See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254526771

Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) for Solution-Gas-Drive Reservoirs--

Analytical Considerations

Article · November 2007

DOI: 10.2118/110821-MS

CITATIONS READS
7 3,771

3 authors, including:

Rodolfo Camacho Thomas Blasingame

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Texas A&M University
108 PUBLICATIONS   645 CITATIONS    203 PUBLICATIONS   3,270 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mexican Petroleum Institute View project

National Autonomous U of Mexico View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rodolfo Camacho on 14 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE 110821

Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) For Solution Gas-Drive Reservoirs —

Analytical Considerations
D. Ilk, SPE, Texas A&M U., R. Camacho-Velázquez, SPE, PEMEX E&P, and T.A. Blasingame, SPE, Texas A&M U.

Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers

1
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
ν=
Exhibition held in Anaheim, California, U.S.A., 11–14 November 2007. (1 + τ p + β p 2 + η p 3 )
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of The practical value of this work is that we have proven that an
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to IPR can be written for a given solution gas-drive reservoir
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at system directly from rock-fluid properties and fluid properties.
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper The "theoretical" value of this work is that we provide a "char-
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 acteristic" formulation of the oil mobility profile [ko/(μoBo)],
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous which is given as:
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
⎡ [ko / ( μo Bo )] p − [ko / ( μo Bo )] pabn ⎤
⎢1 − ⎥=
[ko / ( μo Bo )] pi − [ko / ( μo Bo )] pabn ⎥
⎣⎢
Abstract ⎦
This work provides the analytical development of "Vogel"- 2 3
⎡ p − pabn ⎤ ⎡ p − pabn ⎤ ⎡ p − pabn ⎤
type Inflow Performance Relation (or IPR) correlations for 1−ζ ⎢ ⎥ + (1 − ζ ) ⎢ ⎥ − 2(1 − ζ ) ⎢ ⎥
solution gas-drive reservoir systems using characteristic flow ⎣ pi − pabn ⎦ ⎣ pi − pabn ⎦ ⎣ pi − pabn ⎦
behavior. (ζ ≤ 1)
Specifically, we provide the following results: This proposed "characteristic" mobility model is validated
● An analytical form of the quadratic (Vogel) IPR correlation: against numerical simulation results from the literature and
2 from work performed as part of this study. Note that the
qo ⎡ p wf ⎤ ⎡ p wf ⎤
= 1− v ⎢ ⎥ − (1 − v) ⎢ ⎥ characteristic mobility is only a function of the characteristic
qo, max ⎣⎢ p ⎥⎦ ⎣⎢ p ⎥⎦ parameter (ζ), the initial, abandonment and average reservoir
Where the ν-parameter is defined for the solution gas-drive pressures (pi, pabn, and p ), and the oil-phase mobility evaluated
reservoir case using the oil mobility function (i.e., [ko/(μoBo)]) at the initial and the abandonment reservoir pressure
— this definition is given by: [ k o / ( μ o Bo )] pi and [k o / ( μ o Bo )] p abn .
2 [k o / ( μ o Bo )] p = 0 1
v= or Introduction
[k o / ( μ o Bo )] p + [ k o / ( μ o Bo )] p = 0 (1 + τ p )
In 1968 Vogel [Vogel (1968)] established an empirical rela-
● The analytical form for a cubic IPR correlation: tionship for flowrate prediction of a solution gas-drive reser-
⎡p ⎤ ⎡ p2 ⎤ ⎡ p3 ⎤ voir in terms of the wellbore pressure based on reservoir simu-
= 1 − ν ⎢⎢ ⎥ −ντ p⎢ ⎥ −νβ p 2 ⎢ wf ⎥
qo wf wf lation results. This may seem trivial because we can write
qo, max p ⎥ ⎢ p2 ⎥ ⎢ p3 ⎥ analytical results (i.e., IPR formulations) for the slightly com-
⎣⎢ ⎦⎥ ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥ ⎢⎣ ⎦⎥
pressible liquid case as well as the dry gas reservoir case.
Where the ν-parameter is given by: However, the development of an analytical result for the
1 solution gas-drive case requires the use of the oil-phase
ν= pseudopressure which is written as follows:
(1 + τ p + β p 2 )
p
∫ pbase ⎢⎣ μkB
⎡μ B ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
● The analytical form for a quartic IPR correlation: ppo ( p ) = ⎢ o o ⎥ o
⎥ dp ............................ (1)
qo ⎣ k o ⎦ pn o o⎦
qo,max A variation of Eq. 1 was presented by Evinger and Muskat
⎡p ⎤ ⎡ p2 ⎤ ⎡ p3 ⎤ ⎡ p4 ⎤ [Evinger and Muskat (1942)] for steady-state flow. The
= 1 −ν ⎢ ⎥ − ντ p⎢ ⎥ − νβ p 2 ⎢ wf ⎥ − νη p 3 ⎢ wf ⎥
wf wf dilemma then, as now, is the issue of the effective (or relative
⎢ p ⎥ ⎢ p2 ⎥ ⎢ p3 ⎥ ⎢ p4 ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ permeability) term — the dependence of effective/relative per-
meability on saturation requires that the saturation distribution
Where the ν-parameter is given by: be known — which (of course) it is not.
The logical step forward (at least for Vogel) was to correlate
2 D. Ilk, R.Camacho-Velàzquez, and T.A. Blasingame SPE 110821
the flowrate-pressure behavior in much the same fashion as macho (1987), Camacho and Raghavan (1991), Wiggins et al
one would for the single-phase liquid or gas case — using a (1996)] all resort to some type of an approximation or condi-
pseudosteady-state flow model. For a solution gas-drive reser- tion under which an IPR could be considered "applicable."
voir the pseudosteady-state flow model for the oil phase is The generic goal of our present work is to provide a theoreti-
written as: [Camacho (1987), Camacho and Raghavan (1989, cal basis for the concept of an IPR — but to do so in a fashion
1991)] that establishes what an IPR is (i.e., a correlation) and what an
1 IPR is not (i.e., a rigorous flow equation). Ultimately, we
qo = [ ppo ( p ) − ppo ( pwf )] ........................................... (2)
b pss would like to provide a consistent understanding of why the
Eq. 2 is not particularly useful as it requires the computation Vogel (quadratic) IPR form functions so effectively in prac-
of Eq. 1 — and, as noted, Eq.1 requires that the oil mobility tice. As part of that effort we provide a quasi-analytical deri-
function [ko/(μoBo)] be known continuously as a function of vation of the Vogel IPR — specifically, we provide an ap-
pressure and saturation. Hence, Vogel proceeded to develop proximate result in the form of the traditional Vogel (quadra-
an empirical "pseudosteady-state" flow equation in the form of tic) IPR form (i.e., Eq. 3) as well as an analytical basis for the
a scaled flowrate and pressure function based on an extensive ν-parameter (Appendix A).
sequence of reservoir simulation cases. The general form of
the Vogel "IPR correlation" is given as:
2
qo ⎡ p wf ⎤ ⎡ p wf ⎤
= 1− v ⎢ ⎥ − (1 − v) ⎢ ⎥ ................................. (3)
qo, max ⎣⎢ p ⎥⎦ ⎣⎢ p ⎥⎦
Where Vogel developed a reference curve using Eq. 3 and
selected ν-=0.2 as the "reference" value (see Fig. 1).

Figure 2 — Inflow performance relations for various flow

equations [Fetkovich (1973)].
The basis for the Vogel quadratic IPR form is that assumption
that the mobility profile is linear (obviously for p<pb), as given
below:
[k o / ( μ o Bo )] p = f ( p ) = a + 2 b p ......................................... (5)
Where a and b are constants established from the presumed
behavior of the mobility profile. The first literature citation of
Eq. 5 is by Fetkovich [Fetkovich (1973)], where Fetkovich
used this formulation to develop his "deliverability" equations
for solution gas-drive systems. For a graphical representation
Figure 1 — IPR behavior for solution-gas drive systems at of Eq. 5, we cite Fig. 3, originally proposed by Fetkovich.
various stages of depletion — the "reference
curve" is the correlation presented by Vogel
[Vogel (1968)].
In 1973 Fetkovich [Fetkovich (1973)] derived a "pressure-
squared" deliverability relation using pseudosteady-state
theory and a presumed linear relationship for the liquid (oil)
mobility function (i.e., [ko/(μoBo)]). The Fetkovich "deliver-
ability" relation is given as:
n
⎡ ⎡p ⎤
2⎤
qo
= ⎢1 − ⎢ ⎥
wf
⎥ .................................................... (4)
qo, max ⎢ ⎣⎢ p ⎦⎥
⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
Fetkovich proposed Eq. 4 as a "simpler," yet theoretically
consistent alternative to the Vogel IPR formulation (Eq. 3). Figure 3 — Schematic mobility-pressure behavior for solu-
Fetkovich compared Eq. 4 to Eq. 3 for practical applications tion-gas drive reservoirs [Fetkovich (1973)].
and produced Fig. 2 as a rationale for his preference of Eq. 4.
As we consider the next steps in our IPR validation, we return
We discuss the Vogel and Fetkovich proposals in the context to the salient work by Camacho and Raghavan [Camacho
of what an Inflow Performance Relation (or IPR) represents (1987), Camacho and Raghavan (1989, 1991)] — where they
— a correlation of flowrate and pressure performance. At- utilized numerical simulation to characterize generalized flow
tempts to derive or theoretically validate these relations [Ca- behavior in solution gas-drive reservoir systems.
SPE 110821 Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) for Solution Gas-Drive Reservoirs — Analytical Considerations 3

Perhaps the most important contribution made by Camacho
and Raghavan in their work on "well deliverability" was their
presentation of the behavior of the oil mobility profile as a
function of pressure. In particular, Camacho and Raghavan
had the insight to "normalize" the mobility and pressure data
to their respective initial values. This provides a unique sig-
nature of the behavior of solution gas-drive systems as shown
in Fig. 4.
mobility function versus (p(r,t)-pabn)/(pi-pabn) using the data of
Camacho and Raghavan. The next step in our validation
process is to reproduce the trends shown in Fig. 5 using the
same simulation input data as Camacho and Raghavan
[Camacho (1987), Camacho and Raghavan (1989, 1991)].
Our reproduction of the "characteristic mobility function" is
shown in Fig. 6.

Figure 4 — Mobility performance for a solution gas-drive re-

servoir system [Camacho (1987), Camacho and
Raghavan (1989, 1991)].
The most striking aspect of Fig. 4 is the character of the mo-
bility profile — in particular, the inapplicability of the "Fet-
kovich" linear mobility profile (i.e., Eq. 5) (note the linear
trends projected on to the data at late times (i.e., low pres- Figure 5 — Mobility performance for a solution gas-drive re-
sures)). In fact, Fig. 4 confirms that the "linear" mobility servoir system [Camacho (1987), Camacho and
function does not exist at early times/high pressures (even if Raghavan (1989, 1991)] — recast in terms of 1
the reservoir is in boundary-dominated flow — for reference, minus the normalized mobility function.
the start of boundary-dominated is approximately tDAi=0.1).
We use the "normalized" format given by Fig. 4 to resolve the
character of the mobility function ([ko/(μoBo)]) so that we can
use extend the Vogel concept to include more general (and
more accurate) representations of the mobility function.
Characteristic Behavior of Solution Gas-Drive Reser-
voir Systems
In this section we provide validation of the characteristic
behavior of solution gas-drive reservoir systems using
reservoir simulation results at reservoir and average reservoir
pressures. We first provide a general correlating relation for
the mobility function — which is a polynomial expansion
(analogous to a geometric series) based on a single parameter
(ζ). The correlation is "normalized" to the initial and
abandonment pressure (pi and pabn) and is written as:
⎡ [ko / ( μo Bo )] p − [ko / ( μo Bo )] pabn ⎤
⎢1 − ⎥=
⎢⎣ [ko / ( μo Bo )] pi − [ko / ( μo Bo )] pabn ⎥⎦
2 3
⎡ p − pabn ⎤ ⎡ p − pabn ⎤ ⎡ p − pabn ⎤ Figure 6 — Mobility performance for a solution gas-drive re-
1−ζ ⎢ ⎥ + (1 − ζ ) ⎢ ⎥ − 2(1 − ζ ) ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ip − p abn ⎦ ⎣ i
p − p abn ⎦ ⎣ pi − pabn ⎦ servoir system — calibration of reservoir model
using input data (set 1) of Camacho and Rag-
(ζ ≤ 1) havan [Camacho (1987), Camacho and Rag-
............................................................................................ (6) havan (1989, 1991)].

The basis for Eq. 6 is our "recast" of Fig. 4, given now in These comparisons are a necessary component of our "cali-
terms of (1 - [(ko/(μoBo))avg - (ko/(μoBo))abn] / [(ko/(μoBo))i - bration" for the IPR correlations — if we can uniquely
(ko/(μoBo))abn]) — which we will call the "characteristic characterize the mobility performance then we can develop a
mobility function." In Fig. 5 we plot the characteristic quasi-analytical basis for creating rigorous IPR functions. In
4 D. Ilk, R.Camacho-Velàzquez, and T.A. Blasingame SPE 110821

some ways our logic is akin to that of Wiggins et al [Wiggins mobility (i.e., Eq. 7), from which we can build a unique (and
et al (1996)] where their approach was to develop empirical, theoretically consistent) IPR correlations for the solution gas-
polynomial expansions of the mobility function. drive case.
Our study differs in that our goal (like Camacho and xxxxxxx
Raghavan [Camacho (1987), Camacho and Raghavan (1989,
1991)]) is to identify the "characteristic" mobility behavior for
the performance of solution gas-drive reservoirs. Where such
behavior will be uniquely (and universally) described by a
"characteristic" function. Thus, Eq. 6 evolved from investi-
gations at a "characteristic"-level (i.e., distillation of the "char-
acteristic" mobility behavior into simple, universal relations).
Our next step is to verify that this "characteristic" concept can
be extended to the average reservoir pressure condition (i.e., to
prove that the characteristic mobility function is also valid for
the average reservoir pressure condition). For this investiga-
tion we propose a characteristic mobility function in terms of
the average reservoir pressure ( p ) and the abandonment reser-
voir pressure (pabn) — where this relation is written as:
⎡ [ko / ( μo Bo )] p − [ko / ( μo Bo )] pabn ⎤
⎢1 − ⎥=
[ko / ( μo Bo )] pi − [ko / ( μo Bo )] pabn ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎦
2 3
⎡ p − pabn ⎤ ⎡ p − pabn ⎤ ⎡ p − pabn ⎤
1−ζ ⎢ ⎥ + (1 − ζ ) ⎢ ⎥ − 2(1 − ζ ) ⎢ ⎥
⎣ pi − pabn ⎦ ⎣ pi − pabn ⎦ ⎣ pi − pabn ⎦
(ζ ≤ 1) Figure 8 — Mobility performance for a solution gas-drive re-
servoir system — calibration of reservoir model
............................................................................................ (7) using input data (set 2) of Camacho and Rag-
As Eq. 7 is proposed, we perform a sequence of simulation havan [Camacho (1987), Camacho and Rag-
havan (1989, 1991)].
cases generated using constant rate, constant pressure, and
variable-rate conditions. The results of the variable-rate xxxxxxx
simulation case are formulated in the "characteristic mobility
form" (in ( p )) and presented in Fig. 7.

Figure 9 — Mobility performance for a solution gas-drive re-

servoir system — mobility evaluated at average
reservoir pressure. Input data (set 2) of
Figure 7 — Mobility performance for a solution gas-drive re- Camacho and Raghavan [Camacho (1987),
servoir system — mobility evaluated at average Camacho and Raghavan (1989, 1991)].
reservoir pressure. Input data (set 1) of
Camacho and Raghavan [Camacho (1987), Based on the work described above — we provide a unique
Camacho and Raghavan (1989, 1991)]. correlation of the oil mobility as a characteristic function
Based on the results shown in Fig. 7, we believe that we have (i.e., [ko / ( μo Bo )] p as described by Eq. 7). Therefore, the para-
established a theoretically consistent characteristic model for meters required to develop an IPR correlation for the solution
SPE 110821 Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) for Solution Gas-Drive Reservoirs — Analytical Considerations 5

gas-drive reservoir case are uniquely defined as: qo

● The characteristic parameter, ζ. qo,max
● The initial and abandonment reservoir pressure, pi, pabn ⎡p ⎤ ⎡ p2 ⎤ ⎡ p3 ⎤ ⎡ p4 ⎤ (12)
● The oil mobility at pi, and pabn [ko / ( μo Bo )] pi and = 1 −ν ⎢
wf ⎥ − ντ p⎢
wf ⎥ − νβ p 2 ⎢ wf ⎥ − νη p 3 ⎢ wf ⎥
⎢ p ⎥ ⎢ p2 ⎥ ⎢ p3 ⎥ ⎢ p4 ⎥
[ko/(μoBo)]abn. ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
IPR Correlations for Solution Gas-Drive Systems ν=
1
................................................. (13)
In this section we document the IPR models we have (1 + τ p + β p 2 + η p 3 )
developed and we provide orientation as to the basis (i.e., We note that Eqs. 10 and 12 (and for that matter, Eq. 8) are all
assumptions and limitations) for each IPR model. subordinate results based on the concept of the characteristic
Vogel (Quadratic) IPR Case: Linear [ko / ( μo Bo )] p profile mobility function discussed earlier, and given in functional
Recalling Eq. 5 (i.e., the specific case of a linear mobility form by Eq. 7. We will continue our work process using Eq. 7
function), we have: and develop a completely generic IPR formulation based on
the characteristic mobility function.
[k o / ( μ o Bo )] p = f ( p ) = a + 2 b p .......................................... (5)
Summary and Conclusions
In Appendix A we provide the development of the generic
quadratic (Vogel) IPR case based on the substitution of Eq. 5 Summary: In this work we have provided a comprehensive
into Eq. 1 (the oil-phase pseudopressure function), where that development and validation of the Inflow Performance
result is then substituted into Eq. 2 (the pseudosteady-state Relationship (or IPR) concept as proposed by Vogel for the
relation for the solution gas-drive reservoir system). After case of a solution gas-drive reservoir.
considerable algebraic manipulation, the final result of this Our basis for validation in this work is the model of a
process is given as: "characteristic mobility function" which we have developed as
2 a concept-based representation of the mobility-pressure
qo ⎡ p wf ⎤ ⎡ p wf ⎤
= 1− v ⎢ ⎥ − (1 − v) ⎢ ⎥ ................................ (8) relationship. Specifically, we have shown using the results of
qo, max ⎣⎢ p ⎥⎦ ⎣⎢ p ⎥⎦ numerical simulation that the mobility function at average
Where the ν-parameter is defined uniquely for this case in reservoir pressure, normalized to the initial pressure is a
terms of the oil mobility function evaluated at the average unique function of the average reservoir pressure/initial reser-
reservoir pressure [ko / ( μo Bo )] p . The specific definition of the voir pressure.
ν-parameter (for this case) is given by: This "characteristic" behavior can be written as:
2 [k o / ( μ o Bo )] p = 0 ⎡ [ ko / ( μo Bo )] p − [ko / ( μo Bo )] p ⎤ ⎡ p − pabn ⎤
v= .................................. (9) ⎢ abn ⎥ = f ⎢ζ , ⎥ (ζ ≤ 1)
[k o / ( μ o Bo )] p + [ k o / ( μ o Bo )] p = 0 ⎢⎣ [ko / ( μo Bo )] pi − [ko / ( μo Bo )] pabn ⎥⎦ ⎣ pi − pabn ⎦

Cubic IPR Case: Quadratic [ko / ( μo Bo )] p profile We have used this characteristic behavior concept to extend
the IPR correlation approach to quadratic and cubic mobility
In Appendix B we provide the development of the generic
profiles (expressed in terms of the ζ-parameter). While we
cubic IPR formula using as similar procedure as outlined in make no claim as to the "analytic" nature of the characteristic
Appendix A for the linear mobility profile case. In this case mobility behavior, we believe that this behavior does validate
we employ the quadratic [ko / ( μo Bo )] p profile to obtain the the Vogel (quadratic) IPR correlation (as an approximation),
required result, which is written as: as well as permit us to extend the IPR correlation concept to
⎡p ⎤ ⎡ p2 ⎤ ⎡ p3 ⎤ higher-order formulations.
= 1 − ν ⎢⎢ ⎥ −ντ p⎢ ⎥ −νβ p 2 ⎢ wf ⎥ ............ (10)
qo wf wf
qo, max p ⎥ ⎢ p2 ⎥ ⎢ p3 ⎥ Put simply, the characteristic mobility concept allows us to
⎣⎢ ⎦⎥ ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥ ⎢⎣ ⎦⎥ develop "near-analytic" relations for the pseudosteady-state
Where the specific definition of the ν-parameter (for this case) flow behavior of solution gas-drive reservoir systems. While
is given by: not an objective of this work, the proposed developments
could have value in developing rate-time formulas for the
1
ν= ........................................................... (11) boundary-dominated flow performance of solution gas-drive
(1 + τ p + β p 2 ) reservoir systems.
Quartic IPR Case: Cubic [ko / ( μo Bo )] p profile Conclusions:
In Appendix C we provide the development of the generic 1. A general form of the Vogel (quadratic) IPR correlation can
quartic IPR formula using as similar procedure as outlined in be derived using the assumption of a linear mobility profile
(analogous to the derivation of the pressure-squared "de-
Appendix A for the linear mobility profile case. In this case
liverability" equation as proposed by Fetkovich [Fetkovich
we employ the quadratic [ko / ( μo Bo )] p profile to obtain the (1973)] for the solution gas-drive reservoir case).
required result, which is written as: 2. The characteristic mobility parameter (ζ) uniquely defines
the mobility profile for the performance of a solution gas-
drive reservoir.
3. The cubic and quartic IPR formulations derived using the
quadratic and cubic expansions for oil-phase mobility are
6 D. Ilk, R.Camacho-Velàzquez, and T.A. Blasingame SPE 110821
considered unique as these results were derived based on Vogel, J.V.: "Inflow Performance Relationship for Solution Gas-
the concept of the characteristic mobility function. Drive Wells," paper SPE 1476 presented at the SPE Annual Fall
Meeting held in Dallas, Texas, USA, 02-05 October 1968.
Nomenclature
Wiggins, M.L., Russell, J.E., and Jennings, J.W.: "Analytical
Variables Development of Vogel-Type Inflow Performance Relationships,"
a = Constant established from the presumed behavior of the SPEJ (December 1996) 355-362.
mobility profile.
b = Constant established from the presumed behavior of the Appendix A: Derivation of a General Quadratic
mobility profile. Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) for Solution
bpss = Pseudosteady-state flow constant. Gas-Drive Reservoirs Using a Linear Model for the
Bg = Gas formation volume factor, RB/SCF
Bo = Oil formation volume factor, RB/STB
Oil Mobility Function (Alternate Approach to Fet-
φ = Porosity, fraction kovich)
h = Pay thickness, ft In this Appendix we show that an inflow performance rela-
k = Absolute permeability, md tionship (IPR) can be developed based on the pseudosteady-
ko = Relative permeability to oil, fraction
kro = Effective permeability to oil, md state flow equation for a single well in a solution gas-drive
p = Average reservoir pressure, psia reservoir (based on the oil-phase pseudopressure formulation)
pabn = Abandonment pressure, psia and using an approximate relation for the mobility of the oil
pbase = Base pressure, psia phase. Elements of this derivation are taken from Del Castillo
pn = Reference pressure, psia [Del Castillo (2003)], where Del Castillo considered the case
pi = Initial reservoir pressure, psia of gas condensate reservoirs — but used the Vogel-type IPR
ppo = Oil pseudopressure, psia
form as a starting point for her work.
pwf = Flowing bottomhole pressure, psia
qo = Oil flowrate, STB/D The definition of the oil-phase pseudopressure for a single
qo,max = Maximum Oil flowrate, STB/D well in a solution gas-drive reservoir is given as:
Rso = Solution gas-oil ratio, SCF/STB p
∫ pbase ⎢⎣ μkB
re = Outer reservoir radius, ft ⎡μ B ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
ppo ( p ) = ⎢ o o ⎥ o
⎥ dp ........................ (A-1)
rw = Wellbore radius, ft
⎣ k o ⎦ pn o o⎦
s = Skin factor, dimensionless
Sg = Gas saturation, dimensionless The pseudosteady-state flow equation for the oil-phase in a so-
So = Oil saturation, dimensionless
lution gas-drive reservoir is given by:
Greek Symbols ppo ( p ) = ppo ( p wf ) + qo b pss .......................................... (A-2)
β = General IPR "lump" parameter, dimensionless
χ = Linear IPR "lump" parameter, dimensionless Where the "pseudosteady-state" constant (bpss) is given by:
η = General IPR "lump" parameter, dimensionless
μg = Gas viscosity, cp ⎡μ B ⎤ 1 ⎡ ⎡ re ⎤ 3 ⎤
b pss = 141.2 ⎢ o o ⎥ ⎢ln ⎢ ⎥ − + s ⎥ ...................... (A-3)
μo = Oil viscosity, cp ⎣ o ⎦ pn ⎢⎣ ⎣ w ⎦
k h r 4 ⎥⎦
ν = General IPR "lump" parameter, dimensionless
τ = General IPR "lump" parameter, dimensionless For the solution gas-drive case, we propose the following mo-
ζ = Characteristic mobility parameter, dimensionless del for the oil mobility function, [ko /(μo Bo )] p :
Oil Pseudofunction:
p ⎡ ko ⎤
⎡μ B ⎤
p po ( p ) = ⎢ o o ⎥
⎣ k o ⎦ pn
∫ ⎡ ko ⎤
pbase ⎢ μo Bo ⎥
⎣ ⎦
dp
⎢ ⎥ = f ( p ) = a + 2bp ............................................. (A-4)
⎣ μo Bo ⎦ p
We note that our proposed model for the oil mobility function
References given in Eq. A-4 is very similar to the relation proposed by
Fetkovich [Fetkovich (1973)] for the case of a solution gas-
Camacho-V, R.G.: Well Performance under Solution Gas-Drive, drive reservoir system. We also note that Fetkovich utilized a
Ph.D. Dissertation, U. Tulsa, Tulsa, OK (1987).
"zero intercept" for the development of his oil-phase deliver-
Camacho-V, R.G. and Raghavan, R.: "Inflow Performance Rela- ability equation (i.e., the mobility at zero pressure is zero (see
tionships for Solution Gas-Drive Reservoirs," JPT (May 1989)
Fig. A.1)).
541-550.
Camacho-V, R.G. and Raghavan, R.: "Some Theoretical Results
Useful in Analyzing Well Performance Under Solution-Gas
Drive," JPT (June 1991) 190-198.
Del Castillo, Y.: New Perspectives on Vogel-Type IPR Models for
Gas Condensate and Solution Gas-Drive Systems, M.S. Thesis,
Texas A&M U., August 2003, College Station, TX.
Evinger, H.H. and Muskat, M.: "Calculations of Productivity
Factors for Oil-gas-water Systems in the Steady State, Trans.
AIME 146 (1942), 194-203.
Fetkovich, M.J.: "The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells," paper SPE
4529 presented at the SPE Annual Fall Meeting held in Las Vegas,
Nevada, U.S.A., 30 September – 03 October 1973.
SPE 110821 Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) for Solution Gas-Drive Reservoirs — Analytical Considerations 7
Figure A.1 — Mobility-pressure behavior for a solution gas- 2
drive reservoir [Fetkovich (1973)]. qo (apwf + bpwf )
= 1− ......................................... (A-11)
In our proposal (i.e., Eq. A-4), we do not presume a zero qo,max ( ap + bp 2 )
intercept of the mobility function — from Fig. A.1 we 2
qo apwf bpwf
conclude that the zero mobility at zero pressure was based on =1− − ............................ (A-12)
the assumption (by Fetkovich) that at zero pressure the kro qo,max ( ap + bp 2 ) ( ap + bp 2 )
term would be zero (i.e., no oil would flow). Using Fig. A.1
⎡ p2 ⎤
as a guide, we note that our linear mobility concept (i.e., Eq. qo 1 ⎡ p wf ⎤ 1 ⎢ wf ⎥ ........... (A-13)
=1− −
A-4) is plausible. qo, max b ⎢⎣⎢ p ⎥⎦⎥ a 1 ⎢ 2 ⎥
(1 + p ) ( + 1) ⎣⎢ p ⎦⎥
We will first establish the IPR formulation for the pseudo- a b p
pressure form of the oil flow equation for a solution gas-drive Defining τ = b/a
system. Solving Eq. A-2 for the oil rate, qo, we have:
⎡ p2 ⎤
1 qo 1 ⎡ p wf ⎤ 1 ⎢ wf ⎥ ............ (A-14)
qo = [ ppo ( p ) − ppo ( pwf )] ....................................... (A-5) =1− ⎢ ⎥ −
b pss qo, max (1 + τ p ) ⎢⎣ p ⎦⎥ ( 1 1 + 1) ⎢ p 2 ⎥
τ p ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥
Solving Eq. A-5 for the case of the "maximum oil rate," qo,max,
(i.e., pwf =0 (or ppo(pwf) =0)), we have: ⎡ 2 ⎤
qo 1 ⎡ p wf ⎤ τ p ⎢ p wf ⎥ ............. (A-15)
1 =1− ⎢ ⎥ −
qo, max = [ p po ( p ) − p po ( p wf = 0)] ............................. (A-6) qo, max (1 + τ p ) ⎢⎣ p ⎦⎥ (1 + τ p ) ⎢ p 2 ⎥
b pss ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥
Dividing Eq. A-5 by Eq. A-6 gives us the "IPR" form (i.e., Defining a "lumped parameter," ν:
qo/qo,max) — which yields: 1
ν= ................................................................. (A-16)
qo ppo ( p ) − ppo ( pwf ) (1 + τ p )
= ................................... (A-7)
qo,max ppo ( p ) − ppo ( pwf = 0) Therefore:
1 (1 + τ p ) 1 τp
At this point we will note that it is not our goal to proceed (1 − ν ) = 1 − = − =
with the development of an IPR model in terms of the (1 + τ p ) (1 + τ p ) (1 + τ p ) (1 + τ p )
pseudopressure function, ppo(p) — rather, our goal is to Or,
develop a simplified IPR model using Eqs. A-4 and A-7 as 1
base relations. Given that Eq. A-4 is given in terms of pres- (1 − ν ) = ......................................................... (A-17)
1
sure (p), we can presume that some type of pressure-squared (1 + )
τp
formulation will result (as was the case in the Fetkovich work
[Fetkovich (1973)]. substituting Eqs. A-16 and A-17 into Eq. A-15, we have:
2
Substituting Eq. A.4 into Eq. A.1, we have: qo ⎡ p wf ⎤ ⎡ p wf ⎤
p = 1− v ⎢ ⎥ − (1 − v) ⎢ ⎥ .......................... (A-18)
∫ pbase (a + 2bp) dp ........................ (A-8)
⎡μ B ⎤ qo, max ⎢⎣ p ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ p ⎥⎦
ppo ( p ) = ⎢ o o ⎥
⎣ ko ⎦ pn Where we note that Eq. A-18 has exactly the same form as the
empirical result proposed by Vogel [Vogel (1968)]. We
Or, completing the integration, we obtain: suggest that Eq. A-18 serves as a semi-analytical validation of
⎡μ B ⎤ the Vogel result — and while we recognize that the ν-para-
ppo ( p ) = ⎢ o o ⎥ ⎡(ap + bp 2 ) − (apbase + bpbase
2
)⎤ ........ (A-8)
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ meter is not "constant," this parameter can be established di-
⎣ o ⎦ pn
k
rectly from the proposed model for mobility (i.e., Eq. A-4).
Substituting Eq. A.8 into Eq. A.7, gives us: As the ν-parameter is given as a function of the average reser-
A = ( ap + bp 2 ) voir pressure, p , we recall Eq. A-4 and express this result in
2
B = (apbase + bpbase )
terms of p .
⎡ ko ⎤
⎥ = a + 2bp ...................................................... (A-19)
2
C = (apwf + bpwf ) ⎢
⎣ μo Bo ⎦ p
D = (a(0) + b(0)2 )
At p = 0, Eq. A-19 becomes:
qo [ A − B ] − [C − B ]
= ⎡ ko ⎤
qo,max [ A − B ] − [ D − B ] ⎢ ⎥ =a
⎣ μo Bo ⎦ p = 0
....................................................................................... (A-9)
Cancelling like terms, we obtain: Or,
⎡ k ⎤
qo (ap + bp 2 ) − (apwf + bpwf
2
) a=⎢ o ⎥ .......................................................... (A-20)
= ............................ (A-10) ⎣ μo Bo ⎦ p = 0
qo, max ( ap + bp 2 )
Dividing through Eq. A-19 by the a-parameter, we define a
Dividing through Eq. A-9 by (ap + bp 2 ) gives us the follow- new parameter, χ:
ing forms:
8 D. Ilk, R.Camacho-Velàzquez, and T.A. Blasingame SPE 110821

⎡ ko ⎤ established. We believe that the modified "Vogel" model (Eq.

⎢ ⎥ A-18) is directionally correct and does have theoretical justi-
⎣ μ o Bo ⎦ p b
χ= = 1+ 2 p ......................................... (A-21) fications (as shown in this Appendix). But we also recognize
⎡ ko ⎤ a that this concept requires further proof — particularly from the
⎢ ⎥ standpoint of proving that the χ-parameter can be estimated
⎣ μ o Bo ⎦ p = 0
using conventional PVT and relative permeability data.
Or, using the definition τ=b/a, we have:
In our final effort, we propose to define the ν and (1-ν) terms
χ = 1 + 2τp .................................................................... (A-22) as functions of the mobility parameters. We achieve these de-
Recalling Eq. A-16 (i.e., the definition of the ν-parameter), we finitions using the results from Eq. A-21 (i.e., the base defini-
have: tion) and Eqs. A-24 and A-25 (the ν and (1-ν) definitions,
1 respectively). Substituting Eq. A-21 into Eq. A-25 gives:
ν= .................................................................. (A-16)
(1 + τ p ) ⎡ ko ⎤
⎢ ⎥
Solving the "χ" definition (Eq. A-22) for the τp term gives us: ⎣ μo Bo ⎦ p
−1
χ −1 ⎡ ko ⎤
τp = ⎢ ⎥
2 ⎣ μo Bo ⎦ p = 0
(1 − ν ) =
Therefore, the (1 + τp ) term is given by τp term gives us: ⎡ ko ⎤
⎢ ⎥
(1 + τ p ) =
2 χ −1 χ + 1
+ = ⎣ μo Bo ⎦ p
2 2 2 +1
⎡ ko ⎤
And, ⎢ ⎥
⎣ μo Bo ⎦ p = 0
1 2
= ............................................................ (A-23)
(1 + τ p ) χ + 1 Or, reducing the algebra, we have:
We note that Eq. A-16 (i.e., the definition for the ν-parameter) ⎡ ko ⎤ ⎡ ko ⎤
⎢ ⎥ −⎢ ⎥
and Eq. A-23 (an equality based on the χ-parameter) are ⎣ μo Bo ⎦ p ⎣ μo Bo ⎦ p = 0
equivalent — which leads to the following definition: (1 − ν ) = .............................. (A-28)
⎡ ko ⎤ ⎡ ko ⎤
2 ⎢ ⎥ +⎢ ⎥
ν= ...................................................................... (A-24) ⎣ o o ⎦ p ⎣ μo Bo ⎦ p = 0
μ B
χ +1
A similar relation can be derived for the (1-ν) group directly Solving Eq. A-28 for the ν-parameter, we have
from Eq. A-24. This derivation is given by: ⎡ ko ⎤ ⎡ ko ⎤
⎢ ⎥ −⎢ ⎥
(1 − ν ) =
χ +1
−
2 ⎣ μo Bo ⎦ p ⎣ μo Bo ⎦ p = 0
χ +1 χ +1 ν =1−
⎡ ko ⎤ ⎡ ko ⎤
⎢ ⎥ +⎢ ⎥
⎣ o o ⎦ p ⎣ μo Bo ⎦ p = 0
μ
Or, upon algebraic reduction, we have: B
χ −1 (A-29)
(1 − ν ) = .............................................................. (A-25) ⎡ ko ⎤ ⎡ ko ⎤ ⎡ ko ⎤ ⎡ ko ⎤
χ +1 ⎢ ⎥ +⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ −⎢ ⎥
Substitution of Eqs. A-24 and A-25 into the IPR model (Eq. ⎣ μo Bo ⎦ p ⎣ μo Bo ⎦ p = 0 ⎣ μo Bo ⎦ p ⎣ μo Bo ⎦ p = 0
= −
A-18) gives the following result in terms of the χ-parameter: ⎡ ko ⎤ ⎡ ko ⎤ ⎡ ko ⎤ ⎡ ko ⎤
⎢ ⎥ +⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ +⎢ ⎥
2 ⎣ o o ⎦ p ⎣ μo Bo ⎦ p = 0
μ B ⎣ o o ⎦ p ⎣ μo Bo ⎦ p = 0
μ B
qo 2 ⎡ pwf ⎤ χ − 1 ⎡ pwf ⎤
=1− ⎢ ⎥− ⎢ ⎥ ...................... (A-26)
qo,max χ + 1 ⎣⎢ p ⎦⎥ χ + 1 ⎣⎢ p ⎥⎦ Or, reducing terms in Eq. A-29, we obtain:
We note that Eq. A-26 (i.e., the IPR model given in terms of ⎡ k ⎤
2⎢ o ⎥
the χ-parameter) is presented for completeness — we continue ⎣ μ o Bo ⎦ p = 0
to advocate the "conventional form" of the IPR model (i.e., ν= ...................................... (A-30)
Eq. A-18, which is given in terms of the ν-parameter). ⎡ ko ⎤ ⎡ ko ⎤
⎢ ⎥ +⎢ ⎥
For compactness, we will continue to use the χ-parameter as ⎣ μ o Bo ⎦ p ⎣ μ o Bo ⎦ p = 0
the preferred variable for expressing the mobility function. We note if the mobility function is constant, then Eq. A-30
Recalling the definition of the χ-parameter (Eq. A-21), we reduces to unity, and Eq. A-28 reduces to zero — which is the
have: result for the single-phase, slightly compressible liquid case.
⎡ ko ⎤
⎢ ⎥ Appendix B: Derivation of a General Cubic Inflow
⎣ μo Bo ⎦ p Performance Relationship (IPR) for Solution Gas-
χ= ........................................................ (A-27)
⎡ ko ⎤ Drive Reservoirs Using a Quadratic Model for the Oil
⎢ ⎥ Mobility Function (Alternate Approach to Fetkovich)
⎣ μo Bo ⎦ p = 0
In this case we use a quadratic model to represent the oil-
We state explicitly that the χ-parameter is not constant — phase mobility function. This model is given as:
however, we propose that concept of using a single parameter
to represent a particular segment of performance is well-
SPE 110821 Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) for Solution Gas-Drive Reservoirs — Analytical Considerations 9

⎡ ko ⎤ 2 ⎡p ⎤
⎢ ⎥ = f ( p ) = a + 2bp + 3cp ................................... (B-1) qo 1 ⎢ wf ⎥
μ
⎣ o o ⎦p
B =1−
qo, max b c 2 ⎢ p ⎥
(1 + p + p ) ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
We utilize the definition of the oil-phase pseudopressure for a a
this case, which is given by: ⎡ p2 ⎤
p −
1 ⎢ wf ⎥

∫ pbase ⎢⎣ μokoBo ⎥⎦ dp
⎡μ B ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ a 1 c ⎢ 2 ⎥
ppo ( p ) = ⎢ o o ⎥ ........................ (B-2) ( + 1 + p ) ⎢⎣ p ⎥⎦
⎣ k o ⎦ pn b p b
⎡ p3 ⎤
Substituting Eq. B-1 into Eq. B-2 and completing the required
−
1 ⎢ wf ⎥
integration, we obtain: a 1 b 1 ⎢ 3 ⎥
( + + 1) ⎢⎣ p ⎦⎥
p po ( p ) = c p2 c p

⎡ μ o Bo ⎤ ⎡ 2 3 2 3 ⎤ ...................................................................................... (B-8)
⎢ ⎥ ⎢(ap + bp + cp ) − ( apbase + bpbase + cpbase )⎥
⎣ o ⎦ pn
k ⎣ ⎦ Defining τ = b/a, β = c/a and β/τ = c/b
⎡p ⎤
....................................................................................... (B-3) qo 1 ⎢ wf ⎥
=1− ⎢ ⎥
For the oil pseudopressure function, the generalized definition qo, max (1 + τ p + β p 2 ) ⎢ p ⎥⎦
of the "IPR"-type formulation (qo/qo,max) is given as: ⎣
ppo ( p ) − ppo ( pwf ) ⎡ p2 ⎤
qo 1 ⎢ wf ⎥
= ................................... (B-4) −
qo,max ppo ( p ) − ppo ( pwf = 0) 1 1 β ⎢ 2 ⎥
( + 1 + p ) ⎢⎣ p ⎦⎥
τ p τ
Substituting Eq. B-3 into Eq. B-4, gives us:
⎡ p3 ⎤
A = (ap + bp 2 + cp 3 ) −
1 ⎢ wf ⎥
1 1 τ 1 ⎢ 3 ⎥
2
B = (apbase + bpbase 3
+ cpbase ) ( + + 1) ⎢⎣ p ⎦⎥
β p2 β p
2 3
C = (apwf + bpwf + cpwf ) ...................................................................................... (B-9)
2
D = ( a(0) + b(0) + c(0) ) 3 Upon algebraic manipulation Eq. B-9 can be reduced to:
⎡p ⎤
qo [ A − B] − [C − B ] qo 1 ⎢ wf ⎥
= =1−
[ A − B] − [ D − B] ⎢ ⎥
qo,max qo, max (1 + τ p + β p 2 ) ⎢ p ⎥⎦
⎣
....................................................................................... (B-5)
⎡ p2 ⎤
Cancelling like terms, we obtain: τp ⎢ wf ⎥
−
(1 + τ p + β p 2 ) ⎢⎢ p 2 ⎥
⎥⎦
qo (ap + bp 2 + cp 3 ) − (apwf + bpwf
2 3
+ cpwf ) ⎣
= ........... (B-6)
qo,max ( ap + bp 2 + cp 3 ) ⎡ p3 ⎤
β p2 ⎢ wf ⎥
−
2 ⎢ 3 ⎥
Expanding this relation gives: (1 + τ p + β p ) ⎢ p
⎣ ⎦⎥
qo apwf
=1− .................................................................................... (B-10)
qo,max (ap + bp 2 + cp 3 ) For this case we define the "lumped parameter," ν, as:
2 1 1
bpwf
− ν= or ......................... (B-11)
2
(ap + bp + cp ) 3 (1 + τ p + β p 2 ) b c
(1 + p + p 2 )
a a
3
cpwf Upon algebraic manipulation, Eq. B-10 can be written as:
−
2 3 ⎡p ⎤
(ap + bp + cp ) ⎡ p2 ⎤ ⎡ p3 ⎤
= 1 − ν ⎢⎢ ⎥ −ντ p⎢ ⎥ −νβ p 2 ⎢ wf ⎥ ......... (B-12)
qo wf wf
....................................................................................... (B-7) qo, max p ⎥ ⎢ p2 ⎥ ⎢ p3 ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
Writing Eq. B-7 in terms of the "IPR" variable ( p wf /p ), we
have: In Eq. B-12, the ν, τ, and β terms are defined coefficients that
contain the characteristic mobility function.
Appendix C: Derivation of a General Quartic Inflow
Performance Relationship (IPR) for Solution Gas-
Drive Reservoirs Using a Cubic Model for the Oil
Mobility Function (Alternate Approach to Fetkovich)
In this case we use a cubic model to represent the oil-phase
mobility function. This model is given as:
10 D. Ilk, R.Camacho-Velàzquez, and T.A. Blasingame SPE 110821

⎡ ko ⎤ 2 3 have:
⎢ ⎥ = f ( p ) = a + 2bp + 3cp + 4dp ........................ (C-1)
μ
⎣ o o ⎦p
B ⎡p ⎤
qo
= 1−
1 ⎢ wf ⎥
We utilize the definition of the oil-phase pseudopressure for qo, max b c 2 d 3 ⎢ p ⎥
(1 + p + p + p ) ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
this case, which is given by: a a a
p ⎡ p2 ⎤
∫ pbase ⎢⎣ μkB
⎡μ B ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
ppo ( p ) = ⎢ o o ⎥ o
⎥ dp ........................ (C-2) −
1 ⎢ wf ⎥
⎣ k o ⎦ pn o o⎦ a 1 c d ⎢ p2 ⎥
( +1+ p + p2 ) ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
b p b b
Or, completing the integration, we obtain:
⎡ p3 ⎤
⎡μ B ⎤ −
1 ⎢ wf ⎥
p po ( p ) = ⎢ o o ⎥ a 1 b 1 d ⎢ 3 ⎥
⎣ k o ⎦ pn ( + + 1 + p ) ⎢⎣ p ⎦⎥
c p2 c p c
⎡(ap + bp 2 + cp 3 + dp 4 ) ⎤
⎡ p4 ⎤
×⎢ ⎥ 1 ⎢ wf ⎥
⎢ − ( ap + 2
+ 3
+ 4 ⎥ −
⎣ base bp base cp base dp )
base ⎦ a 1 b 1 c 1 ⎢ p4 ⎥
( + + + 1) ⎢⎣ ⎦⎥
....................................................................................... (C-3) d p3 d p 2 d p
For the oil pseudopressure function, the generalized definition ...................................................................................... (C-8)
of the "IPR"-type formulation (qo/qo,max) is given as: As done before, defining τ = b/a, β = c/a, η = d/a, β/τ = c/b,
qo ppo ( p ) − ppo ( pwf ) η/τ = d/b and η/β = d/c, we can rewrite Eq. C-8 in terms of
= ................................... (C-4)
qo,max ppo ( p ) − ppo ( pwf = 0) these paramaters as:
⎡p ⎤
Substituting Eq. C-3 into Eq. C-4, we have: qo 1 ⎢ wf ⎥
= 1−
3 ⎢ p ⎥
A = (ap + bp 2 + cp 3 + dp 4 ) qo, max (1 + τ p + β p + η p ) ⎢
2
⎥⎦
⎣
2 3 4
B = (apbase + bpbase + cpbase + dpbase ) ⎡ p2 ⎤
−
1 ⎢ wf ⎥
2
C = (apwf + bpwf 3
+ cpwf 4
+ dpwf ) 1 1 β η 2 ⎢ p2 ⎥
( + 1 + p + p ) ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
τ p τ τ
D = ( a(0) + b(0)2 + c(0)3 + d (0)4 )
⎡ p3 ⎤
qo [ A − B] − [C − B ] −
1 ⎢ wf ⎥
= 1 1 τ 1 η ⎢ 3 ⎥
qo,max [ A − B] − [ D − B] ( + +1+ p ) ⎢⎣ p ⎦⎥
β p 2 β p β
....................................................................................... (C-5)
⎡ p4 ⎤
Recalling the generalized definition of the "IPR"-type formu- −
1 ⎢ wf ⎥
lation (qo/qo,max) for the oil pseudopressure, Eq. (C-2), and 1 1 τ 1 β 1 ⎢ 4 ⎥
( + + + 1) ⎢⎣ p ⎥⎦
canceling like terms, we obtain: η p 3 η p 2 η p
qo ...................................................................................... (C-9)
qo,max
Upon algebraic manipulation, Eq. C-9 can be written as:
... (C-6)
(ap + bp 2 + cp 3 + dp 4 ) − (apwf + bpwf
2 3
+ cpwf 4
+ dpwf ) ⎡p ⎤
= qo 1 ⎢ wf ⎥
2
(ap + bp + cp + dp ) 3 4 = 1−
3 ⎢ p ⎥
qo, max (1 + τ p + β p + η p ) ⎢
2
⎥⎦
⎣
Dividing through Eq. C-6 by (ap + bp 2 + cp 3 + dp 4 ) gives us
⎡ p2 ⎤
the following result: τp ⎢ wf ⎥
−
(1 + τ p + β p 2 + η p 3 ) ⎢⎢ p 2 ⎥
⎥⎦
qo a p wf ⎣
= 1−
qo, max (ap + bp 2 + cp 3 + dp 4 ) ⎡ p3 ⎤
β p2 ⎢ wf ⎥
−
2
b p wf (1 + τ p + β p 2 + η p 3 ) ⎢ p3 ⎥
− ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
(ap + bp 2 + cp 3 + dp 4 ) ⎡ p4 ⎤
η p3 ⎢ wf ⎥
3
c p wf −
(1 + τ p + β p 2 + η p 3 ) ⎢ p4 ⎥
− ⎢⎣
2
(ap + bp + cp + dp )3 4 ⎦⎥
4 .................................................................................... (C-10)
d p wf
− We define the "lumped parameter," ν, for this case as:
(ap + bp 2 + cp 3 + dp 4 ) 1 1
ν= or ..... (C-11)
....................................................................................... (C-7) (1 + τ p + β p 2 + η p 3 ) b c 2 d 3
(1 + p + p + p )
Writing Eq. C-7 in terms of the "IPR" variable ( p wf /p ), we a a a
SPE 110821 Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) for Solution Gas-Drive Reservoirs — Analytical Considerations 11

Inserting the "lumped parameter," ν in Eq. C-10: a p wf

qo
⎡p ⎤ ⎡ p2 ⎤ ⎡ p3 ⎤ ⎡ p4 ⎤ = 1−
qo, max (ap + bp 2 + cp 3 + dp 4 )
= 1 − ν ⎢⎢ ⎥ −ντ p⎢ ⎥ −νβ p 2 ⎢ wf ⎥ −νη p 3 ⎢ wf ⎥
qo wf wf
qo, max p ⎥ ⎢ p2 ⎥ ⎢ p3 ⎥ ⎢ p4 ⎥ 2
⎣⎢ ⎦⎥ ⎢⎣ ⎦⎥ ⎢⎣ ⎦⎥ ⎢⎣ ⎦⎥ b p wf
−
..................................................................................... (C-12) (ap + bp 2 + cp 3 + dp 4 )
In Eq. C-12, the ν, τ, β and η terms are defined coefficients 3
c p wf
that contain the characteristic mobility function. −
(ap + bp 2 + cp 3 + dp 4 )
Appendix D: Derivation of the Quartic Inflow Perfor- 4
d p wf
mance Relationship (IPR) for Solution Gas-Drive −
Reservoirs Using the Proposed Cubic (Charac- (ap + bp 2 + cp 3 + dp 4 )
teristic) Model for the Oil Mobility Function
...................................................................................... (D-3)
For reference we present the characteristic model for the oil
Further manipulating Eq. D-3 in terms of the "IPR" vari-
mobility function according to our normalized variables as:
able ( p wf /p ), we have:
⎡ [ko / ( μo Bo )] p − [ko / ( μo Bo )] pabn ⎤
⎢1 − ⎥= ⎡p ⎤
⎢⎣ [ko / ( μo Bo )] pi − [ko / ( μo Bo )] pabn ⎥⎦ qo 1 ⎢ wf ⎥
= 1− ⎢ p ⎥
qo, max b c 2 d 3
⎡ p − pabn ⎤ ⎡ p − pabn ⎤
2
⎡ p − pabn ⎤
3 (1 + p + p + p ) ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
1− ζ ⎢ ⎥ + (1 − ζ ) ⎢ ⎥ − 2(1 − ζ ) ⎢ ⎥ a a a
⎣ ip − p abn ⎦ ⎣ i
p − p abn ⎦ ⎣ pi − pabn ⎦ ⎡ p2 ⎤
(ζ ≤ 1) −
1 ⎢ wf ⎥
a 1 c d ⎢ p2 ⎥
........................................................................................ (D-1) ( +1+ p + p2 ) ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
b p b b
We rearrange Eq. D-1 (i.e. the characteristic model) in terms
⎡ p3 ⎤
of the oil mobility function evaluated at any average reservoir 1 ⎢ wf ⎥
−
pressure as: a 1 b 1 d ⎢ 3 ⎥
( + + 1 + p ) ⎢⎣ p ⎦⎥
f ( p ) − f ( p abn ) c p2 c p c
f ( pi ) − f ( p abn ) ⎡ p4 ⎤
= ζ ( p − p abn )
pi − pabn −
1 ⎢ wf ⎥
a 1 b 1 c 1 ⎢ p4 ⎥
f ( pi ) − f ( p abn ) ....... (D-2) + + + 1) ⎢⎣
− (1 − ζ )( p − p abn ) 2
(
d p3 d p2 d p ⎦⎥
( pi − p abn ) 2
f ( pi ) − f ( p abn ) ...................................................................................... (D-4)
+ 2(1 − ζ )( p − p abn ) 3
( pi − p abn )3 Recalling the definitions, τ = b/a, β = c/a, η = d/a, β/τ = c/b,
η/τ = d/b and η/β = d/c, Eq. D-4 can be written as:
Where
⎡p ⎤
f ( p ) = [k o / ( μ o Bo )] p , qo 1 ⎢ wf ⎥
= 1− ⎢ ⎥
f ( pi ) = [k o / ( μ o Bo )] pi , qo, max (1 + τ p + β p 2 + η p 3 ) ⎢ p
⎣ ⎥⎦
f ( pabn ) = [k o / ( μ o Bo )] p abn
⎡ p2 ⎤
Recalling the general cubic model to represent the oil-phase −
1 ⎢ wf ⎥
1 1 β η 2 ⎢ p2 ⎥
mobility function which was is given in Eq. C-1 as: ( + 1 + p + p ) ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
τ p τ τ
⎡ ko ⎤
⎢ ⎥ ⎡ p3 ⎤
⎣ μ o Bo ⎦ p −
1 ⎢ wf ⎥
1 1 τ 1 η ⎢ 3 ⎥
( + +1+ p ) ⎢⎣ p ⎦⎥
= f ( p − pabn ) = a + 2b( p − pabn ) + 3c( p − pabn ) 2 + 4d ( p − pabn )3 β p2 β p β
....................................................................................... (C-1) ⎡ p4 ⎤
Eq D-2 implies that the parameter a in Eq. C-1 (the intercept −
1 ⎢ wf ⎥
where average reservoir pressure is equal to zero) will equal to 1 1 τ 1 β 1 ⎢ 4 ⎥
( + + + 1) ⎢⎣ p ⎦⎥
the value of the oil mobility at the abandonment pressure for η p 3 η p 2 η p
our purposes. Recalling Eq. C-7:
...................................................................................... (D-5)
Upon algebraic manipulation, we have the following form
below:
12 D. Ilk, R.Camacho-Velàzquez, and T.A. Blasingame SPE 110821

⎡p ⎤ equation in terms of the charactarestic parameter, initial

qo
= 1− ⎢ wf 1 ⎥ pressure, abandonment pressure and the average reservoir
⎢ ⎥
qo, max (1 + τ p + β p + η p ) ⎢ p
2 3
⎥⎦ pressure:
⎣
⎡ p2 ⎤
τp ⎢ wf ⎥
−
(1 + τ p + β p 2 + η p 3 ) ⎢⎢ p 2 ⎥
⎥⎦
⎣
⎡ p3 ⎤
β p2 ⎢ wf ⎥
−
(1 + τ p + β p 2 + η p 3 ) ⎢ p3 ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎦⎥
⎡ p4 ⎤
η p3 ⎢ wf ⎥
−
(1 + τ p + β p 2 + η p 3 ) ⎢ p4 ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎦⎥
....................................................................................... (D-6)
Recalling the definition of the "lumped parameter," ν:
1 1
ν= or ..... (C-11)
(1 + τ p + β p 2 + η p 3 ) b c 2 d 3
(1 + p + p + p )
a a a
Inserting the "lumped parameter," ν in Eq. D-6:
⎡p ⎤ ⎡ p2 ⎤ ⎡ p3 ⎤ ⎡ p4 ⎤
= 1 − ν ⎢⎢ ⎥ −ντ p⎢ ⎥ −νβ p 2 ⎢ wf ⎥ −νη p 3 ⎢ wf ⎥
qo wf wf
qo, max p ⎥ ⎢ p2 ⎥ ⎢ p3 ⎥ ⎢ p4 ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥ ⎢⎣ ⎦⎥ ⎢⎣ ⎦⎥
....................................................................................... (D-7)
Referring to the proposed characteristic model for the oil mo-
bility function, the coefficients in Eq. C-1 correspond to the
following:
a = f ( p abn )
f ( pi ) − f ( p abn )
b= ζ
2( pi − p abn )
f ( pi ) − f ( p abn )
c= (ζ − 1)
3( pi − p abn ) 2
f ( pi ) − f ( p abn )
d= 2(1 − ζ )
4( pi − p abn ) 3
....................................................................................... (D-8)
Combining the previous definitions of, τ = b/a, β = c/a, η =
d/a, β/τ = c/b, η/τ = d/b and η/β = d/c, with the coefficients
given in Eq. D-8, we have:
[ f ( pi ) − f ( pabn )] ζ
τ=
2( pi − pabn ) f ( pabn )
(ζ − 1)
[ f ( pi ) − f ( pabn )]
β=
3( pi − pabn ) 2 f ( pabn )
[ f ( pi ) − f ( pabn )] 2(1 − ζ )
η=
4( pi − pabn ) 3 ζ f ( pi )
2 (ζ − 1) 1
β /τ =
3 ζ ( pi − pabn )
(1 − ζ ) 1
η /τ =
ζ
( pi − pabn ) 2
−3 1
η/β =
2 ( pi − pabn )
....................................................................................... (D-9)
Subsituting the obtained values above in the quartic "IPR"
equation (Eq. D-7), we have the final form of the "IPR"

View publication stats