Professional Documents
Culture Documents
equation by using coordinate transformation7, which is reservoir dimensions and well penetration ratios for each
described in Appendix A. Therefore, only transformed well case: constant pwf and constant rate. The following list gives
and reservoir dimensions are used in Eq. (1) and Eq. (2). the cases considered:
1) zweq/heq,: 0.1, 0.3 and 0.5,
Constant pwf Model 2) xweq/aeq : 0.1, 0.3 and 0.5,
The productivity equation for wells producing at constant pwf 3) heq/aeq: 0.5, 0.1 and 0.01,
is obtained by replacing CA with CACP and sP with sPCP: 4) Leq/beq: 0.2, 0.47 and 0.73,
5) yweq/beq: 0.1, 0.3 and 0.5,
k eq beq 6) aeq/beq: 0.2, 1.0 and 5.0.
J CP = . (2) All possible combinations were simulated and the results
4 Aeq were correlated with the equations shown in Table 1 (sP and
141.2 Bµ 12 ln 2 − 12 ln C ACP + s PCP
γ rweq sPCP). The above list represents the boundaries of the range of
applicability for the proposed model of this study.
To show the adequacy of the correlation of the partial
Correlations for CACP and sPCP are given in Table 1. penetration skin, the dimensionless productivity index, Eqs.
Helmy and Wattenbarger8 showed that shape factors, (and (A-5) and (A-8), calculated from the correlated values of skin
well productivity) differ for wells producing at constant pwf is plotted against the dimensionless productivity index
versus constant rate. They indicated that the difference is obtained from the numerical simulation, Figs. 2 and 3. The
larger as the area (aeqheq) gets more elongated, which is the constant rate correlation gives a productivity index with an R2
common case for horizontal wells. value of 0.9975. And the constant pressure correlation gives
a productivity index with an R2 value of 0.9977.
Shape Factor Correlations As we will show later in the examples, for most practical
A horizontal well could be thought of as a vertical well cases the correlation is fairly accurate and matches well with
rotated 90 degrees. In doing so, the drainage area of the the analytical solutions. However, when the reservoir and
vertical well becomes the side of the reservoir for a horizontal well parameters lie on the boundaries of the range of
well (area aeqheq). Analytical solution for a fully penetrating applicability of the correlations (when well penetration is
well is used to calculate the shape factors for different area closed to 0.2, the ratio aeq/beq is nearly 1.0 and the aspect
(aeqhea) and well locations. The solution is generated using ratio heq/aeq is close to 0.5), the correlation is not as accurate.
the method of images.6,8,9 The exact values of shape factors The maximum error (difference between analytical solution
calculated from the analytical solution are correlated with the and correlation) we have seen in the cases studied is 20%.
equations of Table 1. The equation for the constant rate
shape factor, CA, is identical to Babu and Odeh’s3, which was Penetration Skin: Constant Rate vs. Constant pwf
introduced in 1989. This equation is valid (with less than 1% An interesting point that deserves a special attention here, is
error) when aeq≥0.75heq and min(xweq, aeq-xweq)≥0.75heq; a the dependence of the partial penetration skin factor on the
condition that is satisfied for all cases of interest. Table 2 inner boundary condition of the system, i.e. constant rate
shows some examples of the insignificant error in calculating versus constant pwf. The partial penetration skin is calculated
the shape factor using this equation. by subtracting the analytical solution of a fully penetrating
Constant pwf shape factors, CACP, are different from well from the analytical solution of a partially penetrating
constant rate shape factors8. The constant pwf shape factors well. Fig. 4 shows the results of one of the cases we studied.
are correlated with a different equation as shown in Table 1. The analytical solution used here is that developed by
The error in calculating the shape factor using this equation Gringarten and Ramey10 for partially penetrating vertical
is less than 4% when aeq≥2.0heq. Again, Table 2 shows some wells in infinite reservoirs. We created boundaries using the
examples of the insignificant error in calculating the constant method of images, and rotated the system 90 degrees to
pwf shape factor using this equation. simulate a horizontal well in a bounded reservoir.
In Fig. 4, the skin factor is plotted versus the
Partial Penetration Skin Correlations dimensionless time, tD, for the constant rate case, and versus
The partial penetration skin is a slightly more complicated the dimensionless material balance time, NpD/qD, for the
issue than the shape factors. Analytical solutions for partially constant pwf case (dimensionless variables are defined at the
penetrating wells usually suffer from slow convergence. end of the paper). The constant pwf skin factor during
Considering the large number of cases needed to be studied to boundary dominated flow is lower than the constant rate skin
obtain a reasonable correlation for the partial penetration during pseudo-steady state. This causes an increase in the
skin, analytical solutions were not an attractive approach. productivity index of wells producing at constant pwf (as
Therefore, we decided to use numerical simulation.15 compared to those producing at constant rate). However, this
About 400 simulation runs were made with different effect is opposite to the effect of the shape factors. In a
SPE 49090 SIMPLIFIED PRODUCTIVITY EQUATIONS FOR HORIZONTAL WELLS 3
PRODUCING AT CONSTANT RATE AND CONSTANT PRESSURE
previous paper8, we showed that the effect of shape factors is 3) The model has a n overall R2 correlation factor of 0.9975
to reduce the productivity index of wells producing at for the constant rate case and 0.9977 for the constant pwf
constant pwf. As we will show later in the examples, for some case.
cases the effect of the shape factors offsets the effect of the 4) The effect of partial penetration skin on the productivity
partial penetration skin, and the result is that we get the same index is opposite to the effect of shape factors. Because
productivity index for constant rate and constant pwf cases. of this fact, constant pwf productivity may be the same as
constant rate productivity.
Example Applications 5) Example application shows that the proposed model
We consider two examples here to show the application of the matches fairly well with analytical solutions.
proposed models. In both examples, we calculate the 6) The model (and any other model for that matter) will
productivity of a horizontal well as a function of well generate errors if used outside the range of applicability.
penetration and compare with an analytical solution, Babu The errors at the boundaries of that range could be as
and Odeh approximation and Joshi steady state solution. The high as 20%.
analytical solution used here was developed by Economides,
et al.5,14 using integration of the continuous point source Transformed Coordinates
solution. The solution assumes a line source well with The following are the transformed coordinates and
infinite wellbore conductivity. dimensions referred to in this paper:
(p )
,
i − p wf Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the Reservoir Modeling
Consortium of Texas A&M University for funding this work.
. qBµ
1412 0.8938 BN p A special appreciation is due to Dr. Peter Valko of Texas
qD = , N pD =
(
k eq beq p i − p wf ) φc t rweq
2
(
beq pi − p wf ) A&M University for providing the analytical solution of
horizontal wells in bounded reservoirs. Also, the authors
would like to acknowledge Bryan Magard of Texas A&M
N pD University for his technical advice.
and = dimensionless material balance time.
qD References
1. Joshi, S.D.: “Augmentation of Well Productivity with
Nomenclature Slant and Horizontal Wells,” JPT (August 1988) 729-
A = well drainage area, L2, ft2 739.
a = reservoir width, L, ft 2. Mutalik, P.N., Godbole, S.P., Joshi, S.D.: “Effect of
B = formation volume factor, rB/STB Drainage Area Shapes on the Productivity of Horizontal
b = reservoir length, L, ft Wells,” Paper SPE 18301 presented at the 1988 SPE
C = shape factor, dimensionless Annual Conference and Exhibition held in Houston,
c = compressibility, Lt2/m, psia-1 October 2-5.
h = net formation thickness, L, ft 3. Babu, D.K. and Odeh, A.S.: “Productivity of a Horizontal
J = Productivity index, L4t/m, STB/D/psia Well,” SPERE (November 1989) 417-421.
k = reservoir permeability, L2, md 4. Thompson, L.G. et al.: “Efficient Algorithms for
Np = cumulative production, L3, STB Computing the Bounded Reservoir Horizontal Well
p = pressure, m/Lt2, psia Pressure Response,” Paper SPE 21827 presented at the
p = average reservoir pressure, m/Lt2, psia 1991 SPE Rock Mountain Regional Meeting and Low-
q = production rate, L3/t, STB/D Permeability Reservoir Symposium held in Denver,
r = radius, L, ft October 15-17.
s = skin factor, dimensionless 5. Economides, M.J. et al.: “Well Configuration in
t = time, t, days Anisotropic Reservoirs,” Paper SPE 27980 presented at
φ = porosity, fraction the 1994 Universityof Tulsa Centennial Petroleum
µ = viscosity, m/Lt, cp Engineering Symposium held in Tuls, August 29-31.
6. Dietz, D.N.: “Determination of Average Reservoir
Subscripts Pressure from Build-Up Surveys,” JPT (August 1965)
955-959.
A = based on area 7. Gringarten, A.C. and Ramey, H.J.: “The Use of Green’s
CP = constant pressure Functions in Solving Unsteady-Flow Problems in
CR = constant rate Reservoirs,” SPEJ (October 1973) 285-296.
D = dimensionless 8. Helmy, M.W. and Wattenbarger, R.A.: “New Shape
eq = equivalent Factors for Wells Produced at Constant Pressure,” Paper
f = flowing SPE 39970 presented at the 1998 SPE Gas Technology
h = horizontal Symposium held in Calgary March 15-18.
i = initial 9. Mathews, C.S., Brons, F. and Hazebroek, P.: “A Method
o = oil for Determination of Average Pressure in a Bounded
P = partial penetration Reservoir,” Trans., AIME (1954) 201, 182-191.
t = total 10. Gringarten, A.C. and Ramey, H.J.: “An Approximate
v = vertical Infinite Conductivity Solution for a Partially Penetrating
w = well Line-Source Well,” SPEJ (April 1975) 140-148.
x = x-direction 11. Brigham, W.E.: “Discussion of Productivity of a
y = y-direction Horizontal Well,” SPERE (May 1990) 254-255.
z = z-direction 12. Peaceman, D.W.: “Discussion of Productivity of a
Horizontal Well,” SPERE (May 1990) 252-253.
Constants 13. Earlougher, R.C. Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis,
SPE 49090 SIMPLIFIED PRODUCTIVITY EQUATIONS FOR HORIZONTAL WELLS 5
PRODUCING AT CONSTANT RATE AND CONSTANT PRESSURE
∂2 p ∂2 p ∂2 p ∂p
2
1 = 1 ln 4 Aeq − 1 ln C rweq N pD
kx 2 + ky 2 + kz 2 = φ µ ct . ........ (A-1) + s + 2π . (A-7)
∂x ∂y ∂z ∂t q D 2 γ rweq 2 2 ACP PCP
Aeq q D
This equation is converted into an equivalent isotropic And the dimensionless productivity index in this case is:
equation using coordinate transformation (list of transformed
coordinates is given at the end of the paper): 1
J DCP = . ................................ (A-8)
4A
∂ 2 p ∂ 2 p ∂ 2 p φ µ ct ∂ p 1
2 ln + s PCP
+ + = . .................... (A-2) γ C ACP rw2
∂ x eq2 ∂ y eq
2
∂ z eq
2
k eq ∂ t
SI Metric Conversion Factors
Constant Rate Case: We choose to use a productivity cp ×1.0 E-03 = Pa • s
index equation similar to that of a vertical well: ft ×3.048 E-01 = m
ft2 ×9.290 304 E-02 = m2
k eq beq ft3 ×2.831 685 E-02 = m3
J CR = , ........ (A-3) in. ×2.54 E+00 = cm
4 Aeq 1
. Bµ 12 ln
1412 − 2 ln C A + s P lbf ×4.448 222 E+00 = N
γ rweq
2
md ×9.869 233 E-04 = µm2
psi ×6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
In this equation, CA is Dietz’s6 shape factor for wells
operating at constant rate; and sP is a skin factor that allows
for the partial penetration of the well. Thus, the long-term
solution of the isotropic diffusivity equation with constant rate
boundary condition could be written as:
4 Aeq
p D = 12 ln − 12 ln C A + s P + 2π t DAeq . .......... (A-4)
γ rweq
2
1
J DCR = . ...................................... (A-5)
4A
1
2 ln + sP
γ C A rw2
x x
2
a πz a
ln C A = 4.485 − 4.187 − 12.56 weq + 12.56 weq eq + 2.0 ln sin weq + ln eq
a a h heq h
eq eq eq eq
Constant Rate
beq 0.858
s P = − 1
Leq
y weq y weq
2
Leq Leq
2
1289
. − 4.751 + 4.652 + 1654. − 1718
.
heq beq beq beq beq
× − 0.025 + 0.022 ln C A − 3781
. ln +
a eq 1.472
heq a eq
eq eq
a b
x weq
1.115
x weq
2.838
a eq 1.011 πz weq a eq
ln C ACP = 2.607 − 4.74 − 10.353 + 9165
.
heq + .
1810 ln sin + 2.056 ln
a eq a eq heq heq
Constant Pressure
beq 1.233
s PCP = − 1
Leq
y weq y weq
2
Leq Leq
2
0.388 − 1278
. + 0.715 + 1278. − 1215
.
heq beq beq beq beq
× 2.894 + 0.003 ln C A − 0.453 ln +
a eq
1.711
heq a eq
a eq beq
SPE 49090 SIMPLIFIED PRODUCTIVITY EQUATIONS FOR HORIZONTAL WELLS 7
PRODUCING AT CONSTANT RATE AND CONSTANT PRESSURE
zweq/heq xweq/aeq heq/aeq This study Odeh This study This study
exact approx. Error exact approx. Error
ln CA ln CA ln CACP ln CACP
0.1 0.1 0.1 -26.146 -26.124 0.1% -35.353 -35.400 0.1%
a
z y
h
x
L
yw
b
zw
xw
1
r w = 0.25
2
A eq = 20000 ft
Correlated dimensionless productivity, J D
2
R = 0.9975
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Numerical dimensionless productivity, J D
− Results of the correlation of the constant rate partial penetration skin for the cases studied.
Fig. 2−
1
r w = 0.25
2
A eq = 20000 ft
R 2 = 0.9977
Correlated dimensionless productivity, J D
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Numerical dimensionless productivity, J D
Fig. 3−Results of the correlation of the constant pwf partial penetration skin for the cases studied.
SPE 49090 SIMPLIFIED PRODUCTIVITY EQUATIONS FOR HORIZONTAL WELLS 9
PRODUCING AT CONSTANT RATE AND CONSTANT PRESSURE
11
2
1.00E+01 1.00E+02 1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
Fig. 4−Partial penetration skin is different for constant rate and constant pwf.
180
Drainage width, a 2000 ft
160 Drainage length, b 4000 ft
Formation thick., h 200 ft
Productivity index, STB/D/psi
60
Fig. 5−Example 1, application of the proposed model, a good match with analytical solution.
10 M. WAEL HELMY AND R. A. WATTENBARGER SPE 49090
60
Drainage width, a 2000 ft
Drainage length, b 2000 ft
50 Formation thick., h 100 ft
Well radius, r w 0.25 ft
Productivity index, STB/D/psi
20
Fig. 6− Example 2, application of the proposed model, a good match with analytical solution.
Constant pwf and constant rate solutions are close.