SPE-174490-MS

Design, Testing, and Field Performance of Steam-Injection Flow-Control

Devices for Use in SAGD Oil Recovery
Ryan McChesney, Frederic Felten, Scott Hobbs, Halliburton; John Edlebeck, Southwest Research Institute

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Canada Heavy Oil Technical Conference held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 9 11 June 2015.
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
To promote efficient recovery of bitumen hydrocarbons using the steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD)
process, it is vital that steam be used effectively because steam generation constitutes one of the largest
operational expenses during the SAGD process. To optimize this process, steam-injection flow-control
devices (FCDs) have been developed. These devices are designed to enhance the operators ability to
distribute steam along the wellbore and to cease steam injection at a particular injection point if necessary,
as the steam chamber matures. This paper discusses the design and capabilities of FCDs.
The project initiated with a design requirement of two core components the axial distribution of
steam exiting the device and a device to incorporate a sliding sleeve mechanism. The basis for FCD design
decisions was developed initially by reviewing worst-case operating conditions FCDs could encounter and
then using this information as the operating envelope criteria that the design should meet. SAGD
completion tools are required to endure everything from temperature fluctuations and corrosive formation
fluids to erosive wet steam and severe wellbore trajectories. To design a tool that would survive the
erosive effects of varying steam quality, the critical velocities and erosive mechanisms were defined. API
RP 14E provides a conservative basis to determine the maximum allowable fluid velocity in a given
system, but several studies have sought to push the boundaries of acceptable fluid velocities. The most
conservative nozzle exit velocities were used to limit risks to casing. The risks caused by high velocities
in the nozzle inside/inner diameter (ID) to the injection tool were mitigated through the use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analyses and material selection/treatment.
Because of the high temperatures under which SAGD operates, consideration of mechanical property
degradation and possible deformation had to be considered, specifically to the collet of the sliding sleeve.
To prevent diminishing performance during the operational lifetime, FCDs that use sliding sleeves with
collet mechanisms require a robust design that recognizes and addresses maximum stress loads and limits
plastic deformation at peak temperatures. The testing of the sliding sleeve was conducted throughout a
wide range of temperatures where the forces to shift the sleeve were monitored and compared to previous
finite elements analyses (FEA) for compliance.
ISO 14998 Annex D provided the basis for function testing of the FCD (i.e., cycling the sleeve and
pressure testing at temperature). All pressure and function testing was performed at or above the operating

SPE-174490-MS

temperature, and pressure and results were qualified to ISO 14998 V1. Field performance is discussed in
the paper.

Introduction
The SAGD process requires the use of a horizontal well used for steam injection directly above a
secondary horizontal well used for production. After circulation and in SAGD mode, steam is injected into
the upper wellbore and heats the formation adjacent to the bore. As the steam expands through the
formation a steam chamber is formed, which is made up of saturated steam (Fig. 1). Steam progresses
through the chamber and condenses near the edges yielding latent heat, which is transferred to the highly
viscous bitumen hydrocarbon. By absorbing this latent heat, the bitumen becomes less viscous and more
mobile within the reservoir. Because of gravity, the mixture of mobilized bitumen hydrocarbons and
condensate drain to the lower completion where they can be pumped to the surface.

Figure 1Steam chamber formed of saturated steam.

For the in-situ recovery of bitumen hydrocarbons to be economical, the steam, which constitutes a
significant operating expense, should be effectively used. This effectiveness or efficiency is a measurable
indicator and is commonly referred to as the steam-oil-ratio (SOR), and is a key performance indicator in
terms of the overall efficiency of the well, pads, or project. Typically, short and long string injection
results in more steam chamber growth concentrated at the heel and toe of the wellbore. The dual injection
tubing configuration results in uneven steam distribution along the entire lateral bore (Gotawala and Gates
2009). By only having two points of injection, the effect of reservoir heterogeneity and thief zones can
be magnified (Ali 1997). Another cause of poor steam distribution caused by reservoir heterogeneity can
be preferred steam flow paths into the reservoir. Steam will take the path of least resistance from the
injection string to the production string, creating the potential for steam breakthrough. Steam breakthrough can result in a loss of sand control on the producer caused by excessive flow rates focused on a
single slotted liner or screen section (Das 2005).
One way to prevent steam breakthrough is to maintain the liquid condensate level above the producer
so that there is no direct flow path for steam to escape through the producer. In order to maintain a
sufficient liquid level above the producer, the production fluid should be cooler than the steam injected
from the surface; this temperature differential is referred to as the subcool margin. The subcool margin
should be adequate to help ensure that the produced fluid will not be able reach the steam saturation
temperature at the given pressure.
The use of FCDs has been shown to help significantly improve the steam distribution along the lateral
wellbore (Medina 2013). By using FCDs on the injection string, the steam chamber growth will be more
balanced, and the risk of steam breakthrough can also be reduced. The use of a FCD with a closing sleeve
also helps provide the operator the ability to cease steam injection in a particular region of the lateral bore

SPE-174490-MS

if there is some indication steam breakthrough might have occurred. Some experimental work has also
shown the use of inflow control devices (ICDs) or autonomous inflow control devices (AICDs) on the
producer can prevent or limit the impact of steam breakthrough (Least et al. 2014).
Tubing deployed FCDs to evenly distribute steam along the lateral bore are now very common in the
SAGD market. Multiple FCDs are used in series to control the amount of steam flow along the lateral bore
by controlling the amount of pressure decrease that occurs at each device. An FCD can be designed with
or without a closing sleeve as previously discussed based on the amount of flow control necessary and
reservoir heterogeneity. The device considered in this project consists of a center nipple, top sub, bottom
sub, closing sleeve, and seals (Fig. 2).

Figure 2Injection FCD design.

The purpose of this project was to design, build, and test an FCD that would survive the downhole
SAGD conditions and operate reliably throughout the life of the well pair. The design process began by
identifying the most significant requirements:

Axial steam injection to prevent direct impingement on the slotted liner,

A design that would have the mechanical integrity to survive the most severe conditions during
running in hole (RIH).
A seal system that would allow adequate isolation of a particular steam injection zone at SAGD
temperature and pressure should the sleeve need to be closed.
With axial steam injection in mind, the next consideration was how to best use the internal flow area
to condition the steam flow so the FCD itself would not experience any negative effects from direct
internal steam impingement. To determine the best way the steam flow could be conditioned from the bore
before entering the nozzle throat, four various closing sleeves were considered. The designs each consisted
of a different geometric pattern used for fluid communication between the sleeve ID and outside/outer
diameter (OD). A fifth design did not include a sleeve to serve as a control. The bench mark to determine
how well the flow was conditioned by each design was to examine how close the peak flow stream
velocity was to the bulk velocity and the percent of total flow traveling through each nozzle (left and
right). The ratio between the two serves as a representation of how effectively the orifice cross-section is
being used. The greater the percentage of the orifice cross-section used, the lower the peak velocity
considered when determining the risk from liquid droplet impingement erosion (LDIE). A CFD analysis
was used to determine which design achieved the lowest peak to bulk velocity; the results are presented
later.
When FCDs are installed, they are forced through the dogleg between the vertical and lateral portions
of the wellbore and should be able to handle combined tensile and bending loads. The requirement of axial
steam injection lends itself to a design, which consists of greatly differing center nipple and end sub
diameters. Having two different moments of inertia can lead to bending stress concentrations at the

SPE-174490-MS

interface between the two parts. Special care was used to design an OD feature profile transition that
limited stress concentrations and limited the potential for crack initiation. This was done in consideration
for the metal-to-metal seals and threads on the center nipple and end sub connection components. FEA
was performed on the FCD to demonstrate that the worst-case dogleg and peak tensile loading would not
pose any risks to the FCD or completion. Results from full scale testing are presented.
The sealing system designed for the closing sleeve considered an operating envelope of 520F and no
less than 500 PSID. ISO 14998 testing was performed to stress the seals both mechanically and thermally
to simulate worst-case operating life for both the seals and collet. The testing included pressure reversals
and temperature cycling. However, the sleeve was never opened with a pressure differential because the
end of the tubing string is open for steam flow. The ISO test also served as the validation of the collet
feature at temperature. Until now, there has not been a clear set of criteria that covers the most important
design aspects and methodology to validate an FCD for use in SAGD steam injection.

Liquid Droplet Impingement Erosion

During SAGD operations, wet steam can pose problems to downhole equipment and liner. Steam flowing
at high velocity through a nozzle or orifice can thin the wall directly downstream. When steam follows
a preferential flow path to the producer, the high velocity flow with entrained sand can destroy slotted
liner and screens, resulting in loss of sand control. It is important that, whenever possible, the velocity
limitations for a tool be clearly defined and the peak velocities be managed. To help ensure that erosion
is limited in SAGD operations, it is important to understand what the primary mechanisms of erosion are.
Erosion occurs when material is removed from a part or surface by physical means (Salama and
Venkatesh 1983). Three primary mechanisms are the cause of this physical material removal cavitation,
liquid particle impingement, and solid particle impingement. When cavitation occurs, such as the repeated
bubble collapse in a centrifugal pump impeller, the surface is repeatedly loaded and unloaded, causing
fatigue and pitting. Solid particles, such as sand entrained in steam, oil, or gas, can be carried in the fluid
and abrade tubing or other downhole tools made of ductile materials. In some cases, material loss can be
a result of repeated removal and buildup of a passive surface layer caused by erosion/corrosion (Salama
and Venkatesh 1983).
API RP 14E has defined the fluid velocity limitations of oil and gas production two phase flow systems,
but some studies have shown the methodology to be overly conservative. The erosional velocity
limitations imposed by API RP 14E are particularly conservative for sand free two phase systems and
situations in which liquid droplet impingement is the primary mechanism. The velocity limitations are
defined by Eq. 1 in which Ve is the erosional velocity in ft/sec, is the fluid density in lbm/ft3, and C is
the constant between 100 and 125.
(1)
In two phase systems, which are sand free, C100 is typically used to determine the erosional velocity
limit for continuous service, and C125 is considered only for intermittent service. Based on a review of
experimental data and a comparison of the limits proposed by API RP 14E, Salama concluded that the API
equation was overly conservative. Particularly in the case of sand free systems, C300 should be an
acceptable empirical constant (Salama and Venkatesh 1983).
The Erosion/Corrosion Research Center research group at the University of Tulsa developed an
erosional model to predict velocity limitations caused by liquid droplet impingement and compared the
values to those calculated using API RP 14E. The model showed that the API equation was much more
conservative than those velocity limitations proposed by this new flow model. This work created a method
for predicting erosional velocities caused by liquid droplet impingement by considering droplet size,
impact velocity, and the type of geometry in which the fluid stream interacts. Validation of the model was

SPE-174490-MS

performed by comparing experimental results from an ASTM STP 474 test on 1018 carbon steel to the
erosional velocity predicted by the correlation model. In cases where liquid droplet impingement was the
primary mechanism of erosion, the paper showed that the API equation greatly underestimated the fluid
velocity limitations (Arabnejad et al. 2014).
Navas et al. proposed a new standard of C factors to be used for estimating erosional velocity
limitations using the API equation. Erosion testing conducted was evaluated to help determine what
corresponding C factor was associated with the erosional velocity limit. A variety of geometries were
considered in this study to create a relevant standard to determine appropriate C factors (straight pipe,
elbow, and valve assembly). The study varied the sand particle size and concentration in addition to the
fluid in which the particles were entrained (water, wet gas, and dry gas). Results showed that, in wet gas
(1,000 psi), C factors exceeding 300 might be acceptable for determining the erosional velocity limits
in a straight pipe section. This paper demonstrates that using C factors between 100 and 200 for
production or injection tubing and downhole tools was overly conservative (Navas et al. 2011).

CFD Simulations
To determine which closing sleeve geometry best conditioned the flow entering the steam chamber within
the FCD, two-phase CFD simulations were completed for each case. Phase-change was not considered.
Constant concentration and fluid properties were considered for the steam and water droplets. Modeling
software was used to perform CFD analyses. By conditioning the flow, the nozzle cross-section could be
more effectively used, reducing the peak velocity in the nozzle and improving FCD reliability. In addition
to verifying which design best conditioned the steam flow, the velocity of the flow exiting the diffuser
needed to be determined. The steam flow velocity should be less than 100 ft/s exiting the diffuser to help
ensure there was no LDIE risk to the slotted liner. Each case used the same center nipple, top sub, bottom
sub, and the sleeve geometry represented the variable being tested. The simulations were performed by
considering a 1/4 cut of the cross-section to reduce both mesh size and time necessary for simulation
convergence (Fig. 3). The FCD in the analysis was the top device on the injection tubing string, meaning
it would encounter the highest steam pressure and flow rate through the bore. Table 1 presents the
boundary conditions considered for each simulation.

Figure 31/4 cut used for simulations.

Table 1Boundary conditions considered for each CFD simulation.

SPE-174490-MS

This project considered five various cases; the first had no closing sleeve to interact with steam flow,
and the other four used various flow slot geometries in the closing sleeve to alter the steam flow.
The criteria used to determine which design performed the best consisted of three basic criteria:

Lowest ratio between the nozzle bulk velocity and peak velocity in the flow stream.
Closest to 50/50 balance of flow between the left and right nozzle considered.
No diffuser exit velocities above 100 ft/s.

Based on the results from Design 1, it was determined that the recirculation that occurred in the steam
chamber had a negative impact on the velocity ratio. The flow stream tends to be restricted in the steam
chamber because most of the internal area is consumed by a large flow recirculation. Figs. 4 and 5 show
the flow stream and nozzle flow profile for Design 1. The nozzle profile shows the peak velocity
concentrated near the top half of the nozzle diameter, and the streamlines show how the recirculation
consumes the entire steam chamber.

Figure 4 Nozzle profile (Design 1).

Figure 5Streamlines (Design 1).

Next, a closing sleeve was included in the simulation, which was in the open position. The fluid
communication path used in Design 2 consisted of sixteen evenly spaced radial straight slots. Results from

SPE-174490-MS

this design were similar to those in the first iteration without the closing sleeve included. Figs. 6 and 7
show the nozzle profile and streamlines for the simulation completed for Design 2.

Figure 6 Nozzle profile (Design 2).

Figure 7Streamlines (Design 2).

Design 2 had a velocity ratio higher than the control case with no closing sleeve to interact with the
flow. The radial flow slots, which span the entire length, allow for recirculation to consume the entire
steam chamber. The flow slots, which span the chamber, allow the fluid stream through the FCD bore to
interact directly with the chamber and induce recirculation. Velocity ratios and the flow balance between
the left and right nozzle are included in Table 2.

SPE-174490-MS

Table 2Design Cases 1 and 2 velocity ratios.

Left Nozzle

Case
Design 1
Design 2

Right Nozzle

Peak Velocity
(ft/s)

Bulk Velocity
(ft/s)

Ratio of
Vmax/Vbulk

Flow Split
(%of total
flow)

222

163

1.36
1.42

7.74
7.89

235

166

Peak Velocity
(ft/s)

Bulk Velocity
(ft/s)

Ratio of
Vmax/Vbulk

Flow Split
(% of
total flow)

222

153

1.45
1.69

7.26
7.11

243

144

Results from the first two design cases analyzed show that full chamber length flow paths in the closing
sleeve might not be the most effective means to condition the flow stream. Three more designs were
created to attempt to reduce the negative effects of recirculation on the nozzle velocity ratio. Designs 3
through 5 were created with a flow path that would diffuse the inertial energy in the flow stream that
causes circulation. The alternate designs use offset slots and varied geometry to break the flow stream
before entering the internal steam chamber. Figs. 8 through 13 show the nozzle profile and flow
streamlines that resulted from the simulations completed on the remaining three design cases.

Figure 8 Design 3 nozzle profiles.

Figure 9 Design 3 flow streamlines.

SPE-174490-MS

Figure 10 Design 4 nozzle profiles.

Figure 11Design 4 flow streamlines.

Figure 12Design 5 nozzle profiles.

10

SPE-174490-MS

Figure 13Design 5 flow streamlines.

Design Cases 3 and 4 still exhibited some localized recirculation, while it was less pronounced in the
steam chamber. Even though both design cases used offset slot patterns or varied slot sizes, particularly
near the nozzles, multiple instances of recirculation were present in the flow stream. It appears that using
a slot, even in the case of a slot that does not run the full length of the steam chamber, allows the main
flow stream through the bore to influence the streamline behavior in the steam chamber. However, Design
5, which incorporated progressively smaller holes in place of slots as the fluid communication, showed
much less recirculation in the steam chamber flow streamlines. It is counterintuitive to consider progressively smaller rather than progressively larger diameter pathways. In most cases, the primary mechanism
that governs fluid flow is fluid pressure rather than the fluids inertia. By limiting the amount of continuous
cross sectional area exposed to the main flow stream the amount of recirculation that occurs can be
minimized. Table 3 displays velocity ratios for each of the remaining designs were obtained from the
simulation.
Table 3Design case 3 to 5 velocity ratio.
Left Nozzle

Case
Design 3
Design 4
Design 5

Right Nozzle

Peak Velocity
(ft/s)

Bulk Velocity
(ft/s)

Ratio of
Vmax/Vbulk

Flow Split
(%of total
flow)

213

165

1.29
1.28
1.27

7.87
7.35
7.41

199
201

155
158

Peak Velocity
(ft/s)

Bulk Velocity
(ft/s)

Ratio of
Vmax/Vbulk

Flow Split
(% of
total flow)

195

162

1.20
1.18
1.20

7.13
7.65
7.59

207
201

176
168

The simulations showed that the casing would not encounter a steam flow velocity 100 ft/s, meaning
that liquid droplet erosion would not be a concern. Results also demonstrated that, even without a closing
sleeve to condition the flow steam, a near 50/50 balance between left and right nozzles could be achieved.
By reducing the velocity ratio between the peak and bulk velocities, more of the nozzle cross-section was
effectively used. Reducing the velocity ratio also helps ensure that no portion of the FCDs internal
components will be exposed to a steam flow velocity that exceeds the recommended erosional velocity
limit. Design 5 represents the optimal design case because of its near 50/50 flow balance, minimal velocity
ratio, and lack of significant recirculation present in the steam chamber flow streamlines.

Mechanical Testing
Full scale mechanical testing was performed to help ensure the design, which has a widely varied OD,
would not have excessive stress concentrated at the interface between two ODs. The test was conducted
in a horizontal load frame rated for one million pounds with the capability for applying tensile and bending

SPE-174490-MS

11

loads simultaneously. Before being installed into the load frame, the ends subs were installed with 1200
ft-lb of make-up torque. Following assembly, eight uniaxial strain gages were mounted onto the top and
bottom end subs (four on each). Gages were placed at 0, 90, 180 and 270. The strain gages were mounted
on sections with the same ID, OD, and wall thickness to help ensure that bending on any axis would be
detected. Additionally, four tri-axial strain gages were positioned at critical locations along the FCD to
calculate the bending moment and strain. Load testing consisted of applying a 126,000 lbf tensile load
then a 4,200 ft-lb bending moment through the assembly, which equates to 17/100 ft well deviation. The
load was held for five minutes, during which the axial displacement was measured with a displacement
transducer to help ensure the center nipple and end sub connections were not yielding. The bending
moment through the assembly was also monitored through the assembly to help ensure the expected
deformation was occurring and the strain values were not changing over time. Strain values that varied
significantly over the hold period would indicate some yielding in the FCD. No deformation or yield was
observed during the load hold. The assembly was visually inspected after the mechanical test with no
damage or crack initiation detected. Fig. 14 shows the test setup and Fig. 15 shows the results from the
test as recorded by the strain gage.

Figure 14 Combined bending and tensile test setup.

12

SPE-174490-MS

Figure 15Plot of bending moment through the assembly and tensile load at each strain gage.

ISO 14998 Testing

Laboratory testing was performed at Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) in San Antonio, Texas. The
testing plan for the two seal designs was based on Annex D of ISO 14998: Petroleum and natural gas
industries-downhole equipment-completion accessories. ISO 14998 requires that the test article be opened
and closed the maximum rated number of cycles at the maximum rated temperature. It requires that, after
cycling, a 15 minute pressure hold at the maximum rated pressure be performed on the bore, followed by
one pressure reversal at the maximum rated pressure from the bore to the annulus. A pressure reversal
involves a pressure hold on the bore, a pressure hold on the annulus, followed by another pressure hold
on the bore. Leakage is measured during each pressure hold, and pressure holds should last at least 15
minutes. For Grade V0 and Grade V1 of Annex D, at least one temperature cycle is necessary in which
the temperature of the test article is cooled down by at least the maximum rated temperature cycle range.
Pressure holds are necessary at the low end of the temperature cycle range and after heating back up to
the maximum rated temperature. Grade V2 of Annex D requires no temperature cycle. The acceptance
criterion for Grade V0 are zero bubbles of gas accumulated in a graduated cylinder over a hold period,
and the acceptance criterion for Grade V1 and Grade V2 are no more than 20 cc of gas accumulated in
a graduated cylinder over the hold period.
A custom test fixture for shifting the test article shifting tool was designed and fabricated at SwRI. Fig.
16 shows a three dimensional (3D) computer model of the test fixture and Fig. 17 shows the fabricated
test fixture. The test article shifting tool was coupled to a 3 1/4-in. bore hydraulic cylinder with a 1-in.
diameter shaft and a 12-in. stroke length. The connection between the test article and the hydraulic
cylinder included a tension and compression load cell for measuring the force necessary to shift the tool.
The assembly was mounted to a 12-ft section of wide flange with gussets welded in place to react the
shifting force. The fixture was designed to accommodate a shifting force of up to 10,000 lbf.

SPE-174490-MS

13

Figure 16 Solid model of the test fixture used for shifting the test article shifting tool.

Figure 17Test fixture used for shifting the test article shifting tool.

Fig. 18 illustrates a diagram of the test setup. A port in one of the test article end caps was used to
supply pressurized nitrogen to the bore of the test article, and to measure any leakage from the bore when
the test article was pressurized from the annulus. Similarly, one of the ports in the annulus of the test
article was used to supply pressurized nitrogen to the annulus of the test article, and to measure any
leakage from the annulus when the bore of the test article was pressurized. A dynamic gland seal was
incorporated into the test article end cap facing the hydraulic cylinder to accommodate the reciprocation
of the closing sleeve while pressurized with nitrogen, An arrangement of automated isolation valves was
used to direct pressurized nitrogen to the test article or direct leakage from the test article to an aquarium
tank containing an inverted graduated cylinder submerged in water for quantifying leakage. A heat
exchanger was necessary to cool the nitrogen leaving the test article before coming in contact with the
automated isolation valves, which were rated at a temperature lower than the temperature at which the test
article was heated for testing. The pressures of the bore and annulus were measured with pressure
transmitters.

14

SPE-174490-MS

Figure 18 Diagram of the test setup.

The test article was wrapped in heater bands to raise the fixtures temperature to the maximum rated
temperature of 520F. A proportional integral derivative (PID) temperature controller was used to control
the power to the heater bands based on feedback from thermocouples. Three thermocouples, two of which
were used as inputs to the PID controller and one of which was used for data collection, were secured to
the outside of the test article.
A hydraulic pump and a manifold of automated isolation valves were used to control the hydraulic
cylinder. The pressure supplied to the cylinder by the pump was measured to quantify the force necessary
to shift the tool in addition to the measurement made by the tension and compression load cell.
Two seal package designs were tested within the same test article. For this test, intermediate pressure
holds were performed before reaching the maximum rated number of cycles. The maximum rated number
of cycles for the test article inside of which the seals to be tested were installed was 10 cycles. For Seal
Design 1, pressure holds on the bore were performed every two cycles, and two pressure reversals and a
temperature cycle were performed after ten cycles. For Seal Design 2, pressure holds on the bore were
performed after two cycles, six cycles, and ten cycles. If the seal design had not already failed because
of more than 20 cc of leakage during a pressure hold, one pressure reversal and a temperature cycle were

SPE-174490-MS

15

performed after ten cycles. Tests were conducted at the maximum rated temperature for the test article of
520F. For temperature cycling, the temperature of the test article was reduced to below 400F.
Table 5 presents a summary of the test results. Seal Package Designs 1 and 2 met the acceptance
criterion for Grade V1. Note that Seal Package Design 2 was tested at a maximum rated pressure of 750
psi opposed to Seal Package Design 1, which was tested at a maximum rated pressure of 500 psi. Table
5 also shows the ranges measured for the force necessary to open and close the test article with the load
cell throughout cycling for each test.
Table 5Summary of test results.
Seal
Design
1

Testing
Pressure
(psi)
500

Testing
Temperature
(F)
520

750

520

Maximum Leakage
(path)
11 cc (bore to
annulus)
2 cc (bore to
annulus)

Opening
Force
Range (lbf)

Closing Force
Range (lbf)

10191289

9501163

13211550

10121386

Summary
Met the acceptance criterion
for Grade V1
Met the acceptance criterion
for Grade V1

Completion Design/Performance
Several studies have demonstrated the benefits of using FCDs as part of the injection tubing string in
SAGD wells. A validated model developed by Max Medina (2013) provides a methodology for designing
injection tubing strings for SAGD upper completions that incorporate FCDs. This steady state model of
the injection string determines the ideal locations and pressure drop through each device. The model was
validated by comparing simulation results to field performance data collected from wells both with and
without FCDs. The injection pressure vs. steam flow rate was compared for both completions types to
understand how the steam flow capacity of each differed. A new method was also proposed to measure
the dynamic pressure gradient of the lateral wellbore. The method consists of using temperature data
obtained along the bore to extrapolate the steam pressure based on the known properties of saturated
steam. This paper demonstrated that upper completions with FCDs can be successfully designed to inject
steam more evenly along the lateral bore and also deliver more steam to the formation at a given injection
pressure (Medina 2013).
Another study also used numerical analysis to determine what benefits FCDs might have on steam
distribution and limiting steam breakthrough caused by reservoir heterogeneities and overall performance
of SAGD. The study considered both a base case (dual injection sting method) and several designs, which
incorporated FCDs. Based on the simulation results, it was concluded that FCDs on both the injector and
producer can provide a solution to combat reservoir heterogeneity. Also shown is that, even with the
higher capital expenses necessary to deploy FCDs, the payback period was still shorter when FCDs were
used. The cost recovery period was shorter with the inclusion of FCDs primarily because of the SOR being
12% lower compared to the standard long and short string completion geometry. Overall, FCDs were
demonstrated to be the preferred method compared to the standard dual tubing completion because of a
more even steam distribution, minimizing breakthrough, and improved economics (Ajumogobia-Bestman
et al. 2014).

Conclusions

Under typical SAGD well conditions and flow rates, it is possible to develop an FCD design that
can provide steam axially in both directions that prevent steam from impinging on the slotted liner.
It was also shown that the threshold velocity for liquid droplet impingement erosion is much higher
than the velocity of any flow the casing will interact with.

16

SPE-174490-MS

Using the geometry of the fluid communication flow paths in the closing sleeve, it is possible to
condition the flow such that the bulk velocity and peak velocity are very similar, thereby limiting
internal nozzle velocities to those below the LDIE threshold velocity.
The FCD design presented should not encounter any issues downhole because it was tested well
beyond the tensile and bending values it should normally encounter.
The seal package and collet design performed well under SAGD conditions and can help provide
reliable functionality throughout the life of well.
A set of design criteria and benchmarks for validating future designs was presented that will serve
as a starting point for future developments of FCDs intended for use in SAGD injection.

References
Ajumogobia-Bestman, S., Jobling, R., Pederson, E. et alet al. 2014. Quantifying the Impact of Flow
Control Devices in SAGD Applications in the Surmont Area Through Numerical Analysis.
Presented at the SPE Heavy Oil Conference-Canada, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 10 12 June.
SPE-170112-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/170112-MS.
Ali, S.M. 1997. Is There Life After SAGD? J Can Pet Technol 36(6). PETSOC-97-06-DAS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/97-06-DAS.
ANSYS CFX, Release 15.0, ANSYS, Inc.
Arabnejad, K.H., Shirazi, S.A., McLaury, B.S. et alet al. 2014. A Guideline to Calculate Erosional
Velocity due to Liquid Droplets for Oil and Gas Industry. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2729 October. SPE-170951-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/170951-MS.
Das, S. 2005. Improving the Performance of SAGD. Presented at the SPE International Thermal
Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 13 November. SPE-97921MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/97921-MS.
Gotawala, D.R. and Gates, I.D. 2009. SAGD Subcool Control with Smart Injection Wells. Presented
at the EUROPEC/EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 8 11 June.
SPE-122014-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/122014-MS.
Least, B., Greci, S., Huffer, R. et alet al. 2014. Steam Flow Tests for Comparing Performance of
Nozzle, Tube, and Fluidic Diode Autonomous ICDs in SAGD Wells. Presented at the SPE Heavy
Oil Conference-Canada, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 10 12 June. SPE-170083-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/170083-MS.
Medina, M. 2013. Design and Field Evaluation of Tubing Deployed Passive Outflow Control Devices
in SAGD Injection Wells. Presented at the SPE Heavy Oil Conference-Canada, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, 1113 June. SPE-165563-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/165563-MS.
Navas, G., Nguyen, H., and Sun, K. 2011. Choosing Better API Rp 14E C Factors For Practical Oil
Field Implementaiton. Presented at the NACE International Corrosion Conference, Houston,
Texas, 1317 March. NACE-11248.
Salama, M.M. and Venkatesh, E.S. 1983. Evaluation of API RP 14E Erosional Velocity Limitations
for Offshore Gas Wells. Presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 2
May. OTC-4485-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.4043/4485-MS.