SPE-195331-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/19WRM/3-19WRM/D031S012R007/1172226/spe-195331-ms.pdf by Universidad Nacional De Colombia user on 11 September 2023

Identification of the Decline in Well Productivity Index due to Wellbore
Damage through the Removal of Fluid and Formation Effects

Samiha Morsy, Yan Pan, Usman Lari, Wesley Clark, Erin Mire, and Fnu Suleen, Chevron

Copyright 2019, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Western Regional Meeting held in San Jose, California, USA, 23-26 April 2019.

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
A dynamic diagnostic tool for quantification of factors influencing well productivity decline is presented in
this paper. The diagnostic tool helps identify well stimulation candidates and potentially uplift in production.
Wells in deep water reservoirs show significant rate decline with time due to various causes including:
changing reservoir properties (e.g. reduction in rock permeability because of compaction), degradation
of completion efficiency (e.g. increasing skin), and changes in fluid flow conditions (e.g., single phase
to multiphase flow). Rate decline due to an increase in skin can be mitigated by a properly designed
well stimulation job, while other causes of rate decline related to changes in formation properties and/or
multiphase fluid production may not be remediated and requires a long-term reservoir management plan.
Engineers routinely screen for well stimulation candidates based on the decline in well productivity index.
Diagnostics and quantification of primary and secondary contributing factors for well productivity decline
play an important role in candidate selection. In this work, practical workflows are presented to remove
the effects of rock compaction, fluid properties changes, and multiphase flow effects from the estimated
productivity index. The presented workflow uses the recently developed multiphase well testing method
by Kamal et al (2018) to estimate the changes in the relative permeability values, so total fluid viscosity
values can be estimated to remove fluid properties changes and multiphase flow effects at each analyzed
pressure buildup test, and the estimated absolute permeability is used to remove compaction effects. The
workflow provides a dynamic diagnostic tool for monitoring well productivity changes to identify the main
causes of productivity decline and quantify effects on the normalized productivity index. The presented
workflow is validated using synthetic cases covering a wide range of reservoir and fluid properties as well
as wellbore conditions. A field example from the Gulf of Mexico is presented to show the practical use of
the proposed workflows as it ensures an accurate and reliable process for properly selecting candidates for
well stimulation. The field case shows a total reduction in the normalized well productivity index up to 53%
due to combined impacts of fluid properties changes, multiphase, and compaction.

Introduction
Deepwater producing assets in the Gulf of Mexico have experienced significantly higher than anticipated
well productivity declines (Zaki et al. 2018). Most current and future Deepwater reservoirs are in structurally
2 SPE-195331-MS

deep, high pressure environments where reservoir and rock mechanisms that impact long term well
productivity are poorly understood. Water breakthrough or free gas production can significantly impact
well productivity due to relative permeability and viscosity changes (Huseynov et al. 2017). Productivity
index (PI) trends derived from field production and pressure data reflect the composite effects of wellbore
damage along with changes due to multiphase flow and pressure depletion effects on fluid properties

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/19WRM/3-19WRM/D031S012R007/1172226/spe-195331-ms.pdf by Universidad Nacional De Colombia user on 11 September 2023

and permeability. Only PI decline due to wellbore damage should drive well stimulation decisions as
stimulation can only improve near wellbore region's permeability. Intervention activities to mitigate or
remediate Deepwater PI declines are complex, high cost operations that require significant lead times to
plan and execute. Therefore, accurately estimating PI due to wellbore damage is needed for proper well
stimulation decisions. In addition, reservoir simulation input productivity index multipliers used to match
well performance should be adjusted as appropriate to ensure resulting simulated output PI trends are
consistent and reliable and avoid duplication of reservoir and fluid effects that are already captured in the
simulation model.

Effect of reference pressure on well productivity index calculations

Productivity index is theoretically estimated using the average reservoir pressure, however the average
reservoir pressure may not be estimated accurately for fields where reservoir size and shape are highly
uncertain. In cases where the average reservoir pressure is not available, initial reservoir pressure or the
buildup pressure at one-hour after shut-in have been used by different operators to estimate well productivity
index. Therefore, there is a need to understand how these different reference pressures can affect the
reliability of the estimated well productivity index.
Well productivity index can be derived under transient and pseudosteady state conditions using different
reference pressures. The well productivity index under transient flow conditions using the initial reservoir
pressure is defined as in Eq. 1 (W.J. Lee 1982):

(1)

The well productivity index under transient flow conditions using the buildup pressure at one-hour after
shut-in during the infinite acting radial flow is derived as in Eq. 2 (D.R. Horner 1967):

(2)

The well productivity index under pseudosteady-state (PSS) conditions using the average reservoir
pressure is represented by Eq. 3 (W.J. Lee 1982):

(3)

Synthetic cases to show the effect of using different reference pressures on

productivity index estimation
A numerical synthetic case is generated to investigate the effect of the reference pressure on well
productivity index. The case represents a circular reservoir of 50,000 ft in radius and 30 ft in thickness.
The fluid viscosity is 3.6 cp and the formation volume factor is 1.1 RB/STB. The reservoir porosity is 10%
and the permeability is 300 md. The skin is increasing with time starting from 0 – 40 (Fig. 1). The flow
rate is constant at 1000 STB/D as shown in Fig. 2 and the well is shut-in for 21 periods of time. The total
compressibility is 3E-6 psi−1. The well productivity index is calculated at each buildup using a reference
pressure from each recognized flow regime shown on the diagnostic log-log plot (Fig. 3). The productivity
SPE-195331-MS 3

index using the initial reservoir pressure is also estimated for the comparison in Fig. 4. The first reference
pressure is chosen from the wellbore storage flow regime period at 0.01 hrs (P_WBS), while the following
reference pressures are chosen from the infinite acting radial flow regime (IARF); 1hr (Pradial @1hr), 12hrs
(Pradial @12hr), and 355.5 hrs (Pradial_rad_end). The productivity index (PI) is lastly calculated using the
average reservoir pressure during the transient and pseudosteady-state conditions.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/19WRM/3-19WRM/D031S012R007/1172226/spe-195331-ms.pdf by Universidad Nacional De Colombia user on 11 September 2023

The synthetic case results show that using a reference pressure during the wellbore storage flow regime
would provide a misleading PI trend (Fig.4). PI should be declining from Buildup #1 to #21 as the skin
increases over time, however the PI estimated using 0.01 hrs (P_WBS) during WBS shows an increase in
PI at 500 hrs before the start of the PSS followed by a flat trend towards 5000 hrs and then ended by a gentle
decline compared with the true decline using the average reservoir pressure. Although, using any reference
pressure during the IARF should result in same PI trend as of using the average reservoir pressure, the end
of the IARF reference pressure (Pradial_rad_end) provides the most accurate estimate of PI. On the other
hand, the initial reservoir pressure provides a pessimistic PI trend during the pseudosteady-state condition
due to reservoir depletion.
The results of the presented study provide more understanding in which reference pressure should be used
to estimate well productivity index. For example, in high permeability reservoirs, the IARF can be reached
within an hour, thus one-hour buildup shut-in pressure could be a practical reference pressure. The one-
hour shut-in pressure also could be a practical monitoring reference pressure for PI estimation particularly
for well equipped with permanent downhole gauges in which planned and unplanned shut-in periods can
be analyzed.

Figure 1—Synthetic case: skin changes versus time

 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/19WRM/3-19WRM/D031S012R007/1172226/spe-195331-ms.pdf by Universidad Nacional De Colombia user on 11 September 2023
SPE-195331-MS

Figure 2—Synthetic case: well pressure and rate history

Figure 3—Synthetic case: diagnostic log-log plot

4
SPE-195331-MS 5

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/19WRM/3-19WRM/D031S012R007/1172226/spe-195331-ms.pdf by Universidad Nacional De Colombia user on 11 September 2023

Figure 4—Synthetic case: reference pressure effect on PI Trend

Derivation of wellbore damage normalized productivity index

The analytical normalized well productivity index under pseudosteady state flow conditions is calculated
using Eq. 4:

(4)

Where, 1 refers to first buildup data and n refers to the following buildup data.
The normalized PI due to wellbore damage can be obtained by multiplying Eq. 4 by as shown
in Eq. 5 as following:

(5)

Since average reservoir pressure might not be available in certain cases, the observed normalized PI can
be calculated using the measured flow rate and the shut-in one-hour buildup pressure as shown in Eq. 6:

(6)

Where, P1hr is the shut-in one-hour buildup pressure during the IARF.
The normalized observed PI derived from field production and pressure data (Eq. 6) reflect the
composite effects of skin changes, multi-phase flow and pressure depletion effects on fluid viscosities and
permeabilities. From the synthetic case study on the reference pressure, we show that using any reference
pressure during the infinite acting radial flow regime should provide a similar PI trend as of using average
reservoir pressure. Therefore, Eq. 4 can be approximated by Eq. 6.
Similarly, the observed normalized PI due to wellbore damage can be obtained by multiplying Eq. 6 by
as shown in Eq. 7 as following:

(7)
6 SPE-195331-MS

The same workflow can be applied to horizontal wells as following:

(8)

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/19WRM/3-19WRM/D031S012R007/1172226/spe-195331-ms.pdf by Universidad Nacional De Colombia user on 11 September 2023

(9)

(10)

Work flow for removing fluid properties changes, multiphase, and rock
compaction effects from PI Calculations:
1. Calculate total liquid production rate (qt) at each buildup

(11)

(12)
2. Calculate the field observed normalized PI using P1hr at each buildup

(13)

3. Calculate total fluid viscosity using the relative permeability values (krw, kro, and krg) at each buildup
using the multiphase well testing tool developed by Kamal et al. 2018:

(14)

4. Remove PVT and multiphase from the observed PI at each buildup using the total viscosity values
at each buildup:

(15)

4. Calculate the absolute permeability at each buildup using the multiphase well testing tool developed
by Kamal et al. 2018
5. Remove compaction from the observed PI at each buildup using the absolute permeability value at
each build up:

(16)

Validation of the proposed method using synthetic data

A 2-phase (oil & water) numerical synthetic case was generated to test the validity of the proposed workflow.
The reservoir is circular with a 3000 ft radius and 100 ft in thickness. There are two wells at the reservoir; the
SPE-195331-MS 7

oil producer at the center of the reservoir and the water injector at 1000 ft away from the producer as shown
in Fig. 5. The oil producer started 3 years before the water injector. The fluid viscosity and formation volume
factor correlation versus pressure are shown in Fig. 6. The reservoir porosity is 23% and the permeability
is 400 md. The permeability compaction correlation is implemented in the reservoir simulation using the
data in Fig. 7, where the normalized k represents the ratio of the current permeability to its original value

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/19WRM/3-19WRM/D031S012R007/1172226/spe-195331-ms.pdf by Universidad Nacional De Colombia user on 11 September 2023

versus depletion. The skin in the oil producer is increasing with time as shown in Fig. 8; each point in the
curve represents the skin value at each conducted buildup. There are eight buildups during the production
history of the oil producer. The oil and water rate history of the oil producer well (Well #1) is shown in
Fig. 9, average reservoir pressure in Fig. 10, and the water cut in Fig. 11. The diagnostic log-log plot for
the eight buildup tests is shown in Fig. 12.
The end of the radial flow regime is within 12 hours based on the reservoir and fluid properties. Therefore,
the pressure at 12 hrs after shut-in is chosen as the reference pressure for the observed PI calculations (Table
1). Given the reservoir size and shape, with the fluid and rock properties, the analytical normalized PI is
estimated at each buildup using the average reservoir pressure (Table 1).
The PVT & multiphase effects are removed from the observed normalized PI at12 hours (Fig. 13) using
Eq. 15. A good match is achieved between the normalized PI using the end of the IARF at 12 hours and the
one estimated using the average reservoir pressure. The effect of oil viscosity alone before water injection
improves the well productivity index as the oil viscosity decreases with depletion. That uplift in PI could
mistakenly be interpreted from field data as a reduction in wellbore skin. After the reservoir pressure starts
to increase due to water injection the combined effects of PVT and multiphase reduce the well PI at almost
1200 hours. Similarly, the compaction effects are also removed from the observed normalized PI at12 hours
(using Eq. 16) after PVT & multiphase effects are removed (Fig. 14).

Figure 5—Validation case: reservoir description

8 SPE-195331-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/19WRM/3-19WRM/D031S012R007/1172226/spe-195331-ms.pdf by Universidad Nacional De Colombia user on 11 September 2023

Figure 6—Validation case: oil viscosity (left) and formation volume factor (right) correlations with pressure

Figure 7—Validation case: rock permeability compaction function

Figure 8—Validation case: Skin values versus time

 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/19WRM/3-19WRM/D031S012R007/1172226/spe-195331-ms.pdf by Universidad Nacional De Colombia user on 11 September 2023
9

Figure 10—Validation case: average reservoir pressure history

Figure 9—Validation case: Oil and water rate history

Figure 11—Validation case: Water cut history

SPE-195331-MS
 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/19WRM/3-19WRM/D031S012R007/1172226/spe-195331-ms.pdf by Universidad Nacional De Colombia user on 11 September 2023
SPE-195331-MS

Figure 12—Validation case: Diagnostic log-log plot for the eight builds

Table 2—Validation case results

Table 1—Validation case inputs
10
SPE-195331-MS 11

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/19WRM/3-19WRM/D031S012R007/1172226/spe-195331-ms.pdf by Universidad Nacional De Colombia user on 11 September 2023

Figure 13—Validation case: Normalized PI before and after multiphase & PVT removal

Figure 14—Validation case: Normalized PI before and after multiphase, PVT, and compaction removal

Dynamic Productivity Index Diagnosis

There are three main productivity decline causes affecting the oil producer PI; skin, PVT & multiphase
effects, and compaction. The proposed workflow is used to quantify the percentage of each cause. The
normalized PI decline due to each cause is quantified and its percentage out of the total decline is plotted
versus time at each buildup (Fig. 15). PVT changes affect productivity index positively when a single phase
(oil) is produced as the oil viscosity decreases with depletion and the reverse is happening when the average
reservoir pressure is increasing due to injection. On the other hand, PVT & multiphase affect productivity
index negatively due to relative permeability and oil viscosity changes with pressure.
12 SPE-195331-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/19WRM/3-19WRM/D031S012R007/1172226/spe-195331-ms.pdf by Universidad Nacional De Colombia user on 11 September 2023

Figure 15—Validation case: Normalized PI decline % based on each cause

Field Application
The workflow is applied in a field located in deepwater Gulf of Mexico, with water depths more than 5000
feet. The subject well is a horizontal producer completed in two layers of an unconsolidated sandstone.
The reservoir has an average permeability in 700 md range and the total net thickness of 225 ft. The initial
reservoir fluid viscosity is of 8 cp and formation volume factor of 1.15 RB/STB. The well was gradually
ramped up over a long period and achieved a peak production rate of 5000 STB. Water breakthough occurred
in the 8th month after first production (Fig. 16 & 17). Significant productivity decline is observed throughout
the producing life of well.

Figure 16—Field case: water cut history

SPE-195331-MS 13

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/19WRM/3-19WRM/D031S012R007/1172226/spe-195331-ms.pdf by Universidad Nacional De Colombia user on 11 September 2023

Figure 17—Field case: oil and water rate history

A buildup of minimum of 30 hours is needed to estimate reservoir horizontal permeability from the late
radial flow regime. The estimated horizontal permeability is then used to estimate the vertical permeability
using the early radial flow regime results. Three main buildups (BU#1, 2, and 3) are identified to be used
in the workflow to identify the impact of PVT, multiphase, and compaction on well productivity (Fig. 18).
The extrapolated P1hr shut-in pressure at the IARF from the semi-log straighline is used as the reference
pressure to estimate well normalized PI (Fig. 19). The diagnostic plots of the three main buildups covering
the history of the well is shown in Fig. 20.
The diagnostic plot of the three main buildups show negligible change of the horizontal permeability
deep into the formation away from the wellbore (as all buildups are on the top of each other at the late radial
flow regime (Fig. 20)). However, the early time of the three main buildups is shifted upward with time
indicating either the effective horizontal length was decreasing and/or the effective permeability around
the wellbore was decreasing with time. The three buildups’ diagnostic and history plots are matched using
increase in skin, reduction in effective well length, and reduction in the effective permeability around the
horizontal well. The PVT & multiphase and compaction effects are removed using the proposed workflow
and the results are shown in Fig. 21. PVT & multiphase affect the well productivity decline with up to 20%.
Rock compaction effects result in an additional well productivity decline up to 51%.
 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/19WRM/3-19WRM/D031S012R007/1172226/spe-195331-ms.pdf by Universidad Nacional De Colombia user on 11 September 2023
SPE-195331-MS

Figure 18—Field case: Well Pressure History including the analyzed buildups

Figure 19—Field case: Pressure history

14
SPE-195331-MS 15

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/19WRM/3-19WRM/D031S012R007/1172226/spe-195331-ms.pdf by Universidad Nacional De Colombia user on 11 September 2023

Figure 20—Field case: diagnostic log-log plots of buildup test 1,2, and 3

Figure 21—Field case: normalized productivity index

Conclusions and Summary

• A new well productivity workflow is developed to improve well stimulation decisions in deep-
water reservoirs.
• The developed workflow can be used to identify main well productivity decline causes and quantify
their contribution over time.
• The workflow is applied to field cases; including vertical and horizontal wells to improve well
productivity monitoring and forecasting
• The compaction effect on the field case well productivity decline is well aligned with the field
reservoir simulation study using the laboratory rock compaction table.
• The resulted PI trend obtained from the developed workflow is incorporated in the field reservoir
simulation to ensure that the PI multiplier is not duplicating the reservoir and fluid effects.
16 SPE-195331-MS

Acknowledgment
Authors would like to thank Chevron and other Co-owners of the field for supporting the publication of
this paper.

Nomenclature

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEWRM/proceedings-pdf/19WRM/3-19WRM/D031S012R007/1172226/spe-195331-ms.pdf by Universidad Nacional De Colombia user on 11 September 2023

B = Formation volume factor, RS/STB
Ct = total compressibility, Psi−1
h = Formation thickness, ft
k = Absolute permbeability, md
Kro = Relative permeability of oil, ratio
Krw = Relative permeability of water, ratio
Krg = Relative permeability of gas, ratio
Kx = Horizontal permeability, md
Kv = Vertical permeability, md
P = Pressure, psi
PI = Productivity Index, STB/D/psi
Pwf = Bottom hole pressure, psi
Q = Flow rate, STB/D
Rs = Solution gas oil ratio, scf/STB
Rsb = Solution gas oil ratio at the bubble point, scf/STB
Re = Reservoir radius, ft
Rw = wellbore radius, ft
S = skin
μ = Viscosity, cp
t = Time, hrs
tp = producing time, hr

Subscripts
g = Gas
i = initial
o = oil
w = water

Literature Review
Horner, D.R. 1967. Pressure Buildup in Wells. Proc., Third World Pet. Cong., The Hague (1951) Sec. II, 503–523; also
Pressure Analysis Methods, 9, 25–43. Richardson, Texas: Reprint Series, SPE.
Huseynov, R., Babayev, J., Sadikoglu, K., Azizov, E., & Ismayilova, F. (2017, November 1). Water Breakthrough Effect
on Well Productivity and Skin Factor Change. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/189033-MS
Kamal, M. M., Morsy, S., Suleen, F., Pan, Y., Dastan, A., Stuart, M. R., Zakariya, Z. (2018, July 1). Determination of
In-Situ Reservoir Absolute Permeability Under Multiphase-Flow Conditions Using Transient Well Testing. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/175012-PA
Zaki, K., Li, Y., & Terry, C. (2018, September 24). Assessing the Impact of Open Hole Gravel Pack Completions to
Remediate the Observed Productivity Decline in Cased Hole FracPack Completions in Deepwater Gulf of Mexico
Fields. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/191731-MS
Lee, W.J. 1982. Well Testing. Dallas, Texas: Textbook Series, SPE.