PgDip/MSc The Energy Programme Modelling Inflow Performance

Modelling Inflow Performance

Review

This topic discusses the methods by which IPR curves can be developed for
both saturated and undersaturated reservoirs. An overview of commercial
software is also included.

Content
Introduction

The concepts of Inflow Performance Relationship include:

• Two phase flow and PVT data;
• Darcy’s Law and its application to steady state and pseudo-steady state
compressible and incompressible fluids;
• The impact of skin on productivity;
• The definition and determination of Productivity Index.

The algorithms used in the development of an IPR model for a reservoir will be address,
as well as identifying some commercially available software for calculating IPR.

Vogel Inflow Performance

This empirical equation is used for producing wells below the bubble point:

Equation 1 Q = Qb + (Qmax - Qb) [ 1 – 0.2 (Pwf /Pb) - (Pwf /Pb) 2 ]

Where Qb and Pb are a flowrate and a corresponding bottom hole bubble point pressure.
In order to use this correlation therefore test data must be available.

Fetkovich
Equation 2 Q = Jo(Pr 2 – Pwf 2 )

Jo is the P.I. above the bubble point adjusted for any relative permeability effects. This
empirical relationship has similar application to the Vogel IPR and should be used below
the bubble point.

Jones

This empirical equation is an expansion of the Darcy inflow equation to include rate
dependent or non Darcy effects and is therefore applicable to oil and gas wells. The b
term is the same for the Darcy equation. The a term accounts for the flow velocity:

Equation 3 (Pr – Pwf) = a Q2 + b Q

where
a = 0.0005359 Bo ρ / k1.201 hp2 rw

© The Robert Gordon University 2003 1

PgDip/MSc The Energy Programme Modelling Inflow Performance

where hp is the completed interval.

Note the Jones equation does not account for any flow convergence around perforations
or for any case that is not a simple open hole completion.

Hydraulically Fractured Well

A fractured well performance will depend on getting the fluids to the fracture face and
along the fracture. The first is dependent on the reservoir permeability and the fracture
length, the second more dependent on the fracture conductivity. The (dimensionless)
fracture conductivity (Fcd) is dependent on the fracture width and proppant permeability:

Equation 4 Fcd = kf Wf / k Xf

where
Kf and K permeabilities of the proppant and reservoir respectively
Wf fracture width and
Xf fracture half length (distance from the well to the tip of the fracture).

Fracture widths are usually in the order of 0.15 to 0.75 inch. A fully effective fracture
should have an Fcd > 10. Note the permeability of proppant is much less under real
conditions than measured in the laboratory due to compression, gel residues, fines
entrapment, long term crushing, non Darcy effects or contamination. A useful rule of
thumb is to reduce the lab derived permeability value by a factor of 10. The fracture
width will also be reduced by embedment of the proppant into the rock. In severe cases,
this can lead to a severe reduction in the effectiveness of the fracture and techniques for
extending the width of the fracture to compensate (ie, tip-screen out techniques) should
be used. An example is shown in the following figure.
Figure 1. Propped Fracture Transient Performance (Prosper software).

In this example, only after 20 days, the well will settle down to close to steady state
performance.

© The Robert Gordon University 2003 2

PgDip/MSc The Energy Programme Modelling Inflow Performance

Horizontal Wells

There are a number of models used by the simulators in horizontal wells. Kuckuk and
Goode assume a horizontal well in a closed rectangular drainage volume bounded by
sealing surfaces. The pressure drop in the wellbore itself is not accounted for. This is
acceptable for cases where the drawdown is an order of magnitude greater than this
frictional pressure drop. Another model is similar except that a constant pressure upper
boundary is assumed. This would be the case for a well with an active gas cap. Such a
case will give higher productivities than an upper no flow boundary. One more method
allows for pressure drops along the completion interval itself. A number of horizontal well
models are available including the preferred ones of Goode and Wilkinson and Kuckuk
and Goode.
Note, both of these formulations are valid even when the horizontal wellbore length
approaches the length or width of the reservoir. The method of Goode and Wilkinson is
less recommended when frictional pressure drops are included, but is preferred when
friction is ignored (infinite conductivity). Note in order to Use Goode and Wilkinson with
Infinite conductivity, set the roughness to 0 (this turns off friction, rather than assuming
friction for a smooth pipe. The other horizontal well models are included for
completeness and should not be used in practice.

Multi-Layered Reservoirs

Current simulators allow development of IPR for a multiple layer reservoir. This is
carried out by taking into account the particular properties of each layer. Using the same
individual models described above, pressures, permeability and fluid properties are input
per layer, the model accounts for the individual layer’s contribution and generates an
IPR representing the combined contribution of all the components of the reservoir. This
model however considers that PVT data is for the commingled fluids from all the layers.

Examples of IPR Modelling

Today, the modelling of IPR, as well as Vertical Lift Performance (covered later) are
completed using commercially available software packages such as Prosper™. There is
a need however to understand the basic methodology for modelling IPR in order to
apply these programs successfully to real situations. The following are worked examples
for developing the IPR based on real well data for wells producing above and below the
bubble point.

Well Operating above the Bubble Point Pressure.

A well was tested for eight hours at a rate of about 38STB/day. Wellbore flowing
pressure was calculated to be 585 psi, based on acoustic liquid level measurements.
After shutting the well in for 24 hours, the bottomhole pressure reached a static value of
psi, also based on acoustic level readings. The rod pump used on this well is considered
to be undersized, and a larger pump can be expected to reduce wellbore flowing
pressure to a level near 350 psi (just above the bubble point pressure). Calculate:
• Productivity Index, J;
• Absolute Open Flow, AOF based on a constant productivity index;
• Oil rate for a wellbore flowing pressure of 350 psi;
• Wellbore flowing pressure required to produce 60 STB/day;

© The Robert Gordon University 2003 3

PgDip/MSc The Energy Programme Modelling Inflow Performance

The productivity index is calculated from the equation:

qs 38
Equation 5 PI = J = = = 0.0704 ⋅ STB / day / psi
Pe − Pw 1125 − 585

Absolute open flow is calculate by multiplying the productivity index by the static bottom
hole pressure following a shut-in period:
Equation 6 AOF = J ⋅ Pe = 0.0704 ⋅ 1125 = 79.2 ⋅ STB / day

If the larger pump were installed and the bottom hole flowing pressure was reduced to
350 psi, the rate that can be expected from the well is determined by:
Equation 7 qs = J ⋅ (Pe − Pw ) = 0.0704 ⋅ (1125 − 350) = 54.6 ⋅ STB / day

In order to determine the wellbore flowing pressure providing a rate of 60 STB/day:

Pe − qs (1125 − 60)
Equation 8 Pw = = = 273 ⋅ psi
J 0.0704
From this information it is possible to plot the IPR curve for the well as shown in Figure
2:
Figure 2. IPR Curve for Reservoir above the Bubble Point.

1125
Pe
Pw (psi)

585

350
AOF = 79.2
38 55

qs (stb/d)

Well Operating below the Bubble Point Pressure.

A limitation on the straight line IPR curve is that it assumes that the oil is
undersaturated, ie, the reservoir pressure is above the bubble point. However, this does
not apply to gases or to saturated oil wells. The effect of gas and two phase flow on IPR
was observed in the 1920’s and 1930’s during field testing. Instead of linear rate
increase with pressure drawdown, it was observed that larger than linear pressure drops
were required to increase the rate.
Several equations have been suggested to represent the nonlinear IPR resulting from
gas and two-phase flow, and one that is traditionally used is the Vogel (1968) equation:
2
q0 ⎛P ⎞ ⎛P ⎞
Equation 9 = 1 − 0.2 ⋅ ⎜⎜ w ⎟⎟ − 0.8 ⋅ ⎜⎜ w ⎟⎟
q0 max ⎝ Pe ⎠ ⎝ Pe ⎠

Where q0max is the maximum oil rate (AOF) when the wellbore flowing pressure (Pw) is
equal to zero. The following example utilises the Vogel equation to develop an IPR
curve for a saturated oil reservoir.

© The Robert Gordon University 2003 4

PgDip/MSc The Energy Programme Modelling Inflow Performance

A discovery well was tested at a rate of 200 STB/day, with a bottom hole flowing
pressure of 3220 psi. Bubble point pressure was calculated with a correlation using
surface data measured when the well was producing at a low rate. The estimated
bubble point of 3980 psi indicates that the well is draining saturated oil, since initial
reservoir pressure was measured at 4000 psi.

Plotting the IPR curve using the Vogel equation.

The first step is to calculate the maximum oil rate, by substituting the test data into the
Vogel equation:
Equation 10

q0 200
q0 max = 2
= 2
= 625 ⋅ STB / day
⎛P ⎞ ⎛P ⎞ ⎛ 3220 ⎞ ⎛ 3220 ⎞
1 − 0.2 ⋅ ⎜⎜ w ⎟⎟ − 0.8 ⋅ ⎜⎜ w ⎟⎟ 1 − 0.2 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ − 0.8 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ Pe ⎠ ⎝ Pe ⎠ ⎝ 4000 ⎠ ⎝ 4000 ⎠

The next step is to calculate several rates at specified drawdowns (ie, various values of
Pw) to have enough points to plot the IPR curve. These are shown for this example in
Table1.
Table 1. Results from Vogel Equation.
Pw (psi) Q0 (STB/day)
4000 0
3000 250
2000 437
1500 508
1000 562

Figure 3 on the following page shows the IPR curve generated using the Vogel
equation. Note that the curve is no longer s straight line as we have seen so far, but
instead shows that a continually increasing pressure drop is required to produce at
higher rates.
Figure 3. Vogel IPR Curve.

5000

4000

3000
Pw (psi)

2000

1000

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
q (STB/day)

© The Robert Gordon University 2003 5

PgDip/MSc The Energy Programme Modelling Inflow Performance

A simplified version of the Vogel equation can be obtained if the equation is normalised:
n
⎛ ⎛P ⎞
2⎞
= ⎜ 1 − ⎜⎜ w ⎟
q0
Equation 11 ⎟⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎝ e ⎠
q0 max P
⎠

In the above equation, n is the turbulent flow exponent, and for n=1:
2
q0 ⎛P ⎞
Equation 12 = 1 − ⎜⎜ w ⎟⎟
q0 max ⎝ Pe ⎠

This is a slightly more conservative variation of Vogel’s equation, however it is much

more simple to use, and is based on field observations. However, if multi-rate data are
available, then Equation 11 should be used. A logarithmic plot of q versus P2 (as with
gas wells) will result in a straight line with slope 1/n.

Commercial Software

As mentioned at the start of this topic, most IPR and well performance analysis is
carried out using commercial software packages, such as Prosper or Eclipse. These
packages allow various correlations to be used to analyse PVT data, and derive more
accurate IPR curves, particularly for saturated oil and gas wells. The programs include
Vertical Lift Performance (VLP) analysis for tubing strings as well as completion types
for sand control and artificial lift. They allow sensitivities to parameters to be carried out
quickly either to allow the accurate matching of data to measure well and reservoir
conditions, or to allow the consideration of various possible scenarios during the
development of new fields. Figure 4 shows a typical out pus screen from Prosper.
Figure 4. Prosper Output Screen – IPR/VLP Curve.

© The Robert Gordon University 2003 6