Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 78 (2011) 534–541

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / p e t r o l

Application of inflow control devices to heterogeneous reservoirs

V.M. Birchenko a,⁎, 1, A.Iu. Bejan b, A.V. Usnich c, D.R. Davies a,⁎
a
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot–Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
b
University of Cambridge, Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics, Statistical Laboratory, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WB, UK
c
Institut für Mathematik, Universität Zürich, 190 Winterthurerstr., 8057 Zurich, Switzerland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The rate of inflow to a long well can vary along its completion length due to reasons such as frictional pressure
Received 1 November 2009 losses or reservoir permeability heterogeneity. These variations often negatively affect the oil sweep efficiency
Accepted 1 June 2011 and the ultimate recovery. Inflow Control Devices (ICDs) are a mature, well completion technology that can
Available online 15 June 2011
make the inflow profile more uniform by restricting the high specific inflow rate segments of the completion.
The paper presents a mathematical model for effective reduction of the inflow imbalance caused by the second
Keywords:
horizontal wells
of the above mentioned reasons, that is reservoir heterogeneity. The model addresses one of the key questions
Inflow Control Devices of the ICD technology application — the trade-off between well productivity and inflow equalisation. The
ICD practical utility of the model is illustrated through a case study.
heterogeneity © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Increasing well–reservoir contact has a number of potential advan-
tages in terms of well productivity, drainage area, sweep efficiency and
delayed water or gas breakthrough. However, such long, possibly
multilateral wells bring not only advantages but also present new
challenges in terms of drilling, completion and production. One of these
challenges is that the variation in rock properties (and hence fluid specific
inflow rate) tends to increase with increasing well length. Completion
intervals with a length of several thousands of feet have become very
popular in the last few years. Such completions will often have
significantly uneven specific inflow distribution along their length if
special measures are not taken. These inflow variations often cause
premature water or gas breakthrough and, hence, should be minimised.
Advanced well completions have proved to be a practical solution
to this challenge. Inflow Control Devices (ICDs) and Interval Control
Valves (ICVs) are two established types of advanced completions. ICVs
permit an active control of inflow (or outflow) of multiple completion
intervals or laterals (Gai, 2002) while ICDs provide a passive form of
inflow control (Henriksen et al., 2006).
ICDs have been installed in hundreds of wells during the last decade
and are now considered to be a mature well completion technology
(Figs. 1 and 2). The steady-state performance of ICDs can be analysed in
detail with the help of well modelling software (Johansen and
Khoriakov, 2007; Ouyang and Huang, 2005). Most reservoir simulators
include basic functionality for ICD modelling while some of them
(Neylon et al., 2009; Wan et al., 2008) also offer a practical means to
capture the effect of annular flow. Current numerical simulation
software provide engineers with the tools to perform the design and
economic justification of an ICD completion. However, relatively simple
analytical models still have a role to play in:
(1) Quick feasibility studies (screening ICD installation candidates).
(2) Verification of numerical simulation results.
(3) Communicating best practices in a non-product specific manner.
This paper proposes an analytical model for heterogeneous
reservoirs that quantifies the reduction of inflow variation along a
horizontal well with ICDs installed. This model allows one to estimate:
(1) The ICD design parameters that substantially reduce the inflow
variation caused by reservoir heterogeneity.
(2) The impact of a specific ICD completion on Inflow Performance
Relationship (IPR) of a long well completed in a heterogeneous
reservoir.
2. Assumptions
Our model invokes the following assumptions with respect to the
inflow from the reservoir:

(1) Flow through the reservoir can be described by Darcy's law.

⁎ Corresponding authors at: Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot–Watt
(2) Steady or pseudo-steady state flow into the well.
University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK.
E-mail addresses: vbirchenko@gmail.com (V.M. Birchenko), andrei.bejan@cl.cam.ac.uk
(3) The distance between the well and the areal reservoir bound-
(A.Iu. Bejan), usnich@gmail.com (A.V. Usnich), david.davies@pet.hw.ac.uk (D.R. Davies). ary is much longer than the well length (or the boundary is
1
Now with BP. parallel to the well).

0920-4105/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2011.06.022
 V.M. Birchenko et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 78 (2011) 534–541
Fig. 1. Channel ICD schematics (courtesy Baker Oil Tools).
(4) The perpendicular-to-the-well components of the reservoir
pressure gradients are much greater than the along-hole ones.
It is well known that near wellbore region of several feet accounts
for most of reservoir pressure drop. This pressure drop is typically
much greater than that along the entire completion interval.
Only in thousand feet long horizontal wells completed in high
permeability reservoirs are these two pressure drops comparable
(Birchenko et al., 2010b), however, since the distances over
which these two pressure drops occur differ by several orders
of magnitude, the assumption remains valid even in such cases.
The above simplifications are often introduced in analytical de-
scriptions of coupling of reservoir and wellbore flow. They are required to
introduce the notion of the “specific productivity index” (PI per unit
length). This empirical parameter is determined largely by distribution of
formation permeability and fluid saturation in reservoir. It indicates that
the fluid inflow from reservoir to wellbore is proportional to the pressure
difference between the external reservoir boundary and the annulus.
Consider an arbitrary point along the wellbore at distance l from the toe.
The fluid inflow from reservoir to wellbore at this point is given by:
dq
= jðlÞðPe ðlÞ−Pa ðlÞÞ:
dl
For details on notation used see the complete nomenclature at the
end of the paper. The chosen assumptions for the description of the
wellbore flow are that:
(1) Friction and acceleration pressure losses between the toe
and the heel are small compared to the drawdown. The validity
of this assumption has been discussed by many authors (e.g.
Dikken (1990) or Birchenko et al. (2010b)).
(2) The fluid is incompressible.
Note that we do not assume the completion interval to be perfectly
horizontal. The true vertical depth (TVD) can vary along the completion
Fig. 2. Orifice ICD schematics (courtesy Weatherford).
535
since reservoir pressure at the external boundary, Pe, is measured at the
same TVD as the corresponding point l of the tubing.
The above assumptions imply that the difference between the
reservoir pressure Pe and the tubing pressure P is constant throughout
the completion length:
Pe ðlÞ−P ðlÞ = ΔPw = const: ð2Þ
Our assumptions about the ICDs are as follows:
(1) There is no flow in the annulus parallel to the base pipe, i.e. the
fluid flows from reservoir directly through ICD screens into the
base pipe. This assumption is reasonable when:
(a) ICDs are combined with a number of intermediate packers or a
gravel pack (Augustine et al., 2008), or
(b) The wellbore has collapsed around the screen so that annular
flow is no longer possible.
(2) ICDs of the same “strength” are installed throughout the
completion length. This is the most common type of ICD
application due to the relative simplicity of its design and
installation operation (Henriksen et al., 2006). Further, the
operational risk is reduced for the case that the rig is unable to
ð1Þ
install the completion at the correct depth. However, variable
“strength” ICD completions have also been reported (Helmy
et al., 2006; McIntyre et al., 2006). These are more complex
operationally (to design and install) and require a detailed,
reliable description of variation of j along the wellbore length
at the time of completion installation. Such ICD designs are
required to mitigate extreme variations in the fluid inflow (e.g.
fractured or “super k” zones in carbonate reservoirs).
(3) The profile q(l) describing the flow distribution along the
wellbore's internal flow conduit is a smooth function, i.e. it
has a continuous derivative. Strictly speaking, this empirical
distribution is a step-like function, since the fluid enters the
wellbore through a number of point-like sources — the ICD
536 V.M. Birchenko et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 78 (2011) 534–541

nozzles or channels. However, the discontinuity jumps will be inflow along the completion length due to the ICD. It is the objective
relatively small if the ICD well completion has a large number of of this work to develop and explore a framework linking the ratio
joints of a standard length (≈ 12 m). Thus, the flow distribution of the two coefficient of variations with well parameters (such as
profile along the wellbore's internal flow conduit q(l) can be ICD “strength”, drawdown, etc.) using the model described above
approximated by a smooth function. We make this assumption (Eq. (6)).
for convenience in order to simplify mathematical modelling.
4. Solution
3. Problem formulation
Taking into account equality (2) one can readily write down the
Let us analyse the impact of an ICD completion on the well inflow solution of Eq. (6):
profile when the well is completed in a heterogeneous reservoir. The qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
specific inflow rate is the derivative of the flow rate with respect to the −1 + 1 + 4aΔPw j2 ðlÞ
measured depth. We designate a separate notation U to this quantity U ðlÞ = ð9Þ
2ajðlÞ
since it is central to this paper:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
dqðlÞ −1 + 1 + 4aΔP ðlÞj2 ðlÞ
U ðlÞ≡ : ð3Þ qw = ∫
L
dl ð10Þ
dl 0 2ajðlÞ
The Specific Productivity Index, j, and hence the inflow, U, change
where
stochastically along the completion interval. We will use the
coefficient of variation to quantify the degree of these changes. Recall 8 
>
> ρcal μ 1 = 4 ρ 2 2
that the coefficient of variation of a random variable is defined as the >
> l B aICD for channel ICD
< ρ μcal ρcal ICD
ratio of its standard deviation and its mean. a= ð11Þ
The annulus pressure Pa is equal to the base pipe pressure P for a >
> Cu ρl2ICD B2
>
>
: an = for nozzle or orifice ICD
conventional completion (no ICD). Hence Cd2 d4

U ðlÞ = jðlÞΔPw ð4Þ and L is the completion length.

where ΔPw is a constant independent of l. Eq. (4) shows that, in case
of conventional completion (no ICD), the coefficient of variation of
specific inflow is equal to that of the specific PI:
CoV U = CoV j:
In the case of an ICD completion the annulus pressure is not equal
to the base pipe (tubing) pressure. The difference between these two
is due to pressure drop across the ICDs. The relationship between
the specific inflow rate and specific productivity index is no longer
linear because flow through ICD is turbulent. Birchenko et al. (2010a)
derived the following quadratic equation describing the specific
inflow rate through an ICD completion as a function of l:
2
aU ðlÞ + U ðlÞ = jðlÞ−ΔP ðlÞ = 0
where ΔP(l) is the pressure difference between the external reservoir
boundary and the tubing (base pipe) at the depth l from the toe and a
is a parameter specific to the ICDs used. Bear in mind that in this work
we assume ΔP(l) = const = ΔPw (Section 2).
The first term in Eq. (6) represents pressure drop across ICD while
the second term accounts for the pressure drop in reservoir. The sum
of these two is the “drawdown” (Eq. (2)). The annulus pressure can
now be expressed as:
2 simulation.
Pa ðlÞ = Pe ðlÞ−U ðlÞ = jðlÞ = P ðlÞ + aU ðlÞ:
Our first claim is that under the model described by Eq. (6) the
ICD application reduces the variation of inflow so that the following
inequality holds:
CoV U b CoV j:
Formula (10) is of limited use for a “quick-look” analysis if the local
specific productivity index varies substantially along the completion
interval since:
(1) The exact shape of the productivity profile j(l) is often unknown:
ð5Þ (a) Detailed measurements (logging) are not always feasible.
(b) The productivity index changes with time (e.g. due to fluid
saturation changes).
(2) In general one needs to evaluate the integral (10) numerically
even if j(l) is known (or can be estimated).
The engineering team that develops each well drilling proposal will
normally define an expected range of values for the specific productivity
index, j, as part of the proposal. These could be based on:
ð6Þ (1) Well log data.
(2) Reservoir models.
(3) Production performance of similar wells in the same field.
The proposed range of values may take a number of forms. For
instance, in its simplest form it could comprise of only three values:
pessimistic (P90), most probable (P50) and optimistic (P10). Ideally,
a complete specification of j would be available in the form of a
probability density function (p.d.f.). In the case when j depends on
some other parameters and information about their distribution is
available this density can be estimated, for example, via Monte-Carlo
ð7Þ
It is often easier to make a judgement about the statistical
distribution of the specific productivity index, η( j), rather than its
spatial distribution j(l). This allows us to transform formula (10) into
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
j2 −1 + 1 + 4aΔPw j2
ð8Þ qw = L∫ ηð jÞdj: ð12Þ
j1 2aj

Inequality (8) may seem intuitively obvious to engineers familiar Calculation of the coefficient of variation requires mean and mean
with the ICD technology, however its rigorous mathematical proof square values of the specific inflow rate. The mean specific inflow rate
known to the authors is not straightforward (see Appendix A). is the ratio of the well flow rate to its length:
Let us consider the ratio of the two coefficients of variation,
CoV U/CoV j. This ratio equals unity for a conventional completion and qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
decreases monotonically with increasing ICD strength. The magnitude j2 −1 + 1 + 4aΔPw j2
hU i = qw =L = ∫ ηð jÞdj: ð13Þ
of this decrease is a quantitative measure of the equalisation of the j1 2aj
 V.M. Birchenko et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 78 (2011) 534–541 537

Similarly, its mean square value is calculated as follows: The p.d.f. of a triangular distribution is as follows:
0 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi12
D E 8
−1 + 1 + 4aΔPw j2
j2 < 2ð j−j1 Þ = ð j2 −j1 Þ = ð jm −j1 Þ for j1 ≤ j ≤ jm
=∫ @ A ηð jÞdj:
2
U ð14Þ
j1 2aj ηð jÞ = 2ð j2 −jÞ = ð j2 −j1 Þ = ð j2 −jm Þ for jm ≤ j ≤ j2 ð21Þ
:
0 otherwise:

The choice of the method for solving the integrals (13) and (14)
depends on the functional form of η( j), the p.d.f. of the specific PI. Then
Notably, these integrals can be solved analytically for a piecewise linear
p.d.f. (e.g. a uniform or triangular distribution). The corresponding
solutions are presented below in Sections 4.1 and 4.2. When the density qw = hU iL =
2L
j2 −j1
ð I ð j Þ−I ð j Þ−j
Uj m
j −j
ðI ð j Þ−I ð j ÞÞ
Uj 1

m
+
1

1
U m U 1

function has a more complex form (e.g. a normal or log-normal

distribution) the integrals have to be evaluated numerically.
+
j ðI ð j Þ−I ð j ÞÞ−I ð j Þ + I ð j Þ
2 U 2
j −j
U m

2
Þ Uj

m
2 Uj m ð22Þ

4.1. Uniform distribution of specific productivity index

and
Generally speaking, a uniform distribution of the specific produc- vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
u
D E 
tivity index is unlikely to be encountered in practice. In fact, petro- u 2 U 2
− h U i
2
CoV U j + jm + j1 t
physical quantities are usually modelled by a normal or log-normal = 2 ð23Þ
CoV j hU i j21 + j22 + j2m −j1 j2 −j1 jm −j2 jm
distribution. However, the data required to determine the distribu-
tion parameters with sufficient precision is often unavailable. A
uniform distribution may be a sensible starting assumption when where
data is scarce.
Assuming that j is uniformly distributed between two values j1 and
j2, j1 ≤ j2, its density function is as follows:
D E
U2 =
2
j2 −j1
ð S ð j Þ−S ð j Þ−j
Uj m ðS ð j Þ−S ð j ÞÞ
j −j
Uj 1

m
+
1

1
U m U 1

ηð jÞ =

1 = ð j2 −j1 Þ
0
for j1 ≤ j ≤ j2
otherwise:
ð15Þ
+
j ðS ð j Þ−S ð j ÞÞ−S ð j Þ + S ð j Þ
2 U 2
j −j
U m

2
Þm
Uj 2 Uj m ð24Þ

with
In this case:
0 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1
I ð j Þ−IU ð j1 Þ 1 @ j 1 + 4aj2 ΔPw arcsinh 2j aΔPw A
qw = hU iL = U 2 L ð16Þ IUj = −j + + p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð25Þ
j2 −j1 2a 2 4 aΔPw

and
2
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ΔPj = 2−IU ð jÞ
  ffi SUj ð jÞ = ð26Þ
CoV U ð j2 + j1 Þ 3 U 2 −hU i2 a
= ð17Þ
CoV j hU ið j2 −j1 Þ and functions IU and SU defined by Eqs. (19) and (20) respectively.

where
5. Case study
D E SU ð j2 Þ−SU ð j1 Þ
2
U = ð18Þ This case study shows how our model for the uniform distribution
j2 −j1
of the specific productivity index can be used in practice. We consider
with two following cases:

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1. Prolific reservoir
1 + 4aΔPw j2 −ln 1 + 1 + 4aΔPw j2
2. Medium productivity reservoir.
IU ð j Þ = ð19Þ
2a
This is done to quantitatively illustrate the dependence between
ð
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 2 the specific PI and ICD “strength” required to reduce inflow variations.
SU ð j Þ = −1 + 2aΔPw j + 1 + 4aΔPw j2 −
2a2 j

Þ
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 5.1. Prolific reservoir
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
−2j aΔPw arcsinh 2j aΔPw : ð20Þ
Let us consider a 1 km long well completed in a prolific heteroge-
neous reservoir (Table 2). The anticipated PI of the well is
2000 Sm 3/day/bar. A drawdown, ΔPr, of 0.5 bar is required for a conven-
4.2. Triangular distribution of specific productivity index tional completion to achieve the target well rate of 1000 Sm 3/day.

The most probable, or modal value is often known within

reasonable error margins in addition to the knowledge about the
minimum and maximum values of the specific PI. The specific Table 1
Channel ICD strength.
productivity index j may then be modelled by the (more complex)
triangular distribution. This is a legitimate approach if a triangular Industrial “bar” rating 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.6 3.2
distribution can be fitted to the field data almost as well as more aICD, bar/(Rm3/day)2 0.00028 0.00055 0.00095 0.0016 0.0032
aICD, psi/(Rbbl/day)2 0.00076 0.0015 0.0026 0.0044 0.0087
common normal or log-normal distributions.
538 V.M. Birchenko et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 78 (2011) 534–541

Table 2
200.5
Prolific reservoir case study data.

Well length L 1000 m 200.0

Pressure, bar
Well Productivity Index (PI) J 2000 Sm3/day/bar
Minimum value of specific PI j1 0.5 Sm3/day/bar/m
Maximum value of specific PI j2 3.5 Sm3/day/bar/m 199.5
Target well flow rate qw 1000 Sm3/day
In-situ fluid density ρ 800 kg/m3
In-situ fluid viscosity μ 1.7 cp 199.0
Formation volume factor B 1.2 Rm3/Sm3
Length of the ICD joint lICD 12.2 m
198.5
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Measured depth from the heel, m
Reservoir Annulus Tubing
Pressure drop introduced by a conventional completion is usually
negligible compared to the drawdown: Fig. 4. Pressure profiles in the prolific reservoir case with 1.6 bar ICDS.

ΔPw ≈ΔPr = 0:5 bar: ð27Þ

illustrated in Figs. 5 and 6 which were derived using formulae (16)
and (17) for ΔPw = 1 bar.
The inflow distribution along the completion is expected to be
highly uneven and uncertain due to complex reservoir geology. The
local specific productivity index is anticipated to be within the range of 5.2. Medium productivity reservoir
0.5–3.5 Sm 3/day/bar/m. Subject to the assumptions stated in Section 2,
the inflow to the conventional completion will be proportional to The specific productivity index is the key parameter in the ICD
the local specific productivity index. This implies a 7-fold variation of completion design. The majority of ICD installations to date are in
specific inflow rate for the above case. reservoirs with an average permeability of one Darcy or greater
A completion combining ICDs and annular flow isolation will
improve oil recovery by smoothing out the specific inflow rate
variations and increasing oil sweep efficiency along the above horizontal 1.2 2500
well (Birchenko et al., 2008).
The uniform distribution model (formula (16)) predicts that “1.6 bar”

Well flow rate, Sm3/day

1
2000
ICD completion with ΔPw of 1 bar will produce 1070 Sm3/day. That is, the
“1.6 bar” ICD completion reduced well productivity by approximately 0.8
CoV ratio

1500
50% (for the target rate), but also delivered an improved degree of
0.6
inflow equalisation (Fig. 3). The grey line in Fig. 3 was obtained using
formula (9). The specific inflow rate variation is considerably smaller 1000
0.4
than for a conventional completion. Namely, the CoV U/CoV j ratio of
0.52 for the “1.6 bar” ICD case can be interpreted as almost a 50% 0.2
500
reduction of the difference between regions of high and low specific
inflow rate. 0 0
As stated in Section 2, modelled reservoir and tubing pressures will 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
only vary if the well is not strictly horizontal, although the difference Channel ICD strength, bar/(Rm3/day)2
between these two pressures is constant even for inclined wells.
CoV ratio Well flow rate
Annulus pressure may be calculated using formula (7). Fig. 4 illustrates
the pressure distribution for the above scenario. Fig. 5. Dependence of inflow equalisation and well productivity on ICD strength for
An increase in the ICD strength gives an even more uniform inflow channel ICDs in a prolific reservoir.
at the cost of further reduction of well inflow performance. This is

1.2 2500
Specific inflow rate, Sm3/day / m

Well flow rate, Sm3/day

4 4 1
Specific PI, Sm3/day / bar / m

2000
3.5 3.5
0.8
CoV ratio

3 3 1500
2.5 2.5 0.6
2 2 1000
0.4
1.5 1.5
1 1 500
0.2
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Measured depth (from the heel), m Effective nozzle diameter per 40 ft joint, mm

Specific PI Specific Inflow with '1.6 bar' CoV ratio Well flow rate
ICDs and no annular flow
Fig. 6. Dependence of inflow equalisation and well productivity on ICD strength for
Fig. 3. Prolific reservoir: inflow equalisation with ICDs. nozzle/orifice ICDs in a prolific reservoir.
 V.M. Birchenko et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 78 (2011) 534–541
Table 3
Medium productivity reservoir case study.
Well Productivity Index (PI) J 200 Sm3/day/bar
Minimum value of specific PI j1 0.05 Sm3/day/bar/m
Maximum value of specific PI j2 0.35 Sm3/day/bar/m
Total pressure drop at the heel ΔPw 10 bar
(Birchenko et al., 2008). In order to illustrate the importance of this
parameter let us now consider the case with 10 times lower PI
(200 Sm 3/day/bar) and 10 times higher total pressure drop (10 bar).
Such modifications (Table 3) would not change the inflow perfor-
mance of conventional completion as it is the product of the PI and
the pressure drop that determines the inflow rate. However, the
performance of an ICD completion will be different since the
inflow is no longer proportional to the above mentioned product in
this case.
According to formulae (16) and (17), the flow rate of a “1.6 bar” ICD
well is 1720 Sm 3/day and the CoV U/CoV j ratio is 0.85 for the medium
productivity reservoir. This implies that the well flow rate and specific
inflow rate variation were reduced by 15% only (in contrast to 50%
in the Prolific Reservoir case). Figs. 7 and 8 illustrate that the ICD's
efficiency of inflow equalisation generally decreases with decrease
in reservoir permeability. Medium productivity reservoirs require
installation of “stronger” ICDs than prolific reservoirs.
6. Discussion
The question of precision of this model ultimately depends on the
validity of assumptions made in Section 2. For instance, the formulae
for the CoV U/CoV j ratio should be regarded as its lower (optimistic)
estimate since they were obtained by neglecting annular flow.
Annular flow can technically be completely eliminated by using a
large number of isolation packers or a gravel-pack. However, in
practice annular flow occurs to a greater or lesser extent in almost all
wells. The implications of annular flow are very case specific;
requiring help from a numerical simulator if they need to be studied
(e.g. Neylon et al., 2009). This remark especially applies to fractured
reservoirs where the characteristic length of reservoir heterogeneity
(or width of the fracture) is considerably smaller than the length
of the ICD joint. Adequate modelling of such cases is an extremely
challenging task for both analytical and numerical methods.
1.2
1
0.8
CoV ratio
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Channel ICD strength, bar/(Rm3/day)2
CoV ratio Well flow rate
Fig. 7. Dependence of inflow equalisation and well productivity on ICD strength for
channel ICDs in a medium productivity reservoir.
539
1.2 2500
1
Well flow rate, Sm3/day
2000
0.8
CoV ratio
1500
0.6
1000
0.4
500
0.2
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Effective nozzle diameter per 40 ft joint, mm
CoV ratio Well flow rate
Fig. 8. Dependence of inflow equalisation and well productivity on ICD strength for
nozzle/orifice ICDs in a medium productivity reservoir.
The neglect of frictional pressure losses is a valid assumption
in most practical cases. The model presented in this paper is not
applicable when both reservoir heterogeneity and friction have
substantial impact on the inflow distribution. In such cases numerical
simulation should be used for proper completion design.
With numerical simulators at hand, some engineers may question
the practical utility of the present work. However, it is recognised
to be a good practice to employ a number of models of different
complexity rather than one complex model when solving a difficult
engineering problem (Williams et al., 2004). It should also be borne
in mind that the experience with and the availability of numerical
simulation varies from company to company. Relying solely on
numerical simulation can be an obstacle in transferring best practices.
Our analytical model is coarser than numerical models possible today.
However, the analytical solution is simpler, more transparent and
provides one with an insight into underlying physics in a more easily
understood form. Analytical and numerical approaches complement
one another.
7. Conclusions
An explicit analytical model for ICD application to heterogeneous
reservoirs has been proposed. Formulae (16) and (22) allow one to
estimate the IPR of an ICD completion in a heterogeneous reservoir
while formulae (17) and (23) quantify the ICD's equalisation effect.
The presented model addresses the question of the trade-off
between well productivity and inflow equalisation for ICD applica-
2500
tions in heterogeneous reservoirs and allows one to estimate the
ICD completion parameters suitable for such applications. The
Well flow rate, Sm3/day
2000 proposed model was used in a case study which quantitatively
illustrated why medium permeability reservoirs require “stronger”
1500 ICDs to achieve a given degree of inflow equalisation than prolific
reservoirs do.
1000
Acknowledgements
500
V. M. Birchenko would like to thank sponsors of the “Added Value
from Intelligent Field & Well system Technology” JIP at Heriot–Watt
0.007 University, Edinburgh for the financial support. A. Iu. Bejan wishes to
acknowledge the support of the James Watt Scholarship (Heriot–Watt
University) and Overseas Research Students Awards Scheme (ORSAS).
A. V. Usnich is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation.
We also wish to thank AGR Group for providing access to their
software.
540 V.M. Birchenko et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 78 (2011) 534–541

Appendix A. Proof of the coefficient of variation ratio inequality Now the theorem will follow if we manage to prove that
 
Expression (9) represents the greatest root of the following I2
∑ I 2m + 1 I 2ðn−mÞ + 1 ≤ðn + 1ÞI 2n + 2
quadratic equation: 0≤m≤n I 21

2 where equality holds if and only if h represents a one-point mass

aU + U = j−ΔP = 0: ðA:1Þ
distribution. The latter inequality, however, automatically follows from
Since all three coefficients (a, 1/j and ΔP) of the above equation are the following inequalities:
strictly positive and finite, its greatest root is a positive real-valued 2
random variable. I 2m + 1 I 2ðn−mÞ + 1 I 2 ≤ I 2n + 2I 1; m = 0; …; n: ðA:5Þ
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
We use the transformation Y = U = ΔP , X = j ΔP to rewrite
Eq. (A.1) as follows: In order to show Eq. (A.5) we use the Cauchy inequality

2
2 2 2
aY + Y=X−1 = 0: ðA:2Þ ∫f ð yÞg ð yÞdhð yÞ ≤∫f ð yÞ dhð yÞ∫g ð yÞ dhð yÞ

Since the applied transformation is linear, it preserves the where equality holds if and only if f is proportional to g almost
coefficients of variations unchanged. Thus, CoV Y = CoV U and CoV everywhere (with respect to h and its support). In particular, the
X = CoV j. It follows that the inequality (8) is identical to the following following inequality holds:
one:
2
I k ≤ I k + 1 I k−1 : ðA:6Þ
CoV Y b CoV X ðA:3Þ
Since Y is a positive random variable and h is a proper probability
where X and Y are positive random variables linked by Eq. (A.2). We
density function (it integrates to unity) the case I 2 = 0 is not
will, therefore, prove the inequality (A.3) in order to prove (8).
possible. Hence I 2 N 0, and Eq. (A.6) implies that I k N 0 for all k. In
We define a map y ↦ x as a continuous bijection
this case the Cauchy inequality (A.6) takes the form of equality only
y when y k + 1 is proportional to y k − 1 on the support of h. This implies
x= ðA:4Þ
1−ay2 that Y can take only one non-zero value almost surely, that is to say h
is concentrated on at most one point outside zero. We can rewrite

 Eq. (A.6) as follows:
0; a−2 to (0, ∞). We also define the following
1
from the interval
function: I2 Ik I
≤…≤ ≤ k + 1: ðA:7Þ
 2 I1 I k−1 Ik
∞ y
∫ dhð yÞ
0 1−ay2 In particular,
F ðaÞ =  2
∞ y
∫ dhð yÞ I2 I
0 1−ay2
≤ 2n + 2
ðA:8Þ
I1 I 2n + 1
where h(y) is the probability density function of Y. It follows that:
and
∞
∫ y2 dhð yÞ 2 I 2m + 1 I I I 2n + 1
F ð0Þ =
0∞ 2 = 1 + CoVðY Þ ≤ 2m + 2 ≤ 2m + 3 ≤ … ≤ ðA:9Þ
∫ y dhð yÞ I1 I2 I3 I 2ðn−mÞ + 1
0
∞
∫ xð y; aÞ2 dhð yÞ 2 so that
F ðaÞ =
0∞ 2 = 1 + CoVð X Þ
∫ xð y; aÞdhð yÞ I 2m + 1 I 2n + 1
0
≤ ; m = 0; …; n: ðA:10Þ
I1 I 2ðn−mÞ + 1
where x(y ; a) is a parametric function defined by Eq. (A.4).
The following theorem proves that F(0) ≤ F(a) for any non- By multiplying the inequalities (A.8) and (A.10) we obtain the key
negative real value of a, and hence that CoV(Y) ≤ CoV(X). We also inequality
prove that equality is possible if and only if Y (and hence X) has a
degenerate distribution. 2
I 2m + 1 I 2ðn−mÞ + 1 I 2 ≤ I 2n + 2 I 1
Theorem 1. The function F satisfies the inequality F(a) ≥ F(0) where,
except for the case when a = 0, equality holds if and only if h is a point which holds for any m = 0, …, n.
mass distribution. Thus the inequalities (A.5) are proven and the proof is complete.
∞
Proof. We use the following notation I k = ∫ yk dhð yÞ and develop
0
the nominator and denominator of F(a) as series in a exchanging sums Nomenclature
and integrals since all integrals are absolutely convergent: Fluid volumes are quoted at standard conditions (S) while fluid
viscosity and density are in downhole (R) conditions.
y n
∫ = ∑ a I 2n + 1
1−ay2 n≥0 B formation volume factor
 2 Cd discharge coefficient for nozzle or orifice
y
unit conversion factor: 8/π 2 in SI units, 1.0858 ⋅ 10 − 15 in
n
∫ = ∑ ðn + 1Þa I 2ðn + 1Þ Cu
1−ay2 n≥0
metric units, 7.3668 ⋅ 10 − 13 in field units
 2
y n IU( j) an auxiliary function, see Eq. (19)
∫ 2
= ∑ a ∑ I 2m + 1 I 2ðn−mÞ + 1 :
1−ay n≥0 0≤m≤n IUj( j) an auxiliary function, see Eq. (25)
 V.M. Birchenko et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 78 (2011) 534–541 541

J well's productivity index References

P tubing (base pipe) pressure
Augustine, J., Mathis, S., Nguyen, H., Gann, C., Gill, J., 2008. World's first gravel-packed
Pa annulus pressure inflow-control completion. SPE Drill. Complet. 23 (1), 61–67 URL http://dx.doi.org/
Pe(l) reservoir pressure at the external boundary at the same TVD 10.2118/103195-PA.
as point l of the wellbore Birchenko, V., Al-Khelaiwi, F., Konopczynski, M., Davies, D., 2008. Advanced wells: how
to make a choice between passive and active inflow-control completions. SPE
SU( j) an auxiliary function, see Eq. (20) Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
SUj( j) an auxiliary function, see Eq. (26) 115742-MS.
U inflow per unit length of completion Birchenko, V., Muradov, K., Davies, D., 2010a. Reduction of the horizontal well's heel-toe
effect with inflow control devices. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 75 (1–2), 244–250 URL http://dx.
ΔP pressure difference between the external reservoir boundary doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2010.11.013.
and the tubing (base pipe). Birchenko, V., Usnich, A., Davies, D., 2010b. Impact of frictional pressure losses along the
ΔPr pressure difference between the external reservoir boundary completion on well performance. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 73 (3–4), 204–213 URL http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2010.05.019.
and the annulus
Dikken, B.J., 1990. Pressure drop in horizontal wells and its effect on production
ΔPw drawdown i.e. pressure difference between external reservoir performance. J. Pet. Technol. 42 (11), 1426–1433 November. URL http://dx.doi.org/
boundary and base pipe (tubing) 10.2118/19824-PA.
arcsinh inverse hyperbolic sine Gai, H., 2002. A method to assess the value of intelligent wells. SPE Asia Pacific Oil and
Gas Conference and Exhibition. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/77941-MS.
η( j) probability density function of the specific productivity index Helmy, M., Veselka, A., Benish, T., Yeh, C., Asmann, M., Yeager, D., Martin, B., Barry, M.,
〈〉 angled brackets are used to denote average values of variables 2006. Application of new technology in the completion of ERD wells, Sakhalin-1
μ viscosity of produced or injected fluid development. SPE Russian Oil and Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition. URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/103587-MS.
μ cal viscosity of calibration fluid (water) Henriksen, K., Gule, E., Augustine, J., 2006. Case study: the application of inflow control
ρ density of produced or injected fluid devices in the troll oil field. SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition.
ρcal density of calibration fluid (water) URL http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/100308-MS.
Johansen, T.E., Khoriakov, V., 2007. Iterative techniques in modeling of multi-phase
aICD channel ICD strength (Table 1) flow in advanced wells and the near well region. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 58 (1–2), 49–67
d effective diameter of nozzles or orifices in the ICD joint of URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2006.11.013.
length lICD McIntyre, A., Adam, R., Augustine, J., Laidlaw, D., 2006. Increasing oil recovery by
preventing early water and gas breakthrough in a West Brae horizontal well: A case
j1 minimum value of specific productivity index
history. SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.
j2 maximum value of specific productivity index 2118/99718-MS.
jm the mode (peak) of the triangular p.d.f. Neylon, K., Reiso, E., Holmes, J., Nesse, O., 2009. Modeling well inflow control with flow
in both annulus and tubing. SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium. URL http://dx.
l distance between particular wellbore point and the toe
doi.org/10.2118/118909-MS.
lICD length of the ICD joint (typically 12 m or 40 ft) Ouyang, L.-B., Huang, B., 2005. An evaluation of well completion impacts on the
q flow rate in the tubing performance of horizontal and multilateral wells. SPE Annual Technical Conference
qw well flow rate q(L) and Exhibition. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/96530-MS.
Wan, J., Dale, B.A., Ellison, T.K., Benish, T.G., Grubert, M.A., 2008. Coupled well and
ICD Inflow Control Device reservoir simulation models to optimize completion design and operations for
ICV Interval Control Valve subsurface control. Europec/EAGE Conference and Exhibition. URL http://dx.doi.
IPR Inflow Performance Relationship org/10.2118/113635-MS.
Williams, G., Mansfield, M., MacDonald, D., Bush, M., 2004. Top-down reservoir
p.d.f. Probability density function modelling. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. URL http://dx.doi.org/
PI well Productivity Index 10.2118/89974-MS.
TVD True Vertical Depth