INFLOW PERFORMANCE

RELATIONSHIP (IPR)

Prof.Dr.Ir.Sudjati Rachmat,DEA
Petroleum Engineering Department
2019
Effect of Altered Permeability 2
 IPR
• The flow of oil, gas and water from the
reservoir is characterized by the Inflow
Performance relationship.
– IPR is a measure of “Pressure losses” in the
formation.
• The functional relationship between flow rate
and bottomhole pressure is called IPR.
– Indicator of well performance.

q  f  p  pwf   f p 
3
 Productivity Index
• Measure of the well’s capacity to
produce fluids from reservoir to
wellbore.
• Definition: Fluid production rate for 1
psi pressure drop from reservoir to
wellbore.

4
 Productivity Index
q t 
PI 
 pt   pwf t 

PI Productivity Index, STB/d/psi

p t  Average pressure in the well’s drainage area, psi.

p wf t  Bottomhole flowing pressure, psi

q(t) Production rate, STB/d

5
 Skin
• We define
k   rs 
s    1 ln 

 k s   rw 
• The term s is known as the (Hawkins) skin
factor
• Steady state radial flow equation becomes
141.2qsc B   re  
pe  pwf   ln   s 
kh   rw  

6
 Productivity Index
• For steady-state radial flow
q kh
PI  
pe  pwf   re  
141.2 B ln   s 
  rw  
• Well’s productivity is increased if
– s is reduced
– rw is increased
–  is reduced
– h is increased

7
 Example
A reservoir with the following properties
is flowed at a bottomhole pressure of
4500 psi. Calculate the flow rate.
Suggest two ways of increasing the
wells production rate by a factor of 2.

8
 Properties
Property Value Source

Permeability, md 5.2 Pressure Transient Analysis

Thickness, ft 53 Well logs

Viscosity, cp 1.7 Fluid Analysis

Formation Volume Factor, RB/STB 1.1 Fluid Analysis

Wellbore radius, ft 0.328

Well drainage area, acre 640 Well spacing

Skin factor 10 Pressure Transient Analysis

Average reservoir pressure, psi 5635 Pressure Transient Analysis

9
 Exercise

Property Value Source

Permeability, md 5.2 Pressure Transient Analysis

Thickness, ft 53 Well logs

Viscosity, cp 1.7 Fluid Analysis

Formation Volume Factor, RB/STB 1.1 Fluid Analysis

Wellbore radius, ft 0.328

Well drainage area, acre 640 Well spacing

Skin factor 10 Pressure Transient Analysis

Average reservoir pressure, psi 5635 Pressure Transient Analysis

10
 Solution
• First, we convert the well’s drainage area to an
equivalent drainage radius using re2  A
• The reservoir area is 640 acre = 640 acre43560
ft2/acre = 27878400 ft2. The equivalent reservoir
drainage area is re = 2979 ft.
q kh
PI  
p  p wf   re  1 
141.2 B ln    s 

  rw  2 
PI 
5.253  0.0561 STB/psi
141.21.11.7  ln 2979   0.5  10 
  0.328  
11
 Solution
• Solving for Rate
q  PI  p  p wf   0.0561 5635  4500  63.6 STB/d

• To double the rate, we could double the pressure

drop. The current pressure drop is 1135 psi, so
double this value is 2270 psi, which means that we
must reduce the bottomhole pressure to 5635 – 2270
= 3095 psi.

12
 Solution
• Another method of doubling the well’s rate would be
to double the Productivity Index to a value of 0.1122
STB/psi.
• We would do this by decreasing the skin factor by
stimulating the well.
• To determine the new skin factor

PI  0.1122 
5.253
141.21.11.7  ln 2979   0.5  s new 
  0.328  
• snew = 0.7.

13
 Pseudosteady State Flow
• Rate of change of pressure with time at
each point in a closed reservoir is
constant.
– Each “point” in the reservoir contributes
equally to the flow.
• Productivity Index
q kh
PI  
p  p wf   re  3 
141.2 B ln    s 

  rw  4  14
Non-cylindrical Drainage Area

• Deitz Shape Factor”, CA

q kh
PI  
p  p wf  1  2.2458 A  
141.2 B ln 2   s 

 2  rw C A  

• Average Pressure
5.615N p B
p t   pi 
Vpc
15
Dietz Shape Factors

16
 Notes
• With all else equal, asymmetric well-reservoir
configurations have lower PI and flow rate
compared with a symmetric well-reservoir
configuration
• For pseudosteady state flow with constant
well flowing pressure, average reservoir
pressure and flow rate decline continuously
due to depletion.
• For single phase flow, PI does not change
with changes in changes in flow rate and
average reservoir pressure due to depletion.
17
 Absolute Open Flow Potential
• AOF – For a given well-reservoir pair and average
reservoir pressure, AOF is the maximum theoretical
flow rate that the well can provide.
q  PI  p  pwf 
q AOF  qmax  PIp
• AOF is useful in analyzing IPR in terms of

pwf q
versus
p qmax
18
 Single Phase IPR
Pwf

q  PI  p  pwf   q 
PI   
Pr
 p 
 wf p

qmax  PI p

q
qmax 19
 Future Linear IPR
Pwf
As time t incresases, reservoir
pressure Pr decreases and cumulative
Pr
production Np increases.

q  J Pr  Pwf 

q
qmax 20
 IPR for Gas Wells
• Gas PVT properties are a function of pressure (g, z,
Bg, cg)
• If p < 2500 psi and steady-state gas flow (q Mscf/D)
1424qZ T   re  
p p2
e
2
wf   ln   s 
kh   rw  

• Pseudosteady-state flow

1424qZ T  1  2.2458 A  
p p
2 2
 ln 2 s
 
wf 
kh  2  rw C A  
21
 PI for Gas Wells
• Pseudosteady-state flow

PI  PI 
q


kh p  pwf 
p  pwf  1  2.2458 A  
1424Z T  ln 2   s 

 2  rw C A  

• PI for gas wells is a function of pressure.

– When average reservoir pressure changes, gas properties
change.
– PI is not constant during the well’s life

22
 Typical Gas IPR
Gas IPR

6000
Well Pressure, psi

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
Rate, MSCF/d

23
IPR for non-Darcy Gas Flow
• At high flow rates, Darcy’s Law is not valid.
• There are many high flow rate gas wells where
Darcy’s law is not obeyed in the near-wellbore region
(i.e., where gas velocities are greatest).
• The observed pressure drop exhibits a rate-
dependent skin effect
st  s  Dq
• st denotes the total apparent skin factor, and D is a
non-Darcy coefficient.

24
 Pseudosteady State Gas Flow
• For Pseudosteady state flow
1424qZ T  1  2.2458 A  
p p
2 2
 ln 2   s  Dq 
wf  
kh  2  rw C A  
• Back Pressure Equation (Rawlins – Schellhardt)

p 2  p wf
2
 aq  bq 2

1424Z T  1  2.2458 A  
a  ln   s
2  r C  
2
kh   w A  
1424Z TD
b
kh 25
 Limiting Cases
• When non-Darcy flow is negligible (b << a)
p 2  pwf2  aq
1 2

q  p  pwf2
a

• When non-Darcy flow is dominant (b >> a)
p 2  pwf
2
 bq 2

 
1
1
q p 2  pwf
2 2
b

26
 Generalized Gas Flow
• Limiting forms of the gas flow equation can be
generalized as

qC p  p 2
wf
2 n

– Negligible non-Darcy flow, n = 1

– Purely non-Darcy flow, n = 0.5
– Both components play a role, 0.5 < n < 1
• Equation can be rearranged as

 2 2

log p  pwf  log q  logC 
1
n
  1
n
27
28
 Isochronal Test Data Analysis by
Rawlins-Schellhardt Methode

 Contoh (Lanjutan)

29
 Isochronal Test Data Analysis by
Rawlins-Schellhardt Methode

 Contoh (Lanjutan)


q AOF  C p p ( p s )  p p ( p b ) n
 2 . 39  10  6 ( 9 . 9715  10 6  2 . 0987  10 3 ) 0 .89
 4 . 04 M M scf / D
 Back Pressure Analysis
• At constant reservoir pressure, flow at
four different flow rates.
– Measure stabilized bottomhole pressure at
each rate.
• Plot log p 2  pwf2  versus logq 
• Straight line with slope 1/n.
• With n, can construct the IPR.

31
 Multiphase Flow
• Need rates of oil, gas, water
– PIo, PIg, PIw
qo ko h
PI o  
p  p wf  1  2.2458 A   k o  kk ro
141.2 Bo  o  ln 2   s
 
2
  rw C A  
qw kwh
PI w   kw  kkrw
p  p wf  1  2.2458 A  
141.2 Bw  w  ln 2   s
 
2
  rw C A  

PI g 
qg

kg h k g  kkrg
p  pwf  1  2.2458 A  
141.2 B   ln 2
*
g
*
g
  s 
 32
 2  rw C A  
 Multiphase IPR
• IPR under multiphase flow conditions cannot
be easily calculated.
• The most accurate method is by solving the
equations governing the flow in the porous
media through a reservoir simulator.
• The IPR is so important to Production
Engineers that simplified or empirical
methods to estimate it are necessary.
• The most common correlations are Vogel and
Fetkovich
33
 Vogel IPR
• Vogel used a numerical reservoir simulator to
generate the IPR. He studied several cases
for a specific condition:
– Mechanism of production – Solution Gas Drive
– No water production
– Reservoir pressure below bubble point –
Saturated conditions
• He changed several other conditions such as
fluid and rock properties
34
 Vogel IPR
1

0 .8

0 .6

Pw f

Pr 0 .4

2
q  pwf   pwf 
0 .2  1  0.2    0.8 
qmax  p   p 
0
0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1
q
35
q max
 Vogel IPR
• Vogel IPR can be obtained from well tests.
• Although the method was developed for
solution gas drive reservoirs, the equation is
generally accepted for other drive
mechanisms as well.
• It is found to give excellent results for any well
with a reservoir pressure below the oil bubble
point, i.e., saturated reservoirs.

36
Undersaturated Reservoirs
P

Pr q  J Pr  Pwf 
Pb

q
qb qmax 37
Undersaturated Reservoirs
P

Pr

Pb Pr’ = Pb

q’ = q - qb
q
38
qb qmax
Undersaturated Reservoirs
P

Pr
q  J Pr  Pwf 
2

q  qb  Pwf  
Pwf 
  0.8  
Pb
 1  0.2 
qmax  qb  Pb  
 Pb 

q 39
qb qmax
Development of Vogel IPR

61 40
 Vogel Method- non Zero Skin Factor
(Standing Modification)
 The method for generating an IPR presented by Vogel did not
consider an absolute permeability change in the reservoir.
 Standing proposed a procedure to modify Vogel's method
to account for either damage or stimulation around the
wellbore.
 The degree of permeability alteration can be expressed in
terms of a Productivity Ratio PR or Flow Efficiency FE, where:
 Vogel Method- non Zero Skin Factor
(Standing Modification)
Undersaturated Reservoirs with FE ≠ 1 :
Standing's modification of Vogel's method to be
used when the flow efficiency is not equal to one
may also be applied to undersaturated reservoirs.
Skin and Skin Pressure Drop
(Radial Flow-Steady State)

k = Permeability, md
h = Height, ft
q = Production, STB/D
B = Oil Volume Factor, bbl/STB
ps = Skin Pressure Drop, psi
 = Oil Viscosity, cp

43
 44
IPR for Damaged or Stimulated Wells
 FEf/FEo = Jf/Jo = FOI
2
qo   Pwf    Pwf 
1
 1  0.2 1  FE  FE    0.8 1  FE  FE  
qoFE(max)   PR    PR 
2
 Pwf   Pwf 
 1.8 FE  1    0.8 FE  1 
qo
1

qoFE(max)  PR   PR 

Bila : Y  1  Pwf
PR

qo
1
 1.8 ( FE ) Y  0.8 ( FE )2 Y 2
q oFE(max)

45
 FE 1 qo
q 
1.8 ( FE ) Y  0.8 ( FE )2 Y 2
o (max)

Pwf
Dengan : Y  1 
PR

Pengaruh Perubahan Tekanan dan Laju Produksi :

q 01 q 02

1.8 ( FE ) Y1  0.8 ( FE ) Y1 1.8 ( FE ) Y2  0.8 ( FE ) 2 Y22
2 2

2.25 Y1 q 02  Y2 q 01 
Dengan : FE 
Y12 q 02  Y22 q 01
46
Effect of Altered Permeability 47
Effect of Skin Factors 48
 Fetkovich IPR

qo  C  p  p 
• Based on observations
of hundreds of sets of 2 2 n
field production data wf
• C and n are unique to
each well
• The values of the qo,max  Cp 2n
constants C and n are
determined from at two
sets of rate and n
qo  2
p 
 1  2 
bottomhole pressure wf
data at a given average
q o ,max  p 
reservoir pressure.  
49
 Example
Given data,
p = 2,400 psia

qo = 100 STB/d
pwf = 1800 psia
Generate inflow performance curve using
both Vogel's (b = 0.2) and Fetkovich's (b = 1)
equations.

50
 Example
Solution
•Vogel's Equation
Determine qo,max
2
100  1800   1800 
 1  0.2   0.8 
q o ,max  2400   2400 

q o ,max  250 STB/d

So Vogel’s equation becomes

2
qo  p wf   p wf 
 1  0.2   0.8 
250  2400   2400  51
 Example

•Fetkovich's Equation
Determine qo,max
2
100  1800 
 1  
q o ,max  2400 

q o ,max  228.6 STB/d

52
 Example
Vogel Fetkovich
pwf, psia qo, STB/d pwf, psia qo, STB/d
0 250.0 0 228.6
600 225.0 600 214.3
1200 175.0 1200 171.5
1800 100.0 1800 100.0*
2400 0.0 2400 0.0

53
 Multiphase IPR

300

250

200
Rate, STB/D

150

100

50

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
61
Pressure, psia 54
Horizontal Well Geometry

61 55
Horizontal Well

61 56
Relationship Between Various
Geometrical Factors

57
 IPR of Horizontal Wells
• Borisov

• Giger

58
 IPR of Horizontal Wells
• Giger, Reiss & Jourdan

• Renard and Dupuy

X = 2a/L for ellipsoidal drainage area

A = half the major axis of drainage ellipse
59
 IPR of Horizontal Wells
• Joshi

60
IPR of Horizontal Wells
L = horizontal well length
h = reservoir height
rw = wellbore radius
rev = drainage radius of vertical wells
reh= drainage radius of horizontal wells
o = oil viscosity
Bo = oil formation volume factor
p = pressure drop
qh = flow rate of a horizontal well
61
 Isotropic Reservoir kh = kv
Joshi

qh = oil flow rate , STB/day

kh = is horizontal permeability, md
h = reservoir thickness, ft
p= pressure drop, psi
o = oil viscosity , cp
Bo = formation volume factor, RB/STB
L = horizontal well length, ft
62
rw = wellbore radius. ft