SPE 94302
A Two-Phase IPR for Horizontal Oil Wells
M.L. Wiggins, SPE, and H.-S. Wang, U. of Oklahoma
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE Production and Operations
Symposium held in Oklahoma City, OK, U.S.A., 17 19 April 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This paper investigates the rate-pressure behavior of a
horizontal oil well with a fully penetrating wellbore producing
during the boundary dominated flow regime. Based on linear
regression analysis of simulator results, two empirical inflow
performance relationships (IPRs) are developed to estimate
well performance. A future performance relationship is also
developed to allow estimates of future rate-pressure behavior
from current test information. The IPR relationships are
compared to other horizontal IPRs available in the literature
and yield reasonable estimates of well behavior over a wide
range of operating conditions.
Introduction
The number of horizontal well drilled by the oil and gas
industry has escalated rapidly since the mid-1980s primarily
because the wells offer production solutions where
conventional technology either fails or produces results that
are less than desirable. The major advantage of a horizontal
well is to increase the reservoir contact area and thereby
enhance well productivity or injectivity. Compared to a
vertical well, the horizontal well can achieve higher ultimate
recovery and produce at higher flow rates in certain reservoir
conditions. The horizontal well may be a viable economic
alternative for naturally fractured reservoirs, low permeability
reservoirs and in reservoirs with oil and gas coning problems.
In many improved oil recovery applications, the horizontal
well may be a suitable alternative for both production and
injection.
Over the years, the productivity of horizontal wells has
been the subject of numerous studies. From these studies,
several analytical solutions have been proposed to estimate
horizontal well performance.1-5 These solutions are based on
single-phase flow principles and may not be appropriate for
two-phase, oil-gas flow.
In time, several investigators have utilized reservoir
simulators to study the behavior of a horizontal well producing
from solution-gas drive reservoirs.6-10 These investigations
have led to proposed empirical inflow performance
relationships (IPRs) to predict the rate-pressure behavior of
horizontal oil wells.
In 1968, Vogel11 presented an empirical IPR for an oil well
producing from a solution-gas drive reservoir. This IPR for
two-phase, oil-gas flow was based on the analysis of
simulation results and gained quick acceptance by industry as
it was simple to apply and yielded acceptable results.
Fetkovich and others soon followed with similar type IPRs for
boundary-dominated flow in oil wells. These relations were
developed for vertical wells and may not be appropriate for
horizontal oil wells.
Plahn et al.6 were early investigators who studied the
multiphase behavior of horizontal wells in a solution-gas drive
reservoir. They used a reservoir simulator to investigate the
well behavior and the effect of various reservoir rock and fluid
properties on that behavior. From this work, the authors
developed a set of type curves that could be used to forecast
production from horizontal oil wells producing at their
maximum rate.
In 1989, Bendakhlia and Aziz7 utilized a commercial
reservoir simulator to study the performance of horizontal oil
wells producing from solution-gas drive reservoirs. Their
work paralleled that of Vogel for vertical wells. Based on their
simulation results they concluded that the inflow performance
curves were not significantly affected by reservoir rock and
fluid properties; however, they did find the curves were
influenced by the stage of reservoir depletion. They proposed
the following IPR for horizontal oil wells.
n
qo p wf p wf
2
= 1.0 V (1 V ) ................... (1)
qo,max pR pR
In this equation, V and n are functions of reservoir depletion
and are obtained from a figure provided in the paper.
Cheng8 would propose an IPR for slanted and horizontal
wells based on simulation results using a specially develop
vertical/horizontal/slanted well simulator (Boast VHS).12 He
found the IPRs for slanted and horizontal wells behave similar
to the parabolic shape of Vogels IPR but noted that there was
significant difference in Vogel rate-pressure estimates as
compared to simulation results. His work focused on the
interpretation of the variation in curvature of the IPR with the
change in well inclination angle. Based on his work, Cheng
observed a right-shift with increasing inclination angle and
2 SPE 94302
generated individual empirical IPRs corresponding with
different angles. His empirical IPR for a horizontal oil well is:
qo p wf
p wf
= 0.9885 + 0.2055 1.1818
q o,max pR pR
Retnanto and Economides10 investigated the performance
of horizontal and multibranched wells producing from
solution-gas drive reservoirs using a reservoir simulator. In
their work, they generated a number of inflow performance
curves for a range of different reservoir properties. Using
nonlinear regression analysis of the simulation data, they
proposed the following empirical IPR.
n
qo p wf
p wf
= 1.0 0.25 0.75 ........................ (3)
qo ,max pR pR
In Eq. 3, n is a function of the oils bubblepoint pressure.
p R
2 this minimum during the simulation, the maximum rate was
n = 0.27 + 1.46
pR
0.96 (4 + 0.00166 pb )
pb pb
.............................................................................................. (4)
In this work, reservoir simulation was used to study the
behavior of a horizontal oil well producing from a solution-gas
drive reservoir. The paper proposes two empirical IPRs based
on linear regression analysis of the rate-pressure data
generated during the simulation study. The first IPR is a
generalized IPR while the second IPR presented is a function
of reservoir recovery or depletion. The proposed IPRs are
compared to selected multiphase IPRs and yields acceptable
agreement with those relationships. Finally, the paper
proposes a future performance relationship that allows the use
of current rate-pressure data to predict the inflow performance
of a horizontal well at some future reservoir pressure.
Development of Horizontal IPR Data
A three-dimensional, three-phase, finite difference reservoir
simulator was used to generate rate-pressure data for a
horizontal well producing from a solution-gas drive reservoir.
The simulator utilized was BOAST-VHS which was
developed by the U.S. Department of Energy.12 The simulator
has the ability to simulate production and injection from a
single vertical, deviated, or horizontal well.
The data were generated under the following assumptions:
1) the well is located in the center of a completely bounded
prism, 2) the well is fully penetrating the reservoir in the
horizontal direction, 3) the reservoir is initially at the
bubblepoint pressure with no free gas phase, 4) the water
phase saturation is constant and immobile, 5) isothermal
reservoir conditions exist, 6) there is no reaction between the
reservoir rock and reservoir fluids, 7) no gas solubility in the
water phase, 8) capillary pressures are negligible, and 9)
boundary-dominated flow conditions prevail.
Twenty-seven different reservoir cases covering a wide
range of reservoir rock and fluid conditions were simulated to
develop the horizontal well rate-pressure data. The data
2 utilized in the simulation were synthetic data generated from
....... (2) correlations available in the petroleum literature or selected
from other simulation studies. Three basic sets of relative
permeability and reservoir fluid data were used in the study.
Table 1 shows the range of reservoir properties used to
develop the performance data. In addition, three specific
reservoir geometries were utilized with drainage areas of 40,
80, and 160 acres and thicknesses of 50, 40, and 30 ft,
respectively. Finally, three sets of permeability data were
used to represent a homogeneous, isotropic reservoir, a
homogeneous, anisotropic reservoir, and a layered reservoir.
Wang9 presents complete details on the various parameters
used in the generation of the inflow performance data.
Simulator results were obtained for a horizontal well fully
penetrating the reservoir in the horizontal direction producing
at a constant bottomhole pressure. Maximum oil production
rates were estimated at each stage of depletion from the
simulator results at a minimum flowing bottomhole pressure
of 14.7 psia. If the flowing bottomhole pressure did not reach
estimated from the production information available and then
checked by re-running the simulator.
Inflow performance curves were developed from the data
generated for all 27 reservoir cases. These unnormalized rate-
pressure curves are useful for visualizing the production
behavior of an individual well. In this case, the most important
use of the curves is to provide a physical interpretation of the
pressure-production behavior of a horizontal well. Fig. 1
presents the typical pressure-production behavior observed in
this study for one case developed in this study. The curves are
convex and decline with increasing reservoir recovery much
like that observed by Vogel in his study of vertical oil wells.
Based on this observation, Vogel proposed a robust
normalization procedure that led to the development of his
IPR. Fig. 2 is the normalized presentation of the data
presented in Fig. 1. One notes that the data falls within a
narrow range, with the curves appearing to be affected by
reservoir recovery as noted by Bendakhlia and Aziz.
In the simulation study, a parametric study was conducted
to investigate the effects of reservoir permeability, reservoir
size, and reservoir rock and fluid properties. Complete details
are presented by Wang and summarized here.
1. For the cases examined, the IPR curves are parabolic
and are similar to Vogels IPRs. This parabolic
characteristic agrees with other investigations of
multiphase, horizontal oil well behavior.
2. The dimensionless IPR curves are sensitive to
depletion or reservoir recovery. The curvature of the
IPR increases with increasing depletion. It is also
noted that the shift in the curve with depletion is not
monotonic as they appear to shift from left to right
and then shift back with increasing cumulative
recoveries.
3. It appears that an increase in heterogeneity tends to
narrow the band of the pressure-production data
based on the cases studied. This may result from the
increased difficulty of the gas phase to move upward
SPE 94302
due to vertical heterogeneity and provides more
uniform flow behavior.
4. In general, the simulation results show no significant
effect on the shape or magnitude of the IPR curves
due to changes in reservoir drainage volumes.
5. The IPR curve is slightly dependent on fluid
properties; however, the effect does not appear
dramatic. This can be explained by the fact the
reservoir fluid properties are a function of reservoir
pressure. As reservoir depletion progresses, then the
pressure decreases and any change observed in the
fluid properties are captured in the reservoir
depletion.
Generalized IPRs
To develop generalized IPRs for horizontal wells producing
from solution-gas drive reservoirs, the production rate ratios
were regressed on the pressure rate ratios. Fig. 3 presents the
normalized IPR data for all 27 cases studied. The data are
parabolic in nature and similar in behavior to that observed by
Vogel. Though the data appear to fit within a reasonable band,
the individual performance curves appear to be affected by
depletion as noted by Bendakhalia and Aziz.
For application purposes, two empirical IPRs are
developed. The first empirical relationship is based on all the
generated data while the second relationship is developed as a
function of reservoir recovery or depletion.
The first IPR was generated by fitting the data from all 27
cases shown in Fig. 3 using a linear regression model of the
form
Y = a 0 + a1 X + a 2 X 2 ..................................................... (5)
where a0, a1, and a2 are regression coefficients. The resulting
generalized IPR is given in Eq. 6.
2
qo p wf p wf
= 1.0 0.4533 0.5467 ............. (6)
q o , max pR pR
The coefficient of fit for the relationship to the data is 0.9721.
The relationship has an average absolute error of 13.2% when
it is used to compare calculated data to the simulated data.
Since the pressure-production behavior of a horizontal well
is a function of depletion, the second IPR is developed based
on each stage of reservoir recovery from the simulated data.
Once again, a linear regression model of the form presented in
Eq. 5 is used at each stage of reservoir depletion to develop an
equation of the form
2 has on the IPR.
qo p wf p wf
= 1.0 d (1 d ) ........................ (7)
q o , max pR pR
where d is a function of reservoir recovery or depletion. Table
2 shows values of d for selected stages of depletion. Fig. 4
presents the depletion coefficient for the ranges of reservoir
recovery studied. Note that depletion coefficients were only
3
obtained for the data points represented in the plot and shown
in Table 2.
Table 2 provides a basic analysis of Eq. 7 for different
depletion stages. One observes an increasing lack of fit of the
data at increasing stages of depletion. Part of this may result
from the fact that there is a decreasing amount of simulated
data available for analysis with increasing reservoir recovery.
It should also be noted that the depletion coefficient is not
monotonic. It decreases with increasing reservoir recovery and
then slightly increases after reaching a minimum. This agrees
with the observations of Bendakhalia and Aziz. However, this
lack of monotonic behavior indicates that the IPR may be a
function of depletion only at low reservoir recoveries, less
than 4%, as indicated in Fig. 4. This dependency on depletion
needs additional study.
The developed IPRs were compared to the IPR methods of
Bendakhalia and Aziz, Cheng, and Retnanto and Economides
to evaluate their appropriateness for use. Tables 3 and 4 show
comparisons of these four IPR methods to selected simulation
data. Table 3 shows a comparison of the four IPRs methods to
example simulated data developed in this work. This example
compares how well each relationship estimates the maximum
oil production rate from the given test data. It is observed for
this example that the generalized IPR presented in Eq. 6
provides the best estimates of the maximum production rate,
even better than the depletion based IPR. However, the
percent differences for both IPRs proposed in this work are
less than 10%. The IPRs of Bendakhalia and Aziz and
Retnanto and Economides both estimate the simulated data
with percent differences less than 20% while Chengs IPR
yielded estimates greater than 20% for two of the three data
extrapolations.
Table 4 provides a comparison to data developed and used
by Bendakhalia and Aziz. In this example the IPR of
Bendakhalia and Aziz does a better job of estimating the data
than the other IPRs. Once again it is noted that the depletion
based IPR proposed in this work provides no better results
than the generalized IPR. This observation is in line with
earlier comments that question how strong the depletion
dependency is for the horizontal well IPR. The IPR of
Retnanto and Economides and the IPRs proposed in this work
provided similar quality estimates with percent differences
being less than 10%. Chengs IPR once again provided
estimates that provided percent differences that ranged from 9-
31%
While not an exhaustive comparison, these two examples
demonstrate the relative reliability of the IPRs. Reference 9
presents a more detailed analysis and indicates the generalized
IPR of this work (Eq. 6) provides reasonable estimates of
horizontal oil well performance. The data also supports the
concern related to the degree of influence reservoir recovery
Future Performance Relationship
The effects of depletion are encountered as cumulative
production increases from a reservoir and well deliverability
decreases. The ability to predict future performance allows an
engineer to estimate the pressure-production behavior at some
future, lower reservoir pressure from current production data.
4 SPE 94302
Standing13 was one of the first to look at predicting future
performance of vertical oil wells using Vogels IPR and
suggested the future performance was related to the oil
mobility function. Wiggins et al.14 later proposed an analytical
IPR for vertical wells and indicated the relationship was a
function of not only pressure but also the oil mobility.
Using this idea, Wiggins15 proposed a general relationship
to predict future performance of the form
q o , max, f p R, f D f
= .......................................................... (8)
q o, max, p p R, p D p
where the subscripts p and f refer to present and future
reservoir pressures. Wiggins went on to suggest that since the
oil mobility function term is a function of pressure and that the
ratio of the maximum rates is also a function of pressure, then
a future performance relationship could be developed as a
polynomial of the ratio of the average reservoir pressures.
Based on this concept, a plot of the maximum oil rate
ratios versus the average reservoir pressure ratios for all the
cases studied in this work we developed. The data followed a
concave relationship, although there is some variation in the
data. This variation may be due to relative permeability effects
and fluid property effects; however, the data points lie in a
relatively narrow band.
The data was fit with a linear regression model of the form
Y = a 0 + a1 X + a 2 X 2 + a 3 X 3 + a 4 X 4 . .................. (9)
The resulting relationship to predict the future maximum oil
rate is given in Eq. 10.
2 a = regression coefficient
q o, max, f p R, f p R, f
= 1.0 7.36 + 20.32
q o , max, p p R, p p d = depletion coefficient in Eq. 7
R, p
............ (10)
3 4
p R, f p pb = bubblepoint pressure, psia
23.92 + 10.96 R , f
p p
R, p R, p
This relationship was developed for a fully penetrating
horizontal well and appears suitable for using over the range
of reservoir properties and conditions used in this study.
To apply the proposed future performance relationship,
one should estimate the present maximum oil production rate
from the appropriate generalized IPR (Eq. 6 or 7). Then the
future maximum oil production rate can be estimated from Eq.
10 for some future reservoir pressure. Finally, the new inflow
performance data can be developed at the future depletion
stage by using the generalized IPR (Eq. 6 or 7) with the
desired reservoir pressure and the predicted future maximum
production rate.
Table 5 presents a comparison of simulator results and
future production rates predicted by the proposed method for
one case. The results presented in this table indicate the
difference in the estimates as compared to simulator data
increase as we estimate rates further into time. In this case the
percent difference between the predicted estimates and the
simulated data is less than 3.5% down to a pressure ratio of
80%. Once the pressure ratio drops below 80%, the percent
difference begins to increase. This observation agrees with
work by Sun16 and Wiggins15 and implies care should be taken
in estimating future performance over large stages of reservoir
depletion as the error may be large.
Based on previous work, it is suggested the future
performance relationship should yield reliable estimates at
reservoir pressure ratios greater than 80%. However, as the
pressure ratios decrease below 80%, the anticipated error will
increase. To overcome this potential error, it is recommended
that initial future performance estimates by updated regularly
as depletion progresses. These updated estimates will improve
with time and reduce the uncertainty in them.
Conclusions
Inflow performance data was generated for a horizontal oil
well producing in a solution gas drive reservoir from a
reservoir simulator. Based on the simulated data, two IPRs
have been presented for horizontal oil wells producing from
solution-gas drive reservoirs that are suitable for use over a
wide range of reservoir properties. The two IPRs include a
generalized IPR and an IPR that is a function of reservoir
recovery. The proposed relationships are Vogel-type IPRs that
require single point estimates of oil production rate, flowing
bottomhole pressure, and average reservoir pressure.
A future performance relationship for horizontal oil wells
has been presented based on regression analysis of the
simulated data. This empirical relationship may be the first
proposed for predicting future performance of horizontal oil
wells producing under two-phase flow conditions.
Nomenclature
D = mobility function term
n = deliverability exponent in Eqs. 1 and 3
pR = average drainage area pressure, psia
pwf = flowing bottomhole pressure, psia
qo = oil production rate, STB/D
qo,max = maximum oil production rate, STB/D
V = depletion parameter in Eq. 1
X = independent variable
Y = dependent variable
Subscripts
f = future reservoir conditions
p = present reservoir conditions
References
1. Borisov, J.P.: Oil Production Using Horizontal and Multiple
Deviation Wells, Nedra, Moscow (1964). Translated by Strauss,
J., Phillips Petroleum Co. R&D Library, Bartlesville, OK
(1984).
2. Giger, F.M., Reese, L.H., and Jourdan, A.P.: Reservoir
Engineering Aspects of Horizontal Drilling, paper SPE
13024 presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, 16-19 Sept.
SPE 94302 5

3. Joshi, S.D.: Augmentation of Well Productivity Using Slanted Table 1. Reservoir Properties
and Horizontal Wells, JPT (June 1988) 729-39.
4. Babu, D.K. and Odeh, A.S.: Productivity of a Horizontal Property Case A Case B Case C
Well, SPERE (Nov. 1989) 417-21. Porosity 12% 18% 24%
5. Elgaghad, S.A., Osisanya, S.O., and Tiab, D.: A Simple Temperature 150 oF 175 oF 200 oF
Productivity Equation for Horizontal Wells Based on Drainage Initial Pressure 1500 psia 3000 psia 4500 psia
Area Concept, paper SPE 35713 presented at the 1996 SPE Oil Gravity 20o API 30o API 40o API
Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, AK, 22-24 May. Gas Gravity 0.60 0.70 0.65
6. Plahn, S.V., Startzman, R.A., and Wattenbarger, R.A.: A Residual Oil 30% 20% 40%
Method for Predicting Horizontal Well Performance in Solution- Saturation
Gas-Drive Reservoirs, paper SPE 16201 presented at the 1987 Critical Gas 2% 10% 5%
Saturation
SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, 8-
Initial Water 30% 25% 20%
10 March. Saturation
7. Bendakhlia, H. and Aziz, K.: Inflow Performance Formation 3.0 E-06 psi-1 5.0 E-06 psi-1 6.0 E-06 psi-1
Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive Horizontal Wells, paper Compressibility
SPE 19823 presented at the 1989 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, 8-11 Oct.
8. Cheng, A.M.: Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution- Table 2. Values of the Depletion Coefficient
Gas Drive Slanted/Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 20720 presented
at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Recovery Depletion Avg. Absolute Coefficient of
New Orleans, LA, 23-26 Sept. Coefficient Error, % Fit, R2
9. Wang, S.H.: Analysis of Horizontal Oilwell Performance, MS 1% 0.675 7.81 0.985
Thesis, U. of Oklahoma, Norman, OK (1996). 2% 0.475 8.45 0.985
10. Retnanto, A. and Economides, M.J.: Inflow Performance 4% 0.250 9.59 0.984
Relationships of Horizontal and Multibranched Wells in a 6% 0.125 10.31 0.981
Solution-Gas-Drive Reservoir, paper SPE 50659 presented at 8% 0.200 11.73 0.975
the 1998 SPE European Petroleum Conference, The Hague, The 10% 0.225 15.77 0.957
Netherlands, 20-22 Oct. 12% 0.250 13.88 0.952
14% 0.275 19.31 0.907
11. Vogel, J.V.: Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-
Gas Drive Wells, JPT (Jan. 1968) 83-92.
12. Chang, M.M. et al.: Users Guide and Documentation Manual
Table 3. Comparison of IPR Methods in Estimating
for Boast-VHS for the PC, US DOE Report No. NIPER-542,
July 1991.
the Maximum Oil Production Rate, Case X1B
13. Standing, M.B.: Concerning the Calculation of Inflow Reservoir Data: pR = 2580 psi Simulated qo,max = 6397 STB/D
Performance of Wells Producing from Solution Gas Drive 4% Depletion
Reservoirs, JPT (Sep. 1971) 1141-42. Test Data Wang1 Wang2 Bendakhalia Cheng Retnanto
14. Wiggins, M.L., Russell, J.E., and Jennings, J.W.: Analytical qo pwf qo,max qo,max qo,max qo,max qo,max
Development of Vogel-Type Inflow Performance 2000 2053 6711 6024 5518 4902 5334
Relationships, SPEJ (Dec. 1996) 355-362. 3000 1675 6324 5761 5365 4826 5171
15. Wiggins, M.L.: Generalized Inflow Performance Relationships 6000 178 6194 6118 6066 6019 6112
for Three-Phase Flow, SPERE (Aug. 1994) 181-182.
16. Sun, Y.: Evaluation of Future Performance Relationships for Test Data Wang1 Wang2 Bendakhalia Cheng Retnanto
Two-Phase Flow, MS Thesis, U. of Oklahoma, Norman, OK qo pwf % Diff % Diff % Diff % Diff % Diff
(1999). 2000 2053 4.9 5.8 13.7 23.4 16.6
3000 1675 1.1 9.9 16.1 24.6 19.2
6000 178 3.2 4.4 5.2 5.9 4.5
SI Metric Conversion Factors 1. Wang Eq. 6 2. Wang Eq. 7
acres x 4.046873 E+03 = m2
bbl x 1.589873 E-01 = m3
ft x 3.048000 E-01 = m Table 4. Comparison of IPR Methods in Estimating
psi x 6.894757 E+00 = kPa Maximum Oil Rate for Bendakhalia Example
Reservoir Data: pR = 2030 psi Simulated qo,max = 2050 STB/D
1% Depletion
Test Data Wang1 Wang2 Bendakhalia Cheng Retnanto
qo pwf qo,max qo,max qo,max qo,max qo,max
700 1500 1910 2163 2048 1414 1912
1400 1000 2174 2381 2101 1744 2151
1800 500 2105 2213 2010 1861 2072

Test Data Wang1 Wang2 Bendakhalia Cheng Retnanto

qo pwf % Diff % Diff % Diff % Diff % Diff
700 1500 6.8 5.5 0.1 31.0 6.7
1400 1000 6.0 16.1 2.5 14.9 4.9
1800 500 2.7 7.9 1.9 9.2 1.1

1. Wang Eq. 6 2. Wang Eq. 7

6 SPE 94302

Table 5. Comparison of the Future Performance 1

Relationship for Case X1B 0.9

0.8
Reservoir Data: pR = 2888 psi Simulated qo,max = 13,044 STB/D
1% Depletion Calculated qo,max = 12,284 STB/D 0.7

pR Simulated Calculated Percent

0.6
qo,max qo,max Difference

pwf/pR
2780 9679 10020 3.5 0.5

2317 4580 4445 3.0

0.4
1874 2704 2302 14.8
1636 2088 1616 22.6 0.3

0.2

0.1

3500
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

qo/qo,max
3000
1% Recovery
2% Recovery
Fig. 3. Inflow performance data for all cases.
4% Recovery
2500
6% Recovery
8% Recovery

2000 0.8
pwf, psi

0.7
1500

0.6
1000

Depletion Coefficient, d
0.5

500

0.4

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 0.3

qo, STB/D

Fig. 1. Inflow performance data for Case X1B through 8% 0.2

reservoir recovery.
0.1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Reservoir Recovery, Percent
1
Fig. 4. Plot of depletion coefficient, d, as a function of reservoir
0.9 recovery.
0.8

0.7

0.6
pwf/pR

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

qo/qo,max

Fig. 2. Dimensionless performance data Case X1B through 8%

reservoir recovery.