SPE 116580 A Comprehensive Comparative Study on Analytical PI/IPR Correlations ‘Suk Kyoon Chol, SPE, The University of Texas at Austin, and Liang-Blao Ouyang, SPE, and Wann-Sheng (Bil) Huang, SPE, Chevron Energy Technology Company ‘chee Sy icq fuses mares yeaa Thal ecm he een Stn 9 Pee ian an 5 wes arene may Ftc ope sneas ma san concious serous SPE ceprahe Abstract Inflow performance is one of the significant components to quantify the reservoit's capability to produce kydrocarbon, There are two commonly-used quantities to represent reservoir inflow performance: produetivity index (PI) and inflow performance relationship (IPR). Both relate fluid flow rate to pressure difference between bottomhole and reservoir, Much cffort has boen made on developing the PI or IPR solutions suitable for specific circumstances since Darey proposed the simple and useful Darcy's law in 1856. As a consequence, various correlations for PI or IPR caleulation have been proposed from simple analytical solutions to rigorous numerical formulations in the literature. As horizontal or multilateral wells have been occupying an ever-increasing share of hydrocarbon production since the 1980s, more accurate PI or IPR estimation has been emerging as an important issue in the petroleum industry." The correlations become more and more complicated and rigorous in order to accurately describe inflow performance for complex well geometries. ‘They can provide a better prediction or estimation of inflow performance, though they would be costly and computationally demanding. On the other side, researchers have been tried to simplify the complex solutions into analytical forms through extensive ease studies. These provide a useful tool for the researchers and engineers to make quick «estimations although they are confined to limited conditions. In this paper, analytical correlations of Pl and IPR from a comprehensive literature survey are reviewed. They have been categorized by well deviation, fluid phases and time dependence. The well deviation is divided into vertical (less than 15°), slanted (15 t0 60°), highly-deviated:horizontal (60 to 90°), and multilateral wells; while fluid phases are categorized into single oil, single gas, and cil flow in two phases. For time dependence, steady state and pseudo-steady state have been considered, however the transient state has been excluded. In addition, case studies for the specific input parameters have been conducted to show the effective range, trends, and limitations of correlations as well as to provide the selection ‘guideline for an appropriate estimation of inflow performance. All correlations of Pl and IPR have been organized in the table for quick reference. Introduction Inflow performance serves as an important component with outflow performance to quantify hydrocarbon production from a reservoir, Outflow performance reflects the flow capability in the pipelines and surface facilites from the bottom hole to the surface storage tank; while inflow performance represents the reservoir capability which relates well production rate to sence between the outer boundary or average reservoir pressure and flowing bottom pressure, Both performances are essential factors to generate a well deliverability curve which enables to prediet an optimal well production rate There are two different ways to express inflow performance — inflow performance relationship (IPR) and productivity index (PD). IPR presents the well production rate as a function of the flowing bottomhole pressure. The lower flowing, bottomhole pressure provides a higher driving force in the reservoir, thereby resulting in a higher hydrocarbon production, potential. Theoretically, the zero flowing bottombole pressure gives the maximum production potential in the reservoir which is called “Absolute Open Flow Potential” (AOFP), The simplest and most widely used IPR is the straight-line IPR, implying that rate is directly proportional to pressure drawdown, The constant of proportionality is defined as the “Productivity Index" (PI), another way to define inflow performance. One of the main objectives of production engineering is to maximize PI which can be obtained by maximizing the flow rate for a given pressure drawdown or minimizing the pressure drawdown for a given flow rate2 SPE 116580 There are many Pl or IPR correlations published in the literature, ranging from simple analytical correlations to rigorous ‘numerical solutions. Since the proposition of Darcy’s law in 1856, various theoretical and empirical correlations have been presented for variable reservoir parameters (reservoir shape, area, and petrophycel parameters), fluid phases, well trajectory, and time dependence, This study intends to review as many simple analytical solutions for PI or IPR as possible through a comprehensive literature survey, and perform ease studies for the comparison of correlations in the same category in order to provide a selection guideline. Under certain circumstances, it makes more sense to use simple analytical solutions to predict PI or IPR, because they are much quicker and easier to use with acceptable accuracy when compared to reservoir simulation. Twenty «ight (28) correlations have been found from this review and categorized according to well deviation, uid phase, and time dependence. Analytical Solutions for Pl / IPR ‘Summary for the Solutions A toial of 28 PI or IPR correlations reviewed through literature survey have been classified into three categories: fluid phase, well deviation, and time dependence. In fluid phase category, analytical correlations are available only in single-phase (ingle oil and single gas), and oil flow in two phases in the solution-gas drive reservoir. Well deviation is divided into three well geometries: vertical (less than 15°); slanted (15 to 60"); horizontal (60 to 90°); and multilateral well. ‘The solutions for steady and pseudo-steady state are included in this paper. However, the transient state is excluded. Table 1 shows a summary for the analytical PI or IPR solutions. No analytical correlations we for multilateral well in single-phase gas reservoir and two-phase reservoir. In particular, there were also no analytical correlations identified for slanted well geometty; instead, three correlations for deviation skin were applied to combine with any correlation in the vertical well geometry to ealeulate PI or IPR for slanted wells. Therefore, the skin correlations are ineluded for the slanted well section in this table except for the case of oil flow in two-phase reservoirs which has its own, correlation for Pl or IPR. All the correlations in this paper are displayed in the form of productivity index with ol-feld units. found in the literature Literature Review ‘Single Oil Well in Vertical Geometry na vertical geometry with single-phase oil under steady state, Darcy proposed a constitutive equation that describes the flow of a fuid through a porous medium, Darcy’s law can be expressed in various forms according to reservoir geometis The following form represents the steady state radial flow in a circular drainage area with potential skin effect in the near wellbore." a ss Po=Poy VLDB x] i071 5] where J, is productivity index; qi ol low rate; py is botiom hole flowing pressure; p, is extemal boundary pressure; kis permeability; his pay thickness; B, is oil formation volume factor; pis oll viseosity; ris external boundary radius; ris ‘wellbore radius: and sis skin effec. The equation for pscudo-steady state with the same conditions ean be obtained by simply replacing In(/r.) term in equation (1) with In0.472rdr,), whieh is shown in equation 2)" do kh Pi-Poy WAL2B,4,|ln(OATE Ir, +5] pr, is average reservoir pressure, Dietz* developed a series of shape factors to account for irregular drainage shape andlor asymmetrical positioning of ¢ well. The following model is @ generalized form of equation (2) for any shape factor proposed by Dietz J, a 2) where 4 is drainage area; 7 is Euler's constant (1.78); and Cy is shape factor. Two correlations to account for noneDarcy flow effects have been included in the category of the vertical geometry with single-phase oil in pseudo-steady state. Note that non-Darcy flow occurs when the linear relationship between pressure drop and rate (Darey's law) becomes invalid at high flow velocity. Jones” presented a pressure drawdown versus rate relationship by employing the Forehheimer factor ft Jj-—te 1 Po Py A+Ba, a‘SPE 116580 3 \ 8,( ne -078+5 where ~ (4) CaOTOTRA 08x10"? £ R? p, es 42) air, 7 where f is non-darcy factor: pis oil density: and /, is perforate interval. The following arlaticn represents ay arve fa o ie (a verde geometry wih singlephase olin pseudo steady state), which employs the non-Darcy coefficient D.? The additional term of “Dq” is added as an equivalent skin term tncquton (2) im ordar conse (i nar Day se . C0703 Fay MBM OAT, r.)05* Pate] where Ds nondaey for. “Another equation for irregular drainage area was proposed by Odeh’” based on the work of Matthews and Russel” Go 7.08107 kh FP WBsTinX Aa] where Xi th colton between rn (or) ar varios deine areas nd wel! eatin (3) Jo © Single Oil Well in Slanted Geometry For the slanted well, three correlations for slanted skin have been introduced in this paper because not even a single analytical PVIPR correlation for the slanted well has been found in the literature, They can be combined with any of the ccorvelations for vertical geometry with single phase (single oil and single gas) s0 as to provide the PI or IPR solutions fort slanted well geometry, Cinco-Ley’ proposed a simple correlation for slanted skin based on the study of unsteady state flow ‘ofa slightly compressible uid. This correlation is valid for the well deviation angles between 0 (0 75°: 7a \208 7 S186 [5] ~toe #2) o where, stan (Emo) my ip = |e 02) where s, is slanted skin; hp is reservoir dimensionless thickness; kis horizontal permeability; , is vertical permeability; and Gis slant angle measures from the normal to the bedding planes Besson’ proposed another slanted well skin correlation from the results of a semi-analytical simulator. In this model, pay thickness (1) and horizontal well length (Z) are used to represent slanted angle (8). For isotropic reservoir and slant angles between 0” to 90° 8) © 1 (9.2) where J is well length Rogers and Economides” derived an expression for a slanted skin starting from the previous comprehensive semi= analytical PI models by Economides’ sing” 164 sing ng for Iau <1 24g r a loa fot lou > 1 0)4 SPE 116580 where (10.1) (10.2) where k is permeability in x direction; and k, is permeability in y direction. ‘Single Oit Well in Horizontal Geometry For the horizontal geometry, Economides” presented an inflow performance relationship for the single-phase oil flow in steady state that was modified from Joshi’s equation. This model requires the assumption that the drainage area is ellipsoidal, with the large halfaxis of the drainage ellipsoid, related tothe length of the horizontal wel: ye fi or ay 7e— Pug at Li2y h 141.28,,| in} EV? =) (a4) infant 2 TL Tew] ( J where aay ye 025+{— 112 (za) | me Other similar solutions are available in the literature: Borisove", Giger", Renard and Dupuy”. For Borisove: 0.007078 yf! (14,B,) a PoP nf 522) Ain aaa, | me 0.007078 ,h/(14,B, ) ap For Renard and Dupuy: 1, 0.0070784, 4 a Pe~Pug Me By cosh") +(Bh/ Lia] (20%, Lip where 144 aera a) x=2a/L for an ellipsoidal drainage area (14.2) b= VkTk (14.3) (aay For pseudo-steady state, equation (11) can be simply converted by adding /n(0.472) term at the place equivalent to skin.” Ge as) Pay‘SPE 116580 5 Another pscudo-steady state correlation proposed by Economides” is shown in equation (16). This model employs the dimensionless pressure of a point source in a box shape reservoir with no-flow boundary conditions, Furthermore, this model is applicable to estimate the inflow performance for multilateral wells with specific well configurations by using horizontal, plane shape factors: I, (16) where (16.1) (16.2) (16.3) (16.4) where 2, is distance of well from middle of reservoir. Babu and Odeh proposed the widely used correlation for horizontal well pseude-steady state calculations. The reservoir is assumed to be in a bounded rectangular shape with an arbitarily located horizontal wel:"” 01007078(2x, ) ffs 4B) nla Ss an amy a7) where xy is distance from the horizontal well i nde closest boundary in the x direction; y, is distance from the horizontal well tothe closest boundary in the y direction; z, is vertical distance between the horizontal well and the bottom boundary; x, is reservoir half length in the direction parallel to the wellbore; y is reservoir balf length in the direotion perpendicular to the wellbore; and sp is skin factor duc to partial penciration of the horizontal wel in the areal plane”. Single Oil Well in Multilateral Geometry For steady state flow in a multilateral well, Borisove proposed models for calculating inflow performance of raulilateral wells with either plannar or stacked laterals.” Planar laterals means the spokes of a wheel from a single spudding location, For plannar laterals omen, ) y,-—He as) * (i) Pte lebih wl aan | For stacked laters 7078 jo fa 0007781) a) Fa yr bf PE) | Tem, Fis 4, 2, 1.86, 1.78 for n = 1, 2, 3, 4, respectively; m is number of spokes (laterals); and m is number of elevations or levels at which laterals are drilled. These models are confined to 1, 2, 3 or 4 laterals. As stated above, for pscudo-steady state calculation, the correlation proposed by Economides”, equation (16), can be used. ‘Single Gas Well Tae available analytical solutions for single-phase gas well are fewer than those for single-phase oil well. Aronofsky and Jenkins ' developed the solution for vertical single gas well in steady state from the solution of the differential equation for gas flow through porous media by using non-Darcy factor:6 SPE 116580 4% ih Pin Py 24u,ZT |r, /n,)#9+D4, | where 4, is gas flow rate; 1, is average gas viscosity; Z is average 2 factor; and T is temperature, This model can be converted to the pscudo-steady state correlation by simply replacing Jn(ir) trm with In(0.472rfr}. Jones" proposed a similar correlation t that ofa singe oil case that includes Forchheimer factor, (20) 4 1 J, 1 en — Phy APB dy M4227 1,2|in—07548 where on = eau 3.161x107? By, ZT Sas erat (212) Odch also derived the similar pseudo-steady state flow equation with noneircular drainage arca to his oil flow equation: 4 703x10-%kh Joi h__ 2) B= oy mlalinx—015+5+,4,) Economides'' suggested a steady state flow equation for horizontal wells analogous to equation (11): bh . 23) where ey for £<0.9%, 32) $<09%, ‘This model can be converted to the pseudo-steady state correlation by replacing In(rir,) term with In(0.472r4r). Two-Phase Oi Well In two-phase flow, only the solutions for flowing oil wells in solution gas drive reservoir are available. Vogel” { Pw) (, > on 02{ 2] -os{ 2) 4 where gy qacis absolute open flow potential Fetkovich"’ introduced a similar correlation to improve the deficiency of Vogel correlation which is often not accordance with field data: oo mas (22) es) c values of the ideal flowing bottomhole pressure, Vogel or Fetkovich correlations predict incorrect behavior, resulting in wrong prediction of IPR. Harrison suggested a correlation that works for both positive or negative values in place of Vogel and Fetkovich correlations:* 4. ~osaag | 12-02 P6 "| (26) These three correlations are applicable to the horizontal wells by employing productivity index of horizontal pseudo steady state calculation. Cheng" proposed a versatile correlation to calculate IPR for vertical, slanted, and horizontal wells, based on the results from NIPER’s well simulators‘SPE 116580 7 Pap | en 40 ~4osnas| 0-44 Ves xe correlation constants for well deviation degree.” where ao ~ Case Studies Case Description The case studies for Pl and IPR have been performed to identify the effective range and the sensitivity for the ccomrelations, and to provide some insights for the corelation selection. A total of 38 input parameters required for the case studies were carefully chosen as default values from the literature and were summatized in Table 2. These default values ‘were used in all the case studies unless specified otherwise For the PI correlations, one variable that would be considered the most important was chosen in each well-deviation ccategory, and the ease studies have been performed for that variable. Table 3 shows the selected variables with the ranges used in these studies, Table 4 shows the detailed case descriptions with the corresponding variables and the figure locations, Note that the correlations in two-phase category are excluded in these PI case studies because no PI is available duc to ineonstant proportionality ofthe rate for pressure drawdown in the reservoir. For the IPR correlations, the IPR curves forall the correlations in the same category were generated and compared each other. Table § shows the detailed case descriptions for the IPR studies. Considering the result similarities (that will be addressed in the following section), the results of case studies are differently displayed between PI and IPR: the results of PL studies follow the order of the well-eviation category; and the results of TPR studies are sorted in the order of the Muid phase 1 time dependence category. The corresponding figure locations for the IPR results are slso included in Table S. ‘Study Results Productivity Index Figures 1 through 14 show the results for case studies in PI. For the vertical well, as shown in Figures 1 through 4, the PI value decreases logarithmically, as the ratio of external boundary radius (r.) and well bore radius (74) increases. This is because the ratio (r/r,) is placed in natural log term at the denominator. The term In(rir.) indicates that the drainage area assigned to a well has a relatively small impact on the production rate. In particular, it is obscrved that all the correlations in the same category agree with one another very well as shown in Figures 2 and 4. Figures § through 8 show the comparison results forthe slanted well. As mentioned in the previous section, the slanted skin was combined with the correlations in vertical well geometry. For simplicity, only the first correlation in vertical well, ‘geometry was used for these case studies, because all the vertical correlations are in good agreement as shown in Figures 1 through 4: Darcy in steady state single oil; Dake in pseudo-steady state single oil; and Aronofsky and Jenkins in steady state and pseudo-steady state single gas. In the section below 75°, all three skin correlations for deviation are in good agreement, Cinco-Ley and Besson give almost same skin values, while Rogers produces @ little conservative result. Above 75", a big difference is observed between Cinco-Ley and Rogers. In particular, Besson correlates i (pay thickness) and /. (horizontal well length) to calculate @ (Slanted angle), Therefore, skin value cannot be generated at 90°, because L (horizontal well, length) term should be infinite, Based on those observations, it is recommended that all analytical skin correlations for slanted wells be used in the range between 0 and 75°, Figures 9 through 12 represent the results for horizontal wells. Figure 9 displays the results for four different PI comtelations in single oil horizontal well in steady state. All the results are in good agreement within less than 5% deviation range. Giger produces the most optimistic Pl, followed by Borisove, Renard, and Joshi, in that order. In the case of single oil horizontal well in pseudo-steady state (Figure 10), the deviation increases up to almost 25%, as horizontal length reaches, 3000 ft. Joshi still gives the most conservative result, and Babu (and Odch) and Economides, in that order, produce more ‘optimistic PI results. For single gas wel, there is only one correlation for each state. Figures 11 and 12 shows the results, which are in the same pattern as single oil well cases. Figures 13 and 14 show the case study results for multilateral wells. Figure 13 displays the results for two different correlations in single-oil steady state as a function of number of laterals: for planar laterals and for stacked laterals. As th umber of laterals increase, PI increases logarithmically due to the increased interference between laterals. Another observation is that the PI’s for stacked laterals are higher than those of planar laterals. Figure 14 shows the results for Economides’ correlation in the cases of 4 and 8 spokes in single-oil pseudo-steady state. The overall trend cannot be ‘observed because only two data points are available in this correlation, However, itis reasonable to observe thatthe PI value at 4 spokes in this case is quite similar to that in pseudo-steady state shown in Figure 13, Inflow Performance Relationship ‘The comparison results for the IPR case studies are shown in Figures 15 through 31, Please refer to Table § for the detailed case descriptions. Because the same correlation for PI is used in calculating IPR, the conservative or optimistic trends among correlations are exactly the same. For the oil wells (Figures 1S through 22), the results confirm a straight-line IPR because the oil flow rate is directly proportional to the pressure drawdown, On the other hand, the cases of gas wells have a curve IPR because the pressure drawdown is expressed in the difference of squared pressure (Figures 23 through 28).8 SPE 116580 TThe results for oil flow in two phases are newly added in the IPR case studies. The bubble point pressure is set below the average reservoir pressure to identify oil-phase and two-phase zones that occurred due to pressure changes during fluid flow. Above the bubble point, the Huid is in oil phase which produces a straight IPR, while curve IPR is generated below the bubble point because gas becomes more and more evolved as the pressure decreases. All the results for two-phase oil wells were generated under the assumption of 1000 psi bubble point in the operating pressure range between 0 t0 2500 psi Four correlations - Vogel, Fetkovich, Harrison, and Cheng ~ are capable of celeulating the IPR for vertical and horizontal wells, For slanted wells, only Cheng is available, From the results, Vogel gives the most optimistic IPR, followed by Fetkovich, Cheng, and Harrison, in that order. Based on the case studies, the selection guideline has been prepared for analytical IPR or PI correlations as shown in Table 6, Please note that the guideline is confined to the specific input values and itis only for @ reference, Conclusions. The following conclusions are made: ‘+ Analytical solutions for productivity index (PI) or inflow performance relationship (IPR) have been studied through comprehensive literature survey, and summarized by the category of well deviation, fluid phase, and time dependence, Well deviation is divided into vertical, slanted, horizontal and multilateral. Fluid phase includes single oil, single gas, and oil flow in two phases, and steady state and pseudo-steady state are the variables for time dependence. ‘+ Case studies for PI or IPR have been performed for the properly selected variables to provide the effective ran trends and limitations of the solutions for each category. Since these case studies have been done for the specific input parameters, the results may be different for other conditions. This study would be a good reference tothe researchers who want to study analytical PL / IPR solutions. No solutions for single-phase gas flow, and oil flow (in two phases) in multilateral well have been found in the literature, Rigorous models should be used for this case ‘+ No solutions for slanted well geometry in singleephase well have been found. Three skin correlations for slanted geometry: Cinco-Ley, Besson, and Rogers and Economides are used to be combined with any correlation of vertical geometry to provide the solutions. Acknowledgements ‘The authors would like to thank Chevron management to permit this publication, Nomenclatures English Symbols correlation constants = drainage area = formation volume factor = shape factor = nonedarey factor Constant = pay thickness or interval = productivity index: Permeability Length = number of elevations or levels number of spokes = Pressure’ = flowrate = Radius skin factor = Temperature correlations between r,, and 4 or r for various drainage areas and well locations distance in x, y, of z direction = efector Ne eae ySU SS hace babes =e zg non-darey factor y = Euler's constant (1.78) a angle = Viscosity p= density‘SPE 116580 ° Subseripts 4 area D dimensionless e@ = extemal g gas ho = horizontal P= perforate ° oil ro = average R = partial penetration of the horizontal well in the areal plane = vertical x xcdireetion y yedirection we wellbore wf flowing bottom hole @ = slanted References 1. Aronofsky, J. S., and Jenkins, R: “A Simplified Analysis of unsteady Radial Gas Flow”, Trans. AIME, 201, 149 — 154, 1954 2, Barrios, L.: “Integrated Tulsa, Summer 2004 3. Besson, J.: “Performance of Slanted and Horizontal Wells on an Anisotropic Medium”, SPE 20965, October 1986 4. Borisove. Ju P.: “Oil Production Using Horizontal and Multiple Deviation Wells,” Nedra, Moscow, 1964, Translated into English by J. Strauss, edited by S.D. Toshi, Philips Petroleum Company the Red Library Translation, Bartlesville, OK, 1984 5, Brown, K. E.: “The Technology of Antf Tulsa, p 7-10 6. Cheng, A. Mz “Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas-Drive”, SPE 20720 presented at the 6Sth Annual, Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineering held in New Orleans, LA, September 23- 26, 1990 7. Cinco, HL, Miller, F. G., and Ramey, H. I: “Unsteady-State Pressure Distribution Created By a Directionally Drilled Well”, JPL, p1392~1400, November, 1975 8. Dietz, D. N. “Determination of Average Reservoir Pressure from Build-up Survey”, JPT, 955-959, August, 1965 9. Economides, M. J., Braud, C.W., and Frick, TP, :"Well Configurations in Anisotropic Reservoirs”, SPE 27980 presented at the 1994 University of Tulsa Centennial Petroleum Engineering Symposium held in Tulsa, 29-31 August, 1996 10, Economides, M. J., Deimbacher, F. X., Brand, C. W,, and Heinemann, Z. E.: “Comprehensive Simulation of Horizontal Well Performance”, SPE 20717, 1990, and SPEE, 418-426, December 1991 11. Economides, M. J, Hill, AD., and iconomides, C.: “Petroleum Production Systems’ Saddle River, 1994 12, Elssayed A. H., and Amro, M. M,, :”Production Performance of Multilateral Wells”, SPE $7542 presented at the 1999 SPE/ADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 8-10 November 1999. 13, Fetkovieh, M. 1: * The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells", SPE 4529, 1973 14. Giger, F. M., Reiss, L. HL, and Jourdan, A. P.: “The Reservoir Enginecring Aspect of Horizontal Drilling”, SPE 13024 presented at the SPE 59th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, Sept. 16-19, 1984 15, Mathew, C. S. and Russell, D. G.: “Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in Wells”, Monograph Series, Societ Engincers of AIME, Dallas (1967) 1, 110 16. Renard, G. 1, and Dupuy, J. M.: “Influence of Formation Damage on the Flow Efficiency of Horizontal Wells”, SPE 19414 presented at the Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, Feb. 22-23, 1990 17. Goode, P.A., and Kuchuk, FJ. Inflow Performance of Horizontal Wells,” SPE Reservoir Engineering, p 319-323, August 1991 18, Huang, B., and Prada, M., :"Multilateral Wells Modeling and Production Prediction’ 2002 19, Joshi, 8. D.: “Horizontal Well Technology” PennWell Publishing Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1991 20. Jones, L., Blount, E., and Glaze, O.: “Use of Short Term Multiple Rate Flow Tests to Predict Performance of Wells Having Turbulence”, SPE 6133, October 1976 21, Kampkom, R.: “Analysis of Two-Phase Inflow Performance in Horizontal Wells,” Mast Austin, nputational Model for Overall Skin Factor Estimation”, Master Project Report, Un: ity of Li Methods,” Vol. 4, PennWell Publishing Company, The University of Prentice Hall Ine., Upper of Petroleum, ", Chevron presentation material, port, University of Texas at0 SPE 116580 22. Odeh, A. S.: “Pseudasteady-State Flow Equation and Productivity Index for a Well with Noncircular Drainage Area”, Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 30, No 11, pp 1630-1632, 1978 23, Roger, E,, and Economides, M.: “The Skin due to Slant of deviated Wells in Permeability-Anisotropic Reservoirs”, SPE 37068, November 1996 24, Van Der Viis, A. C., Duns, IL, and Luque, R. F.: “Increasing Well Productivity in Tight pp. 71-78, 10th World Petroleim Congress, Bucharest, Romania, 1979 25, Van Everdingen, A.F.: “The Skin Effect and its Influence on the Productive Capacity of @ Well,” Trans., AIME (1953) 198, 171-76 26. Vogel, J. V. “Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive Wells, J Chalk Reservoir,” Proc., vo. 3 ‘Vol 20, No 1, pp 83-92, 1968, ‘Single OTWeT ‘Single Gas WoT Two Phase OFWoT ‘Sead State Preude Steady Sieady Sate Peeudo Steady Preude Seay Veriead + Darey, 56 + Dave, 1078 > AronoTaty ana > RronoTeky ana > Vogel, 1588 «15 * Dietz, 1985 (shape | Jenkins, 1954 vonkins, 1954 + Fethowen, 1973 factor) + Jones, 1978 (8 |» Harrison + Jones, 1975 (6 factor) + Cheng, 1990 facto) + Ode, 1978 (shape + Darcy, 1856 (0 factor) fector) + Odeh, 1978 (nape {actor ianted + Gineaey, 75 > Cheng, 1980 (<60") + Boson, 1980 + Rogers and Economies, 1986 Forantal [+ Josh, 1886 and | Josh, 1068 and | » Eoanomides, 1088] » Enonamides, 1068 [» Voge, 1058 (20) Econamides, 1990 |” Economides, 1980 + Fotkoven, 1973 + Boneove, 1964 | « Economides, 1994 + Harrison 1 Giger 1983 * Babu and Oden, * Chong, 1990 Renard and Dupuy, | 1969 1990) Waters | Borsove, 1884 Tor | » Eoonomiges, 184 planar laterals + Boseove and Clonts-Ramey, 1904 for stacked laterals Table 1: Summary Table for Pl or IPR Correlations‘SPE 116500 " No_| arable Description Unit | Deteuitvatues | 1 | | Siena Boundary Pressure pi] 3500 2 |p. | Average reserva pressure psi] 2500 S[k [Average Pemeabity ma 100 | |e | Vertes! Pemeabiy md [80 | Ske | Horeontat Pormeabiiy a [125 | S| k | Permeability in te xrecton md 108 7 [| Pemeabity inte rector md [99 SA | Pay tikes o 70 3h | Pororate tena 50 “0 | re | External boundary raiua 288 “1 [xe | Reserv ha eng the GreeTon para Te waibore [2680 "Z| y. | Resevoir lengthin the erection perpendeatarto the woboT> | 2680 13_[ 6x | Shape fecor z 318 74 [_ 8, | Formation volume fartor wanSTS 4 75 [| Wscosty [ar |p. | Of eensiy wa aaa i7[ 9, [OF Row ate ‘stad 500 18 [4 | Otvisosiy @__poazaa 19 [2 | Compressbiy facar = 0.45 20_| 7 Temperate R_|6a0 | Bi [yy | Gas specie gravy = ori | 2 [a | Gas tow ato wisaia_| 1000 | | fe | Welbore rac [oxen | 2a | C| Horizont wel engi [750 25 [ae | Dance om th side wal boundary puiponicuar to He wellbore fo We migpont of wetbore | «| ve00 25 [ye | Osance fom the sido wal boundary paral 1 ne wobore 10 Fe cant of welBore [089 | Z| 2, | Distanc fom bottom or top boundary tothe conor of wabore fos 25_| 9 | Aaimath of wel aoc tacos ego 2 [—s —[ xin = © 30_[ | Non Dare aor fo 31_[_B. | Of non Dorey ecor osTs_[o 32], | Gas non Darey factor Dinech [O 33_[__n- | Number of spokes (ates). z 7 3a |_—-m- | Number of elevatons or level a which iatrala are ol 5 t 35 | a” | Drainage parameter = 0750 36 | de | Productivity ox 5 20 ST _| Pann _| Bubbio prossure at 1000 38 | Bsns | Slanted anal a 30 Table 2: Default Input parameters for the case studies Gategony Variable Range Vertes Enteral Boundary Radius (7) / Wel Bore Reds (=) Ore 100000 Slanted Slanted Angle (2) 0t090" Horizontal Horizontal Well Length (L) 50:0:30008 Mubiatera Numbers of Spoke (9) 1,2,3,and4 Table 3: Variables for Pl case studiesSPE 116580 Catagory (Case Description Variable Figure Locations Vertical Single O1 Wellin Stoady Stato We Figure? Vertical Single Oil Wellin Psoudo-Stoady State te Figure2 Vertical Well ‘ " s Vertical Single Gas WollIn Stoady Stato te Figure Vertical Single Gas Well In Psoude-Stoady State He Figured ‘Slanted Single Ol Wellin Steady-State ° Figure S Slanted Single Ol Wellin Pseudo-Steady State ° Figure 6 ‘Slanted Wel! a “y ‘9 Slanted Single Gas Wellin Steady-State ° Figure? Slanted Single Gas Wellin Psoude-Stoady State 8 Figure 8 Horizontal Singl Oi Wallin Stoacy-State L Figures Horizontal Single Ol Wellin Psoudo-Steady Stato L Figure 10 Horizontal Wall Horizontal Single Gas Wallin Steady-State L Figure 1 Horizontal Single Gas Wellin Psoude-Stoady State i Figure 12 Maltlateral Single Olin Stoady Stato a Figure 13, tata Watt Maltlateral Single Olin Psoudo-Steady State a Figure 14 Table 4: Detailed case descriptions with the corresponding variables and figure locations for the Pl case studies Taaery Tana Deneiion Figure Locations inSiooy St | ojzoa Sle Of Wotin Soy Sato Fgwe 17 attra SiO tod Sia Powe 18 inpeetr Stay Sate |Heyzotl Single Ol Wl in Pseude-Seey Sate Fue 21 Mutt! Se On Pow Stand Sata Fgwe 22 Vera Sie Gas el Steady Sato Powe Z3 Sngecesviet | spied Sle Gos Wen tay Sate Figue 24 orzo Sle Gas Wal Steady Ste Pgue 28 Sint Ga Wet Slanted Single Gas Wellin Psoude-Steady Stato Figure 27 Horizontal Single Gas Wellin Pseudo-Steady Stato Figure 28 in Pseude-Steady State Vertical Two Phase Oil Wellin Pscude-Steady Stats Figure 29, Jue Phase Wall Slanted Two Phase Oil Wellin Pssuse-Steasy State Figure 30 in Psoude-Steady State | Slanted Two Phase udo-Steacy Sia ‘gue Horizontal Two Phase Oil Wallin Paaude-Standy State Figure 31 ‘Table 5: Detalled case descriptions with corresponding figure locations for the IPR case studies‘SPE 116580 B Category ‘Conservative <> cntimistie Vertical Single Oil Wellin Stoady Stato Day Vertical Single Oil Wellin Pseudo Steady State Deroy ‘Dake Dietz ones / Ooh Vertical Single Gas Well ln Steady State ‘Aronofsky Vertical Single Gas Wellin Psoude-Steady Stale ‘ach ‘Aronofeky Jones Vertical Two Phase Oil Wall in Psaudo-Steady State Havison| Fatkovieh Vogel Cheng Slanted Single Phase Wall Rogers ince /Basson “Slanted Single Two Phase Oil Wellin Pseuo-Steady State Cheng Horizontal Single Oil Wallin Sloady-Sta Jesh Renard Borsove Giger Horzonial Single Oll Wellin Pseudo Steady State ‘esti Babu Economides Horizontal Single Gas Well Economies Horzontal Two Phase Oil Wellin Peoudo-Steady Slate Harrison Cheng Feikovieh Vooel Mullataral Single Oilin Steady Slate Bovisave for Planar Borsove for Stacked uslatoral Sine Oilin Pseudo. Steady State Economies Table 6: Selection Guideline for PVIPR correlationsSPE 116580 Productivity Index, STEN 3ay-ps External Boundary Ralus 2} Well Bore Radius (rw) Productvty Index as a variable of external boundary radius (7)? well bore rads (¢) for vortcal sngle- wallin steady state “Deey —Aroneety —o1en Extamal Boundary Radius (re) / Wel Bore Radius (ow) Figure 4: Productviy Index as a vanable of extemal soundary radu () ! wel bore radius (f) for vertical single-gas wwellin pseude-steady state = ° aera eT TE cp $2] Sonera Tie ee Be) cocci wets) = Odioh (Shape factor) a’ Be 4 b EB 3 External Boundary Radius te) Wel Bore Radlus (rw) Figure 2: Productivity Index as a variable of external boundary ‘aclu (7) well bore rads (¢) for vertical sngle- wallin pscude-stoady state Figure 5: Productivity indox as a varable of slanted ancle (6) 20 2 oo © ‘Slant Angle, degree Stantod sngle-ol well in steady state : 3 : 6 Dake (PR) = Grea (Sen) “© Dake (PR) + Boston (Skin) “+-Dake (PR) + Rogers Skin) 10 ooo 000000000 00 External Boundary Radius (2) / Well Bors Ras (rw), Figure 3: Productivity Index as a variable of extemal boundary radlus (4) / wel bore rads (f) for vertical single-gas wollin steady state a mn 30 0 Slant Angle, degree Figure 6: Productviy index as @ variable of slanted angle (6) for slanted single-ol wel n psoudo-steady stateSPE 176560 8 go Ree OR Grew Se |= F a4] Sronsir tion) aessen ser) J, | = teonontes = £01 | prone Pr + Roper (kn $2] Sasso o%en Le Boos Be yoo i Boon 20 e 3 fon Es ° ° stan Ange sores Heiontal Well Length Figure 7:_Producvty Index asa vale of tant angle (8) for Figure 10: Producti Index as a variable of horn wal eth Sleioasngloges wel steady ste (Lforronzontal single of weltn psauto steady state ox “= Feenaty (PR) + Oe9 (Sk) “= Auenethy (PR) + Bosson (Sk) “+ Aeonothy (IPR) + Rogers (Sk) Sons ° rr rs oto tomo tooo amo 2000000 stan Angle degree Horizontal Wel Length Figure &: Produc Index 38 vale of slanted anle (9) for Figure 1: Product Index 3 vale of nrzontl wel length Snee snglegoe wel mn pseiso-seady sae (Ltr ronzontal singe gas wel in steady tate — os Zi | soon Boas f g 520 5 oz rs yor £ i a Fo Bos de dos e & ° ° Figure 9: Productvly Index a8 a variable of horizontal wall angth (0 for horzontalsingle-ol wel in steady stats Horizontal Well Langt, Figure 12: Productivity Index as variable of horizontal well length (Ur honzontalsingle-gas wall in pseudo-steady staleSPE 116580 Borisov plana latrals = Productivity Index. STEN(Ay-93) Dorey (IPR) + inc Ste) -© Dare (IPR) + Besson (Sk) = Darey (PR) + Rogers (Skn) . 2 ° 1 2 3 4 Number of Spokes (Lat Figure 13: Productivity Index as 2 variable of number of spokes (7), for muitiatoralsingle-ot wolin steady stato © 2000 4000 6000 e000 10000 ll Flow Rate, BBLDAY ‘2000 “4000 Figure 16: Inflow Performance Relatanship for slanted single-il Wellin steady state i E \ \ C \ Productivy Index, $ Number of Spokes (Laterats) Figure 14: Productviy Index asa variable of number of spokes (0), fer muitlateral single-ol walin pseudo-steady state =e ~siger Figure 17: Inflow Performance Relationship for harzantal single-il Wellin steady state —Boraove or pavar boris “B-Borsove for stacked trae Figure 15: inlow Performance Relatorship for vertical single-o wolin steady state Figure 18: Inlow Peformance Retatonship for multilateral single oil wellin steady state‘SPE 116580 w “Diets (shape tector) sora (Beta factor) = Darey (0 acter + Oe (Shape tater) (0 Flow Rate, BBLIOAY ll Flow Rate, BBLDAY Figure 19: Inflow Performance Relatorship for vertical singl-ol Figure 22: Inflow Performance Relationship for multilateral single Wel in peoude-steady slate ol wel in psoudo-stoady stato : ae (PAY Gr By reese Eon ae (Pn «eso gin : Tome (PR) soe oan) Eco oo 31500 ™ 5 Jom 2 co 0 moo metro eroo T0000 000 © ronoo—_omo09 somo 00000 e000 Figure 20: iow Perlomance Raltonship for sled singl-o! Figure 23: inflow Perlormance Reonsip fr veel single gas rl in pooudotoaty sate olin seay ste Som anu ana Oso eeraaky PR) + Cnea an) “& Arerooky (IPR) + Besson (Ske) = nrontoky (PR) + Ropes (Skin) Flowing Bottom Hole Prossur, psia 9 10000 2000030000 40c0 50000, ‘© 199009 00000 200000 400000 500000 00000, (il Flow Rate, BBLDAY {GAS Flow Rate, MSCFIDAY Figure 21: inlaw Performance Relationship for horizontal single-ol_ Figure 24: Inflow Performance Relationship for slanted singl-gas Wellin peoude-steady late welln steady stateSPE 116580 L tone eon 600 $00 a z 0 mS Eas NN F000 ~ 0 ™ § 1500 : 20 Bso00 soo 0 OAS Flow Rats MSCEDAY GAS Flow Rat MSCEDAY Figure 28: Inflow Performance Relationship for horizontal single ‘928 Wellin psoudo-steady stato Figure 25: inflow Performance Relationship for horizontal sing 928 wol in stoady state . —Aonaty “e ose 00. zee 2500 Nanison cneng Fro 0 Jr 0 z jo 0 Figure 29: Inlow Performance Relationship for verteal wo-phase Figure 26: inflow Performance Relalonship for vertical singl-gae all wellin pseude-steady state wellin pseude-steady state : ney Gen By pam L Thee fon sees Sy 70 Aronofsky (IPR) + Rogers (Skin) 2500 #2000 100 § on 0 Fon \ 0 i 0 woo moon —_—s00600 000 wor 000 30m 0m m0 ll Flow Rate, BBLIDAY OllFlow Rate, BBLIDAY Figure 20: Inflow Performance Relationship for slanted two-phase, Figure 27: inflow Performance Relationship for slanted single ga ol wel in psoudo-steady state wel in psoudo-steady state1 SPE 116580 : —Vosel 3 soo —Feteoveh ¢ Haron Eran 2 tooo é £ s00 z ‘900 10000 8000 20000 28000 30000 35000, (Ol Flow Rat, BBLDAY Figure 31: Inflow Performance Relationship for horizontal two- phase oll wel in psoudo-stoady stato