SPE 29312 Inflow Performance Relationship For Perforated Wells Producing From Solution Gas Drive Reservoir

Pudjo Sukamo, InstitutTeknologi Bandung-SPE Member (160984-1) Edward L. Tobing, PPTMGB Lemigas-SPE Member (084-929-9)
@VI%I~ 19S5 SOCMYof Petrobum Engineers,Inc.
atth01ee5A8i9 —oi16GaBconfUw@ & E!hibilion, Kuddumpw Mwch 2CL2Z, 1-


ABSTRACT The IPR curve equations, which are available today, are developed fix an open hole wells. In the application of Nodal System hid@S in pCIfOI’StCd wells, sn accurate of pressure loss in the perforation is very calculation important. Nowadays, the equation which is widely used is Blou@ Jones and Glazel) equation, to esdmate pressure 10ss across perforation. This equation is derived for single phase flow, either oil or gas, therc%oreit is not suitable for two-phase production wells . In this paper, an IPR curve equation for perfbmted ~iis, producing from solution gas reservoir, is introduced. The equation has been drive developed using two phase single well simulator combine to two phase flow in perforation equation, derived by Perez & Kelkar2). A wide ranges of reservoir rock and fluid properties and perforation geometry are used to devdoped the equation statistically.


In the application of Nodal System Analysis, perforation is an important component in a well production system. Diffkrent perforation technique, diflkrent perforation length and diameter yield different well productivity and Figures and Tables at end of paper

at the end of the analysis yield diff&ent cost and revenue. Therefore, optimization is needed to choose the “right” perforation technique and geometry. In Nodal System in A~y~i~9 a g~ a=~on Of flow perfOllnallce pdoratio~ is needed. An equation that suitable to the well conditions. BlounG Jones and GIazel) had dCIiVd an equation to predict flow perfbxmance in perforation for single phase flow (gas or oil). Therefore, the equations are not applicable for wells producing gas and oil (two-phase wells), such like a well producing fknn solution gas drive reservoir. Perez & Kelkar2) had derived an equation to p-edict two-phase pressure drop across perforations. In the applicati~ this equation need Wormation of oil relative permeability at crushed zone, as well as number of perforations, perforation size and length, viscosity and formation volume fkctor of oil, pressure at crushed zone and pressure at perforation. Therefore, for practical purposes, Perez & Kelkar equation should be combined with other method which gives the value of oil relative -bility, and the pressure at crushed zone and perforation. In this papr, a two-phase single well simulator is used to prepare the oil relative permeability &@ at certain production conditions. ‘he well productivity @ormamx USldly is represented by MOW Performance (IPR) equation. All of those f3qLMtiOIlS, which RdSthShip are available today, do not consider the ei%xt of perforation. In this paper an IPR equation, which is consider the e&ect of perforation technique and perforation geometry, is proposed. This equation has been developed using a mathematicalhmmerical model, consists of Perez &


SPE 29312

Pudjo Sukamo


perforation. In this paper an IPR equation, which is consider the eflkct of petioration technique and petioration geometry, is proposed. This equation has been developed using a mathematicalhmmerical model, consists of Perez & Kelkar equation and single well two-phase simulator. During running the model, it has been assumed that the damaged zone around the well is not considered. The model has been nm for wide ranges of reservoir properties, perforation techniques and petioration sizes, to obtain the relationship between oil flow rate and flowing bottom hole pressure, at certain reservoir pressure. Voge15) type plot has been choosen to represent the productivity performance in general form.

MODEL DEVELOPMENT The mathematical model, which is representing perforated well producing from solution gas drive reservoir, consists of mathematical model of gas and oil flow from the reservoir boundary to the sandface and the analitycal equation of gas and oil flow in pefioration derived by Perez & Kelkar. The mathematical model is a radial three-phase single well model and it is developed by solving gas, oil and water flow partial differential equation, numerically. The model had been validated), either for one phase (oil) flow, two-phase (gas and oil) flow and three (gas-oil and water) flow, by comparing the slope of relationship between dimensionless well bore pressure drop to dimensionless time, obtained from the model and the analytical equation. The plot from the model yield slope of1.151 at early transient perio& as stated in the analytical equation. For three-phase flow conditions, Wiggins6) developed three-phase reservoir model and yield very close result compared to this model. Using this model, the pressure and saturation distribution along the reservoir at certain production rate can be calculated. A perfixated well penetrates a formatiou and each of perforation penetrates the formation with the length of ~, measured fkom sandfhce. The perforation bullet produced a hole with radius of rp. The crushed zone around the pefioratio% caused by the bullet penetmdo~ has a radius of rc, measured from the center of perforation. From the sandface to the tip of perfo@i@ it is assuned that the radius of pdoration and crushed zone are the same. Perez and Kelkar derived two-phase flow in perforation, analytically, based on the perforation geom@y mentioned prt3fi0usiy, and the foiiowing assumptions: - The flow is steady state and isothermal

The flow is perpendicular to the length of perforation s Gas and oil flow simultaneously in the perforation m The flow rate at each pefioration is the same, that is the total flow rate divided by the number of petiorations. q The pressure at the outer boundary of crushed zone is constant s lle relative permeability at the crushed zone, as a fhnction of saturatio~ is the same to the formation relative permeability. q The efTect of gravity and capillary pressure are neglected The assumptions of Perez & Kelkar equation are ve~ similar to the assumptions of three-phase radial single well simulator. The gas and oil piwtial differential equations for flow in petioration have been derived based on mass conservation law combine with Forcheimmer’s equation. These equations represent turbulent flow in porous medium, between crushed zone and pefioration. Solving the differential equations, Perez & Kelkar arrive to the pseudo pressure drop Oquatio&as follows : AP@ =p@(P=)-p@(Pp) ...................... (1)

AP@ =:;~



For solving the pseudo pressure drop in perforation equation (2), requires the relationship between @#~Bo) w pressure. For simplification purposes, a Iinier relationship is assumed. Using this simplification, the relationship between (kJ~BA .au. uw vs pressure, at averaged pressure could be represented by:




Substituting equation (3) to equation (2), yield the simplified pseudo pressure drop equatim as follows:


=-{++)P=P(P: N 169Sqo 2P



SPE 29312

Pudjo Sukamo


40% of formation permeability, for overbalanced and underbakmced perforation, respectivel#J. 3. Pressure at crushed zone and perforation The single well simulator is run until pseudo steady state time is reached. At this condition, the pressure at sandfkce and at the first grid block can be obtained. The pressure at the pefioration is equal to the pressure at the sandfiwe and the pressure at the crushed zone is equal to the pressure at the first grid block. 4. Oil relative permeability, oil viscosity and oil formation vol=e factor at crushed zone. From the sinudator the oil saturation at the first grid block are obtained. According to Perez & IG#kar ~~.tiy,p~ofi, the oil **dp=~~p’ ~~~ represents the value of oil saturation at crushed zone. Using this value, the oil relative permeability can be calculated ilom relative permeability curve. The average pressure between crushed zone and pefioration can be calcula@ and based on this pressure, the oil viscosity and oil formation volume fhctor can be esdmated using correlations. For developing inflow performance in perforated wells, a computer program has been prepared and the program has been nm for various set of data. The ranges of data are shown in Table 1. Using the computer program, the relationship between flowing bottom hole pressure and oil flow rate at certain perforation geometry and number of perforations, can be calculated.

and 2 are the example plots, which are representing dimensionless IPR curves for rp<O.3 and rp>O.19, for overbalanced and underbalanced perforation technique, respectively. Based on the result of calculations, the following conclusions can be drawn: m for shot density greater than 12 SPF the perforation pressure drop could be neglected, and the well will performs as an open hole well. s for the ranges of perforation leng@ as shown in Table 1, the eflkct of petioration length is negligible. The IPR curves obtained from the model have been grouped based on the @oration technique and petioration radius. ZUM@SiS have been run for the data point in .A. m~i~. .“ each grou~ and yield the following —equation: 9* —=*o+al($f-)+a2
Qmex r



where: . ~, al and a2 are constants which depend on the perforation radius and perforation technique, as shown in Table 2 and 3. is maximum production rate without q Q= -phatiofi. US* ~ ~~qe prewure md production test data and applying eq. (5) to the test ~ the IPR curve of a perforated well producing from solution gas drive reservoir, can be predicted. The calculation procedure is similar to Vogel’s IPR curve calculation procedure. Iikumple Problem: A well is perforated using overbalanced technique with shot density of 4 SPF for 24 ft production interval. The pttlfO1’iltiOll length and ~rfOl%dXl radius are 12 inch and 0.39 in~ respectively. The pressure and production test dataareasfbllows: q Reservoir pressure = 1007.00 psi I.-1 -—”.. = 077 ml e; s Ww-mg Bottoin Ilule ~1Saul~- . .. . p.. = oil production rate = 1160.00 Stb/&ty Calculate the IPR curve of the well. Solution: The ratio of flowing bottom hole pressure to the reservoir pressure is (922.00iiO07.00j = 0.9i56 For overbalanced technique, and the perforation radius greater than 0.30 in, based on the Table 2, the mnstant of theequation areas fbllows: = 0.77503 *



The mathematical model has been run for wide ranges of rock fiuid properties data and aiso for ti-erent size of reservoir and perforation. The ranges of data are shown in Table 1. For a set of datq and at certain reservoir pressure, the relationship between sand &e flowing pressure and oil flow rate are calculated. Applying Perez & Kelkar equation for certain perforation diameter and length and also number of perforations, the pressure drop across perforations can be calculated. Then, the flowing bottom hole pressure can be calculated by substmding the sand fkce flowing pressure with the pressure drop across pefiorations. Voge15) type +y.. q W :~ ~.w. h@req “. ---n nlnt t&~ p~Q Qf oil flOW * tO oil flow rate (@Q-) with the ratio of flowing =um bottom hole pressure to reservoir pressure (P#r), fix dif%ent setofda@ areused to represent the inflow performance in perforated wells. Qmax is the maximum flow rate at open hoie condition (no perforation). Figure 1


SPE 29312 = 0.12529 al = 0.87781 az Based on these constants an the value of (P@r), ...maximum flow rate without pefioration are calcux follows : 1160.00

Pudjo Sukamo 1$ = porosity ~ = gas viscosity, Cp ~ = oil viscosity, cp ~= oil viscosity@ cmshed zone, cp ~D= dimensionless oil viscosity ~ = water viscosity, q


the as


0.77503 + O.12529(0.9156) - 0.87781(0.91 56)2 = 7538.80 STB/d

The flow rates at other value of flowing bottom hole pressures can be calculated. For example: PM= 0.0 psi, = 7538.80(0.77503)= 5842.47 STB/d PM= 500.00 psi, = 7538.80 {0.77503+0. 12529(0.4965)% 0.87791 (0.4965~} = 4680.20 STB/d Table 4 shows the complete result of IPR curve calculation andthe curve is shown in Figure 3.

1. Jones, Loyal G., E.M. Blount and C.E. Glaze :“Use of Short Term Multiple Rate Tests to Predict Performance of Wells Having Turbulence”, SPE Paper #6133, SPE of AIME, October 1976. 2. Perez, G and Kelkar, B.G. : “A New Method to Predict Two Phase Pressure Drop Across Perfixations”, SPEPE, February 1991,93-101 3. Sukarno, P. :“Inflow Performance Relationship Curves in Two-Phase and Three-Phase Flow Conditions”, PhD Dissertati~ The University of Tuisz Oklah~ 1986. D----- u. : ‘1~,~ T.*L ml—, of A@&@ ~i% 4. Druwq J Gdiuqy .A. Methods”, Volume IV, PennWell Publishing Company, Tul~ Okktho1984. 5. Vogel, J.V. :“Inflow Perfommnce Relationship for Solution Gas Drive Wells”, Journal Petroleum Technology, January 1968. 6. Wiggins, M.L.:’’Generalized Inflow Perfcmnance Relationships fix Three-Phase Flow”, SPE Paper #25458

NmfEhTaA’mRR ~,al,~ = constants of the proposed IPR equation B. = oil formation volume fhctor, bbl/STB h = formation thickness, ft = oil rate in a single perfixation, bblhy ? = fixmation absolute permeability, md ~ = crushed zone permeability, md ~ = dective gas permeability, md ~ = efkctive oil permeability, md km= relative oil permeability Lp =etiml~fi ~ = number of perforations = pressure, psi Pc = pressure at crushed zone, psi = pressure at perforation, psi ‘P Pflowing bottomhole pressure, psi Pr = reservoir pressure, psi qo = oil production rate, sTB/day ‘M==ti=~$h~m~~p~oti~ rc ‘e = me radius, ft ‘ r = perforation radius, ft & = solution gas oil ration, SCF/STB rw = well-bore radius, ft ~ = turbulence *r _tion



SPE 29312 Table 1 The Ranges of Data for IPR Curves Calculation Lower Va&fe Ffuid?%o~”es s Oil API Gravity
q s s

Pudjo Sukamo


Highest Value
60.00 0.74

Table 3 Constants of Eq. (5) (Underbalanced Perforation) rminch 9 20.1 SPF 16 12
8 >0.30

Gas specific Gravity

25.00 0.60

Water Specific Gravity Bubble Point Pressure (nsia)

1.07 1457.00

an 0.95146 0.93806

al 0.06546
0.05464 0.05473


-0.95875 -0.94102


Rock &Opd4?S q Porosity q Absolute Permeability (red) I s Irreducible Water Saturation s Residual Oil Saturation (W/O) q Residual Oil Saturation (G/0) s CriticalGas Saturation I WellandReservoir Geometry s ll” ramageArea (acres) a Formation ThiCkllMS (ii) s Well radius (ft) q Reservoir Temperature (°F) s Skin Factor I ~P~oration Data

0.16 0.29 100.001 625.00 I 0.11 0.25 0.08 0.15 0.07 0.13 0.08 I 0.15


4 2 4 2

0.91196 0.07855-0.95974 0.85540 0.06302-0.88678 0.79507 0.15189-0.91899 0.64374 0.22082-0.83782

Table 4 IPR Curve In Perforated Well
(Example Problem)

10.00 0.33 160.00 0.00 I I I o~91 3:03 2

Pm&don Rate, STNd Vogel Proposed


0.50 190.00 I I ~.?~ I 12.33 16








Perforation Length (inch) m Shot Densitv

--- ).00 I 7oo.ti 600.00 500.00

2666.88 I


3763.11 3301.60 4734.18 4056.16 5580.09 4680.20
6300.84 [ 5171.73

Table 2 Constants of Eq. (5) (Overbalanced Perforation) rm in

400.00 I


I 0.00

7932.28 I


16 12 8

0.91995 0.90482 0.87333

0.08072 0.08881 0.10715

-0.97117 -0.96534 -0.98364


4 2 16 12 8

0.77503 0.61710 0.83925 0.79505 0.73507

0.12529 0.26632 0.12038 0.14935 0.11547

-0.87781 -0.86983 -0.93283 -0.91988 -0.82687




4 2


0.57857 I 0.09956 I -0.65332

I ().33247 I 0.2W84 I -0.52487 I






-“ .“
I , I


q “9








. t“:”
. 9: ::




-’ -.9







-. 4* a’