SPE 160782

Self Consistent Approach to Construct Inflow Performance Relationship for

Oil Well
Mars Khasanov, Gazpromneft
Vitaly Krasnov, Rinat Khabibullin, Timur Musabirov, Rosneft

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Russian Oil & Gas Exploration & Production Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Moscow, Russia, 16–18 October 2012.

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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
This paper offers a new correlation to construct inflow performance relationship (IPR) for vertical oil well operated under
solution gas drive with bottomhole pressure below the bubble poinr pressure. In this case an area with liberated free gas is
created in the near-wellbore part of the reservoir. For this case a new functional equation (correlation) for IPR curve in the
form of power law is suggested based on the analytical derivation and using pseudopressure function approach. In contrast to
the other studies where a parametric IPR equation (usually in the polynomial form) with subsequent selection of coefficients
(e.g. Vogel’s methodology) was a priory used the new correlation is consistent with the fact of similarity between the oil wells
IPR curves built in dimensionless coordinates. In particular case the IPR correlation considered is approximately close to the
Vogel’s IPR curve which allows using it as Vogel’s simple alternative. A modification of the method is suggested. This
modification corrects IPR curve behavior in the case of the presence of a transition zone where oil mobility decrease for the
pressure values closed to the bubble-point pressure. The paper introduces the justification of the n exponent suggested by
Fetkovich IPR and shows how application of new IPR correlation eliminates the contradictions associated with variation range
of this parameter. Relations are also proposed to predict the future form of IPR curve and future values of the absolute open
flow rate. Based on the large set of numerical calculations the expected values of exponent n for new IPR curve are presented
thus they can be applied in the case studies when the experimental data are not available.

Introduction
Based on the generalization of numerical study results for pseudo-steady state flow of oil with dissolved gas to the vertical
well Vogel [1] suggested a simple and practical empirical equation for calculating the IPR curve (oil flow rate/bottom hole
pressure dependence). This equation due to its simplicity and versatility is widely used in reservoir engineering for calculating
well flow capacity. In Vogel’s numerical study [1] various PVT properties of oil and gas as well as different relative
permeability curves were reviewed. As a result a conclusion was obtained that in many cases the IPR diagram when it is
plotted in dimensionless form can be expressed by a simple universal equation:

2
qo p  pwf
 1  0.2  0.8  wf  , (1)
qo ,max p  p 
where qo – oil flow rate at standard conditions; qo ,max – absolute (potential) oil flow rate at bottomhole pressure equal to 1
atmosphere; pwf – bottomhole pressure; p – average reservoir pressure.
In [1] limitations of equation (1) are described:
 undersaturated formations (i.e. reservoir pressure is higher than bubble point pressure);
 high-viscosity oils (> 3 cP);
 damaged or stimulated wells (positive or negative skin factor);
 wells with high watercut.
2 SPE 160782

Approach suggested enables to estimate only dimensionless values of oil flow rates i.e. qo / qo ,max . For practical
applications value of qo ,max is also needed to define. It can be calculated if reservoir pressure p and one tested point of
bottomhole pressue and oil rate ( pwf , qo ) at steady or semi-steady state is known. Note that Vogel has not presented any
methods to estimate the absolute open flow (AOF) rate qo ,max of the oil well and its relations to the reservoir and fluids
parameters. One may also notice that deviations of numerical study results from Vogel’s analytical IPR curve grow as the
formation depletion increases.
Practical application often requires performing IPR calculations for undersaturated reservoirs. For this reason various
modifications of Vogel’s method were proposed. The most widely used are composite IPR curve [2] and Fetkovich IPR [3].
In [2] a method of IPR curve calculation based on smooth combination of linear IPR and Vogel’s IPR at the bubble
pressure point was suggested. The advantages of such generalization are questionable. Even in the source article [1] the IPR
curve in the case of undersaturated reservoir has a substantial fissure at the bubble point. Fig. 1 compares Vogel’s numerical
calculations from [1] with composite IPR curve method for such case.

1
pwf
p
Давление
Bubble насыщения
point pressure
0.8

КомпозитнаяIPR curve
Compositional
индикаторная
based on smooth
кривая по
0.6
combination of Vogel’s
методу гладкого
and linear IPR
сопряжения

0.4

Результаты
Vogel’s numerical
численных
calculation results
расчетов Вогеля
0.2

qo
0
qo ,max
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Fig. 1. Comparison of Vogel’s numerical results and composite IPR curve method for slightly depleted reservoir.
Note the fissure on the curve at bubble-point pressure.
( N p - cumulative oil production, N - initial oil in place)

Theoretical explanation of such fissure on IPR curve was presented, for instance, in [4]. It is associated with an abrupt oil
mobility function change while passing the bubble point pressure.
In [3] semi-empirical method of IPR curve calculation was introduced by Fetkovich that takes into closer consideration its
dependence from the reservoir and fluids characteristics, reservoir depletion. Approach was also generalized for the case of
undersaturated resevoir. The suggested IPR equation can be presented in a way similar to (1):

n
qo   pwf  2 
 1     . (2)
qo ,max   p  

The empirical power exponent n value is recommended to define by plotting in log-log scale oil flow rate against the
difference between squared values of reservoir and bottomhole pressures. Unlike the equation (1) Fetkovich method requires at
least the inflow data for two steady-state regimes as well as the knowledge of reservoir pressure (to build IPR curve by
equation (1) one needs to know the oil flow rate and the bottomhole pressure only for one steady-state regime). Theoretical
justification of equation (2) is given in [3] for the case n  1 and is based on the assumption of linear relation between oil
mobility function and pressure. The estimation method for the future qo ,max values during the depletion wss also given in [3]:

3
qo ,max, f p 
 f  . (3)
qo ,max, p p 
 p
SPE 160782 3

where qo ,max, p – absolute oil flow rate for present reservoir pressure p p ; qo ,max, f – future absolute oil flow rate for future
reservoir pressure pf .
Fetkovich [3] supposed that the IRP equation (2) is applicable for undersaturated resrvoirs. But there is a little hope that the
data obtained from the bottomhole pressure values exceeding bubble point pressure would be enough to forecast the well
productivity while passing the bubble point pressure. Equation (2) doesn’t match the single-phase fluid flow for any value of
n and can not describe the fissure at IPR curve occurring at the saturation point. Additional problems of equation (2)
application arise during the productivity index calculation for low drawdowns:

n 1
   pwf  
2
dqo q p
J   lim
*
o  2n  o,max lim  wf  1     . (4)
pwf  p dp p pwf  p  p
wf    p  
.

qo ,max
In the limit equation (4) has a non-singular value only if n  1 : J o  2  . At n  1 , J o   , and when n  1 ,
* *

p
J o*  0 .
Standing [5] put forward Vogel’s IPR calculation method and took into consideration the presence of damaged zone
around the well. He introduced the effective pressure to the equation (1) that was equal to the pressure at the outer boundary of
 
  p  FE p  pwf , and it was used in calculation instead of
damaged zone, pwf pwf . Flow efficiency factor FE was
also introduced and it is equal to the ratio of well productivity index without the damaged zone to the same one with the
damaged zone (applied to single-phase flow). Using of Standing approach results in straightening of the IPR curve as skin-
factor is increased. However, this method also creates physically inadequate results when the skin-factor values are negative
(then for the low values of pwf bottomhole pressure decrease leads to the oil flow rate decrease). As was subsequently proven
[6, 7] the presence of skin-factor should not influence to the shape of IPR curve. The results obtained by Standing are related
to the mathematical representation of skin-factor as a non-dimensional pressure change around the wellbore which is linearly
depended on the oil flow rate. In fact oil and gas flow together through the near-wellbore damaged zone as well as through the
undamaged part of the reservoir. Wiggins [7] also indicated the absence of connection between IRP curve and drainage area
shape.
Standing [8] also suggested an equation that introduces the relation between reservoir and fluids parameters and Vogel’s
IPR:

J o* p   pwf  
2
pwf
qo  1  0.2  0.8   ,
1.8  p  p  
 (5)
k  k ro  So , S g   h
J o*  ,
18.4 o  p   Bo  p    ln  re / rw   3/ 4 

where J o* – differential productivity index at small drawdown, k – reservoir permeability (md), kro  So , S g  – relative oil
permeability, S o , S g – average oil and gas saturation, o  p  , Bo  p  – oil viscosity (cP) and formation volume factor

(m3/m3) at reservoir pressure (atm). Equation (5) make it possible to calculate future qo ,max values for equation (1) during
reservoir depletion:

qo ,max, f p f f ( p f )
 , (6)
qo ,max, p p pp ( p p )

where f , p correspond to future and present values,   p 

 
k ro So p
– oil phase mobility at average reservoir
o  p  Bo  p 
pressure.
4 SPE 160782

All approaches discussed above consider correlations between oil flow rate and bottomhole pressure (i.e. all of them
somehow are based on the empirical relationships). Physically more substantial are the models based on the solution of
multiphase oil-gas flow equations [10, 11, 12, 13]. Application of pseudopressure function of oil phase is the general idea of
these models.
Equations for steady-state or pseudo-steady-state oil and gas two-phase flow can be linearized using oil pseudopressure
function:

 B  ko  So 
p po  p    o o     p  B  p  dp, (7)
 ko  pref o o

where pref – reference pressure (for example it can be bubble point pressure or atmospheric pressure), ko – effective oil

permeability ( ko  k ro  k ), So – oil saturation. The integrand in equation (7) is a mobility function:

ko
o  , (7')
o Bo
and

 B   k 
ro   o o   o  (7'')
 ko  p  o Bo 
ref

is relative mobility function.

Using equation (7) IPR equation for oil well at pseudo-steady state flow can be written as following [6, 9]:

qo  pwf   J o ,ref  p po  p   p po  pwf  , (8)

where J o,ref – productivity index at pressure pref , p – average reservoir pressure. For vertical oil well during pseudo-
steady state flow:

hk  k 
J o ,ref    ro  . (9)
18.4 ln  re / rw   S  3/ 4  o Bo  p
ref

It should be mentioned that the productivity index (9) varies depending on skin-factor value, but it doesn’t influence to the
IPR curve shape. Wiggins [7] noticed the absence of such influence from skin-factor or drainage area shape. From the author’s
point of view the lack of such influence should be anticipated since the use of pseudopressure function instead of pressure in
multi-phase flow equations reduces them to the flow equations describing semi-steady state single phase flow of slightly
compressible liquid. There is also a good probability that IPR curve for different well types (vertical well, horizontal well,
fractured well) will have the same shape in the case when integral in equation (7) does not vary depending on the reservoir
properties and boundary conditions.
The practical application of equation (7) is complicated due to the fact that in order to evaluate the integral one needs to
know the relationship between pressure and saturation (because oil relative permeability is a function of saturation). Analytical
expression that connects pressure and saturation can be obtained by use of simplifying assumption that the total gas-oil ratio
R is constant throughout the reservoir:

krg o Bo
R  Rs   , (10)
kro  g Bg

where Rs  Rs  p  – solution gas-oil ratio as pressure function. Supposing that R value is constant throughout the reservoir
and is independent from time, equation (10) can be used to define the relationship between pressure and saturation:
SPE 160782 5

R  Rs  p 
 S   ,
  p
(11)
krg B
 S   ,   p  o o .
kro  g Bg

The inflow calculation method employing equations (7) – (9) is not in a common use for reservoir engineering even despite
of the possibility to apply it for a wider range of reservoir and fluids characteristics, and its higher accuracy when compared to
correlation-based IPR methods. The reason is in its high complexity for practical applications.

Some researchers [7, 14] tried to find physically substantial forms of IPR correlations as an alternative to methods
proposed by Vogel and Fetkovich. The authors of [14] suggested several forms for the “typical” mobility function as cubic
polynomial:

 kro / o Bo  p r,t   p  r, t    p  r, t  
2
 p  r, t  
3

1  1    1     p   2 1     p  ,   1 (12)
 kro / o Bo  p
i
 pi   i   i 

where  – characteristic parameter,   0.29 for the case described in [14]. Fig. 2 shows the plot of equation (12) and
appropriate mobility functions based on the field data given in [6].

и
1- Безразмерная функция подвижности
Dimensionless mobility function
1 – [ko/(μoBo)] / [ko/(μoBo)]i

Correlation
Корреляция

Безразмерное давление p(r,t) / pi

Pressure dimensionless

Fig. 2. “Typical” dimensionless mobility function for solution gas drive from [13] obtained for the field data [6].

The same paper suggests the generalization of Vogel’s equation as one-parameter function:

2
qo pwf p 
 1   1    wf  , (13)
qo ,max p  p 

( – parameter) that is valid when mobility is a linear function of pressure:

 ko 
  B   a  2b  p . (14)
 o o p
6 SPE 160782

It is interesting to note that equation (13) implies that coefficient  is a function of reservoir pressure i.e. the shape of IPR
curve can change during the reservoir depletion, and it is constant only if a p (see [6] for details).
This study represents a new relationship for inflow performance calculation. The main objective of this paper is to answer
the question which type of mathematical function for IPR (and relative mobility function) should be used to explain the fact of
different IPR curves similarity when they are plotted in pwf / p and qo / qo ,max dimensionless coordinates.

New IPR curve for oil wells operating under solution gas drive
New type of IPR curve equation can be derived by using oil pseudopressure function. From equation (8) we obtain:
qo p po  p   p po  pwf .
 (15)
qo ,max p po  p   p po  0 

Since integral (7) is defined up to a constant, it can be assumed p po  0   0 . Then

qo p po  pwf .
 1 (16)
qo ,max p po  p 

If the observations show that for the wide range of conditions qo / qo ,max is a function of ratio pwf / p (but not of pwf
and p separately), i.e.

p po  pwf  fp wf 
 , (17)
p po  p   p 

then the conclusion about the functional form of p po  p  can be obtained. Condition (17) is satisfied if p po  p  is a power
function that can be written as following:

m 1
 p 
p po  p   p po  ,
 p 
(18)
pref
 ref 

where pref – reference pressure , m – exponent. Then it is possible to rewrite equation (16) as:

m
qo p 
 1   wf  . (19)
qo ,max  p 

Equation (19) shows that Vogel should have looked for a IPR correlation in the form of power function with one parameter
(exponent m ) instead of using second power polynomial with two empirical coefficients. For example, if m  1.8 then
equation (19) in dimensionless form is very close to the function suggested by Vogel (Fig. 3).
A good coincidence presented at Fig. 3 allows for using of equation (19) for IPR calculations in all cases when Vogel’s
equation can be used as its simple alternative. Meanwhile qo ,max value for equation (19) as in Vogel’s method can be

calculated from the differential productivity index at low drawdown J o* :

J o* p
qo ,max  , (20)
m
SPE 160782 7

dqo
where J o  J o  p  , J o 
*
– differential productivity index for pseudo-steady state flow to vertical oil well. If
dpwf
m  1.8 then equation (20) corresponds to the approach suggested by Vogel-Standing [8].

1
Vogel
Vogel
Вогель
0.9
nm =
m 1.8
=1.8
0.8

0.7

0.6

P/Pr
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Q/Qmax

Fig 3. Comparison of IPR suggested by Vogel [1] and IPR curve calculated by equation (19) (with m  1.8 )

Comparison with numerical calculations

Verification of approach proposed was made by comparison between the results of IPR curve calculations using equation
(19) and numerical study results for radial steady state flow of oil with dissolved gas to the vertical well. Model based on oil
pseudopressure function with the assumption of constant GOR was used as reference model [10]. This model has high
accuracy [6, 11], calculating speed, and can be easily programmed with the use of spreadsheets.
Figures 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 show the comparison results of IPR calculations based on the equation (19) and reference
numerical model for three different sets of relative permeability (RP) curves and for different stages of reservoir depletion.
Input data required for the calculations is given in Appendix (Table 1). PVT data and plots of different RP functions used in
the study are also presented in Appendix (Fig. A-1, Fig. A-2, Fig. A-3, and Fig. A-4).

300
1
kro
–– расчет
numerical 0.8 krg
250
–– корреляция
correlation 0.6
co = 3
kro, krg

cg = 3

0.4

200 0.2

0
атм
P, atm

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Sg
150
P,

100

p  200 àòì
atm p  250 àòì
atm
50
p  150 àòì
atm m  1.8 m2
m  1.7
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
33
Q,Q,mм/day
/сут

Fig. 4-1. Comparison of IPR curves calculated by new correlation and reference numerical model (case RP 1)
8 SPE 160782

300
1
kro
– –расчет
numerical 0.8 krg
250
– –корреляция
correlation 0.6 co = 2

k ro, krg
cg = 2
0.4

200 0.2

0
атм
P,atm 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sg
150
P,

100

50
p  150 atm
àòì p  250 atm
àòì
p  200 àòì
atm
m  1.6 m  1.8
m  1.6
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

m3/day
Q, Q, м /сут
3

Fig. 4-2. Comparison of IPR curves calculated by new correlation and reference numerical model (case RP 2)

300
1
kro
–– расчет
numerical 0.8 krg
250
–– корреляция
correlation 0.6
co = 1
k ro, krg

cg = 1
0.4

200 0.2

0
атм

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

P, atm

Sg
150
P,

100

50
p  150 atm
àòì p  250 atm
àòì
p  200 àòì
atm
m  1.6 m  1.6
m  1.6
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
33
Q,Q,mм/day
/сут

Fig. 4-3. Comparison of IPR curves calculated by new correlation and reference numerical model (case RP 3)

Fig. 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3 show that the numerical calculation results are approximated by the presented IPR correlation with
different accuracy. Agreement between analytical and numerical results becomes better with increase of reservoir depletion
stage. Exponent m also changes as the reservoir is depleted. The maximum value of m is observed in case p  pi . The
same case corresponds to worse agreement with reference model results especially for the RP 1 set of relative permeability
curves. Subsequent pressure drop (reservoir depletion) provides better fit between analytical and numerical IPR curves and
makes exponent independent from the reservoir pressure.
Figures presented implicitly confirm a conclusion made by Fetkovich in [6] that the power exponent n in IPR equation (2)
changes as the reservoir has been depleted. Fetkovich [6] derived that: 1) n changes as the reservoir depletes; 2) n change is
not monotonous; 3) for many cases n value is more than one, with an exception for the case when average gas saturation in
the reservoir is low. This observation is easy to explain by treating the mobility changing as a pressure function. For
SPE 160782 9

convenience we will use differential productivity index (DPI) instead of mobility function. DPI equals to relative mobility
multiplied by productivity index at reference pressure:

J o  ro J o ,ref

Fig. 5 shows differential productivity index behavior. For comparison the approximation function corresponding to the new
IPR equation (19) is also displayed in Fig. 5:

m 1
 pwf  qo,max
J o  J o ,ref  p  , J o ,ref  m (21)
  p

with exponent m value fitted from the best agreement with reference IPR curve.

1.2
коэффициент
index

1
мД-м/сПз
коэффициент
*атм)

transition
Переходная zone
зона
*атм)
Differential productivity
м3/(сут

0.8
м3/(сут
m3/day/atm

p  250 атм
Подвижность,

atm
Дифференциальный

0.6
продуктивности,
Дифференциальный
продуктивности,

p  150 атм
atm
0.4
pb,i  250 atm
0.2

0
0 50 100 150 200 250

P, atm
атм

Fig. 5. Differential productivity index J o as a function of pressure for different reservoir pressure values.
Initial bubble-point pressure pb ,i  250 atm .

As it is presented at Fig. 5 when the pressure drops below the bubble point the abrupt decrease in J o value can be
observed. We will call the pressure range corresponding to this abrupt decrease of J o as “transition zone”. Following
smoother decrease of J o accelerates as it approaches the atmospheric pressure.
In case when there is no transition zone ( p  150 atm ) the qualitative behaviour of J o is good described by the
correlation (21), otherwise (in the presence of transition zone, p  250 atm ) the maximum difference is observed.
The presence and the size of transition zone are connected with the specific shape of relative permeability functions. For
the case considered in Fig. 5 gas relative permeability slowly increases as the gas liberates from oil (as gas saturation
increase), although oil relative permeability decreases substantially (see Fig A-2 in Appendix). Effect occurs the most
evidently when there is a critical gas saturation in relative permeability curves, i.e. in the case when gas remains immobile till
the gas saturation reaches its critical value. There is no transition zone in this case (or one can say that it is very narrow), and
the differential productivity index gets a discontinuity from its single-phase value at bubble point pressure J o, p to the value
b

corresponding to the two-phase (gas and oil) flow with critical gas saturation (see Fig. 6).
10 SPE 160782

1 1.2

продуктивности,
m3/day/atm
kro Discontinuity of mobility
«Скачок»
1 function due to из-за
the
krg

мД-м/сПз
0.8 подвижности
critical
наличия gasкритической
saturation
газонасыщенности

index
0.8

коэффициент
0.6
kro, krg

м3/(сут *атм)
Подвижность,
productivity
0.6

0.4
0.4

Дифференциальный
Critical
Критическая
0.2 gas saturation S gc
газонасыщенность
pb  250 atm
pb  250 атм

0.2

Differential
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Sg P,P,
atm
атм

Fig. 6. Relative permeability curves and differential productivity index function with the presence of critical gas saturation

J o values define the slope of IRP curve. In the transition zone the slope of IPR curve increases abruptly in accordance
with an abrupt drop in mobility, subsequent decrease follows the power law. In case of critical gas saturation the discontinuity
of mobility function is not observed from IPR curve if the initial reservoir pressure value is equal to the bubble point pressure
pb . In such conditions the discontinuity manifests itself at IPR curve by the deviation of the slope at point pwf  p from the
value calculated by equation (9) considering that kro  kro,max , i.e. from the productivity index for single-phase flow. The
discontinuity effect becomes prominent if initial reservoir pressure exceeds bubble point pressure, and single-phase inflow is
observed for small pressure drop. In this case the IPR curve has an easily noticeable fissure at the bubble point pwf  pb . The
fissure angle represents the discontinuity in oil mobility function while passing the bubble point. Strictly speaking there is no
fissure at IPR curve in the presence of transition zone but when transition zone is small the abrupt change of IPR slope is quite
similar to the IPR curve fissure. Fig. 7 shows the influence of transition zone and presence of critical gas saturation to the IPR
curves.

300
Наличие
With крит. gas
critical газонасыщ енности
saturation
Отсутствие
No critical крит.
gas газонасыщенности
saturatin
250

1
With transition
Наличие zone
переходной зоной
kro
1
0.8 krg
kro
200 0.6
co = 2 0.8 krg
kro, krg

cg = 2
0.6 co = 2
k ro, krg

0.4 Sgc = 0.25

cg = 2
атм

0.2 0.4 Sgc = 0

P,P,atm

150 0 0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sg 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sg
1

100 0.8
kro
krg

0.6 co = 3
kro, krg

cg = 3
0.4
Sgc = 0
50 0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sg

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
33
Q,Q,mм/day
/сут

Fig. 7. IPR curves at p  pb for the cases with critical gas saturation, its absence, and the presence of transition zone
SPE 160782 11

We will call permeability curves “near-critical” if they correspond to the mobility function behaviour near the bubble point
pressure (in the tranzuition zone) that is similar to the presence of critical gas saturation.

IPR curve calculation in transition zone

The suggested form of the IPR equation (19) as well as the Vogel’s method can not take into account the abrupt decrease
of oil mobility function near the bubble point pressure. Transition zone description is possible by generalization of equation
(19) similar to Fetkovich’s approach [3] by introducing the additional exponent n . In case of using Fetkovich equation (2)
DPI can be written as following:

n 1
 pwf    pwf  
2
qo,max
J o  J o,ref  p  1   p   , J o ,ref  2n , (22)
      p

where J o ,ref – reference value of differential productivity index. Productivity index at reservoir pressure can not be used as a
reference value because if n  1 then J o goes to infinity when pwf  p . For example, Fig. 8 shows the plot of Fetkovich
IPR equation (2) for n  1, 0.75, 1.5 .

2 1
m3/day/atm

m /day/atm
n=1 Расчет
Calculation
коэффициент

Феткович, n = 0.85
productivityкоэффициент

n<1 Fetkovich n=0.85

мД-м/сПз
продуктивности, м3/(сут *атм)

мД-м/сПз

1.6 0.8
продуктивности, м3/(сут *атм)
3

n>1
productivity index

index

1.2 0.6
Подвижность,

Подвижность,
Дифференциальный

Дифференциальный

0.8 0.4

0.4 0.2
Differential

Differential

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
P/P P/P

Fig. 8. Differential productive index for Fetkovitch approach [3] (left side). Comparison of Fetkovitch’s results with
numerical calculations in the presence of transition zone (right side).

Fig. 8 demonstrates that for the low pressure values mobility function has an almost linear increase with any n value. In
case n  1 as mobility function approaches the bubble point pressure the rate of increase rises sharply just as in the case when
calculated mobility function changes its behavior near the bubble point pressure (in the presence of transition zone). The
essential difference with the numerical calculations results is observed at low pressure values. Fetkovitch based his derivations
on the linear dependence between mobility function and pressure (as for gas) while it is more general to use the power function
with exponent different from 2.
It becomes clear why exponent n changes when the reservoir depletes as it was noted in [6]. As it can be seen from
mobility function behavior at Fig. 5 the transition zone in this case is replaced by the part of the curve that is well
approximated by power law. Therefore for the low gas saturation cases values of n less than 1 are more probable, but n
values increase during the depletion as transition zone is disappearing.
Fetkovitch in his paper [3] mentioned that in many cases observed n value is greater than 1. Such increase of exponent is
probably compensates the inaccurate choice of mobility function outside of the transition zone (it was assumed to be linear
while its real behavior is closer to the power law). Such method of compensation is asymptotically incorrect because when
n  1 oil mobility function at formation pressure equals zero.
12 SPE 160782

Functional form of correlation (19) proposed in this paper can be also generalized by correcting the disadvantage of
Fetkovitch’s method:

n
qo   pwf m 
 1     . (23)
qo,max   p  

Corresponding differential productivity index is given by:

n 1
 pwf 
m 1
  pwf m  qo,max
J o  J o, ref  p  1     , J o,ref  m  n . (24)
    p   p

Fig. 9 shows the comparison between numerical results and analytical calculations using equation (24). Good agreement
can be achieved in a wide range of pressure values up to bubble point pressure by parameters adjustment.

1
продуктивности,
m /day/atm

Расчет
Calculation
Формула (24)
Equation (24) при
withmm=1.6,
= 1.6, nn=0.8
= 0.8
мД-м/сПз

0.8
3
index
коэффициент

0.6
м3/(сут *атм)
DifferentialПодвижность,
productivity

0.4
Дифференциальный

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
P/P
Fig. 9. Comparison of differential productivity index calculated by numerical study and by proposed analytical
equation (24)

Increase of approximation accuracy by using equation (23) has a downside because additional parameter n appears.
Increasing the number of parameters complicates their determination in practice due to the increase of required number of
experimental (test) points. There is also a risk of instability issues in n and m values identification when they are determined
simultaneously especially if experimental points that are located in the transition zone. From equation (24) one can see that as
well as in equation (22) if n  1 then J o tends to infinity when pwf  p . In the transition zone equation (23) has maximal
sensitivity to parameter n while m can not be calculated precisely. Note that the choice of approximation method in
transition zone has merely an empirical validation, thus the use of experimental data observed only inside the transition zone
can result in large errors. In order to increase the accuracy of IPR construction well permormance with bottomhole pressures
which are substantially different from bubble point pressure (for example: pwf  0.8 pb ) should be taken into account during
the well test design.
Another way of reduce the uncertainty is to fix one of the parameters. Comparison with the numerical calculations has
shown that in many cases m value lies between 1.5 and 2 (see Fig. 4). Higher values of m occur only when the transition
zone with poor approximation accuracy is captured. So when it is necessary to consider the transition zone the following
equation can be used:
n
qo   pwf 1.6 
 1     , (25)
qo,max   p  
SPE 160782 13

where n takes on values from 0.85 to 1. For depleted reservoirs n value is most likely close to 1 (from 0.95 to 1) and for the
formations with transition zone (when reservoir pressure is slightly lower than bubble point pressure) lower values of n are
more likely to be used.

IPR parameters estimation based on production data

As far as the authors of this paper are concerned there is no simple plot method that would help to simultaneously identify
three unknown parameters n , m and qo ,max in equation (23) based on well production data. However if m value is fixed
then one can determine the remaining two parameters using the graphical method which is similar to that suggested in [3].
qo ,i , and corresponding values of bottomhole pressure in the form 1   pwf ,i / p 
m
Measured values of oil flow rate
where m is constant (in most cases assumption m  1.6 can be applied) can be plotted in log-log scale. Tested points will be
expected to lie on a straight line with the slope corresponding to n value in equation (23) and intersection with unity ordinate
corresponding to qo ,max value.
Consider an example. Let oil well was tested at 3 semi-steady state regimes. Reservoir pressure p = 250 atm. Measured
oil flow rates and bottomhole pressure values are given in Table 1.

Table 1. Oil well testing data, reservoir pressure p = 250 atm

1   pwf / p 
1.6
qo , m3 /day pwf , atm pwf / p
50 210 0.84 0.24
68 190 0.76 0.36
77 180 0.72 0.41

Fig. 10 shows testing data (black points) considered on the  x, y  coordinate plane. Oil flow rates from the first column
of Table 1 correspond to the x axis (in logarithmic scale) and values from the last column correspond to the vertical axis y
(also in logarithmic scale). The straight line that best fits the data points crosses the horizontal line y  1 at point
qo,max  165 m / day . From the slope of the straight line defined by any two points n value can be obtained:
3

 ln( x)
n  0.85 (see Fig. 10).
 ln( y )

1.00

1 .6
 p 
1   wf  0.10
 p   ln( x)
n  0.85
 ln( y)

qo,max  165 м3
m3/day
/ сут
0.01
10 100 1000
qo
Fig. 10. Obtaining n and qo ,max from testing data with m  1.6 .
14 SPE 160782

Although the modern computer-aided approach can be handled for very fast estimation of parameters qo ,max , m , n in
equation (23) by using nonlinear regression (for ezample by using spreadsheets) technique suggested based on log-log plot
interpretation is also useful in practice due to better understanding of IPR function character and the assessment of fitting
results stability.
To verify the modified correlation (23) and interpretation method described above the comparison with numerical
calculated IPR curves was carried out. Points obtained from reference numerical model were considered as experimental data
and they were analysed using log-log plot with assumed value of exponent m  1.6 . For the set of oil-gas relative
permeability curves the matching values of n and qo ,max were identified. Fig. 11 (1, 2, and 3) shows the results of
interpretation for different cases (see Appendix for relative permeability curves).

1
– calculation
расчет
– correlation
корреляция
p  150 атм
m  1.6, n  1
p  250 атм
atm
m  1.6, n  0.84
m
1-(P/P)

0.1

p  200 атм
atm
m  1.6, n  0.93

0.01
1 10 100
м3/day
3
Q,m
Q, /сут
Fig. 11-1. Defining n and qo ,max values for IPR curve calculation by using correlation (23) (case RP 1)

1
p  150 атм
m  1.6, n  1

p  200atm
àòì
атм
m  1.6, n  0.99
m
1-(P/P)

0.1

p  250 àòì
атм
atm
m  1.6, n  0.93

–calculation
расчет
–correlation
корреляция
0.01
1 10 100 1000

3
m3м
Q,Q, /сут
/day

Fig. 11-2. Defining n and qo ,max values for IPR curve calculation by using correlation (23) (case RP 2)
SPE 160782 15

1
p  150 атм
m  1.6, n  1

p  200 atm
àòì
атм

m
m  1.6, n  1

1-(P/P)
0.1

p  250atm
атм
àòì
m  1.6, n  1

– calculation
расчет
– correlation
корреляция
0.01
1 10 100 1000

3 3
Q,
Q, m м /сут
/day

Fig. 11-3. Defining n and qo ,max values for IPR curve calculation by using correlation (23) (case RP 2)

The fact that in all cases “experimental” points are lied on the straight line indicates that the assumption m  1.6 is good
and universal approximation. For comparison and as an example when there is no such agreement at Fig. 12 results for m  2
are shown (for the case RP 1).

1
– calculation
расчет
– correlation
корреляция

p  150 àòì
атм
m  2, n  1
p  250atm
àòì
атм
m  2, n  0.84
m
1-(P/P)

0.1

p  200 atm
атм
m  1.6, n  0.93

0.01
1 10 100
3 3
Q,Q,
mм/day
/сут
Fig. 12. Assumption m  2 does not give enough precision: the points do not lie on the straight line (case RP 1)

Numerical IPR curves and analytical results obtained by using equation (23) with appropriate parameters from Fig. 11 are
presented at Fig. 13 (1, 2 and 3 for different RP curves).
16 SPE 160782

300
1
–calculation
расчет kro
0.8 krg
250 –correlation
корреляция co = 3
0.6

kro, krg
cg = 3
0.4

200 0.2

0
атм
P,atm 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sg
150
P,

100

p  200 атм
atm p  250atm
атм
50
p  150 atm
атм m  1.6, n  0.93 m  1.6, n  0.84
m  1.6, n  1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

m3/day
Q,Q, м /сут
3

Fig. 13-1. Comparison of numerical results of IPR curves calculation with analytical correlation (23) (case RP 1)

300
1
kro
–calculation
расчет 0.8 krg
250
–correlation
корреляция 0.6 co = 2
kro, krg

cg = 2
0.4

200 0.2

0
atm
P, атм

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Sg
150

100

50 p  250 àòì
atm
p  150 atm
àòì
атм p  200 atm
àòì атм
атм
m  1.6, n  1 m  1.6, n  0.93
m  1.6, n  0.99
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
33
Q,Q,mм/day
/сут

Fig. 13-2. Comparison of numerical results of IPR curves calculation with analytical correlation (23) (case RP 2)
SPE 160782 17

300
1
kro
–calculation
расчет 0.8 krg
250
–correlation
корреляция 0.6
co = 1

k ro, krg
cg = 1
0.4

200 0.2

0
атм
P,atm 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sg
150
P,

100

50 p  250 àòì
атм
atm
p  150 атм
àòì
atm p  200 àòì
атм
atm
m  1.6, n  1
m  1.6, n  1 m  1.6, n  1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Q, m33/day
Q, м /сут

Fig. 13-3. Comparison of numerical results of IPR curves calculation with analytical correlation (23) (case RP 3)

Agreement between numerically calculated IPR curves and analytical correlation (23) is better than in the case when only
power law (19) is used. Also in none of the cases is n more than 1. The value of n equals to 1 for depleted reservoirs and in
the cases when relative permeability curves are far from near-critical, i.e. when they are close to straight lines and not close to
zero at low gas saturations.
During the study a number of calculations besides from those presented in this paper were carried out for other oil and gas
PVT characteristics (higher oil density, heavy oil and so on) with the large variation of gas relative permeability at related oil
saturation point krg , max (from 0.01 to 1). It was found that assumption m  1.6 remains correct except the cases with very
low krg ,max values (less than 0.05). For such cases m value increases and reaches a value of 2 when krg ,max  0.01 .
Therefore in most cases using of equation (25) can be recommended.

Absolute open flow oil rate estimation

In reservoir engineering practice maximum oil flow rate qo,max estimation is often required based on known reservoir
parameters m and n obtained for example from the neighbouring oil wells permormance analysis or from analogues. In case
n  1 the calculation of qo ,max is straightforward and is similar to Standing-Vogel [8] approach (5). Equating the value of
productivity index at low drawdown J o* to J o,ref in equation (21) obtain
qo*
qo ,max  , qo*  J o* p. (26)
m

Value of qo* corresponds to theoretical maximum flow rate that could be reached if oil mobility function would be constant
during the two-phase oil-gas mixture flows to the wellbore (i.e., if saturation, viscosity, and formation volume factor would
keep their initial values). J o* value for vertical oil wells can be calculated from the equation (9) if pref  p is used as a
reference pressure. Such approach in most cases gives a reliable results when the initial gas saturation in the reservoir exceeds
the critical point, i.e. gas at initial conditions is movable. This is often occurs in a depleted reservoir. Results of numerical
calculations show that the value of n for a depleted reservoir is often close to 1.
In the case when n  1 such approach does not work since the value of J o in equation (24) increases with no limit when
pwf  p . However investigation of numerical calculation results has shown that IPR curve slope corresponds to J o* at low
18 SPE 160782

(but not infinitely low) drawdowns. In other words the average value of productivity index calculated by equation (23) in the
range  p   p , p  can be set equal to J o* :
n
qo qo,max    p m 
 1   1     Jo .
*

 p  p   p  

Taking into account that  p / p is small value this equation can be simplified to express qo ,max explicitly:
J o* p qo*
qo,max   . (27)
m n  p / p  m n  p / p 
n 1 n 1

From the test calculations it was found that  p / p  0.005 is a good approximation. For n  1 , equation (27) coincide
with equation (26). Reference drawdown  pD , ref definition is probably corresponded with the pressure drop between reservoir
external boundary and the contour of average reservoir pressure (note that for IPR calculations just average reservoir pressure
is used) and for some wells completions (fractured wells, horizontal wells) can be significantly different from that proposed.

Composite IPR curve

Application of pseudopressure function approach is not limited for the case of a saturated reservoir. It can be also used to
calculate inflow performance for undersaturated reservoirs (i.e., when pb  p ). However in this case the new IPR curve
correlation proposed in this study can not be used because mobility function changes its form when pressure drops below the
bubble point pressure (the same issue are occurred for IPR correlations suggested by other authors). For undersaturated
reservoir composite IPR curve was proposed [2] based on a smooth combination of linear IPR curve for single-phase flow
above the bubble point pressure and Vogel’s correlation for bottomhole pressure values below the bubble point pressure. As it
was briefly mentioned above such approach does not always give a reliable results. Fig. 14 shows IPR curves for different
relative permeability cases (see Fig. A-2, A-3 and A-4 in Appendix) for the undersaturated reservoir with average reservoir
pressure 300 atm and bubble point pressure 250 atm. For comparison IPR curve calculated by composite IPR curve method [2]
is also presented (dashed line).
In the case of saturated reservoir without initial free gas saturation the differential productivity index J o* corresponds to
*
the single-phase productivity index J o ,max . In this case reference pressure in equation (9) can be defined as bubble point
pressure: pref  pb . Oil relative permeability in this case corresponds to the maximum saturation without free gas, i.e.
k ro  k ro,max . For undersaturated reservoir when bottomhole pressure is greater than bubble point pressure IPR curve is a
straight line with the slope J o* . Small deviations from linearity can occur by the reason of viscosity and volume factor changes
with pressure but these deviations are usually negligible for the pressure values above the bubble point pressure. In such
conditions oil production rate can be calculated from the following equation:

qo  pwf   J o*  p po  p   p po  pwf   J o*  p  pwf  (28)

When bottomhole pressure is reduced below the bubble point pressure zone with liberated free gas is formed around the
wellbore. Oil mobility reaches maximum value at the outer boundary of this liberated gas zone. The total drawdown in the
well consists of pressure drop between external reservoir boundary and outer boundary of the zone with liberated gas
(undersaturated zone) and pressure drop between free gas zone and the wellbore (saturated zone). Since pressure at the
boundary of liberated gas zone is equal to the bubble point pressure the flow inside this zone is similar to the flow in the
saturated part of the reservoir. If the bottomhole pressure is below the bubble point pressure then equation (8) can be rewritten
as follows:

qo  pwf   J o*  p po  p   p po  pb    J o*  p po  pb   p po  pwf  . (29)

SPE 160782 19

300

250 RP 1
ОФП1

RP 2
ОФП2

200 RP 3
pb  250 атм ОФП3

Vogel’s composite
Композитная IPR
по Вогелю

атм
P, atm
150

P,
100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
3
Q, m
Q, /day
м3/сут

Fig. 14. IPR curves for undersaturated reservoir from numerical calculations

The first term in equation (28) is production rate corresponding to the bottomhole pressure that is equal to bubble point
pressure: qo ,b  qo  pb  . The second term is associated to the saturated part of the reservoir. For this term equations (25) and
(27) after replacement p  pb can be applied:

n
  pwf  m 
J o* pb
qo  pwf   qo ,b  n n 1 
1    , (30)
m  pD    pb  

where values of m  1.6,  pD  0.005 are recommended to use for the wide range of reservoir and fluid characteristics.
Fig. 15 shows the IPR curves calculated by equation (30) for different n values in the case m  1.6 .

300

250 n=1

n=0.9

200 n=0.8
pb  250atm
атм
Vogel’s composite
Композитная IPR
по Вогелю
атм
P,P,atm

150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
3
Q, m
Q,/day
м3/сут

Fig. 15. IPR curves for undersaturated reservoir from analytical calculations by using equation (30) for the case m  1.6

Future IPR curve calculation and future absolute open flow rate estimation
Change of n during reservoir depletion does not allow using the present IPR equation for calculating future oil rates.
Observation of differential productivity index (or mobility) functions behavior obtained as a result of numerical calculations
has shown that in many cases their shape is similar for current reservoir pressure and initial reservoir pressure at the same
pressure interval. Fig. 14 shows the diagram of differential productivity indexes for two different average reservoir pressure
20 SPE 160782

values derived from Fig. 5. Logarithmic scale on vertical axis is used. It can be seen that the curves offset from each other by
the approximately constant interval which corresponds to multiplying by constant on linear scale axis. In this specific case for
current reservoir pressure p = 150 atm mobility function can be obtained from the mobility function associated with initial
reservoir pressure p = 250 atm by its multiplying by factor of 0.67.

m3/day/atm
коэффициент
продуктивности, м3/(сут · атм)
pi  250 atm
productivity index
Дифференциальный
Differential

p f  150 atm

Fig. 16. Comparing diagrams of differential productivity indexes J o for different reservoir pressures.

Such observation make it possible to suggest that n change during decrease of average reservoir pressure can be described
by the same mobility function (or rather similar function), but for the shifted pressure range. Note that if production gas-oil
ratio is not changing during the depletion process then the mobility function does not change too. It is derived from the
equations (11) that define the connection between reservoir pressure and saturation. In such case future IPR curve can be
easily calculated by replacing current reservoir pressure in equation (8) for its future value:

qo , f  pwf   J o ,ref  p po  p f   p po  pwf  , (31)

where p f – future value of average reservoir pressure. If oil pseudopressure function was approximated at initial reservoir
pressure pi by equation (23) then corresponding equation for the future IPR curve can be written as following:

n n
qo, f   pwf m    p f m 
 1      1     . (32)
qo,max,i   pi     pi  

Numerical experiments have shown that results of using equation (32) are in a good agreement with actual future IPR
curves behavior but differ by a constant factor. Such result is anticipated because the assumption about constant production
gas-oil ratio is not quite adequate. During reservoir depletion average gas saturation in reservoir increases which causes a total
decrease in productivity. To take it into consideration the following equation the following relationship can be applied:

m 1     p f m  
m n n
qo, f p   1   p 
 f  wf
  1   .
   pi     pi   
(33)
qo,max,i  pi 
    

Using approach proposed the following equation (34) for future AOF rate prediction can be used instead of equation (3):
SPE 160782 21

m 1   m n

qo ,max, f p  1  1   p f    .
 f    (34)
qo ,max,i  pi     pi   
   

Numeric calculations have shown that application of equation (34) yields much better results than conventional equation
m 1
 pf 
(3). It should be mentioned that the choice of multiplier   in equations (33) and (34) is purely empirical and requires
 pi 
additional argumentation.

Conclusion
1. Due to similarity of IPR curves for solurtion gas drive oil wells when they are plotted in dimensionless coordinates IPR
correlation should take a form of power function but not polynomial (as suggested by Vogel).
2. Power function for IPR curve is presented by equation (19).
3. In the case m  1.8 , the power function for IPR curve is very close to Vogel’s polynomial correlation. Calculation
method for qo ,max estimation using differential productivity index is also similar to Vogel-Standing approach.
4. Comparison of new power function IPR curve with the results of numerical study have shown that m value changes as
the reservoir depletes. Maximum values ( m  2 ) are corresponded to the near-critical relative permeability curves and
to the cases when average reservoir pressure is close to the bubble point pressure. During depletion typical m values
decrease (down to 1.4).
5. In the case of near-critical gas relative permeability curve oil mobility function is characterized by an abrupt decrease
of its value while reservoir pressure falls below bubble point pressure.
6. Power IPR function (as well as Vogel’s method and alike) can not describe oil mobility function behaviour in transition
zone.
7. Transition zone can occurr for the reservoirs at low stage of depletion. Transition zone disappears as depletion
progresses; in such cases power IPR equation shows good agreement with numerical results and can be applied in
practice.
8. Oil mobility function behavior can be described by Fetkovitch’s IPR in transition zone but it is often inadequate outside
of this zone.
9. Using new IPR correlation given by equation (23) transition zone can be taken into consideration by adding parameter
n to the power function (19).
10. Numerical calculations have shown that in the most cases m  1.6 , and n varies from 0.75 to 1. Low n values
correspond to the near-critical relative permeability curves and to the low reservoir depletion case. Value n  1
corresponds to the depleted fromations and relative permeability curve that are free from critical gas saturations effect.
11. Value of exponent m increases considerably (up to m  2 ) only if krg ,max  0.05 .
12. For practical applications and IPR curves calculations equation (25) can be used.
13. Maximum open flow potential oil rate can be approximately calculated using equation (27) from reservoir and fluid
properties and known m and n values.
14. Change of IPR curve during reservoir depletion can be estimated without changing exponent n , but from the similarity
of current oil mobility function to the initial one for the range of pressures corresponding to depleted reservoir.
15. Equation (31) is proposed to estimate maximum future open flow potential oil rate.

Nomenclature
B = oil formation volume factor
o
FE = flow efficiency coefficient
h = net thickness, m
Jo = differential productivity index, m3 / (day  atm)

J o,ref = productivity index at reference pressure pref , m3 / (day  atm)

J o* = differential productivity index for small drawdown, m3 / (day  atm)
k = reservoir permeability, md
22 SPE 160782

ko = oil effective permeability, md

kro = oil relative permeability

krg = gas relative permeability

m = exponent
n = Fetcovich’s exponent
p = average reservoir pressure, atm
pwf = bottomhole pressure, atm


pwf = pressure at the outer boundary of damaged zone, atm

pref = reference pressure, atm

p po = oil pseudopressure function, atm

pb = bubble point pressure, atm

pi = initial reservoir pressure, atm

 p = small drawdown, atm
qo = oil flow rate at standard conditions, m3/day

qo ,max = Absolute Open Flow potential, m3/day

qo* = theoretical maximum oil flow rate, m3/day

qo = oil flow rate at small drawdown, m3/day

R = production gas-oil ratio, m3/m3
Rs = solution gas-oil ratio, m3/m3
S = skin-factor
So = oil saturation

Sg = average gas saturation

So = average oil saturation

o = oil viscosity, cP
 = oil phase mobility, md/cP
 = characteristic parameter
 = parameter

Subscripts
f = future
p = present
i = initial
o = oil phase
g = gas phase
ref = reference

References
1. Vogel J.V. Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive Wells. J. Pet. Tech. (January 1968), p. 83-93.
2. Kermit E. Brown. The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods. – PennWellBooks. – 1984. – 448 p.
3. Fetkovich M.J. The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells, SPE paper 4529, 1973.
4. Mirzadjanzade A.H., Hasanov M.M., Bahtizin R.N. Modelling of Oil and Gas Production Processes. Nonlinearity,
nonequilibrium, uncertainty. Moscow-Izhevsk: Computer Researches Institute, 2005 – p. 368.
SPE 160782 23

5. Standing M.B. Inflow Performance Relationships for Damaged Wells Producing by Solution Gas Drive Reservoirs, J.
Pet. Tech. (November 1970), p. 1399-1400.
6. Camacho V., Raghavan R. Inflow Performance Relantionships for Solution-Gas-Drive Reservoirs. J. Pet. Tech. (May
1989), p. 541-550.
7. Wiggins M. Analytical Development of Vogel-Type Inflow Performance Relationships. SPE paper 23580, 1996.
8. Standing M.B. Concerning the Calculation of Inflow Performance of Wells Producing from Solution Gas Drive
Reservoirs. SPE paper 3332, 1971.
9. Camacho V., Raghavan R. Some Theoretical Results Useful in Analyzing Well Performance Under Solution-Gas-
Drive. SPE paper 16580, 1991.
10. Evinger H.H., Muskat M. Calculation of Theoretical Productivity Factor. Technical Publications and Contributions (In
Petroleum Technology), 1941. p. 194-203.
11. Levine J.S., Prats M. The Calculated Performance of Solution-Gas-Drive Reservoirs. SPEJ (September 1961), p. 142-
152.
12. Raghavan R. Well Test Analysis: Wells Producing by Solution Gas Drive. SPEJ (August 1976), p. 196-208.
13. Weller W.T. Reservoir Performance During Two-Phase Flow. J. Pet. Tech. (February 1966), p. 240-246.
14. Ilk D., Camacho-Velazquez R., Blasingame T.A. Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) For Solution Gas-Drive
Reservoirs – Analytical Considerations. SPE paper 110821, 2007.

Appendix

Table 1. Input data used for calculations

Specific oil density 0.85

Specific gas density 0.8
Reservoir tempature, oC 81
Absolute permeability, md 10
Net thickness,m 10
Drainage zone radius, m 250
Wellbore radius, m 0.1
Skin factor 0

1.8 0.6

1.6
Bo
o 0.5
(сПз)

1.4
) muo (cP)

) mug (сПз)
(cP)

1.2 0.4
2
Rs  10
/м3),
3

1
(м3/m

0.3
3
) Bo (m

/м3),
3

0.8
(м3/m
3
Bg (m
/м3),

0.6 0.2
3
(м3/m
3
Rs(m

0.4
 g  10 0.1
0.2 Bg
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250

P, атм

Pic. A-1. PVT functions used in calculations.

24 SPE 160782

1
kro
0.8 krg

0.6

kro, krg
0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sg
Pic. A-2. Oil-gas relative permeability curves for case RP 1

1
kro
0.8 krg

0.6
kro, krg

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sg
Pic. A-3. Oil-gas relative permeability curves for case RP 2

1
kro
0.8 krg

0.6
kro, krg

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sg
Pic. A-3. Oil-gas relative permeability curves for case RP 3