Oil Well IPR-Part1

Production System
production system

• The combined system

of the reservoir, the
wellbore and the
surface treatment
facilities is generally
referred to as the
production system.
production system

productivity of the system is dependent on the

pressure loss which occurs in several areas of
the flow system namely:
• The reservoir
• The wellbore
• The tubing string
• The choke
• The flow line
• The separator
www.abdn.ac.uk
Well Productivity
𝑷𝑹 − 𝑷𝒔𝒆𝒑 = ∆𝑷𝒔𝒚𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒎

𝑷𝑹 − 𝑷𝒔𝒆𝒑 = ∆𝑷𝑹𝑬𝑺 + ∆𝑷𝑩𝑯𝑪 + ∆𝑷𝑽𝑳 + ∆𝑷𝑺𝑼𝑹𝑭 + ∆𝑷𝑪𝑯𝑶𝑲𝑬

where;
𝑷𝑹 = Initial or average reservoir pressure
∆𝑷𝒔𝒚𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒎 = total system pressure drop
𝑷𝒔𝒆𝒑 = the required operating pressure for the separator.
∆𝑷𝑹𝑬𝑺= the pressure loss caused by the flow of fluid within the
reservoir to the wellbore.
∆𝑷𝑩𝑯𝑪= the total pressure loss generated by the design of the
fluid entry into the wellbore, ie, the bottom hole completion
configuration.
Well Productivity
∆𝑷𝑽𝑳=the vertical lift pressure loss caused by fluid flowing up the
production tubing string.

∆𝑷𝑽𝑳= ∆𝑷𝑭𝑹𝑰𝑪 + ∆𝑷𝑯𝑯𝑫 + ∆𝑷𝑲𝑬

∆𝑷𝑭𝑹𝑰𝑪=is the frictional pressure drop

∆𝑷𝑯𝑯𝑫=is the hydrostatic pressure drop
∆𝑷𝑲𝑬=is the kinetic energy pressure drop

∆𝑷𝑺𝑼𝑹𝑭=is the pressure loss generated in exiting the Xmas tree

and surface flowlines.
∆𝑷𝑪𝑯𝑶𝑲𝑬=is the pressure loss across the choke.
production system optimisation

To maximise the production rate each of the pressure

drops should be minimised.
production system optimisation
(i) To reduce the pressure loss due to flow in the
reservoir:
it is necessary to reduce the resistance to flow. This can
be accomplished either by reducing the formation rock
resistance, eg, increasing the permeability by acidisation
or fracturing or by reducing the resistance to flow due to
the fluid properties, eg, viscosity by utilising thermal
recovery techniques.
production system optimisation
(ii) To reduce the pressure loss due to the bottom
hole completion:
 An adequate perforation shot density can reduce
perforation pressure drop
 The deeper length of perforated interval the better the
production capacity of the system.
production system optimisation

(iii) the vertical lift pressure loss:

The higher the tubing diameter the higher the
production.

(iv) the surface flowline pressure loss:

by selecting an increased diameter pipeline can yield
significant improvement in field productivity in some
situations.
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE

Production performance involves matching up the

following three aspects:
• (1) Inflow performance of formation fluid flow
from formation to the wellbore.
• (2) Vertical lift performance as the fluids flow up
the tubing to surface.
• (3) Choke or bean performance as the fluids flow
through the restriction at surface.
 WELL INFLOW
PERFORMANCE
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE

Reservoir deliverability
is defined as the oil or gas production rate achievable
from reservoir at a given bottom-hole pressure.

• Reservoir deliverability can be mathematically

modeled on the basis of flow regimes such as:
 transient flow,
 steady state flow,
 pseudo–steady state flow.
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE

1. Steady-State Flow:
refers to the condition where the fluid properties
(pressure, velocity, flowrate) at any single point in
the system do not change over time. Or a reservoir
with a constant-pressure boundary. The constant-
pressure boundary can be an aquifer or a water
injection well.
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
For an oil reservoir:

kh( pe  pwf )
qo 
re
141.2Bo o (ln  S)
rw
 Skin

Fluids and particulates in the drilling mud invade the

formation immediately around the well during the drilling
process.

Particulates in the drilling mud can plug pores in the

formation.

The extent of invasion of fluids and particulates varies, but

the general result is reduced capacity for flow.

16
Petroleum engineers refer to this as formation
damage, and they quantitatively describe the extent
of permeability damage with a dimensionless
quantity “skin.”

An objective of well completion is to reduce skin.

 WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
Skin Factor:
• Some materials such as mud filtrate, cement slurry, or clay
particles to enter the formation during drilling or completion
operations and reduce the permeability around the wellbore.
This effect is commonly referred to as a wellbore damage and
the region of altered permeability is called the skin zone.
• Many other wells are stimulated by acidizing or fracturing,
which in effect increase the permeability near the wellbore.

Thus, the permeability near the wellbore is always different

from the permeability away from the well.
Radial Flow Darcy’s Equation

19
Radial Flow Darcy’s Equation

𝒒𝝁𝑩 𝒓𝒔
𝒑∗𝒘 = 𝒑𝒔 − 𝟏𝟒𝟏. 𝟐 𝒍𝒏
𝒌𝒉 𝒓𝒘

𝒒𝝁𝑩 𝒓𝒔
𝒑𝒘 = 𝒑𝒔 − 𝟏𝟒𝟏. 𝟐 𝒍𝒏
𝒌𝒔 𝒉 𝒓𝒘

∗
𝚫𝐩𝐬 = 𝐩𝐰 − 𝐩𝐰

𝐪𝐁𝝁 𝒓𝒔 𝒌
𝚫𝐩𝐬 = 𝟏𝟒𝟏. 𝟐 𝒍𝒏 −𝟏
𝒌𝒉 𝒓𝒘 𝒌𝒔

20
We define dimensionless pressure drop as skin s,

𝐪𝐁𝝁 𝒓𝒔 𝒌
𝚫𝐩𝐬 = 𝟏𝟒𝟏. 𝟐 𝒍𝒏 −𝟏
𝒌𝒉 𝒓𝒘 𝒌𝒔

𝐪𝐁𝝁
𝚫𝐩𝐬 = 𝟏𝟒𝟏. 𝟐 𝒔
𝒌𝒉

𝒓𝒔 𝒌 Hawkin’s formula for skin

𝒔 = 𝒍𝒏 −𝟏
𝒓𝒘 𝒌𝒔

21
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
For gas reservoir:

kh( e  wf )
qg 
r
1422T(ln e  S)
rw

qg= gas flow rate Mscf/day

p
2p
  zdp  m( p)   real gas potential  real gas pseudopresure
0 g
 WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE

• Factors causes reduction in permeability:

can produce additional pressure drop during flow. This additional
pressure drop is commonly referred to as Δpskin.
Pwfactual  Pwfideal P
SKIN

• Factors causes increase in permeability:

Can decrease the pressure drop.

The resulting effect of altering the permeability around the well

bore is called the skin effect.
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE

Near wellbore skin effect.

WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
• Hawkins (1956) proposed the following approach:

1 Bqs re
[Pe  Pw] 3 ln( )
7.08210 kh rw
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE

k = permeability of the formation, md

kskin = permeability of the skin zone, md S (skin factor)
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
 WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE

2. Semi (pseudo) steady state:

If no fluid flow occurs across the outer boundary then
the production of fluids must be compensated for by
the expansion of residual fluids in the reservoir. In
such a situation, production will cause a reduction in
pressure throughout the reservoir unit.

• ‘‘Pseudo–steady-state’’ flow is defined as a flow

regime where the pressure at any point in the
reservoir declines at the same constant rate over time.
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE

A sketch of a reservoir with no-flow

boundaries.
 WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
For an oil reservoir:
• Because the pe is not known at any given time, the
following expression using the average reservoir
pressure is more useful:

Where,

𝑝ҧ ∶ the average reservoir pressure in psia.

WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE

In reality each well drains a portion of the reservoir. Each of these

drainage volumes will be non-circular.
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
• The value of the shape factor CA can be found from:
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
For gas reservoir:

or, in terms of the pressure-squared approximation, gives:

 WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE

3. Transient Flow:
• ‘‘Transient flow’’ is defined as a flow regime where/when the
radius of pressure wave propagation from wellbore has not
reached any boundaries of the reservoir. During transient flow,
the developing pressure funnel is small relative to the reservoir
size. Therefore, the reservoir acts like an infinitively large
reservoir from transient pressure analysis point of view.
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
For oil reservoir:

or
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
For gas reservoir:
 WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR):
• IPR is used for evaluating reservoir deliverability in production
engineering. The IPR curve is a graphical presentation of the
relation between the flowing bottom-hole pressure and
production rate. The magnitude of the slope of the IPR curve is
called the ‘‘productivity index’’ (PI or J), that is,

q
J
( pe  pwf )
Apparently J is not a constant in the two-phase flow
region.
A typical IPR curve
 WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
IPR for Single (Liquid)-Phase Reservoirs
• These equations define the productivity index (J*) for flowing
bottom-hole pressures above the bubble-point pressure as
follows:
for radial transient flow around a vertical well:
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
• for radial steady-state flow around a vertical well,

• for pseudo–steady-state flow around a vertical well

WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE

• Since the productivity index (J*) above the bubble-point

pressure for a single (liquid)-phase reservoir is simply a straight
line drawn from the reservoir pressure to the bubble-point
pressure. If the bubble-point pressure is 0 psig, the absolute
open flow (AOF) is the productivity index (J*) times the
reservoir pressure.

qmax=AOF
 WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
Example:
• Construct IPR of a vertical well in an oil reservoir. Consider (1)
steady-state flow, and (2) pseudo–steady-state flow. The
following data are given:
WELL INFLOW
PERFORMANCE

www.abdn.ac.uk
WELL INFLOW
PERFORMANCE

www.abdn.ac.uk
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
IPR for Two-Phase Reservoirs
• Below the bubble-point pressure, the solution gas escapes
from the oil and become free gas. The free gas occupies
some portion of pore space, which reduces flow of oil. This
effect is quantified by the reduced relative permeability.
• Also, oil viscosity increases as its solution gas content drops.
The combination of the relative permeability effect and
the viscosity effect results in lower oil production rate at
a given bottom-hole pressure.

• This makes the IPR curve deviating from the linear trend
below bubble-point pressure.
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE

Only empirical equations are available for modeling IPR of two-

phase reservoirs.

• These empirical equations include:

• Vogel’s (1968) equation extended by Standing (1971),

• Fetkovich (1973) equation.

WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
• Vogel’s equation is still widely used in the industry. It is written
as:

• qmax : an empirical constant and its value represents the

maximum possible value of reservoir deliverability, or AOF.
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
• Fetkovich’s equation is written as:

• C and n: empirical constants and is related to qmax by

WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE

• Vogel and Fetkovich Eqs. are valid for average reservoir

pressure P being at and below the initial bubble-point pressure.
 WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
Example:
• Construct IPR of a vertical well in a saturated oil reservoir using
Vogel’s equation. consider pseudo–steady-state flow. The
following data are given:
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE

pwf pwf 2
q  618[1 0.2( )  0.8( ) ]
5651 5651
 WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
IPR for Partial Two-Phase Oil Reservoirs
• If the reservoir pressure is above the bubble-point pressure and
the flowing bottom-hole pressure is below the bubble point
pressure, a generalized IPR model can be formulated.
• This can be done by combining the straight-line IPR model for
single-phase flow with Vogel’s IPR model for two-phase flow.

Generalized Vogel IPR model for partial

two-phase reservoirs.

www.abdn.ac.uk
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE

• Inflow performance relationships

WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE

• According to the linear IPR model, the flow rate at bubble-point

pressure is:

• Based on Vogel’s IPR model, the additional flow rate caused by

a pressure below the bubble-point pressure is expressed as
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
• Thus, the flow rate at a given bottom-hole pressure that is
below the bubble-point pressure is expressed as
 WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
Example:
• Construct IPR of a vertical well in an undersaturated oil
reservoir using the generalized Vogel equation. consider
pseudo–steady-state flow. The following data are given:
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
 WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
Construction of IPR Curves Using Test Points
• The parameters (formation permeability, fluid viscosity,
drainage area, wellbore radius, and well skin factor) are not
always available.

Thus, test points (measured values of production rate and

flowing bottom-hole pressure) are frequently used for constructing
IPR curves.

• Constructing IPR curves using test points involves backing-

calculation of the constants in the IPR models.
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE

• For a single-phase oil reservoir, the model constant J* can be

determined by:

• q1 :is the tested production rate at

• pwf1: tested flowing bottom-hole pressure.
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
• For a partial two-phase reservoir, model constant J* in the
generalized Vogel equation must be determined based on the
range of tested flowing bottom-hole pressure.
• If the tested flowing bottom-hole pressure is greater than
bubble-point pressure, the model constant J* should be
determined by:

• If the tested flowing bottom-hole pressure is less than bubble-

point pressure, the model constant J* should be determined by:
 WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
Example:
• Construct IPR of two wells in an undersaturated oil reservoir
using the generalized Vogel equation. The following data are
given:
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE

• For a two-phase (saturated oil) reservoir, if the Vogel equation,

is used for constructing the IPR curve, the model constant qmax
can be determined by:

• The productivity index at and above bubble-point pressure can

then be estimated by:
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE

• If Fetkovich’s equation is used, two test points are required for

determining the values of the two model constant, that is

q1 and q2: the tested production rates at tested flowing bottom-

hole pressures pwf1 and pwf1, respectively.
 WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
Example:
• Construct IPR of a well in a saturated oil reservoir using both
Vogel’s equation and Fetkovich’s equation. The following data
are given:
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
WELL INFLOW PERFORMANCE
Future IPR
 Quite often it is necessary to predict the well’s inflow
performance for future times as the reservoir pressure
declines . Future well performance calculations require the
development of a relationship that can be used to predict
future maximum oil flow rates .
 There are several methods that are designed to address
the problem of how the IPR might shift as the reservoir
pressure declines . Some of these prediction methods
require the application of the MBE to generate future oil
saturation data as a function of reservoir pressure . In the
absence of such data , there are two simple
approximation methods that can be used in conjunction
with the Vogel method to predict future IPRs .
Standing (Vogel’s) Method
 Standing (1970) essentially extended the application of the
Vogel method to predict the future IPR of a well as a function
of reservoir pressure . His methodology is summarized in the
following steps:
 Step1. Using the current time condition and the available flow
test data and calculate qo,max from this equation:

 Step2. Calculate current zero-drawdown productivity index,

Standing Method
 Step3. Using fluid property , saturation , and relative
permeability data , calculate both ( kro/ μ Bo ) and
o f
( kro/μ Bo ) .
o p
 Step4. Calculate
 if the PVT data is not available then:
 Step5. Generate the future IPR by applying following
equation:
 Example

Determine the IPR for a well at the time when the

average reservoir pressure will be 1800 psig. The
following data are obtained from laboratory tests of
well fluid samples:
Fetkovich Method
 Muskat and Evinger (1942) attempted to account for the
observed non-linear flow behavior (i.e., IPR) of wells by
calculating a theoretical productivity index from the pseudo-
steady state flow equation. They expressed Darcy’s equation
as:

𝑃𝑟
 Where the pressure function f(p) is defined by: 𝑓 𝑝 = 𝑘 𝑟 𝜇 𝑜 𝐵𝑜

 Where:
Kro :Oil relative permeability;K:absolute permeability,mD
Bo :oil formation volume factor; μo :Oil Viscosity , cp
Fetkovich Method
 Fetkovich (1973) suggested that the pressure function f(p)
can basically fall into one of the following two regions:
 Region 1. Under Saturated Region: The pressure function
f(p) falls into this region if P>Pb . Since oil relative
permeability in this region equals unity(i.e., Kro=1) then:
1
𝑓 𝑝 =( )
𝑜 𝜇 𝐵 𝑃
 Fetkovich observed that the variation in f(p) is only slight
and the pressure function is considered constant.
 Region 2. Saturated Region: in the saturated region where
P<Pb , Fetkovich showed that kro/μ B changes linearly
o o
with pressure and that the straight line passes through the
origin.
1
𝑓 𝑝 = (𝑃)
𝜇 𝐵 𝑜 𝑃𝑏𝑃 𝑏
Fetkovich Method
Fetkovich Method
 In the application of the straight-line pressure
function , there are three cases that must be
considered:
 1 𝑃𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑃𝑤𝑓 > 𝑃𝑏
 2 𝑃𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑃𝑤𝑓 < 𝑃𝑏
 (3) 𝑃𝑟> 𝑃𝑏 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑃𝑤𝑓 < 𝑃𝑏
 These three cases are presented in the following
slides.
Fetkovich Method
 Case 1: 𝑃𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑃𝑤𝑓 > 𝑃𝑏
 In this case pressure function is assumed constant:

Where Bo and μo are evaluated at (Pr+Pwf)/2

Fetkovich Method
 Case 2: 𝑃𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑃𝑤𝑓 < 𝑃𝑏
Flow After Flow Data
Fetkovich Method
 To account for the possibility of non-Darcy
flow(turbulent flow) in oil wells , Fetkovich introduced
the component n:
𝑞𝑜 = 𝐶(𝑃𝑟2 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓2)𝑛
 The value of n ranges from 1.0 for complete laminar
flow to 0.5 for highly turbulent flow.
 Straight line having a slope of 1/n and an intercept of
C at 𝑝𝑟2 − 𝑝 𝑤𝑓 2 = 1 The value of C can also be
calculated using any point on the linear plot once n has
been determined . Once the value of C and n are
determined from test data , Fetkovich equation can be
used to generate a complete IPR.
Fetkovich Method
 To construct the future IPR when the average
reservoir pressure declines to , Fetkovich assumed
that the performance coefficient C is a linear
function of the average reservoir pressure and
therefore the value of C can be adjusted as:
𝑃𝑟 𝑓
(𝐶)𝑓= (𝐶)𝑝×
𝑃𝑟 𝑝
 Fetkovich assumed that the value of the exponent
n would not change as the reservoir pressure
declines.
Fetkovich Method
 Klins and Clark (1993) developed empirical
correlations that correlate the changes in Fetkovich
performance coefficient C and the flow exponent n
with decline in the reservoir pressure . They
proposed these correlations:
Fetkovich Method
 Case 3:
Klins and Clark Method
 Klins and Clark (1991) proposed an inflow expression similar
in form to that of Vogel’s and can be used to estimate future
IPR data . To improve the predictive capability of Vogel’s
equation , the authors introduced a new exponent d to Vogel’s
expression . The authors proposed the following relationships:
Comparison of Methods
 Main disadvantages of Vogel’s methodology lies with
its sensitivity to the match point ,i.e., the stabilized flow
test data .
 Main disadvantages of Standing’s methodology is that
it requires reliable permeability information ; in
addition , it also requires material balance calculations
to predict oil saturations at future average reservoir
pressures .
 Fetkovich method has the advantage over Standing’s
methodology in that it does not require the tedious
material balance calculations to predict oil saturations
at future average reservoir pressures .
THE END