SPE-200168-MS

Using Autonomous Inflow Control Device Completion to Manage Gas

Breakthrough Challenges

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/20OPES/1-20OPES/D012S031R001/2667537/spe-200168-ms.pdf/1 by Emily Edwards on 23 May 2022

Ikhsan Nugraha and Danang Widjaja, Saudi Aramco; Anne Gerd Raffn and Vidar Mathiesen, InflowControl

Copyright 2022, Society of Petroleum Engineers DOI 10.2118/200168-MS

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Conference at Oman Petroleum & Energy Show originally scheduled to be held in Muscat, Oman, 9 - 11 March
2020. This event was postponed until 21-23 March 2022. The official proceedings were published on 21 March 2022.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
During the production of horizontal oil wells, it is crucial to normalize the drawdown once gas breakthrough
has occurred. This challenge must be addressed either mechanically or chemically to reduce the gas-oil ratio.
Unfortunately, without the use of inflow control devices (ICDs) this can result in loss of oil production.
This challenge can potentially be addressed by implementing an advanced inflow control valve completion
to suppress the gas-oil ratio (GOR) and maintain oil production.
Uneven inflow in a horizontal oil well will usually occur due to a pressure drop in the liner, reservoir
fractures and heterogeneities. In fields with free gas, this will cause gas coning and breakthrough leading to
a high GOR. As the breakthrough expands, the oil production is reduced due to excessive gas production.
Passive ICDs have shown that oil production can be increased. Conventional ICDs are not able to shut off the
unwanted gas and water production completely. The newest generation of self-regulated ICDs (SRICDs),
utilizes valves where their movement is governed by fluid properties being produced, which autonomously
shut off the gas and maximize oil recovery.
This paper presents the SRICD technology design evolution to match the reservoir challenges, installation
processes and well performance comparison before and after completion deployment. A near wellbore
inflow simulator was also used to support and model the completion placement, productivity and evaluate
the completion performance together with the well production data. The well completion installation and
production optimization was successful, and a significant reduction of the GOR was achieved.

Introduction
Inflow control technology has evolved since the early nineties from passive inflow control devices (ICDs),
which balances uneven inflow and chokes back unwanted fluids [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. The development
continues to the autonomous inflow control devices (AICDs) that give an additional choking effect when
gas or water breaks through [6], [7], [8] and [9]. Recently the inflow control technology has evolved further
with the integration of valves that can close entirely for the unwanted fluids, a self-regulated inflow control
device (SRICD) without control from surface [11], [12] and [13] Table 1.
2 SPE-200168-MS

Table 1—Overview of the inflow control technology benefits.

Autonomous Inflow Self Regulated Inflow

Functionality Inflow Control Devices (ICD)
Control Devices (AICD) Control Devices (SRICD)

Well clean up Yes Yes Yes

Balances Inflow and

Yes Yes Yes
heel to toe effect

Additional choking effect

Basic nozzle and/or channel Additional choking effect
Contro of gas when gas breaks through and
flow chocking effect or fluids when gas breaks through

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/20OPES/1-20OPES/D012S031R001/2667537/spe-200168-ms.pdf/1 by Emily Edwards on 23 May 2022

closes at high gas saturation

It should be noted that even though technology development has taken a giant leap from a passive device
into more advanced valves, the original functionality of the ICD technology is maintained for the completion
design with the SRICD, which is to balance inflow along the well and assist in achieving a better well
cleanup. The completion design methodology for the SRICD therefore focuses on three main objectives:
1. Provides a balanced inflow, which helps clean up the well and defer water and/or gas breakthrough.
2. Delays breakthrough of gas and water by creating uniform inflow along a horizontal section.
3. Closes entirely for unwanted fluids, when a compartment is approximately 95% flooded with water
or gas.
The SRICD for field applications adapts to the formation fluid properties, mainly density and viscosity.
In addition, the completion should be modelled to optimize equipment placement and accomplish the well
objectives. [12].

SRICD Technology for GOR Reduction

The SRICD has the feature to distinguish different fluids based on fluid properties such as viscosity and
density. The technology utilizes the pressure drop in a laminar flow restrictor and a turbulent flow restrictor,
which will be different for various fluids [11]. Figure 1 shows the valve (piston) inside an SRICD in an open
position. There are two parallel flow paths through the device, where the inlet to a pilot flow is to the right
and the main flow is illustrated as the blue thick arrows. The pressure in the pilot flow controls the valve
and regulates the main flow to open or closed. The black thin arrows illustrate the pilot flow, which is taken
out from the main flow, leads through a laminar flow element (LFE) and a turbulent flow element (TFE)
and ends in the wellbore. The pilot flow is always open to monitor what fluid is flowing through the valve
and represents approximately 5% of the main flow. The principle and the differences in the performance for
the passive ICD and AICD are explained in more detail in [11] and [13].

Figure 1—The SRICD design.

SPE-200168-MS 3

In an oil well, several SRICDs are placed along the horizontal section in the same way as conventional
ICDs. The SRICD is working autonomously and does not require any form of control, electronics or
connection to the surface. More efficient operations can be achieved. The system is also reversible, which
means if it detects oil again, it will autonomously re-open and oil production will continue allowing more
efficient flow regulations.

Completion Design Methodology

The reference well is an openhole horizontal well producing from both the matrix and fracture networks

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/20OPES/1-20OPES/D012S031R001/2667537/spe-200168-ms.pdf/1 by Emily Edwards on 23 May 2022

along the wellbore length of ~1500 ft. The oil-to-gas viscosity ratio is in the order of ~21. Most of the time,
the well flowed at a high GOR due to major gas breakthrough/coning through some of the fractures. The
well was shut-in when the GOR reached as high as ~10,000 SCF/STB. The well had a water cut less than
15% and was considered to be a minor problem.
The objective of the completion is primarily to reduce the GOR and bring the well back into operation at
commercial oil rates. Different techniques such as ICD with sliding sleeve, straddle packers to isolate gas
entry points and chemical gas shutoff options were previously evaluated to address the challenges. They
were all at a high risk of significant production loss since both oil and gas share the same entry points.
The SRICD technology was considered an attractive option with lower operational risk and an alternative
to sidetracking.

Figure 2—Production history of a pilot well before SRICD installation.

A PLT-log was performed for the well as shown in Figure 3. Two main challenges were identified.
First, severe gas flow from fractures in the middle of the well, and second, a non-uniform inflow with no
production contribution from the other half of the well toward the toe. The PLT-log indicated at least three
gas fracture zones and a water hold-up, which was believed to be from the middle zone. The logging was
performed at a high rate and low rate, respectively.
4 SPE-200168-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/20OPES/1-20OPES/D012S031R001/2667537/spe-200168-ms.pdf/1 by Emily Edwards on 23 May 2022

Figure 3—Logs from a pilot well for designing the SRICD completion.

The lower completion design was performed using a near wellbore simulator. The PLT-log data was used
to calibrate the model by adjusting the permeability to include fracture zones at locations indicated by the
logs. The model should capture both production profiles and flow rates without modifying models and input
parameters. The simulation results for the open hole are compared against the PLT-log in Figure 4. This
calibrated model was applied in the design for the completion to determine the quantity of SRICDs, packers
and their placements.

Figure 4—Pre-installation PLT-log profiles compared to the simulation model of high and low rates.

Based on the openhole log and PLT-log, it was decided to design the SRCD lower completion with a
blank-off section around the suspected water zone (Figure 5). The completion consists of 22 SRICD joints.
Each of the joints was equipped with nozzle size comparable to 2 × 3.5 mm and a short wire-wrap screen
to protect against debris and big particles. Fines, if any, will be produced through the devices. The well was
compartmentalized into 9 zones using isolation packers and constrictors to avoid annulus flow.
SPE-200168-MS 5

Figure 5—Lower completion of the SRICD completion.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/20OPES/1-20OPES/D012S031R001/2667537/spe-200168-ms.pdf/1 by Emily Edwards on 23 May 2022

The cumulative flow and pressure for the openhole well and the SRICD design were calculated using a
near wellbore simulator as shown in Figure 6. The simulations showed that one SRICD zone in the middle
of the open hole will close due to high gas influx. The well is predicted to produce at a much lower GOR
compared to an openhole well.

Figure 6—Pressure and fluid flow for the Simulation Model, Open-hole: A) Open hole and B) SRICD.

The simulation model was used to evaluate the open-hole against ICD or SRICD completion. The ICD
and SRICD were modelled as described in detail [13]. The SRICD completion was predicted to reduce the
GOR approximately 50% compared to GOR measured for the openhole well. As with conventional ICDs,
the SRICDs can be installed with different strengths [13] and optimized to the given well and reservoir
conditions.
With conventional ICD technology the simulations indicated just minor GOR reduction. It should
be noted that no attempt was done to optimize the ICD completion design as a different nozzle size
along the horizontal section. The simulations show that the nozzle-based ICD completion, because of the
physics, seems best for reducing GOR at the highest production rate. Test and simulations have shown that
conventional ICDs are delaying breakthrough of gas significantly but cannot help to reduce the GOR when
the breakthrough/coning has occurred [8] and [10].
Based on these results the SRICD completion was assumed to be well suited to reduce the GOR. A total
of 22 SRICD joints with 10 openhole packers were considered.
6 SPE-200168-MS

Well Test and PLT-log Results

After the well was put on production, well tests were performed and then followed by a PLT-log. Figure
7 shows the extended well production with the SRICD installed and compared with openhole condition.
The positive effect of the SRICD completion can be observed clearly. The GOR has been reduced to a level
close to the solution GOR. At the same time the well productivity was restored.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/20OPES/1-20OPES/D012S031R001/2667537/spe-200168-ms.pdf/1 by Emily Edwards on 23 May 2022

Figure 7—Pilot well test data with SRICD added to history.

The initial rate test after SRICD installation showed an increase in the water cut compared to earlier data.
This behavior seems to be temporary and may be due to incomplete swelling of the packers in the blanked-
off section of the well and/or back producing of water from the installation process. No significant water
was observed based on the PLT, confirming this was a temporary behavior.
The production logs performed before and after SRICD installation were compared in FFigure 8. The
findings can be summarized as follows:

• Uniform downhole oil flow contribution.

• There are three gas contributor intervals, mostly in the first half of the open hole.

• The second half of the open hole started to contribute to oil production. This is believed to be due
to the positive effect of mud filter cake treatment performed during the completion installation and
SRICD functionality to induce more drawdown.
SPE-200168-MS 7

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/20OPES/1-20OPES/D012S031R001/2667537/spe-200168-ms.pdf/1 by Emily Edwards on 23 May 2022

Figure 8—PLT-log before (left) and after (right) installing SRICD completion.

To better visualize the production profile behavior, the influx along the horizontal section for gas and oil
were plotted and compared in Figure 9. The openhole well had a non-uniform inflow with oil production
dominated by two short intervals/fractures. Only limited oil was flowing from the rest of the well. This
behavior was most likely caused by major coning/breakthrough in those two fractures. Due to this gas
production and high GOR, the drawdown had to be limited resulting in low total production and recovery
for the well.

Figure 9—PLT-log results before and after SRICD installation.

8 SPE-200168-MS

With the SRICD completion installed, the gas production is reduced dramatically, and the oil production
is uniformly distributed along the entire well. This well demonstrates clearly that the SRICD technology
can eliminate the gas breakthrough challenge and at the same time maintain oil production.

Modelling of Well Performance

To increase the depth of understanding of the SRICD performance, the post completion PLT was modelled
in a near wellbore simulator, and the results are shown in Figure 10. Both post-completion PLT and the
simulated model are fairly close, which indicates that the updated model describes the well behavior

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/20OPES/1-20OPES/D012S031R001/2667537/spe-200168-ms.pdf/1 by Emily Edwards on 23 May 2022

acceptably. It is also worth mentioning that during the installation of the SRICD completion, filter-cake
treatment fluid was placed in the open hole to remove the near wellbore damage, and so the completion
model was built without a skin value.

Figure 10—Post-completion PLT (orange) vs. a simulated wellbore model (blue).

The initial wellbore model before installation estimated an expected GOR reduction of around 50%. The
installation demonstrated an actual GOR reduction of more than 90%. It is well known and expected that
ICDs, AICDs and SRICDs impacts on the well performance are usually underestimated in near wellbore
and reservoir modelling simulations [9]. The deviation is mainly caused by averaging the formation data as
permeability and saturation and numerical diffusion. The permeability variations in the model is smoothed
compared to reality, causing an improved performance of the open hole due to the more uniform properties.
Even with this known limitation, the modelling still gives a qualitative understanding and prediction of the
well behavior.
The drawdown in the oil zones has increased allowing oil production from all zones, including the low
permeability matrix. This is a result of the SRICDs being closed in the zone where the gas breakthrough
occurs. For all types of inflow control an additional pressure drop along the well is introduced. The flow
rate, number and size of the SRICDs will determine the pressure drop. The pressure drop for an open hole
at the testing rate is indicated to be ~260 psi (Figure 11B). For the SRICD case the total pressure drop is
around 1000 psi. For the zone that is closing for the gas, all pressure drop is across the SRICDs. For the
other zones, the pressure drop is divided between the SRICDs and the reservoir. For most zones the SRICD
pressure drop is less than 200 psi. The high reservoir drawdown is due to the low permeability matrix and
makes it possible to drain oil uniformly along the horizontal section.
SPE-200168-MS 9

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/20OPES/1-20OPES/D012S031R001/2667537/spe-200168-ms.pdf/1 by Emily Edwards on 23 May 2022

Figure 11—Pressure and fluid flow for the wellbore model: A) SRICD and B) Open hole.

The total pressure drop could have been reduced by increasing the number of SRICDs. If each zone had
an additional SRICD joint, then the number of joints would have increased from 22 to 31 joints. As a result,
the total pressure drop would have reduced by ~227 psi and still maintain the oil production and GOR at the
same level. Comparison of the pressures and flow profiles for the 22 and 31 joints are shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12—Pressure and fluid flow – 22 vs. 31 SRICD joints.

Generally, more inflow control units make a well more robust and increases the flexibility throughout the
production lifetime of the well. This is particularly important when implementing an SRICD completion
because some of the SRICDs will close when gas breaks through and coning occurs. If this happens in
10 SPE-200168-MS

several places along the well length, then it is important to maintain the well productivity by having enough
pressure available to drain the remaining oil zones. More SRICDs will therefore maintain the plateau
production longer.

Concluding Remarks
The subject well was shut-in due to an excessively high GOR. The SRICD completion that was installed has
reduced the GOR significantly based on the production evaluation. The post-completion PLT-log showed
that the GOR was close to the initial GOR, which means a reduction of 90%, better than initially predicted

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/20OPES/1-20OPES/D012S031R001/2667537/spe-200168-ms.pdf/1 by Emily Edwards on 23 May 2022

in the modelling.
The SRICD completion is expected to close any zone with excessive gas production, which makes the
completion more flexible than a single well treatment to shut-off gas, because it is proven that gas may
occur at different zones and fractures along the well depending on how the drawdown is distributed and
the fracture network connectivity. The pilot well now produces oil in zones that produced almost pure free
gas earlier from the two middle zones.
The SRICD completion has provided a uniform production profile along the wellbore. With mud filter
cake treatment, the oil production from the second half below of the open hole has increased to 36% from
the initial amount of about 6%.
This well with the SRICD completion has also demonstrated that it is possible to have a high drawdown
without compromising the oil production. This will improve production from the matrix, and eventually
increase the oil recovery and make the well significantly more economical.

References
1. Faisal T. T. Al-Khelaiwi (Heriot-Watt University) | David R. Davies (Heriot-Watt University):
Inflow Control Devices: Application and Value Quantification of a Developing Technology,
SPE-108700-MS, (2007).
2. Anne Gerd Raffn (Schlumberger) | Murat Zeybek (Schlumberger) | Terje Moen (Reslink AS) |
Jon Eric Lauritzen (Reslink Inc.) | Ahmed Hassan Sunbul (Saudi Aramco) | Drew E. Hembling
(Saudi Aramco) | Abdi Majdpour (Saudi Aramco): Case Histories of Improved Horizontal Well
Cleanup and Sweep Efficiency With Nozzle Based Inflow Control Devices (ICD) in Sandstone
and Carbonate Reservoirs, OTC-19172-MS (2008).
3. Dimitris Krinis (Saudi Aramco) | Drew E. Hembling (Saudi Aramco) | Naseem Jaber Al-Dawood
(Saudi Aramco) | Sadiq Ali Al-Qatari (Saudi Aramco) | Sam Simonian (FloTech)| Giovanni
Salerno (Flotech Bahrain spc): Optimizing Horizontal Well Performance In Non-Uniform
Pressure Environments Using Passive Inflow Control Devices, OTC-20129-MS, (2009).
4. Paolo Gavioli (Baker Hughes Australia Pty Ltd) | Gonzalo Alberto Garcia (Baker Oil Tools) |
Juan Carlos Serrano (Baker Oil Tools): Design, Analysis, and Diagnostics for Passive Inflow
Control Devices with Openhole Packer Completions, OTC-20348-MS, (2010).
5. Mohamed Abdulla Al Marzouqi (ZADCO) | Ali Eissa Al Mahri (Zakum Development Co.) |
Stuart Ronald Keller (ExxonMobil Upstream Research Co.) | Chris E. Shuchart (ExxonMobil
Upstream Research Co.): Completion and Stimulation Challenges and Solutions for Extended-
Reach Multizone Horizontal Wells in Carbonate Formations, SPE-141812-MS, (2011).
6. Vidar Mathiesen | Bjernar Werswick (Statoil ASA) | Haavard Aakre (Statoil) | Geir Elseth
(Statoil): The Autonomous RCP Valve-New Technology for Inflow Control In Horizontal Wells,
SPE-145737-MS, (2011).
SPE-200168-MS 11

7. Brandon Least (Halliburton) | Stephen Greci (Halliburton) | Russell Conway Burkey (Southwest
Research Institute) | Adam Ufford (Southwest Research Institute) | Angel Wilemon (Southwest
Research Institute): Autonomous ICD Single Phase Testing, SPE-160165-MS, (2012).
8. Martin Halvorsen (Statoil ASA) | Geir Elseth (Statoil ASA) | Olav Magne Naevdal (Statoil):
Increased oil production at Troll by autonomous inflow control with RCP valves, SPE-159634-
MS, (2012).
9. Martin Halvorsen (Statoil) | Martin Madsen (Statoil) | Mathias Vikøren Mo (Statoil) | Ismail
Isma Mohd (Tendeka) | Annabel Green (Tendeka): Enhanced Oil Recovery On Troll Field By

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEOGWA/proceedings-pdf/20OPES/1-20OPES/D012S031R001/2667537/spe-200168-ms.pdf/1 by Emily Edwards on 23 May 2022

Implementing Autonomous Inflow Control Device, SPE-180037-MS, (2016).
10. Eltazy Khalid Eltaher (Heriot-Watt University) | Khafiz Muradov (Heriot-Watt University) |
David R. Davies (Heriot-Watt University) | Ivan Mikhailovich Grebenkin (TNNC, Rosneft):
Autonomous Inflow Control Valves - their Modelling and "Added Value," SPE-170780-MS,
(2014).
11. Vidar Mathiesen (InflowControl) | Bjornar Werswick (InflowControl) | Haavard Aakre
(InflowControl): The Next Generation Inflow Control, the Next Step to Increase Oil Recovery on
the Norwegian Continental Shelf, SPE-169233-MS (2014).
12. Ikhsan Nugraha (Saudi Aramco) | Terki K AlBassam (Saudi Aramco) | Alessandro Gallelli
(Saudi Aramco) | Vidar Mathiesen (InflowControl): Optimizing Reservoir Performance through
Utilization of Autonomous Inflow Control Valve – Lessons Learnt from the World's First
Installation, SPE-182755-MS, (2016).
13. Anita B. Elverhøy (InflowControl) | Haavard Aakre (InflowControl) | Vidar Mathiesen
(InflowControl), Autonomous Inflow Control for Reduced Water Cut and/or Gas Oil Ratio,
OTC-28860-MS.