PAPER 2003-195

PETROLEUM SOCIETY
CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF MINING, METALLURGY & PETROLEUM

Inflow Performance Methods for Evaluating

Downhole Water Sink Completions vs.
Conventional Wells in Oil Reservoirs With
Water Production Problems
O. Arslan, A.K. Wojtanowicz, C.D. White
Louisiana State University

This paper is to be presented at the Petroleum Society’s Canadian International Petroleum Conference 2003, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, June 10 – 12, 2003. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if filed in writing with the
technical program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will be considered for
publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to correction.

ABSTRACT drainage, because it cannot model distributed water

A new method and software have been developed to
identify promising reservoir candidates for production
improvement using DWS technology. DWS employs dual
completion in wells affected by excessive water problem.
The bottom completion drains the water and keeps the
top completion open to oil inflow. The system has proven
to be effective by increasing oil rate, particularly when
the drained water – not contaminated with oil – can be
disposed off without further processing. Decision on
using DWS must be based upon pre-evaluation of
reservoir candidates through a theoretical comparison
of DWS and conventional well performances. Analytical
modeling, to date, would predict oil productivity
performance but has fallen short of precision in
forecasting conditions for clean (oil-free) water
saturation around well.
New algorithms and an interface to a commercial
reservoir simulator have been written and used as a
numerical tool for DWS well performance analysis and
design. The tool captures hydrodynamic interaction
between the two completions of the well in terms of
pressure interference, water saturation (coning), and
producing water cut for any combination of top and
bottom production rates in presence of heterogeneities,
capillary forces, and relative permeabilities. It is used to
determine a cluster of inflow performance relationships
(IPR) for a DWS well to be compared with a single IPR
for the conventional well. It is shown that optimized
inflow conditions for maximum oil rate provide an
unbiased criterion for comparing performance of DWS
with conventional wells using a ratio of productivity
improvement (PIR).
The numerical tool has been also used to study
sensitivity of PIR to several parameters of reservoirs
with bottom drive: mobility ratio, vertical-to-horizontal
permeability ratio, oil-to-water zone thickness ratio,
drainage radius, capillary pressure, and limiting
pressure drawdown. Two of these six parameters mostly
determine superiority of DWS over conventional wells:
oil-to-water zone thickness ratio and limiting pressure
drawdown. Three parameters are insignificant and
could be eliminated from the correlation. The results are
combined in a regression formula to be used for ranking
DWS reservoir candidates. An example is demonstrated
using data from an oilfield with severe water problem.
INTRODUCTION
Well optimization methods aim to maximize
hydrocarbon production from a well. For reservoirs,
underlain with water, the maximum water-free
production rate is defined as the critical flow rate. Water
affects the well productivity by decreasing oil mobility
and degrades the tubing performance by increasing the
hydrostatic gradient.
Nodal analysis is commonly used in the oil industry
for well production optimization. Inflow performance
curves are generated either using analytical or empirical
models or employing reservoir simulators. Gilbert(1)
defined a relation between flow rate and pressure and
introduced inflow performance curves. Vogel(2)
presented an empirical method using a reservoir
simulator for solution-gas drive reservoirs. Wiggins,
Russel and Jennings(3) and Brown(4) present analytical
inflow curves for multiphase flow conditions. Brown
and Beggs(5) distinguished oil zone productivity index
and water zone productivity index.
Experimental and field cases showed that downhole
water sink (DWS) technology suppress production in oil
producing completions. (6)(7) Optimization of producing
rates for the two completions in a DWS well has not
been addressed. This work led to the analysis of DWS
wells using an inflow based approach for production
optimization. This approach would assist the engineer to
2
decide on well completion schemes while describing an
optimization procedure for a producing DWS well.
NODAL ANALAYSIS FOR CONVENTIONAL AND
DWS WELLS
Nodal analysis seeks the highest oil or gas production
rate(5)(8)(9). The node at the bottom of a well couples the
tubing and inflow performance (Fig. 1). Valid solutions
require that the tubing and inflow curves intersect at the
flowing bottomhole pressure. Wells with low
bottomhole pressures may not have the natural flow of
oil or the operating rate is economically limited. In such
cases, a pump may be installed for attaining higher
production rates.
Nodal analysis for oil reservoirs with bottom water
drive should consider the critical rate due to the presence
of water cut for higher rates. Critical rate is usually small
for a profitable operation. In such cases, oil wells are
produced at higher rates where increasing water cut
values are observed (Fig. 2).
Increasing water cut degrades well productivity and
tubing performance (Fig. 3). The increased hydrostatic
head at higher water cuts reduces the well production
capacity in turn as shown for 0, 0.1,and 0.2 water cut
values. Producing water cut exceeds 20 percent even for
the production rate qo<100 bpd (Fig.2). The tubing
performance curves have higher slopes as inflowing
water cuts increase ,which will decrease the flow rate at
this node (Fig.3). The impact of water cut on tubing
performance is important to consider in DWS well
evaluations. IPR – TPR intersection (optimal rate) is
smaller for the actual TPR with varying water cut values
than intersection defined by TPR curves generated for
various water cuts unless the inflow water cut is used.
The productivity index (PI) concept is not very useful
for wells with the water production, because the
production from the well includes water. Therefore,
productivity index to oil (PIo) is used as criteria:
qo
PI o = .....................................................(1)
( p R - p wf )
 Equation (1) is the oil production per unit pressure
drop (bpd/psi). Oil productivity decreases for increasing
production rates because of the increasing water cut for a
conventional well (Fig.4).
DWS technology isolates two completions by a
packer. Top completion is in the oil zone for improved
oil production. The bottom completion is at or below the
water oil contact; it is used to produce water to improve
oil production at the top completion. The rates for the
two completions are adjusted to reduce or completely
eliminate water from the top completion while
producing water not contaminated with oil that can be
disposed off without further processing. Conventional
nodal analysis methods do not provide solutions for this
two-rate system.
New algorithms and an interface to a commercial
reservoir simulator(10) have been written and used as a
numerical tool for DWS well performance analysis and
design. This tool captures hydrodynamic interaction
between the two completions of the well in terms of
pressure interference, water saturation (coning), and
producing water cut for any combination of top and
bottom production rates in presence of heterogeneities,
capillary forces, and relative permeabilities. Tubing
performance models are included.
The numerical tool is used to determine a cluster of
inflow performance relationships (IPR) for a DWS well
to be compared with a single IPR for the conventional
well. Classical nodal analysis is extended to water sinks
by evaluating the pressure versus flow rate relationship
for the top completion for a range of bottom rates. The
diagnostic plots are the same as used previously. Inflow
curves for a conventional well (zero bottom rate) and
DWS well with 200, 500, and 800-bbl/day bottom rates
are shown together with their related tubing
performances including the varying inflow water cuts
(Fig. 5). By controlling water from the top completion,
DWS technology increases the maximum natural flow
rate, reduced the flowing water cut (Fig. 4) and produces
oil free water from the bottom completion.
The inflow performance of the top completion of dual-
completed wells is complicated by interference with
bottom completion production rate (Fig. 6). Although
3
top completion rate dominates inflow response, bottom
completion drains water from top completion and
reduces the water cut and required pressure drawdown
for a particular top rate; the bottom completion also
competes for available reservoir energy. These results
can be visualized by examining the pressure drawdown
as a function of the top and bottom rates (Fig. 6). The
top completion produces only oil where the surface is
planar (i.e., the inflow performance is approximately
linera). The oil productivity for DWS well depends on
the rates from both completions. The maximum PIo is
obtained if the bottom completion maintains the top
completion to zero water cut (Fig. 7). The maximum oil
productivity occurs along the boundary between the
planar, water-free region and the non-linear region in the
pressure drawdown plot (Figures 6 and 7). Several
observations can be made from figure 6:
ß For fixed top completion rate, if the bottom
completion rate is higher than optimal the oil
productivity is affected only moderately because
the well remains in the linear drawdown region.
ß For fixed top completion rate, if the bottom
completion rate is too low then oil productivity
decreases significantly because water coning
moves the well into the nonlinear drawdown
region.
ß In contrast, for fixed bottom completion rate the
effects of a too-low top completion rate will in
general be less than the effects of a too-high top
completion rate.
DWS well optimization imposes the estimation of
maximum oil production with minimum oil-free water
production at the bottom completion for a given pressure
drawdown.
MODEL SELECTION AND NUMERICAL
EXPERIMENTS
Candidate reservoir model selection can be based
upon the constant rate responses for an arbitrarily given
well geometry in a single well – radial reservoir model.
The productivity improvement criterion is introduced to
compare conventional and DWS well performances for
feasible ranges of mobility ratio (M), vertical to
horizontal permeability ratio (kv/kh), oil-to-water zone 0.088 0.0402
Êk ˆ Êh ˆ
thickness ratio (ho/hw), drainage to well radius ratio 1.344ÁÁ v ˜˜ ÁÁ o ˜˜
(re/rw), capillary transition zone to oil zone thickness PI o DWS = Ë k h ¯ Ë hw ¯
0.0136 0.0179 0.203
ratio h(pc)/ho, and maximum pressure drawdown to 0.949 Ê re ˆ Ê h(pc )ˆ Ê Dp ˆ
M ÁÁ ˜˜ ÁÁ ˜˜ ÁÁ ˜˜
reservoir pressure ratio (Dp/pR) (Table 1). Ë rw ¯ Ë ho ¯ Ë pR ¯
..............................(7)
These 6 factors were considered at two different
values. The two level factorial has 26 = 64 cases. Each The mobility term has the strongest effect on the PIo
case requires 212 matrix of rates (441 reservoir for a DWS well followed by the pressure drawdown
simulations) to investigate the relevant ranges in top and limit term. On the other hand, least sensitivity
bottom rates treated as 2-factor 21-level design. In total coefficient is observed for the (re/rw) term, which is
14,112 simulation runs were used to compute the inflow unsurprising.
performance of these systems. A special batch
Dropping the effect of (re/rw) term, the same analysis
management program was used to create, queue, and
is conducted on a set of 35 = 243 cases (Table 3). Each
analyze these models.
case further included the 212 matrix of rates (total of
Linearized error analysis (11) is used to find a relation 35,721 runs). PIo relationship became;
type with the best correlation coefficient (R2),
0.068 0.037
Êk ˆ Ê ho ˆ
1.51ÁÁ v ˜˜ ÁÁ ˜˜
Y=Y(X1,X2, X3,…., Xi) ................................................. (2)
PI o- DWS = Ë kh ¯ Ë hw ¯ .........(8)
0.0087 0.203
Linearizing Y by writing its differential expansion: Ê h(pc )ˆ Ê Dp ˆ
M 0.927 ÁÁ ˜˜ ÁÁ ˜˜
∂Y ∂Y ∂Y Ë ho ¯ p
Ë R¯
dY = dX 1 + dX 2 + ...... + dX i ….. (3)
∂X 1 ∂X 2 ∂X i Defining the ratio of productivity improvement as;

Observing differential properties of natural logarithms

after some mathematical manipulation, PIR = (PIo-DWS – PIo-Con)/ PIo-Con................................................... (10)

d ln(Y ) = a1 d ln( X 1 ) + a 2 d ln( X 2 ) + ...... + a i d ln( X i ) ..(4) And applying a similar regressional analysis for PIR,
where ai’s are sensitivity coefficients. 0.069 0.017 0.176
Êk ˆ Ê h(pc )ˆ Ê Dp ˆ
3.52M 0.048 ÁÁ v ˜˜ ÁÁ ˜˜ ÁÁ ˜˜
The oil productivity index (PIo) is assumed to be a Ë kh ¯ Ë ho ¯ Ë pR ¯ .....(11)
PIR =
function of the form, Ê ho ˆ
0.536

ÁÁ ˜˜
Êr ˆ Êk ˆ Ê ho ˆ Ë hw ¯
PI o = Cf 1 ( M ) f 2 ÁÁ e ˜˜ f 3 ÁÁ v ˜˜ f 4 ÁÁ ˜˜ *
Ë rw ¯ Ë k h ¯ Ë hw ¯ ….. .. (5) This unbiased regression formula using least squares
f 5 ( h( Pc )/ ho )f 6 (Dp / p R ) approach yielded a multiple correlation coefficient (R2)
of 0.962 for a wide range of reservoir parameters (Table
A linear form of this equation is 2). In all of the cases, DWS completions increased the
oil productivity index. For the 35 = 243 cases considered,
Êr ˆ Êk ˆ
d ln(OPI ) = a1d ln(M ) + a2 d lnÁÁ e ˜˜ + a3d lnÁÁ v ˜˜ + minimum increase was 63 percent and maximum was
r
Ë w¯ Ë kh ¯ .. ... .(6) 457 percent improvements was observed. Productivity
Êh ˆ improvement is very sensitive to oil to water zone
a4 d lnÁÁ o ˜˜ + a5d ln ( h(pc )/ ho )+ a6 d ln (Dp / pR )
Ë hw ¯ thickness ratio (ho/hw) and drawdown (Dp/pR) (Table 3).

For the other reservoir and well parameters (Table 2), Tawila field(12) in Yemen is reported to have oil
the following PIo relationship for a DWS well is found: production with water cut. Using the productivity

4
improvement formula (Eq. 11), a productivity kv vertical permeability
improvement of 4.2 is estimated that is very promising
M mobility ratio
for the application of DWS technology.
PIo productivity index to oil

CONCLUSIONS PIR ratio of productivity improvement

Simulation assisted production optimization pR average reservoir pressure
incorporates models of complex fluid flow phenomena
of water coning, capillary pressure, relative pwf flowing bottomhole pressure
permeabilities for dual completed wells. Inflow-based qo oil Rate
optimization for DWS wells considers variations in the
re drainage radius
water cut response as bottom and top completion rates
vary. Water control significantly affects both inflow and rw well radius
tubing performance.
Xi ith predictor
Oil productivity index is sensitive to mobility ratio
Y response
and the operating pressure drawdown. On the other
hand, the drainage radius is observed to be the least ∆p pressure drawdown
influencing parameter. The maximum PIo is achieved for
the top and bottom rates where coning or reverse coning REFERENCES
is least. 1. Gilbert, W.E.: “Flowing and Gas Lift Well Performance,”
Productivity improvement provides a screening tool API Drilling and Production Practice, 1954, Dallas, Texas,
126-157
to select candidate reservoirs for the application of DWS
technology. DWS wells yield productivity gains for all 2. Vogel, J.V.: “Inflow Performance Relationship for
the cases analyzed. DWS well completion is most Solution–Gas Drive Wells,” Journal of Petroleum
effective in reservoirs with relatively thick water zones Technology, (Feb. 1966)
producing with high-pressure drawdowns. 3. Wiggins, M.L., Russel, J.L., and Jennings, J.W., Analytical
Inflow Performance Relationships for Three Phase Flow,
paper SPE 24055 presented at 1992 Western Regional
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
Meeting, California, April, 273-282.
This study is part of an LSU research program
4. Brown, K.E., James, F.L, Nodal Systems Analaysis of Oil
Downhole Water Sink Technology Initiative (DWSTI)
and Gas Wells, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (Oct.
funded by Joint Industry Project (JIP) for the application
1985).
and development of the Downhole Water Sink
Technology for water control in petroleum wells. 5. Brown, K.E., The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods,
Authors would like to express appreciation to the pp. 61-66, PennWell Publishing Co., Tulsa, OK, 1977.

DWSTI JIP for supporting this study 6. Shirman, E.I. and Wojtanowicz, A.K., Water Coning
Reversal Using Downhole Water Sink- Theory and
Experimental Study, SPE 38792, PROC. 72th Annula
NOMENCLATURE
Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE, San Antonio,
ai sensitivity coefficient Texas, October 5-8, 1997.

ho oil zone thickness 7. Inikori, S.O., Wojtanowicz, A.K., and Siddiq, S.S., Water
Control in Oil Wells with Downhole Oil-Free Water
hw water zone thickness
Drainage and Disposal, SPE 77559, SPE Annual Technical
h(pc) capillary transition zone thickness Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, Sep 29 – Oct
2 2002.
kh horizntal permeability

5
8. Economides, M.J., Hill, A.D., Economides, C.E.,
Petroleum Production Systems, Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ, 1994.
9. Beggs, H.D., Production Optimization Using Nodal
Analysis, Oil and Gas Consultants International INC.,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1991.
10. GeoQuest, Schlumberger, ECLIPSE Reference Manual
2001A(2001)
6
11. Jensen, J.L., Lake, L.W., Corbett, P.W.M., Goggin, D.J.,
Statistics for Petroleum Engineers and Geoscientists,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2003.
12. Beattie, C.I., Mills, B.R., and Mayo, V.A., Development
Drilling of the Tawila Field, Yemen, Based on Three-
Dimensional Reservoir modeling and Simulation, SPE
49272, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, Louisiana, 27 – 30 September 1998.
 M, lw/lo kv/kh ho/hw re/rw h(Pc)/ho DP/Pr
6 0.6 0.5 3490 0 0.05
2 0.2 2.5 1745 0.4 0.083

TABLE 1. Reservoir Parameters for Experimental Design -I

M, lw/lo kv/kh ho/hw H(Pc)/ho DP/Pr

6 0.8 2.5 0 0.0500
4 0.4 1 0.2 0.1333
2 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.1667

TABLE 2. Reservoir Parameters for Experimental Design - II

+ - + - + - + -
PIRavg kv/kh kv/kh ho/hw ho/hw h(Pc)/ho h(Pc)/ho DP/Pr DP/Pr

M+ 2.150 2.48 -7.19 -40.67 36.45 16.73 -15.38 10.53 -19.77

M- 2.035 4.07 -7.39 -41.25 45.57 12.16 -15.28 5.11 -8.52

+
kv/kh 2.190 -43.37 44.96 13.80 -15.15 5.52 -10.99
-
kv/kh 1.942 -37.93 34.69 13.31 -12.72 10.01 -16.77
+
ho/hw 1.238 3.23 -7.17 7.01 -10.89
-
ho/hw 2.965 17.04 -16.61 7.95 -12.87
+
h(Pc)/ho 2.408 5.30 -9.39
-
h(Pc)/ho 1.792 23.63 -0.64
”+” and “-“ indicates the maximum and minimum values of factors considered in this study (Table 2). The values
indicate the percent change against each experiment from its mean (PIRavg column) calculated for each row. Larger
absolute values indicate larger effects.

TABLE 3. Productivity Improvement Ratios and % Response Change against Its Predictors

7
 FIGURE 1. Inflow and Tubing Performance

6000
Varying WC
WC= 0.2
5800
IPR
WC= 0.1
5600
Pwf, psi

WC= 0
5400

5200

5000
0 300 Rate, bpd 600 900

FIGURE 2. Critical Rate and Producing Water Cut FIGURE 3. IPR versus various water cut TPR’s

1.6 1

1.4
0.8
1.2
Water Cut, fraction
OPI, bpd/psi

1
0.6

0.8

0.4
0.6

0.4
0.2
0.2

0 0
0 200 400 600 800

Top Rate, bpd

FIGURE 4. Oil productivity index (PIo) and water cut responses for a conventional well

8
 6400
Tubing Performance qbot=0 bpd
Curve
6200
qbot=200 bpd

6000

5800
qbot=500 bpd
Pwf, psi

qbot=800 bpd
5600

5400

Inflow Perf. Tubing Perf. WaterCut

5200 0 0 0.258 Increasing
200 200 0.173 WC
500 500 0.061
800 800 0.006
5000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Top Completion Rate, bpd
7

FIGURE 5. IPR-based analysis for the top completion in a DWS well

800-1000

600-800

400-600

200-400
1000
0-200
Drawdown, psia

800
90
Pressure

0
600 75
0
60
400 0
45
0
pd

200 30
0
,b

15
0
p

0
to
Q

0
2000 1600 1200 800 400 0

Qbot, bpd

FIGURE 6. Pressure drawdown at top completion pressure response

9
 1.8-2.4

2.4 1.2-1.8

1.8
0.6-1.2
OPI, bpd/psi

1.2
0-0.6

90
0.6

75

0
60

0
y
da

45

0
l/
bb
30

0
0
,
15

0
2000 1500 1000 500 0 Q top
0

Qbot, bbl/day

FIGURE 7. Top completion oil productivity index response

10