SPE-177997-MS

First Autonomous ICD Installation in Saudi Arabia-Modeling a Field Case

Mohammad Al-Kadem, AbduRazzaq AlMuhaish, Byung O Lee, Saudi Aramco and Brandon Least, Halliburton

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Saudi Arabia Section Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition held in Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 21-23 April
2015.

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
Maximizing oil production in horizontal wells is the most critical factor to enhance oil recovery for reservoir management
purposes. Technologies in oil industry have been improved dramatically starting the horizontal wells to Extreme reservoir
contact wells. However, this drastic improvement has been challenged when water or gas invades the reservoir. Conventional
passive Inflow Control Device (ICD) is very excellent technology which primarily aims to balance oil influx over the entire
reservoir and hence increase the oil recovery. However, there are several types of ICD in which they work based on viscosity
factor. For instance, conventional nozzle type can operate with the reservoir fluids at different viscosities however in contrast,
the other type i.e. Helical or channel ICD is dependent on viscosity. Both mentioned types can be functioned properly at early
stage of the well production life however problems are encountered when there is water or gas breakthrough. A new
generation of ICD is the Autonomous Inflow Control Device. This new type of ICD has the ability to proactively provide
additional restriction on undesirable fluids based on viscosity and mobility. It can be operated at different viscosity ranges
which confirmed its applicability in any type of reservoirs.
It is good to mention this AICD is going to be tested and evaluated for the first time on three wells in Saudi Aramco. One of
the wells is going to be discussed in this paper with the following aspects:

The selection factors for installing AICD on the subject well based on reservoir and field data.
Historical production of the well along with major events in terms of water coning issues.
Pre-modeling of the AICD completion using NEToolTM simulation software.
Comparison between Standalone Screens (SAS) and AICD using the NEToolTM.
Verification of field results with NEToolTM modeling.

This paper describes the added values of installing AICD technology over the conventional type in heavy oil reservoir in
which it maximizes oil production, enhances oil recovery and more importantly delay the water or gas breakthrough with more
restriction. This will be thoroughly discussed with the use of the simulation results.

Introduction
Inflow control devices (ICDs) have demonstrated their benefits since the 1990s5. ICDs are considered as a mature well
completion technology and it is very viable for development3. ICD applications are revolving in delaying water and gas
breakthrough, so the field can rely longer on primary recovery. But when unwanted fluids eventually do breakthrough,
conventional ICDs become inadequate to hold back their influx. To maximize recovery is important increasing production
especially for mature fields because the ability to exploit all oil or gas resources from the reservoir is more tangible due to the

SPE-177997-MS

oil prices flactuatation. There are two classified types of control devices. The first type can be considered as reactive control
based on unwanted fluid flows that would delay water or gas breakthrough due to the relative high volumetric flow rates of gas
and water. One of the most common type is Nozzle ICD which can also limit water influx due to the density variation between
oil and water. However, ICD has the ability to react to unwanted fluids i.e. gas and water but with limitations compared to
Inflow control valves (ICVs) in which considered as the proactive control type. ICVs can impose a proactive control which
enable the well to be operated at the optimum oil or gas cuts and hence allow the well to be produced at the total oil rate with
minimum gas or water. Moreover, it is possible to modify the applied restriction hydraulically and proactively whenever the
water or gas breaks through to achieve the optimum oil recovery. Apart from ICD and ICV technology, there is a newly
developed proactive type technology which can do both slowing and restricting water and gas breakthrough across the
reservoir with meeting the main objective of ICD which is equalizing the flow uniformly. Autonomous Inflow Control Device
(AICD) responds autonomously to the type of fluid being produced at any given time without any connection to the surface or
intervention by an operator. It reduces flow rates from zones where water has broken through, promoting production from
zones with oil. Therefore, in that sense, this type of ICD is similar in function and objective to the ICV however there are no
hydraulic lines required to open or close the openings. Moreover, the AICD is counter-intuitive which can produce viscous
200 cP oil much more easily than light, less than 1 cP i.e. water. This promotes production from high oil zones and
discourages production from high water zones, allowing to recover more oil than conventional completions4.
How AICD works?
The AICD is an active ICD that works based on the restriction resulted due to viscosity variations between oil and water/gas
and the pressure drop across the device increases when flowing water or gas. When producing oil, the restriction is low and
allows for balancing the oil inflow just like any type of ICD completion.
Features

This type has the ability to autonomously restrict flow based on the fluid properties flowing through it.
It has no moving parts unlike ICVs to close or open5.
It does not require any downhole orientation unlike conventional ICD i.e. nozzle type in which the nozzles need to be
oriented using coiled tubing,
It utilizes fluid vectoring to direct the flow due to viscosity variation. The high viscosity of oil enables it to take the
shortest route to the center as Figure 3. The low viscosity of unwanted fluids makes them shoot past the short route
and take a longer, more tortuous path. This promotes oil production while slowing the flow of unwanted fluids.
Different ranges of viscosity to be handled by AICD including Type 3A range (3-60 cP) (Figure 1). This range was
selected after performing a flow loop test on different ranges of viscosities that are applied on the chosen field to be
trial tested. The final findings was to use range 3A due to the better variation in choking effect for different values of
viscosities. In other words, as the rate increases, more differential pressure applied on the fluids and hence more
choking across the AICD among different ranges of water cut. This was concluded against 3B type in which there was
only variation between water cut of 30% to 60% which is too late to delay water breakthrough5.

SPE-177997-MS

Figure 1 Range 3A Flow Performance

AICD Specifications as in Figure 2

Flow path is placed in a tungsten carbide insert

Insert is mounted in a 316L cradle
Flow enters the inserts at two corners
Flow exits the insert on the back side through a nozzle
The nozzle is press fit into the cradle to create a pressure tight seal

Inserts

Inflow

316L
Cradle

Press fit

Exit Nozzle
Inflow
Figure 2 AICD specifications
There are various designs of the AICD to cover the variety of applications i.e. high or low oil viscosity. The above shows a
design shoes the tungsten carbide inserts. The tungsten carbide are used to improve erosion resistance. The inserts have en exit
nozzle which are connected to a standard oil field tubular.

Functionality

To understand how the AICD works, Figure 3 is a conceptual sketch shows the flow pathing system inside an AICD module.
AICD joint has two modules with 4 inserts each (total of 8 inserts) in which there is one opening/valve per insert with a length
between 38-40 ft (Figure 4)5. There are basically three systems impeded in the AICD module that work together which are the
viscosity selector, flow switch and flow restrictor.
A. Viscosity selector
There are two different paths for the fluids to flow depending on the viscosity of the fluid being produced, the flow will
mainly flow in either the viscosity independent (upper) or dependent (lower) flow path in addition to the main flow
path.
B. Flow switch

SPE-177997-MS

After fluid passing the viscosity selector, it flows to the flow switch to direct the flow in a certain direction as it enters
the flow restrictor
C. Flow Restrictor
This section of the system is where the flow is being restricted more or less depending on which directions it comes in
from the flow switch.

B
C
A
Figure 3 Flow pathing system inside a single AICD module

About AICD

When oil is being produced through the AICD, the fluid flows in a certain direction and finally goes more or less straight into
the exit nozzle in the flow restrictor. This results in minimal restriction3.
AICD is self-reacting for oil-water system when there is variation in density due to gravitational force. For example, if the
water is less than 80%, one valve will partially or fully open however when the water cut is greater than 80%, the valve will
close due to high amount of water occupying the area around the AICD valve itself.
Moreover, there is a force being created due to the high viscosity of light fluid in which as an example, water has high mobility
which creates a force and hence additional pressure drop as it moves very fast in place while the oil due to its high viscosity,
it will pass the AICD opening and hence restrict the water1.

Figure 4 Autonomous Inflow Control Device Downhole Deployment with the inserts

SPE-177997-MS

Selection Criteria of AICD

Autonomous Inflow Control Device is trial tested for the first time in Saudi Arabia in one of the largest offshore fields
worldwide. There are several criteria were considered prior to the technology deployment as follows:
1.

Viscosity independence
The field has sandstone reservoirs with heavy API crude and high viscosity wherein it makes the difference between
oil and water. The limited types of conventional ICD such as Nozzle is considered one of the key factors to develop
the new generation of ICD; AICD. The main driver was the viscosity independency which can be tackled by AICD in
addition to add more restriction and pressure drop on unwanted fluids. Conventional ICD such as channel or helical
type would not handle the large variation in viscosity between oil and water or gas because the lighter fluid will
dominate the flow. AICD combines between the viscosity dependency and independency which permits the
domination of flow to the fluid types2.

2.

High water production

Water production is very serious issue that might cease the production of a well especially when the water cut reaches
50% and above. In this offshore field, the wells are turning dead just when the water cut goes above 50% due to water
fingers resulted from drastic interference between adjacent wells or water coning resulted from oil-water contact
leveling up. Thats why selecting the AICD will promote delaying the water breakthrough either due to water coning
or water fingering by applying additional pressure drop and hence prolong the life of the well. Furthermore, water
breakthrough might leave oil behind or unrecoverable oil which in this case can be recoverable using AICD. As water
breaks through in areas with high permeability, it reduces pressure on areas with low permeability and strands oil
elsewhere in the reservoir.

3.

Reservoir heterogeneity
Permeability is the key parameter that determines the heterogeneity and the quality of the reservoir. The sandstone
reservoirs in this field has very high permeability ranges from 2 7 darcy with beds of shales. Nevertheless, high
permeability channels in horizontal wells are very good environment for water to pass through1.
Compartmentalization between different zones in permeability throughout the horizontal section might compensate
the big difference in permeability1. In other words, the distribution of AICDs along the horizontal section for low
permeability zones received less choke (less pressure drop) and high permeability zones received. Balancing pressure
allows water to push oil toward the wellbore. This keeps water from breaking through early in one zone compared to
the others so all the oil in the reservoir can be produced. Furthermore, AICD promotes the general objective of
conventional ICD in which it restricts the influx from high permeability zone and enhance influx from low
permeability zones.

Production History of the modeled well

There wells have been consider for AICD trial testing. In this paper, Well-A modeling and field results will be discussed.
Well-A is located in the lower eastern flank of the field. It has been recently sidetracked after turning dead with high water
cut. The well is located in an area which water is leveling up very fast causing water coning and water fingers. The main driver
in installing AICD in this well is to delay the water resulted from that phenomena to occur.

12,000

Well-A Produc0on History

Oil Produc0on BOD

10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2015

Water cut%

SPE-177997-MS

Years
Oil Produc5on
Water cut %
Figure 5 Production History of Well-A
Figure 5 shows the production history of Well-A overtime with water cut in red. The water cut increased to 28% after 5 years
of production with low oil production (1500 BOD). The water cut reached to the maximum at 45% after 10 years of
production. Later, the well was workovered to shut off high water production zones due water coning however the water was
still being produced at 20% but the well turned to be dead. Therefore, as mentioned before, most of wells in this field are
ceased due to medium values of water cut. For that specific factor, AICD is selected.
Pre-modeling prior to installation using NETool

TM

As mentioned above, Well-A has been sidetracked horizontally with a total length of 2800 ft in a sandstone reservoir with 80%
net to gross. The well was completed with 4 1/2 AICD as the first trial test. The expected production from this well that was
inputed into the model is 3000 BOD. The success criteria of that well to pass AICD is to match with actual rate test results.
Steady state inflow well performance is analyzed in detail with well modeling software such as NEToolTM. Critical parameters
were inputed in the simulation model for the trial tested well as for permeability, water saturation profiles, reservoir fluid
properties (bubble point, crude type and temperature) and reservoir pressure. Multiple runs were applied to optimize the
number of AICDs and number of packers for zonal isolation purposes based mainly on permeability log.
Below figures are the reservoir parameters that are required by NEToolTM software in the modeling. Permeability (Figure 6)
and water saturation (Figure 7) are calculated based on real time measurements during the drilling event. As shown below,
there are some sections with high permeability reaching 7 darcy however other sections are very tight in permeability due to
shales. These sections of shale are to be blanked with pipes to avoid any water entry due to shale effect.

Horizontal Permeability md

SPE-177997-MS

Permeability Prole
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
7050

7550

8050

8550

9050

9550

10050

9550

10050

Measured Depth @
Figure 6 Permeability Profile for Well-A

Water Satura0on

Water Satura0on Prole %

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
7050

7550

8050

8550

9050

Measured Depth @
Figure 7 Water Saturation Profile for Well-A
Optimum number of ICDs and packers preliminary calculations
- For offshore wells best practices, the required pressure drop (P/q) across individual ICD is rated to be 15 psi/ 90
BOD.
- For the number of packers required to isolate shale sections and potential water zones, the optimum spacing between
packers is ranged from 400- 500 feet.

= / 2
= /

Based on Equ-1 and Equ-2, the required number of AICDs to be installed is 34 and number of packers to be run is 7.
The below completion schematics (Figure 8) is what it has been installed in Well-A accompanied with Table 1 that
contains the compartmentalized intervals in which less AICDs in high permeability zones to apply more choking and
restriction due to high pressure drop and more AICDs in low-moderate permeability to apply less choking.

Table 1 AICD Compartmentalization utilizing permeability log

Compartment
number
1
2

Depth intervals

Permeability Quality

Number of AICDs

7200 7330
7330 7510

High
Shale

3
-

SPE-177997-MS

3
4
5
6
7
8

7510 7680
7680 8500
8500 8800
8800 9520
9520 9750
9750 9820

Good
Moderate
Shale
Moderate- Good
Shale
Good

3
12
15
1

Figure 8 Well-A AICD completion Schematics

The below figures (Figure 9, 10 and 11) are generated for AICD case run on Well-A. Figure 9 shows the distribution of oil
influx is balanced out across the horizontal section of Well-A. The oil influx across the interval from 7680 8500 ft MD has
low values due to low permeability in which it will exert small pressure drop across AICD regardless to the number of
installed joints due to lack of energy to give up fluid. Figure 10 shows the pressure drop applied on AICD joint with an
average of 15 psi which is almost close to the assumed pressure drop. This indicates that there is minimal pressure drop that
could be account in reservoir pressure calculations. In other words, high permeability zones will act as openings just like

SPE-177997-MS

AICDs however increasing number of AICDs will give less pressure drop or restriction. Figure 11 demonstrates the consistent
cumulative oil production from toe to heel with no effect1.

Figure 9 Well-A Oil Influx using AICD

Figure 10 Well-A Pressure Drop across AICD

SPE-177997-MS

10

Figure 11 Well-A Cumulative oil production in tubing across AICD

Standalone screens (SAS) vs. AICD Comparison
The distribution of AICDs across the reservoir helps balancing pressure from toe to heel and compensate for local changes
in reservoir permeability as shown in Figure 12. Without the AICDs, water would rise unevenly, breaking through at the
most permeable point and leaving reserves elsewhere. The AICDs help delaying breakthrough until as much oil as
possible has been produced along the length of the horizontal section to achieve the maximum recovery. When water does
eventually breakthrough at some point, the AICD changes flow behavior in that zone by creating a greater restriction. This
allows more oil to be produced from other zones6.

Figure 12 Comparison between SAS and AICD in terms of uniform choking across the entire horizontal
section as for AICD
Figure 13 shows that there is no pressure drop applied due to the standalone screens. However, the drawdown is typically even
along the wellbore, but despite this, the oil influx from the reservoir can vary. This is due to varying permeability in the

SPE-177997-MS

11

formation. Without some sort of inflow control, there will be higher inflow rates in one segment compared to others which in
turn can possible lead to an earlier breakthrough of gas or water.

Figure 13 Well-A pressure drop across SAS

Using NEToolTM simulator, a comparison between SAS and AICD cases were run for Well-A. There is a pretty match between
the performance of the two for oil influx profile. AICD does an excellent job in balancing the inflow of oil as in Figure 14. In
other words, each individual AICDs are somewhat rate dependent meaning that if one segment has the potential of flowing
with high rate, this will reduce the inflow rate and balance the overall inflow along the wellbore. Upon water breakthrough,
each individual AICDs will typically continue to have the same pressure drop restrictions as when producing oil. Standalone
screens will behave just like an open hole with no completion in which the total liquid will depend proportionally on the
mobility ratios in which water will be in a faster track than the oil2.

Figure 14 Comparison in oil influx profile between AICD and SAS

SPE-177997-MS

12

Figure 15 Comparison in cumulative oil production between AICD and SAS

The difference between SAS completion with no flow control and AICD completion can best be compared looking at the
wellbore and reservoir behaviour when producing oil only or having water and gas breakthrough. When the term pressure
drop restriction is used, this refers to an AICD creating a pressure drop by itself however the drawdown is created across the
entire horizontal section in the reservoir. In Figure 15, it is very obvious that there is sharp decrease in production at heel
section (200 stb/day) are due to the toe-heel effect for SAS curve. Overall, SAS cumulative production gives lower values
compared to AICD due to the sharp drop at the heel.
After Water Breakthrough Analysis
As mentioned above, NEToolTM is a steady state software that is the lack of time dimension is present. Therefore, one way to
show this dimension is to anticipate the behaviour of both SAS and AICD after water breaks through. There are three intervals
that water is suspected to invade from namely, 7330 7485 MD, 8510 8780 MD and 9570 9750 MD. These intervals
have initially high water saturation as shown in Figure 73. There is a clear decrease in oil influx in SAS case since the water
breaks through from the three suspected intervals however, the oil influx stayed the same for AICD case in Figure 16 in which
this how AICD works.

Figure 16 Comparison in cumulative oil production between AICD and SAS

SPE-177997-MS

13

Figure 17 Comparison in cumulative oil production between AICD and SAS

In Figure 17, the water breakthrough is severely affecting the cumulative oil rate on SAS in which a difference of 1000 STB/D
are the separation between AICD and SAS rates and the line for AICD case is still the same as the one at initial conditions.
AICD Model Results Verification with Field Results
Standalone Screens and AICD simulated cases were considered with using actual rate tests results to validate the oil rates at
both initial conditions and after water breakthrough.
Table 2 Simulation results for AICD at initial conditions using NETool

Table 3 Simulation results for SAS at initial conditions using NETool

TM

TM

Table 4 Simulation results for AICD after water breakthrough prediction using NETool

TM

SPE-177997-MS

Table 5 Simulation results for SAS after water breakthrough prediction using NETool

14

TM

The above tables are the results generated by the Well-A models for both AICD and SAS cases. For initial conditions, there is
very minor difference between the water cuts resulted from SAS and AICD cases. However, after simulating the water
breakthrough for both SAS and AICD, it is shown a very tangible functionality of AICD against SAS. The water cut for AICD
is 1.3% however 20% water cut increase for SAS case after water breaking through. Therefore, AICD will perform its full
functionality as the water cut goes to very high values in which high volumes of water and velocity will circulate around the
valves allowing oil to pass through.
Well-A was flowed back with 100% oil. A later actual rate test was conducted to verify the result of AICD model. The rate
was measured at 3000 STB/day with 0% water cut. This confirms and verifies the field result along with the model accuracy.

Conclusions

AICD recovers more oil by applying additional restriction on unwanted fluids.

AICD creates high pressure differential but does not shut off completely unwanted fluid but does restriction based on
the fluid dynamics and fluids flowing through it.
AICD has both viscosity independency and dependency.
The oil influx modeled by AICD stays the same for both initial conditions and after water breakthrough.
One important factor for selecting AICD over other ICDs is that because the horizontal well is close to OWC
therefore installing AICD will ensure delaying water breakthrough.
Installing more AICDs, maximizing extracted oil, maximizing oil recovery and hence NPV.
AICD will prolong and maintain a good performance of the well through the initial and middle stages.
The benefit of the AICD was the ability to delay water breakthrough from happening and recover more oil during the
given time period.
The AICD will demonstrate its full functionality on long run as more water production, more oil to recover.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank and acknowledge Saudi Aramcos Northern Area Reservoir Management, Production &
Facilities Development Departments and Halliburton Service Company for their permission to publish this paper.

SPE-177997-MS

15

References
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Akbari, Morteza, Gonzalez, Jose R., Machlin, Nadine,2014: Considerations for Optimum Inflow Control Devices
(ICDs) Selection Placement in Horizontal Sections SPE Paper 171281, presented at the SPE Russian Oil and Gas
Exploration and Production Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Moscow, Russia, 11-16 October.
Coronado, Martin P., Garcia, Luis A., Russell, Ronnie D., Garcia, Gonzalo A., Peterson, Elmer R., 2009: New
Inflow Control Device Reduces Fluid Viscosity Sensitivity and Maintains Erosion Resistance OTC paper 19811,
presented at the 2009 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 4-7 May.
Daneshy, A. Ali, Guo, Boyun, Krasnov, Vitaly A., Zimin, Sergey V.,2010: ICD Design: Revisiting Objectives and
Techniques, SPE Paper 133234, presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 18-20 October.
Halvorsen, Martin, Elseth, Geir, Naevdal, Olav Magne, 2012: Increased oil production at Troll by Autonomous
Inflow Control with RCP valves SPE Paper 159634, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, USA, 8-10 October.
Least, Brandon, Bonner, Aaron, Regulacion, Rhandy, Pearanda, Robert, Sampedro, Tito and Coloma,
Francisco.,2013: Autonomous ICD Installation Success in Ecuador Heavy Oil: A Case Study, SPE Paper 166495,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 30
September thru 2 October.
Mathiesen, Vidar, Aakre, Haavard, Werswick, Bjornar,2011: The Autonomous RCP Valve-New Technology for
Inflow Control in Horizontal Wells SPE Paper 145737, presented at the SPE Offshore Europe Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition held in Aberdeen, UK, 6-8 September.

Nomeclature
AICD - Autonomous Inflow Control Device
ICD - Inflow Control Device
ICV - Inflow Control Valve
SAS Standalone Screen
Subscripts
TM - Trademark