A Comprehensive Comparative Study On Analytical PI-IPR Correlations

SPE 116580
A Comprehensive Comparative Study on Analytical PI/IPR Correlations

Suk Kyoon Choi, SPE, The University of Texas at Austin, and Liang-Biao Ouyang, SPE, and Wann-Sheng (Bill)
Huang, SPE, Chevron Energy Technology Company
Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 2124 September 2008.
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
Inflow performance is one of the significant components to quantify the reservoirs capability to produce hydrocarbon.
There are two commonly-used quantities to represent reservoir inflow performance: productivity index (PI) and inflow
performance relationship (IPR). Both relate fluid flow rate to pressure difference between bottomhole and reservoir. Much
effort has been made on developing the PI or IPR solutions suitable for specific circumstances since Darcy proposed the
simple and useful Darcys law in 1856. As a consequence, various correlations for PI or IPR calculation have been proposed
from simple analytical solutions to rigorous numerical formulations in the literature.
As horizontal or multilateral wells have been occupying an ever-increasing share of hydrocarbon production since the
1980s, more accurate PI or IPR estimation has been emerging as an important issue in the petroleum industry.11 The
correlations become more and more complicated and rigorous in order to accurately describe inflow performance for
complex well geometries. They can provide a better prediction or estimation of inflow performance, though they would be
costly and computationally demanding. On the other side, researchers have been tried to simplify the complex solutions into
analytical forms through extensive case studies. These provide a useful tool for the researchers and engineers to make quick
estimations although they are confined to limited conditions.
In this paper, analytical correlations of PI and IPR from a comprehensive literature survey are reviewed. They have been
categorized by well deviation, fluid phases and time dependence. The well deviation is divided into vertical (less than 15),
slanted (15 to 60), highly-deviated/horizontal (60 to 90), and multilateral wells; while fluid phases are categorized into
single oil, single gas, and oil flow in two phases. For time dependence, steady state and pseudo-steady state have been
considered, however the transient state has been excluded. In addition, case studies for the specific input parameters have
been conducted to show the effective range, trends, and limitations of correlations as well as to provide the selection
guideline for an appropriate estimation of inflow performance. All correlations of PI and IPR have been organized in the
table for quick reference.
Introduction
Inflow performance serves as an important component with outflow performance to quantify hydrocarbon production
from a reservoir. Outflow performance reflects the flow capability in the pipelines and surface facilities from the bottom hole
to the surface storage tank; while inflow performance represents the reservoir capability which relates well production rate to
driving force, i.e., pressure difference between the outer boundary or average reservoir pressure and flowing bottom pressure.
Both performances are essential factors to generate a well deliverability curve which enables to predict an optimal well
production rate.
There are two different ways to express inflow performance inflow performance relationship (IPR) and productivity
index (PI). IPR presents the well production rate as a function of the flowing bottomhole pressure. The lower flowing
bottomhole pressure provides a higher driving force in the reservoir, thereby resulting in a higher hydrocarbon production
potential. Theoretically, the zero flowing bottomhole pressure gives the maximum production potential in the reservoir
which is called Absolute Open Flow Potential (AOFP). The simplest and most widely used IPR is the straight-line IPR,
implying that rate is directly proportional to pressure drawdown. The constant of proportionality is defined as the
Productivity Index (PI), another way to define inflow performance. One of the main objectives of production engineering
is to maximize PI which can be obtained by maximizing the flow rate for a given pressure drawdown or minimizing the
pressure drawdown for a given flow rate.
SPE 116580
There are many PI or IPR correlations published in the literature, ranging from simple analytical correlations to rigorous
numerical solutions. Since the proposition of Darcys law in 1856, various theoretical and empirical correlations have been
presented for variable reservoir parameters (reservoir shape, area, and petrophycal parameters), fluid phases, well trajectory,
and time dependence.
This study intends to review as many simple analytical solutions for PI or IPR as possible through a comprehensive
literature survey, and perform case studies for the comparison of correlations in the same category in order to provide a
selection guideline. Under certain circumstances, it makes more sense to use simple analytical solutions to predict PI or IPR,
because they are much quicker and easier to use with acceptable accuracy when compared to reservoir simulation. Twenty
eight (28) correlations have been found from this review and categorized according to well deviation, fluid phase, and time
dependence.
Analytical Solutions for PI / IPR
Summary for the Solutions
A total of 28 PI or IPR correlations reviewed through literature survey have been classified into three categories: fluid
phase, well deviation, and time dependence. In fluid phase category, analytical correlations are available only in single-phase
(single oil and single gas), and oil flow in two phases in the solution-gas drive reservoir. Well deviation is divided into three
well geometries: vertical (less than 15); slanted (15 to 60); horizontal (60 to 90); and multilateral well. The solutions for
steady and pseudo-steady state are included in this paper. However, the transient state is excluded.
Table 1 shows a summary for the analytical PI or IPR solutions. No analytical correlations were found in the literature
for multilateral well in single-phase gas reservoir and two-phase reservoir. In particular, there were also no analytical
correlations identified for slanted well geometry; instead, three correlations for deviation skin were applied to combine with
any correlation in the vertical well geometry to calculate PI or IPR for slanted wells. Therefore, the skin correlations are
included for the slanted well section in this table except for the case of oil flow in two-phase reservoirs which has its own
correlation for PI or IPR. All the correlations in this paper are displayed in the form of productivity index with oil-field units.
Literature Review
Single Oil Well in Vertical Geometry
In a vertical geometry with single-phase oil under steady state, Darcy proposed a constitutive equation that describes the
flow of a fluid through a porous medium. Darcys law can be expressed in various forms according to reservoir geometries.
The following form represents the steady state radial flow in a circular drainage area with potential skin effect in the near
wellbore. 11
qo
kh
Jo =
=
(1)
pe pwf 141.2 Bo o ln ( re / rw ) + s
where Jo is productivity index; qo is oil flow rate; pwf is bottom hole flowing pressure; pe is external boundary pressure; k is
permeability; h is pay thickness; Bo is oil formation volume factor; o is oil viscosity; re is external boundary radius; rw is
wellbore radius; and s is skin effect.
The equation for pseudo-steady state with the same conditions can be obtained by simply replacing ln(re/rw) term in
equation (1) with ln(0.472re/rw), which is shown in equation (2): 11
qo
kh
Jo =
=
(2)
pr pwf 141.2 Bo o ln ( 0.472re / rw ) + s
where pr is average reservoir pressure. Dietz8 developed a series of shape factors to account for irregular drainage shape
and/or asymmetrical positioning of a well. The following model is a generalized form of equation (2) for any shape factor
proposed by Dietz:
qo
kh
Jo =
=
(3)
pr pwf
1 4A
+ s
141.2 Bo o ln
2 C A rw2
where A is drainage area; is Eulers constant (1.78); and CA is shape factor.

Two correlations to account for non-Darcy flow effects have been included in the category of the vertical geometry with
single-phase oil in pseudo-steady state. Note that non-Darcy flow occurs when the linear relationship between pressure drop
and rate (Darcys law) becomes invalid at high flow velocity. Jones20 presented a pressure drawdown versus rate relationship
by employing the Forchheimer factor :
qo
1
(4)
Jo =
=
pr pwf A + B qo
SPE 116580
o Bo ln
where
0.007078 kh
A=
B=
re
0.75 + s
rw
9.08 1013 Bo2 o
(4.1)
(4.2)
4 2 h p2 rw
where is non-darcy factor; o is oil density; and hp is perforate interval.

The following correlation represents an alternative form of the PI (in vertical geometry with single-phase oil in pseudosteady state), which employs the non-Darcy coefficient D.2 The additional term of Dq is added as an equivalent skin term
in equation (2) in order to consider the non-Darcy effect:
qo
0.00703 kh
Jo =
=
(5)
pr pwf o Bo ln ( 0.472re / rw ) + s + Do qo
where Do is non-darcy factor.
Another equation for irregular drainage area was proposed by Odeh22 based on the work of Matthews and Russel15.
qo
7.08 103 kh
Jo =
=
(6)
pr pwf o Bo [ ln X 3 4 + s ]
where X is the correlation between rw and A (or re) for various drainage areas and well locations.22
Single Oil Well in Slanted Geometry
For the slanted well, three correlations for slanted skin have been introduced in this paper because not even a single
analytical PI/IPR correlation for the slanted well has been found in the literature. They can be combined with any of the
correlations for vertical geometry with single phase (single oil and single gas) so as to provide the PI or IPR solutions for the
slanted well geometry. Cinco-Ley7 proposed a simple correlation for slanted skin based on the study of unsteady state flow
of a slightly compressible fluid. This correlation is valid for the well deviation angles between 0 to 75:
'
s = w
41

where
2.06
1.865
'
w
56

h
log10 D
100
kv
tan ( )
kh
(7.1)
kh
kv
(7.2)
w' = tan 1
hD =
h
rw
(7)
where s is slanted skin; hD is reservoir dimensionless thickness; kh is horizontal permeability; kv is vertical permeability; and
is slant angle measures from the normal to the bedding planes.
Besson3 proposed another slanted well skin correlation from the results of a semi-analytical simulator. In this model,
pay thickness (h) and horizontal well length (L) are used to represent slanted angle (). For isotropic reservoir and slant
angles between 0 to 90:
4r h Lh
(8)
s = ln w + ln
L L 4rw
For anisotropic reservoir:
4r 1 h Lh 2
ln
s = ln w
+
L L 4rw 1 + 1/
where
= k h kv
h2
1
1
L2 2
(9)
(9.1)
(9.2)
where L is well length.

Rogers and Economides23 derived an expression for a slanted skin starting from the previous comprehensive semianalytical PI models by Economides9:
sin 1.77 hD0.184
sin 5.87 hD0.152
s = 1.64
s
2.48
for
I
<
1;
=
for Iani 1
(10)
ani
0.821
0.964
I ani
I ani
SPE 116580
where
I ani =
kh
, kh = k x k y
kv
(10.1)
h
rw
where kx is permeability in x direction; and ky is permeability in y direction.
hD =
(10.2)
Single Oil Well in Horizontal Geometry

For the horizontal geometry, Economides10 presented an inflow performance relationship for the single-phase oil flow in
steady state that was modified from Joshis equation. This model requires the assumption that the drainage area is
ellipsoidal, with the large half-axis of the drainage ellipsoid, related to the length of the horizontal well:
qo
kh h
Jo =
=
(11)
pe pwf
2

a
a
L
/
2
(
)
I ani h
I ani h
+ s
141.2 Bo o ln
+
ln
L
L
/
2
+
r
I
1
(
)

w ani
where
I ani =
kh
kV
(11.1)
0.5
4 0.5
L
L
re
a = 0.5 + 0.25 +
for < 0.9 re

L
2
/
2
2
Other similar solutions are available in the literature: Borisove4, Giger14, Renard and Dupuy16.
For Borisove:
0.007078 kh h / ( o Bo )
qo
=
Jo =
pe pwf
r h h
ln 4 e + ln
L L 2 rw
For Giger:
Jo =
qo
=
pe pwf
0.007078 k h h / ( o Bo )
h
L 1 + 1 L / ( 2re )
+ ln
ln
L / ( 2re )
h
2 rw
For Renard and Dupuy:
qo
0.007078 kh h
1
=
Jo =
1
'
o Bo
pe pwf
cosh ( x ) + ( h L ) ln h / 2 rw
1+
where
rw' =
rw
2
x = 2a L for an ellipsoidal drainage area
= k h kv
(11.2)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(14.1)
(14.2)
(14.3)
0.5
4 0.5
L
re
a = 0.5 + 0.25 +
(14.4)

2
L / 2
For pseudo-steady state, equation (11) can be simply converted by adding ln(0.472) term at the place equivalent to
skin.10
qo
kh h
Jo =
=
(15)
pr pwf
2

2
I ani h
a + a ( L / 2 ) I ani h
0.75 + s
141.2 Bo o ln
+
ln
L/2
L rw ( I ani + 1)

SPE 116580
Another pseudo-steady state correlation proposed by Economides9 is shown in equation (16). This model employs the
dimensionless pressure of a point source in a box shape reservoir with no-flow boundary conditions. Furthermore, this model
is applicable to estimate the inflow performance for multilateral wells with specific well configurations by using horizontal
plane shape factors:
Jo =
qo
=
pr pwf
where
kLx
L
887.22 Bo o pD + x s
2 L
Lx C A Lx
+
pD =
sx
4 h 2 L
h h
+ se
s x = ln
2 rw 6 L
se =
(16)
(16.1)
(16.2)
2
z
h 2 zw 1 2 zw 1

ln sin w
L h
2 h 2
h
k = 3 k x k y kv
(16.3)
(16.4)
where zw is distance of well from middle of reservoir.

Babu and Odeh proposed the widely used correlation for horizontal well pseudo-steady state calculations. The reservoir
is assumed to be in a bounded rectangular shape with an arbitarily located horizontal well:19
0.007078 ( 2 xe ) k y kv / ( o Bo )
qo
Jo =
=
(17)
pr pwf ln A1 / rw + ln CH 0.75 + sR
Where
A1 = 2 ye h
(17.1)
2

z
2 y k 1 y y
ln CH = 6.28 e v w + w ln sin 180o w
h
h k y 3 2 ye 2 ye

(17.2)
2 y k
0.5ln e v 1.088
h k y
where xw is distance from the horizontal well mid-point closest boundary in the x direction; yw is distance from the horizontal
well to the closest boundary in the y direction; zw is vertical distance between the horizontal well and the bottom boundary; xe
is reservoir half length in the direction parallel to the wellbore; ye is reservoir half length in the direction perpendicular to the
wellbore; and sR is skin factor due to partial penetration of the horizontal well in the areal plane19.
Single Oil Well in Multilateral Geometry
For steady state flow in a multilateral well, Borisove proposed models for calculating inflow performance of multilateral
wells with either plannar or stacked laterals.12 Planar laterals means the spokes of a wheel from a single spudding location.
For plannar laterals:
0.007078 kh / ( o Bo )
qo
Jo =
=
(18)
pe pwf
re h h
ln F + ln
L nL 2 rw
For stacked laterals:

0.007078 kh / ( o Bo )
qo
Jo =
=
pe pwf
h
h
r
ln F e +
ln
L Lmn 2 mrw
(19)
where F is 4, 2, 1.86, 1.78 for n = 1, 2, 3, 4, respectively; n is number of spokes (laterals); and m is number of elevations or
levels at which laterals are drilled. These models are confined to 1, 2, 3 or 4 laterals. As stated above, for pseudo-steady
state calculation, the correlation proposed by Economides9, equation (16), can be used.
Single Gas Well
The available analytical solutions for single-phase gas well are fewer than those for single-phase oil well. Aronofsky
and Jenkins 1 developed the solution for vertical single gas well in steady state from the solution of the differential equation
for gas flow through porous media by using non-Darcy factor:
SPE 116580
Jg =
qg
pe2
2
pwf
kh
(20)
1424 g ZT ln ( re / rw ) + s + Dqg
where qg is gas flow rate; g is average gas viscosity; Z is average z factor; and T is temperature. This model can be
converted to the pseudo-steady state correlation by simply replacing ln(re/rw) term with ln(0.472re/rw).
Jones20 proposed a similar correlation to that of a single oil case that includes Forchheimer factor, :
Jg =
qg
pr2
2
pwf
1
A + B qg
(21)
1422T g Z ln e 0.75 + s
rw
A=
kh
where
B=
(21.1)
3.1611012 g Z T
(21.2)
h 2 rw
Odeh 22 also derived the similar pseudo-steady state flow equation with noncircular drainage area to his oil flow equation:
qg
703 106 kh
Jg = 2
(22)
=
2
pr pwf
g TZ ln X 0.75 + s + Dg qg
11
Economides suggested a steady state flow equation for horizontal wells analogous to equation (11):
qg
kh h
Jg = 2
=
2
2

pe pwf
2
I ani h
a + a ( L / 2 ) I ani h

+ s + Dqg
1424 g ZT ln
+
ln
L/2
L rw ( I ani + 1)

where
I ani =
kh
kv
4 0.5
L
re
a = 0.5 + 0.25 +

2
L / 2
(23)
(23.1)
0.5
for
L
< 0.9 re
2
(23.2)
This model can be converted to the pseudo-steady state correlation by replacing ln(re/rw) term with ln(0.472re/rw).
Two-Phase Oil Well
In two-phase flow, only the solutions for flowing oil wells in solution gas drive reservoir are available. Vogel26
proposed an empirical correlation for the inflow performance relationship through a number of history matching simulations:
2
pwf
pwf
qo = qo, max 1 0.2
0.8
(24)

pr
pr
where qo,max is absolute open flow potential.

Fetkovich13 introduced a similar correlation to improve the deficiency of Vogel correlation which is often not accordance
with field data:
p 2
wf
qo = qo, max 1
(25)

pr
For the negative values of the ideal flowing bottomhole pressure, Vogel or Fetkovich correlations predict incorrect
behavior, resulting in wrong prediction of IPR. Harrison suggested a correlation that works for both positive or negative
values in place of Vogel and Fetkovich correlations:5
(1.792 pwf / pr )
qo = qo, max 1.2 0.2 e
(26)
These three correlations are applicable to the horizontal wells by employing productivity index of horizontal pseudosteady state calculation. Cheng6 proposed a versatile correlation to calculate IPR for vertical, slanted, and horizontal wells,
based on the results from NIPERs well simulators:
SPE 116580
pwf
pwf
qo = qo, max a0 a1
a2

pr
pr
where a0 ~ a2 are correlation constants for well deviation degree.6
(27)
Case Studies
Case Description
The case studies for PI and IPR have been performed to identify the effective range and the sensitivity for the
correlations, and to provide some insights for the correlation selection. A total of 38 input parameters required for the case
studies were carefully chosen as default values from the literature and were summarized in Table 2. These default values
were used in all the case studies unless specified otherwise.
For the PI correlations, one variable that would be considered the most important was chosen in each well-deviation
category, and the case studies have been performed for that variable. Table 3 shows the selected variables with the ranges
used in these studies. Table 4 shows the detailed case descriptions with the corresponding variables and the figure locations.
Note that the correlations in two-phase category are excluded in these PI case studies because no PI is available due to
inconstant proportionality of the rate for pressure drawdown in the reservoir.
For the IPR correlations, the IPR curves for all the correlations in the same category were generated and compared each
other. Table 5 shows the detailed case descriptions for the IPR studies. Considering the result similarities (that will be
addressed in the following section), the results of case studies are differently displayed between PI and IPR: the results of PI
studies follow the order of the well-deviation category; and the results of IPR studies are sorted in the order of the fluid phase
/ time dependence category. The corresponding figure locations for the IPR results are also included in Table 5.
Study Results
Productivity Index
Figures 1 through 14 show the results for case studies in PI. For the vertical well, as shown in Figures 1 through 4, the
PI value decreases logarithmically, as the ratio of external boundary radius (re) and well bore radius (rw) increases. This is
because the ratio (re/rw) is placed in natural log term at the denominator. The term ln(re/rw) indicates that the drainage area
assigned to a well has a relatively small impact on the production rate. In particular, it is observed that all the correlations in
the same category agree with one another very well as shown in Figures 2 and 4.
Figures 5 through 8 show the comparison results for the slanted well. As mentioned in the previous section, the slanted
skin was combined with the correlations in vertical well geometry. For simplicity, only the first correlation in vertical well
geometry was used for these case studies, because all the vertical correlations are in good agreement as shown in Figures 1
through 4: Darcy in steady state single oil; Dake in pseudo-steady state single oil; and Aronofsky and Jenkins in steady state
and pseudo-steady state single gas. In the section below 75, all three skin correlations for deviation are in good agreement.
Cinco-Ley and Besson give almost same skin values, while Rogers produces a little conservative result. Above 75, a big
difference is observed between Cinco-Ley and Rogers. In particular, Besson correlates h (pay thickness) and L (horizontal
well length) to calculate (Slanted angle). Therefore, skin value cannot be generated at 90, because L (horizontal well
length) term should be infinite. Based on these observations, it is recommended that all analytical skin correlations for
slanted wells be used in the range between 0 and 75.
Figures 9 through 12 represent the results for horizontal wells. Figure 9 displays the results for four different PI
correlations in single oil horizontal well in steady state. All the results are in good agreement within less than 5% deviation
range. Giger produces the most optimistic PI, followed by Borisove, Renard, and Joshi, in that order. In the case of single
oil horizontal well in pseudo-steady state (Figure 10), the deviation increases up to almost 25%, as horizontal length reaches
3000 ft. Joshi still gives the most conservative result, and Babu (and Odeh) and Economides, in that order, produce more
optimistic PI results. For single gas well, there is only one correlation for each state. Figures 11 and 12 shows the results
which are in the same pattern as single oil well cases.
Figures 13 and 14 show the case study results for multilateral wells. Figure 13 displays the results for two different
correlations in single-oil steady state as a function of number of laterals: for planar laterals and for stacked laterals. As the
number of laterals increase, PI increases logarithmically due to the increased interference between laterals. Another
observation is that the PIs for stacked laterals are higher than those of planar laterals. Figure 14 shows the results for
Economides correlation in the cases of 4 and 8 spokes in single-oil pseudo-steady state. The overall trend cannot be
observed because only two data points are available in this correlation. However, it is reasonable to observe that the PI value
at 4 spokes in this case is quite similar to that in pseudo-steady state shown in Figure 13.
Inflow Performance Relationship
The comparison results for the IPR case studies are shown in Figures 15 through 31. Please refer to Table 5 for the
detailed case descriptions. Because the same correlation for PI is used in calculating IPR, the conservative or optimistic
trends among correlations are exactly the same. For the oil wells (Figures 15 through 22), the results confirm a straight-line
IPR because the oil flow rate is directly proportional to the pressure drawdown. On the other hand, the cases of gas wells
have a curve IPR because the pressure drawdown is expressed in the difference of squared pressure (Figures 23 through 28).
SPE 116580
The results for oil flow in two phases are newly added in the IPR case studies. The bubble point pressure is set below
the average reservoir pressure to identify oil-phase and two-phase zones that occurred due to pressure changes during fluid
flow. Above the bubble point, the fluid is in oil phase which produces a straight IPR, while a curve IPR is generated below
the bubble point because gas becomes more and more evolved as the pressure decreases. All the results for two-phase oil
wells were generated under the assumption of 1000 psi bubble point in the operating pressure range between 0 to 2500 psi.
Four correlations - Vogel, Fetkovich, Harrison, and Cheng are capable of calculating the IPR for vertical and horizontal
wells. For slanted wells, only Cheng is available. From the results, Vogel gives the most optimistic IPR, followed by
Fetkovich, Cheng, and Harrison, in that order.
Based on the case studies, the selection guideline has been prepared for analytical IPR or PI correlations as shown in
Table 6. Please note that the guideline is confined to the specific input values and it is only for a reference.
Conclusions
The following conclusions are made:
Analytical solutions for productivity index (PI) or inflow performance relationship (IPR) have been studied through
comprehensive literature survey, and summarized by the category of well deviation, fluid phase, and time
dependence. Well deviation is divided into vertical, slanted, horizontal and multilateral. Fluid phase includes single
oil, single gas, and oil flow in two phases, and steady state and pseudo-steady state are the variables for time
dependence.
Case studies for PI or IPR have been performed for the properly selected variables to provide the effective range,
trends and limitations of the solutions for each category. Since these case studies have been done for the specific
input parameters, the results may be different for other conditions.
This study would be a good reference to the researchers who want to study analytical PI / IPR solutions.
No solutions for single-phase gas flow, and oil flow (in two phases) in multilateral well have been found in the
literature. Rigorous models should be used for this case.
No solutions for slanted well geometry in single-phase well have been found. Three skin correlations for slanted
geometry: Cinco-Ley, Besson, and Rogers and Economides are used to be combined with any correlation of vertical
geometry to provide the solutions.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Chevron management to permit this publication.
Nomenclatures
English Symbols
a
=
A
=
B
=
C
=
D
=
F
=
h
=
J
=
k
=
L
=
m
=
n
=
p
=
q
=
r
=
s
=
T
=
X
=
x, y, z
=
Z
=
correlation constants
drainage area
formation volume factor
shape factor
non-darcy factor
Constant
pay thickness or interval
productivity index
Permeability
Length
number of elevations or levels
number of spokes
Pressure
flow rate
Radius
skin factor
Temperature
correlations between rw and A or re for various drainage areas and well locations
distance in x, y, or z direction
z-factor
Greek Symbols
non-darcy factor
Eulers constant (1.78)
angle
viscosity
density
SPE 116580
Subscripts
A
D
e
g
h
p
o
r
R
v
x
y
w
wf
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
area
dimensionless
external
gas
horizontal
perforate
oil
average
partial penetration of the horizontal well in the areal plane
vertical
x-direction
y-direction
wellbore
flowing bottom hole
slanted
References
1. Aronofsky, J. S., and Jenkins, R.: A Simplified Analysis of unsteady Radial Gas Flow, Trans. AIME, 201, 149 154,
1954
2. Barrios, L.: Integrated Computational Model for Overall Skin Factor Estimation, Master Project Report, University of
Tulsa, Summer 2004
3. Besson, J.: Performance of Slanted and Horizontal Wells on an Anisotropic Medium, SPE 20965, October 1986
4. Borisove. Ju P.: Oil Production Using Horizontal and Multiple Deviation Wells, Nedra, Moscow, 1964. Translated
into English by J. Strauss, edited by S.D. Joshi, Philips Petroleum Company the Red Library Translation, Bartlesville,
OK, 1984
5. Brown, K. E.: The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods, Vol. 4, PennWell Publishing Company, The University of
Tulsa, p 7-10
6. Cheng, A. M.: Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas-Drive, SPE 20720 presented at the 65th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineering held in New Orleans, LA, September 2326, 1990
7. Cinco, H., Miller, F. G., and Ramey, H. J.: Unsteady-State Pressure Distribution Created By a Directionally Drilled
Well, JPT, p1392~1400, November, 1975
8. Dietz, D. N.: Determination of Average Reservoir Pressure from Build-up Survey, JPT, 955-959, August, 1965
9. Economides, M. J., Braud, C.W., and Frick, T.P., :Well Configurations in Anisotropic Reservoirs, SPE 27980
presented at the 1994 University of Tulsa Centennial Petroleum Engineering Symposium held in Tulsa, 29-31 August,
1996
10. Economides, M. J., Deimbacher, F. X., Brand, C. W., and Heinemann, Z. E.: Comprehensive Simulation of Horizontal
Well Performance, SPE 20717, 1990, and SPEFE, 418-426, December 1991
11. Economides, M. J., Hill, A. D., and Ehlig-Economides, C.: Petroleum Production Systems, Prentice Hall Inc., Upper
Saddle River, 1994
12. El-sayed A. H., and Amro, M. M., :Production Performance of Multilateral Wells, SPE 57542 presented at the 1999
SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 8-10 November 1999.
13. Fetkovich, M. J.: The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells, SPE 4529, 1973
14. Giger, F. M., Reiss, L. H., and Jourdan, A. P.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspect of Horizontal Drilling, SPE 13024
presented at the SPE 59th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, Sept. 16-19, 1984
15. Mathew, C. S. and Russell, D. G.: Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in Wells, Monograph Series, Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, Dallas (1967) 1, 110
16. Renard, G. I., and Dupuy, J. M.: Influence of Formation Damage on the Flow Efficiency of Horizontal Wells, SPE
19414 presented at the Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, Louisiana, Feb. 22-23, 1990
17. Goode, P.A., and Kuchuk, F.J. :Inflow Performance of Horizontal Wells, SPE Reservoir Engineering, p 319-323,
August 1991
18. Huang, B., and Prada, M., :Multilateral Wells Modeling and Production Prediction, Chevron presentation material,
2002
19. Joshi, S. D.: Horizontal Well Technology PennWell Publishing Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1991
20. Jones, L., Blount, E., and Glaze, O.: Use of Short Term Multiple Rate Flow Tests to Predict Performance of Wells
Having Turbulence, SPE 6133, October 1976
21. Kampkom, R.: Analysis of Two-Phase Inflow Performance in Horizontal Wells, Master Report, University of Texas at
Austin.
10
SPE 116580
22. Odeh, A. S.: Pseudosteady-State Flow Equation and Productivity Index for a Well with Noncircular Drainage Area,
Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 30, No 11, pp 1630-1632, 1978
23. Roger, E., and Economides, M.: The Skin due to Slant of deviated Wells in Permeability-Anisotropic Reservoirs, SPE
37068, November 1996
24. Van Der Vlis, A. C., Duns, H., and Luque, R. F.: Increasing Well Productivity in Tight Chalk Reservoir, Proc., vol. 3,
pp. 71-78, 10th World Petroleum Congress, Bucharest, Romania, 1979
25. Van Everdingen, A.F.: The Skin Effect and its Influence on the Productive Capacity of a Well, Trans., AIME (1953)
198, 171-76
26. Vogel, J. V.: Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive Wells, JPT, Vol 20, No 1, pp 83-92, 1968
Single Oil Well

Steady State
Vertical
(< 15)
Darcy, 1856
Slanted
(< 60)
Horizontal
(< 90)
Multilateral
Pseudo-Steady
Dake, 1978
Dietz, 1965 (shape
factor)
Jones, 1976 (
factor)
Darcy, 1856 (D
factor)
Odeh, 1978 (shape
factor)
Cinco-Ley, 1975
Besson, 1990
Rogers and Economides, 1996
Joshi, 1988 and
Joshi, 1988 and
Economides, 1990
Economides, 1990
Borisove, 1964
Economides, 1994
Giger, 1983
Babu and Odeh,
1989
Renard and Dupuy,
1990
Borisove, 1984 for
Economides, 1994
planar laterals
Borisove and
Clonts-Ramey,
1984 for stacked
laterals
Table 1: Summary Table for PI or IPR Correlations
Single Gas Well

Steady State
Aronofsky and
Jenkins, 1954
Two Phase Oil Well
Pseudo-Steady
Aronofsky and
Jenkins, 1954
Jones, 1976 (
factor)
Odeh, 1978 (shape
factor)
Pseudo-Steady
Vogel, 1968
Fetkovich, 1973
Harrison
Cheng, 1990
Cheng, 1990
Economides, 1994
Economides, 1994
Vogel, 1968
Fetkovich, 1973
Harrison
Cheng, 1990
SPE 116580
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Variable
pe
pr
k
kv
kh
kx
ky
h
hp
re
xe
ye
CA
Bo
o
o
qo
g
Z
T
g
qg
rw
L
xw
yw
zw
Do
Dg
n
m
A'
Jo
Pb (PVT)
(slanted)
11
Description
External Boundary Pressure
Average reservoir pressure
Average Permeability
Vertical Permeability
Horizontal Permeability
Permeability in the x-direction
Permeability in the y-direction
Pay thickness
Perforate interval
External boundary radius
Reservoir half length in the direction parallel to the wellbore
Reservoir half length in the direction perpendicular to the wellbore
Shape factor
Formation volume factor
Viscosity
Oil density
Oil flow rate
Oil viscosity
Compressibility factor
Temperature
Gas specific gravity
Gas flow rate
Wellbore radius
Horizontal well length
Distance from the side wall boundary perpendicular to the wellbore to the midpoint of wellbore
Distance from the side wall boundary parallel to the wellbore to the center of wellbore
Distance from bottom or top boundary to the center of wellbore
Azimuth of well trajectory to x-axis
Skin
Non Darcy factor
Oil non Darcy factor
Gas non Darcy factor
Number of spokes (laterals)
Number of elevations or levels at which laterals are drilled
Drainage parameter
Productivity Index
Bubble pressure
Slanted angle
Unit
psi
psi
md
md
md
md
md
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
bbl/STB
cp
3
lb/ft
STB/d
cp
-
R
Mscf/d
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
deg
1/ft
D/STB
D/Mscf
psi
Default Values
3500
2500
100
80
125
168
93
70
50
2980
2640
2640
31.6
1.1
1.7
62.4
500
0.0244
0.945
640
0.71
1000
0.328
1750
1600
1089
35
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0.750
2.0
1000
50
Table 2: Default Input parameters for the case studies
Category
Variable
Range
Vertical
External Boundary Radius (re) / Well Bore Radius (rw)
10 to 100000
Slanted
Slanted Angle ()
0 to 90
Horizontal
Horizontal Well Length (L)
50 to 3000 ft
Multilateral
Numbers of Spoke (n)
1, 2, 3, and 4
Table 3: Variables for PI case studies
12
SPE 116580
Category
Vertical Well
Slanted Well
Horizontal Well
Multilateral Well
Case Description
Variable
Figure Locations
Vertical Single Oil Well in Steady State
re/rw
Figure 1
Vertical Single Oil Well in Pseudo-Steady State
re/rw
Figure 2
Vertical Single Gas Well In Steady State
re/rw
Figure 3
Vertical Single Gas Well In Pseudo-Steady State
re/rw
Figure 4
Slanted Single Oil Well in Steady-State
Figure 5
Slanted Single Oil Well in Pseudo-Steady State
Figure 6
Slanted Single Gas Well in Steady-State
Figure 7
Slanted Single Gas Well in Pseudo-Steady State
Figure 8
Horizontal Single Oil Well in Steady-State
Figure 9
Horizontal Single Oil Well in Pseudo-Steady State
Figure 10
Horizontal Single Gas Well in Steady-State
Figure 11
Horizontal Single Gas Well in Pseudo-Steady State
Figure 12
Multilateral Single Oil in Steady State
Figure 13
Multilateral Single Oil in Pseudo-Steady State
Figure 14
Table 4: Detailed case descriptions with the corresponding variables and figure locations for the PI case studies
Category
Single Oil Well

in Steady State
Single Oil Well

in Pseudo-Steady State
Single Gas Well

in Steady State
Single Gas Well

Two Phase Well

Case Description
Figure Locations
Figure 15
Slanted Single Oil Well in Steady State
Figure 16
Horizontal Single Oil Well in Steady State
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Slanted Single Oil Well in Pseudo-Steady State
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
Figure 23
Slanted Single Gas Well in Steady State
Figure 24
Horizontal Single Gas Well in Steady State
Figure 25
Figure 26
Slanted Single Gas Well in Pseudo-Steady State
Figure 27
Horizontal Single Gas Well in Pseudo-Steady State
Figure 28
Vertical Two Phase Oil Well In Pseudo-Steady State
Figure 29
Slanted Two Phase Oil Well in Pseudo-Steady State
Figure 30
Horizontal Two Phase Oil Well in Pseudo-Steady State
Figure 31
Table 5: Detailed case descriptions with corresponding figure locations for the IPR case studies
SPE 116580
13
Category
Conservative
Optimistic
Darcy
Darcy
Dake / Dietz / Jones / Odeh
Aronofsky

Vertical Two Phase Oil Well In Pseudo-Steady State
Odeh
Aronofsky / Jones
Harrison
Slanted Single Phase Well
Fetkovich
Rogers
Slanted Single Two Phase Oil Well in Pseudo-Steady State
Cheng
Horizontal Single Oil Well in Steady-State
Joshi
Renard
Joshi
Babu
Horizontal Single Gas Well

Horizontal Two Phase Oil Well in Pseudo-Steady State
Table 6: Selection Guideline for PI/IPR correlations
Vogel / Cheng
Cinco / Besson
Borisove
Giger
Economides
Economides
Harrison
Cheng
Fetkovich
Borisove for Planar
Vogel
Borisove for Stacked

Economides
14
SPE 116580
0.25
Darcy
12
10
8
6
4
2
Productivity Index, MSCF/(day-psi)
Productivity Index, STB/(day-psi)
14
Aronofsky
0.1
0.05
10
Figure 1:
10
100
1000
10000
100000
Productivity Index as a variable of external boundary

radius (re) / well bore radius (rw) for vertical single-oil
well in steady state
Figure 4:
18
Dake
Dietz (Shape factor)
Jones (Beta factor)
Darcy (D factor)
Odeh (Shape factor)
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
100
1000
10000
100000

radius (re) / well bore radius (rw) for vertical single-gas
well in pseudo-steady state
10
Odeh
0.15
Darcy (IPR) + Cinco (Skin)
Darcy (IPR) + Besson (Skin)
Darcy (IPR) + Rogers (Skin)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Figure 2:
0.16
100
1000
10000
100000

radius (re) / well bore radius (rw) for vertical single-oil
Aronosfsky
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
Figure 5:
20
40
60
Slant Angle, degree
80
Productivity Index as a variable of slanted angle () for

slanted single-oil well in steady state
14
10
Jones
0.2
Dake (IPR) + Cinco (Skin)

Dake (IPR) + Besson (Skin)
Dake (IPR) + Rogers (Skin)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
Figure 3:
100
1000
10000
100000

radius (re) / well bore radius (rw) for vertical single-gas
Figure 6:
20
40
60
Slant Angle, degree
80

slanted single-oil well in pseudo-steady state
SPE 116580
15
30
Aronofsky (IPR) + Cinco (Skin)
Aronofsky (IPR) + Besson (Skin)
Aronofsky (IPR) + Rogers (Skin)
0.1
0.12
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Figure 7:
20
40
60
Slant Angle, degree
80
15
10
5

slanted single-gas well in steady state
0.12
1000
1500
2000
Horizontal Well Length, ft
2500
3000
0.3

0.14
500
Figure 10: Productivity Index as a variable of horizontal well length

(L) for horizontal single-oil well in pseudo-steady state
0.16
20
0
0
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Economides
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Figure 8:
20
40
60
Slant Angle, degree
80

slanted single-gas well in pseudo-steady state
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000

(L) for horizontal single-gas well in steady state
30
0.3
Joshi
Joshi
Economides
Babu and Odeh
25
Borisove
25
Giger
Renard
20
15
10
5
0
Economides
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Figure 9:
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Productivity Index as a variable of horizontal well length

(L) for horizontal single-oil well in steady state
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000

(L) for horizontal single-gas well in pseudo-steady state
16
SPE 116580
4000
Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure, psia
26
Borisove for planar laterals
24
Borisove for stacked laterals
22
20
18
16
14
12
11
1.5
2
3
2
2.5
Number of Spokes (Laterals)
Darcy (IPR) + Rogers (Skin)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
44
3.5
Figure 13: Productivity Index as a variable of number of spokes (n)

for multilateral single-oil well in steady state
2000
4000
6000
8000 10000
Oil Flow Rate, BBL/DAY
12000
14000
Figure 16: Inflow Performance Relationship for slanted single-oil

4000
24.6
Economides
Darcy (IPR) + Besson (Skin)
3000
10
24.4
24.2
24.0
23.8
23.6
23.4
Joshi
Borisove
Giger
Renard
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
23.2
44
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
88
Number of Spokes (Laterals)
Figure 14: Productivity Index as a variable of number of spokes (n)

for multilateral single-oil well in pseudo-steady state
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
4000
Darcy
3500
10000
Figure 17: Inflow Performance Relationship for horizontal single-oil

4000
Darcy (IPR) + Cinco (Skin)

3500
Borisove for planar laterals

Borisove for stacked laterals
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Figure 15: Inflow Performance Relationship for vertical single-oil

10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
Figure 18: Inflow Performance Relationship for multilateral singleoil well in steady state
SPE 116580
17
3000
Dake
Dietz (Shape factor)
Jones (Beta factor)
Darcy (D factor)
Odeh (Shape factor)
2500
2000
3000
1500
1000
500
0
4000
6000
8000
1500
1000
500
10000
3000
Dake (IPR) + Cinco (Skin)

Dake (IPR) + Besson (Skin)
Dake (IPR) + Rogers (Skin)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
Figure 22: Inflow Performance Relationship for multilateral singleoil well in pseudo-steady state
4000
2000
Figure 19: Inflow Performance Relationship for vertical single-oil

2000
0
0
Aronosfsky
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Figure 20: Inflow Performance Relationship for slanted single-oil

200000
300000
400000
GAS Flow Rate, MSCF/DAY
500000
4000
Joshi
Economides
Babu and Odeh
2500
100000
Figure 23: Inflow Performance Relationship for vertical single-gas

3000
Economides
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
Figure 21: Inflow Performance Relationship for horizontal single-oil

100000
200000 300000 400000 500000

600000
Figure 24: Inflow Performance Relationship for slanted single-gas

18
SPE 116580
3000
Economides
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
4000
0
500000
1000000 1500000 2000000
1500
1000
500
2500000
Figure 25: Inflow Performance Relationship for horizontal singlegas well in steady state
400000
800000
1200000
1600000
Figure 28: Inflow Performance Relationship for horizontal singlegas well in pseudo-steady state
3000
3000
Aronofsky
Jones
Odeh
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
2000
0
0
Vogel
Fetkovich
Harrison
Cheng
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
Gas Flow Rate, MSCF/DAY
250000
Figure 26: Inflow Performance Relationship for vertical single-gas

3000

2500
300000
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Figure 29: Inflow Performance Relationship for vertical two-phase

oil well in pseudo-steady state
3000
Economides
2500
Cheng
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
Figure 27: Inflow Performance Relationship for slanted single gas

1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Figure 30: Inflow Performance Relationship for slanted two-phase

oil well in pseudo-steady state
SPE 116580
19
3000
Vogel
Fetkovich
Harrison
Cheng
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
5000
10000 15000 20000 25000

30000
35000
Figure 31: Inflow Performance Relationship for horizontal twophase oil well in pseudo-steady state

A Comprehensive Comparative Study On Analytical PI-IPR Correlations

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A Comprehensive Comparative Study On Analytical PI-IPR Correlations

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SPE 116580

A Comprehensive Comparative Study on Analytical PI/IPR Correlations

Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

where A is drainage area; is Eulers constant (1.78); and CA is shape factor.

9.08 1013 Bo2 o

where is non-darcy factor; o is oil density; and hp is perforate interval.

where L is well length.

Single Oil Well in Horizontal Geometry

For Renard and Dupuy:

where zw is distance of well from middle of reservoir.

For stacked laterals:

where qo,max is absolute open flow potential.

where a0 ~ a2 are correlation constants for well deviation degree.6

Single Oil Well

Table 1: Summary Table for PI or IPR Correlations

Single Gas Well

Two Phase Oil Well

Table 2: Default Input parameters for the case studies

External Boundary Radius (re) / Well Bore Radius (rw)

Horizontal Well Length (L)

Numbers of Spoke (n)

Table 3: Variables for PI case studies

Vertical Single Oil Well in Steady State

Vertical Single Oil Well in Pseudo-Steady State

Vertical Single Gas Well In Steady State

Vertical Single Gas Well In Pseudo-Steady State

Slanted Single Oil Well in Steady-State

Slanted Single Oil Well in Pseudo-Steady State

Slanted Single Gas Well in Steady-State

Slanted Single Gas Well in Pseudo-Steady State

Horizontal Single Oil Well in Steady-State

Horizontal Single Oil Well in Pseudo-Steady State

Horizontal Single Gas Well in Steady-State

Horizontal Single Gas Well in Pseudo-Steady State

Multilateral Single Oil in Steady State

Multilateral Single Oil in Pseudo-Steady State

Single Oil Well

Single Oil Well

Single Gas Well

Single Gas Well

Two Phase Well

Vertical Single Oil Well in Steady State

Slanted Single Oil Well in Steady State

Horizontal Single Oil Well in Steady State

Multilateral Single Oil in Steady State

Vertical Single Oil Well in Pseudo-Steady State

Slanted Single Oil Well in Pseudo-Steady State

Horizontal Single Oil Well in Pseudo-Steady State

Multilateral Single Oil in Pseudo-Steady State

Vertical Single Gas Well In Steady State

Slanted Single Gas Well in Steady State

Horizontal Single Gas Well in Steady State

Vertical Single Gas Well In Pseudo-Steady State

Slanted Single Gas Well in Pseudo-Steady State

Horizontal Single Gas Well in Pseudo-Steady State

Vertical Two Phase Oil Well In Pseudo-Steady State

Slanted Two Phase Oil Well in Pseudo-Steady State

Horizontal Two Phase Oil Well in Pseudo-Steady State

Vertical Single Oil Well in Steady State

Vertical Single Oil Well in Pseudo-Steady State

Dake / Dietz / Jones / Odeh

Vertical Single Gas Well In Steady State

Vertical Single Gas Well In Pseudo-Steady State