An

improved

Future
M.A.

IPR

Klins,

Chevron

Method

SPE,

Predict

Curves

Chevrm

Petroleum

To

U.S.A.

Production

Technology

Co.

CO.

Inc.,

J.w.

and

Clark

III,

spEt

Inc.

5P6
Summaw.

This

formance

paper

relationship

117%,

while

the

affect

equipment

presents

(IPR)

new

a si~lcantly

curves.

approach

stilng,

For

improved

yet

the 21 reservoirs

reduced

the

average

ifr@iii6i-plarming,

simple

studied,

error

to only

and properly

sales

method

current

to prdct

empirical

9%.

This

economics

future

oilwelf

techniques

new

method,

significantly

Q-07a9
deliverability

overpredlcted

when

coupled

because

and

future
with

it provides

nodal

more

inflow

per-

performance

by

analysis,

realistic

could

predictions.

Introduction.

important

An

through

engineering

design

future

fPR

able

curves

to provide

timing

for

with

Currently,

future

abtity

well

to such

lift,

some

is the

a given

answers

of atitkikd

time

for mzddziug

td

optimization

or field.

questions

future

fmancid

to develop
These

curves

as tubing

revenue

streams,

three

future

from

solution-gasdrive

simple

hand-held
low

metfmds

(AOF)

1-3 are

rates

for

reservoirs.

After

mservok-pressure

pairs

have

established,

these

mally

are

with

Vogels4

dimensionless

fPR

create

a family

of future

First,

LPR curves.

significant

error

we will describe

imum

flow

rates.

Fetkovich
reservoir

rate,

sure

(BHP)

by

J(P?

Pn/)n,

several

However,

into

the

the current

average

flow

been

These

values

nor-

equation

the$e methods

methods

to

to predict

and flowing

where

AOF

values,

mate

future

n, is assumed

of the reservoir

and

between

oil

bottomhole

constant,

pres-

constant

constant

at a future

three-

at current

or four-point

rind that

flow

reservoir

be projected

reservoir

reservoiz
test,

pressure,

pressure,

pressure,

accord-

Therefore,

n and J can be estimated

and any future

maximum

with

for that

Data

Vogels4

equation
at

Eickmeier2

coupkd

and set the flow

describing

and

future

)3.

equation

to

reservoir

The
which

method

requires

two

pressures.

constants

flow

rate

estimate

Feikovichs

exponent

these

reservoirs

P,l

(%?)mwl

can

(qo)m=i.

be predicted

is Uhri

to a freed

Then,

separate
Their

with

flow-rate
numerical
from

tests
two

any

to estia single-

uses

a muki-

single-point

tests

the

pressure

method

with

database
complete

used

a wide

is appropriate.

de-

Kim

solution-gasdrive
method.

range

Table

,of rock

characteristics,

and

and skin

flow-ratelpressure-point
gradient

future
of the

description.

the WeUer6

contain

of estimating
discussion

tluid

effects.

data

reser1 shows

set,

that

properdes,
.To constmct

WeUer

describes

as

ap
;

w%%

r?

=141.2
rkkmh

()

rz

rj +,

. .

(8)

saturation

time

at any

and location

can be estimated

from

;=SL(,-9).,2.6_~.

Eq.
at two

fractional

flow-rate

FetWith

selected

approach,

different
tests

average

that two
such

flow
that

tion

8 and

profiles

Pr2=

(%Jmm2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(5)

the weUbore.
gradients
able

b=j+

[ (Qlaxl

from

S.xlely

of Petroleum

E@neainL?,

stepwise

is calculated

the

stew

dure

ing

between

was checked

with

tie

ilnite

of 0.01

Muskat7

time,

and

because

the

The

its results
ft

results

an accurate

and

200

within
proce-

obtained

v@ualIy

ft

and

stepping

WM those
were

a vti>200

100

stew

variable

to

pressure

point

between

100 ft, a 0.05-ft

step.

satura-

weUbore,

At any

ustxl

and

boundary

with

identical.

solution

wbife

mark.dy

for skin

in his formulation,

reduc-

time.

V/eUer6

did not account

had to be adjusted
widti

was

10 and

produces

the outer

approaching

step

a O.01-ft

step

of pressure

from

incorporate$l.

by compming

radius

computation

method

was

a 1.O-ft

10 ft of the wellbore,

rate

computer

steeper

procedure

weUbore;

calculation
flow

conserve

get gradually

ft, a 0.5-ft

weUs.
with

to simulate

Hawkins8
~tered

viewed

permeability

the performance
the
and

skin

effect

defined

tie

of damaged
as a zone

of

it as

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(6)
$=

1993

NP/N,

a specitied

To

stepping

Because

9 allow
for

Tb& prccedure

Pd
_

recovery,

method.

4.

requires

. . ...(9)

value

open-flow

pivot-point

solution

tie

for

maximum

and Blounts3

P,l
1.0.

Reservoir

two

performance,

of 21 theoretical

permeability

>19,000

or improved

WE

L method

needs

new

IPR

a more

simulated

the

1 work

needed
to implement
test can be coup]ed

the corresponding

be determined
(Pr,

COW,ight

requires

cwi

a=

and

give

was

a constant

can be used

approach

the Fetkovich

of the pressureltlow

voirs

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(4)

test liie that

3, a one-point

pressure,

(qo)mm,
tbhd

reservoir

equation,

procedure

papers

performance

Eqs.
of a multipoirx
Eqs.
1, 2, and

petentiaI,

hence

Majcher5

The

(40)m@=(qo)m1(Pfi/P,1

Vogels

maxThese

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(3)
approach,

1..0 to arrive

future

timrre

Development

AOFS

The

(dm=Jz(prz2)~

koviclr)s

to esdmate
solution-gasdrive.

times.

Before

test

by

fn a second

Instead

is then

and Jz =flow

P,I,

pa.

Vogels4

test to implement,

at different

under

Eickmeier2

and the pivot-point

taken

wells

witi
The

flow

Intlow

orrOughOut
varies

J2,

pressure

max-

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(2)

J1 =flow

of

flow

coupled

test,

relative

.J2=J1(P2/Pr,).

with

the

resemok

are available

for

point

IPR

future

to be cons~t

given

. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . ...0)

methods

rates

point

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(1)

exponent,

simple

IPRW

velopment

tbe flow

the life
ing to

three

r+b).

open-flow

and
q.

for any

rate

appear

process.

a relationship

pressure,

to esd-

producing

maxiumm-ratel

estimation

1 presented

used

wells

flow

from

(qo)mrx=(ap?)/@

size,

abandonment

imum

absobme-open-f

coupled

maximum

determined

maybe

and choke
and

The

of

certainty.

mati

to introduce

return

a family

E,glneer,

November

1993

11 h~
(k.
) (rw). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

..(10)

243

TABLE

1RESERVOIR
21

DATA

THEORETICAL

VARIABLES

10s

EEl\

Base-Case

Range

2,000

wpyia

FROM

RESERVOIRS

10?

1 ,0(100 to
25

4,000

to 45

7447(40)

ft (acres)

sgc,

Yo

so,,

(2o

to

80)

*~@~

Otolo
20

100

s ..s

1,052.2
1

oh

,.

to

30

k, md
&

526.6

7X1

lO6-

,3

r.,

-.

=0.Y70

10

to

to

40

::

1.000

.&

15

10

to 20

30

20

to 40

n :::

4 and

co

-4

+6

to

~,.5

10

,,,,,

M.lm

%=1750@

psis

F+=15C4

@a

.,,CJ

103

Eq.

A vaiue
skin

was

IO

solved

fork.

of altered

value

aud

v&ience,

to include

perme&ility

damage

a 4-ft

the skio

can

radius

be calctiated

when

damage

radius

desired

range

effect

k and

was

by specifying

IW are known.

used

in

in the model.

use

the

general

correlations

correlations
the

were

reservoirs

of PVT

to estimate

used

mcdeled

Dranchuk
ke

Vazquti

correlations

and

Beggs11

twe

and

et al. s9

et al.s

and oil ~

values.

the rock

for gas @repressibility;

compressibility,

those

to develop

it was

The

IFIow

reservoir

used

ratio,

12 correction

Development
To

for gas viscosi~,

oil

for mla-

of

Estimate

Fetkovich-type
J =0

the

Verification

from

Vogels4

results

verify

were

origimd

compared

the developed

of mservok
The

from

differences

data

his inflow

generated

works

were

w,ere used

accuracy.

were

the two

in results

graphical

with

models

depletion

curves

work

were

probably

to workable,

with

performance
cwves

with

Vogels

virtuauY

and

curves

to

for three. stages

Case

identical.

tbe&sult

tabular

the model,

IPR

to estimate

n parameters

Data

A data.

~y

of commting

minor
Vogels

inflow

performance

generated

for wells

reservoir
API

pressure

gravity,

tive
rauze

For

1,344

and sk@,

These

curves

I.m

1.05

each

curves

combinations

12R

va!able,
case.

were

19,492

effec~

Fig.

saturation,

total

were

value,
made
4.

foreight

resolted
data

rela-

on AOF

.&d

oil
in-

and the
for eieht
Also,

~or

depletion

in the generation

n cbaoges

considerably

declines

furthe~,

2 shows

that the values

sure,

whiIe

lar

trends

After

increases

varying

skin

We

dimensior@s

to esdmate

that

that,

same

values.
futme

A third-order

~d

presof n

showed

simi-

greatly

and
the

pressures
trends

relationship

also

determined

could

were

between
cases

skin

dimemion-

for

6 and

n/rab

Jflb

had almost

(F&.

p~b,

investigated,

4) while

the

at the

pressure,

obserfed

that

dmt

to the values

dimensiodess
@ii.

case

be d.svel-

we decided

be related

156

ftom

to a dimensionless

attempts,

relationships

AOF

Fig.

reservok

cases

a reIationsbip

with

(Fig.
cases

.5)
witl

no effect

T) were

used

rates.

polynomi~
vabms,

could

J/Jb,

decreasing

These

these

format

and

Note

with

decreases.
when

mea@r@l

differeni

dimensionless

plot

as pressure

Investigations

3).

(Fig.

20 reservoir

reser:

the

significantly.

depleting

for n and J varied

at any pressure

be made.

with

had to be comerted

a statistically
several

from

pressure,

n and J do vary

J.

regression

of cases.

values

pressure

n/nb,

could

vaiiety

relatiombips

n and J values
less

for

of the

for three

apparent

reservoh

each

with

resolts

readily

with

for

PI coefficient,

calculated

of basecase

for J decrease

a wide

these

before

were

for the ~emaiiiing

the absolute

form

n, aod

for n increase

the values
for

oped.

generated

it is not

the values

and J behavior

were

exponent,

case

1 is an example

that

tzlnb and J/Jb

points.

for each

Although

bubblepoint

Mid

depletion,

were

3,

genemted

of conditions

with

gas

runs

were

reservoirs.

the base+ase

1, -2,

future

IPR curves

reservoir

critical
and skin

6, 4,2,0,

to predict

21 theoretical

pressure),

permeabfbies,

values:

b.e used
reservoir,

smuwion,

study.

case

stages.

oil

in the

each
of

from

each

skin

data

producing
(lwbblepoint

1 lists

used

could

solution-gas

Table

diff&nt

that

for my

resid@

and absolute

vestigated.

equation

base-case

Approach

plots

the flow

pressures.

Because

form.

Generation

a general

with

AOF%

voir

to case,

To develop

calculated

Simplified

I isochronal

cases

J and

Future

techniques.

Data

of

was

penno@ility.

Model

J and

constants
data.

following

solution-gasloil

and Burdines

10COO

% @OPD)

to

propeties

correlation

10 correladon
for

necessay

fluid

103)

con-

model.

the

data,

100

For

Fi9.

To include

10

fit was generated

the quations

that

with the dimmsio@ess

descnie

the trends

are

I
i

1,C4 j

603

.
484

iLO
o

500

IWO

1
200

0
a
.

o
1S00

2W4

500

limo

1504

Zmo

R w)

Fig.

244

2Base-case

n with

resewoir

prassure

decline.

Fig.

3-Base-case

J with

SPE

reservoir

Resawir

pressure

EI@Ieerln&

decline.

N.avember

W93

1,4

12-

1.01.3

0.8

4:

.k

skin=

Skin=

skin=4

~,6-

1.
0,4

:L
0.0

0.1

0,2*
k

0.0.

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

&0

0.1

0.2

02

0.4

?5

0,6

0:7

0.8

0:9

.1.0

Fig.

4-Dimensionless

dimensionless

flow

exponent,

nhb,

a3

a function

of
Fig.

pressure.

7Skin

effect

on

J/J~.

1,01CCLC4

0.9o
0.8-

marl
..*P

0.7-

.;.O
mm

0,6-

.
.%O d

~o

0.5-

103
.;?&@
~o

LdAiilL
0.0

0.1

0;2

0.3

0.4

0.5

!3.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

80

10

~ .
1

Avera~

Fig.

5Dlm.enslordess

flow

.VJb,

constant,

0.1

Fig.

120-

10

100

1.15

Skin=

w=.!

8Error

analysis

using

(qJ,w

the

00

0?0

.,

.s
.o@

o
.0

Avaa@

Ah$dute

Maximum
o

k
k

a,

ml
0.4

0.5

0,6

0.7-

0.8

0.9

+vcrw

effect

( ~b)

:=1+0.0577

l~

0.2459

on

0.1

Fig.

nhb.

( J
l~

iwl

10

and

9Error

analysis

SPE

Resemoir

()

2.3065

(W.,

the

+4.7981

November

1993

1 3

()

pb

E@neerin&

Era

189.08%

Em

297.41%
-1785s%

Em,

ICal

Icmo

Icaoo

(?OPD1

Eickmeier2

approach.

(:Y
l

, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(11)

l~

using

(:)

1=13.5718
Jb

+0.5030

Absolute

0.1

1.0

Add

6Skin

0.

10

1.05-

Fig.

103 ?

0,3

approach.

.90%0

.oom
0

Km:

~oo..

0,2

..OOO

. .

0.1

Iwo

@OPD)

Fetkovlch

10333

0.0

Iomo

.@
6

1.10-

1030

Im

%.=0

21635%
-17839?4

Enm

of

pressure.

130.70%

Em,

0.,

1.0

as a function

Error

Awl.!.

Awrw

Actual

dimensionless

Akdte

Maximm

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(12)

pb
245

Im
o
moo

where

the correlation

0.997,

respectively.

fore

future

An

example

coefficients
With

AOFs)

of determination

this information,

can be estimated

of this

calculation

future

maximum

were

n andJ

easily

is given

0.808

wdues

at my

in the

and

(and there-

given

pressure.

Example

Problem

section.

%F$+P

s
~

To predict

Km

and

.3
~

~w
&o&

10

d%

Fetkovich

oil deliverability

1 equation

for

~Y WJen PIMS~;BY
~s~g
potentiaf
at any resewoirpressure

%#

n? the

blepoint.

.0

Coupled

wi~

as a function

de$wability

can

a flowing
BHP of zero,
can be estimated
below

Vogels4

and

KIim

and

of J

be used

at

the AOF
the bub-

Majchersf

ER

relationships,

.OO

~
0

.4bsdu,c

Avcra@
0

Maximum

AvePw

En.,

AWW

124$5%

Emw

176,27%

Em,

&=-o&)-J(:)

44.36%

(3)

0.1
0.1

10

1C4

AmJd

Fig.

10Error

using

analysis

1000

(q.)=

Icmoo

1r3m

01

@OPD)

the

40

=0-0(:)-0(:7

(4)

(%AMX

pivot-points

approach.

where

cm

d=

;)

0.28+0.72

be used

to estimate

(1.24

future

+0.001pb),

fPR

. . . . . . . .

. . .(15)

curves.

Im
Comparison

o
Im

With

The

new

equations

ture

n and

Exkting

(Eqs.

J values

Techrriqu~s

11 and

were

12) and techniques

used

to predict

to estimate

(qo)w

for

154

fu-

cases.

(q.JW
meier,

Icm
g

~$@@O

the

%
Q

1~

.3
3

g$$h

~SO ww P~C~
titb
the s~~d
Fe~Ovich,
and the piv~t-poim3
methods.
S@.
8 throu@

resufts
average,

cases

were

~e~od

!10
:&

..O.
.

1:

a
.

Average

Absolute

Maxim.

&dute

AWW

Error

37,35%

Em,

10

100

Ati

<Q.,

1 lError

using

analysis

lam

10W4

new

approach.

lCQCOJI

mom

the

deliverability
absolute

the methods.

error

while
by this

ca.lcukwioqs.

errors

Table

between

the other
analysis.

the acid

Wee

for

2 shows

df

154

that our

and predicted

methods

had

average

Problem

Taking
tbe ba.secase
results
Calculate
the deliverabilhies
1. Obtaio

and using a single flow

and future
IPR curyes

a single-point

flow

test

and

point,
we can
for a well.

W@Le

p,,

qo, Pwfi

amdpb.
If a multipoint
flow test is avaifable
and n and J are knowq
go ttiSt~ 4. Use the b%e-case
data md take a point on the 1,99o..
psia

IPR

curve

pb

sume

Step

for

2. Using

(II&
the

instead)

for

5.2). At q. =620

reservoti

Step

Klim/Majcher5
1500

actuaf
average

to JUdge

an average

Of <10%,
of > 110%

Step
Fig.

estimated

Example

.
1

vs.
and

.9.29%

0.1.
0.1

predicted

maxim?;

yielded

(qJ_
e~ors

30.70%

Error

of the

The

1 M Eick11 show

1 data

and Eq.

relationship
@mating

BOPD,

is 2,000

14, solve

(the Voge14

the

pwf=

1,714

psia.

As-

for (CJO)W.

With

the

psia.

relationship

deliverability

cmrve

couJd

an?

be used

(qo)m,

%
@
&

-=0-0(:)-00(:7
(LL?)m

,Q@)-

1,990
where

d=

0.28

+0.72m

5a0-

and

x2,000)=3.228,

%
0-0(%2-04%7228
(%,)mm

0.
0

500

Iwo

(%)s

Fig.

,500

mm

=0.3106.

FOPD)

12Base.case

Solve

IPR

for

(q.)-:

curves.

(qcJrmx=6O/O.3106=

TABLE

2ERROR

ANALYSIS
Fetkovich

Average

absolute

Maximum
Average
I

246

(1.24+0.001
,)

mew.

error,

absolute
error,
Of*,

error,

130.70

%
%

216.35
-128.39

FOR

(qo)m=

Eickmeier2
189.08
267.41
-178,59

1,994

BOPD.

PREDICTIONS,
Pivot

P0int3

New

124.09

Approach
30.54

176.27

57.74

-44.36

-9.29

case,.

SPE

Re,erwir

Er,gineetig,

N.,enhz

1993

TABLE

(P%)

Step

1.00030,8507
0.8542
0,8564
0.8621
0.8762
0.9039

0.9823
0.6240
0.3709
0.2137
0,1253
0,0786

500

1.1172

0.9502

0,0470

for

flow

n and

point,

the AOF,

RESULTS

FROM

BASE-CASE

Calculated

(qO)mU

(STS/~-psia2)

1,0044
1.0069
1.0136
1.0303
1.0628

the known

solve

J/Jb

1,990
i ,750
1,500
1,250
1,000
750

3. Using

equation,

nln ~

3CALCULATION

(STBID)

0.0004

1,974
1,061
500
229
111
61

0.0002

31

0.0048

0.0018
0.0010
0.0006

Fetkovichs

J.

2,001
i ,082
449
215
117
63
31

to be auo!icable

to the wide

where

-PwJ+,

of estimating

n= O.8508

J= O.0048.

and

pirical

4. Use

Eqs.

11 and

12 to solve

for

nlnb

and J/Jb:

error

errors

of

These
ture

2=+0(--)-+--7
()

(>

110%)

+4.7981

verify

esdmatm

2.3066

B.

=0.9823.

()

2,000

Steps

3 and

B;

of foture

4,

solve

for

constants

nb and

Step

IIJnb

deliverability
and

with
J/Jb

pressure,

=0.0049.

12 to solve

for n andJ

at reservoir

pressures

below

constants

and

ratios

for
for

any

pressure.

n and

J aIe

At

pressures.

at future

bubblepoint

a 1,750-psi

derived

can

an estimate

pressures.

reservoir

nb

fmm

new

reservoir

new (qo)m%.
pWf=O
pm,
pressure

can

=1,061

7 can be repeated

the

maximum

be calculated

3 shows

results

with

were

generated

reservoirs.

curves

These

reservoirs

reservoir,

PVT,

and relative

of depletion,

The data then

were

on future

depletion

was

AOF
found

evdwiied

to examine

potential.
to 6ffect

Of these

the base-case

for

21

ihwretical

encompassed

tie

a wide

penmability
ibtluence

variables,

future

flow

rates

char-

and flow
WE

equations
exponent

Reservoir

were

developed

tlzt

related

to pressure

En@ntig,

decline.

November

These
1993

STBID-psia2

permeability,

L2,

md

conditions,

to oil,
tlom

L5t3/m2,

L2,

md

dimensionless
skin

effwt,

L2,

Fetkovich

flow

exponent

at bubblepoint,

pressore.

significantly

and

Fetiovichs

I PI

equations

were

found

oil in place,

= cumulative

md

= pressure,
bubblepoint

p.

reservoir

pressure,

= flowing

BHP,
rate,

radial

rd

external

r,

transient

period,

psia
STB/D

at P~j=o,

AOR

Ilom

radi~,

L,

psia

psia

qenter

L3k

STBD

of well,
L,

L,

II

.q=&t

= criticzl

ro/L.t2,

drainage
radim,
Iafis,
L, fl

d~age

SO = Oil
SOi

m/Lt2,
mJLt2

L3/t,

distance

we~bOre
sh

STB

psia

pressure,

= ofl flOW mte

S8,

L3,
during

= oil flow

STB

oil producdon
mlLt2,

L3,

oil production,

s~

Pb

gaz

saturation,

oil saturation

saturation,

dimensionless,

dimerisioidess,
at initial

fraction

fraction

conditions,

dimemionk.ss,

fmction

of 10 prop
only

measurable.
Empiric~

LZ3fm2,

dimensionless

original

at other

acteristics
erties

ft

exponent,

cuumfative

s =

performance

Lt2/m,

flow

(qJ_

deliverability

of calculations

bb!fSTB

to oil at initial

permeabfity

pwf

by

BOPD.

to estimate

psia

conditions,

Fetkovich

Conclusions

rage

should

m/Lt2,

at bubblepoint,

permeabili~

NP

rW =

solution-gasdrive

timing,

sizing

dimemionkss

dat6.

Inflow

fuMore

dimensionless
L,

reservoir

= altered

(1,702)08542

Table

for recove~

constant,

PI coefficient,

k,

q.
0.0031

exponent,
thickness,

= relative

L3,

at the

6 and

of predicting

bbl/STB

at initial

polynomial

(J/Jb)

Stsp
7. Use Eq. 1 to solve for the
With
these
values
and assuming

flow

dimen~onkss,

km

=0.0049x0.6240=0.0031.

Steps

perfonnqm

FVF,

= permeability

Np,

(%j)max

average

in this study.

production-equipment

= Fetkovich
PI cceffkient
sTB/D-psia2

n =

X 1.0044=0;8542,

deliverability

o~

koi

of the

n=nb(n/nb)

and J=Jb

well

compressibility

k = absolute

the nb and Jb

estimates

=0.8505

emin sub-

introduced

accuracy

the procedures

BIounts3

J = Fetkovich

0.9823

6. Use l+?+. 11 and

The

increased

dimensionless,

h = reservoir

0.0048

be estimated

approach

were

psil

Jb:

J~

J/Jb

and

= initial

d =

and Jb=-=

performance

with

and

FVF,

oil

Coi = 01

0.8508
=0.8505
1.0003
J

eiisting

STB/D-psia,

;gY

nhtb

the

selection,

:;)
1,990

~b=L=

approaches

that

=1 .CO03

5. From

new

tmditiond

showed

future

and tie

and LPR curves

b = Ubri

Step

rates

2,000

J
=1-3.5718
Jb

and

with three

flow

resuk.

+0.5030

maximum
for predicting

analyses

ardtlcial-lii
1,990

reserioits

< 10%.

AOFs

accurate

of the new approach

future

procedures

stantial
Step

of solution-gas-drive
.,

range

imfesti~ated.
Comparison

l?=J(P;

(q.)mw

Actual

(STBID)

0.0031

and

DATA

SW

h =

connat+water
pore

saturation,

size

P.

03

Y.i

ofi Viscosiv

distribution

viscosity,

~ = porosity,

m/Lt,
at initial

dimensionless,

dimensionless,
iodex,

IYaction

diroeosionkzs

cp
conditions,

m/Lt,

cp

fraction
247

Acknowledgments

We
Mark

A.

district

Kilns

engineer

Chevron

Lost

Co.

Hills,

whers

his

bllitles
and

tat[on

In

lmplemenHills

sor

He

previously

at Penn8ylv8nia

in drilling,
on

the

quin

U.S.

gulf

valley.
n8tural

was

1983-S4

Kilns

and

the

Editor,

a 19s4-67

member

3.

19S6

SPE
Ill

bilities

and

4.

fields
reservoir

He

cation

MS
was

for
and

Arkansas,
degrees
the

director

chairman

Inc.

in L8

consulting
Chevron

New

Basin

1636-90

He

Mexico,

and

engineering
Sstion

1980-91
Section

8.

for permission

for

Frisbie

figure

to

for typing

preparation.

responsi-

10.

and
held

11.

from

Clark
Texas

continuing
publicily

holds

12.

A&L!

M. W.:

for

AOvfE,

Tntlow

Quickly

2cduti0n-GasDive

243.

Performance

Frcducine

Predicts

153.

Under

Relationships

Si.tion-Gas

Dtie.

Performance

Trans.,

The

A3ME,

Prodcdm

Applied

M. F.:

Histories

Physics

Note

Dining

IW@Phase

Flow,

JPT

237.
of Oil

(1943)

on the

Skin

16,

Pm&wing

Gas-Drive

147.

Effect.,,

Trans..

A3ME

(1956)

356.

Dranchuk,

P.M.,

Katz

Gas

Correlation,

A.L..
Gases,

and

(April

Bmdim.

N.T.:

(June

Relative

DNrib&n

Data,,,

Metric

Conversion

and

H.D.:

JPT

Petroleum

Computer

Using

Technical

E&in.

1966)

Beggs,

pmdicdon,

D.B.:

Factors

Cd-

the

N@ing

Series,

No.

fp

1.

M. H..

JPT

M.

of

(1974)

Gonzalez.

and Robinson,

Compressibility
Jam

Edmonton

&

Vazquez,

Fmrvis, R.A.,

of Natural

k.

erty

Trans.,

Wells

Reservok

J.

Haw!dns.

Prcdnctivi-

i357.

2Q

M.:

hkkat.

74-0C08,

assignments

Texas.

W.T.:
19661

Well

Method

S982)

Relatiombips

83;

M+ichm,

Fume

Point

(My

Performance

or Immoved
1992)

Pivot
Oil

1968)

and

(Dc:

Weller,

and

W.

of U.S.

MA.

Dammd

cul.ati.ms

Pe-

E. M.:

gInOow

Predict

99,

Wo,fd

JPT.(Jan.

Klim,

1968)

Blount,

9n

B. E.:
Trans.,

Correlation!
1980)

4.046

S73

Viscosifv
237.

for

Fluid

of Na.

PhysicaI

PmP

968.

Permeabiiiw

Tram.,

The
AIME,

Calculations
(i953)

196,

From

Pore

Size

71

edu-

chalnqan.

S1

acre

API
X
x

1.5S9
1.0*

3.048*

ma

9.S69

psi

6.S94

II

.Covwsron Wt.,
original
Jan.

22,

w-em
Orleans

SPE
1993.

Factors

E01

141.5/(131.5+

bbl
Cp

24S

Davis

HOW to Accurately

and

J. V.:

207,

the

previously

engineering

7.

9.

Education

His

D.C.

(Feb.

Leo-

Chevron

simulation

affiliates.

Hobbs

CA.

hc.

Isochronal
Testing of Oil Wells,
paper SPE
SPE Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Sept. 30-

Oil (l&y

Reservoirs,,

1988-

Jame8

for

Habr8,
and

production

Hobbs

received

Award.

6.
He

Technical

member,

engineer

Co.

go to Phoebe

1973

Pecfmmance,s,

Vogel,

JPT

Joa-

U.

J.R.:

Wells,,>
5.

The

at tie

World

U&i,

San

petroleum

of the

3.

Eickmeier,

for

Distinguished

Klins

Member

worked

chairman,

Committee.

in petroleum

Permian

and

1982-83

Ott.

chevron

State

a 7984-88

of the

waterdrive

Co.

ressrvoir

in

Committee

Young

and

Techtiology
include

in Louisiana,
and

the

degrees

chairman

Technical

and

Pennsylvania
Section

he
for

Sash

chairman,

Guidance

Outstanding

international
various

U.

Career

is a ga8-

troleum

Petroleum

1991-92

Professionalism

PhD

from

thanks

to Becky

M.K.:

presented

Well

district

profes-

and

engineering

Permian

and

membership

and

Clark

MS

engineering

Committee,

and

SS

holds

In the

Special

md

4529

ties,

direction

new

engineering

a consultant,

reservoir

and

Pittsburgh

1989-90

a petroleum

U. and

and

cdast

gas

Section

turer

St8te

produ.zfion,

and

91

was

2.

water-

well-development
program.

manuscript

1. Fetkovich,

d8-

of a Lost

flood

7J.S .A. Produ&on

paper.

References

responsl-

dlatomite

of

the

Chevron

this

.CA,

include

slgn

Clark

for

thank

publish

U.S.A.

Production

Kilns

is a

API)

S73

ha

gk?ms

E01

ms

E03

Pas

E01

233

E04

pmz

757

E+OO

Wa

is ,=.$.

manuwlpt
Paper

at the 1990
23-26.

SP33R33

mewed
accepled
SPE

for review
(0,

Am.a

Sm.

pubbcatim
Tech.rca

2,1990.
March
C.nfe~.@

Revised

4, 1993,
a.d

manuscript

Pwer

(SPE

~fib[fi..

mcdved
20724]

held

i.

IIrst
N.w

sem

SPE

Reservoir

d@mering,

November

1993

SPE20724
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7

a)

1.20 T

0
0

1.15-

Skin= O

Skin=

Skin = -4

0.6

1
0.5

*o

0.4 1

ii

-1

&
c
Z

l.lo -

ti

0.2 +
0.1-

Oo
#

0.0
0.0

. m

0.1

R,

0.2

0.3

0.4

II
.,.,.,.,.,.,,,

1.00

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Pr/Pb

Dimcmimfss

0.5

0.6

i
1

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

PrlPb

FJGIJRE 5
Flmv Con.want.CfCP~ m a Funtxrnnof ~mnlm

PIGIJRE 6
Effect ONSkm on Ihc Dnncmmnk.x Fh>wExpnmnt, nlnr,,

Fnmnc.

1.2

1.0

0.8

Skin = O

Sxjn = 6

Skin=-4

~n
4

0.6

0.4
1

i-sL--0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Average Absolute Error

130.70%
Maximum Absolute Error 216.35%
Average Error
- 128.39$%.

0.7

Pr/Pb

0.8

0.9

1.0

.1

10

Jmticmslam,acpb

1000

Actual Qomax (BOPD)

FIGURE 7

EfkuofSkinon#hc~

100

&rnr Adyss

FIGIJRE 8
Using IJK Fdkovich Appmxh,

IOooo

Im

-7

(~dOEl) Wd

loA~

XWUO~

o
0

o 0
-o

t0
0

I-

0
0

(adofi)WWJ!IX

Xew)