SPE 25458

Generalized Inflow Performance Relationships for Society of Petroleum Engineers

Three-Phase Flow
M.L. Wiggins, U. of Oklahoma
SPE Member

Copyright 1993, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Production Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City, OK, U.S.A., March 21-23, 1993.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of 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 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 SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 750833836, U.S.A. Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

ABSTRACT single incompressible fluid and is the ratio of

the producing rate to the pressure difference.
Generalized three-phase inflow However, Evinger and Muskat2,3 pointed out
performance relationships (IPRs) for the oil that a straight-line relationship should not be
and water phases are presented in this paper. expected when multiple phases are flowing in
These relationships yield adequate estimates of the reservoir. They presented theoretical
the production-pressure behavior of oil wells calculations that showed a curved relationship
producing from homogeneous, bounded between flow rate and pressure for two- and
reservoirs during boundary-dominated flow. three-phase flow.
The IPRs are empirical relationships based on
linear regression analysis of simulator results Vogel4 later developed an empirical
and cover a wide range of reservoir fluid and inflow performance relationship (IPR) for
rock properties. Methods to study the effects of solution-gas drive reservoirs that accounted for
changes in flow efficiency and to predict future the flow of two phases, oil and gas, in the
performance are also presented. reservoir based on computer simulation results.
The resulting IPR equation is
INTRODUCTION

Predicting the performance of ~ = 1 - 0.2 Pwf - 0.8 (Pwfj2 (1)

qo;nax Pr Pr
individual oil wells is an important
responsibility of the petroleum engineer.
Reasonable estimates of well performance allow Fetkovich5 also presented an empirical inflow
the engineer to determine the optimum performance relationship based on field data
production scheme, design production and that has gained wide acceptance. His
artificial lift equipment, design stimulation relationship, of a form similar to the empirical
treatments and forecast production for gas well deliverability equation proposed by
planning purposes. Each of these items is Rawlins and Schellhardt6 , is
important to the efficient operation of
producing wells and successful reservoir (2)
management.

When estimating oil well performance, Both Vogel's and Fetkovich's relations were
it is often assumed that fluid inflow is developed for solution-gas drive reservoirs and
proportional to the difference between reservoir are widely used due to their simplicity.
pressure and wellbore pressure. One of the
first relationships to be used based on this In an attempt to extend Vogel's
assumption was the Productivity Index (PI). approach to three-phase flow, Brown7
This straight-line relationship can be derived presented a method proposed by Petrobras for
from Darcy'sllaw for the steady-state flow of a determining the inflow performance of oil wells

483
2 GENERALIZED INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS
FOR THREE-PHASE FLOW
producing water. The method uses a constant
PI for the water production and adds it to a
Vogel relation for the oil production to obtain a
composite inflow performance relationship.
Sukarno8 proposed a method derived from
computer simulation of three-phase flow. This
method resulted from nonlinear regression
analysis of the generated simulator results and
is based on the producing water cut and total
liquid flow rate. The resulting relationship is
a quadratic whose coefficients are functions of
water cut. As of yet, no one has addressed the
problem of predicting future performance or
studied the effect of a skin region around the
wellbore during three-phase flow.
In this paper, generalized inflow
performance relationships are presented for
three-phase flow in bounded, homogeneous
reservoirs. The proposed IPRs are compared
with other three-phase methods currently
available. The methods presented are based on
homogeneous reservoirs where gravity and
capillary effects are negligible. Methods are
also presented for predicting performance when
reservoir conditions change from test
conditions. This includes predicting future
performance due to depletion and predicting
performance when changes occur in the skin
region near the wellbore.
GENERALIZED IPRs
Wiggins, Russell and Jennings9
recently proposed an analytical IPR for three-
phase flow in bounded reservoirs. An
advantage of the analytical IPR is that one can
develop an IPR specific to a particular
reservoir and its operating conditions. The
major disadvantage, however, is that it
requires knowledge of relative permeability
and reservoir fluid properties and how they
behave with pressure. This is not a large
obstacle if relative permeability and pressure-
volume-temperature data are available for the
reservoir of interest, along with an idea of the
average reservoir pressure and water
saturation. With this information, one can
develop the required mobility function profiles
from the current reservoir pressure to near-
484
SPE 25458
zero flowing pressure. This profile can then be
used to develop the analytical IPRs for the oil
and water phases.
Unfortunately, we do not always have
reliable relative permeability or fluid property
information. In this case, the analytical IPR is
only of academic interest in our operations. To
overcome this problem, generalized three-phase
IPRs similar to Vogel's were developed and are
presented here. The resulting IPR equations
are based on regression analysis of simulator
results covering a wide range of relative
permeability information, fluid property data
and water saturations.
Development of Simulator Results
To develop the generalized equations to
predict inflow performance, IPR curves were
generated from simulator results for four basic
sets of relative permeability and fluid property
data. Each set of data was used to generate
simulator results from irreducible water
saturation to residual oil saturation. Sixteen
theoretical reservoirs were examined from
initial pressure to the minimum flowing
bottomhole pressure. Table 1 presents the
range of reservoir properties used in the
development of the generalized IPRs.
Simulator results were obtained for a
radial flow geometry and constant oil rate
production. Maximum oil and water
production rates were estimated at each stage
of depletion from the simulator results at a
minimum flowing bottomhole pressure of 14.7
psia. If the flowing bottomhole pressure did
not reach this minimum during the simulation,
the maximum rate was estimated from the
production information available and then
checked by rerunning the simulator.
Figs. 1 and 2 present typical oil and
water inflow performance curves for Case 3
with an initial water saturation of 20% at
several stages of depletion. These curves have
the same characteristic concave shape noticed
by Vogel in his research. The curves were
normalized by dividing each point of
SPE 25458 MICHAEL L. WIGGINS
infonnation by the maximum rate and average
pressure at the stage of depletion. The
resulting IPR curves are presented in Figs. 3
and 4. The individual curves are now almost
indistinguishable and can be represented by a
single curve. The simulator results from all
cases studied were normalized in this manner.
IPRs
To develop the generalized three-phase
IPRs, the production rate ratios were regressed
on the pressure ratios. A linear regression
model of the fonn
(3)
was used to fit the infonnation. The statistical
analysis was performed using the linear
regression procedure available in the SAS
System lO, a general purpose software system
for data analysis.
The resulting generalized IPRs are
... (4)
and
... (5)
Figs. 5 and 6 present the simulator infonnation
for all cases studied with the resulting IPR
equations. Statistical infonnation is presented
in Tables 2 and 3. Overall, the average
absolute error was 4.39% for the oil IPR and
6.18% for the water IPR indicating the
generalized curves should be suitable for use
over a wide range of reservoir properties if the
reservoir is producing under boundary-
dominated flow conditions.
485
3
Comparison with Other Methods
In order to test their reliability, the
generalized IPRs were compared with the
three-phase IPR methods of Brown and
Sukarno. Brown's method was proposed by
Petrobras and is based on developing a
composite IPR curve. The composite curve is
generated by using Vogel's IPR for the oil
phase and coupling it with a straight-line PI
for the water phase. Sukarno's method is
based on nonlinear regression analysis of
simulator results. Both methods differ from
the generalized three-phase IPR method
presented in this paper in that they couple the
water and oil rates. The proposed method
assumes we can treat each phase separately.
To evaluate the three methods,
infonnation presented by Sukarno in his
Tables 6-24 to 6-26 was selected for comparison
purposes. This information was generated by
Sukarno using a simulator and was not used in
the development of the proposed method. It
was felt that these cases would give an
unbiased indication of the reliability of the
proposed IPRs.
Tables 4-6 present the results of this
analysis. All three methods yield similar
estimates of producing rates, indicating the
generalized three-phase IPRs yield suitable
results. The maximum difference between the
simulator results and the generalized IPR is
3.98% for the oil phase and 7.08% for the water
phase. This analysis shows that any of the
three methods appear suitable for use during
boundary-dominated flow; yet, the proposed
method is much simpler to use without yielding
any degree of reliability. Based on simplicity,
the generalized IPRs are recommended for use
in applying to field data.
PERFORMANCE PREDICTIONS WHEN
RESERVOIR CONDITIONS CHANGE
The generalized IPRs presented in the
previous section are useful in allowing the
petroleum engineer to calculate the pressure
and production behavior of an oil well given
the necessary test infonnation. The resulting
4 GENERALIZED INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS
FOR THREE-PHASE FLOW
estimates of flowing pressure or production
rates assume that there is no change in
reservoir conditions from those under which
the well test was made. This is fine for many
situations where one desires to estimate the
effect of changing the flowing pressure on the
production rate, or the effect on the flowing
pressure if the rate is changed.
There are times, however, when the
engineer desires to estimate the pressure-
production behavior under reservoir conditions
that are different from those at which the well
test was conducted. The two primary
conditions of interest are changes in flow
efficiency and at different stages of reservoir
depletion. Changes in flow efficiency are of
interest when one is considering a stimulation
treatment to remove damage or improve
permeability near the wellbore. The effects of
depletion are encountered in predicting future
performance at an average reservoir pressure
less than the test pressure. In this section, we
will look at using test data to predict well
performance when reservoir conditions have
changed.
Changes in Flow Efficiency
Flow efficiency can be defined as the
ratio of the measured production rate to the
ideal production rate. The ideal production
rate is that rate which would be observed at
the measured well bore pressure if skin equals
zero. In equation form, this reduces to
T. 3 for the cases studied.
In-
Tw 4
E, =
T. 3
In- - - +$
Tw 4 If we apply the Taylor series approach
This definition of flow efficiency allows the
ratio of the maximum production rates with
and without skin to be written as
SPE 25458
Eqs. 6 and 7 can be used with well test
information to study the effects of changes in
flow efficiency.
To utilize the proposed method, one
would estimate the maximum oil and water
production rates from the generalized three-
phase IPRs (Eqs. 4 and 5) and the flow
efficiency from Eq. 6 using the skin factor
estimated from a transient well test. It should
be noted that large errors in estimating the
outer boundary radius of the reservoir results
in small errors in the flow efficiency. The
maximum flow rates for the oil and water
phases without skin are then estimated from
Eq.7.
Once the maximum flow rates are
determined at a flow efficiency of one, Eq. 7
can be used to predict the maximum
production rates at a new flow efficiency.
Inflow performance curves are then predicted
for the well at the new flow efficiency by using
the generalized IPRs.
Table 7 presents a comparison of the
proposed method to account for changes in skin
during three-phase flow to simulator results.
The maximum production rates calculated and
presented in the table are from selected test
information. The resulting error between the
calculated maximum rates and simulator rates
includes errors in the generalized IPRs and
error in the flow efficiency approximation, Eq.
6. As indicated, the proposed method does a
good job of estimating the maximum flow rates
(6)
Predicting Future Performance
proposed by Wiggins, Russell and Jennings in
developing the analytical IPR, we can write the
present maximum flow rate as
(8)
(7) where D is related to the mobility function by
486
SPE 25458 MICHAEL L. WIGGINS
(9)
The subscript p in Eq. 8 indicates present
conditions. If we relate the maximum
production rate at some future time to the
current maximum rate, we obtain
qtl,JrJU1 = Pr,D]n,-o (10)
qtl,JrJU, Pr,[D]u,~
where the f subscript refers to future
conditions.
Eq. 10 states that the ratio of the
maximum production rate at some future
reservoir pressure to the current maximum
production rate is related to the ratios of the
reservoir pressures and the mobility function
terms, D. Since the mobility function terms
are functions of the average reservoir pressure,
Eq. 10 suggests that the production rate ratio
can be written as a polynomial in the ratio of
average reservoir pressures.
Maximum oil rate ratios versus the
average pressure ratios for all the cases
studied in this research are presented in Fig. 7.
This information appears to follow a quadratic
relationship. As indicated, there is some
variation between the curves due to relative
permeability and fluid property effects;
however, there is no great deviation in the
curves. This agrees with the information
studied in developing the generalized IPR. Fig.
8 presents the same comparison information
for the water phase.
The information presented in Figs. 7
and 8 was fit with a linear regression model of
the form
(11)
487
5
As the average reservoir pressure decreases,
we see a corresponding decrease in the
maximum flow rate. When the average
reservoir pressure reaches zero, there is
physically no flow from the reservoir.
Consequently, a linear regression model with
no intercept was chosen.
The resulting relationship to predict
the future maximum oil rate is
qtl,m&x, -vJ P :
= O.15376__ -
r ]
qtl,JrJU,
lpr (12)
while the relationship for water is
qW,m&x1 = 0.59245433(Pr/ ]
qw,m&xp Pr.p
(13)
The statistical information for this analysis is
presented in Tables 8 and 9. The coefficient of
determination for the two relationships is
greater than 0.9, indicating a good fit of the
information. The F -test indicates that the
model is adequate to describe the information
while the t-test shows the coefficients are
significant.
To use the proposed future performance
method, one would estimate the maximum
production rates from the generalized IPRs
(Eqs. 4 and 5). The maximum future
production rates can be estimated from Eqs. 12
and 13 at the desired average reservoir
pressure. New inflow performance curves at
the future depletion stage can be developed by
using the generalized IPR equations with the
desired reservoir pressure and maximum
future production rates.
Tables 10-12 present a comparison of
simulator results and future production rates
predicted by the proposed future performance
6 GENERALIZED INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS
FOR THREE-PHASE FLOW
method. The results presented in these tables
indicate that the error increases as we estimate
further in time, however, on an absolute basis,
the predictions are within reasonable
engineering accuracy.
The analysis suggests that care should
be taken in estimating future performance over
large stages of depletion as the error may
increase. This error may not be significant if
the absolute difference in production values are
small, as indicated by several of the examples.
Based on analysis of information used in
developing this method, one should exercise
caution in predicting future rates at reservoir
pressure ratios less than 70%. While estimates
at pressure ratios less than 70% may be
relatively accurate, they may contain
significant errors. It is recommended that
initial future performance estimates be
updated every six months to one year. This
would progressively reduce the uncertainty in
earlier estimates as depletion occurs in the
reservoir.
APPLICABILITY
The proposed IPRs and methods
presented in this research for three-phase flow
were developed from analysis of multiphase
flow in bounded, homogeneous reservoirs where
there is no external influx of fluids into the
reservoir, and apply to the boundary-
dominated flow regime. The methods are
limited by the following assumptions: 1) all
reservoirs are initially at the bubble point; 2)
no initial free gas phase is present; 3) a mobile
water phase is present for three-phase studies;
4) Darcy's law for multiphase flow applies; 5)
isothermal conditions exist; 6) there is no
reaction between reservoir fluids and reservoir
rock; 7) no gas solubility exists in the water; 8)
gravity effects are negligible; and 9) there is a
fully penetrating wellbore. Strictly speaking,
the methods cannot be considered correct when
other types of reservoir conditions exist, and
the engineer should exercise great care in
utilizing the proposed methods.
From a practical viewpoint the
488
SPE 25458
proposed methods may have limited
applicability, since very few reservoirs
completely satisfy the assumptions. One might
speculate that the methods have merit under
less stringent conditions than those under
which they were developed. Examples would
include: reservoirs that have very limited water
influx; reservoirs that initially had no mobile
water phase but began producing water due to
limited water influx; large reservoirs
experiencing water influx where portions of the
reservoir are isolated from the influx by
producing wells nearer the reservoir
boundaries. Other examples might include
reservoirs that are relatively thin with respect
to the drainage area where gravity effects are
negligible, and partially penetrating wells
where there is little vertical permeability.
These examples are only speculation and
further research is required before the
proposed methods can be extended to these
situations.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Generalized three-phase IPRs have
been presented that are suitable for use over a
wide range of reservoir properties. The
proposed relationships are Vogel-type IPRs
that require single point estimates of oil and
water production rates, flowing wellbore
pressure and average reservoir pressure.
2. The generalized IPRs have been
verified using information presented by
Sukarno and by comparison to the three-phase
methods of Brown and Sukarno. The proposed
method yielded results as reliable as these two
methods while being much simpler to use.
3. A method has been presented to
estimate pressure-production behavior due to
changes in flow efficiency. The method
appears to yield suitable results with
maximum errors between the predictions and
simulator results being less than 15% for the
cases studied. This error includes errors from
the generalized IPR and the definition of flow
efficiency.
SPE 25458 MICHAEL L. WIGGINS
4. A method has been proposed for
predicting future performance that is similar in
form to a Vogel-type IPR The method is
suggested by the Taylor series expansion of the
multiphase flow equations proposed by
Wiggins, Russell and Jennings. To the
author's knowledge, no one has proposed a
method for predicting future performance
during three-phase boundary-dominated flow.
NOMENCLATURE
oil formation volume factor,
RB/STB
Ef flow efficiency, dimensionless
~ relative permeability to oil
p pressure, psi
Pr average reservoir pressure, psi
Pwf flowing wellbore pressure, psi
CIo oil production rate, BOPD
CIo,rnax maximum oil production rate,
BOPD
water production rate, BWPD
maximum water production
rate, BWPD
external boundary radius, ft
wellbore radius, ft
skin factor, dimensionless
regression coefficient
oil viscosity, cp
REFERENCES
1. Darcy, H.: Les Fontaines Publiques de
la Ville de Dijon, Victor Dalmont, Paris
(1856) 590-594.
2. Evinger, H.H. and Muskat, M.:
"Calculation of Theoretical Productivity
Factors", Trans., AIME (1942) 146,
126-139.
489
7
3. Evinger, H.H. and Muskat, M.:
"Calculation of Productivity Factors for
Oil-gas-water Systems in the Steady
State", Trans., AIME (1942) 146, 194-
203.
4. Vogel, J.V.: "Inflow Performance
Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive
Wells", JPT (Jan. 1968) 83-92.
5. Fetkovich, M.J.: "The Isochronal
Testing of Oil Wells", paper SPE 4529
presented at the 1973 SPE Annual
Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 30 - Oct.
3.
6. Rawlins, E.L. and Schellhardt, M.A:
Backpressure Data on Natural Gas
Wells and Their Application to
Production Practices, USBM (1935) 7.
7. Brown, KE.: The Technology of
Artificial Lift Methods, PennWell
Publishing Co., Tulsa, OK (1984) 4, 18-
35.
8. Sukarno, P.: "Inflow Performance
Relationship Curves in Two-Phase and
Three-Phase Flow Conditions", Ph.D.
dissertation, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK
(1986).
9. Wiggins, M.L., Russell, J.E. and
Jennings, J.W.: "Analytical Inflow
Performance Relationships for Three-
Phase Flow in Bounded Reservoirs",
paper SPE 24055 presented at the
1992 Western Regional Meeting,
Bakersfield, CA, Mar. 30-Apr. 1.
10. Freund, RJ. and Littell, RC.: SAS
System for Regression, SAS Institute,
Cary, NC (1986).
 8 GENERALIZED INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS SPE 25458
FOR THREE-PHASE FLOW

Table 1. Reservoir Properties Table 2. SAS Statistics for Oil IPR

Property Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 CaseS

DEP VARIABLE: QORATI
Porosity 0.18 0.12 0.20 0.24 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

Permeability 15.0md 1O.0md l00.0md 5O.0md SUM OF MEAN

SOURCE DF SQUARES SQUARE F VALUE PROB>F
Height 25 ft 10ft 10ft 25ft
MODEL 2 144.14973559 72.07486780 141748.766 0.0001
ERROR 408 0.20745539 0.0005084691
Temperature 150F 175 F 200 F 200 F U TOTAL 410 144.35719098
Initial ROOT MSE 0.02254926 R-SQUARE 0.9986
Pressure 2500 psi 3500 psi 1500 psi 2600 psi DEP MEAN -0.526888 ADJ R-SQ 0.9986
C.V. -4.2797
45.0 API 15.0 API 35.0 API NOTE: NO INTERCEPT TERM IS USED. R-SQUARE IS REDEFINED.
Oil Gravity 25.0 API

Gas Gravity 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 PARAMETER ESTIMATES

Water Solids 12.0% 30.0% 15.0% 18.0%

PARAMETER STANDARD T FOR HO:
VARIABLE DF ESTIMATE ERROR PARAMETER&O PROB>ITI
Residual Oil PRAT 1 -0.519167 0.008038153 -64.588 0.0001
Saturation 0.35 0.10 0.45 0.05 PRAT2 1 -0.481092 0.01012434 -47.518 0.0001

Irreducible
Water
Saturation 0.20 0.10 0.30 0.50

Critical Gas
Saturation 0.050 0.000 0.025 0.075

Drainage
Radius 1085 ft 506 ft 506ft l085ft

WeUbore
Radius 0.328ft 0.328 ft 0.328ft 0.328ft

Table 3. SAS Statistics for Water IPR Table 4. Comparison of Proposed IPR to Other Methods
Using Information in Sukamo's Table 6-24

DEP VARIABLE: QWRATI Test Information:

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
fwf,fsi fr,~i So,BOPD Sw,BWPD
SUM OF MEAN 1155 2100 176.31 50.16
SOURCE OF SQUARES SQUARE F VALUE PROB>F

HODEL 2 160.09582759 80.04791379 124348.602 0.0001 Simulator Wiggins Sukarno Brown

ERROR 408 0.26264508 0.0006437379 fwf,fsi S2:BOPD S",BOPD S",BOPD S",BOPD
U TOTAL 410 160.35847267
1995 23.06 2252 23.21 22.82
ROOT MSE 0.02537199 R-SQUARE 0.9984 1785 66.10 65.48 66.52 65.94
DEP MEAN -0.564403 ADJ R-SQ 0.9984
C.V. -4.49537 1575 105.88 105.45 10650 10554
NOTE: NO INTERCEPT TERM IS USED. R-SQUARE IS REDEFINED. 1365 142.66 142.44 143.14 141.38
1155 176.31 176.44 176.44 173.20
PARAMETER ESTIMATES 945 207.oI 207.46 206.41 200.71
735 234.45 235.50 233.05 223.59
PARAMETER STANDARD T FOR HO: 525 259.00 260.56 256.35 241.46
VARIABLE OF ESTIMATE ERROR PARAMETER-O PROB>ITI
315 279.34 282.62 276.31 253.89
PRAT 1 -0.7222350.009044375 -79.855 0.0001 0 301.77 310.13 300.00 264.46
PRAT2 1 -0.284777 0.01139171 -24.999 0.0001

Simulator Wiggins Sukarno Brown

fwf,~i SW, BWPD 9w,BWPD Sw,BWPD 9w , BWPD
1995 5.91 5.51 6.02 6.47
1785 17.54 17.47 17.65 18.71
1575 28.85 28.89 28.89 29.94
1365 39.73 39.75 39.71 40.11
1155 50.16 50.06 50.06 49.14
945 60.01 59.81 59.90 56.94
735 69.18 69.02 69.18 63.43
525 77.46 77.67 77.85 68.50
315 84.64 85.77 85.86 72.03
0 92.67 96.89 96.50 75.03

490
 SPE 25458 MICHAEL L. WIGGINS 9

Table 5. Comparison of Proposed IPR to Other Methods Table 6. Comparison of Proposed IPR to Other Methods
Using Information in Sukamo's Table 6-25 Using Information in Sukamo's Table 6-26

Test Information: Test Information:

pwf, psi pr,psi qo,BOPD qw, BWPD Pwf,psi pr,psi qo,BOPD qw, BWPD
1463 2660 76.18 58.29 1008 1600 7.76 33.58

Simulator Wiggins Sukarno Brown Simulator Wiggins Sukarno Brown

pwf,psi <jo, BOPD q",BOPD q",BOPD So,BOPD pwf, psi q",BOPD q",BOPD q",BOPD q",BOPD
2527 9.98 9.72 9.96 9.42 1488 1.63 1.63 1.65 151
2261 27.60 28.25 28.60 27.47 1328 3.82 3.83 3.84 3.62
1995 44.82 4550 45.83 44.36 1168 5.87 5.87 5.88 5.68
1729 60.67 61.46 61.68 59.93 1008 7.76 7.76 7.76 7.66
1463 76.18 76.13 76.13 73.95 848 9.52 9.50 9.49 9.53
1197 90.44 89.51 89.18 86.15 688 11.16 11.08 11.05 11.18
931 102.81 101.61 100.84 96.13 528 12.60 12.51 12.45 12.30
665 117.08 112.42 111.10 103.37 368 13.91 13.78 13.70 13.18
399 124.45 121.94 119.97 107.49 208 15.07 14.89 14.78 14.05
o 135.44 133.81 130.66 112.76 o 16.29 16.11 15.95 15.19

Simulator Wiggins Sukarno Brown Simulator Wiggins Sukarno Brown

pwf, psi qw,BWPD qw,BWPD qw, BWPD qw, BWPD pwf,psi qw, BWPD qw, BWPD qw, BWPD qw, BWPD
2527 6.92 6.43 7.12 7.22 1488 6.68 6.37 6.77 6.51
2261 19.62 20.38 20.SO 21.06 1328 15.99 15.87 16.07 15.64
1995 32.64 33.69 33.92 34.02 1168 25.01 24.92 25.00 24.53
1729 45.75 46.35 46.46 45.95 1008 33.58 33.54 33.54 33.09
1463 58.29 58.37 58.37 56.71 848 41.87 41.71 41.67 41.15
1197 70.61 69.75 69.62 66.06 688 49.71 49.44 49.37 48.28
931 82.40 SO.49 SO.15 73.71 528 56.85 56.72 56.61 53.13
665 93.92 90.68 89.92 79.26 368 6350 6357 63.37 56.91
399 102.45 100.02 98.89 82.42 208 6951 69.97 69.62 60.70
o 112.85 112.99 110.73 86.46 o 75.93 77.64 76.94 65.62

Table 7. Comparison of Predicted Maximum Production Rates to

Simulator Results in the Presence of Skin

Table 8. SAS Statistics for Oil Future Performance Relationship

Case 2, 40% Initial Water Saturation

Simulator Predicted
Test qo,max, qo,max, Differ-
So- BOPD BOPD ence, Percent DEP VARIABLE: QORAT
Skin pwf,psi Pr,psi BOPD (5=0) (s=O) BOPD Error ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
-2 1223 1863 25.00 38.95 40.28 -1.33 -3.42
-2.33 4.SO SUM OF MEAN
+5 937 2045 20.00 48.49 50.82
SOURCE DF SQUARES SQUARE F VALUE PROB>F
+20 60 2163 15.00 54.85 56.63 -1.78 -3.24
MODEL 2 74.45855221 37.22927611 23021.859 0.0001
Simulator Predicted ERROR 234 0.37840779 0.001617127
qw,max, qw,max, Differ- U TOTAL 236 74.83696000
Test
qw, BWPD BWPD ence, Percent ROOT MSE 0.04021352 R-SQUARE 0.9949
Skin pwf,psi BWPD (S=O) (5=0) BWPD Error DEP MEAN 0.4476028 ADJ R-SQ 0.9949
-2 1223 1863 3.98 6.15 6.41 -0.26 4.15 C.V. 8.984198
+5 937 2045 2.73 6:87 6.94 -0.06 -0.93 NOTE: NO INTERCEPT TERM IS USED. R-SQUARE IS REDEFINED.
+20 60 2163 1.82 7.28 6.88 0.41 5.61
PARAMETER ESTIMATES

Case 3, 50% Initial Water Saturation PARAMETER STANDARD T FOR HO:

Simulator l'Tedkted VARIABLE DF ESTIMATE ERROR PARAMETER-O PROB>ITI
Test qo.max, qo,max, Differ-
ence, Percent PRAT 0.15376309 0.01896232 8.109 0.0001
So- BOPD BOPD 0.83516299 0.02247023 37.168 0.0001
PRAT2
Skin pwf,psi Pr,psi BOPD (5=0) (5=0) BOPD Error
-2 1047 2716 200.00 200.03 191.28 8.75 4.38
+5 902 2886 100.00 220.95 222.39 -1.44 -0.65
+20 465 2003 25.00 117.36 118.15 -o.SO -0.68

Simulator Predkted
Test qw,max, qw,max, Differ-
Sw, BWPD BWPD ence, Percent
Skin ?wf,psi p"psi BWPD (5=0) (5=0) BWPD Error
-2 1047 2716 183.19 177.78 175.20 2.58 1.45
+5 902 2886 82.60 191.55 183.69 7.86 4.10
+20 465 2003 25.75 122.39 121.71 0.68 0.55
491
 10 GENERALIZED INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSIDPS SPE 25458
FOR THREE-PHASE FLOW
Table 10. Comparison of Simulator Results and Future Performance
Predictions Using Proposed Relationship for Case 2
Table 9. SAS Statistics for Water Future Performance Relationship
Test Information: 30% Initial Water Saturation
pr.p, psi 90,max,p' BOPD 9w,max,p, BWPD
2375 96.34 0.63

DEP VARIABLE: QWRAT Simulator Calculated DiUerence Percent

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
90,max,f, qo,max,l, Difference
SUM OF MEAN pr,f,psi BOPD BOPD BOPD %
SOURCE DF SQUARES SQUARE F VALUE PROB>F 1886 56.17 62.50 ~.33 -11.28
1447 29.02 38.89 -9.87 -34.04
MODEL 2 81. 58898652 40.79449326 30719.520 0.0001 633 5.86 9.66 -3.81 ~.99
ERROR 234 0.31074416 0.001327966
U TOTAL 236 81.89973068
Simulator Calculated Difference Percent
ROOT MSE 0.03644127 R-SQUARE 0.9962 qw. max,(, qW,max,f, DiHerence
DEP MEAN 0.4943643 ADJ R-SQ 0.9962 pr,f, psi BWPD BWPD BWPD %
C.V. 7.371341
NOTE: NO INTERCEPT TERM IS USED. R-SQUARE IS REDEFINED. 1886 0.46 0.44 0.02 4.31
1447 0.36 0.31 0.04 12.58
633 0.16 0.12 0.04 27.05
PARAMETER ESTIMATES

PARAMETER STANDARD T FOR HO: Test Information: 40% Initial Water Saturation
VARIABLE DF ESTIMATE ERROR PARAMETERaO PROB>ITI
pr.p, psi 90,max,po BOPD 9w,max,,,, BWPD
PRAT 0.59245433 0.01718355 34.478 0.0001 2428 76.47 9.59
PRAT2 0.36479178 0.0203624 17.915 0.0001
Simulator Calculated Difference Percent
qo,max,f, qo,max,l, DiHerence
pr,f, psi BOPD BOPD BOPD %
2031 47.73 54.52 ~.79 -14.23
1321 1754 25.30 -7.76 -44.23
420 2.36 3.94 -1.59 ~7.51

Simulator Calculated Difference Percent

qW,max,(, qw,max,f, Difference
pr,f, psi BWPD BWPD BWPD %
2031 6.82 7.20 -C.38 -5.64
1321 4.21 4.13 0.08 2.01
420 1.24 1.09 0.16 12.48

Table 11. Comparison of Simulator Results and Future Performance Table 12. Comparison of Simulator Results and Future Performance
Predictions Using Proposed Relationship for Case 3 Predictions Using Proposed Relationship for Case 4

Test Information: 20% Initial Water Saturation Test Information: 40% Initial Water Saturation
pr,p' psi 90,max,p' BOPD 9w,max,p, BWPD Pr.p, psi 90,max,,,, BOPD 9w,max,,,, BWPD
3172 416.54 49.44 1333 5151 1.04

Simulator Calculated Difference Percent Simulator Calculated Difference Percent

qo,max,l, qo,max,(, Difference qo,ma",f, qo,max,f, Difference
pr,f,psi BOPD BOPD BOPD % pr,f, psi BOPD BOPD BOPD %
2671 317.77 300.60 17.17 5.40 1155 37.45 39.16 -1.71 -4.57
1790 155.83 146.93 8.91 5.72 926 23.56 26.26 -2.71 -11.49
549 25.07 2151 3.56 14.20 507 7.99 9.24 -1.24 -15.50

Simulator Calculated DiUerence Percent Simulator Calculated DiUerence Percent

qw,max,{, qW,max,(, Difference qw,rr.ax,{, qw,max,l, DiUerence
pr,f, psi BWPD BWPD BWPD % pr,f, psi BWPD BWPD BWPD %
2671 40.03 37.46 2.58 6.43 1155 0.89 0.82 0.07 8.39
1790 24.37 22.27 2.10 8.61 926 0.72 0.61 0.11 15.05
549 6.57 5.61 0.96 14.59 507 0.38 0.29 0.09 23.63

Test Information: 50% Initial Water Saturation Test Information: 50% Initial Water Saturation
pr,p' psi 9o,max,po BOPD 9w,max,p, BWPD pr,p, psi 9o,max,,,, BOPD 9w,max,p, BWPD
3364 264.73 227,96 1421 34.39 18.06

Simulator Calculated Difference Percent Simulator Calculated Difference Percent

qo,max,f, qo,max,l, Difference qo,max,l, qo,max,f, Difference
pr,f' psi BOPD BOPD BOPD % pr,f,psi BOPD BOPD BOPD %
2945 227.87 205.08 22.79 10.00 1244 27.33 26.64 0.69 2.52
1900 107.09 93.52 13.57 12.69 1022 18.41 18.66 -C.25 -1.34
445 11.66 9.25 2,41 20.64 596 6.92 7.27 -C.35 -5.12

Simulator Calculated DiUerence Percent Simulator Calculated Difference Percent

qW,max,f, qw,rnax,f, Difference qw,max,f, qw,max,f, DiHerence
pr,f, psi BWPD BWPD BWPD % pr,f, psi BWPD BWPD BWPD %
2945 196.23 181.96 14.26 7.27 1244 14.85 14.42 0.43 2.93
1900 114.92 102.81 12.11 10.54 1022 1150 11.10 039 3.43
445 23.11 19.32 3.79 16.41 596 5.65 5.65 0.01 0.12
492
 SPE 25458 MICHAEL L. WIGGINS 11

1000 2000 3000 4000

pwf,psia

Fig. 1. Oil inflow performance curves for Case 3, 20% Swi, at Fig. 2 Water inflow performance curves for Case 3, 20% Swi,
several stages of depletion generated from simulator results. at several stages of depletion generated from simulator results.

1.0
0
1.0 0
0
0
% cP
0
0 0.8
0.8
0
00
00
cDo 0

/1 l;l 0.6 0
'b a:t
~
0.6
~ DC
eg. ...... 0
~ [JJ
...... t5%

,
0 0" 0.4
0" 0.4 0 Bo
00 0
0
& Cu::J
0.2
IC
0.2 QJ
c

0.0
\ 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
~
1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
pwf/pr
pwf/pr

Fig. 3. OilIPR curves for Case 3, 20% Swi. Fig. 4. Water IPR curves for Case 3, 20% Swi.

493
 12 GENERALIZED INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSIDPS SPE 25458
FOR THREE-PHASE FLOW

1.0
1.0
Simulator Results Simulator Results

0.8
0.8

0.6 1;l 0.6

1;l
~ t
"-
"-
S- ~ 0.4
0.4

0.2 0.2

qw / qwmax - 1.0000 - 0.722235 (pwf/pr)

qo/qomax -1.0000 - 0519167 (Pwf/pr) - 0.481092 (pwf/prl"2
-0.284m (pwf/prl"2
0.0 O'O+-----~_r----~----r-~----,_----~_,----~~
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
pwf/pr pwf/pr

Fig. 5. Comparison of simulator results with generalized oil IPR. Fig. 6. Comparison of simulator results with generalized water IPR.

1.0 1.0

Simulator Results
Simulator Results - Proposed Relation
- Pmposed Relation
0.8 0.8
y - 0.15376309 x + D.83516299 ><"'2 Y - 059245433x + 0.364?9178x"2
Po.
xPo. 1;l'
e
g.
0.6 Ii.
~
0.6
0'
"-
"- .....
] Ii. 1;l
~ 0.4 'II'"
....... l 0.4

... ..
C7'
. F'alf.
..

0.2 0.2

O.o~~~-'----~-----r----~ __r-~-----r--------i o.o~~~-r----~~-----------'------~-r------~

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

pr,f/pr,p pr,f/pr,p

Fig. 7. Comparison of simulator results to proposed method Fig. 8. Comparison of simulator results to proposed method
for determining future performance for the oil phase. for determining future performance for the water phase.

494