DET TEKNISK-NATURVITENSKAPELIGE FAKULTET

BACHELOROPPGAVE
Studieprogram/spesialisering:
Petroleumsteknologi
Vrsemester, 2008
Student: Tommy Jokela
...
signatur
Faglig ansvarlig: Erik Skaugen
Veileder: Francisco Porturas, Reservoir Engineer Reslink
Tittel p oppgaven: Betydningen av innstrmningskontroll anordning (ICD) teknologi i
horisontale sandkontrollkompletteringer

Englesk tittel: Significance of inflow control device (ICD) technology in horizontal sand
screen completions
Studiepoeng:
Emneord: Sidetall: 56
Vedlegg/annet: 0
Stavanger, 30.05.2008




Page 2 of 57



Significance of Inflow Control Device (ICD) technology in
horizontal sand screen completions





Page 3 of 57
Table of Contents

1 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7
2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 7
3 Horizontal well completion options and challenges .............................................................................................. 9
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Completion options ...................................................................................................................................... 9
3.3 Well Clean up .............................................................................................................................................. 11
3.4 Cresting and Coning ................................................................................................................................... 12
3.5 Heel-Toe effect in a homogeneous reservoir ........................................................................................ 13
4 General information of the involved technologies ................................................................................................ 14
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 14
4.2 Sand Control ................................................................................................................................................ 14
4.3 Sand Screen ................................................................................................................................................ 14
4.4 Inflow Control Device (ICD) ...................................................................................................................... 17
4.5 Other available ICD designs ..................................................................................................................... 18
4.5.1 Nozzle type ICD without Screen .............................................................................................................. 18
4.5.2 Channel-type ICD....................................................................................................................................... 19
4.5.3 Tube-type ICD ............................................................................................................................................ 20
4.5.4 Orifice-type ICD ......................................................................................................................................... 20
4.5.5 Autonomous Inflow Control Device ........................................................................................................ 21
4.6 Integration with Annular Isolation ........................................................................................................... 21
4.7 Integration with Artificial Lift .................................................................................................................... 21
4.8 Integration with Gravel Pack .................................................................................................................... 22
5 Principles of the ICD technology ............................................................................................................................. 22
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 22
5.2 Pressure loss............................................................................................................................................... 24
5.3 Pressure loss in the formation ................................................................................................................. 26




Page 4 of 57
5.4 Bernoullis equation ................................................................................................................................... 26
5.5 Pressure loss through the ICD ................................................................................................................. 27
5.6 Production index, PI ................................................................................................................................... 29
5.7 Candidate Recognition .............................................................................................................................. 30
6 Simulation and analysis tool ..................................................................................................................................... 31
6.1 NeTool
TM
Simulation Program ................................................................................................................... 31
7 Field example from the North Sea ........................................................................................................................... 33
7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 33
7.2 Qality control of data ................................................................................................................................. 33
7.3 Reservoir parameters ................................................................................................................................ 34
7.4 Results from the producer well evaluation ............................................................................................ 40
7.4.1 Non-Collapsed Annulus ............................................................................................................................ 41
7.4.2 Collapsed Annulus Scenario .................................................................................................................... 47
7.4.3 Water Breakthrough (Collapsed Annulus) ............................................................................................. 47
7.5 Converting the producer well into an ICD in injection mode .............................................................. 51
8 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................. 53
9 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................................... 53
10 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................... 54
11 Nomenclature ............................................................................................................................................................. 54
12 References .................................................................................................................................................................. 55
12.1 Written references ..................................................................................................................................... 55
12.2 Oral references ........................................................................................................................................... 56
12.3 Software....................................................................................................................................................... 56

Figures

Figure 1 Different completion options .............................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 2 Cresting of oil and gas contact in a horizontal wellbore [5] .......................................................................... 12




Page 5 of 57
Figure 3 The ICD technology reduces permeability variations in heterogeneous reservoirs................................. 13
Figure 4 The ICD technology eliminates the heel-toe effect in a homogeneous reservoir ..................................... 13
Figure 5 Flow of reservoir fluid through the sand screen ............................................................................................. 15
Figure 6 Location of sand screens in a horizontal well ................................................................................................. 16
Figure 7 Wire Wrapped ResFlow Screen with ICD ..................................................................................................... 17
Figure 8 Wire Wrapped ResInject
TM
Screen with ICD [6] .............................................................................................. 17
Figure 9 ICD with nozzles from supplier 1 [13]................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 10 Channel-type ICD [10] ........................................................................................................................................ 19
Figure 11 Labyrinth-type ICD [20] ...................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 12 Tube-type ICD [19] .............................................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 13 Orifice-type ICD [10] ........................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 14 Open Hole Packers prevent annular flow and isolate zones with different ............................................. 21
Figure 15 Principle of the ICD-technology depicted as a garden hose with large holes [6] ................................... 23
Figure 16 Principle of the ICD-technology depicted as a garden hose with tiny holes [6] ...................................... 23
Figure 17 Standard completion versus ResInject
TM
[8] ................................................................................................... 24
Figure 18 Pressure loss illustrated as a network of resistors [6] ................................................................................. 24
Figure 19 ICD interaction in a heterogeneous reservoir [14] ........................................................................................ 28
Figure 20 Modelling of the well with NETool
TM
[15] ......................................................................................................... 31
Figure 21 Display of the simulation grid together with the proposed well trajectory. ............................................. 34
Figure 22 Attribute display showing the horizontal permeability ................................................................................. 35
Figure 23 K
V
/K
H
along the well trajectory .......................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 24 Oil saturation along well trajectory.. ............................................................................................................... 36
Figure 25 Attribute display of the water saturation ........................................................................................................ 37
Figure 26 Attribute showing porosity along well trajectory.. ........................................................................................ 37
Figure 27 Permeability variations along well trajectory.. .............................................................................................. 38
Figure 28 Pressure variations along well trajectory.. .................................................................................................... 39
Figure 29 Saturations profile along the well trajectory ................................................................................................. 40
Figure 30 Summary display of conventional completion: .............................................................................................. 41
Figure 31 Summary display of the ICD completion.. ....................................................................................................... 42




Page 6 of 57
Figure 32 Pressure comparison between a conventional completion and one with ICDs. .................................... 43
Figure 33 Oil flow rate: conventional completion and one with ICDs......................................................................... 44
Figure 34 Oil flux: Conventional completion (blue) and one with ICDs (pink) ........................................................... 45
Figure 35 Oil flow rate: Conventional and one with ICDs with 3 OH packers. .......................................................... 46
Figure 36 Oil flow rate after water breakthrough ........................................................................................................... 47
Figure 37 Water flow rate after water breakthrough ..................................................................................................... 48
Figure 38 Oil Flux ReservoirWell: after the water breakthrough. ............................................................................... 49
Figure 39 Pressure Comparison between a conventional completion and one with ICDs .................................... 50
Figure 40 Summary plot: ICD injection mode................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 41 Water flux: Conventional completion and one with ICDs.. ......................................................................... 52





Page 7 of 57
1 SUMMARY
The increasingly popular horizontal wells suffer from unbalanced influx and injection profile. This can be
greatly improved by introducing Inflow Control Devices (ICD), which choke the inflow or outflow through the
ICD, thus balancing the production or injection profile along the well-bore.
Simulations with NETool
TM
were performed to compare the performance of conventional Stand Alone Screen
(SAS) versus screens with ICDs. The ICD completion minimizes the annular flow effectively and balances the
drainage profile. Further improvement in terms of reduced water cut and increased production was achieved
by adding open hole (OH) packers.
The water breakthrough simulation with ICDs decreased water cut significantly compared to the
conventional completion (SAS). Oil production for the ICD completion with OH packers was also significantly
higher than for the conventional completion.
The injection simulation showed a more balanced injection profile along the well-bore using ICDs. The
conventional completion had a high water flux into the high permeability/fractured zones, also called thief
zones.

2 INTRODUCTION
Horizontal and multilateral completions have become increasingly popular as the operating companies are
striving to maximise the oil production and minimise the number of wells. StatoilHydros TROLL field in the
Norwegian sector with its thin oil layer is a prime example of the application of this technology.
Optimising or balancing the inflow performance in long horizontal open hole completions can be challenging.
The main short-comings with this type of completion are:
Poor well clean-up during production kick-off
Heels region over-production, gas/water premature breakthrough
Toes region under or lost production, oil bypassed/unswept regions
Severe heel-toe effect during production in homogenous formations
Internal cross-flow and under-production in heterogeneous formations

Ineffective removal of the mud cake during the clean-up will restrict the flow of oil into the well-bore.
Horizontal oil producers are susceptible to gas coning or water cresting during the well life due to the heel-
toe effect. Small differences in permeability and/or relative permeability and frictional losses along the well
bore often leads to early gas or water breakthrough.




Page 8 of 57
Conventional water injectors suffer from the inability to achieve even distribution of water into all zones.
Water like any fluid takes the path of least resistance leading to excessive flooding of high permeable
zones while the tighter zones (zones with lesser permeability) or the reservoir sections toward the toe of the
well are receiving little or no water at all. The risk of ineffective sweep of oil and early water breakthrough in
the adjacent producing wells is very real.
Should this happen in conventional wells, time consuming and expensive interventions would be required to
rectify the negative development. The time it takes to plan and execute the required interventions is often
several months. In the mean time the well is not producing or providing pressure support and sweeping the oil
as designed. Unless the problem is fixed in timely manner the non-optimized production or injection will not
only have an adverse effect on the production, but also on the recoverable reserves.
The inflow control device (ICD) was introduced as a solution to these difficulties in the early 90s. In recent
years ICDs have gained popularity and are being applied to a wide range of field types. Their efficiency to
equalize the flux along the well path as well as the outflow has been confirmed by a variety of field monitoring
techniques. The benefits of the ICD technology are:
Better Initial Well Clean-up
Delay of Water/Gas Breakthrough
Decrease Water cut
Zonal draining strategies for efficient reservoir management
Better NPV / accelerated cumulative oil production
This thesis describes the inflow control device (ICD) technology, challenges, areas of applications, principles
of the technology and the tools and methods to perform the analysis. The advantages will be illustrated by
running analysis on real field data.





Page 9 of 57
3 HORIZONTAL WELL COMPLETION OPTIONS AND CHALLENGES
3.1 Introduction
This section describes the completion options and the production and injection related challenges in the
horizontal wells
3.2 Completion options
In the recent years, significant advances have been made in drilling horizontal wells. Geo-steering and
advanced measurement logging tools, form part of the todays drill string, allowing real time steering and very
accurate placement of long horizontal wells. This offers significant benefits as the pay zone section of the
well-bore is to be placed within optimum distance from the oil gas contact (OGC) and the oil water contact
(OWC), to delay gas- and water breakthrough.
Horizontal and multilateral completions are today being applied to a wide range of field types. They have
proven superior to conventional solutions in many reservoir situations. The optimal completion technique for a
candidate well is determined by the reservoir properties, geological setting, rock mechanics, development
plan, and completion design [12].
An important part of the planning of a horizontal well is the selection of the appropriate completion technique
and design. The most common horizontal completion types are depicted in figure 1.
Open Hole Completion are inexpensive, but it is limited to consolidated rock formations. Open hole
offers no production or injection control. Additionally this type of well is difficult to stimulate.
Slotted or Pre-Perforated Liner offers a guard against hole collapse in unconsolidated formations.
The completion method is inexpensive and it also provides a path for intervention tools. The pre-
milled liner provides limited sand control by sizing of the slot width. As there is no zonal isolation
(open annular space) effective stimulation in this type of liner is difficult. Similarly selective
production and injection is not achievable. Coning, annular flow and hot spots are also known
problems.
Slotted Liner with open hole packers provide zonal isolation. This, in addition to the above benefits,
allows more effective stimulation and better possibility for selective production and injection control
Cemented and Perforated Liner provides good zonal isolation. Perforations designed to open
channels through the damaged section of the reservoir contribute to the productivity or injectivity.
This completion type offers better possibilities for selective production, injection and stimulation.




Page 10 of 57
Stand Alone Screen Completions provide good sand control, but due to lack of zonal isolation
selective production, injection and stimulation are not possible. Coning, annular flow and hot spots
are also known problems.
Stand Alone Screen Completion with open hole packers provides good sand control and zonal
isolation. This, in addition to the above benefits, allows more effective stimulation and better
possibility for selective production and injection control.
Stand Alone Screen Completions with open hole packers and gravel pack provides enhanced sand
control and zonal isolation. Selective production, injection and stimulation are also possible to some
degree.
Please note that selective production, injection and stimulation, where referred to in above completion
options, require interventions, such as logging, cement and acid squeezes, straddling and/or plugging of
zones. This is both time consuming and an expensive activity.





Page 11 of 57

Figure 1 Different completion options
3.3 Well Clean up
One of the main challenges in long open hole completions is the formation damage caused by ineffective well
clean-up. Drilling a well causes formation damage and thus reduced effective permeability. Removal of drill
fluid, solids and mud cake from a long well-bore is not a trivial process. One of the main factors effecting the
hole clean-up is the completion design. Today it is common practice to run the screen liner in the reservoir
drilling fluid (RDF). The mud is conditioned prior to screen liner deployment to remove mud solids which would
plug the screens during deployment and flow back of the RDF. During well clean-up, the RDF mud cake is




Page 12 of 57
designed to lift off cleanly and be back produced to surface leaving a clean undamaged formation through
which to produce.
3.4 Cresting and Coning
Wells are often completed in zones which are underlain by a water zone and overlain by a gas cap. When a
well is put into production, a pressure sink is created around the well. The pressure sink can extend all the
way down to the water zone, and cause water or gas to enter the wellbore. This is called cresting (water) and
coning (gas), due to the shape of the interface (see fig. 2). If the water/gas, both being more mobile than oil,
penetrate the open hole interval, the gas and oil will block the production of oil from the rest of the open hole
section. Increased production of water or gas results in higher costs and a declining oil production [3, 4].


Figure 2 Cresting of oil and gas contact in a horizontal wellbore [5]

A variable permeability distribution along the well-bore (heterogeneous formation) also contributes to an
unbalanced fluid influx (See fig. 3). The ICD technology reduces the permeability variations by equalizing the
pressure drop along the interval. This will improve the sweep efficiency and prolong the wells production time
due to delayed water/gas coning.

Figure 3 The ICD technology reduces permeability variations in heterogeneous reservoirs

3.5 Heel-Toe effect in a homogeneous reservoir
Horizontal wells increases reservoir exposure and well-bore length; however, it comes at a cost. The heel-toe
effect occurs as a result of frictional pressure drop from fluid flow in horizontal sections. The frictional
pressure drop along the producing conduit creates a higher drawdown pressure in the heel section of the
well, causing an unbalanced fluid influx (see left hand side fig. 4). The ICD technology equalizes the pressure
drop along the interval and hence balances the influx along the entire well-bore [10].

Figure 4 The ICD technology eliminates the heel-toe effect in a homogeneous reservoir




Page 14 of 57
4 GENERAL INFORMATION OF THE INVOLVED TECHNOLOGIES
4.1 Introduction
This section describes the tools and techniques used in horizontal sand screen completions.
4.2 Sand Control
The goal of sand control is the production of reservoir fluids while preventing the production of formation sand
(load bearing particulates which make up the reservoir rock). Unconsolidated sands typically have high
permeability and porosity but low compressive strength. The sand particles in unconsolidated sands are
easily dislodged when the well is put on production (due to the drag forces exerted on the solids as fluids flow
past through the reservoir matrix). Also as the reservoir pressure decreases changes in the in-situ stresses
may initiate formation failure. The inability to control sand production over the life of the well can be extremely
costly as the sand produced with hydrocarbons will:
Cause erosion of down hole completion components and topside surface facilities
Deposit in the well-bore and surface facilities necessitating costly sand removal operations and
cleanouts
Cause reduction in production or, in worst case, stopping it completely

Typical sand control methods are:
Restrictive Production Rate
In Situ Consolidation
Resin Coated Gravel
Gravel Pack
Screens - Natural Sand Packing (OH)
Fracturing for sand control
Even wells with successful sand control measures in place can / will produce small quantities of sand. For
offshore installations (especially subsea) where several wells produce into a common production system this
is critical. Sand must be first separated from the produced fluids and all oil removed prior to disposal.
4.3 Sand Screens
A sand screen is a tubing joint (also called base pipe) with a filter wrapped or attached onto it. The base pipe
is perforated in standard screens. If an ICD is added to the screen the base pipe is not perforated as the flow



Page 15 of 57
from the formation is directed through the IDC nozzles. There are two main filters; Wire Wrapped Screen
(WWS) and Dutch weave or sintered mesh laminate types (also known as Premium Screen).
The purpose of the sand screen is to retain or filter the formation solids, thus preventing the entrance of the
sand particles into the well-bore. The flow of the reservoir fluids is directed, using screen hanger and open
hole packers, through the filtering system of the sand screen (see fig. 5 and 6). The formation sand is carefully
analyzed and testing is performed to obtain the optimum sizing of the filter for a given reservoir sand.









There are several different sand control techniques. On the Norwegian Continental Shelf the sand screens are
run as part of the lower completion. The lower completion is run into the open hole section of the well-bore
(see figure 6). In some cases the void between the screen outer diameter and well bore is packed with gravel
to obtain better filtering of the produced fluids. This is called gravel packing. Open hole packers, such as
inflatable, Mechanical External Casing Packers (ECP), Constrictors or Swell Packers (SP) are used to isolate
sections of the reservoir and to prevent the annular flow. The entire open hole section is located in the
reservoir section of the well.

Solids Deposits
Filter
Production Conduit
Perforated
Base Pipe
Figure 5 Flow of reservoir fluid through the sand screen




Page 16 of 57





Figure 6 Location of sand screens in a horizontal well






Page 17 of 57
4.4 Inflow Control Device (ICD)
An inflow control device (ICD) is a device with nozzle or channels that restrict or choke the inflow of fluids
from the screen section. The size and the number of the nozzles are designed to balance the inflow profile
along the well-bore. ICDs are installed as an integral part of the sand screens. Figure 7 shows the Reslinks
ResFlow ICD screen. Reslinks ICD can have 2 to 4 nozzles per unit joint and can be mounted with different
nozzle sizes. Also outflow (injection) can be controlled and balanced by using a slightly different design.
Reslinks ResInject (see fig. 8) helps to balance the distribution of injected water. The red arrows illustrate
the flow path through the sand screen and ICD assembly.

Figure 7 Wire Wrapped ResFlow ICD Screen [6]





Figure 8 Wire Wrapped ResInject
TM
ICD Screen [6]


ICD
Sand Screen
Nozzle ICD
Sand Screen
Nozzle




Page 18 of 57
4.5 Other available ICD designs
The ICD shown in figure 7 and 8 (Nozzle-type ICD) is one of four ICD designs available today. The three other
designs are Tube ICD, Channel-type- and Orifice-type ICD. All these designs create a flow resistance, and
they can be mounted on a screen joint. This thesis will focus on the Nozzle-type ICD.
4.5.1 Nozzle type ICD without Screen
Supplier 1 offers an ICD with a slightly different design than Reslinks ResFlow screen (see fig.7). On each
coupling (see fig.9-2) there are up to 8 nozzles (see fig.9-3). The nozzle size is predetermined to create a given
pressure drop at a given flow rate. The centralized OD of the coupling (see fig. 9-4) provides a minimum
standoff of the ICD from the Casing / open hole wall, allowing fluid to produce through all the nozzles [13]. The
drawback with this design is that it does not allow filtering of the fluids. Formation particles will erode out and
plug the nozzles..

Figure 9 ICD with nozzles from supplier 1 [13]





Page 19 of 57
4.5.2 Channel-type ICD
The channel-type ICD (see fig. 10) was developed by supplier 2. Instead of nozzles, this device uses a number
of helical channels with a preset diameter and length to impose a specific differential pressure at a specified
flow rate. Fluid flows from the formation through a limited annular space into multiple screen layers mounted
on an inner jacket. After entering the screen fluid flows along the solid base pipe of the screens to the ICD
chamber, where the chosen number of channels impose the desired choking. The last step in the process is
fluid entering holes of a preset diameter. Fluid can also enter a slotted mud filter. The filter prevents the
screen from being contaminated by kill mud during any future, well killing operation. The channel-type ICD
causes a pressure drop to occur over a longer interval than the nozzle and orifice-type ICDs, an advantage
that will reduce the possibility of erosion or plugging of the ICD ports. One disadvantage is that the device
depends on friction to create a differential pressure, and this implies that the actual pressure drop created
will be more susceptible to emulsion effects [10].

Figure 10 Channel-type ICD [10]
Supplier 3 offers an ICD using labyrinths (see fig. 11) instead of channels. Like the channel-type ICD, the
labyrinth-type causes pressure drop to occur over a long interval which will reduce the possibility of erosion
or plugging of the ICD ports. The labyrinth ICD is designed to provide the required inflow control at flow
velocities below erosion limits [20].

Figure 11 Labyrinth-type ICD [20]



Page 20 of 57
4.5.3 Tube-type ICD
The tube-type ICD (see fig. 12) ,developed by supplier 4, consists of an annular chamber on a standard oilfield
tubular. When a screen is applied, the reservoir fluid is produced from the formation through the sand screen
and into the flow chamber. The requiered pressure drop is created by a set of tubes. After flowing through the
tubes, the flow proceeds into the pipe through a set of ports. Tube lenght and inside diameter are designed to
produce the differential pressure needed for optimum completion efficiency [19].

Figure 12 Tube-type ICD [19]
4.5.4 Orifice-type ICD
The orifice-type ICD (see fig. 13) was developed by supplier 5. Multiple orifices produce the required
differential pressure for flow equalization. Each ICD consists of a number of orifices of known diameter and
flow characteristics. The orifices are part of a jacket installed around the base pipe within the ICD chamber as
opposed to the nozzle-type ICD. By reducing the number of open orifices one can achieve different values of
pressure resistance. The flow characteristics are expected to be similar to the nozzle-type ICD [10].

Figure 13 Orifice-type ICD [10]
ICD Tube
Standard oilfield tubular
Sand Screen




Page 21 of 57
4.5.5 Autonomous Inflow Control Device
Supplier 2 has developed an enhancement of the existing ICD design, the Autonomous Inflow Control Device
(AICD). As gas flows into a particular region of the well, the density decreases in the production fluid. This
triggers the AICD valve to close or restrict flow from this zone. This density-sensitive valve has been designed
to compliment the ICD. The system allows each screen joint to work independently, and coupled with open
hole packers AICD provides an autonomous system, which controls gas influx.The valve design is totally
mechanical and does not require an eletrical or hydraulic power source. The AICD could also be configured to
shut off water, hence reducing the risk of water coning [21].
4.6 Integration with Annular Isolation
One main advantage with the ICDs is the reduction of annular flow. Annular flow leads to the redistribution of
fines along the screen open hole annulus, leading to a low permeability pack in the near well-bore area
around the screens, impairing well productivity due to higher skins. However, ICDs will only eliminate annular
flow as long as there exist a highly homogenous permeability distribution along the length of the horizontal
well-bore. This ideal situation is not always in place. Variations in permeability and hole size can trigger
annular flow even when ICDs are installed. To exploit the full potential of the ICDs one has to integrate the
ICDs with annular isolation (see fig.14). Most effective annular isolation in open hole completions is achieved
by use of open hole packers. The purpose of the open hole packers is to isolate zones with different
permeability, prevent annular flow and to direct the flow through the screens and ICDs. An effective
combination with ICDs and open hole packers will contribute to an effective influx and reduced possibility of
annular flow. Annular isolation systems being offered in the oil and gas industry, are: Inflatable or Mechanical
External Casing Packers (ECPs), Swell Packers (SPs), Constrictors and Expandable Packers [10].

Figure 14 Open Hole Packers prevent annular flow and isolate zones with different permeability
4.7 Integration with Artificial Lift
A system that adds energy to the fluid column in a wellbore with the objective of initiating and improving
production from the well is referred to as an artificial-lift system. Operating principles being applied in the
oil/gas industry include rod pumping, gas lift and electrical submersible pumps. These technologies are




Page 22 of 57
usually implemented to revive dead wells or to enhance the productivity of existing producers by lowering the
well bottom hole pressure and boosting the vertical lift energy. A disadvantage with this technology in
horizontal wells is that it will further aggravate the influence of pressure drop along the well-bore, hence,
encouraging increased coning of water or gas. To reduce this phenomenon one can use a combination of
ICDs with artificial-lift [10].
4.8 Integration with Gravel Pack
Gravel Pack is a sand-control method used to prevent production of formation sand. To reduce the potential of
sanding problems and to delay water/gas breakthrough, a combination of gravel pack and ICDs would be
effective. ICDs together with annular isolation eliminate annular flow, a primary cause of sand particles
becoming dislodged from the sand face and being transported along the annulus. Sand particles could cause
screen erosion, plugging and sand production related problems at the surface. Field experience with gravel
pack in horizontal wells has proven their ability to eliminate or minimize sand production [10].
5 PRINCIPLES OF THE ICD TECHNOLOGY
5.1 Introduction
This section describes the principles of the ICD technology and the applicable mathematical equations.

The main benefit of the ICD technology is its ability to balance the in- and outflow profiles along the long
horizontal well-bore. To illustrate this in simple terms, we take a garden hose, which represents a horizontal
water injection well, and put a plug at the end of it (see fig. 15). Holes of the same diameter are made at even
intervals along the length of the hose. When the water is turned on most of the water is jetted out through the
first set of holes and very little or no water comes out from holes located nearer the end of the hose. There is
just not enough energy / pressure left to push water further out towards the toe of the hose. In this case most
of the injected water would go into the zones close to the heel, while the zones at the toe would not receive
any pressure support. This would lead to an early water breakthrough in the zones that are receiving too
much water and ineffective sweep in zones that receive little or no water.





Page 23 of 57

Figure 15 Principle of the ICD-technology depicted as a garden hose with large holes [6]
If we change the large holes to very small ones, the same energy / pressure can evenly distribute the water
along the entire length of the hose (see fig. 16). The very same principle has been used for many years in
agriculture for irrigation, especially in regions where water is not found in abundance.

Figure 16 Principle of the ICD-technology depicted as a garden hose with tiny holes [6]

This same behavior is illustrated in figure 17. The drawing depicts a layered reservoir with variable reservoir
permeability and characteristics. The standard completion represents a well without ICDs, where injected
water will take the path of least resistance, i.e. into the high permeable zones, resulting in inefficient sweep of
oil. The completion with correctly sized ResInject
TM
ICD nozzles distributes the water evenly, resulting in a
uniform sweep of oil (see fig. 17).




Page 24 of 57

Figure 17 Standard completion versus ResInject
TM
[8]
5.2 Pressure loss
During production of reservoir fluid, the pressure will decline compared to original pressure. It is preferable to
produce as much oil as possible for a minimum loss of pressure. To choose the optimal completion options it
is important to understand the pressure losses from the formation and through the production conduit. Before
entering the tubing the fluid has to pass through several obstacles (see fig.18) [8]:
Pressure loss in the formation
Pressure loss in annulus
Pressure loss in the completion
Pressure loss in the tubing


Figure 18 Pressure loss illustrated as a network of resistors [6]
Standard Completion
ResInjectICD




Page 25 of 57
Fluids in the formation always have a certain pressure, caused by the overburden pressure and the
hydrostatic pressure. To be able to control the flow of fluids from the formation, there has to be a pressure
difference between fluid in the well and fluid in the formation. These pressures are:

P
s
= Static reservoir pressure
P
wf
= Flowing pressure in the well

Static reservoir pressure (P
s
) has to be greater than flowing pressure in the well (P
wf
). Pressure drop from the
reservoir and into the well is then:

P
r
= P
s
- P
wf
[8] (Eq. 5.2.1)

The pressure drop in the reservoir depends on the following factors:
The flow rate (q); greater flow rate gives greater pressure drop (P
r
)
Permeability (k); reduced permeability gives a greater pressure drop (P
r
)
Viscosity (); well fluid with a high viscosity gives a greater pressure drop (P
r
), than a well fluid with
lower viscosity ()
Formation damage (S), resulting in reduced permeability (k) and a greater pressure drop (P
r
)
Completion options; pressure drop (P
r
) depends on the choice of completion:
-Well diameter. If we increase the well diameter, pressure drop will decrease because the well fluid
will enter the well at an earlier stage, and we get a larger flow area (increased radial flow region)
-Variations in the perforations. The height of the perforated interval and the depth of the penetration
-Sand control equipment. Gravel packing, screens or a combination of these
-ICDs. Regulate the pressure drop by using different nozzle sizes





Page 26 of 57
5.3 Pressure loss in the formation
Pressure loss in the formation is best described using Darcy law for the linear, horizontal flow of an
incompressible fluid:

p
]
=
-L-
k
- p
]
=
-L-q
k-A
[7] (Eq. 5.3.1)
Where:
P: Pressure
V: Velocity
: Viscosity
A: Cross-sectional area of the filter medium in flow parallel direction
L: The length of the filter medium in flow parallel direction
K: Proportionality coefficient (permeability)
Q: Fluid flow rate

5.4 Bernoullis equation
To be able to size the ICD nozzles one needs to understand the law that explains the flow through a nozzle or
orifice. Bernoullis equation states that the static pressure p
s
in the flow plus the dynamic pressure, one half of
the density times the velocity V squared, is equal to a constant throughout the flow. The constant is called the
total pressure p
t
of the flow. Restrictions governing the use of Bernoullis equation: non-gelling liquid, steady
flow, incompressible fluid, no heat addition and negligible change in height [1].

p
s
+
p-v
2
2
= p
t
[1] (Eq. 5.4.1)
Where:
P
s
: Static pressure
P
t
: Total pressure
V: Velocity
:Density




Page 27 of 57
5.5 Pressure loss through the ICD
A completion with only screens will create little to no flow resistance from the annulus to the base pipe. The
ICD provides a significant resistance by influencing the flow from the sand-face to the base pipe (production
conduit), and thus influencing the flow from the reservoir to the sand-face. The pressure loss through the ICD
is generated by flowing fluid through nozzles. Static energy in the fluid is being converted into kinetic energy
and absorbed in the fluid downstream of the nozzle. The pressure loss through the nozzles is best described
using a part of the Bernoulli equation (Eq. 5.4.1) [8]:

p =
p-
2
2
wbcrc : =
q
A
[8] (Eq. 5.5.1)

Where:
A: Cross-sectional area
q: Fluid flow rate
V: Velocity
: Density





Page 28 of 57

Figure 19 shows the pressure drop graphically with the horizontal well-bore length along the x-axis and the
pressure in P (psi) along the y-axis. The reservoir is heterogeneous, hence different nozzle diameters are used
to regulate the permeability variations. The blue dashed line illustrates the average annulus pressure based
on the different nozzle settings. In high permeability zones a smaller nozzle diameter is used to choke the
inflow, hence stimulating the contribution from low to moderate permeability zones. This can be seen in figure
19 where the ICD has increased the pressure drop in the heel section and reduced the drawdown pressure
from the reservoir. The technology is self regulating and viscosity independent (nozzle-type ICD). From
equation (5.5.1) one can see that increased velocity will give increased pressure drop, which causes greater
resistance. This principle implies that the ICD reduces flow from high permeability zones and increase flow
from zones with lower permeability. Without the ICDs there would be a higher drawdown pressure in the heel
section. This combined with the high permeability would result in a high contribution of oil from the heel
section and a limited contribution from the toe section.

Figure 19 ICD interaction in a heterogeneous reservoir [14]


Pressure (psi)
Measured
Depth, MD (ft)
Pressure (psi)
Measured
Depth, MD (ft)
Reservoir Pressure, Pres Reservoir Pressure, Pres
Heel Toe Typical Long Horizontal Well Completions Pressure profile
Tubing Pressure, Ptbg Tubing Pressure, Ptbg
Average annulus Pressure, Pann
At SandFace
Average annulus Pressure, Pann
At SandFace
Heterogeneity /
Permeability (mD)
Measured
Depth, MD (ft)
Heterogeneity /
Permeability (mD)
Measured
Depth, MD (ft)
Heterogeneity /
Permeability (mD)
Measured
Depth, MD (ft)
Reservoir
Drawdown,
P
F1
Reservoir
Drawdown,
P
F1
Reservoir
Drawdown,
P
F1
ICD Design
Pressure Drop
P
N1
ICD Design
Pressure Drop
P
N1
ICD Design
Pressure Drop
P
N1
P
F7
P
F7
P
N7
P
N7




Page 29 of 57
5.6 Production index, PI
The production index (PI) shows the relationship between production rate and pressure loss between
reservoir and well. It is a measure of the wells production potential of well fluid [9].

For oil:

PI =
q
0
+q
w
p
s
-p
w]
[9] (Eq. 5.6.1)

Where:
PI: Production index in m
3
/d/bar or bbl/d/psi (and d = 24-hour period)
q
0
: Production rate of oil in m
3
/d or bbl/d
q
w
: Production rate of water in m
3
/d or bbl/d
p
s
: Static reservoir pressure in bar or psi
p
wf
: Flow pressure in the well in bar or psi

When Reslinks ResFlow nozzle ICD is introduced into the system we have

PI
Sund]ucc
=
q
P
Drcwdcwn
=
q
P
Rcscrcir
-(PBHP
Scrccn
+P
Nczzlcs
)
[17] (Eq. 5.6.2)

Where:

q: Rate of oil
P
Drawdown
: Total pressure drop from reservoir to tubing in bar or psi
P
Reservoir
:

Reservoir pressure in bar or psi
FBHP
Screen
: Pressure drop between the filter and the base pipe before entering nozzles in bar or psi
P
Nozzles
: Pressure drop through nozzles in bar or psi





Page 30 of 57
5.7 Candidate Recognition
Current applications in both horizontal and/or deviated production wells to minimize coning of water and/or
gas. Homogeneous, heterogeneous, multilayered and thin oil column reservoirs are well suited for ICD
application.
Injection wells, either in horizontal and/or deviated injection wells to evenly distribute or balance the injection
along the well- bore in homogeneous and heterogeneous reservoirs. Here the main objective is to efficiently
add energy to the reservoir and to achieve uniform sweep of oil without exceeding or reaching fracture
gradient pressures, commonly occurring with conventional completions.

ICD technology adds value in reservoirs with declining production by injecting CO
2
and water or both. Water
provides pressure support and the CO
2
will fluidize remaining hydrocarbons, hence increasing the recovery
factor.







Page 31 of 57
6 SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS TOOL
6.1 NeTool
TM
Simulation Program
NEToolTM analysis software [11] is used to select the correct nozzle combination. NETool
TM
is a program
based on equations of pressure loss in the reservoir, annulus and tubing. It is a toolbox for improved reservoir
management. The program can simulate different kinds of completion equipment in the well, and analyze the
results. Modelling from NETool
TM
looks at the reservoir flow and the completion hydraulics. To get a full model,
data from upper completion will have to be imported. The flow from the near well-bore nodes (i.e. reservoir
gridblocks) into the well completion are represented by a specified number of nodes which can be connected
in a number of different ways in order to simulate flow through the annular space, through any completion
equipment such as ICDs or through the tubing [10].
A limitation with NETool
TM
is that it only creates a freeze-frame of the production in the well, and not the
production over a period of time. The program also anticipates stationary flow. To set up the lower
completion, data of the wells trajectory, and reservoir parameters like reservoir pressure and permeability will
be needed. The skin-factor can be set manually or be calculated from data on the reservoir damage. Fluid
properties like relative permeability and PVT will also have to be included. NETool
TM
allow inputting different
ranges for the parameters that can be changed by the user to evaluate different scenarios. Figure 20 shows
the modelling principles of the NETool
TM
simulation program[11].

Figure 20 Modelling of the well with NETool
TM
[15]



Page 32 of 57
Diagram 1 illustrates the simulation flow diagram for NETool
TM
analysis software. Parameters can be changed
to simulate different scenarios.


Diagram 1 Simulation flow diagram for NETool
TM





Page 33 of 57
7 FIELD EXAMPLE FROM THE NORTH SEA
7.1 Introduction
This section describes a simulation with real field data using NETool
TM
. The simulations were performed with
four different objectives:
1. To compare the performance of a conventional Stand Alone Screen (SAS) with a completion
hardware using ICDs
2. How zonal isolation (SPs), Blank Pipe or other alternatives add value to the completion
3. After establishing the best case, evaluate how ICDs will delay water breakthrough
4. Finally an example with ICD in injection mode will be shown to analyze the distribution of injected
fluids should a need for well stimulation arise
For all the scenarios a constant oil flow rate at 1500 Sm
3
/D is applied. Both non-collapsed and collapsed
annulus environments were considered.

7.2 Qality control of data
The reservoir grid was provided by Marathon Oil Corporation together with an alternative well trajectory. The
data set is from a field in the North Sea. Real field parameters will give more relevant and deterministic
simulations. Well trajectory data and PVT-data were imported to NETool
TM
to create the fundament for the
simulations. Table 1 shows the reservoir and completion data.

Table 1 Reservoir and completion data



Page 34 of 57

7.3 Reservoir parameters
Figure 21 depicts the simulation grid. Upper section shows the horizontal projection of the well with pressure
distributions. The lower display section shows the vertical projection profile together with the well trajectory.
The pressure in the darkest red areas is about 227 bar, while the darkest blue grids have a pressure of about
206 bar.

Figure 21 Display of the simulation grid together with the proposed well trajectory and pressure
distribution attribute.

Well trajectory



Page 35 of 57
Figure 22 shows the horizontal permeability variations along the well trajectory. Notice the grey, which do not
contain data

Figure 22 Attribute display showing the horizontal permeability variations. The permeability along the
well trajectory varies from approximately zero Darcy in the darkest blue areas to 3,2 Darcy in the
lighter blue areas
In figure 23 vertical permeability (K
V
) relative to horizontal permeability (K
H
) is shown along the well trajectory.
The darkest red areas have a K
V
/K
H
ratio close to one. Blue grids have a K
V
/K
H
ratio varying between 0,00004
and 0,2, which implies a high horizontal permeability.

Figure 23 K
V
/K
H
along the well trajectory
Well trajectory
Well trajectory



Page 36 of 57
Figure 24 displays the oil saturation, where deep red colours indicate high oil saturation. Oil saturation in the
red grids varies from 0,7 to 0,9. The well is placed approximately 7 meters over the water contact showed by
the blue colour (very low oil saturation). The well trajectory is depicted through the grey horizontal line. As
can be seen from the grid some saturation data is missing from the toe section of the well (grey area without
grids). This is a source of error when performing simulations for different scenarios, and has to be taken into
consideration when evaluating the data.


Figure 24 Oil saturation along well trajectory. OWC approximately 7 m below the well trajectory.

Oil water contact



Page 37 of 57
Figure 25 display the water saturation. Dark red colours indicate high water saturation. In the blue grids the
water saturation ranges between 0,07 and 0,35. A very high resolution grid is used.

Figure 25 Attribute display of the water saturation
Figure 26 display the porosity along the well trajectory. Porosity average is approximately 23%. Over the
interval 4305 m to 4325 m the well is traversing a very low pay zone. This needs to be considered when
designing the well completion.

Figure 26 Attribute showing porosity along well trajectory. Red circle indicating low pay zone. Porosity
varies from 11,6% (dark blue grids) to 30,6% (dark red grids).
Below water contact
Above water contact
Well trajectory




Page 38 of 57
Figure 27 shows the permeability along the well trajectory. The permeability is showing variations along the
completion. The red colour is from the high resolution log and the light blue is the one that is up-scaled. The
permeability input is not the one extracted from the grid. High resolution log was selected in order to better
evaluate the performance of the completion (each section of the completion length is 12 m). Permeability is
varying along the completion trajectory from low to moderate to very high (07,5 D). In general the
permeability increases towards the toe, therefore the challenge for the completion is to stimulate production
from the toe section. The high resolution log reveals some zones with very high permeability values. For
instance at 4443 m the permeability reaches 7,5 D.

Figure 27 Permeability variations along well trajectory. High resolution log marked with pink colour and
the up-scaled log in blue.





Page 39 of 57
Figure 28 shows the reservoir pressure along the well trajectory. The pressure profile is extracted from the
reservoir grid, and that is why it shows a blocky response. The pressure averages about 207,50 bar and it
ranges between 207,35 and 207,66 bar.


Figure 28 Pressure variations along well trajectory. The x-axis show measured depth (MD) and the y-
axis show pressure in bar.





Page 40 of 57
Figure 29 show the saturations of oil and water along the well trajectory. The saturations are extracted from
the grid. The green bars show the oil saturation and the blue bars the water saturation. The oil saturation
varies from 0,8 to 0,5. The complement is the water saturation. There is no data at the grey zones, except at
3280 m where a section of cemented blank pipes is placed in the completion. The challenge in the completion
is to handle the saturation differences, and to achieve a balanced flux from the reservoir into the well. Water
cut reduction and early water breakthrough is one of the main challenges of the successful ICD completion.

Figure 29 Saturations profile along the well trajectory showing variability (could be due to previous oil
production, mature reservoir)

7.4 Results from the producer well evaluation
The first objective was to compare the performance of a conventional completion with SAS (Stand Alone
Screen) with a completion using ICDs. Zones with cemented blank pipes (CBP) where kept at original
positions as per the Marathon well data (3280 m, 3765 m and 3765 m). A non- collapsed annulus (NCA) was
selected as the general comparison scenario. Two nozzle settings are used for the ICD simulations, 0,4137 cm
(diameter) from heel to 3280 m and 0,5402 cm to the toe of the well. The two ICD sizes were selected based on
permeability, saturations and reservoir environment. Consequently, pressure readings will be higher over the
first section of the well and lower towards the toe because of differences in nozzle sizes.



Page 41 of 57
7.4.1 Non-Collapsed Annulus
Non-collapsed annulus is a case where the formation sand has not collapsed onto the pipe or screens,
leaving an open annulus between pipe/screen and the formation.


Figure 30 Summary display of conventional completion:
a) Permeability profile along the completion, b) Reservoir Pressure (red) conventional tubing and
annular pressure with very low dynamic range (overlapping colour pink and blue), c) Oil flux rate,
where the conventional completion show high volume in the tubing and in the annulus, d) Gas flow
rate, similar response to the oil flow rate, e) Water flow rate, notice a high volume of water circulating
in the annulus, may cause screen erosion and hot spotting if the well is completed with only screens,
and f) Oil and water saturations.

Cemented blank pipes
Annular and tubing pressures
Reservoir pressure
Q
O tubing
Q
O annulus
Cemented blank pipes
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)



Page 42 of 57

Figure 31 Summary display of the ICD completion. Highlighted in red, the interval where annular flow is
slightly higher, it is because of the larger nozzle size. However this flow will be further minimised by
introducing OH packers. a) Permeability profile along the completion, b) Reservoir Pressure (red) ICD
completion annular (pink) and tubing (blue) pressure c) Oil flux rate, where the ICD completion show
high volume in the tubing and low in the annulus, d) Gas flow rate, similar response to oil flow rate, e)
Water flow rate, notice the low volume of water circulating in the annulus, and f) Oil and water
saturations.

Pressure differences are minimal being 2 bar for conventional and 2,5 bar for ICD. The ICD show a slightly
lower water rate and very similar water cut (about 19,5%). The standard completion has high annular flow.
ICDs minimizes the annular flow and stabilizes the drainage profile. Annular and tubing pressures are
separated using the ICD, only disrupted in the areas where we have cemented blank pipes. From about 3800 m
to the toe the base case ICD completion still show increase in annular flow (highlighted in red), which will
require further optimization (OH Packers).

Annular pressure
Tubing pressure
Q
O tubing
Q
O annulus
f)
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)



Page 43 of 57

Figure 32 Pressure comparison between a conventional completion and one with ICDs along the entire
well length. Notice: The highlighted red circle showing lower drawdown for both completions. a)
Tubing and annular pressure for both conventional and ICD completion, b) Reservoir pressure along the
completion, c) Drawdown pressure for both the ICD and conventional completion, d) Notice the
pressure drop along the completion with ICDs are higher than in the conventional completion.
Therefore the ICD will enhance production at the toe part of the well, where conventional completions
usually are very passive.

The pressure plot show nearly a constant drawdown for the conventional completion, from 2,28 bar to 1,74 bar
in the toe. An insignificant pressure drop along the completion. The ICD completion have a uniform drawdown
pressure in the different permeability zones.

Conventional: Annular and tubing pressure
ICD: Annular pressure
ICD: Tubing pressure
Reservoir pressure
Conventional
ICD
Cemented blank pipe
Cemented blank pipe
a)
b)
c)
d)



Page 44 of 57

Figure 33 Oil flow rate: conventional completion and one with ICDs. Notice the difference in annular
flow for the two completion options
There is a better oil flow rate with ICDs than just with a standard completion, because ICDs minimize annular
flow. From 2750 m to around 4300 m the ICD completion has a considerable higher oil flow rate. The red circle
indicates the area to be further optimized. Toward the toe of the well the ICD still show annular flow, hence
the flow rate lies under the standard completion. Annular flow could lead to severe erosion and/or screen
plugging.
One single nozzle size acts differently in the reservoir because the permeability profile shows mainly two
zones. Therefore the simulation should try to equalize the flow in the heterogeneous reservoir, by stimulating
the low to moderate permeability intervals to produce more. At the same time to stimulate the toe part to
contribute to the production.

ICD Completion
Interval to be further optimised
ICD annular flow
Conventional: annular flow
Conventional completion: Tubing
Cemented Blank Pipe



Page 45 of 57

Figure 34 Oil flux: Conventional completion (blue) and one with ICDs (pink)

Figure 34 show the oil flux with a conventional (blue) completion and one with ICDs (pink). Between heel
section of the well to about 3750 m ICD oil flux is higher than conventional and vice versa towards the toe part.
The ICD has two nozzles size settings. Notice that these tests are processed using a Non-Collapsed Annulus
(NCA) option, furthermore the completion geometry of a conventional and ICD completions have different flow
dynamics along the well.
Conventional
ICD Completion
Interval to be further optimised



Page 46 of 57

Figure 35 Oil flow rate: Conventional and one with ICDs with 3 OH packers located at 4055 m, 4435 m
and 4645 m. Notice how the performance of the ICDs is enhanced and the annular flow (light blue) is
almost eliminated by introduction of the 3 OH packers.

As can be seen in figure 35 the annular flow output after installing 3 OH packers in the completion has
significantly reduced annular flow and enhanced oil recovery. The ICD completion with 3 packers (green line)
has now a larger oil flow rate than the conventional completion along the entire well. The water rate has
decreased with 12 Sm
3
/d and water cut has been further reduced by 0,55%. Table 2 shows the results of the
non-collapsed annulus scenario.


Table 2 Results of the non-collapsed scenario

Option: Non-Collapsed Annulus (NCA)
Oil rate Gas rate Water rate GOR WCUT LGR Q res. total BHP
[Sm3/d] [MMSm3/d] [Sm3/d] [Sm3/Sm3] [%] [Sm3/Sm3] [Rm3/d] [Bar]
Conventional 1499.9384 0.160193423 374.275916 106.800002 19.9697502 0.0116996957 2321.93425 205.1665871
ICD base case 1500.25221 0.160226938 373.210219 106.800002 19.9208809 0.0116925559 2321.46966 204.5214831
ICD BC packers 1499.96287 0.160196037 362.293092 106.800002 19.4545272 0.0116248566 2310.04788 204.4199563
ICD Completion
Conventional Completion: Tubing
Conventional: Annular flow
ICD: Annular flow
Interval further optimised



Page 47 of 57
7.4.2 Collapsed Annulus Scenario
Collapsed annulus simulation shows similar trend as the non-collapsed annulus stimulating low to moderate
permeability zones to produce more. The production profile shows a slightly lower oil flow rate for the ICD,
however the water breakthrough test will show higher performance.


Table 3 Results from the collapsed annulus scenario

7.4.3 Water Breakthrough (Collapsed Annulus)
A random interval was selected simulate early water breakthrough. The objective is to lift dry oil and extend
the production life of the well. The interval from 3885 m to 3925 m was selected for the simulation. Permeability
greater than one was selected for the interval. Saturations were changed to 0,3 for oil and 0,7 for water.
Figure 36 show the oil flow rate for both ICD and conventional completion.

Figure 36 Oil flow rate after water breakthrough: Conventional completion and one with ICDs with 3 OH
packers at 4055 m, 4435 m and 4645 m
.
Oil rate Gas rate Water rate GOR WCUT LGR Q res. total BHP
[Sm3/d] [MMSm3/d] [Sm3/d] [Sm3/Sm3] [%] [Sm3/Sm3] [Rm3/d] [Bar]
Conventional 1499.5718 0.16015427 362.599816 106.800002 19.4718797 0.0116273616 2309.74853 204.7396453
ICD BC packers 1498.51081 0.160040958 369.066479 106.800002 19.761778 0.0116693709 2315.08373 204.2925893
Option: Collapsed Annulus (CA)
ICD Completion with 3 packers
Conventional Completion



Page 48 of 57


Figure 37 Water flow rate after water breakthrough: Conventional completion and one with ICDs with 3
OH packers at 4055 m, 4435 and 4645 m

The ICD with a smaller size (0,4137 cm) delays the water efficiently in the first half of the well (see fig. 37),
while in the second half the larger ICD size (0,5402 cm) is enhancing oil production (see fig. 37). A compromise
had to be made. The ICD completion increases oil production from the toe section, but at the same time it
increases the water cut. Compared to the conventional completion, the ICD set up has decreased water flow
rate significantly. Water rate has decreased from 544,8 Sm
3
/d for conventional completion to 403,3 Sm
3
/d for
the ICD completion. Oil flow rate is 1096 Sm
3
/d for the ICD completion with OH packers and 955 Sm
3
/d for the
conventional completion. Figure 38 shows a reduction in water cut from 36% to 27% in favour of the ICD
completion.
Conventional Completion
ICD Completion with 3 packers



Page 49 of 57

Figure 38 Oil Flux Reservoir to Well: after the water breakthrough. a) Oil flux for ICD and conventional
completion, b) Gas flux for ICD and conventional completion, c) Water flux for ICD and conventional
completion. Notice the reduction of water flux in the water breakthrough area, d) GOR along well
trajectory, e) Water cut along well trajectory

Conventional Completion 36%
ICD Completion 27%
ICD Completion
Conventional Completion
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)



Page 50 of 57


Figure 39 Pressure Comparison between a conventional completion and one with ICDs after the water
breakthrough. a) Annulus and tubing pressures for ICD and conventional completion, b) Reservoir
pressure along well trajectory, c) Draw down pressure for ICD and conventional completion, d)
Pressure drop across the completion for ICD and conventional. Notice the pressure drop for the
conventional completion is 0 bar

As a curiosity the reservoir pressure was already showing a lower trend in the WBT (water breakthrough)
area.


Table 4 Results from the water breakthrough scenario (collapsed annulus)

Option: Water Breakthrough
Oil rate Gas rate Water rate GOR WCUT LGR Q res. total BHP
[Sm3/d] [MMSm3/d] [Sm3/d] [Sm3/Sm3] [%] [Sm3/Sm3] [Rm3/d] [Bar]
Conventional 955.153824 0.10201043 544.80438 106.800002 36.3213041 0.014703969 1789.52838 205.6592684
ICD BC packers 1096.15866 0.117069747 403.298903 106.800002 26.8963198 0.0128082412 1828.58439 205.1852942
Conventional: annular and tubing pressure
ICD tubing pressure
ICD annular pressure
Conventional
ICD
a)
b)
c)
d)



Page 51 of 57
7.5 Converting the producer well into an ICD in injection mode
The completion layout was converted into an injector to evaluate the injection mode. Reservoir properties and
the hardware with ICDs are kept at the original settings. Water injection rate of 1000 l/min was used in the
example. The injection pressure has to be below the formation fracture pressure. The fracture pressure is
nearly the same along the well trajectory. This helps to achieve more uniform distribution of the injected
fluids.


Figure 40 Summary plot: ICD injection mode. a) Horizontal (red) and vertical (brown) permeability, b)
ICD tubing pressure (brown), ICD annular pressure (green), conventional annular and tubing pressure
(pink and blue) and reservoir pressure (turquoise), c) Water flow rate for ICD (red) and conventional
(blue).

Figure 40 shows a summary plot for the injection simulation. At 4450 m the permeability is very high and the
section acts as a thief zone when injecting using conventional completion (SAS). Notice how the annular
pressure decreases when using ICD in this zone (see fig. 40 b). This shows the self regulating effect of the
ICD. The annular and tubing pressures for the conventional completion are equal along the well-bore.

ICD tubing pressure
Conventional: annular and tubing pressure
ICD annular pressure
Reservoir pressure
a)
b)
c)
K
H

K
V




Page 52 of 57
As figure 41 shows, the ICD completion gives a more uniform injection distribution. This results in a better
injection performance. The conventional completion has a high water flux in high permeability zones and/or
fractured zones.


Figure 41 Water flux: Conventional completion and one with ICDs. If the well have scale potential
deposition, a well treatment using the same configuration will distribute the anti-scale inhibitors evenly
thus extending the life of the well. The added benefit of ICDs is the performance in producing and
injection mode without adding extra costs.


Table 5 Injection parameters

Water rate Q res. total BHP
[Sm3/d] [Rm3/d] [Bar]
Conventional 1499.92916 1522.13377 208.2261854
ICD BC packers 1500.00426 1522.19949 208.4124388
Option: Injection
Conventional completion
ICD completion
Balanced injection
and better injection
conformance




Page 53 of 57
8 CONCLUSION
The increasingly popular horizontal wells suffer from unbalanced influx and injection profile. This can be
greatly improved by introducing Inflow Control Devices (ICD), which choke the inflow or outflow through the
ICD, thus balancing the production or injection profile along the well-bore.
The ICD completion design shows higher performance in terms of reservoir inflow balance and efficiently
delaying early water breakthroughs, thereby reducing the water production over time.
Two nozzle size setting handles the differences in permeability and reservoir properties along the entire well,
thus stimulating the low to moderate permeability intervals to produce more. The well will have a longer
production life due to more uniform drainage. The optimum completion design ICDs with OH packers
offers tangible benefits in terms of accelerated production and increased oil recovery. This thesis does not
consider the life cycle economics, but the simulations suggest a high potential for better NPV compared to the
conventional completion.
NETool
TM
only provides a snap shot of the well performance. As stated in the recommendations, full well life or
even field life simulation using a dynamic reservoir model is required for more complete evaluation of
well/field performance and the economics. Having said this, the NETool
TM
simulations offer guidance in
selecting the right type and size of completion. The benefit of the NETool
TM
is that the simulations can be run
much more quickly than the ones with dynamic models.
Simulations were performed with NETool
TM
to compare the performance of conventional Stand Alone Screen
(SAS) versus screens with ICDs. The ICD completion minimizes the annular flow effectively and balances the
drainage profile. Further improvement in terms of reduced water cut and increased production was achieved
by adding the open hole (OH) packers. The OH packers eliminate the risks related to the annular flow; erosion
and/or plugging of the screens.
The water breakthrough simulation with ICDs decreased water rate significantly compared to the
conventional completion (SAS). The water rate decreased from 544,8 Sm
3
/d (conventional completion) to 403,3
Sm
3
/d (ICD completion). Oil production for the ICD completion with OH packers is 1096 Sm
3
/d versus 955 Sm
3
/d
in the conventional completion.
The injection simulation showed a more balanced injection profile along the well-bore using ICDs. The
conventional completion had a high water flux into the high permeability/fractured zones, also called thief
zones. This added benefit of using ICDs can become important if stimulations are required later in the well
life.
9 RECOMMENDATIONS
Further work could include:
a. Evaluate ICD design with different Total Reservoir Rates (tested only with 1500 Sm3/d).
b. Alternative nozzle locations, e.g. every second joint if cost minimization is an issue.




Page 54 of 57
c. The best case defined in this thesis, could be the input for the dynamic simulator.
d. ICD in injection mode sensitivities with variable anti-scale inhibitors (tested only with 1000 l/m).
10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis was written in cooperation with Schlumberger ResLink. Reslink is a lgrd and Houston based
design and manufacturing company of screens and ICDs. Reslinks in-house reservoir department performs
simulations and evaluations of the ICD technology.

I want to thank Reslink for giving me the opportunity to write the thesis and especially Reslinks Reservoir
Engineer Francisco Porturas, who has been my mentor throughout the process. His guidance and many
valuable advices have been of paramount importance. I also want to thank Professor Erik Skaugen at the
University of Stavanger for mentoring.

Special thanks to Senior Completion Engineer Tor Ellis, Marathon Oil for kindly providing the reservoir data
used in the simulations

11 NOMENCLATURE
ICD Inflow Control Device
SP Swell Packer
SAS Stand Alone Screen
NCA None Collapsed Annulus
CA Collapsed Annulus
NPV Net Present Value
ECP External Casing Packer
WBT Water Breakthrough
WCUT Water Cut
BHP Bottom Hole Pressure
OH Open Hole
OWC Oil Water Contact
CBP Cemented Blank Pipe




Page 55 of 57
GOR Gas Oil Ratio
LGR Liquid Gas Ratio
BC Base Case
RDF Reservoir Drilling Fluid
AICD Autonomous Inflow Control Device
WWS Wire Wrapped Screen
12 REFERENCES
12.1 Written references
1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. [Online]. Bernoullis Equation. Address:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bern.html. [Downloaded 01/14-08] 2008.
2. Efluids bicycle aerodynamics. [Online]. Bernoullis Equation. Address:
http://www.efluids.com/efluids/bicycle/bicycle_pages/Bernoulli.jsp. [Downloaded 01/16-08] 2008.
3. Tor Austad and Jostein Kolnes. Reservoir Engineering Part 2.
4. Frank Jahn, Mark Cook and Mark Graham.Hydrocarbon exploration and production. Developments in
petroleum science 46.Aberdeen, TRACS international ltd.1998.
5. Schlumberger. http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/DisplayImage.cfm?ID=498. [Downloaded 01/22-
08] 2008.
6. Reslink Power Point presentation. Next Gen of Flow Control with Sand Screens. Workshop 5-6
September 2007.
7. Anatoly B. Zolotukhin, Jan-Rune Ursin. Introduction to Petroleum Reservoir Engineering.
Hyskoleforlaget. 2000.
8. SPE 106018. ICD Screen Technology Used To Optimize Waterflooding in Injector Well. A.G Raffn, SPE,
Reslink, S. Hundsnes, SPE, Statoil; S. Kvernstuen, SPE, T. Moen, SPE, Reslink. 2007.
9. Erland Jrgensen. Produksjonsteknikk 1. Vett & Viten AS. 1998.
10. SPE 108700. Inflow control device: Application and value quantification of a developing technology.
F.T. Alkhelaiwi, SPE, Heriot-Watt University and Saudi-Aramco, and D.R. Davies, SPE, Heriot-Watt
University. 2007.
11. DPR Power Point presentation. FORCE AWTC Seminar, 21-22 April, 2004. Advanced Wells - Lessons
Learned (application experience) and Future Directions/Opportunities.




Page 56 of 57
12. R.D. Fritz, M.K. Horn, S.D. Joshi. Geological Aspects of Horizontal Drilling. The American Association
of Petroleum Geologists, 1991.
13. Flotech products. [online]. http://flotechltd.com/data/FloMatik_C.PDF [Downloaded 04/30-08] 2008.
14. Reslink Power Point presentation. 03/26-08. Advance Completions Application of Passive Inflow
Control in Horizontal Well Production.
15. Institutt for petroleumsgeologi og anvendt geofysikk. Statoil ASA, and. Bergen. Eksperter I team,
Gullfakslandsbyen. Kompletteringslsning p GF B-17AT2. Andreas Mathiassen, Atle Storaker, Tor
Erik Askeland og Trygve Adolfsen. Trondheim 9. Mai 2007.
16. SPE 112471. Inflow Control Device and Near Well Bore Interaction. T. Moen. SPE, Reslink AS and H.
Asheim, SPE, NTNU. 2008.
17. Completion ICD: Modelling Workshop Saudi Aramco. Francisco Porturas.Reslink Norway.
September 2007.
18. Optimising production in Horizontal & Multilateral wells 2008. The Ardoe House Hotel, Aberdeen, U.K.
29/30 January 2008. ICD Completions. Round Table Discussion. Tor Ellis, Senior Completion Engineer,
Marathon Oil.
19. RedTech. Enhancing the capabilities and economics of complex completions. [online]. Address:
http://www.halliburton.com/public/divisions/pubsdata/PO/RedTech/notes/Sand-Screens-
PodCast.pdf?linkType=Sand-Screens-PDF. [Downloaded 22.05.08] 2008.
20. Ziebel. Inflow Control Technology. [online]. Address: http://www.ziebel.biz/icd/ICD_Overview.pdf.
[Downloaded 23.05.08] 2008.
21. SPE 102208. Means For Passive Inflow Control Upon Gas Breakthrough. S.L. Crow, SPE, M.P.
Coronado, SPE, and R.K. Mody, SPE, Baker Oil Tools. September 2006.

12.2 Oral references
22. Francisco Porturas, Reservoir Engineer in Reslink
23. Timo Jokela, completion specialist in Schlumberger
12.3 Software
24. Microsoft Excel (2007)
25. Microsoft Word (2007)
26. Microsoft Power Point (2007)




Page 57 of 57
27. NETool
TM
(version 2.9), a steady-state completion hydraulics and near-well-bore numerical simulator
for accurate calculation of well performance.