SPE-182755-MS

Optimizing Reservoir Performance through Utilization of Autonomous

Inflow Control Valve – Lessons Learnt from the World’s First Installation
Ikhsan Nugraha, Terki K AlBassam, and Alessandro Gallelli, Saudi Aramco; Vidar Mathiesen, InflowControl

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition held in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, 25–28
April 2016.

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
One of the major challenges in mature oil fields is to improve recovery from existing fields by developing
and implementing new technologies that make operations efficient and cost effective. For a reservoir with
a water or gas drive mechanism, the mobility ratio between oil and water or gas becomes more critical
due to the lower viscosity of water or gas. Observably, breakthroughs can occur within relatively short
periods of production time. Once breakthrough occurs, gas or water production can rapidly dominate
production prompting well intervention or the shutting-in of production, leaving unrecovered oil behind.
Inflow control device (ICD) and autonomous inflow control device (AICD) have shown oil production
and recovery can be increased significantly with better inflow control/pressure regulation along the lateral,
which to some degree has resulted in breakthrough delays. However, neither ICD nor AICD are able to
shut off unwanted gas and water production completely. The autonomous inflow control valve (ICV)
offers the functionality of conventional ICD and can actively shut off unwanted fluid completely.
The paper describes the development of Autonomous ICV, experimental test results, and preparations
prior to the completion installation. The main challenges and conclusion from the field tests are presented
and discussed based on the initial flowback data where the functionality of Autonomous ICV was verified,
i.e., by shut-off of low viscosity fluid, such as water, and opening for oil with higher viscosity.

Introduction
A major challenge in oil production is to maximize well production and recovery efficiency. Today, early
gas or water breakthrough due to unfavorable mobility ratios inhibit oil production from horizontal wells
leaving ⬙bypassed⬙ oil behind. A new Autonomous Inflow Control Valve that combines the benefit from
Inflow Control Device (ICD), Autonomous Inflow Control Device (AICD) and Inflow Control Valve
(ICV) has been developed to address some the challenges.
Based on the viscosity difference between the reservoir fluids, the Autonomous ICV restricts undesired
fluid (i.e. gas and water) production at breakthroughs locally through the device autonomously. At the
same time, oil production will continue from the other inflow zones along the well, ensuring continuous
oil production and optimized recovery. The Autonomous ICV is completely self-regulating, and does not
require any form of control, electronics or connection to the surface. This autonomous design is practically
2 SPE-182755-MS

purposed to react to the uncertain, complex, and dynamic nature inherent in the reservoir and ultimately
provides a solution to assist sweep and recovery efficiency at both the well and field level.
Determining a suitable candidate well for area of implementation was primarily based on reservoir and
fluid properties in which breakthroughs are likely to occur, in addition, the selection process also
considered areas where value may be maximized by minimizing logistically or operationally more
expensive well interventions. The reservoir is a highly permeable clastic stringer bound by both a gas cap
and a water aquifer. Fluid properties were also screened based on nearby PVT data to ensure the
Autonomous ICV would properly function within the viscosity range.

Autonomous Inflow Control Valve Concepts

The Autonomous ICV technology utilizes the pressure drop through a laminar and turbulent flow elements
that are different for different fluids. The technology consists of two different flow elements placed in
series in a minor pilot flow, which is parallel to the main flow path, as shown in Figure 1. The first one
is a laminar flow element and the second is a turbulent flow element.

Figure 1—Combination of laminar and turbulent flow restrictors in series, Mathiesen et al. (2013).

The laminar flow element is a pipe element, and the pressure drop may be expressed as:
[1]
SPE-182755-MS 3

where ␮ is the fluid viscosity, v is the fluid velocity, L and D is the length and diameter of the pipe
respectively. In the laminar flow element, the fluid will undergo a pressure drop that is proportional to the
fluid viscosity, the fluid velocity and geometrical dimensions.
The turbulent flow element is an orifice, and the pressure drop may be expressed as:
[2]

where C is a geometrical constant and ␳ is the fluid density. In the turbulent element, the pressure drop
is independent of viscosity, but proportional to the density, the fluid velocity squared and a geometrical
constant. Different flow elements will have different flow characteristic for the gas water and oil due to
different fluid properties.
Figure 1 illustrates the Autonomous ICV principle. The main flow enters a conduit A at a first pressure
p1 and a minor pilot flow, parallel to the main flow, is lead through a laminar flow element and a turbulent
flow element. A pressure drop occurs in the laminar flow element and the pilot flow attains a second
pressure p2 in chamber B. The flow is lead further through the turbulent fluid flow element before it exits
the flow conduit at a third pressure p3. The pressure in chamber B is controlling the valve functionality.
The pilot flow represents only a minor part of the main flow. When the valve is closed, the small pilot
flow represents the total flow rate through the valve. The Autonomous ICV is designed to let approxi-
mately 99% of the total flow go through the main flow. The pressure p2 in the chamber B, between the
laminar and the turbulent flow elements, will change if the fluid properties (viscosity or density) are
changing. This is illustrated graphically in Figure 1 where the pressure is plotted along the pilot flow for
oil, water and gas, respectively. The plot shows low p2 for oil, due to the high viscosity of the oil. The
p2 is higher for water and gas due to the relatively lower viscosity. The pressure occurring in chamber B
for different fluid is used to actuate a piston controlling the main flow.
In open position, the valves can be designed with different ICD strength, i.e. different pressure drop
versus oil flow rate depending on the reservoir condition.
Figure 2 shows the Autonomous ICV in open and closed position respectively. The thin blue lines show
the pilot flow path, the thickest blue arrow presents the inlet of the main flow to the valve, and the two
horizontal arrows show the outlet of the main flow to the base pipe. The thin blue vertical arrow presents
the outlet of the pilot flow. The force balance at the piston is controlling the piston position, see Figure
3. The force F1 on the upper part of the piston (p1·A1) is acting downwards and the force F2 below the
piston (p2·A2) is acting upwards. Ffric is a friction force, which will work against the direction of
movement. F3 is acting downwards on the outer part of the piston. The pressure drop for the main flow
is located at the smallest passage between the piston and the seat, as shown in Figure 3. When the net force
(F1-F2⫹F3⫾Ffric) is positive, the valve is in open position and if the net force is negative, the valve
closes. The inlet pressure, p1, is always higher than p2, and A2 has to be larger than A1. The ratio between
A1 and A2 is a design parameter and the optimum ratio is dependent on the properties of the oil and the
gas/water.
4 SPE-182755-MS

Figure 2—The Autonomous ICV in open (left) and closed (right) position.

Figure 3—The forces and areas acting on the Autonomous ICV piston.

Qualification Tests
The flow elements and the Autonomous ICV for the well candidate have been extensively tested in the
laboratory. Initially a series of laminar and turbulent flow elements were tested in a flow element test rig
with a very high accuracy. Based on the results from the tests, the most suitable flow elements were
chosen for the Autonomous ICV. The flow elements have to be designed based on the fluid properties in
the specific reservoir. Performance tests for gas, water and oil are carried out in a rig designed for testing
of the Autonomous ICV. Single phase and multiphase tests were done to simulate reservoir fluid
properties and validate the valves functionality. In addition to that, erosion test, plugging tests were done
to understand the impact of fluids exposure at reservoir conditions as part of long term performance
evaluation.
The Autonomous ICV has also been tested in a multiphase flow loop test rig as a part of the
qualification program. A two meters long test section containing sand screen, Autonomous ICV and base
pipe is tested. The multiphase rig was ran with real reservoir fluids under reservoir conditions, i.e. high
pressure and temperature. The tests were carried out with both single and multiphase flow. The main
components in the rig, are three phase separator, a multiphase pump and a test cell. The flow rates of the
different fluids are regulated by flow controllers (FIC) and pressures and differential pressure are
measured at different locations in the rig. To verify the functionality, multiphase flow tests were
SPE-182755-MS 5

performed with light oil and water at reservoir temperature. The two-phase oil/water tests were ran with
increased water cut. The tests showed that the Autonomous ICV closed at a WC at approximately 98%.
In horizontal wells, packers are required in order to avoid annulus flow and to create isolated inflow
zones. Experimental tests and computational simulations have shown that the flow in the annulus will be
stratified. One or several valves can be installed in each zone. Figure 4 shows a closure sequence with
inflow of oil/water in a zone with three Autonomous ICV’s installed. When pure oil is produced, all three
valves are open. If the inflow rate of oil to the zone is 3 m³/h, each of the valves are producing 1 m³/h
at a differential pressure of 3.6 bar (purple curve). When water breakthrough occurs and the local WC
exceeds 33 %, the first valve will close (red curve). Two valves are still open and one valve is closed. If
the water content in the inflow fluid exceeds 50 %, one more valve will close (green curve). When there
is almost no oil content in the inflow fluid, less than 2 %, all the valves will close completely (blue curve).
The minor water production when all valves are closed, are produced through the pilot flow. In the case
of oil/gas flow the situation will be the same as for oil/water, less than 2 % of oil is required to close all
three valves completely. The valves are reversible, i.e. when oil is refilled in the zone it will autonomously
open again. A more detailed description of the multiphase flow tests are given Aakre et. al (2013).

Figure 4 —Closure sequence of Autonomous ICV’s in one isolated zone.

Well Design
NETool Simulations have been performed to optimize and verify the well design and placement of
Autonomous ICV screen and packers along the horizontal section using available log and reservoir
information. The reservoir permeability along the horizontal section is plotted in Figure 5. In Figure 6 the
flow rate versus differential pressure for the different reservoir fluids is plotted. The experimentally
obtained flow performance curves confirm the shut-off capacity of water and gas.
6 SPE-182755-MS

Figure 5—Reservoir permeability along the horizontal section.

Figure 6 —Flow rate versus differential pressure for the different reservoir fluids.

Based on the reservoir and fluid properties the horizontal section was divided into 10 zones, separated
by zonal isolation packers to avoid annulus flow. In each zone there is 3 valves, except for the 3 first
zones. In zone 1, 2 and 3 there are 1, 2 and 3 valves respectively, since the reservoir properties are poor
in this region.
In Figure 7 the Autonomous ICV placement along the horizontal section and pressure drop at simulated
rate of 0.8x stb/d are shown. In Figure 8 the corresponding flow rates in each section are shown. The
smaller rates from the 3 first zones of the heel are due to low permeability and shale in this part of the
reservoir.
SPE-182755-MS 7

Figure 7—Pressure drop and Autonomous ICV placement along the horizontal section.

Figure 8 —Inflow along the horizontal section.

The characteristic of the Autonomous ICV is the increased oil production and reduction in GOR and
WC. To demonstrate this the effect of a water breakthrough scenario has been evaluated. A water
breakthrough in the first 5 zones, i.e. zone 1-5 is modelled. A comparison between the Autonomous ICV
and conventional ICD at 33, 49, 75 and 98 % water cut in zone 1-5 are studied and the results are shown
in Figure 9. It is important to note that the water cut mentioned is the local water cut in the zone and not
the well water cut. The comparison shows that at the lowest water cut (33 %) the conventional ICD and
autonomous ICV flow rates for both water and oil will be the same. This is as expected since the
Autonomous ICV will behave as conventional ICD at lower water cuts.
8 SPE-182755-MS

Figure 9 —Oil and water rates at water breakthrough in zone 1-5.

When the water cut in the zone increases the Autonomous ICV starts to make a difference. The more
the water cut increases in the zone, the better performance of the valve is in compare with ICD where the
oil production is increased with reduced water cut. The Autonomous ICV kept a stable oil production even
at high water cut in the zone. This is caused by the water shut-off and higher oil production from the other
zones along the horizontal section.

Installation and Flowback

The deployment of the Autonomous ICV completion was successfully done without any major problem.
Once the completion reached TD, the drilling mud was displaced with completion brine to ensure the open
hole is clean. Mud filter cake removal fluid was placed both inside and outside the liner prior to setting
the liner top packer. Once the liner top packer was set, the fluid above the liner was displaced with
completion brine followed by 100 bbls viscous brine.
Later, Coiled Tubing was run in to pump nitrogen to assist flowback. During the operation it was noted
that the flowback time was longer than normal ICD completion operation. This behavior is expected based
on the characteristic of the valve design to stop almost all production of water. When in contact with
water, the valve will close, and the only production will be through the minor pilot flow. Figure 10 shows
the calculated flow rate of water through the the valve in choked position as a function of differential
pressure.
SPE-182755-MS 9

Figure 10 —Water flow through the Autonomous ICV in choked position.

During completion, some of the completion brine which has low viscosity was lost to the formation
leaving high viscosity brine around the completion. In the initial flowback, the Autonomous ICV’s were
seen to be open for the viscosified brine. After some production of viscosified brine, clear brine was
observed and the valves were closing due to the low viscosity of clear brine. This brine was required to
be produced before the oil and only through the pilot flow. This is the reason to the somewhat longer flow
back time.
After the clear brine was produced, oil started to come into the well and the valves were opened. Then
the well flowed naturally with 99% oil on surface, with 650 psi upstream pressure. The flowback
operations directly verifies the functionality of the Autonomous ICV, shut-off low viscosity fluid as water,
and open for oil with higher viscosity.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The Autonomous ICV completion was successfully deployed and placed along the open hole. The
functionality and reversibility of the valves were verified based on the initial flowback behavior. They
were open when high viscosity brine were flowed back and closed on the low viscosity brine. Longer
flowback time in compare with conventional ICD completion was due to the fact that the fluid had to be
flowed back through pilot flow which restrict the flow down to only 4.8 bpd/valve at 300 psi delta P across
completion.
Based on the above, several operational recommendations for future works can be highlighted:
1. Evaluate the long term production performance using PLT to understand the flow contributions for
each valveinstalled.
2. Optimize flowback time by adding a separate sleeve on the lower completion for flow back to
enable circulation prior to swell packer setting.
3. Use high viscosity completion fluid, at least matching with the crude oil viscosity such that the
valve can stays open in the flow back operation.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank to Byung Lee, Mohammed S. Salamah, Haavard Aakre and Bjørnar
Werswick for their significant contributions in both technical and operational aspects of the project.
10 SPE-182755-MS

References
Haavard Aakre, Britt Halvorsen, Bjørnar Werswick, Vidar Mathiesen, (2013), Autonomous Inflow Control Valve for
Heavy and Extra-Heavy Oil, SPE 171141.
Lauritzen, J.E., Martiniussen, I.B, (2011) Single and Multi-phase Flow Loop Testing Results for Industry Standard Inflow
Control Devices, SPE 146347.
Mathiesen, V., Aakre, H., Werswick, B., (2013), A Flow Control Device and Method, Patent WO 2013/139601 A2.
Mathiesen, V., Aakre, H., Werswick, B., (2014), The Next Generation Inflow Control-the Next Step to Increase Oil
Recovery on the Norwegian Continental Shelf, SPE 169233.