. .

SPE
-ofmtma
SPE 19823

Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive

Horizontal Wells
H, Bendakhlia, and K. Aziz, Stanford U,
SPE Members F

ofJ\ri9ht $989, S@efY of petroleum Engineers, Inc.

lis papar was prepared for presentation at the 64th Annual Technical Conference and ExhiblJon of the Society of Petrolebm Engineers hefd In Ban Antonio,TX, October S-1 1, 1SSS.

Iia papar was selected for preaen!ation by an SPE Program Committee following review of informationcontained in an abstract aubmlffad by the ink(s). Contents of the paper,
} preaentad, hava not bean reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers ati are subject to correction by the author(a). The material, as presented, does not neceasarify reftesf
lY Positionof the ~etY of petroleum Engineers. its Officers.ormembers.Paparepresented at SPE mwfings are aubjact to publicationreview by Edifor161Cornmittwa of the Scdaty
PetrofeumEngineers.Permission10copy is restrictedto an ebalracfof notmorethan WI words. Illustrationsmay notbe coplad.The abarrasfahoutdc@ain conspicuousack~t
where and by whom the paper ia presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box S3SS36, Richardson, TX 750SS-S9SS. Telex, 7S0SS9 SPEDAL.

represent numerical reeulte. Both Vogel’s and Fetkovkh’a erpw

Abstract
In 1968, Vogel used a computer program to predict inflow
performance relationships (IPR) of a well producing from a
wide variety of solution-gae drive reservoira. In dimensionless
form, these curves relating flowing bottom-hole pressures to
oil production rates were. found to ahare a common charac-
teristic shape which was correlated by a parabola, Because
Vogel studied cases of differing rock and PVT properties, hia
work became well accepted in the industry. Moat of the papers
publiehed on inflow performance deal with vertical wells and
should not be applied to horizontal wells without verification.
‘I’here are no analytical modele available at present to compute
IPRs from two phase flow theory. In such a case, it is necessary
to use numerical simulation. Unfortunately, ,’uost commercial
black oil simulators do not include the feature necessary for
predicting IPRs of horizontal wells.
tions were tried, but neither of them fully reproduced the
characteristic shape of the dimensiordeas IPRs, A new two-
parameter equation, that restdta from combining the two pre-
vious equations was found to provide an adequate correlation.
d
Introduction
A etep in the analysia of the deliverabtity of a well is to es-
timate the production rate for any given flowing bottom-hole
pressure; In single phase flow of oil, inflow into a well is usu-
ally directly proportional to the pressure differential between
the reservoir and the wellbore. But in two phase flow of oil
and gas, this relationship between the production rate and the
wellbore pressure ia no longer linear, An equation that de-
scribee this relationship ie known as the inflow performance
relationship of a well (IPR) [1]. ●

In this paperl, two commercial simulators are utilized to
develop IPRs for horizontal wells producing from solution-gas
drive reservoirs. The development parallele the work of Vogel
for vertical wells. First, a base case is considered with typi.
cal fluid, rock and reservoir properties. Then, variations from
the base case are investigated. Changes from the base case,
in fluid properties included variations in relative permeability
and PVT properties. Changes in reservoir properties included
variations in drainage area, pay thickness, and absolute perme-
ability. Changes in well propertied included variations in skin,
well location, and well length with respect to reservoir bound-
itiea. The resulting IPRa “were made dlmenaionleee in order
to compare their curvature, or the rate of change of oil pro-
Vogel [2] has proposed an empirical IPR equation that has
been used in the industry successfully. Because flow into a hor-
izontal well is different from the flow into a vertical well, IPR
equations developed for vertical wells should not be applied
to horizontal wells without verification, Since the analytical
calculations necessary to compute IPR.s from two phase flow
theory are tedious, numerical simulation is used. Most com-
mercial black oil simulators do not include the feature of mak-
ing complete IPR predictions for a reservoir.
In this paper, available commercial simulators are nev-
ertheleae utilized to generate IPRs of a horizontal & pro-
ducing from a solution-g~ drive reservoir. First, IPIts are
generated for a base case reservoir. Then, variation cf the

1---
duction rate with flowing bottom-hole pressure. These curves
were found to be sensitive to the stage of reservoir depletion.
However, they were not affected significantly by chariges in the
fluid reservoir, or well properties.
An attempt wss made to develop a simple correlation to
‘References and illustrations at end of paper
base case are examined. These -ariations cover a wide miige
of fluid, reservoir and well characteristics. Fluid charact~:;rj
tics include crude oil PVT properties and relative perme.=%lity
data. Reservoir characteristics include absolute yrmca.bfity,
drainage area, and formation thickness. Wefl cL~racteristica
include skin, location, and length with respect to the reservoir
dimensions.

551

INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS
2 FOR SOLUTION-GAS DRIVF Horizontal WELLS
Literature Review
In 1968, Vogel [2] did a numerical study on several types of
solution-gas drive wells and proposed a curve fitted equation
that would apply to n .d typical cases with minimum error.
The equation is:
—9.
90m.s
= 1.0 – 0.2~ - 0.8(~’)2 (1)
where go is the oil flow rate, qoma=is the maximum flow rate
corresponding to 100?!fopressure drawdown, pw~iB ?he flowing
bottom-hole pressure, and PR is the Bhut-in pressure or average
reservoir pressure. Another IPR equation was proposed by
Fetkovich [3]. In dimensionless form, it can be written as:
(%)2 ‘
—=
90m.*
90
(1.0-
) (2)
where n is a parameter which is about 1.0, For n = 1.24,
both IPR equations result in almost the same curve, Other
published papers on IPRz dealt mostly with the effect of skin [4,
5, 6] and the prediction of future IPRa [7, 8, 9]. But theBe pa-
perfi aasumed that the well is vertical. Recently, there haa
been work done on the performance of horizontal wells. But
most of it assumed flow of a single oil phaee [10, 11, 12].
Only a few papers trdked about two-phaze flow from horizon-
tal wells [13, 14, 15]. It has not been verified yet whether the
IPRs developed for vertical wells can be used with horizontal
wells.
Model Description
Descriptionof the Base Case Reservoir
The base case reservoir is modeled as a box shaped reservoir
with a square drainage area of 20 acrea and a constant thick-
ness of 23.5 feet. The porous medium has a homogeneous
porosity of 0.139 and an isotropic permeability of 20 md. The
rock has a compressibfity of 6 x 10-6 psi-l. A horizontrd well
of radius 0.33 ft is located in the middle of the reservoir. It iB
centered at mid-height and completed along the entire length
of the reservoir.
Initially, there are two phases: there is water at an immo-
bile saturation of 0.194, and oil an its bubble point pressure.
Relative permeabfity data and PVT propertied are the same
as those used by Vogel. In Vogel’s paper [2], the PVT prop-
erties are illustrated in Figure 9 and the relative permeability
data are illustrated in Figure 10. Od denBity is selected at
50 lbm/ft3 and gas density at 0.06 lbm/fts. Capillary pres-
sure effects are ignored. These additional data are selected to
represent typical hydrocarbon reservoir cond~iions.
,-,
Simulators
The two simulators used in this study are IMEX and ECLIPSE.
IMEX, version 2,o, is a the phase black oil simulator devel-
oped by the Computer Modeling Group (CMG). Its novel fea-
ture is the adaptive implicit- explicit grid formulation. This
formulation reduces computer execution time by applying an
IMPES type solution to certain gsid blocks that do not need
to be solved fully implicitly This program is installed on a
Gould 9000 computer.
. .
SPE 19823
ECPLISE, version 84/11, is a three phase, three dimen-
sional, general purpose black oil simulator developed by Ex-
ploration Consultant Ltd. (lJCL). It possesses a robust for-
mulation technique that consistently reduceB residua3 errors to
very fine tolerances. It is inst aUed on an Appolo work-station.
I Horizontal Well Formulation
The connection between the horkkd well and the reservoir
block containing tke weti is based on th, assumptions that
the flow is steady-state aiid radial, the fluid is in a single in-
compressible phase, and that the pressure head due to height
difference is negligible. The well productivity factor ia then
calculated aa follows:
I
2rfkLu
WPs 0.00 H271n(%) +s (3)
where
(4)
For a well placed at the edge of the grid in a block half
the size of itB neii:hbor, f = 0.5, and C12 = 0.47. If & = 1
ft, Ar = 2 ft, Lw := 933.38 ft, k = 20 md, ~W= 0.33 ft, and
s = 0.0, then r. = 0.53 ft and WP = 139.3 cp-RB/(D-psi).
WP ia computed internally by IMEX. Only CC’, f, r~, and s
are entered in the datatile. However, with ECLIPSE, WP is
include in the data file as the transmissibtity factor for the
connection.
I Grid Selection
Symmetry of flow geometry toward the well requires mod.siling
of ordy half of the reservoir.’ Because the horizontal well is
completed along the entire reservoir length, flow calculations
are necessary only in a plane perpendicular to the weU. Hence,
the reservoir is modeled as a two-dimenaionrd vertical section.
Fluid flow ia expected to be fast and radial near the well-
bore. For this reazon, carteaian grid blocks should be ama!l
for high flow resolution and equally sized for better accuracy.
With increasing distance from the well, flow properties change
leza rapidly. In thh case, grid blocks may become larg& in
order to save computer time and Btorage.
With tbk in mind, two grids are proposed: a fine grid
with 16x 11 blocks, and a coarse grid with 9x7 blocks. fn
both grids, block sizes increaae outward at geometrically at a
constant fatter,
To study the zenaitivity of simulation results to grid size,
runs are made at constant wellbore pressures of 50, 505, 1500
psig, and at constant oil rates of 50,500, 1500 STB/D, There
is a close agreement between the reaulta of the two grids. A
conservative choice is made to use the fine grid in anticipation
of the need of a high level of accuracy in IPR generation.
I Procedure of Obtaining IPRs
An IPR curve ia generated by obtaining a set of points relat-
ing flowing bottom-hole pressurez to oil production rates at a
constant recovery factor, which is the ratio of cumulative oil
produced to oil originally in place. When a recovery factor is
reached during the course of depletion, corresponding oil rate
and wellbore pressure are recorded as coordinates of a point on
an IPR curve of that recovery factor. Other pointa on the curve
are obtained from the output of other runs which constraint ei-
1
---
 .
SPE 19823 HICHEM BENDAKHLIA
-.—.--—-
ther oil rate or wellbore pressure to intersect with the expected
IPR curve. The repetition of the same procedure with different
recovery factors results in dlffercr.t IPRa. Dimensionless IPR
curves are constructed by dividiltg the pressure coordinate of
each point on an IPR curve by the shut-in or average reservoir
pressure, and the oi! rate coordinate by the maximum oil rate
corresponding to 100~0 pressure drawdown.
T’wo types of simulation runs are examined. In the first,
the well is constrained by a constant flowing bottom-hole pres-
mre. In the second, a constant oil production rate is specified.
F’or the same number of simulation runs, constant pressure
runs result in better IPR curve resolution that constant oil
rate runs. For this reason, all subsequent runs are done at a
constant wellbore pressure constraint.
IPRs can be generated from outputs of either the IMEX
skmdator or the ECLIPSE simulator. When the base case
IPR curves are produced from the two simulators, comparison
between them reveals that the curves are ordy slightly dXferent
in magnitude but essentially identical in shape. 3ecause The
Gould computer where IMEX is installed is much faster than
the Appolo work-station where ECLIPSE is installed, all runs
were done with IMEX.
Interpretation of the Results
Base Case IHts
Examination of Figure 1 shows that IPRa of recovery factors
between 0.1% and 2% deteriorate rapidly with initi~ deple-
tion. ‘His is equivalent to a rapid decrease of the productiv-
ity index (PI) with. depletion. The high initial flow rates are
caused by the large length of the well and by the sharp initial
pressure gradients. Productivity decreases rapjdly because oil
is depleted from the near well region at a higher rate than it
is replaced by oil from outer oil zones.
Further examination of the plot in the region where reser-
voir pressure is slightly less than initial pressure, shows that
there is a slight increase in PI with drawdown. At smidl draw-
downs, gas evolves from solution but stays nearly immobde
because of its low saturation. This increase in gas volume
increases pressure in the oil phase. As a result, pressure gra-
clients become larger and productivity increases. This phe-
nomenon is reversed for larger drawdowns in which case greater
gas saturation causes greater resistance to oil flow.
At the later stages of depletion, Figure 2 shows that deteri-
oration of IPRs slows down. Because of an increaae in gas-oil
ratio, reservoir pressure diminishes at an equivalent rate to
maximum oil rates. In other words, the productivity index
decreaaes only slightly with production.
Figure 2 also indicates that the maximum recovery is ap-
proximately 15%. Inspection of the oil saturation distribution
at that stage of depletion reveals that there is a considerable
amount of movable oil left in the reservoir at a vertical level
below the well. Because of gravity segregation and absence
of a significant pressure differential, the left over oil cannot be
produced unless with some typ~ of secondary recovery process.
Figure 3 shows that the shape of the dimensionless IPR
curves is sensitive to the recovery factor. At early stages of
depletion, dimensionless IPRs are nearly straight with a slight..
concavity developing at low dimensionless pressure. With fur-
---
AND KHALID AZIZ 3
ther production, dimensionless IPRs grow more curvature and
reach a shape like Vogel’s reference curve.
IPR curves of a horizontal well are nearly straight at the
begivning, increase in curvature up to 8% recovery and then
slightiv decrease in curvature at later stages of depletion.
IPRs at Various Conditions
IPRs were produced for several variations of the base case
conditions, These conditions concerned fluid, reservoir, and
well characteristics.
Effect of Fluid Characteristics
The effect of fluid characteristics include the effect of crude oil
PVT properties aa a function of pressure, and relative perme-
ability data as a function of phase saturation.
The first run utilized a crude oil with oil viscosity about
half of that of the base case and a solution gas.oil ratio about
twice as great. PVT properties corresponding to case b in
Vogel’s paper. As expected, with a less viscous crude, pro-
ductivit y is much greater than in the base case. However,
progression of the shape of the dimensionless IPR curves is
quite similar to the previous case.
A second run was made with s more viscous crude which
PVT properties correspond to case 9 (d) of Vogel’s paper. The
minimum oil viscosity is now 3 cp compared with 1 cp in the
base case. Dimensionless curves are plotted on Figure 4 Be-
cause of the decrease in oil viscosity, oil productivity decreases.
As noted for a vertical weII, dimensionless IPR curves show
less curvature with a more viscous oiL These two runs indi-
cate that an increase in oil viscosity increases the concavity of
the dimensionless IPR curves.
A third run was made with a higher bubble point oil which
PVT properties are those of case 9 (e) of Vogel’s paper, These
properties are those of a less viscous oil sidar to those of
case 9 (b). Initial reservoir pressure was reset to the new bub-
ble pressure of 3000 psig. Because of higher initial pressure,
lower viscosity, and higher solution gas-oil ratio, oil rates and
ultimate recovery have increased significantly. In addition, an
increase in the curvature of the dimensionless IPR curves is
- noted.
A fourth run utilized a low solution gas-oil ratio which
characteristics are illustrated by case 9 (f) of Vogel’s data. In
this run, oil viscosity did not change significantly from the base
case values. Although ultimate recovery decreases, dimension-
less IPR curves retain their shape,
The effect of changes in relative permeabtity was also stud-
ied, A run utilized relative permeabfity data from case 10 (b)
of Vogel’s paper. Critical gas saturation increased to 8% and
residual oil saturation reduced to 10.6Yo, More oil is recovered
as a result of a reduction in residual oil saturation. Therefore,
productivity increases at the later stages of depletion. The
same type of curvat ure progression is noted for the dimension-
less IPR curves as seen in F~ure 5. After a recovery factor of
about 12970, concavity reduces.
Another run was made with relative permeability data
taken from case 10 (c). These data show higher oil perme-
ability, and lower gas permeabUity. Critical gas saturation is
now 10%, and residual gas saturation is 30.6%. As expected,
with such favorable relative permeabtit y conditions, produc-

INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS
4 FOR SOLUTION-GAS DRIVE HORIZONTAL WELLS
tivity at the later stages of depletion increases considerably,
The ultimate recovery is now around 30% of the original oil in
place. However, dimensionless IPR curves retain their usual
shape.
C~mbinations of differing relative permeability and PVT
properties were also investigated. In a run, relative permeabil-
ity data were replaced by those of case 10 (b) and crude oil
\
PVT properti~ by those of c~e 9 (b). Ultimate recovery haa
increased to around 20Y0. There is not much change in the
curvature progression of the dimensionless IPR curves.
In another run, relative permeability characteristics of case
10 (b) were combined with PVT properties of case 9 (e). Initial
pressure was reset to the bubble point pressure of 3000 psig.
Figure 6 is a plot of the resulthg dimensionles,~ IPR curves. An
:.ncrease in both productivityy and ultimate recovery is noted.
Dimensionless IPR curves do not change very much in shape.
The next run included a combination of relative permeabil-
ky of case 10 (c) and PVT properties of case 9 (b): Productiv-
ky increases at the later recovery factors. As a consequence,
ultimate recoverjj increases to 28%. As b~fore, the increase
in productivity or recovery does not change the shape of the
dimensionless IPR.s significantly.
In one run, fluid properties were approximated by straight
lines given by case 9 (d) and 10 (d) of Vogel’s paper. Even
with these extreme approximations, dimensionless IPR curves
show the progressive increase in concavity shape.
A run was made to see the effect of an initial pressure
al. ;e the bubble point pressure. Wltid pressure WW set to
3040 psig, a value much above the bubble point pressure of
2130 psig. The productivity index increases considerably when
the flowing bottom-hole pressure drops from above to below
the bubble point pressure. When average reservoir pressure is
below the bubble point pressure, the contavity of IPR curve .. . .
regains its usual shape.
Effect of Reservoir Characteristics
Reservoirs characteristics include absolute permeability, drainage
area, and reservoir thickness.
A run was made with an absolute permeability of 200 md,
a value 10 times larger than that used in the base case. ”Results
indicate a 10 times increase in oil production rate for a given
r-covery factor. In spite of that, there has been no significant
increase in ultimate recovery from a previous value of 1570.
Figure 7 shows that a change in absolute permeability does
not affect the shape of dimensionless IPR curves,
In another run, drainage area was doubled to 40 acres.
the resulting dimensionless IPR curves are shown on Figure 8.
Results show no significant change in magnitude or shape from
those of the base case. However, it is important to emphasize
that for a given recovery factor, the am~unt of cumulative oil
produced gets larger for a larger amount of oil originally in
place.
Two runs were made to see the effect of thickness. The first
run used a thickness of 50 feet. The resulting dlmensiordess
IPR curves are plotted ~ Figure 9. The second run used a
thickness of 100 ft. Apparently, with increase in thickness, the
upward concavity seen at early recovery and at high flowing
bottom-hole pressures disappears.
-- .
m
.
CD~ 3i100*
01 u 1?042.3
Effect of Well Characteristics
Well characteristics include skin, location with respect to top
and bottom boundary, and length with respect to lateral reser-
voir dimensions.
A run treated the effect of a positive skin, which could re-
suit from mud filtrate damage ‘or pertoration restrictions. The
steady state infinitesimal skin factor is given a value of five.
The resulting dimensionless IPR curves ar.>graphed on ~lgure
10. As expected, oil productivity decreas ~s. Dimensionless
IPR curves are initially straight, increase in concavity with
depletion of up to 8%, then decreases in concavity.
Two runs treated the effect of wells vertical placement with
respect to top and bottom boundary. In the first run, the well
waa placed at a quarter of the height from the bottom bound-
ary, Results appear no different from those of the base case.
This indicates that a change in the placement of the weIl within
a quarter oft he height from the middle does not affect oil pro.
ductivity significantly. In the second run, the well was lowered
to the bottom of the reservoir. Corresponding dimensionless
IPR curves are plotted on Figure 11. Here, Initial IPR curves
show lower productivity and lower curvature. The lower pro-
ductivity is a result of the well’s placement near the no flow
bottom boundary. There does not seem to be a significant
chang~ in ultimate recovery. Probably, the reservoir th~ckness
of 23,5 ft is not high enough to produce a significant amount
of oil by the ~ravity drainage process.
A run waa made to see the effect of well length. The reser-
voir was modeled in three dimensions with 9x6x 7 grid blocks.
The well length was cut in half and the well was completed in
the first 3 y-direction blocks. R.esultiag dimensionless IPR
curves are plotted on Figure 12. Results indicate a decrease in
productivity by a factor of four. However, the @mensionless
IPR curves show the progressive concavity feature. There is
a slight indication that these curves are closer together than
before. It is important to point out that, due to computer
limitations, not enough grid blocks can be used to reproduce
the three dimensional flow geometry.
In summary, in almost atl cases dimensionless IPR curves
are approximately straight lines at initial recovery, but become
more concave with increasing cumulative production up to a
certain recovery factor. At that time the concavity decreases
unti[ final recovery is reached.
Attempted Curve Correlation
Since the dimensionless curves exhibit a common curvature
progression, an attempt is made to correlate those changes
first with a modified form of Vogel’s curve, and then with
Fetkovich’s equation. The modified form of Vogel’s equation
is:
—
90
= 1.0 -v: -(1 - v)(~)’ (5)
!70m.=
This equation is curve fit to the dimensionless IPR curves
of the base case. Similarly, Fetkovich’s equation is curve fit to
the dimensionless IPR curves. Figure 13 shows a comparison
between the fitted curves by Equation 5 and the actual ones.
It is not a perfect match because the parabola does not repro-
duce the initial upward concavity of initial IPR.s. For IPRs
corresponding to stages of depletion where the upward con-
SPE 19823 HICHEM BENDAKHLIA AND KHALID AZIZ 5

cavity vanishes, the fit is much closer. A similar procedure is Nomenclature

repeated with Fetkovich’s equation and the results are plotted cc= geometric factor for well connection.
on Figure 14. As with Vogel’s equation, Fetkovich’s equation =
f well fraction open to flow.
does not match closely early IPR cuves. But the fit is closer
for later stages of depletion where ti~at upward concavity dis.
L. = well length, ft.
appears. IPR = inflow performance relationship.
A combination of Equation 5 and Equation 2 is suggested: k = absolute permeabfity, md.
n = exponent in Fetkovich deliverabtity equation.
.—90
90Jiax
=
(
1.0- V* -(1 - V)(*)2
)
‘ (6) N.
Np =
amount of original oil in place, STB.
amount of cumulative produced oil, STB.
This equation is curve fit to the IPR curves of the baae h+=
wise in order to determine the two parameters V and n aa a recovery factor, or cumulative oil produced
function of the recovery factor. A plot of this relationship is fraction of original oil in place.
given in Figure 150 Auf = flowing bottom-hole pressure, psia.
A comparison between the fitted curves and the actual ones @R = average reservoir pressure, psia.
is illustrated in Figure 16. From this plot, it is apparent that PVT = pressure-volume-temperature hydrocarbon
Equation 6 gives a very close fit to the IPR curves of the base properties.
case at all stagea ~f depletion. Up to a recovery factor of 0.870, PI = productivity index, STB/psi.
the parameter V ranges between .0.4 and 0.1. After that, it
90 = oil flow rate, STB/D.
takes values varying within the Smsllei range of 0.1 and 0.2.
The exponent n, has a value of 1.35 at a recovery factor of 901nc4* = maximum oil flow rate, STB/D.
8.8%. Then it decreases to 0.9 at a recovery factor of 8%. At To = effective radius of well connection, ft.
the later recovery factors, it increases slightly with cumulative rw = wellbore radius, ft
production. 8 = skin factor.
v= variable parameter in modified Vogel’s equw,
tion.
Conclusions WP = well productivity factor, cpRB/(D-psi).
At= grid block length in the x-direction, ft.
1. By using available commercial black oil simulators, in-
AZ= grid block length in the z-direction, ft.
flow performance relationships of a horizontal well were
developed for a wide variety of solution-gee drive reser-
voirs. References
2. Tliese curves show a high initial oil productivity that de-
[1] Gilbert, W. E.: “Flowing and Gaa-Lift Well Perfor-
creases very rapidly with cumulative production. Thk
mance,” API Drilling und Production Pmctice, (1954),
high productivity is caused by a large contact area be-
Dallas, Texas, 126-157.
tween well and reservoir. The rapid decrease in produc-
tiv~ty is due to limited transmissibility and finite size of [2] Vogel, J. H.: “Inflow Performance Relationships for
the reservoir. Solution-Gas Drive Wells,n J. Pet. Tech., (Jan. 1958), 83-
92.
3. Dimensionless IPR curves show a noticeable change in
concavity, The magnitude of the concavity is an indi- [3] Fetkovich, M. J.: ‘The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells,”
cation of how the productivity of the well varies with Paper SPE 4529, presented at the 48th Annual Fall Meet-
variations in pressure drawdown. ing, Las Vegaa, Nevada, Sep. 30-Ott. 3, 1973. (SPE
Reprints Series No. 14, 265).
4. Most of these curves share a common feature. Initial di-
mensionless IPR curves are nearly straight lines. With [4] Standing, M. B.: ‘Inflow Performance Relationships for
increasing recovery, concavity increases. CoNcavit y de- Damaged Wells Producing by Solution-Gas Drive,” J.
creases slight~ near depletion. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1970), 1399-1400.

5. An attempt is made to correlate this common change of
curvature. Both Vogel’s and Fetkovich’s equations are
tried. They adequately fit especially to the later stage
of recovery curves with well behaved curvature,
6. A new two parameter equation resulting from the com-
bination of Vogel’s and Fetkovich equations provides a
much closer fit to the generated IPR curves at all stages
of depletion.
[5] Whitson, C. S.: ‘Reservoir Well Performance and Pre-
dicting Deliverabtity~ paper SPE 12518, Nov. 1983.
[6] Camacho, R. G., and Raghavan, R.: ‘%&XI Performance
Relationship for Solution-Gas Drive Reservoirs,n J. Pet.
Tech., (May 1989), 541-550.
[7] Standing, M. B.: ‘Concerning the Calculation of Inflow
Performance of Wells Producing from Solution-Gas Drive
Reservoirs,” J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1971), 1141-1142.

555
 .,
INFLOW Performance RELATIONSHIPS
6 ~f)n
. --- SOT.TITTON.f2
., -”4,A C llnlilm UnDTCJAX1m AT TIXW
““~~~~ T c-+ C?nm * nanm
J2 4 V04
“b* . u sx”~~~a”~~ ~~~
.,..” .. W.. ”
or

‘[8] Diaz-Couto, L. E., and Golan M.: “General Inflow Per-
formance Relationship for Solution-Gaa Reservoir Wells,”
J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1982), 285-288.
[9] Kelkar, B. G., wd Cox, R.: “Unified Relationship to
Predict Future IPR Curves for Solution-Gas Drive Reser-
voirs,n paper SPE 14239 presented at the 60th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers held in Laa Vegas, Neviida, Sep. 22-
!25, 1985.
[10] Joshi, S. D.: 4Augmentation of Well Productivity Using
Slant and Horizontal Wells,” SPE paper 15375, presented
at the 1986 Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, Oc-
tober 5-8.
[14] Plahn, S. V., Startzman, R. A., Wattenbarger, R, A,: ‘A
Method for Predicting Horizontal Well Performance in
Solution-GM Drive Reservoirs? SPE paper 16201, pre-
sented at the 1987 Production Operation Symposium,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, March 8-10.
[15] Kossack, C. A., and Kleppe, J.: “Oil Production horn
the Troll Field: a Comparison of Horizontal and Verti-
cal Wells,” paper SPE 16869 ‘presented at the 62nd An-
nual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers held in Daflaa, Texaa, Sep. 27-30,
1987.

[11] Karcher, B. J., Giger, F. M., and Cornbe, J.: “Some Prac- S1 Metric Conversion Factors
tical Formulaa to Predict Horizontal Well Behavior,” SPE acres x 4.046873 E+03 = m2
paper 15430, presented at the 1986 Annual Meeting, New bbl x 1,589873 E-01 = m3
Orleans, Louisiana, October 5-8. Cp x 1.000000 E-03 = Pas
D X 8.640000 E+04 = s
[12] Babu, D. K., and Odeh, A. Z.: “Productivity of a Hori-
ft x 3.048000 E-01 = m
zontal Well,” paper SPE 18298, 1988. ft3 x 2.331685 E-o2 = m3
[13] Sherrard, D. W., Brice, B. W., and MacDonalu, D. G.: lbm x- 4.535924 E-01 = kg
‘Application of Horizontal Wells at Prudhoe Bay,” J. Pet. md x 9.689233 E–04 = pm~
Tech. (Nov. 1987), 1417-1425. psi x 6.894757 E+OO = kPa

2000

~
in
a
a
5 1590
w
In
w
k
~
2
k
1000
i
o
.~
it
g
u.
500

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Oil flow rate (STB/D)

Figure 1. IPR curvee of the base case.

c-
m -.
 .

..”

SW 19823

1.0

0,8

1? 0.6
z
ri
0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Oil Flow rala (STB/D)
Dhnensionks oil rste

Figure 2. IPR curvae of bass ease Figure 9. Olmenalonloss IPR curvs

W Mar raoovo~ fsctors. of thebsae mea.

1s

1.0

0.6

0.8 -

: 0.6 -
z
.5! NP/N =
2 0.4, 0.1, t.o
z
.-
0
‘“4 14.0, 2.0, t2.o,
0.4 - 6.0, 10.0 %

0.2
0.2 -

tJ.o~..J~
0.0 0.2 0.4 00 3.8 1 00 ~.1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Dimensionlessoil ra!e
Dlmsnsbnbss oil tlow rate
Flguro 4. Dhwenalonleaa IPR cuwes wllh Flgura 5. Olnrenalonle$s IPR curvee with
PW proparlles from csss (d). rolotlvo parrrruablllfy from osae (b)

667
 SPE 1982h “ ~“ -

1.0

NPR4 -
0.1, 0.4, 1.0,
2.0, 10.0, 6,0 %

~ 0,4} 6.0; iao,”;i.;;-io.o % \\\\\

.-E
0

0.2 -

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.0
-..
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1..0 Llimensbnieesoil ftow rate
Dimensbnleea oil flow rate

Flgura 6. Dlrnenslonl~$ \pR CLWVOgwith PVT (e) ,nd

Figure 7. Olmanslonleea IPR curves with
relatiw permeability (b) state.
●beolute pwnweblllty of 200 md,

1.0 ,-

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 L \ 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4, 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.0
Dimensionleaaoil flow“rete
Dimensionlessoil flow rata

Floure 8. Dlmonaionless IPR curves with 40 acro dralnsge ares.

Figure 9. Dlrnenalonloae IPR cuwee with 50 ft !Mckneas.

.
 sf% 1982~

1.0

~
a
% 0.8
g
0.

NPIN -
0.4, 0.1,
f .0, 2.0,
10.0, 6.0 %

-~
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.0
0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Dimenebnless oil fbw rate
DhmsnebnleaOHfbw rete
Figure 10. Dlmenslonless IPR c ues with poal!lve bkln of 5.
# FIOut* 11. Dimenslonleee IPR curwe wlfh well on fhe bo~om.

1A,

“*.

2 F/pm . {
0) 0.1, 0.4, NPIN =
&?0.4 f .0, 12.0, Of,
~
.7 2,0, 6.0, 2.0,
.: I 10.0 % 6.0 %
.-E
Q
0.2

t
.......
0.0 I
0,0 0.2
J Aclualcarves0! the beae r *e
0.4 0.6 0.6 1.0
Dimensionlessoil flCWreIe 0.0 ~ \
0.0 0.2 9.4 0.6
Figure 12. Dhnenelonleee IPR curves wifh helf well length. 0.6 1.0

Dlmensionleeedl flew rafe

Figure 13. IPR curvee fllted by v com~~ !0 actual curves.

669 . .
1.0 1.0

0.8 - 0.8 -

NP/N =
0,6 - 0.6 - 0.1,
2.0,
NPIN - 6.0 %
0.1,
2.0,
0.4 - 6.0 % %, 0.4 -
\
...
‘8
‘.,
0.2 - — Fittedcur.es with FetkodchIPR. 0.2 -— Fittedcwves withthe new equatbn.

‘------- Acfuaicurvesof thebasecase. ‘----”--” ActualIPR cuweeofthe basecase

0.0 0.0
-0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.s 0.8 t ,0

Dimenskmleaaoil flow rate Dlrrwrralonlese

011ffowrata

Figure 14, IPR curvoe tftted by Fafkovfch aquatforr Figure 1S. IPR curves ftfled wffh the new quatkon
compared to acfuaf OIWea. -w~ :0 aefual Curses.

0.4

0.2 -

0.01
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.12 0.$4

Recovery factor (frecflon)

Figure 16. Parmnatora V ●nd n ve recovery factor

from ● curva fit wtfh firs new oquatlon