Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
SPE 20720
Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas-Drive
Slanted/Horizontal Wells
A.M. Cheng, Nat!. Inst. for Petroleum & Energy Research
SPE Member
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 65th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in New Orleans, LA, September 23-26, 1990.
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,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The.matenal, as presented: does not necessanly reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Edltonal Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.
ABSTRACT
Since 1968, the Vogel equation has been used extensively and
successfully for analyzing the inflow performance relationship (IPR) of
flowing oil wells under solution-gas drive. Oil well productivity can be
rapidly estimated by using the Vogel IPR curve and well outflow
performance. However, the Vogel curve was originally developed for
conventional vertical wells and may not be valid for slanted and
horizontal wells. The development of IPR's for slanted and horizontal
wells by using a vertical/horizontal/slanted well reservoir simulator is
presented. Several important results were observed. First, the IPR's
for slanted and horizontal wells are similar to the parabolic behavior of
the VogeilPR curve. Second, IPR data generated for slanted wells
by using the Vogel curve can differ as much as 22% from that of the
new IPR data and 27% for horizontal wells. Third, the right curvature
shift of the Vogel curve for slanted and horizontal wells indicates that
these wells are more efficient producers than vertical wells from a
subsurface fluid flow viewpoint. Fourth, a minimum slant angle of 45
degrees is required to increase oil productivity by 50% over that of a
vertical well. A slant angle of 60 degrees or greater can increase oil
productivity more than two times that of a vertical well. The newly
developed IPR data are compared with existing empirical and field
data. Several application examples are presented to illustrate the use
of these IPR's to predict slanted/horizontal well productivity.
INTRODUCTION
Oil well productivity (flow capacity) computation requires
knowledge of the well inflow performance relationship (IPR). Simply
stated, an IPR describes the relationship of well flowing bottomhole
pressure (BHP) versus flow rate (q) at a stabilized reservoir pressure.
Several methods are available to prepare an IPR. Examples include
the use of Darcy's equation, an empirical equation, and a reservoir
simulator. For quick and accurate generation of an IPR curve, the use
of the empirical Vogel equation1 developed in 1968 has been the
most commonly used method in the oil industry. This equation
analyzes the two-phase (oil and gas) IPR performance of a well
producing from a reservoir under the solution gas drive mechanism.
It was developed from a computer reservoir simulator solution to
several solution gas drive reservoirs and for different fluid properties.
The principal goal of this project was to develop IPR's for slanted
or horizontal oil wells producing under the solution gas drive
mechanism from homogeneous and isotropic reservoirs. Accurate
IPR's for slanted/horizontal wells offer rapid and reliable well
productivity results that can be used for making the important
decision of whether to drill vertical, slanted, or horizontal wells in a
given reservoir.
LITERATURE REVIEW
(1 )
77
SPE20720
ASSUMPTIONS
The production performance of an oil well producing from a
solution-gas drive reservoir is analyzed using NIPER's
vertical/horizontal/slanted well simulator. There are several major
assumptions. The well is located in the center of a completely
bounded reservoir of rectangular prism geometry. The reservoir is
homogeneous and isotropic with a constant water saturation. Thus,
permeability and porosity in x, y, and z directions are equal. Water
saturation is immobile during depletion of the well. Therefore, only
two-phase flow, oil and gas, are considered in the reservoir. The well
is producing under a semisteady state condition. Capillary pressure
forces of reservoir fluids are neglected.
(2)
(3)
Procedures
The following procedures were adopted to generate IPR data for
slanted and horizontal wells producing from solution-gas drive
reservoirs.
1. Select adequate reservoir grid for reliable data generation.
2. Compare simulator and Vogel IPR data to verify simulator
capability to reproduce Vogel data.
3. Select input data for generation of IPR data for slanted and
horizontal wells.
4. Generate IPR data at various cumulative oil production and
slant angles.
5. Analyze IPR data.
6. Perform regression analysis on generated IPR data.
Grid Selection
Essentially, simulation generation of IPR data for a well is
accomplished by recording the related flowing bottomhole pressure
and oil flow rate obtained from single-well depletion simulation runs.
In this project, a well is to be located in the center of a rectangular grid
as much as possible such that it is surrounded by equal drainage
areas. As hundreds of simulation runs are required to generate IPR
data for slanted and horizontal wells, the selection of an appropriate
simulation grid size that can generate reliable resuits with minimal
computer time is important. In this work, a sensitivity study of areal
grid size on simulated results of vertical well performance was
performed. Three different rectangular grid sizes, 5x5x1, 7x7x1, and
9x9x1, were tested using the Case 1 reservoir data (Table 1) of
Vogel. 1 Table 2 shows the dimensions of these three grids. A
single-well depletion simulation study was performed for these three
cases. The well was located in the center of the grid and was on
constant rate constraint production (Qo = 50 SOPD) for 605 days. As
the Vogel IPR equation appears to fit the IPR data best in the oil
recovery (NoIN) range between 0 and 10%, a simulation time of 605
days was chosen because oil recovery would be 10% at that time.
The effect of the three different grid dimensions on average reservoir
pressure versus production time is shown in Table 3. The 5x5x1 grid
generates simulated pressure results in close agreement with those
of the 7x7x1 and 9x9x1 grids. Assuming the pressure data from the
finer 9x9x1 grid as the most accurate, the maximum error of the
pressure data from the coarser 5x5x1 grid is only 0.52%. Therefore,
a reservoir grid of minimum areal size 5x5x1 was selected to generate
IPR data. For comparison of simulated IPR data with Vogel data of a
vertical well, a 5x5x1 grid was adopted. For generation of IPR data for
slanted and horizontal wells, a finer and more accurate 5x5x3 grid was
chosen (Fig. 1).
78
SPE20720
AARON M. CHENG
Table 6 presents the average normalized IPR data for Np'N = 0.1,
2,4, 6, 8, and 10% at each selected slant angle. Figure 2 depicts
these simulator results and the reference Vogel curve. The
normalized initial flow rate at maximum pressure drawdown vs. slant
angle for Np'N = 0.1% case is illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4. To test the
validity of the generated IPR data at various slant angles, q' was also
obtained at p' = 0.5 and Np'N =0.1 % for each selected slant angle for
all the 16 cases of reservoir data presented in Vogel's paper. 1 Table
7 shows these data, and Table 8 compares the average q' of the 16
cases for each slant angle at NplN = 0.1% with that of the base case
generated earlier. Excellent agreement was noted under various
slant angle cases; the q' deviation was within 0.3%. Close
agreement resuits in this spot test provide strong confidence for the
generated IPR data to be valid. Detailed IPR data generated in this
study can be found in reference 11.
APPLICATION
EXAMPLES
Using the Vogel curve for a vertical well and the IPR data or
equation for a 45-degree well (Table 6 or 9), IPR's for these two wells
can be generated. The tubing outflow performance data for a vertical
and 45-degree well are obtained from reference 14. The inflow and
outflow performances are plotted on the same graph (Fig. 5). The
intersections of IPR's and outflow curves indicate well productivity.
From Fig. 5, well productivity is 650 BOPD for the vertical well and
800 BOPD for the 45-degree well. Thus, a 45-degree well delivers
23.1 % more oil at a flowing wellhead pressure of 120 psig.
Example 2.
3. The IPR curve for a 15- or 30- degree slanted well is not much
different from the Vogel curve.
Solution
Example 3.
Solution
If a horizontal well flow test is not available, its productivity can be
calculated using analytical equations or from charts. 4-8 As the
vertical well prOductivity, J v , is known from the flow test, the
horizontal well productivity, Jh, is estimated by using charts4 and is
about 7 times more than Jv. Therefore, qomax = 8,750 BOPD for the
horizontal well, and IPR data can be generated using Table 6 or the
corresponding regression equation. Figure 7 shows that the
productivity performance of the vertical well is 650 BOPD and that of
the horizontal well is 1,610 BOPD. Thus, a horizontal well produces
approximately 2.5 times more than a vertical well. To make a final
decision on selecting a vertical or horizontal well, the additional cost
of drilling horizontal wells must be considered.
Regression Analysis
As the average normalized IPR data for each selected slant angle
appear to be parabolic in nature, they were curved fitted by using a
quadratic regression model, q' =ao + a1 (p') + a2(p')2, where 80 a1, and
a2 are regression coefficients. The regression analysis was
performed by using a sophisticated mathematical software. 13 Table 9
summarizes the regression equations for IPR's of slanted wells with
various slant angles of 15,30,45,60,75,85,88.56 and 90 degrees.
Detailed regression resuits of the IPR data can be be found in
reference 11.
79
APPLICATION
EXAMPLES
SPE20720
Solution
Using the Vogel curve for a vertical well and the IPR data or
equation for a 45-degree well (Table 6 or 9), IPR's for these two wells
can be generated. The tubing outflow performance data for a vertical
and 45-degree well are obtained from reference 14. The inflow and
outflow performances are plotted on the same graph (Fig. 5). The
intersections of IPR's and outflow curves indicate well productivity.
From Fig. 5, well productivity is 650 BOPD for the vertical well and
800 BOPD for the 45-degree well. Thus, a 45-degree well delivers
23.1 % more oil at a flowing wellhead pressure of 120 psig.
Example 2.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Solution
.
The author acknowledges the financial support of this
project by the U. S. Department of Energy under Cooperative
Agreement DE-FC22-83FE60149. Special thanks are due to
Fred Burtch and Thomas Reid of the DOE Bartlesville Project
Office for their initiation and supervision of this project and to
Ming-Ming Chang of NIPER for technical support of the
vertical/horizontal/slanted well simulator.
NOMENCLATURE
h
k
kx
ky
L
NplN
p'
Pb
Pwf
Pr
q'
Solution
qo
qomax =
qs/qv
=
=
=
Greek Symbol
o
80
SPE20720
AARON M. CHENG
REFERENCES
1. Vogel, J.V.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution
Gas Drive Wells," J. Pet. Tech. (January 1968), pp. 83-93.
2. Mach, J., Proano, E., and Brown, K. E.: "A Nodal Approach for
Applying Systems Analysis to the Flowing and Artificial Light Oil
or Gas Well," SPE paper 8025.
3. Chang, M. M.: "Simulation of Production From Wells with
Horizontal/Slanted Laterals," Department of Energy Report No.
NIPER-326 (Revised, October, 1988).
4. Joshi, S. D.: "Augmentation of Well Productivity With Slant
and Horizontal Wells," J. Pet. Tech. (June 1988) pp. 729-39.
5. Karcher, B. J., Giger, F.M. and Combe, J.: "Some Practical
Formulas To Predict Horizontal Wells' Behavior," paper SPE
15430 presented at the 1986 SPE Ann. Tech. Conf. and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Oct 5-8.
6. Babu, D. K. and Odeh, A.S.: "Productivity of a Horizontal
Well," paper SPE 18298 presented at the 1988 SPE Ann. Tech.
Conf. and Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 2-5.
7. Mukherjee, H. and Economides, M. J.: "A Parametric
Comparison of Horizontal and Vertical Well Performance," paper
SPE18303 presented at the 1989 SPE Ann. Tech. Conf. and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 2-5.
8. Economides, M. J. et al.: "Performance and Stimulation of
Horizontal Wells," World Oil (June 1989) pp. 41-45.
9. Bendakhlia, H. and Aziz, K.: "Inflow Performance Relationship
for Solution-Gas Drive Horizontal Wells," Paper SPE 19823
presented at the 1989 SPE Ann. Tech. Conf. and Exhibition,
San Antonio, Oct. 8-11.
x 4.046 873
x 1.589 873
x 8.640 000
x 1.745 329
x 3.048 000
x 9.689 233
x 6.894 757
2144.7
2144.7
20
0.33
23.5
13.9
20
19.4
2.1
40
0.8
4.2 x 10-6
Grid
5x5x1
7x7x1
9x9x1
ill<,ft
186.68
133.34
103.71
~y,ft
186.68
133.34
103.71
~,ft
23.50
23.50
23.50
81
E+03
E-01
E+04
E-02
E-01
E-04
E+OO
=m2
=m3
=s
=rad
=m
=~
=kPa
Grid
TlII1e
days
0.01
182.50
365.00
547.50
605.00
7x7x1
9x9x1
Pr
psla
Pr
psia
Pr
psla
2144
1748
1349
1029
957
0.00
3.02
6.03
9.09
10.00
6PS
"10
2144
1748
1347
1025
962
2144
1748
1348
1024
956
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.39
0.52
Q.mOiProd= 0.10"10
6P7
"10
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.10
0.62
p'
OVOGB.
2
R'l
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
1.000
0.972
0.928
0.868
0.792
0.700
0.592
0.488
0.328
0.172
0.000
p'
OVOGB.
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
Q.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
Q.900
1.000
1.000
0.972
0.928
0.888
0.792
0.700
0.592
0.488
0.328
0.172
0.000
1.000
0.972
0.929
0.868
0.792
0.701
0.591
0.488
0.328
0.171
0.000
1.000
0.967
0.922
0.859
0.781
0.690
0.582
0.460
0.321
0.167
0.000
10
1.000
0.977
0.950
0.920
0.874
0.802
0.699
0.588
0.408
0.219
0.000
1.000
0.971
0.928
0.867
0.791
0.700
0.591
0.488
0.327
0.171
0.000
1.000
0.900
MOO
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
q'lorcase
12
1.000
0.988
0.926
0.865
0.788
0.698
0.590
0.466
0.327
0.171
0.000
1.000
0.946
0.882
0.804
0.717
0.621
0.511
0.396
0.272
0.140
0.000
1.000
0.977
0.947
0.917
0.872
0.800
0.699
0.588
0.408
0.218
0.000
1.000
0.971
0.928
0.867
0.788
0.698
0.589
0.467
0.327
0.171
0.000
1.000
0.971
0.928
0.867
0.789
0.698
0.590
0.467
0.327
0.171
0.000
13
14
15
16
1.000
0.966
0.923
0.860
0.781
0.889
0.582
0.460
0.321
0.168
0.000
1.000.
0.977
0.950
0.917
0.874
0.802
0.699
0.568
0.408
0.218
0.000
1.000
0.971
0.928
0.867
0.791
0.700
0.591
0.468
0.328
0.172
0.000
1.000
0.970
0.928
0.864
0.788
0.697
0.589
0.466
0.327
0.171
0.000
0.027
0.050
0.074
0.094
0.113
0.137
0.153
0.172
0.187
0.005
0.020
0.057
0.100
0.143
0.181
0.214
0.244
0.269
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.005
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.004
0.007
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.004
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.004
0.009
0.112
0.137
0.003
0.003
14
15
16
O.OOS
0.024
0.057
0.104
0.146
0.180
0.214
0.244
0.270
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.003
0.002
0.000
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.005
0.003
0.004
0.007
0.138
0.001
0.004
0.005
0.007
0.010
0.013
0.014
0.017
0.018
0.022
0.027
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.074
0.138
0.193
0.243
0.286
0.324
0.359
0.391
0.418
Avg
DELTAO 0.001
0.015
0.001
0.270
10
11
0.005
0.024
0.060
0.104
0.146
0.180
0.214
0.244
0.275
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.006
0.010
0.014
0.016
0.016
0.018
0.021
0.021
Avg
DELTAO 0.139
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.014
DaTAO IorCase
13
12
Legend:
DELTAO = ABS(q' - OVOGEL)/OVOGEL
Avg DELTAO = Average DELTAO for each case
Legend:
p' = Pwt/pr
q' = qoIqomax, simulated data
OVOGEL = Vogel q' data
Case
1 Base case data
2 Similar to Case 1, 40 acre spacing
Case
Case
3 Similar to Case 1, k = 200 md
Case
4 Similar to Case 1, weN is fractured
Case
5 Similar to Case 1, well has is skin
Case
6 Similar 10 Case 1, inHlal pressure above Pb
Case
7 Similar to Case 1, less viscous 011
Case
8 Similar to Case 1, more viscous 011
Case
9 Similar to Case 1, higher Pb 011
Case 10 Similar to Case 1, diff1erent relative permeabliHy
Case 11 Similar to Case 1, different relative permeability
Case 12 Similar to Case 1, different PVT and relative permeabilHy
Case 13 Similar to Case 1, low GOR oil
Case 14 Similar to Case 1, different PVT and relative permeabilMy
Case 15 Similar to Case 1, different PVT and relative penneabillly
Case 16 Similar to Case 1, straight line PVT and relative permeability
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.004
0.100
0.200
0.300
Q.400
0.500
0,600
0.700
0.800
0.900
2
0.100
0.200
0.300
Q.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
6Ils=1
DELTAO IorCase
4
5
p'
OVOGEL
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
1.000
0.972
0.928
0.868
0.792
0.700
0.592
0.468
0.328
0.172
0.000
1.000
0.970
0.924
0.864
0.786
0.695
0.587
0.464
0.325
0.171
0.000
1.000
0.975
0.935
0.879
0.806
0.717
0.611
0.486
0.343
0.182
0.000
45.000
60.000
75.000
85.000
88.560
90.000
1.000
0.982
0.947
0.897
0.828
0.742
0.636
0.510
0.362
0.194
0.000
1.000
0.986
0.957
0.910
0.844
0.760
0.655
0.527
0.377
0.202
0.000
1.000
0.989
0.962
0.918
0.854
0.771
0.666
0.537
0.385
0.207
0.000
1.000
0.990
0.964
0.921
0.856
0.774
0.669
0.540
0.387
0.209
0.000
1.000
0.990
0.964
0.921
0.857
0.775
0.669
0.540
0.387
0.209
0.000
1.000
0.995
0.974
0.935
0.875
0.796
0.692
0.562
0.405
0.219
0.000
Case
75.000
85.000
88.560
90.000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0.701
0.694
0.701
0.500
0.620
0.805
0.701
0.699
0.804
0.700
0.700
0.701
0.696
0.804
0.701
0.699
0.695
0.691
0.695
0.500
0.618
0.797
0.696
0.694
0.796
0.695
0.695
0.696
0.691
0.796
0.696
0.694
0.709
0.706
0.710
0.500
0.622
0.813
0.709
0.708
0.812
0.708
0.709
0.709
0.705
0.812
0.709
0.708
0.727
0.725
0.728
0.500
0.627
0.836
0.727
0.726
0.835
0.726
0.726
0.727
0.722
0.835
0.727
0.725
0.741
0.741
0.743
0.500
0.632
0.856
0.742
0.739
0.855
0.740
0.741
0.741
0.736
0.855
0.741
0.739
0.750
0.750
0.752
0.500
0.636
0.868
0.751
0.748
0.868
0.749
0.750
0.750
0.745
0.867
0.750
0.748
0.753
0.753
0.754
0.500
0.637
0.872
0.753
0.751
0.872
0.752
0.752
0.753
0.747
0.871
0.753
0.751
0.753
0.753
0.753
0.500
0.637
0.872
0.754
0.751
0.872
0.752
0.752
0.753
0.746
0.872
0.753
0.751
0.771
0.771
0.771
0.500
0.642
0.895
0.772
0.769
0.895
0.771
0.771
0.771
0.763
0.895
0.722
0.769
Avgq'
0.702
0.697
0.709
0.726
0.740
0.749
0.751
0.752
0.769
8,000
2,214.7
Net pay, It
25
1,000
35
Gas gravity
0.65
2.441
~well
Pr psig 2,400
2,400
2,400
2,400
qo' BOPD875
875
1,300
1,850
1,200
1,200
1,200
Yertjcalwell
&yS
&y4
&y3
&y:
l:
ql'
q2'
Ll.q
15.000
30.000
45.000
60.000
75.000
85.000
85.560
90.000
0.695
0.697
0.288
0.709
0.709
0.000
0.727
0.726
0.138
0.741
0.740
0.135
0.750
0.749
0.133
0.753
0.751
0.266
0.753
0.752
0.133
0.771
0.769
0.259
Legend:
~~<
dx3
m
Idx41dx
Slant Well
I~~
9 = slant angle
h =pay thickness
L = well length
flIu.ali2Il
o (vertical)
15
30
q'
- 0.1254(p')
0.8682(p')2
45
- 0.9663(p')2
= 0.9969
60
75
= 0.9915 + 0.1120(p')
= 0.9914 + 0.1141(p')
Horizontal Well
- 0.7763(P')2
85
q'
88.56
q'
90 (horizontal)
-1.0942(p'}2
- 1.0964(p')2
lEE.
i
7
~
h =pay thickness
L = well length
~'
FIGURE 1. - 5x5x3 reservoir grid and well orientation for slanted and horizontal wells.
1.0
0.8
C.
""a.
0.6
60...-------------------,
"
"a.
0.4
50
40
>
c-
eo
0.2
c-
30
20
VERT(IIOOELl
10
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
1.0
10
20
q' - qo/qomax
30
40
50
60
SLANT ANGLE, degrees
70
80
gO
FIGURE 3. " Productivity ratio qslqv vs. well slant angle (0 " gO degrees).
3000 . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
2000
.~
a.
-g
........
a.
......
1000
-----
O+-..........,...~"'T'"~"'T'"~_r_-_r_~_r_~...,.~-;
10
20
30
40
50
60
SLANT ANGLE, degrees
70
O+-~---r-~"'T'"~-~~_,.-~..,...~___I
80
200
........
......
400
600
800
1000
q, SOPO
FIGURE 4. " Productivity ratio qs/qv vs. well slant angle (0 " 75 degrees).
4000
OUTF(VERTj
OUTl'{450EGl
1200
1400
3000
lNF(llE1'lT}
lNF(75DEG)
3000
2000
'"
.~
a.
.~
2000
lNF(VERT)
',*(HOAZ}
1000
"""""""
1000
O+-~~~~_r_~~~~___r~~~~___I
0
0
500
1000
q, SOPO
1500
2000
1000
2000
3000
q, SOPO
75-degree well vs. vertical well.
FIGURE 7. - System analysis for example 3. Horizontal well vs. vertical well.
84