General Inflow Performance Relationship

for Solution-Gas Reservoir Wells

Luiz Evanio Dias-Couto, Petrobras
Michael Golan, SPE, U. of Trondheim

Summary
Two equations are developed to describe the inflow per- for an ideal well (in which flow efficiency E= 1) may be
formance relationship (IPR) of wells producing from expressed as
solution-gas drive reservoirs. These are general equa-
tions (extensions of the currently available IPR's) that
apply to wells with any drainage-area shape at any state ~=1-0.2Pwf -0.8 (P~f) 2 •...•••.•... (1)
of completion flow efficiency and any stage of reservoir qmax P P
depletion. Substituting the dimensionless bottomhole flowing
pressure R=pw/p in Eq. 1 yields
Introduction
The dimensionless IPR presented by Vogel l was
qo _ 2
developed for flow of saturated oil from a solution-gas - -1-0.2R-0.8R. . .................. (2)
drive reservoir into an "ideal" well (a well without any qmax
negative or positive skin effect). Couto has shown that for real wells, in which E"* 1,
For real wells (damaged or stimulated), Standing 2 Vogel's equation can be written for the ideal part of the
developed a modification to Vogel's IPR and presented a pressure drawdown as
set of dimensionless curves for a range of flow efficien-
cies different from one. E=j , , 2
An analytical approach for flow efficiency correction q~=l =1-0.2P~f -0.8(P~f) , ............ (3)
of Vogel's IPR that provides a simple equation to qmax P P
calculate the productivities of real wells at present time where P'wf=Pwf+Dps is 'the ideal bottom flowing
was presented by Couto. 3 pressure andj=(p-P'wf)/(p-Pwf) is the actual flow ef-
Standing 4 suggested a simple procedure to obtain the ficiency of the real well. Eq. 3 applies for any p'wl p ;::.0.
IPR of an ideal well at any future depletion stage. Rewriting Eq. 3 in terms of the dimensionless ideal
Applying Couto's approach for flow efficiency correc- bottomhole flowing pressure R' =P 'wl p, we obtain
tion to Standing's development of future IPR yields a E=j
more generalized single IPR equation that accounts for
any state of completion flow efficiency and reservoir
q~=l = 1-0.2R'-0.8(R')2, ................ (4)
qmax
depletion. which applies for any R';::. O.
A different approach to predict future IPR of a real Factoring Eq. 4 yields
well has been proposed by Fetkovich. 5 His procedure
can be rearranged to yield a single IPR equation E=j
somewhat similar to the general equation derived from
Vogel's approach.
q~=l =(1-R')(1+0.8R') . .................. (5)
qmax
Each of the two equations developed may be used to
From the definition of flow efficiency, Rand R' are
predict future-time IPR of small- to medium-capacity related to j as follows.
real wells.
Vogel's Present-Time Generalized IPR l-R'
j= l-R' ................................ (6)
According to Vogel, the present-time dimensionless IPR

0149·2136/82/0002·9765$00.25
Thus, we can express R' in terms of R andj and write
Copyright 1982 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME Eq. 5 as
FEBRUARY 1982 285
 E=j
q~=1 =j(1-R)[1.8 -0.8j(I-R)], ............ (7)
qrnax
which is Vogel's present-time IPR generalized or cor-
rected for flow efficiency. Eq. 7 can replace Standing's
chart for IPR of damaged/stimulated wells. Plotting Eq.
geometry depletion
7 for j=0.6, 0.8, ... , 1.6 reproduces Standing's chart, factor stage
as shown in Fig. 1. factor
Eq. 7 applies only to the present time of the reservoir
life. The following are developments to include the ef- )(1- R)[1.8 -0.8j(1-R)). . ............ (14)
fects of depletion in the IPR to predict future productivi- \..-v-J
ty of real wells.
drawdown
and
Standing's Future-Time Generalized IPR completion
Calculating the classical "productivity index" as de- state
fined by Muskat 6 factor
For noncircular drainage areas, a shape factor X is
qoE=j used to correct the drainage radius; thus, Eq. 14 can be
J E=j = _ ........................... (8) written as
P-Pwf

and substituting ql=j from Eq. 7 into Eq. 8 yields ql=j =3.49a kh p(~)
In0.47X Bolto P
E=I
ax
h=j = q n:. j[1 +0.8(1-j + j' R)]. . ........... (9)
P ·j(1-R)[1.8-0.8j(1-R)] . ............. (15)
However, J E=j depends on the particular bottomhole
flowing pressure to which R is related. An alternative
and general indicator of the well potentiality is J*, the A table of X values for various geometries is given by
productivity index at no-flow zero drawdown condition, Odeh.7
which does not depend on the bottomhole flowing Eq. 15 is future-time generalized IPR derived from the
pressure. Vogel/Standing approach to wells of any drainage area
Applying to Eq. 9 the J* definition proposed by shape at any state of completion flow efficiency and any
Standing, stage of reservoir depletion.

J*=limJI -,
Fetkovich's Future-Time IPR
PWf-> P A different approach to predict future-time IPR has been
yields proposed by Fetkovich. 5 For wells with constant skin
factor, Fetkovich's equations can be rearranged to yield
8 · E=I
1··J·qrnax a single IPR equation somewhat similar to Eq. 15, thus
*
J E=j = _ ...................... (10) allowing a simple comparison of the two equations.
P Substituting Fetkovich's Eq. A-22 into Eq. A-21 ap-
In particular, for j = 1, plying the drainage-area shape factor, we obtain

* 1.8q E-I
rn-;;x kh (-kro- )
J E=j = _ ......................... (11) q 0 =0.00708
P In 0.47X+s Bolto P
Dividing Eq. 10 by Eq. 11 yields the productivity in- 1 _2 2
dices relationship for wells in undersaturated reservoirs: ' - ( p -Pwf)' ...................... (16)
2p
J~=j=j'J~=I' .......................... (12) We note that for rate independent skin factor,

J ~= 1 aiso can be calculated through the radial flow In0.47X

equation E=j= ....................... (17)
In 0.47X+s
k and
J *E-- 1 = (2011".4a7khre ) (B rlt° ) , ........... (13)
In ___ fJ
0 0
1
rw -:(p2 -Pw/)= p(1-R 2), ................. (18)
where a is a unit conversion factor to adjust for metric or P
customary systems.
Substituting Eqs. 10, 12, and 13 into Eq. 7 yields a where R=Pwl p.
general IPR for wells at any state of completion flow ef-
ficiency and any stage of depletion: Thus, Eq. 16 can be written as

286 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

.-
~1E~--~------~----~----~------~----~
o
~~------~------~------~------~------r
...

_ _ _ Eq.15
_____ Eq. 19

o
o
'"

o
o
o

.2 ., .6 .1 1.0 1.2 o 1000 2000 3000 '000 5000

DIMENSIONLESS FLOW RATE. RATE. (ST8/D)

Fig. 1-IPR for damaged/stimulated wells. Fig. 2-Predicted IPR's (example problem).

versely, for stimulated wells with E= 1.5, Eq. 15 com-

qoE-
~J =3.14a kh -ro- ) _
fJ (k putes smaller rates with a maximum deviation of -0.334
In0.47X Bofl-o P at AOF.
Example
geometry depletion
factor
A well in a solution-gas drive reservoir with a circular
stage
factor drainage area was completed, tested, and prepared for
stimulation treatment to improve its flow efficiency. The
)(I-R 2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19) initial well data, the estimated stimulation results, and
the predicted reservoir depletion after 1 year of produc-
"----..J tion are listed in Table 2. It is required to plot the IPR of
drawdown the well at the initial stage (before and after stimulation)
and and the IPR of the stimulated well after 1 year.
completion
state Setting the values from Table 2 in Eqs. 15 and 19
factor establishes the required IPR at the three required
conditions.
Eq. 19 is a generalized future-time IPR derived from Oil rate q 0 was computed through the two equations
Fetkovich's approach. and was plotted against bottomhole flowing pressure P wf
If we define the deviation between the calculated rates in Fig. 2.
qo Eq. 15 and qo Eq. 19 for the same pressure drawdowns Note that the absolute permeability k of the formation
as in Eqs. 15 and 19 is the absolute natural permeability of
the unaltered formation.
q Eq. 15 _q Eq. 19
Dq = 0 0 .••.••..••••.••.• (20) Validity of Equations
o qoEq.19
A constant flow efficiency and rate-independent skin
then factor are the main assumptions used in deriving Eqs. 15
and 19. Thus, their validity is limited to small- to
D = 1.11[(1.8-0.8j(I-R)]-(1+R)
medium-capacity wells where no detrimental change of
q ...... (21) flow regime occurs near the wellbore.
o (1 +R) Multirate production testing of several small-capacity
The deviation was computed for three flow efficien- wells producing from saturated oil reservoir with
cies as a function of drawdowns, and the results are negative skin factors (E < 1) yielded IPR' s comparable to
tabulated in Table 1. values computed by Eqs. 15 and 19. However, addi-
It is interesting to observe that for an ideal well, Eq. 19 tional field verification is needed to confirm the validity
yields slightly smaller rates with a maximum deviation of the equations for future depletion stages.
of 0.111 at absolute open flow (AOF). For a damaged Applying Eqs. 15 and 19 to calculate IPR of high-
well, where E=0.5, Eq. 15 yields higher rates with capacity North Sea wells yielded overoptimistic results
deviation reaching a maximum of 0.556 at AOF. In- compared with the actual performance, and significant
FEBRUARY 1982 287
 TABLE 2-EXAMPLE WELL DATA

Present-Time Condition
TABLE 1-RATE DEVIATION
Before After Future-Time
FOR FLOW EFFICIENCIES
Stimulation Stimulation Condition
p, psig 2250 2250 1800
R=P,,:' 110at p, cp 3.11 3.11 3.59
P j=0.5 j=1.0 j=1.5 8 at p, RB/STB
0 1.173 1.173 1.150
k, md 469 469 469
1.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 k ro 0.815 0.815 0.685
0.75 0.080 0.016 0.047
0.50 0.186 0.037 0.111 E 0.6 1.1 1.1
0.25 0.334 0.067 0.200 h
---,ft 5 5 5
0.00 0.556 0.111 0.333 In 0.47X

deviation was observed at ~roduction flow rates of 3,000 p;"j = image-well bottomhole flowing pressure
STBID (477 stock-tank m /d) and higher. (calculated), psig (Pa)
q 0 = surface-measured oil flow rate, STB/D
Conclusions
(stock-tank m 3 /d)
1. Eq. 7 can be used to calculate present-time IPR of qmax = surface condition maximum oil flow rate,
wells at any state of completion flow efficiency.
STBID (stock-tank m 3 /d)
2. Eq. 15 or 19 can be used to predict future-time IPR
of small- to medium-capacity wells of any drainage area r e = external boundary radius, ft (m)
shape at any state of completion flow efficiency and any r w = wellbore radius, ft (m)
stage of reservoir depletion. R = Pw/fJ
3. The IPR derived from the Vogel/Standing ap- R' = P;"/fJ
proach (Eq. 15) differs slightly from an IPR equation s = dimensionless skin factor
derived from the Fetkovich approach (Eq. 19). X = drainage area shape factor (Ref. 7)
4. Field observations indicate that the proposed IPR's p, 0 = oil viscosity, cp (Pa' s)
yield overoptimistic results at production flow rates of
3,000 STB/D (477 stock-tank m 3 /d) and higher. References
5. Additional field verification is needed to check the I. Vogel, J. V.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas
validity of the equations for prediction of future well Drive Wells," 1. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1968) 83-92; Trans., AIME,
performance. 243.
2. Standing, M.B.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for Damaged
Nomenclature Wells Producing by Solution-Gas Drive," 1. Pet. Tech. (Nov.
1970) 1399-1400.
a = unit conversion factor; for customary units 3. Couto, L.E.: "Solving for FE from Two Flow Tests," The
(ft, psi, cp, md, STB/D), a=0.001127; Technology of Artificial Lift Methods, PPC Books, Tulsa (1977) 1,
for metric units (m, Pa, Pa' s, m 2 , Appendix A.
4. Standing, M.B.: "Concerning the Calculation of Inflow Perfor-
m 3 /d), a=86 400; for any consistent set mance of Wells Producing from Solution-Gas Drive Reservoirs,"
of units, a= 1. 1. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1971) 1141-1142.
Bo = oil formation volume factor, RB/STB (res 5. Fetkovich, M.J.: "The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells," paper
SPE 4529 presented at the SPE 48th Annual Meeting, Las Vegas,
m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ) Sept. 3~-Oct. 3, 1973.
Dqo = calculated rate deviation (Eq. 20), fraction 6. Muskat, M. and Evinger, H.H.: "Calculations of Theoretical Pro-
ductivity Factor," Trans., AIME (1942) 146, 126-139.
E = flow efficiency 7. Odeh, A.S.: "Pseudosteady-State Flow Equation and Productivity
h = thickness, ft (m) Index for a Well With Noncircular Drainage Area," 1. Pet. Tech.
j = a real positive number that indicates the (Nov. 1978) 1630-1632.
value of flow efficiency
J = productivity index, STBID/psi (stock-tank SI Metric Conversion Factors
. m 3 /d/Pa)
bbl x 1.589 873 E-Ol m3
J* = zero drawdown productivity index, cp x 1.0* E-03 Pa's
STBID/psi (stock-tank m 3 /d/Pa) ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
k = formation absolute permeability, md psi x 6.894 757 E+OO kPa
k ro = relative oil permeability, fraction *Conversion factor is exact. JPT
fJ = reservoir average pressure, psig (Pa)
Pwj = real-well bottomhole flowing pressure Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office Feb. 6, 1981.
Paper (SPE 9765) accepted for publication Aug. 10, 1981. Revised manuscript re-
(measured), psig (Pa) ceived Nov. 30. 1981.

288 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY