Você está na página 1de 15

Guo, Boyun / Computer Assited Petroleum Production Engg 0750682701_chap03 Final Proof page 29 3.1.

2007 8:30pm Compositor Name: SJoearun

3 Reservoir
Deliverability

Contents
3.1 Introduction 3/30
3.2 Flow Regimes 3/30
3.3 Inflow Performance Relationship 3/32
3.4 Construction of IPR Curves Using Test
Points 3/35
3.5 Composite IPR of Stratified Reservoirs 3/37
3.6 Future IPR 3/39
Summary 3/42
References 3/42
Problems 3/43
Guo, Boyun / Computer Assited Petroleum Production Engg 0750682701_chap03 Final Proof page 30 3.1.2007 8:30pm Compositor Name: SJoearun

3/30 PETROLEUM PRODUCTION ENGINEERING FUNDAMENTALS

3.1 Introduction q
Reservoir deliverability is defined as the oil or gas produc-
tion rate achievable from reservoir at a given bottom-hole
pressure. It is a major factor affecting well deliverability. p
Reservoir deliverability determines types of completion
and artificial lift methods to be used. A thorough knowl- h
edge of reservoir productivity is essential for production k pwf m o Bo
engineers.
rw
Reservoir deliverability depends on several factors in- r
cluding the following:
. Reservoir pressure
. Pay zone thickness and permeability (a)
. Reservoir boundary type and distance
. Wellbore radius
. Reservoir fluid properties
. Near-wellbore condition p
. Reservoir relative permeabilities r
Reservoir deliverability can be mathematically modeled on rw
the basis of flow regimes such as transient flow, steady
pwf
state flow, and pseudosteady state flow. An analytical
relation between bottom-hole pressure and production k m o Bo
rate can be formulated for a given flow regime. The
relation is called inflow performance relationship
(IPR). This chapter addresses the procedures used for
establishing IPR of different types of reservoirs and well (b)
configurations.
Figure 3.1 A sketch of a radial flow reservoir model: (a)
lateral view, (b) top view.
3.2 Flow Regimes
When a vertical well is open to produce oil at production
rate q, it creates a pressure funnel of radius r around the
wellbore, as illustrated by the dotted line in Fig. 3.1a. In f porosity, fraction
this reservoir model, the h is the reservoir thickness, k is ct total compressibility, psi1
the effective horizontal reservoir permeability to oil, mo is rw wellbore radius to the sand face, ft
viscosity of oil, Bo is oil formation volume factor, rw is S skin factor
wellbore radius, pwf is the flowing bottom hole pressure, Log 10-based logarithm log10
and p is the pressure in the reservoir at the distance r from Because oil production wells are normally operated at
the wellbore center line. The flow stream lines in the constant bottom-hole pressure because of constant well-
cylindrical region form a horizontal radial flow pattern head pressure imposed by constant choke size, a constant
as depicted in Fig. 3.1b. bottom-hole pressure solution is more desirable for well-
inflow performance analysis. With an appropriate inner
boundary condition arrangement, Earlougher (1977)
3.2.1 Transient Flow developed a constant bottom-hole pressure solution,
Transient flow is defined as a flow regime where/when which is similar to Eq. (3.1):
the radius of pressure wave propagation from wellbore has
not reached any boundaries of the reservoir. During tran- kh( pi  pwf )
sient flow, the developing pressure funnel is small relative q  
to the reservoir size. Therefore, the reservoir acts like an k
162:6Bo mo log t log 2
 3:23 0:87S ,
infinitively large reservoir from transient pressure analysis fmo ct rw
point of view. (3:2)
Assuming single-phase oil flow in the reservoir, several
analytical solutions have been developed for describing the which is used for transient well performance analysis in
transient flow behavior. They are available from classic production engineering.
textbooks such as that of Dake (1978). A constant-rate Equation (3.2) indicates that oil rate decreases with flow
solution expressed by Eq. (3.1) is frequently used in pro- time. This is because the radius of the pressure funnel, over
duction engineering: which the pressure drawdown (pi  pwf ) acts, increases
with time, that is, the overall pressure gradient in the
162:6qBo mo reservoir drops with time.
pwf pi 
kh For gas wells, the transient solution is
 
k
 log t log  3:23 0:87S , (3:1) kh[m( pi )  m(pwf )]
fmo ct r2w qg  , (3:3)
k
where 1; 638T log t log  3:23 0:87S
fmo ct r2w
pwf flowing bottom-hole pressure, psia
pi initial reservoir pressure, psia where qg is production rate in Mscf/d, T is temperature in
q oil production rate, stb/day 8R, and m(p) is real gas pseudo-pressure defined as
mo viscosity of oil, cp p
k effective horizontal permeability to oil, md 2p
m( p) dp: (3:4)
h reservoir thickness, ft mz
t flow time, hour pb
Guo, Boyun / Computer Assited Petroleum Production Engg 0750682701_chap03 Final Proof page 31 3.1.2007 8:30pm Compositor Name: SJoearun

RESERVOIR DELIVERABILITY 3/31

The real gas pseudo-pressure can be readily determined The flow time required for the pressure funnel to reach the
with the spreadsheet program PseudoPressure.xls. circular boundary can be expressed as
fmo ct r2e
3.2.2 Steady-State Flow tpss 1,200 : (3:7)
k
Steady-state flow is defined as a flow regime where the
Because the pe in Eq. (3.6) is not known at any given time,
pressure at any point in the reservoir remains constant
the following expression using the average reservoir pres-
over time. This flow condition prevails when the pressure
sure is more useful:
funnel shown in Fig. 3.1 has propagated to a constant-
pressure boundary. The constant-pressure boundary can kh(p  pwf )
q  , (3:8)
be an aquifer or a water injection well. A sketch of the 141:2Bo mo ln rrwe  34 S
reservoir model is shown in Fig. 3.2, where pe represents
the pressure at the constant-pressure boundary. Assuming where p is the average reservoir pressure in psia. Deriv-
single-phase flow, the following theoretical relation can be ations of Eqs. (3.6) and (3.8) are left to readers for exer-
derived from Darcys law for an oil reservoir under the cises.
steady-state flow condition due to a circular constant- If the no-flow boundaries delineate a drainage area of
pressure boundary at distance re from wellbore: noncircular shape, the following equation should be used
for analysis of pseudosteady-state flow:
kh(pe  pwf )
q  , (3:5) kh(p  pwf )
q  , (3:9)
141:2Bo mo ln rrwe S
141:2Bo mo 12 ln gC4A
A r2 S
w

where ln denotes 2.718-based natural logarithm loge . where


Derivation of Eq. (3.5) is left to readers for an exercise.
A drainage area, ft2
g 1:78 Eulers constant
3.2.3 PseudoSteady-State Flow CA drainage area shape factor, 31.6 for a circular
Pseudosteady-state flow is defined as a flow regime boundary.
where the pressure at any point in the reservoir declines
at the same constant rate over time. This flow condition The value of the shape factor CA can be found from
prevails after the pressure funnel shown in Fig. 3.1 has Fig. 3.4.
propagated to all no-flow boundaries. A no-flow bound- For a gas well located at the center of a circular drainage
ary can be a sealing fault, pinch-out of pay zone, or area, the pseudosteady-state solution is
boundaries of drainage areas of production wells. A sketch kh[m(p)  m(pwf )]
qg  , (3:10)
of the reservoir model is shown in Fig. 3.3, where pe
1,424T ln rrwe  34 S Dqg
represents the pressure at the no-flow boundary at time
t4 . Assuming single-phase flow, the following theoretical where
relation can be derived from Darcys law for an oil reser- D non-Darcy flow coefficient, d/Mscf.
voir under pseudosteady-state flow condition due to a
circular no-flow boundary at distance re from wellbore:
3.2.4 Horizontal Well
kh(pe  pwf ) The transient flow, steady-state flow, and pseudosteady-
q  : (3:6)
141:2Bo mo ln rrwe  12 S state flow can also exist in reservoirs penetrated by horizon-
tal wells. Different mathematical models are available from

h p
pe
pwf

re r
rw

Figure 3.2 A sketch of a reservoir with a constant-pressure boundary.

pi
t1
t2
h t3
t4 p
pe
pwf

re r
rw

Figure 3.3 A sketch of a reservoir with no-flow boundaries.


Guo, Boyun / Computer Assited Petroleum Production Engg 0750682701_chap03 Final Proof page 32 3.1.2007 8:30pm Compositor Name: SJoearun

3/32 PETROLEUM PRODUCTION ENGINEERING FUNDAMENTALS

Reservoir Shape Reservoir Shape Reservoir Shape Reservoir Shape


Shape & Factor Shape & Factor Shape & Factor Shape & Factor
Well CA Well CA Well Well
Location Location Location CA Location CA

31.6 1/3 1 1 3.13


21.9 10.8
1 2
2

1 30.9 1 1 0.607
22.6 1 4.86
2
1 2 2

4
31.6 2 12.9 1 2.07 1 5.38
2 2

1 1 27.6 2 5
4.5 1 2.72 1 2.36
1 2 4

1 In waterdrive
reservoirs
1 27.1 1 0.111
60 19.1 1 0.232
4 2

In reservoirs of
4 unknown production
character 25 1 0.115 4 0.098
4 3
3.39 4 60

(a) (b)
Figure 3.4 (a) Shape factors for closed drainage areas with low-aspect ratios. (b) Shape factors for closed drainage
areas with high-aspect ratios (Dietz, 1965).
literature. Joshi (1988) presented the following relationship tation of the relation between the flowing bottom-hole
considering steady-state flow of oil in the horizontal plane pressure and liquid production rate. A typical IPR curve
and pseudosteady-state flow in the vertical plane: is shown in Fig. 3.5. The magnitude of the slope of the IPR
kH h(pe  pwf ) curve is called the productivity index (PI or J), that is,
q   p    , q
a a2 (L=2)2 Iani h Iani h J , (3:14)
141:2Bm ln L=2 ln (pe  pwf )
L rw (Iani 1)
(3:11) where J is the productivity index. Apparently J is not a
where v constant in the two-phase flow region.
u v"
u u   #
L u1 u 1 reH 4 6,000
a t t , (3:12)
2 2 4 L=2
5,000
s
4,000
kH
pwf (psia)

Iani , (3:13)
kV 3,000
and
2,000
kH the average horizontal permeability, md
kV vertical permeability, md 1,000
reH radius of drainage area, ft
L length of horizontal wellbore (L=2 < 0:9reH ), ft. 0
0 200 400 600 800
3.3 Inflow Performance Relationship qo (stb/day)
IPR is used for evaluating reservoir deliverability in pro-
duction engineering. The IPR curve is a graphical presen- Figure 3.5 A typical IPR curve for an oil well.
Guo, Boyun / Computer Assited Petroleum Production Engg 0750682701_chap03 Final Proof page 33 3.1.2007 8:30pm Compositor Name: SJoearun

RESERVOIR DELIVERABILITY 3/33

Well IPR curves are usually constructed using reservoir Transient IPR curve is plotted in Fig. 3.6.
inflow models, which can be from either a theoretical basis
2. For steady state flow:
or an empirical basis. It is essential to validate these
models with test points in field applications. kh
J  
3.3.1 LPR for Single (Liquid)-Phase Reservoirs 141:2Bm ln rrwe S
All reservoir inflow models represented by Eqs. (3.1), (3.3),
(8:2)(53)
(3.7), and (3.8) were derived on the basis of the assumption of  
single-phase liquid flow. This assumption is valid for under- ,980
141:2(1:1)(1:7) ln 20:328
saturated oil reservoirs, or reservoir portions where the pres-
sure is above the bubble-point pressure. These equations 0:1806 STB=d-psi
define the productivity index (J  ) for flowing bottom-hole Calculated points are:
pressures above the bubble-point pressure as follows:
q pwf (psi) qo (stb/day)
J
(pi  pwf )
50 1,011
kh 5,651 0
 
k
162:6Bo mo log t log  3:23 0:87S
fmo ct r2w
Steady state IPR curve is plotted in Fig. 3.7.
(3:15)
for radial transient flow around a vertical well, 3. For pseudosteady state flow:

q kh kh
J   (3:16) J  
(pe  pwf ) 141:2Bo m ln re S 141:2Bm ln rrwe  34 S
o rw
(8:2)(53)
for radial steady-state flow around a vertical well,  
,980  0:75
141:2(1:1)(1:7) ln 20:328
q kh
J   (3:17)
(p  pwf ) 141:2Bo m 1 ln 4A S 0:1968 STB=d-psi
o 2 gCA r2w

for pseudosteady-state flow around a vertical well, and


q 6,000
J
(pe  pwf )
5,000
kH h
  p
 h i
a a2 (L=2)2
141:2Bm ln L=2 IaniL h ln rw (IIani
ani
h
1)
4,000
pwf (psia)

(3:18) 3,000
for steady-state flow around a horizontal well.
Since the productivity index (J  ) above the bubble-point
pressure is independent of production rate, the IPR curve for a 2,000
single (liquid)-phase reservoir is simply a straight line drawn
from the reservoir pressure to the bubble-point pressure. If the 1,000
bubble-point pressure is 0 psig, the absolute open flow (AOF)
is the productivity index (J  ) times the reservoir pressure. 0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Example Problem 3.1 Construct IPR of a vertical well in
qo (stb/day)
an oil reservoir. Consider (1) transient flow at 1 month, (2)
steady-state flow, and (3) pseudosteady-state flow. The
following data are given: Figure 3.6 Transient IPR curve for Example Problem 3.1.

Porosity: f 0:19 6,000


Effective horizontal permeability: k 8:2 md
Pay zone thickness: h 53 ft
Reservoir pressure: pe or p 5,651 psia 5,000
Bubble-point pressure: pb 50 psia
Fluid formation volume factor:, Bo 1:1 4,000
Fluid viscosity: mo 1:7 cp
pwf (psia)

Total compressibility, ct 0:0000129 psi1


Drainage area: A 640 acres 3,000
(re 2,980 ft)
Wellbore radius: rw 0:328 ft 2,000
Skin factor: S0
Solution 1,000
1. For transient flow, calculated points are
kh 0
J   0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
162:6Bm log t log fmct r2  3:23
w qo (stb/day)
(8:2)(53)
 
(8:2)
162:6(1:1)(1:7) log [( (30)(24)] log (0:19)(1:7)(0:0000129)(0:328)2  3:23
Figure 3.7 Steady-state IPR curve for Example
0:2075 STB=d-psi Problem 3.1.
Guo, Boyun / Computer Assited Petroleum Production Engg 0750682701_chap03 Final Proof page 34 3.1.2007 8:30pm Compositor Name: SJoearun

3/34 PETROLEUM PRODUCTION ENGINEERING FUNDAMENTALS

6,000 or
q C(p2  p2wf )n , (3:23)
5,000

4,000 where C and n are empirical constants and is related to


pwf (psia)

qmax by C qmax =p2n . As illustrated in Example Problem


3,000 3.5, the Fetkovich equation with two constants is more
accurate than Vogels equation IPR modeling.
2,000 Again, Eqs. (3.19) and (3.23) are valid for average reservoir
pressure p being at and below the initial bubble-point pres-
1,000 sure. Equation (3.23) is often used for gas reservoirs.

0 Example Problem 3.2 Construct IPR of a vertical well in


0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 a saturated oil reservoir using Vogels equation. The
qo (stb/day) following data are given:

Porosity: f 0:19
Figure 3.8 Pseudosteady-state IPR curve for Effective horizontal permeability: k 8.2 md
Example Problem 3.1. Pay zone thickness: h 53 ft
Calculated points are: Reservoir pressure: p 5,651 psia
Bubble point pressure: pb 5,651 psia
pwf (psi) qo (stb/day)
Fluid formation volume factor: Bo 1:1
50 1,102 Fluid viscosity: mo 1:7 cp
5,651 0 Total compressibility: ct 0:0000129 psi1
Drainage area: A 640 acres
Pseudosteady-state IPR curve is plotted in Fig. 3.8. (re 2,980 ft)
Wellbore radius: rw 0:328 ft
3.3.2 LPR for Two-Phase Reservoirs Skin factor: S 0
The linear IPR model presented in the previous section is valid
for pressure values as low as bubble-point pressure. Below the Solution
bubble-point pressure, the solution gas escapes from the oil
kh
and become free gas. The free gas occupies some portion of J  
pore space, which reduces flow of oil. This effect is quantified 141:2Bm ln rrwe  34 S
by the reduced relative permeability. Also, oil viscosity in-
creases as its solution gas content drops. The combination of (8:2)(53)
 
the relative permeability effect and the viscosity effect results 141:2(1:1)(1:7) ln 2,980  0:75
0:328
in lower oil production rate at a given bottom-hole pressure.
This makes the IPR curve deviating from the linear trend 0:1968 STB=d-psi
below bubble-point pressure, as shown in Fig. 3.5. The lower
the pressure, the larger the deviation. If the reservoir pressure J  p (0:1968)(5,651)
qmax 618 stb=day
is below the initial bubble-point pressure, oil and gas two- 1:8 1:8
phase flow exists in the whole reservoir domain and the
reservoir is referred as a two-phase reservoir.
pwf (psi) qo (stb/day)
Only empirical equations are available for modeling
IPR of two-phase reservoirs. These empirical equations 5,651 0
include Vogels (1968) equation extended by Standing 5,000 122
(1971), the Fetkovich (1973) equation, Bandakhlia and 4,500 206
Azizs (1989) equation, Zhangs (1992) equation, and 4,000 283
Retnanto and Economides (1998) equation. Vogels equa- 3,500 352
tion is still widely used in the industry. It is written as 3,000 413
"    2 # 2,500 466
pwf pwf 2,000 512
q qmax 1  0:2  0:8 (3:19)
p p 1,500 550
1,000 580
or 500 603
"s
  #
q 0 618
pwf 0:125
p 81  80 1 , (3:20)
qmax
Calculated points by Eq. (3.19) are
where qmax is an empirical constant and its value represents The IPR curve is plotted in Fig. 3.9.
the maximum possible value of reservoir deliverability, or
AOF. The qmax can be theoretically estimated based on res-
ervoir pressure and productivity index above the bubble- 3.3.3 IPR for Partial Two-Phase Oil Reservoirs
point pressure. The pseudosteady-state flow follows that If the reservoir pressure is above the bubble-point pressure
and the flowing bottom-hole pressure is below the bubble-
Jp point pressure, a generalized IPR model can be formu-
qmax : (3:21)
1:8 lated. This can be done by combining the straight-line
Derivation of this relation is left to the reader for an IPR model for single-phase flow with Vogels IPR model
exercise. for two-phase flow. Figure 3.10 helps to understand the
Fetkovichs equation is written as formulation.
"  2 #n According to the linear IPR model, the flow rate at
pwf bubble-point pressure is
q qmax 1  (3:22)
p
 qb J  (p  pb ), (3:24)
Guo, Boyun / Computer Assited Petroleum Production Engg 0750682701_chap03 Final Proof page 35 3.1.2007 8:30pm Compositor Name: SJoearun

RESERVOIR DELIVERABILITY 3/35

6,000 Solution
5,000 kh
J  
141:2Bm ln rrwe  34 S
4,000
pwf (psia)

(8:2)(53)
3,000  
,980  0:75
141:2(1:1)(1:7) ln 20:328
2,000 0:1968 STB=d-psi
1,000
qb J  (p  pb )
0 (0:1968)(5,651  3,000)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
522 sbt=day
q (stb/day)
Figure 3.9 IPR curve for Example Problem 3.2. J  pb
qv
1:8
pwf
(0:1968)(3,000)

1:8
pi qb = J *( p pb ) 328 stb=day
Calculated points by Eq. (3.28) are

pb J *pb pwf (psi) qo (stb/day)


qV =
1.8 0 850
565 828
1,130 788
1,695 729
0 q 2,260 651
qb AOF 2,826 555
3,000 522
Figure 3.10 Generalized Vogel IPR model for partial
5,651 0
two-phase reservoirs.
Based on Vogels IPR model, the additional flow rate caused The IPR curve is plotted in Fig. 3.11.
by a pressure below the bubble-point pressure is expressed as 3.4 Construction of IPR Curves Using Test Points
"    2 #
pwf pwf It has been shown in the previous section that well IPR
Dq qv 1  0:2  0:8 : (3:25) curves can be constructed using reservoir parameters in-
pb pb
cluding formation permeability, fluid viscosity, drainage
Thus, the flow rate at a given bottom-hole pressure that is area, wellbore radius, and well skin factor. These param-
below the bubble-point pressure is expressed as eters determine the constants (e.g., productivity index) in
"    2 # the IPR model. However, the values of these parameters
pwf pwf are not always available. Thus, test points (measured val-
q qb qv 1  0:2  0:8 : (3:26)
pb pb ues of production rate and flowing bottom-hole pressure)
are frequently used for constructing IPR curves.
Because Constructing IPR curves using test points involves back-
J  pb ing-calculation of the constants in the IPR models. For a
qv , (3:27)
1:8 single-phase (unsaturated oil) reservoir, the model con-
Eq. (3.26) becomes stant J  can be determined by
q1
J  pb J , (3:29)
q J  (p  pb ) (p  pwf 1 )
1:8
"    2 # where q1 is the tested production rate at tested flowing
pwf pwf
 1  0:2  0:8 : (3:28) bottom-hole pressure pwf 1 .
pb pb

6,000
Example Problem 3.3 Construct IPR of a vertical well in
an undersaturated oil reservoir using the generalized Vogel 5,000
equation. The following data are given:
4,000
pwf (psia)

Porosity: f 0:19
Effective horizontal permeability: k 8.2 md 3,000
Pay zone thickness: h 53 ft
Reservoir pressure: p 5,651 psia 2,000
Bubble point pressure: pb 3,000 psia
Fluid formation volume factor: Bo 1:1 1,000
Fluid viscosity: mo 1:7 cp
Total compressibility: ct 0:0000129 psi1 0
0 200 400 600 800
Drainage area: A 640 acres
(re 2,980 ft) qo (stb/day)
Wellbore radius: rw 0:328 ft
Skin factor: S 0 Figure 3.11 IPR curve for Example Problem 3.3.
Guo, Boyun / Computer Assited Petroleum Production Engg 0750682701_chap03 Final Proof page 36 3.1.2007 8:30pm Compositor Name: SJoearun

3/36 PETROLEUM PRODUCTION ENGINEERING FUNDAMENTALS

For a partial two-phase reservoir, model constant J  in the Well B:


generalized Vogel equation must be determined based on the q1
range of tested flowing bottom-hole pressure. If the tested J       2 
pb p p
flowing bottom-hole pressure is greater than bubble-point (p  pb ) 1:8 1  0:2 pwfb 1  0:8 pwfb 1
pressure, the model constant J  should be determined by
q1 900
J : (3:30)      2 
p  pwf 1 )
( 3,000
(5,000  3,000) 1:8 1  0:2 32,,000 2,000
000  0:8 3,000
If the tested flowing bottom-hole pressure is less than
bubble-point pressure, the model constant J  should be 0:3156 stb=day-psi
determined using Eq. (3.28), that is,
q1 Calculated points are
J "     #! :
pb pwf 1 pwf 1 2
p  pb )
( 1  0:2  0:8 pwf (psia) q (stb/day)
1:8 pb pb
0 1,157
(3:31) 500 1,128
Example Problem 3.4 Construct IPR of two wells in an 1,000 1,075
undersaturated oil reservoir using the generalized Vogel 1,500 999
equation. The following data are given: 2,000 900
2,500 777
Reservoir pressure: p 5,000 psia 3,000 631
Bubble point pressure: pb 3,000 psia 5,000 0
Tested flowing bottom-hole
pressure in Well A: pwf 1 4,000 psia The IPR curve is plotted in Fig. 3.13.
Tested production rate For a two-phase (saturated oil) reservoir, if the Vogel
from Well A: q1 300 stb=day equation, Eq. (3.20), is used for constructing the IPR
Tested flowing bottom hole curve, the model constant qmax can be determined by
pressure in Well B: pwf 1 2,000 psia q1
Tested production rate qmax    2 : (3:32)
pwf 1 p
from Well B: q1 900 stb=day 1  0:2 p  0:8 wfp 1

Solution The productivity index at and above bubble-point pres-


sure, if desired, can then be estimated by
Well A: q1 1:8qmax
J J : (3:33)
(p  pwf 1 ) p
300 If Fetkovichs equation, Eq. (3.22), is used, two test points

(5,000  4,000) are required for determining the values of the two model
0:3000 stb=day-psi constant, that is,
 
Calculated points are log qq12
n   (3:34)
p2 p2
pwf (psia) q (stb/day) log p2 pwf2 1
wf 2

0 1,100 and
500 1,072 q1
1,000 1,022 C , (3:35)
1,500 950 (p2  p2wf 1 )n
2,000 856 where q1 and q2 are the tested production rates at tested
2,500 739 flowing bottom-hole pressures pwf 1 and pwf 1 , respectively.
3,000 600
5,000 0 Example Problem 3.5 Construct IPR of a well in a
saturated oil reservoir using both Vogels equation and
The IPR curve is plotted in Fig. 3.12. Fetkovichs equation. The following data are given:
6,000
6,000
5,000
5,000
4,000
pwf (psia)

4,000
pwf (psia)

3,000
3,000
2,000
2,000
1,000
1,000
0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 0
q (stb/day) 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
q (stb/day)
Figure 3.12 IPR curves for Example Problem 3.4,
Well A. Figure 3.13 IPR curves for Example Problem 3.4, Well B.
Guo, Boyun / Computer Assited Petroleum Production Engg 0750682701_chap03 Final Proof page 37 3.1.2007 8:30pm Compositor Name: SJoearun

RESERVOIR DELIVERABILITY 3/37

Reservoir pressure, p 3,000 psia progressively lower GOR), and so the overall ratio of pro-
Tested flowing bottom-hole pressure, pwf 1 duction will fall as the rate is increased. If, however, the most
2,000 psia highly depleted layers themselves produce at high ratios
Tested production rate at pwf 1 , q1 500 stb=day because of high free gas saturations, the overall GOR will
Tested flowing bottom-hole pressure, pwf 2 eventually start to rise as the rate is increased and this climb
1,000 psia will be continued (after the most permeable zone has come
Tested production rate at pwf 2 , q2 800 stb=day onto production). Thus, it is to be expected that a well
producing from a stratified formation will exhibit a
Solution minimum GOR as the rate of production is increased.
One of the major concerns in a multiplayer system is
Vogels equation: that interlayer cross-flow may occur if reservoir fluids are
produced from commingled layers that have unequal ini-
q1 tial pressures. This cross-flow greatly affects the composite
qmax    2
pwf 1 p IPR of the well, which may result in an optimistic estimate
1  0:2 p  0:8 wfp 1
of production rate from the commingled layers.
500 El-Banbi and Wattenbarger (1996, 1997) investigated
   2 productivity of commingled gas reservoirs based on history
1  0:2 3;000  0:8 2;000
2;000
3;000 matching to production data. However, no information
978 stb=day was given in the papers regarding generation of IPR curves.

Calculated data points are 3.5.1 Composite IPR Models


The following assumptions are made in this section:
pwf (psia) q (stb/day)
1. Pseudosteady-state flow prevails in all the reservoir
0 978 layers.
500 924 2. Fluids from/into all the layers have similar properties.
1,000 826 3. Pressure losses in the wellbore sections between layers
1,500 685 are negligible (these pressure losses are considered in
2,000 500 Chapter 6 where multilateral wells are addressed).
2,500 272 4. The IPR of individual layers is known.
3,000 0
On the basis of Assumption 1, under steady-flow condi-
tions, the principle of material balance dictates
Fetkovichs equation:
  net mass flow rate from layers to the well
  500
log q2 q1 log mass flow rate at well head
800
n   ! 1:0
p2 p2wf 1 (3,000)2
 (2,000)2 or
log p2 p2 log
wf 2
(3,000)2  (1,000)2 Xn
ri qi rwh qwh , (3:36)
q1 i1
C 2
(p  p2wf 1 )n where
500 ri density of fluid from/into layer i,

((3,000)2  (2,000)2 )1:0 qi flow rate from/into layer i,
rwh density of fluid at wellhead,
0:0001 stb=day-psi2n
qwh flow rate at wellhead, and
Calculated data points are n number of layers.
Fluid flow from wellbore to reservoir is indicated by
pwf (psia) q (stb/day) negative qi . Using Assumption 2 and ignoring density change
0 900 from bottom hole to well head, Eq. (3.36) degenerates to
500 875 X n

1,000 800 qi qwh (3:37)


1,500 675 i1

2,000 500 or
2,500 275 Xn
3,000 0 Ji (pi  pwf ) qwh , (3:38)
i1
The IPR curves are plotted in Fig. 3.14, which indicates
that Fetkovichs equation with two constants catches more where Ji is the productivity index of layer i.
details than Vogels equation.
3.5.1.1 Single-Phase Liquid Flow
3.5 Composite IPR of Stratified Reservoirs For reservoir layers containing undersaturated oils, if the
flowing bottom-hole pressure is above the bubble-point
Nearly all producing formations are stratified to pressures of oils in all the layers, single-phase flow in all
some extent. This means that the vertical borehole in the layers is expected. Then Eq. (3.38) becomes
the production zone has different layers having different
reservoir pressures, permeabilities, and producing fluids. If X
n

it is assumed that there are no other communication between Ji (pi  pwf ) qwh , (3:39)
i1
these formations (other than the wellbore), the production
will come mainly from the higher permeability layers. where Ji is the productivity index of layer i at and above the
As the wells rate of production is gradually increased, the bubble-point pressure. Equations (3.39) represents a linear
less consolidated layers will begin to produce one by one (at composite IPR of the well. A straight-line IPR can be
Guo, Boyun / Computer Assited Petroleum Production Engg 0750682701_chap03 Final Proof page 38 3.1.2007 8:30pm Compositor Name: SJoearun

3/38 PETROLEUM PRODUCTION ENGINEERING FUNDAMENTALS

3,500

3,000 Vogel's model


Fetkovich's model
2,500
pwf (psai)

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
q (stb/day)

Figure 3.14 IPR curves for Example Problem 3.5.

X
n
drawn through two points at AOF and shut-in bottom- Ji
hole pressure (pwfo ). It is apparent from Eq. (3.39) that i1
X n X n ( "    2 #)
AOF Ji 
pi AOFi (3:40) pbi pwf pwf
 (pi  pbi ) 1  0:2  0:8
i1 i1 1:8 pbi pbi
and
qwh ,
P
n
Ji 
pi (3:45)
pwfo i1n : (3:41) which gives
P
Ji Xn X
n
i1
AOF Ji (pi  0:44pbi ) AOFi (3:46)
It should be borne in mind that pwfo is a dynamic bottom- i1 i1
hole pressure because of cross-flow between layers. and
s
  n n 
P n P n P Ji P  2 P n

3.5.1.2 Two-Phase Flow 147 0:56 Ji pbi Ji (pi  pbi ) pbi Ji  Ji
i1 i1 i1 i1 i1
For reservoir layers containing saturated oils, two-phase pwfo :
P
n
Ji
8
flow is expected. Then Eq. (3.38) takes a form of polyno- i1
pbi

mial of order greater than 1. If Vogels IPR model is used, (3:47)


Eq. (3.38) becomes
"    2 # Again, pwfo is a dynamic bottom-hole pressure because of
X n
Ji 
pi pwf pwf cross-flow between layers.
1  0:2  0:8 qwh , (3:42)
i1
1:8 p
i pi
3.5.2 Applications
which gives
The equations presented in the previous section can be
Xn
pi X
Ji  n
readily used for generation of a composite IPR curve if
AOF AOFi (3:43)
1:8 all Ji are known. Although numerous equations have been
i1 i1
proposed to estimate Ji for different types of wells, it is
and always recommended to determine Ji based on flow tests
s
n  of individual layers. If the tested rate (qi ) was obtained at a
Pn P n
Ji P  2 P n
wellbore pressure (pwfi ) that is greater than the bubble-
80 Ji  pi J  Ji
i1 i1
pi
i1
i
i1
point pressure in layer i, the productivity index Ji can be
pwfo : (3:44) determined by
P
n
Ji
8 pi qi
i1 Ji : (3:48)
pi  pwfi
Again, pwfo is a dynamic bottom-hole pressure because of
cross-flow between layers. If the tested rate (qi ) was obtained at a wellbore pressure
(pwfi ) that is less than the bubble-point pressure in layer i,
the productivity index Ji should be determined by
3.5.1.3 Partial Two-Phase Flow qi
The generalized Vogel IPR model can be used to describe Ji     2  : (3:49)
pbi p pwfi
well inflow from multilayer reservoirs where reservoir (pi  pbi ) 1:8 1  0:2 pwfi
bi
 0:8 pbi
pressures are greater than oil bubble pressures and the
wellbore pressure is below these bubble-point pressures. With Ji , pi , and pbi known, the composite IPR can be
Equation (3.38) takes the form generated using Eq. (3.45).
Guo, Boyun / Computer Assited Petroleum Production Engg 0750682701_chap03 Final Proof page 39 3.1.2007 8:30pm Compositor Name: SJoearun

RESERVOIR DELIVERABILITY 3/39

Table 3.1 Summary of Test Points for Nine Oil Layers


Layer no.: D3-D4 C1 B4-C2 B1 A5 A4
Layer pressure (psi) 3,030 2,648 2,606 2,467 2,302 2,254
Bubble point (psi) 26.3 4.1 4.1 56.5 31.2 33.8
Test rate (bopd) 3,200 3,500 3,510 227 173 122
Test pressure (psi) 2,936 2,607 2,571 2,422 2,288 2,216
J  (bopd=psi) 34 85.4 100.2 5.04 12.4 3.2

Case Study Group 3 are plotted in Figs. 3.17 and 3.18. Table 3.2
An exploration well in the south China Sea penetrated compares production rates read from Figs. 3.16, 3.17,
eight oil layers with unequal pressures within a short inter- and 3.18 at some pressures. This comparison indicates
val. These oil layers were tested in six groups. Layers B4 that significant production from Group 1 can be achieved
and C2 were tested together and Layers D3 and D4 were at bottom-hole pressures higher than 2658 psi, while
tested together. Test data and calculated productivity Group 2 and Group 3 are shut-in. A significant production
index (Ji ) are summarized in Table 3.1. The IPR curves from Group 1 and Group 2 can be achieved at bottom-
of the individual layers are shown in Fig. 3.15. It is hole pressures higher than 2,625 psi while Group 3 is shut-
seen from this figure that productivities of Layers A4, in. The grouped-layer production will remain beneficial
A5, and B1 are significantly lower than those of other until bottom-hole pressure is dropped to below 2,335 psi
layers. It is expected that wellbore cross-flow should where Group 3 can be open for production.
occur if the bottom pressure is above the lowest reservoir
pressure of 2,254 psi. Layers B4, C1, and C2 should be the
major thief zones because of their high injectivities (assum- 3.6 Future IPR
ing to be equal to their productivities) and relatively low
pressures. Reservoir deliverability declines with time. During transi-
The composite IPR of these layers is shown in Fig. 3.16 ent flow period in single-phase reservoirs, this decline is
where the net production rate from the well is plotted because the radius of the pressure funnel, over which the
against bottom-hole pressure. It is seen from this figure pressure drawdown (pi  pwf ) acts, increases with time,
that net oil production will not be available unless the i.e., the overall pressure gradient in the reservoir drops
bottom-hole pressure is reduced to below 2,658 psi. with time. In two-phase reservoirs, as reservoir pressure
Figure 3.15 suggests that the eight oil layers be produced depletes, reservoir deliverability drops due to reduced rela-
separately in three layer groups: tive permeability to oil and increased oil viscosity. Future
IPR can be predicted by both Vogels method and Fetko-
Group 1: Layers D3 and D4 vichs method.
Group 2: Layers B4, C1, and C2
Group 3: Layers B1, A4 and A5
3.6.1 Vogels Method
The composite IPR for Group 1 (D3 and D4) is the Let Jp and Jf be the present productivity index and future
same as shown in Fig. 3.15 because these two layers were productivity index, respectively. The following relation
the commingle-tested. Composite IPRs of Group 2 and can be derived:

3,500

D3-D4
3,000 C1
B4-C2
B1
2,500
Bottom Hole Pressure (psi)

A5
A4

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0
50,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000
Oil Production Rate (stb/day)

Figure 3.15 IPR curves of individual layers.


Guo, Boyun / Computer Assited Petroleum Production Engg 0750682701_chap03 Final Proof page 40 3.1.2007 8:30pm Compositor Name: SJoearun

3/40 PETROLEUM PRODUCTION ENGINEERING FUNDAMENTALS

Table 3.2 Comparison of Commingled and Layer-Grouped Productions


Production rate (stb/day)
Grouped layers
Bottom-hole All layers
pressure (psi) commingled Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Total
2,658 0 12,663 Shut-in Shut-in 12,663
2,625 7866 13,787 0 Shut-in 13,787
2,335 77,556 23,660 53,896 0 77,556
2,000 158,056 35,063 116,090 6,903 158,056

 
kro
Jf Bo mo f
  (3:50)
Jp kro
Bo mo p

or
 
kro
Bo mo f
Jf Jp   : (3:51)
kro
Bo mo p

Thus,

"  2 #
Jf pf pwf pwf
q 1  0:2  0:8 , (3:52)
1:8 pf pf
Figure 3.16 Composite IPR curve for all the layers
open to flow.
where pf is the reservoir pressure in a future time.
Composite IPR of layers B4, C1 and C2
3,500
Example Problem 3.6 Determine the IPR for a well at the
Bottom Hole Pressure (psi)

3,000 time when the average reservoir pressure will be 1,800 psig.
2,500 The following data are obtained from laboratory tests of
well fluid samples:
2,000

1,500
Reservoir properties Present Future
1,000
Average pressure (psig) 2,250 1,800
500 Productivity index J  (stb/day-psi) 1.01
Oil viscosity (cp) 3.11 3.59
0 Oil formation volume factor (rb/stb) 1.173 1.150
1E+05 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000
Relative permeability to oil 0.815 0.685
Liquid Rate (stb/day)

Figure 3.17 Composite IPR curve for Group 2 (Layers


Solution
B4, C1, and C2).  
kro
Composite IPR of layers B1, A4 and A5 Bo mo f
Jf Jp  
3,500 kro
Bo mo p
3,000
 
0:685
Bottom Hole Pressure (psi)

3:59(1:150)
2,500
1:01  
0:815
3:11(1:173)
2,000
0:75 stb=day-psi
1,500 Vogels equation for future IPR:
1,000
"  2 #
Jf pf pwf pwf
q 1  0:2  0:8
500 1:8 pf pf
"   #
0 (0:75)(1,800) pwf pwf 2
1  0:2  0:8
2000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 1:8 1,800 1,800
Liquid Rate (stb/day)

Figure 3.18 Composite IPR curve for Group 3 (Layers Calculated data points are as follows:
B1, A4, and A5). Present and future IPR curves are plotted in Fig. 3.19.
Guo, Boyun / Computer Assited Petroleum Production Engg 0750682701_chap03 Final Proof page 41 3.1.2007 8:30pm Compositor Name: SJoearun

RESERVOIR DELIVERABILITY 3/41


 
0:007082kh kro 1 2
Reservoir Reservoir qo   (p  p2wf ) (3:55)
re mo Bo i 2pi i
pressure 2,250 psig pressure 1,800 psig ln
rw
pwf (psig) q (stb/day) pwf (psig) q (stb/day) or
2,250 0 1,800 0 0
qo Ji (p2i  p2wf ), (3:56)
2,025 217 1,620 129
1,800 414 1,440 246 where
1,575 591 1,260 351  
1,350 747 1,080 444 0 0:007082kh kro 1
1,125 884 900 525 Ji   : (3:57)
re mo Bo i 2pi
900 1000 720 594 ln
rw
675 1096 540 651
450 1172 360 696
225 1227 180 729 The derivative of Eq. (3.45) with respect to the flowing
0 1263 0 750 bottom-hole pressure is

dqo 0
2Ji pwf : (3:58)
dpwf
3.6.2 Fetkovichs Method
The integral form of reservoir inflow relationship for This implies that the rate of change of q with respect to pwf
multiphase flow is expressed as is lower at the lower values of the inflow pressure.
Next, we can modify Eq. (3.58) to take into account that
pe
0:007082kh in practice pe is not constant but decreases as cumulative
0
q   f (p)dp, (3:53) production increases. The assumption made is that Ji will
ln rrwe p decrease in proportion to the decrease in average reservoir
wf
(drainage area) pressure. Thus, when the static pressure is
where f(p) is a pressure function. The simplest two-phase pe ( < pi ), the IPR equation is
flow case is that of constant pressure pe at the outer
boundary (re ), with pe less than the bubble-point pressure 0 pe 2
so that there is two-phase flow throughout the reservoir. qo Ji (p  p2wf ) (3:59)
pi e
kro
Under these circumstances, f(p) takes on the value , or, alternatively,
mo Bo
where kro is the relative permeability to oil at the satura-
tion conditions in the formation corresponding to the qo J 0 (p2e  p2wf ), (3:60)
pressure p. In this method, Fetkovich makes the key as- where
sumption that to a good degree of approximation, the
kro 0 pe
expression is a linear function of p, and is a straight J 0 Ji : (3:61)
mo Bo pi
line passing through the origin. If pi is the initial formation
pressure (i.e.,  pe ), then the straight-line assumption is These equations may be used to extrapolate into the
  future.
kro kro p
: (3:54) Example Problem 3.7 Using Fetkovichs method plot the
mo Bo mo Bo pi
IPR curves for a well in which pi is 2,000 psia and
0
Substituting Eq. (3.54) into Eq. (3.53) and integrating the Ji 5  104 stb=day-psia2 . Predict the IPRs of the well
latter gives at well shut-in static pressures of 1,500 and 1,000 psia.

2,500

Reservoir pressure = 2,250 psig


Reservoir pressure = 1,800 psig
2,000

1,500
pwf (psig)

1,000

500

0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
q (Stb/Day)

Figure 3.19 IPR curves for Example Problem 3.6.


Guo, Boyun / Computer Assited Petroleum Production Engg 0750682701_chap03 Final Proof page 42 3.1.2007 8:30pm Compositor Name: SJoearun

3/42 PETROLEUM PRODUCTION ENGINEERING FUNDAMENTALS

0
Solution The value of Jo at 1,500 psia is References
  bandakhlia, h. and aziz, k. Inflow performance relation-
0 1,500
Jo 5  104 ship for solution-gas drive horizontal wells. Presented
2,000
at the 64th SPE Annual Technical Conference and
3:75  104 stb=day (psia)2 , Exhibition held 811 October 1989, in San Antonio,
0
and the value of Jo at 1,000 psia is Texas. Paper SPE 19823.
  chang, m. Analysis of inflow performance simulation of
0 1,000
Jo 5  104 2:5  104 stb=day(psia)2 : solution-gas drive for horizontal/slant vertical wells.
2,000
0
Presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meet-
Using the above values for Jo and the accompanying pe in ing held 1821 May 1992, in Casper, Wyoming. Paper
Eq. (3.46), the following data points are calculated: SPE 24352.
dietz, d.n. Determination of average reservoir pressure
pe 2,000 psig pe 1,500 psig pe 1,000 psig from build-up surveys. J. Pet. Tech. 1965; August.
dake, l.p. Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering. New
pwf q pwf q pwf q York: Elsevier, 1978.
psig (stb/day) psig (stb/day) psig (stb/day) earlougher, r.c. Advances in Well Test Analysis. Dallad:
2,000 0 1,500 0 1,000 0 Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1977.
1,800 380 1,350 160 900 48 el-banbi, a.h. and wattenbarger, r.a. Analysis of com-
1,600 720 1,200 304 800 90 mingled tight gas reservoirs. Presented at the SPE
1,400 1,020 1,050 430 700 128 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held 6
1,200 1,280 900 540 600 160 9 October 1996, in Denver, Colorado. Paper SPE
1,000 1,500 750 633 500 188
36736.
800 1,680 600 709 400 210
600 1,820 450 768 300 228 el-banbi, a.h. and wattenbarger, r.a. Analysis of com-
400 1,920 300 810 200 240 mingled gas reservoirs with variable bottom-hole flow-
200 1,980 150 835 100 248 ing pressure and non-Darcy flow. Presented at the SPE
0 2,000 0 844 0 250 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held 58
October 1997, in San Antonio, Texas. Paper SPE
IPR curves are plotted in Fig. 3.20. 38866.
fetkovich, m.j. The isochronal testing of oil wells. Pre-
sented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Summary Exhibition held 30 September3 October 1973, Las
This chapter presented and illustrated various mathemat- Vegas, Nevada. Paper SPE 4529.
ical models for estimating deliverability of oil and gas joshi, s.d. Augmentation of well productivity with slant
reservoirs. Production engineers should make selections and horizontal wells. J. Petroleum Technol. 1988;
of the models based on the best estimate of his/her reser- June:729739.
voir conditions, that is, flow regime and pressure level. The retnanto, a. and economides, m. Inflow performance
selected models should be validated with actual well pro-
relationships of horizontal and multibranched wells in
duction rate and bottom-hole pressure. At least one test
point is required to validate a straight-line (single-liquid a solution gas drive reservoir. Presented at the 1998
flow) IPR model. At least two test points are required to SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held
validate a curvic (single-gas flow or two-phase flow) IPR 2730 September 1998, in New Orleans, Louisiana.
model. Paper SPE 49054.

2,500

Reservoir pressure = 2,000 psig


2,000 Reservoir pressure = 1,500 psig
Reservoir pressure = 1,000 psig

1,500
pwf (psig)

1,000

500

0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
q (stb/day)

Figure 3.20 IPR curves for Example Problem 3.7.


Guo, Boyun / Computer Assited Petroleum Production Engg 0750682701_chap03 Final Proof page 43 3.1.2007 8:30pm Compositor Name: SJoearun

RESERVOIR DELIVERABILITY 3/43

standing, m.b. Concerning the calculation of inflow per- Total compressibility, ct 0:000013 psi1
formance of wells producing from solution gas drive Drainage area, A 640 acres (re 2,980 ft)
reservoirs. J. Petroleum Technol. 1971; Sep.:11411142. Wellbore radius, rw 0:328 ft
vogel, j.v. Inflow performance relationships for solution- Skin factor, S 5.5
gas drive wells. J. Petroleum Technol. 1968; Jan.:8392. 3.4 Construct IPR of two wells in an unsaturated oil
reservoir using generalized Vogels equation. The fol-
lowing data are given:
Problems Reservoir pressure, p 5,500 psia
Bubble point pressure, pb 3,500 psia
3.1 Construct IPR of a vertical well in an oil reservoir.
Tested flowing bottom-hole pressure in Well A,
Consider (1) transient flow at 1 month, (2) steady-state
pwf 1 4,000 psia
flow, and (3) pseudosteady-state flow. The following
Tested production rate from Well A, q1 400 stb=day
data are given:
Tested flowing bottom-hole pressure in Well B,
Porosity, f 0:25 pwf 1 2,000 psia
Effective horizontal permeability, k 10 md Tested production rate from Well B,
Pay zone thickness, h 50 ft q1 1,000 stb=day
Reservoir pressure, pe or p 5,000 psia
3.5 Construct IPR of a well in a saturated oil reservoir
Bubble point pressure, pb 100 psia
using both Vogels equation and Fetkovichs equation.
Fluid formation volume factor, Bo 1:2
The following data are given:
Fluid viscosity, mo 1:5 cp
Total compressibility, ct 0:0000125 psi1 Reservoir pressure, p 3,500 psia
Drainage area, A 640 acres (re 2,980 ft) Tested flowing bottom-hole pressure, pwf 1
Wellbore radius, rw 0:328 ft 2,500 psia
Skin factor, S 5 Tested production rate at pwf 1 ,q1 600 stb=day
Tested flowing bottom-hole pressure, pwf 2
3.2 Construct IPR of a vertical well in a saturated oil
1,500 psia
reservoir using Vogels equation. The following data
Tested production rate at pwf 2 ,q2 900 stb=day
are given:
3.6 Determine the IPR for a well at the time when the
Porosity, f 0:2
average reservoir pressure will be 1,500 psig. The fol-
Effective horizontal permeability, k 80 md
lowing data are obtained from laboratory tests of well
Pay zone thickness, h 55 ft
fluid samples:
Reservoir pressure, p 4,500 psia
Bubble point pressure, pb 4,500 psia
Fluid formation volume factor, Bo 1:1
Fluid viscosity, mo 1:8 cp Reservoir properties Present Future
Total compressibility, ct 0:000013 psi1 Average pressure (psig) 2,200 1,500
Drainage area, A 640 acres (re 2,980 ft) Productivity index J  (stb/day-psi) 1.25
Wellbore radius, rw 0:328 ft Oil viscosity (cp) 3.55 3.85
Skin factor, S 2 Oil formation volume factor (rb/stb) 1.20 1.15
3.3 Construct IPR of a vertical well in an unsaturated oil Relative permeability to oil 0.82 0.65
reservoir using generalized Vogels equation. The fol-
lowing data are given:
3.7 Using Fetkovichs method, plot the IPR curve
Porosity, f 0:25 0
for a well in which pi is 3,000 psia and Jo 4  104
Effective horizontal permeability, k 100 md stb=day-psia2 . Predict the IPRs of the well at well
Pay zone thickness, h 55 ft shut-in static pressures of 2,500 psia, 2,000 psia,
Reservoir pressure, p 5,000 psia 1,500 psia, and 1,000 psia.
Bubble point pressure, pb 3,000 psia
Fluid formation volume factor, Bo 1:2
Fluid viscosity, mo 1:8 cp

Você também pode gostar