Pressure Transient Analysis in Advanced Wells Completed with Flow Control Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Inflow Control Devices (ICDs) modify the inflow profile of a multi-zone well completion. Their imposition of an extra pressure drop at the sandface has proven to be particularly effective at delaying the breakthrough of (unwanted) water or gas in wells with long completion lengths. It is widely accepted that an ICD completion improves the field's economics; but the question of whether and why an ICD completion affects the accuracy of standard Pressure Transient Analysis (PTA) workflows has not been addressed. A typical ICD completion is designed to create an extra pressure drop of a similar magnitude to the well's expected reservoir drawdown when producing at its target rate. This paper shows why this extra pressure drop cannot always be treated as an additional skin value during PTA. This is because the ICD's pressure drop is a time dependent variable, varying with both fluid's viscosity and flowrate through the device. A nonlinear pressure loss can, sometimes, distort the pressure response and render conventional PTA methods inaccurate. The study presented in this paper uses an integrated, dynamically coupled, wellbore and reservoir model to define the limits within which treating the ICD pressure drop as an additional skin is a valid assumption and when its nonlinear nature will result in an inaccurately estimated value of skin and reservoir permeability. A general workflow for the analysis of PTA data measured in liquid producing wells completed with ICDs is proposed for the derivation of realistic values of the formation damage skin. The workflow has also been adapted for routine monitoring of wells completed with ICDs. The value of this study is illustrated by its application to two data sets from the North Sea's Golden Eagle field. This is an ideal field to test the validity of our theoretical analysis due to well completions with multiple levels of inflow control together with "state-of-the-art", downhole sensors. The results of this work allows Reservoir and Production Engineers to differentiate between deteriorating well performance due to increasing watercut and that due to an increasing formation damage skin.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".