Inflow Performance Relationships

Since all producers must flow hydrocarbons through the reservoir at least to the bottom of the
well if not to surface, we define the bottomhole pressure under producing conditions as the
flowing bottomhole pressure (pwf). For a pumping well this is the pump intake pressure.

The difference between the flowing bottomhole pressure and the average reservoir pressure is
termed the drawdown and determines the production rate. The relationship between rate and
drawdown will vary depending on the flowing conditions and the type of fluid.

Productivity Index (PI)

In calculating oil well productivity, it is commonly assumed that production is directly

proportional to drawdown. The constant of proportionality is termed the productivity index,
and is commonly denoted as PI or J.

From Darcy's semisteady state flow equation, the PI for a well producing 100% oil is

or, in oilfield units:

where ko = effective permeability to oil (kro  k)

h = reservoir thickness

o= oil viscosity

Bo = oil formation volume factor

re = effective drainage radius

rw = effective wellbore radius

s = skin factor

These terms typically have the following orders of magnitude:

ko = f (Sw, Sg)  (0.7 to 0.3) (k)

o = (°API, GOR) 0.5 to 5.0 cp

Bo = f (°API, GOR) 1.0 to 2.0

[ln re/rw - 0.75 + S] 10

Since PI relates to the total fluid produced, the magnitude of the PI can change as the water cut changes.
This can be important for sizing artificial lift and treating facilities to handle expected fluid production after
water breakthrough on a flood operation.

We should note from the above equations that the skin (S) is a parameter we can alter by our
completion practices. (We can also increase rw by drilling larger diameter holes or increase the
effective rw by fracturing the well.) Example 1 illustrates the effect of damage and
stimulation.

Effect of Skin on PI

Example of a PI calculation showing effects of

(a) wellbore damage (skin = +5)

(b) fracture stimulation (skin = -5)

(c) a good normal completion (skin = 0)

re = well drilled on 160 acre (64 ha) spacing, 1320 ft (402 m) radius

o  = oil viscosity, 1.5 cp (mPa.S)

k = permeability of rock, 500 md

kro = relative permeability at Sw = Swc, 0.8

h = thickness of pay, 50 ft (15 in)

rw = wellbore radius, 0.4 ft (0.12 m)

S = variable

= average reservoir pressure, 2900 psi (20,000 kPa)

Bo = oil formation volume factor, 1.3 v/v

Using Equation 2

 
 
(a) S = +5 J = 5.88 b/d/psi

(b) S = -5 J = 30.89 b/d/psi

(c) S = 0 J = 9.88 b/d/psi

or in the SI system

 
(a) S = +5, J = 0.1334 m3/d/kPa = 13.34 m3/d/B

(b) S = -5, J = 0.697 m3/d/kPa = 69.67 m3/d/B

 (c) S = 0, J = 0.2238 m3/d/kPa = 22.38 m3/d/B

Effect of damage = (c-a) /c = 40% loss in PI

Reward for stimulation = (c-a) /c = 68% increase in PI

Although in theory the negative skin demonstrates the effects of a fracture stimulation, in
practice it is not possible to achieve an adequate permeability contrast between the fracture
and formation in high permeability zones (>75 md) for this to be achieved.

Oilwell Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR)

The straight line PI relationship should not be expected to hold when two-phase gas and liquid
flow exists in the reservoir. Gilbert (1954) recognized the PI variation with drawdown and
proposed the use of a bottomhole pressure versus producing rate plot for well analysis. He
termed this curve the inflow performance relationship, or IPR, of a well ( Figure 1 ).

Figure 1

Several techniques have been proposed for determining the IPR for a well below the bubble-
point of the oil, where multiphase flow exists. Vogel (1966), using a computer model of a
solution gas drive reservoir, developed a generalized IPR reference curve. Using this general
curve, a specific IPR curve can be constructed for a well knowing only the static pressure and a
flowing bottomhole pressure at one producing rate. For those who prefer to do all their work
on a calculator, at or below the bubble point, Vogel found that the IPR curve can be
approximated by the expression
where qmax = maximum producing rate at P = 0
wf

With a curved IPR it is obviously more difficult to predict the effects of damage and/or the
improvements to be expected from stimulation. However, Standing (1970) published a
modification to the Vogel curve accounting for changes in flow efficiency.

Fetkovich (1973) showed--both theoretically and from numerous oil well tests--that oil well
backpressure curves follow an IPR equation of a form commonly used for gas wells:

The exponent n and intercept J' are usually determined from a multipoint or isochronal backpressure test,

where  is plotted against q on log-log paper.

Gas Well Inflow Performance Relationship

The most common method of estimating gas well IPRs is the "backpressure" method of
Rawlins and Schellhardt (1936) where

The well is flowed for a fixed period at different rates. Using the bottomhole flowing pressure at equal flow
times, a plot of
 

log 

versus log qg is prepared. The slope gives a value for 1/n ( Figure 2 , Plot for a conventional
well test example) and using this, C can be calculated. The exponent n varies from 1.0 for
laminar flow to 0.5 for fully turbulent conditions.
 Figure 2

It is important to remember that this IPR relationship is empirical and that C is a function of
flow time; its value under semisteady state conditions must either be calculated or determined
from an extended flow period. At low rates, where n 1.0, we may calculate C

or, in the SI system:

The absolute open flow potential (AOF) is defined as the rate corresponding to Pwf = 0. It will be a function of
flow time. Production engineers need to be aware of this and clarify the meaning of quoted AOF values. Also
remember that a value for AOF calculated using flowing tubing pressures rather than flowing bottomhole
pressures is distorted by tubing performance.

Another method of determining the IPR for a gas well is to plot

 

versus q from the generalized semisteady state flow equation

The slope will give a value for F, the non-Darcy or turbulence-dependent coefficient, and the intercept will
give a value for B, the Darcy coefficient. Dake (1978) provides formulas for estimating B and F from core
data or build-up analyses. More correctly, B and F should be calculated from pseudopressures (m(p)) to be
independent of variations in gas viscosity and deviation factor, at which point they can be used to predict
future performance accurately. Theoretically, this method is still not absolutely correct, but in the majority of
cases it is a perfectly adequate description of the inflow performance. Stimulation of gas wells will affect not
only their skin factor (S) and therefore their Darcy coefficient (C or B) but also the non-Darcy coefficient (n or
F).

From a completion engineering viewpoint, the following concepts are fundamental to proper
well design:

the inflow performance of a well is largely determined by reservoir parameters

the skin factor, and the turbulence coefficient in high rate wells, especially gas wells,
are the only parameters we can normally affect by completion efficiency and stimulation

test results alone may not adequately describe the long-term inflow performance of a
producer unless corrected for

- semisteady state conditions

- curving of the IPR in oil wells below the bubble-point and in gas wells

- expected skin (this is a function of perforation length, perforation efficiency,

stimulation, damage, etc.)