at
the 2008 Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Rome Italy, 9-12 June 2008.
61. Moen, T. and Asheim, H., Inflow Control Device and Near-Wellbore Interaction, paper SPE 112471 presented at the 2008 SPE
International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 13-15 February 2008.
62. Suryanarayana, P. V., et al.: Dynamic Modeling of Invasion Damage and Impact on Production in Horizontal Wells, paper SPE
95861, published at SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering Journal, August 2007, pp. 348 358.
63. Ding, Y. et al.: Modelling of Near-Wellbore Formation Damage for Open Hole Horizontal Wells in Anisotropic Media, paper
SPE 82255 presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands 13-14 May, 2003.
64. Ding, Y., et al.: Modelling of Both Near-Wellbore Damage and Natural Cleanup of Horizontal Wells Drilled With a WaterBased Mud, paper SPE 73733 presented at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control,
Lafayette, Louisiana, 20-21 February, 2002.
65. Ding, Y., et al.: Modelling of Near-Wellbore Damage Removal by Natural Cleanup in Horizontal Open Hole Completed
Wells, paper SPE 68951 presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 21-22
May 2001.
66. Maggs, D., et al.: "Production Optimization for Second Stage Field Development Using ICD and Advanced Well Placement
Technology," paper SPE 113577 presented at the 2008 Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Rome, Italy, 9-12
June 2008.
67. Haaland, A., et al.: "Completion Technology on Troll-Innovation and Simplicity," paper OTC 17133 presented at the 2005
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 2-5 May 2005.
68. Sola, K. and Lund, B., "New Downhole Tool for Coiled Tubing Extended Reach," paper SPE 60701 presented at the 2000
SPE/ICoTA Coiled Rubing Roundtable, Houston, Texas, USA, 5-6 April 2000.
69. Bawaked, W. K. et al.: A New Record of Coiled Tubing Reach in Open Hole Horizontal Wells Using Tractor and Friction
Reducer in Saudi Arabia History: A Case Study," paper SPE 117062 presented at the SPE Saudi Arabia Section Young
Professionals Technical Symposium, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 29-30 March 2008.
70. Al Shehri, A. M. et al.: Case History: Application of Coiled Tubing Tractor to Acid Stimulate Open Hole Extended Reach
Power Water Injector Well," paper SPE presented at the 2007 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta,
Indonesia, 30 October-1 November 2007.
71. Proctor, R. et al.: Entering Multilateral Wells Using Coiled Tubing," paper SPE 113773 presented at the 2008 SPE/ICoTA
Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 1-2 April 2008.
72. Nasr-El-Din, H. A. et al.: Novel Technique for Improved CT Access and Stimulation in an Extended-Reach Well," paper SPE
94044 presented at the 2005 SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, 12-13 April 2005.
73. Bellarby, J. E., et al.: Design and Implementation of a High Rate Acid Stimulation through a Subsea Intelligent Completion,
paper SPE 83950 presented at the Offshore Europe Conference, Aberdeen, UK, 2-5 September 2003.
74. Kavle, V. et al.: Impact of Intelligent Wells on Oilfield Scale Management, paper SPE 100112 presented at the SPE
Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, 12-15 June 2006.
75. Augustine, J.R.: An Investigation of the Economic Benefit of Inflow Control Devices on Horizontal Well Completions Using a
Reservoir-Wellbore Coupled Model, paper SPE 78293 presented at the European Petroleum Conference, Aberdeen, UK, 29-31
October 2002.
76. Ouyang, L.-B. Efficient Cost Saving Through an Appropriate Completion Design, paper SPE 100413 presented at the 2006
Western Regional/AAPG Pacific Section/GSA Cordilleran Section Joint Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, USA, 8-10 May 2006.
77. Silva, M.F., et al.: Technologies Trials of Intelligent-Field Implementation in Carmopolis Field, paper SPE 95517 presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 9-12 October 2005.
78. Al-Bani, F. et al.: "Drilling and Completing Intelligent Multilateral MRC Wells in Haradh Inc-3," paper SPE/IADC 105715
presented at the 2007 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 20-22 February 2007.
79. Al-Arnaout, I. H. et al.: "Smart Wells Experiences and Best Practices at Haradh Increment-III, Ghawar Field," paper SPE 105618
presented at the 15th SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference, Bahrain, Kingdom of Bahrain, 11-14 March 2007.
80. Raw, I. et al.: Achievements of Smart Well Operations: Completion Case Studies for Hydro, paper SPE 107117 presented at
the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, London, UK, 11-14 June 2007.
81. Al-Otaibi, N. M. et al.: Smart-Well Completion Utilizes Natural Reservoir Energy To Produce High-Water-Cut and LowProductivity-Index Well in Abqaiq Field, paper SPE presented at the 2006 SPE International Oil & Gas Conference and
Exhibition in China, Beijing, China, 5-7 December 2006.
82. Zorbalas, K. I. et al.: Utilization of Innovative Technologies to Meet Increasing Oil Demand, paper SPE IPTC 11454 presented
at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Dubai, UAE, 4-6 December 2007.
IPTC 12145
15
83. Betancourt, S. et al.: Natural Gas-Lift: Theory and Practice, paper SPE 74391 presented at the 2002 SPE International
Petroleum Conference and Exhibition in Mexico, Villahermosa, Mexico, 10-12 February 2002.
84. Chacon, A. et al.: Na Kika Field Experiences in the Use of Intelligent Well Technology to Improve Reservoir Management,
paper IPTC 11784 presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Dubai, UAE, 4-6 December 2007.
85. Stair, C. D. et al.: Na Kika Intelligent Wells Design and Construction, paper SPE 90215 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 26-29 September 2004.
86. Nielsen, V. B. et al.: Aconcagua, Camden Hills, and Kings Peak Fields, Gulf of Mexico, Employ Intelligent Completion
Technology in Unique Field-Development Scenario, paper SPE 80292 presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, 30 September 2001.
87. Nielsen, V. B. et al.: Case Study: Aconcagua and Camden Hills Fields Utilize Intelligent Completions To Optimize Production
and Reservoir Performance, paper SPE 96338 presented at Offshore Europe 2005, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, 6-9 September
2005.
88. Katamish, H. E. et al.: WDDM, The Jewel of the Nile, paper SPE 94123 presented at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual
Conference held in Madrid, Spain, 13-16 June 2005.
89. Alkhelaiwi, F. T. et al.: Successful Application of a Robust Link to Automatically Optimise Reservoir Management of a Real
Field, paper SPE 107171 presented at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, London, UK, 11-14 June
2007.
90. Elmsallati, S. and Davies, D.: "Automatic Optimisation of Infinite Variable Control Valves", IPTC-10319, Presented at the
International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 21-23 November 2005.
91. Elmsallati, S. et al.: "Optimisation of Intelligent Wells - A Field Case Study", OMC 219, Presented at the 7th Offshore
Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition held in Ravenna, Italy, 16-18 March 2005.
92. Al-Mutairi, F. H.: Fibre Optic Distributed Temperature Sensors Applications and Temperature Modelling in Intelligent Well
Environment, PhD thesis, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK, 2007.
ICD vs.
Cased Hole
D
5. Value of Information
High
Medium-to-Low
6. Multilateral Wells
Control of Lateral
Control within Lateral
16
IPTC 12145
Value
40 x 20 x 50
80 x 120 x 10
10 - 40
1 - 5000
0.1
3500
19
10.1
Wellbore Dimensions
Length (ft)
Openhole Diameter (in)
ICD Screen OD (in)
ICD Screen ID (in)
ICV OD (in)
ICV ID (in)
Casing ID (in)
~2480
8.5
6.625
6.0
5.5
4.0
6.0
Table 4: Simplified ICV vs. ICD Completion Cost for Two Reservoir Rock Type
Cost
number of units
$520/$260
2400
$80,000
2
$40,000
4
$175,000
1
Total ICD Completion Cost
Soft
Sandstone
Strong
Carbonate
Subtotal
$1,248,000
$160,000
$160,000
$175,000
$1,743,000
Subtotal
$624,000
$160,000
$160,000
$175,000
$1,119,000
$200,000
$400,000
$400,000
$25
$25
$100
$200,000
$80,000
$80
7800
9400
235
1
2
1600
$195,000
$235,000
$23,500
$200,000
$160,000
$128,00
$195,000
$235,000
$23,500
$200,000
$160,000
$128,000
$185,000
1
$400
2400
Total ICV Completion Cost
$185,000
$960,000
$2,358,500
$185,000
$0
$1,398,500
IPTC 12145
17
SM-2
SL-1
IDn*
IDn*
Permeability
Permeability
(mD)
(m)
(mD)
(m)
(mD)
134
0.0048
135
690
SAS
245
0.0062
937
0.0083
3042
669
0.0054
699
0.0083
713
1299
0.0055
447
0.0092
147
1195
0.0150
114
0.0095
816
1373
2579
0.0069
5563
SAS
1192
0.0063
5256
4003
* IDn is the effective nozzle diameter per ICD joint
Permeability
SL-2
IDn*
(m)
SAS
0.0101
0.0083
0.0073
0.0061
0.0055
0.0055
0.0053
Permeability
(mD)
943
692
692
151
2920
3241
-
SL-3
IDn*
(m)
SAS
0.0077
0.0077
0.0075
0.0047
0.0047
-
Permeability
(mD)
151
489
689
690
4502
4430
4358
-
IDn*
(m)
SAS
0.0076
0.0071
0.0073
0.0047
0.0047
0.0047
-
Case
Base-case (7 Conventional wells)
5 Constant-size ICD Completed Wells
5 Variable-size ICD Completed Wells
5 Wells with 18 ICVs
Recovery
Improvement
(%)
2.4
3.9
11.6
IGIP
(Bscf)
Layer Pressure
(psi)
Horizontal
Permeability (mD)
Average
Porosity (%)
Upper Sand
Middle Sand
Lower Sand
Total
32.8
32.9
36.2
101.9
197
65
190
-
2,894
3,322
3,405
-
950
600
50
-
23%
23%
15%
-
Table 8: Improved C-Field (Gas Field) Performance with ICD and ICV Completions
Case
Base-case (Commingled Production)
Sequential Production using SSD
Constant-Size ICD Completion
Variable-Size ICD Completion
3 ICVs
Cumulative Production
Gas (Bscf)
Water (M stb)
62.1
943.8
47.2
0.0
62.7
561.2
65.6
345.3
67.6
298.3
Recovery Compared to
Commingled Production Case
- 24.0 %
+ 1.0 %
+ 5.6 %
+ 8.9 %
18
IPTC 12145
60
150
300
Total Water Production from the Water
Breakthrough Zone after 300 days(M stb)
Reservoir Engineering
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Tubing Size
Value of Information
Multilateral Wells
Commingled Production
Formation Permeability
Modelling Tool Availability
10.
11.
12.
13.
165.7
Costs
14. Equipment Cost
Operations
15. Installation :
a. Complexity
b. Risk
c. Rig Time
Production Technology
Figure 1: ICV vs. ICD Comparison Framework for Oil Field Applications
Percentage
Increase
(%)
31
43
48
48
IPTC 12145
19
20
IPTC 12145
Figure 10: Study-1: Comparison of ICV and ICD Failure Impact on Total Recovery
IPTC 12145
21
22
IPTC 12145