SPE
SPE 20720
Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas-Drive
Slanted/Horizontal Wells
A.M. Cheng, Nat!. Inst. for Petroleum & Energy Research
SPE Member
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 65th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in New Orleans, LA, September 23-26, 1990.
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.matenal, as presented: does not necessanly reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Edltonal 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 Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.
ABSTRACT
Since 1968, the Vogel equation has been used extensively and
successfully for analyzing the inflow performance relationship (IPR) of
flowing oil wells under solution-gas drive. Oil well productivity can be
rapidly estimated by using the Vogel IPR curve and well outflow
performance. However, the Vogel curve was originally developed for
conventional vertical wells and may not be valid for slanted and
horizontal wells. The development of IPR's for slanted and horizontal
wells by using a vertical/horizontal/slanted well reservoir simulator is
presented. Several important results were observed. First, the IPR's
for slanted and horizontal wells are similar to the parabolic behavior of
the VogeilPR curve. Second, IPR data generated for slanted wells
by using the Vogel curve can differ as much as 22% from that of the
new IPR data and 27% for horizontal wells. Third, the right curvature
shift of the Vogel curve for slanted and horizontal wells indicates that
these wells are more efficient producers than vertical wells from a
subsurface fluid flow viewpoint. Fourth, a minimum slant angle of 45
degrees is required to increase oil productivity by 50% over that of a
vertical well. A slant angle of 60 degrees or greater can increase oil
productivity more than two times that of a vertical well. The newly
developed IPR data are compared with existing empirical and field
data. Several application examples are presented to illustrate the use
of these IPR's to predict slanted/horizontal well productivity.
INTRODUCTION
Oil well productivity (flow capacity) computation requires
knowledge of the well inflow performance relationship (IPR). Simply
stated, an IPR describes the relationship of well flowing bottomhole
pressure (BHP) versus flow rate (q) at a stabilized reservoir pressure.
Several methods are available to prepare an IPR. Examples include
the use of Darcy's equation, an empirical equation, and a reservoir
simulator. For quick and accurate generation of an IPR curve, the use
of the empirical Vogel equation1 developed in 1968 has been the
most commonly used method in the oil industry. This equation
analyzes the two-phase (oil and gas) IPR performance of a well
producing from a reservoir under the solution gas drive mechanism.
It was developed from a computer reservoir simulator solution to
several solution gas drive reservoirs and for different fluid properties.
The Vogel equation is simple and is parabolic:
qolQomax = 1 - 0.2 (Pw//pr) - 0.8(Pw//Pr)2
References and figures at end of paper.
In modern well nodal systems analysis 2 of well productiVity
performance, the Vogel equation has become a standard tool for
preparing the IPR for a given well. Use of the Vogel equation is
extremely simple. One set of stabilized well flow test data (Pwf, qo)
suffices to generate the unique IPR for a given well. The obvious
advantage of the Vogel equation is that it does not reqUire data for
formation permeability, pay thickness, oil viscosity, and oil relative
permeability. However, the Vogel equation was originally developed
for conventional vertical wells, and can generate erroneous IPR
results for slanted (directional) or horizontal wells.
Most offshore wells drilled and completed are directional.
Numerous land wells in the Arctic and in other places such as man-
made islands are also directionally drilled. With recent advances in
drilling technology, many horizontal wells have been drilled and
completed to boost oil and gas production from reservoirs that are
not economically productive when completed with conventional
vertical wells. Likewise, horizontal wells have been drilled to produce
oil in novel oil mining projects. Despite its inaccurate results, the
Vogel equation has been extensively used to analyze the
productivity of directional wells.
The generation of a Vogel-type IPR equation for a slanted
(directional) well requires the use of a computer reservoir simulator
that can analyze the flow behavior of such a well. Until recently, no
slanted well reservoir simulator had been reported. Its nonexistence
may explain why no Vogel-type IPR equation for directional wells has
been developed over the past two decades. Recently, NIPER
developed a three-dimensional, three-phase reservoir simulator for
analyzing vertical, horizontal, and slanted wells3 that can be used to
generate IPR equations for slanted and horizontal wells. In this
simulator, a slanted/horizontal well model was developed to calculate
the productivity index for each reservoir grid block penetrated by a
slanted/horizontal wellbore.
The principal goal of this project was to develop IPR's for slanted
or horizontal oil wells producing under the solution gas drive
mechanism from homogeneous and isotropic reservoirs. Accurate
IPR's for slanted/horizontal wells offer rapid and reliable well
productivity results that can be used for making the important
decision of whether to drill vertical, slanted, or horizontal wells in a
given reservoir.
(1 ) LITERATURE REVIEW
IPR's of horizontal and slanted wells can be generated using the
productivity equations presented in references 4 through 8. Most of
77
2 INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS FOR SOLUTION-GAS DRIVE SLANTEDIHORIZONTAL WELLS
these equations assume an incompressible singe-phase oil flow and
could produce erroneous resuits for wells producing under solution
gas drive. In addition, these equations are analytical in nature and
require reservoir properties such as formation permeability to
compute well productivity. A very recent paper9 presented empirical
IPR's for solution-gas drive horizontal wells, which were generated by
using two black-oil simulators. EmpiricallPR data for slanted wells are
not available in the literature.
ASSUMPTIONS
The production performance of an oil well producing from a
solution-gas drive reservoir is analyzed using NIPER's
vertical/horizontal/slanted well simulator. There are several major
assumptions. The well is located in the center of a completely
bounded reservoir of rectangular prism geometry. The reservoir is
homogeneous and isotropic with a constant water saturation. Thus,
permeability and porosity in x, y, and z directions are equal. Water
saturation is immobile during depletion of the well. Therefore, only
two-phase flow, oil and gas, are considered in the reservoir. The well
is producing under a semisteady state condition. Capillary pressure
forces of reservoir fluids are neglected.
GENERATION OF IPR DATA FOR SLANTED AND
HORIZONTAL WELLS
Procedures
The following procedures were adopted to generate IPR data for
slanted and horizontal wells producing from solution-gas drive
reservoirs.
1. Select adequate reservoir grid for reliable data generation.
2. Compare simulator and Vogel IPR data to verify simulator
capability to reproduce Vogel data.
3. Select input data for generation of IPR data for slanted and
horizontal wells.
4. Generate IPR data at various cumulative oil production and
slant angles.
5. Analyze IPR data.
6. Perform regression analysis on generated IPR data.
Grid Selection
Essentially, simulation generation of IPR data for a well is
accomplished by recording the related flowing bottomhole pressure
and oil flow rate obtained from single-well depletion simulation runs.
In this project, a well is to be located in the center of a rectangular grid
as much as possible such that it is surrounded by equal drainage
areas. As hundreds of simulation runs are required to generate IPR
data for slanted and horizontal wells, the selection of an appropriate
simulation grid size that can generate reliable resuits with minimal
computer time is important. In this work, a sensitivity study of areal
grid size on simulated results of vertical well performance was
performed. Three different rectangular grid sizes, 5x5x1, 7x7x1, and
9x9x1, were tested using the Case 1 reservoir data (Table 1) of
Vogel. 1 Table 2 shows the dimensions of these three grids. A
single-well depletion simulation study was performed for these three
cases. The well was located in the center of the grid and was on
constant rate constraint production (Qo = 50 SOPD) for 605 days. As
the Vogel IPR equation appears to fit the IPR data best in the oil
recovery (NoIN) range between 0 and 10%, a simulation time of 605
days was chosen because oil recovery would be 10% at that time.
The effect of the three different grid dimensions on average reservoir
pressure versus production time is shown in Table 3. The 5x5x1 grid
generates simulated pressure results in close agreement with those
of the 7x7x1 and 9x9x1 grids. Assuming the pressure data from the
finer 9x9x1 grid as the most accurate, the maximum error of the
pressure data from the coarser 5x5x1 grid is only 0.52%. Therefore,
a reservoir grid of minimum areal size 5x5x1 was selected to generate
IPR data. For comparison of simulated IPR data with Vogel data of a
vertical well, a 5x5x1 grid was adopted. For generation of IPR data for
slanted and horizontal wells, a finer and more accurate 5x5x3 grid was
chosen (Fig. 1).
78
SPE20720
Comparison of Simulator and Vogel IPR Data
It is imperative that NIPER's vertical/horizontal/slanted well
reservoir simulator be able to generate Vogel's IPR data for a vertical
well. The reason is obvious. If the simulator cannot reproduce Vogel
data, then it probably cannot produce reliable IPR data for a slanted or
horizontal well. Therefore, the simulated flowing bottomhole
pressure vs. oil flow rate data must reasonably agree with the Vogel
IPR curve data. Selected IPR data of 16 cases including the base
case (Table 4) presented in Vogel's paper1 were compared with data
generated from the NIPER verticaVhorizontaVslanted well reservoir
simulator. To obtain acceptable agreement between the simulated
IPR and Vogel's data, the original simulator well index input (or skin
factor) had to be adjusted. No other data adjustments were
necessary. The well index (WI) is defined as follows:
WI. 0.0078 (kh)
In(rolrw) + S (2)
The radius ro may be calculated from Peaceman's formula10:
k Ik )112 ~2 + (k Ik )112 ~y21112
ro =0.28 I( y x x Y
(kylkx)1/4 + (kxlky)1/4
(3)
Table 4 presents the normalized Vogel IPR data and the
normalized simulator IPR data when the cumulative oil production
(Np/N) has reached 0.1%. More than 160 simulation runs were
executed to obtain these data. Also shown in the legend of Table 4
is a brief description of the 16 cases of input data, which differ from
each other by well spacing, absolute formation permeability, skin
effect, fluid PVT, and relative permeability properties. The
normaliZed pressure (p') and rate (q') are defined as follows: p' =
Pwf/Pr and q' = QoIQomax with Qomax = maximum oil flow rate at 14.7
psia flowing bottomhole pressure, Pwf, and current reservoir
pressure, Pro Table 5 shows the normalized flow rate (q') deviation
(DELTAQ) from Vogel data at p',. 0.1, 0.2,..., 0.9, for all 16 cases.
Excellent agreement between simUlated q' and Vogel q' was noted in
all cases except in cases 4, 5, 6, 9 and 14, for which the q' deviation
was still in the acceptable range from 0.112 to 0.270. Therefore, the
NIPER simulator can produce reliable IPR data at various reservoir
conditions.
Selection of Input Data
The VogeilPR equation,l q' = 1 - 0.2(p') - 0.8(p')2, was obtained
by curve fitting the dimensionless IPR curves under the 16 different
cases with various reservoir conditions described in Table 4. This
equation is valid for vertical wells producing from solution-gas drive
reservoirs. Thus, if a set of reservoir simulator data can reproduce the
Vogel equation as close as possible, then the set of data can be
used to generate IPR data for slanted and horizontal wells. This is the
underlying principle for selecting the simulator input data for
generation of IPR data for these wells. Using the 5x5x3 grid
described in Fig. 1, the base case (Case 1) data was fine tuned in the
simulator by proper well productivity index (or skin factor) adjustment
to reproduce the Vogel IPR data within 0.5%. As a result, the
simulated IPR data represent the empirical Vogel equation: q' = 1 -
0.2 (p') - 0.8 (p')2. Accordingly, the base easel (Case 1) fluid PVT,
relative permeability, and petrophysical data were selected as the
principal data to calculate IPR data for slanted and horizontal wells.
Generation of IPR Data
As the Vogel equation appears to fit the IPR data best in the oil
recovery (Np/N) range between 0 and 10%, IPR data were
generated for slanted and horizontal wells that have depleted 0.1, 2,
4, 6, 8, and 10% of the original oil-in-place. The selected slant angles
were 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 85, and 88.56 degrees. The IPR data for a
horizontal well (slant angle = 90 degrees) penetrated through the
middle of the well payzone were generated. Figure 1 Illustrates the
well orientation in the reservoir grid. A slant angle of 88.56 degrees
represents the maximum wellbore length draining from the
corresponding grid. A total of 540 simulation runs were executed to
obtain these IPR data.
 AARON M. CHENG
SPE20720
Table 6 presents the average normalized IPR data for Np'N = 0.1,
2,4, 6, 8, and 10% at each selected slant angle. Figure 2 depicts
these simulator results and the reference Vogel curve. The
normalized initial flow rate at maximum pressure drawdown vs. slant
angle for Np'N = 0.1% case is illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4. To test the
validity of the generated IPR data at various slant angles, q' was also
obtained at p' = 0.5 and Np'N =0.1 % for each selected slant angle for
all the 16 cases of reservoir data presented in Vogel's paper. 1 Table
7 shows these data, and Table 8 compares the average q' of the 16
cases for each slant angle at NplN = 0.1% with that of the base case
generated earlier. Excellent agreement was noted under various
slant angle cases; the q' deviation was within 0.3%. Close
agreement resuits in this spot test provide strong confidence for the
generated IPR data to be valid. Detailed IPR data generated in this
study can be found in reference 11.
Analysis of Generated IPR Data
Examination of the generated IPR data for slanted and horizontal
wells presented in Table 6 and Fig. 2 indicates the following
interpretations.
1. All IPR curves appear to be parabolic, or Vogel-like. The
parabolic characteristic of IPR of horizontal wells (slant angle = 90
degrees) agrees with field observations 12 and computer
simulations9 recently presented in the literature.
2. The IPR curve for a slant angle of 15 degrees shifts slightly to
the left of the Vogel curve. All other IPR curves for slant angles of
30, 45, 60, 75, 85, 88.56 and 90 degrees shift to the right of the
Vogel curve.
3. The IPR curve for a 15- or 30- degree slanted well is not much
different from the Vogel curve.
4. ObVious shifting of the Vogel curve to the right starts at a slant
angle of 45 degrees. Interestingly, this curvature shift 'ceases' at 75
degrees for the slanted wells under study.
5. The normalized IPR curve of the horizontal well with an
equivalent slant angle of 90 degrees represents the maximum
curvature shift to the right of the Vogel curve.
6. Depending on the well deviation, IPR data generated for
slanted wells by using the Vogel curve can differ as much as 22%
from that of the current IPR data and 27"10 for horizontal wells.
7. As the initial productivity of a slanted or horizontal well is
usually higher than that of a vertical well, the right curvature shift of
the Vogel curve indicates that slanted and horizontal wells are more
efficient producers from a subsurface fluid flow viewpoint.
8. In addition, based on Figs. 3 and 4, productivity ratios of
slanted/horizontal well productivity to vertical well productivity, qs/qv,
range from 1.00 to 52.93. A minimum slant angle of 45 degrees is
required to increase oil productivity by 50% over that of a vertical well.
A slant angle of 60 degrees or greater can increase oil productivity
more than two times that of a vertical well. These resuits are similar to
Joshi's4 findings for a slanted well.
Regression Analysis
As the average normalized IPR data for each selected slant angle
appear to be parabolic in nature, they were curved fitted by using a
quadratic regression model, q' =ao + a1 (p') + a2(p')2, where 80 a1, and
a2 are regression coefficients. The regression analysis was
performed by using a sophisticated mathematical software. 13 Table 9
summarizes the regression equations for IPR's of slanted wells with
various slant angles of 15,30,45,60,75,85,88.56 and 90 degrees.
Detailed regression resuits of the IPR data can be be found in
reference 11.
79
3
APPLICATION EXAMPLES
The following three hypothetical examples demonstrate the use
of the developed IPR data to predict well productivity for slanted and
horizontal wells. Nodal system analysis2 is utilized to account for both
the reservoir inflow and tubing outflow performance of the well.
Example 1. Complete venlcal or 4S-degree well
Reservoir A can be completed with conventional vertical or
directional (slant) wells. Determine the well productivity for a vertical
and a 45-degree well at a flowing wellhead pressure of 120 psig.
Table 10 shows the basic reservoir properties and the flow test
results. Tubing id = 2.441 inches.
Solution
Using the Vogel curve for a vertical well and the IPR data or
equation for a 45-degree well (Table 6 or 9), IPR's for these two wells
can be generated. The tubing outflow performance data for a vertical
and 45-degree well are obtained from reference 14. The inflow and
outflow performances are plotted on the same graph (Fig. 5). The
intersections of IPR's and outflow curves indicate well productivity.
From Fig. 5, well productivity is 650 BOPD for the vertical well and
800 BOPD for the 45-degree well. Thus, a 45-degree well delivers
23.1 % more oil at a flowing wellhead pressure of 120 psig.
Example 2. Complete venlcal or 7S-degree well
Because of the encouraging productivity resuits for completing a
45-degree well vs. a vertical well in reservoir A presented in example
1, management will consider a more directional well with a slant angle
of 75 degrees. Determine the well productivity at this slant angle and
compare its performance with that of a vertical well.
Solution
Following the procedures described in example 1, the total well
system analysis plot is obtained (Fig. 6). Well productivity for the
vertical well is 650 BOPD and 630 BOPD for the 75-degree well.
Thus, even though the 75-degree well has as much as 3 times more
inflow efficiency than that of the vertical well, system analysis
indicates the 75-degree slant well produces less than a vertical well.
This reduction of oil productivity is due to the increased frictional
pressure drop through the extended length of the 75-degree slant
well tubing (30,900 ft of 75-degree well vs. 8,000 ft of vertical well).
This example indicates that completion of directional wells must be
carefUlly planned to obtain maximum well productivity.
Example 3. Drill venlcal or horizontal wells
It is decided to drill horizontal wells to boost oil production in
Reservoir A presented in example 1. Determine well productiVity for
a horizontal well at a flowing wellhead pressure of 120 psig. Compare
this with the vertical well productivity. Assume the horizontal well
penetrates through the middle of the payzone and the well length is
1,000 ft. Also assume the pressure drop for flow through the
horizontal well is negligible. Tubing id = 2.441 inches.
Solution
If a horizontal well flow test is not available, its productivity can be
calculated using analytical equations or from charts. 4-8 As the
vertical well prOductivity, J v , is known from the flow test, the
horizontal well productivity, Jh, is estimated by using charts4 and is
about 7 times more than Jv. Therefore, qomax = 8,750 BOPD for the
horizontal well, and IPR data can be generated using Table 6 or the
corresponding regression equation. Figure 7 shows that the
productivity performance of the vertical well is 650 BOPD and that of
the horizontal well is 1,610 BOPD. Thus, a horizontal well produces
approximately 2.5 times more than a vertical well. To make a final
decision on selecting a vertical or horizontal well, the additional cost
of drilling horizontal wells must be considered.
4 INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS FOR SOLUTION-GAS DRIVE SLANTED/HORIZONTAL WELLS SPE20720

APPLICATION EXAMPLES RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The following three hypothetical examples demonstrate the use
of the developed IPR data to predict well productivity for slanted and
horizontal wells. Nodal system analysis2 is utilized to account for both
the reservoir inflow and tubing outflow performance of the well.
Example 1. Complete vertical or 45-degree well
1. Inflow performance relationships (IPR's) for slanted
and horizontal wells under solution-gas drive were generated
using NIPER's vertical/horizontal/slanted well simulator. These
IPR's are valid for homogeneous and isotropic reservoir systems.
The IPR data are shown in Table 6 and Fig. 2; the related
regression equations are summarized in Table 9.

Reservoir A can be completed with conventional vertical or
directional (slant) wells. Determine the well productivity for a vertical
and a 45-degree well at a flowing wellhead pressure of 120 psig.
Table 10 shows the basic reservoir properties and the flow test
results. Tubing id = 2.441 inches.
2. The IPR's for slanted and horizontal wells are similar to
the parabolic behavior of the VogeilPR curve. The IPR curve for
a 15-degree slant well shifts slightly to the left of the Vogel curve,
and the IPR curves for 30,45,60,75,85,88.56, and 90 degrees
(horizontal well) all progressively shift to the right.

Solution 3. If the maximum productivity of a slanted or a horizontal

well is greater than that of a vertical well, a right shift of the Vogel
Using the Vogel curve for a vertical well and the IPR data or curve indicates a slanted or horizontal well to be a more efficient
equation for a 45-degree well (Table 6 or 9), IPR's for these two wells producer than a vertical well.
can be generated. The tubing outflow performance data for a vertical
and 45-degree well are obtained from reference 14. The inflow and 4. The Vogel curve (equation) may be used to represent
outflow performances are plotted on the same graph (Fig. 5). The the IPR's of slanted wells with a slant angle less than 45 degrees
intersections of IPR's and outflow curves indicate well productivity. without significant errors. IPR's of other slant wells and horizontal
From Fig. 5, well productivity is 650 BOPD for the vertical well and wells should be represented by the IPR data generated in this
800 BOPD for the 45-degree well. Thus, a 45-degree well delivers project.
23.1 % more oil at a flowing wellhead pressure of 120 psig.
5. The productivity performance of slanted and
Example 2. Complete vertical or 7S-degree well horizontal wells vs. that of vertical wells should be analyzed by
total well system analysis that accounts for both the well inflow
Because of the encouraging productivity results for completing a and outflow behavior. A slanted or horizontal well with a higher
45-degree well vs. a vertical well in reservoir A presented in example inflow productivity than a vertical well may deliver less oil to the
1, management will consider a more directional well with a slant angle surface because of the additional frictional pressure drop
of 75 degrees. Determine the well productivity at this slant angle and through the extended length of the well tUbing.
compare its performance with that of a vertical well.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Solution
. The author acknowledges the financial support of this
Following the procedures described in example 1, the total well project by the U. S. Department of Energy under Cooperative
system analysis plot is obtained (Fig. 6). Well productivity for the Agreement DE-FC22-83FE60149. Special thanks are due to
vertical well is 650 BOPD and 630 BOPD for the 75-degree well. Fred Burtch and Thomas Reid of the DOE Bartlesville Project
Thus, even though the 75-degree well has as much as 3 times more Office for their initiation and supervision of this project and to
inflow efficiency than that of the vertical well, system analysis Ming-Ming Chang of NIPER for technical support of the
indicates the 75-degree slant well produces less than a vertical well. vertical/horizontal/slanted well simulator.
This reduction of oil productivity is due to the increased frictional
pressure drop through the extended length of the 75-degree slant NOMENCLATURE
well tubing (30,900 ft of 75-degree well vs. 8,000 ft of vertical well).
This example indicates that completion of directional wells must be h layer thickness (z-dimension) of a reservoir
carefully planned to obtain maximum well productiVity. grid-block, ft
k mean x-y permeability, rnd
Example 3. Drill vertical or horizontal wells kx permeability in x-direction, md
ky permeability in y-direction, md
It is decided to drill horizontal wells to boost oil production in L well length, ft
Rese.rvoir A presented i~ example 1. Determine well productivity for NplN = cumulative oil produced, fraction of original
a ~nzontal well at a floWing wellhead pressure of 120 psig. Compare well oil-in-place
thiS with the vertical well productivity. Assume the horizontal well p' normalized pressure = Pwf/pr
penetrates through the middle of the payzone and the well length is Pb bubblepoint pressure, psig
1,000 ft. Also assume the pressure drop for flow through the flowing bottomhole pressure, psig
horizontal well is negligible. Tubing id = 2.441 inches.
Pwf
Pr average reservoir pressure, psig
Solution q' normalized flow rate = qolqomax
qo oil flow rate, STB/D or BOPD
If a horizontal well flow test is not available, its productivity can be qomax = maximum oil flow rate, STB/D or BOPD
calculated using analytical equations or from charts. 4-8 As the qs/qv ratio of slanted well productivity (qs) to vertical
vertical well productivity, J v , is known from the flow test, the well productivity (qv), fraction
horizontal well productivity, Jh. is estimated by using charts4 and is = equivalent grid-block radius, ft
about 7 times more than Jv. Therefore, qomax =8,750 BOPD for the wellbore radius, ft
horizontal well, and IPR data can be generated using Table 6 or the layer skin factor
corresponding regression equation. Figure 7 shows that the = well index
productivity performance of the vertical well is 650 BOPD and that of x-direction grid-block dimension, ft
the ho~izontal well i~ 1,610 BOPD. Thus, a horizontal well produces = y-direction grid-block dimension, ft
approximately 2.5 times more than a vertical well. To make a final = z-direction grid-block dimension, ft
decision on selecting a vertical or horizontal well, the additional cost
of drilling horizontal wells must be considered. Greek Symbol

o = well slant angle, degree

80
SPE20720 AARON M. CHENG 5

REFERENCES

1. Vogel, J.V.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution 10. Peaceman, D. W.: "Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in
Gas Drive Wells," J. Pet. Tech. (January 1968), pp. 83-93. Numerical Reservoir Simulation with Nonsquare Grid Blocks and
2. Mach, J., Proano, E., and Brown, K. E.: "A Nodal Approach for Anisotropic Permeability," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (June 1983) pp.
Applying Systems Analysis to the Flowing and Artificial Light Oil 531-43.
or Gas Well," SPE paper 8025. 11. Cheng, A. M.: Development of an Inflow Performance
3. Chang, M. M.: "Simulation of Production From Wells with Relationship (IPR) for a Slanted/Horizontal Well, Department of
Horizontal/Slanted Laterals," Department of Energy Report No. Energy Report No. NIPER-458 (March 1990).
NIPER-326 (Revised, October, 1988). 12. Sherrard, D. W., Brice, B. W. and MacDonald, D.G.:
4. Joshi, S. D.: "Augmentation of Well Productivity With Slant "Applications of Horizontal Wells at Prudhoe Bay," J. Pet. Tech.
and Horizontal Wells," J. Pet. Tech. (June 1988) pp. 729-39. (November 1987) pp. 1417-1425.
5. Karcher, B. J., Giger, F.M. and Combe, J.: "Some Practical 13. IMSL Users Manual, Edition 9.2, IMSL, Inc., Houston, TX
Formulas To Predict Horizontal Wells' Behavior," paper SPE (1984).
15430 presented at the 1986 SPE Ann. Tech. Conf. and 14. Brown, K.E.: The Technology of Artifical Lift Methods, v. 4,
Exhibition, New Orleans, Oct 5-8. PennWell Publishing Co., Tulsa (1984).
6. Babu, D. K. and Odeh, A.S.: "Productivity of a Horizontal
Well," paper SPE 18298 presented at the 1988 SPE Ann. Tech.
Conf. and Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 2-5. 81 METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS
7. Mukherjee, H. and Economides, M. J.: "A Parametric
Comparison of Horizontal and Vertical Well Performance," paper acres x 4.046 873 E+03 =m2
SPE18303 presented at the 1989 SPE Ann. Tech. Conf. and bbl x 1.589 873 E-01 =m3
Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 2-5. D x 8.640 000 E+04 =s
8. Economides, M. J. et al.: "Performance and Stimulation of degree x 1.745 329 E-02 =rad
Horizontal Wells," World Oil (June 1989) pp. 41-45. ft x 3.048 000 E-01 =m
9. Bendakhlia, H. and Aziz, K.: "Inflow Performance Relationship md x 9.689 233 E-04 =~
for Solution-Gas Drive Horizontal Wells," Paper SPE 19823 psi x 6.894 757 E+OO =kPa
presented at the 1989 SPE Ann. Tech. Conf. and Exhibition,
San Antonio, Oct. 8-11.

TABLE 1 Base data (based on case 1 of Vogel 1 )

Initial reservoir pressure, psia 2144.7

Bubblepoint pressure, psia 2144.7
Reservoir drainage area, acres 20
Well radius, ft 0.33
Net pay, ft 23.5
Porosity, % 13.9
Permeability, rod 20
Initial water saturation, % 19.4
Critical gas saturation, % 2.1
Oil gravity, API 40
Gas gravity 0.8
Formation compressibility," psi- 1 4.2 x 10-6

"Data not used in Vogel. 1

TABLE 2 Reservoir grid dimensions

Grid 5x5x1 7x7x1 9x9x1

ill<,ft 186.68 133.34 103.71

~y,ft 186.68 133.34 103.71

~,ft 23.50 23.50 23.50

81
 TABLE 3 Comparison of average reservoir pressure, Pr, versus time, t, under TABLE 5.- q' Deviation from QVOGEL (DELTAQ)
three different grid sizes

Grid 5x5x1 7x7x1 9x9x1

Q.mOiProd= 0.10"10
TlII1e Cum 011 prod. Pr Pr Pr 6PS 6P7
days "10 psla psla psia "10 "10 P DELTAO IorCase
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0.01 0.00 2144 2144 2144 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.027 0.005 0.002 0.001
0.100 0.000 0.005 0.074
182.50 3.02 1748 1748 1748 0.00 0.00 0.050 0.020 0.000 0.000
6.03 1349 1348 1347 0.15 0.07 0.200 0.001 0.007 0.000 0.138
365.00 0.001
547.50 9.09 1029 1024 1025 0.39 0.10 0.300 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.193 0.074 0.057 0.001
605.00 10.00 957 956 962 0.52 0.62 Q.400 0.000 0.013 0.001 0.243 0.094 0.100 0.005 0.004
0.500 0.001 0.014 0.001 0.286 0.113 0.143 0.003 0.003
0.600 0.001 0.017 0.001 0.324 0.137 0.181 0.004 0.004
0.700 0.000 0.018 0.001 0.359 0.153 0.214 0.003 0.003
top, =Ip, (7x7x1 grid) - P, (9x9x1 grid) x 100"10
6Ils=1 0.800 0.001 0.022 0.000 0.391 0.172 0.244 0.004 0.004
p,(9x9x 1 grid)
0.900 0.004 0.027 0.001 0.418 0.187 0.269 0.007 0.009

Avg
DELTAO 0.001 0.015 0.001 0.270 0.112 0.137 0.003 0.003

TABLE 4 Comparison of simulator and Vogel IPR data p DaTAO IorCase

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Cum oil prod = 0.10"10
p' OVOGB. q'lorcase 0.100 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.006 O.OOS 0.001 0.002
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.200 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.006 0.024 0.000 0.000
0.300 0.060 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.010 0.057 0.001 0.004
0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Q.400 0.104 0.002 0.002 0.005 0.014 0.104 0.002 0.005
0.100 0.972 0.972 0.967 0.971 0.900 0.946 0.977 0.971 0.971 0.500 0.146 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.146 0.000 0.004
0.200 0.928 0.929 0.922 0.928 MOO 0.882 0.947 0.928 0.928 0,600 0.180 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.016 0.180 0.002 0.005
0.300 0.868 0.868 0.859 0.888 0.700 0.804 0.917 0.867 0.867 0.700 0.214 0.001 0.000 0.003 0.018 0.214 0.000 0.003
0.400 0.792 0.792 0.781 0.791 0.600 0.717 0.872 0.788 0.789 0.800 0.244 0.002 0.001 0.004 0.021 0.244 0.001 0.004
0.500 0.700 0.701 0.690 0.700 0.500 0.621 0.800 0.698 0.698 0.900 0.275 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.021 0.270 0.003 0.007
0.600 0.592 0.591 0.582 0.592 0.400 0.511 0.699 0.589 0.590
0.700 0.488 0.488 0.460 0.488 0.300 0.396 0.588 0.467 0.467 Avg
0.800 0.328 0.328 0.321 0.328 0.200 0.272 0.408 0.327 0.327 DELTAO 0.139 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.014 0.138 0.001 0.004
0.900 0.172 0.171 0.167 0.172 0.100 0.140 0.218 0.171 0.171
R'l 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Legend:
p' OVOGB. q'lorcase DELTAO = ABS(q' - OVOGEL)/OVOGEL
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Avg DELTAO = Average DELTAO for each case
0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000. 1.000 1.000
0.100 0.972 0.977 0.971 0.971 0.988 0.966 0.977 0.971 0.970
0.200 0.928 0.950 0.928 0.928 0.926 0.923 0.950 0.928 0.928
0.300 0.888 0.920 0.867 0.867 0.865 0.860 0.917 0.867 0.864
Q.400 0.792 0.874 0.791 0.791 0.788 0.781 0.874 0.791 0.788
0.500 0.700 0.802 0.700 0.699 0.698 0.889 0.802 0.700 0.697
0.600 0.592 0.699 0.591 0.591 0.590 0.582 0.699 0.591 0.589
0.700 0.488 0.588 0.488 0.468 0.466 0.460 0.568 0.468 0.466
0.800 0.328 0.408 0.327 0.328 0.327 0.321 0.408 0.328 0.327
Q.900 0.172 0.219 0.171 0.172 0.171 0.168 0.218 0.172 0.171
1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
TABLE 6 Average normalized IPR at various angles
Legend:

p' = Pwt/pr
q' = qoIqomax, simulated data p' OVOGEL q' at various slant angles (degrees)
OVOGEL = Vogel q' data
Case 1 Base case data
Case 2 Similar to Case 1, 40 acre spacing
Case 3 Similar to Case 1, k = 200 md
Case 4 Similar to Case 1, weN is fractured 0.000 15.000 30.000 45.000 60.000 75.000 85.000 88.560 90.000
Case 5 Similar to Case 1, well has is skin
Case 6 Similar 10 Case 1, inHlal pressure above Pb 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Case 7 Similar to Case 1, less viscous 011 0.100 0.972 0.972 0.970 0.975 0.982 0.986 0.989 0.990 0.990 0.995
Case 8 Similar to Case 1, more viscous 011 0.200 0.928 0.927 0.924 0.935 0.947 0.957 0.962 0.964 0.964 0.974
Case 9 Similar to Case 1, higher Pb 011 0.300 0.868 0.868 0.864 0.879 0.897 0.910 0.918 0.921 0.921 0.935
0.400 0.792 0.791 0.786 0.806 0.828 0.844 0.854 0.856 0.857 0.875
Case 10 Similar to Case 1, diff1erent relative permeabliHy 0.500 0.700 0.700 0.695 0.717 0.742 0.760 0.771 0.774 0.775 0.796
Case 11 Similar to Case 1, different relative permeability 0.600 0.592 0.592 0.587 0.611 0.636 0.655 0.666 0.669 0.669 0.692
Case 12 Similar to Case 1, different PVT and relative permeabilHy 0.700 0.468 0.468 0.464 0.486 0.510 0.527 0.537 0.540 0.540 0.562
Case 13 Similar to Case 1, low GOR oil 0.800 0.328 0.328 0.325 0.343 0.362 0.377 0.385 0.387 0.387 0.405
Case 14 Similar to Case 1, different PVT and relative permeabilMy 0.900 0.172 0.172 0.171 0.182 0.194 0.202 0.207 0.209 0.209 0.219
Case 15 Similar to Case 1, different PVT and relative penneabillly 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Case 16 Similar to Case 1, straight line PVT and relative permeability
 TABLE 7 q' at p' =
0.5 and Np/N 0.1 %, for= TABLE 10 Reservoir data for examples I, 2, and 3
various slant angles and 16 reservoir conditions

q' (VOGEL) 0.700 at p' = 0.5 WeN vertical depth, It 8,000

Reservoir pressure, psia 2,214.7
Case q' at various slant angles, degrees
Net pay, It 25
Gas-oil ratio, scflbbl 1,000
0.000 15.000 30.000 45.000 60.000 75.000 85.000 88.560 90.000
Oil gravity, 0 API 35
1 0.701 0.695 0.709 0.727 0.741 0.750 0.753 0.753 0.771
2 0.694 0.691 0.706 0.725 0.741 0.750 0.753 0.753 0.771 Gas gravity 0.65
3 0.701 0.695 0.710 0.728 0.743 0.752 0.754 0.753 0.771 Tubing id, inches 2.441
4 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500
5 0.620 0.618 0.622 0.627 0.632 0.636 0.637 0.637 0.642
6 0.805 0.797 0.813 0.836 0.856 0.868 0.872 0.872 0.895
7 0.701 0.696 0.709 0.727 0.742 0.751 0.753 0.754 0.772 Well flow test data:
8 0.699 0.694 0.708 0.726 0.739 0.748 0.751 0.751 0.769 Yertjcalwell 45-degree well ~well
9 0.804 0.796 0.812 0.835 0.855 0.868 0.872 0.872 0.895
10 0.700 0.695 0.708 0.726 0.740 0.749 0.752 0.752 0.771 Pr psig 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400
11 0.700 0.695 0.709 0.726 0.741 0.750 0.752 0.752 0.771
qo' BOPD875 875 1,300 1,850
12 0.701 0.696 0.709 0.727 0.741 0.750 0.753 0.753 0.771
13 0.696 0.691 0.705 0.722 0.736 0.745 0.747 0.746 0.763 Pwl' psig 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200
14 0.804 0.796 0.812 0.835 0.855 0.867 0.871 0.872 0.895
15 0.701 0.696 0.709 0.727 0.741 0.750 0.753 0.753 0.722
16 0.699 0.694 0.708 0.725 0.739 0.748 0.751 0.751 0.769

Avgq' 0.702 0.697 0.709 0.726 0.740 0.749 0.751 0.752 0.769

&yS
TABLE 8 Comparison of base case q' and average q' of all 16 &y4
reservoir conditions, at p' = 0.5 and Np/N = 0.1 % &y3

l:

ql'
q2'
Ll.q
15.000

0.695
0.697
0.288
30.000

0.709
0.709
0.000
45.000

0.727
0.726
0.138
Slant ang,le, degrees

60.000

0.741
0.740
0.135
75.000

0.750
0.749
0.133
85.000

0.753
0.751
0.266
85.560

0.753
0.752
0.133
90.000

0.771
0.769
0.259
~~<
&y:

dx3

mIdx41dx

Ll.xl = Ll.x2 =Ll.x4 =Ll.x5 = 1 It; Ll.x3 = 933.36 It

Ll.yl Ll.y2 = Ll.y4 =Ll.y5 = 1 It; Ll.y3 = 933.36 It
Legend: Ll.zl = Ll.Z2 = Ll.Z3 = 7.63 It

ql = q' at p' - 0.5 01 base case

q2 = average q' at p' = 0.5 01 16 cases
Ll.q -I(ql' - q2')/ql'l x 100 % Slant Well

TABLE 9 IPR regression equallons for slanted and horizontal wells

I~~ 9 = slant angle
h =pay thickness =Ll.zl + Ll.z2 + Ll.z3
L = well length
Slam angle dftQees flIu.ali2Il
o (vertical) q' = 1 0.2 (p') - 0.8(p1 2, Vogel equation
Horizontal Well

m
15 q' - 0.9998 0.2210(p') - 0.7763(P')2
/
30
45
60
75
q' = 0.9969 - 0.1254(p')
q' = 0.9946 - 0.0221(p')
0.8682(p')2
- 0.9663(p')2
q' 0.9926 + 0.0549(p') - 1.0395(p')2
q' = 0.9915 + 0.1002(p') - 1.0829(p')2
lEE.
i ~
7 L ~'
85 q' = 0.9915 + 0.1120(p') -1.0942(p'}2 h =pay thickness =Ll.Zl + Ll.z2 + Ll.z3
L = well length
88.56 q' = 0.9914 + 0.1141(p') - 1.0964(p')2
90 (horizontal) q' = 0.9885 + 0.2055(p') - 1.1818(p')2
FIGURE 1. - 5x5x3 reservoir grid and well orientation for slanted and horizontal wells.
 1.0

0.8

C. 0.6
""a.
~

60...-------------------,
"
"a.

0.4 50

40
>
c-
0.2 eo 30
c-

20
VERT(IIOOELl

10
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 gO
q' - qo/qomax SLANT ANGLE, degrees

FIGURE 2. " IPR curves for slanted and horizontal wells. FIGURE 3. " Productivity ratio qslqv vs. well slant angle (0 " gO degrees).

3000 . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

2000
.~
a.
-g
2 a. ........
1000
......

-----
OUTF(VERTj

OUTl'{450EGl

O+-..........,...~"'T'"~"'T'"~_r_-_r_~_r_~...,.~-; O+-~---r-~"'T'"~-~~_,.-~..,...~___I
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
SLANT ANGLE, degrees q, SOPO

FIGURE 4. " Productivity ratio qs/qv vs. well slant angle (0 " 75 degrees). FIGURE 5. System analysis for example 1. 45-degree well vs. vertical well.

4000 3000
........ lNF(llE1'lT}

...... lNF(75DEG)

3000
2000
.~
'"
.~
a. lNF(VERT)
2000
t t ',*(HOAZ}

1000
1000 """""""

0 O+-~~~~_r_~~~~___r~~~~___I

0 500 1000 1500 2000 o 1000 2000 3000

q, SOPO q, SOPO
FIGURE 6. - System analysis for example 2. 75-degree well vs. vertical well. FIGURE 7. - System analysis for example 3. Horizontal well vs. vertical well.

84