Abstract
There has been a tendency in oil and gas industry towards the adoption of multilateral wells (MLWs) with completions that incorporate multiple types of flow control devices (FCDs). In this completion technique, passive inflow control devices (ICDs) or autonomous inflow control devices (AICDs) are positioned within the laterals, while interval control valves (ICVs) are installed at lateral junctions to regulate the overall flow from each lateral. While the outcomes observed in real field applications appear promising, the efficacy of this specific downhole completion combination has yet to undergo comparative testing against alternative completion methods that employ a singular flow control device type. Additionally, the design and current evaluations of such completions are predominantly based on analytical tools that overlook dynamic reservoir behavior, long-term production impacts, and the correlation effects among different devices. In this study, we explore the potential of integrating various types of flow control devices within multilateral wells, employing dynamic optimization process using numerical reservoir simulator while the Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO) is used as optimization algorithm. The Egg benchmark reservoir model is utilized and developed with two dual-lateral wells. These wells serve as the foundation for implementing and testing 22 distinct completion cases considering single-type and multiple types of flow control devices under reactive and proactive management strategies. This comprehensive investigation aims to shed light on the advantages and limitations of these innovative completion methods in optimizing well and reservoir performance. Our findings revealed that the incorporation of multiple types of FCDs in multilateral well completions significantly enhance well performance and can surpass single-type completions including ICDs or AICDs. However, this enhancement depends on the type of the device implemented inside the lateral and the control strategy that is used to control the ICVs at the lateral junctions. The best performance of multiple-type FCD-based completion was achieved through combining AICDs with reactive ICVs which achieved around 75 million USD profit. This represents 42% and 22% increase in the objective function compared to single-type ICDs and AICDs installations, respectively. The optimal settings for ICD and AICD in individual applications may significantly differ from the optimal settings when combined with ICVs. This highlights a strong correlation between the different devices (control variables), proving that using either a common, simplified analytical, or a standard sequential optimization approach that do not explore this inter-dependence between devices would result in sub-optimal solutions in such completion cases. Notably, the ICV-based completion, where only ICVs are installed with lateral completion, demonstrated superior performance, particularly when ICVs are reactively controlled, resulting in an impressive 80 million USD NPV which represents 53% and 30% increase in the objective function compared to single-type ICDs and AICDs installations, respectively.