Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Enhanced oil recovery technique for carbonate or sandstone reservoirs using inflow control technology are often affected by undesired production of water and gas. Limited density and viscosity differences between oil, water and gas is often a challenge for most autonomous and passive inflow control technology due to limited fluids performance ratio between oil, water and gas when breakthrough happen. The fluid performance ratio describes how the ICD (Inflow Control Device) and AICD (Autonomous Inflow Control Device) preferably choke the unwanted fluid (water/gas) compared with oil. Different ICD/AICD are utilizing both density and viscosity that effect the flow behavior difference in the valve to differentiate the pressure drop for oil, water, and gas. Different designs have been tested in single phase and multiphase full-scale flow loop testing that replicates downhole operating conditions. In order to understand the ICD/AICD behavior in reservoir environments for the duration life of the well, a wellbore model where the effect of fluids performance ratio is included. The model also includes the effect of mobility ratio and how this affects the importance of the fluid performance ratio. Well completion has a critical role to optimize the well performance and enhanced oil recovery. In today’s engineer toolbox, a wide variety of inflow control technology completion options are available including various ICD and AICD. A new methodology and workflow have been developed to compared different type of inflow control technology completion to understand the capability to reduce unwanted water and gas production without needing detailed information about rock property variation along the wellbore in the reservoir. These methods are based on laboratory flow performance data from each device and will compare various downhole inflow control tools based on their fluid phase performance ratio to produce oil, choke water and/or gas and express the fluid preference by ratio in percentage. Experimental flow loop results illustrate a significant different in fluids performance ratio of conventional ICD and AICV. AICD with dynamic flow area are choking water breakthrough more effectively, resulting in better sweep along the wellbore section that were not previously being produced. By limiting the water and gas production operators are therefore able to apply higher drawdown to increase oil recovery significantly. This improves the economics of thin-oil rim development and benefits of reduced environmental impact per oil produced due to less un-needed water and gas being produced to surface.
Enhanced oil recovery technique for carbonate or sandstone reservoirs using inflow control technology are often affected by undesired production of water and gas. Limited density and viscosity differences between oil, water and gas is often a challenge for most autonomous and passive inflow control technology due to limited fluids performance ratio between oil, water and gas when breakthrough happen. The fluid performance ratio describes how the ICD (Inflow Control Device) and AICD (Autonomous Inflow Control Device) preferably choke the unwanted fluid (water/gas) compared with oil. Different ICD/AICD are utilizing both density and viscosity that effect the flow behavior difference in the valve to differentiate the pressure drop for oil, water, and gas. Different designs have been tested in single phase and multiphase full-scale flow loop testing that replicates downhole operating conditions. In order to understand the ICD/AICD behavior in reservoir environments for the duration life of the well, a wellbore model where the effect of fluids performance ratio is included. The model also includes the effect of mobility ratio and how this affects the importance of the fluid performance ratio. Well completion has a critical role to optimize the well performance and enhanced oil recovery. In today’s engineer toolbox, a wide variety of inflow control technology completion options are available including various ICD and AICD. A new methodology and workflow have been developed to compared different type of inflow control technology completion to understand the capability to reduce unwanted water and gas production without needing detailed information about rock property variation along the wellbore in the reservoir. These methods are based on laboratory flow performance data from each device and will compare various downhole inflow control tools based on their fluid phase performance ratio to produce oil, choke water and/or gas and express the fluid preference by ratio in percentage. Experimental flow loop results illustrate a significant different in fluids performance ratio of conventional ICD and AICV. AICD with dynamic flow area are choking water breakthrough more effectively, resulting in better sweep along the wellbore section that were not previously being produced. By limiting the water and gas production operators are therefore able to apply higher drawdown to increase oil recovery significantly. This improves the economics of thin-oil rim development and benefits of reduced environmental impact per oil produced due to less un-needed water and gas being produced to surface.
Being part of the lower completion, viscosity-based autonomous inflow control technologies utilize viscosity contrasts to distinguish between wanted and unwanted reservoir fluids. Since the first installation on the Norwegian Troll field in 2008, such technologies have proven extremely successful in preventing excessive inflow of unwanted gas in oil wells. They can also stop water in oil wells, provided that the viscosity contrast between oil and water is sufficient to give a meaningful operational envelope. It is, however, important to fully understand the limitations of viscosity-based technologies when used to control water. In general, the viscosity-based technologies do not depend on viscosity alone, but rather on the Reynolds number, which in turn depends on velocity. In other words, the performance of these technologies is a function of the well's local inflow rate, which will change over time. If the local oil rate is high, the Reynolds number is also high, which may be interpreted as low-viscosity water, inadvertently causing the technology to choke back the oil flow instead. Furthermore, if one device closes inside a well compartment with multiple devices, it may lead to higher oil rate through the other devices and set up a chain reaction, such that they all end up closing or choking, thereby imposing a large pressure drop across the lower completion in that compartment.The Reynolds number does not depend on viscosity and velocity alone, but also on fluid density. For this reason, suppliers of viscosity-based technologies sometimes emphasize that their technology is also density-based. This can be misleading because technologies that depend exclusively on density, do not suffer the same disadvantages. The working principle of density-based technologies is typically insensitive to flow rate, viscosity and Reynolds number, which means that they can stop inflow of water even in light-oil wells with small or non-existing viscosity contrast. At least one of the density-based technologies can close and reopen at any pre-defined phase fraction of unwanted fluid. Furthermore, the density-based technologies allow high flow capacity and low pressure drop in open position combined with high choking efficiency in closed position. This allows choking of watered-out zones without the risk of excessive and premature choking of oil from the same zones.In a constructed case study, the performance of density-based and viscosity-based technologies is compared for a given well compartment with multiple inflow control devices. For the viscosity-based technologies, it is illustrated how the risk of the above-mentioned chain reaction increases with decreasing local productivity, and how the operational envelope of each device might become too limited if the viscosity contrast is small and the geological uncertainty large.
In today's engineer's toolbox, a variety of inflow control technologies exist that can help to achieve the targets to enhanced oil recovery. Characterizing difference type of inflow control technology especially that performed during the well lifetime are challenging due to the fluids phase change during the well life. The nature of porous media, and complex interaction of fluid and rock in the reservoir often lead to mixture flow during most of the well life during production phase. Early water and gas breakthrough increase the challenge of understanding the mixture behavior flow from the reservoir to the well. Different inflow control technologies are used to enhanced oil recovery and choke the unwanted fluids (water/gas) compared to oil. It is essential to understand the performance of inflow control technology during the multiphase mixture production. The Fluid Performance Ratio (FPR) analysis for single phase flow has been presented in a paper previously. In this paper the multiphase mixture fluid methodology and workflow have been developed to compared different type of inflow control technology completion to understand the capability to reduce unwanted water and gas production in multiphase flow along the wellbore in the reservoir. Different inflow control technology and its flow performance are a function of both density and viscosity. The fluid composition affects the multiphase flow behavior differently for various devices, i.e., the pressure drop for mixture oil, water, and gas. Different designs have been tested in laboratory with single phase and multiphase flow that replicates downhole operating conditions. The multiphase fluid performance ratio will compare the performance difference in choking of multiphase fluids mixture for oil/water and oil/gas and express the multiphase fluid performance ratio in percentage. Experimental flow loop results illustrate a significant difference in multiphase behavior of oil/water and oil/gas between conventional ICDs and AICVs. AICV with dynamic flow area shows more effective control of mixed fluid during breakthrough resulting in improved oil recovery and limiting the unwanted water and gas more effectively. Case studies shown and demonstrating the mixture production behavior. Comprehensive guidelines on the multiphase fluid performance ratio analysis have been developed to compare different type of inflow control technology completion to understand the capability in multiphase fluid mixture to reduce unwanted water and gas production along the wellbore in the reservoir. The continued development of a new characterization method for multiphase flow performance ratio has helped to unveil the benefits of characterizing and differentiating between inflow control technologies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.