SPE 50659

Inflow Performance Relationships of Horizontal and Multibranched

w Air .
.,

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Wells in a Solution-
Gas-Drive Reservoir
Albertus Retnanto*, SPE, and Michael J. Economies, SPE, Texas A&M University
*Now with Schlumberger

Copyright 1998, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This psper was prepared for presentation at the-l 998 SpE European Petroleum conference
held in The Hague, The Netherlands, 20-22 October 1998.
Introduction
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following reviaw of
information contained in an abstract submitted by tha author(s). Contents of the papar, as In calculating the productivity of oil wells, it is commonly
prasented, have not been reviswed by the Society of Patroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necassari[y reflect any
assumed that- inflow into a well is directly proportional to th;
position of the Society of Patroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at pressure differential between the reservoir and the wellbore.
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committals of tha Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Electronic reproduction, cfstribution, or storage of any part of this paper However, Evinger and Muskatl pointed out that when two-
for commercial purpoaas 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
phase liquid and gas flow exists in a reservoir, this relationship
word% illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous __ should not be expected to hold. Many methods for vertical
acknowledgment of where and by whom the papar was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U. S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. wells have been proposed in the literature to calculate inflow
performance relationships under solution-gas-drive reservoir.
Since horizontal and multilateral wells are likely to become the
Abstract major means of modern exploitation strategies, inflow
In predicting and optimizing the performance of single and performances for these wells are needed.
multiple wells, or complex well architecture, within a drainage The Vogel equation has been used extensively and
or flow unit, we have favored benchmark analytical or successfully for analyzing the inflow performance relationship
semianalytical models. Recently, a general productivity model (IPR) of flowing oil wells in solution-gas-drive reservoirs.
has been constructed and presented that allows for the Vogelz used the approximations of Weller3 for solution-gas-
drive wells covering a wide range of conditions. These
performance prediction of any single- and multi-well
configuration within any reservoir geometry in both isotropic conditions included differing crude oil characteristics, the
and anisotropic media. Such an approximation is known to effects of well spacing, fracturing, and skin restrictions.
have limitations when applied to two-phase reservoir flow. Vogels equation for vertical wells is given by
This work used a numerical simulator to generate IPRs for
horizontal or multibranched wells producing from a solution-
gas-drive reservoir. First, a base case is considered with
typical fluid, rock, and reservoir properties. Then, variations
from the base case are investigated. These variations cover a
%=1-02[-9-08[9
q, ~<--()
Here q,,,,.m is the maximum possible flowrate or absolute
wide range of fluid, reservoir, and well characteristics. The open flow potential (rate corresponding to p,,r = O) and go is
effects of numerous reservoir and fluid properties on the the flowrate corresponding to the average reservoir pressure,
calculated curves are investigated. Bubblepoint pressure and pi., and Wellboreflowing pressure, p.,? On the basis of field
reservoir depletion have a significant effect on the curves. A experiments, Fetkovich4 suggested that the deliverability curve
generalized dimensionless IPR based on nonlinear regression for solution-gas-drive systems is given by the following
analysis of simulator results is developed. This IPR curve is relation:
then used to predict the performance of hori~ontal and
multibranched wells in a solution-gas-drive reservoir (?() = J (P;P:f). ................................................(2)
combined with our productivity model. For relatively low
bubblepoint pressures, the curves coalesce on Vogels classic Field tests indicate that the exponent n should be in the range
relationship. For higher pressures they deviate substantially. of O.5 < n < 1.
Because flow into a horizontal well, with a gas cap
overlying at close proximity throughout the well length, is

255
2 A. RETNANTO AND M.J. ECONOMIES SPE 50659

different from flow into a vertical well, IPR equations Inspection of Eq. 4 readily reveals that when PMis zero, q,,
developed for vertical wells should not be applied to is not equal to q,,,,.,,r.Obviously, the correlation should be such
horizontal or multibranched wells without verification. Also, that the first constant is 1.0 and not 0.9885.
because analytical calculations necessary to compute IPRs
Kabirg proposed IPRs for slanted and horizontal wells
from two-phase flow theory are tedious, numerical simulation
based on the Fetko_vich4 approach used for vertical wells. They
is used, with all well known associated problems.
showed that once the Absolute Open Flow Potential (AOFP)
In this work, a numerical simulator (VIP)5 is used to of the maximum oil flow rate is properly evaluated, both the
generate IPRs of a horizontal or multilateral well producing Vogel and Fetkovich correlations, originally intended for
from a solution-gas-drive reservoir. First, a base case is vertical wells, can be used to describe a wells IPR. The
considered with typical fluid, rock, and reservoir properties. expression for the AOFP using Fetkovich equation (assuming
Then, variations from the base case are investigated. These that the exponent, n, is equal to one) is
variations cover a wide range of fluid, reservoir, and well
characteristics. A generalized IPR based on nonlinear Jpb
q 0 ,mx =y.- .............................................r? .....(5)
regression analysis of simulator results is also developed. This
IPR curve then is used to predict the performance of horizontal
and multilateral wells in a solution-gas-drive reservoir Likewise, one can easily show that the Vogel equation yields
combined with our productivity model. The methods presented
_Jpb .
in this paper are based on homogeneous reservoirs where q () ,111(11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
gravity and capillary effects are negligible. 1.8
The AOFP can be computed by using any of the productivity
index expressions developed for horizontal wells for various
Review of Previous Work for Horizontal Well IPRs outer boundary conditions.
Plahn et CZ1.Gwere the first to attempt to predict horizontal well
performance in solution-gas-drive reservoirs. They generated
type curves based on numerical simulations using an array of
Production Model
assumptions, which make generalized application of these type
With a comprehensive multi- and single-well semi-analytical
curves very difficult.
well performance, Economies et cd.10 presented both the
Bendakhlia and Aziz7 developed IPRs for horizontal well
short- and long-term performance of selected well assemblies.
production using a series of rock and fluid properties. That
On the basis of these production performance calculations and
work was in line with Vogelsz work. The resulting IPRs were
practical considerations, several selective completion
made dimensionless to compare their curvature, or the rate of
applications can be evaluated.
change of oil production rate with flowing bottomhole
Long-term performance evaluations are usua[ly done by
pressure. A combination of Vogels and Fetkovichs4
employing the pseudosteady-state productivity index.
equations was suggested:
Economies et al. proposed to compute the productivity
index, J, with
~=
I.o-vfi- (l+ -Q ]]
2 n . ........(3)

[X-2)
e
f7o,nmx P, P, J= q =- ~~ , .....(7)
[
r f 887.22Bp PD -i-~ s
This equation was fitted to the IPR curves of the base case
to determine the two parameters V and n as functions of the
recovery factor. Bendakhlia and Aziz7 concluded that in where p, is the reservoir pressure, pD is the calculated
almost all cases dimensionless IPR curves are approximately
dimensionless pressure and ~ is the average reservoir
straight lines at initial recovery, but become more concave
with increasing cumulative production up to a certain recovery permeability ~m) ~ Zs is the summation of all
factor. At that time the concavity decreases until final recovery
damage and pseudoskin factors. Dimensioned calculations are
is reached.
Using numerical simulations, Cheng8 presented another done on the basis of the reservoir length, Xc ; L is the
form of Vogels equation for slanted and horizontal wells. His horizontal well length.
expression for horizontal well can be written as The generalized solution to the dimensionless pressure,
p~ , starts with early-time transient behavior and ends with
q,, pseudosteady state if all drainage boundaries are felt. At that
=0.9885+02055[~]-l.1818[:] .
qo,m{,.r moment, the three-dimensional PD is decomposed intoone
.........(4) two-dimensional and one one-dimensional part,

256
SPE 50659 INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS OF HORIZONTAL AND MULTIBRANCHED WELLS 3

x, CH x,
. .......................................(8) rate and wellbore pressure are recorded as coordinates of a
D=~+27r Ls
point on an IPR curve of that recovery factor. Other points on
where CH is a shape factor, characteristic of well and the curve are obtained from the output of other runs which
constrain either oil rate or wellbore pressure to intersect with
reservoir configurations in the horizontal plane, and S, k the
the expected IPR curve. The repetition of the same procedure
skin accounting for vertical effects. Shape factors for several with different recovery factors results in different IPRs.
well configurations (after Economies et al. 10and Retnanto et Dimensionless IPR curves are constructed by dividing the
al.] *) are listed in Table 1. pressure coordinate of each point on an IPR curve by the
The expression for the skin effect (after Kuchuk et al. 2) is average reservoir pressure, and the oil rate coordinate by the
maximum oil rate, corresponding to 100% pressure drawdown.

[1
h h Two types of simulation runs are examined. In the first, the
s, = In +s,, ...................................(9)
2n TV 6L well is constrained by a constant flowing bottomho[e pressure.
In the second, a constant oil production rate is specified. For
and s,,, describing eccentricity effects in the vertical direction, the same number of simulation runs, constant pressure runs
result in better IPR curve resolution than constant oiI rate runs.
is
For this reason, all subsequent runs are done at a constant

s,=;[~-;(?y-+]-ln[sin(?)l wellbore pressure constraint.

.......(10)
which is negligible if the well is placed near the vertical
middle of the reservoir.
IPR Development
To develop a general equation to predict inflow performance
for any solution-gas-drive reservoirs, IPR curves are generated
for horizontal wells from a number of reservoirs. As with
Vogels,* the resulting IPR curves are plotted in dimensionless
form. The effects of reservoir pressure (bubblepoint pressure),
reservoir depletion, oil gravity, residual oil saturation, critical
gas saturation, initial water saturation, porosity, and relative
and absolute permeabilities ace.kwst!gated! Table 2 lists each
variable, the base-case value, and the ranges used.
To encompass the desired range of PVT data, general
correlations are used to estimate those values. The following
correlations were used to develop the rock and fluid properties
of the modeled reservoirs: oil formation volume factor,
Beggs13; pseudo-critical temperature and pressure, Sutton14;
gas compressibility, Dranchuk and Abou- Kassern15; gas
viscosity, Lee, Gonzales and EakinlG; solution gas-oil ratio,
Beggs13; oil viscosity, Egbogah17 and Beggsls; and relative
permeability, Brooks and Corey. fs
The horizontal and multibranched wells were assumed to
penetrate the reservoir in the vertical middle. The equivalent
grid-block radius, r,,, is calculated from Peacemans formula.lg
Factors Affecting IPR Curve Calculations
An IPR curve is generated by obtaining a set of points relating
flowing bottom-hole pressures to oil production rates at a
constant recovery factor, which is the ratio of cumulative oil
produced to oil originally in place. When a recovery factor is
reached during the course of depletion, the corresponding oil
257
Figure 1 demonstrates IPR curves of the base case. The
high initial flow rates are caused by the large length of the well
and by the sharp initial pressure gradients. At small
drawdowns, gas evolves from solution but stays nearly
immobile because of its low saturation. For larger drawdowns,
greater gas saturation causes greater resistance to oil_ flow.
Productivity decreases rapidly because oil is depleted from the
near-well region at a higher rate than it is replaced by oil from
outer oil zones. Figure 1 also indicates that maximum primary
recovery is approximate] y 15%.
Figures 2 through 11 show the effects of several variables
on the generated IPR curves. It is quite clear that bubblepoint
pressure and reservoir depletion have significant effects on the
dimensionless curves. The investigation of bubblepoint or
initial pressure (all reservoirs in this study are assumed to be at
the saturation pressure initially) is of particular interest
because Vogel* limited his work to relatively low bubblepoint
pressures in the construction of his reference curve. In this
study, the pressure is varied from 1,000 to 5,000 psi. The
resulting IPR curves show that at lower bubblepoint pressures,
the curves are straightened (Fig. 2). Figure 3 shows that the
shape of dimensionless IPR curves is sensitive to the recovery
factor. Figures 2 and 3 strongly indicate that both bubblepoint
pressure and reservoir depletion significantly affect the
dimensionless IPR curves. Figures 4 through 11 depict the
effects of oil gravity, residual oil saturation, critical gas
saturation, initial water saturation, absolute permeability y,
relative permeability, porosity, and well length, respectively.
These plots indicate that although the curves are not identical,
they generally exhibit a similar shape and also demonstrate
much less variance than the bubblepoint pressure and
depletion plots. Therefore, these variables have only a minor
effect on calculated, dimensionless IPR curves.
A series of case studies is presented to describe the
behavior of dimensionless IPR curves for multilateral wells.
Four configurations are studied: two branches, four branches,
six branches, or eight branches intersecting the horizontal well
 4 A. RETNANTO AND M.J. ECONOMIES SPE 50659

mother hole. The total well length is maintained equal to the
horizontal well length base case. Figure 12 demonstrates that
these configurations generally show a similar shape.
Therefore, the generalized IPR curves that will redeveloped
in the section below also can be used to predict the
performance of these wells.
Because most of the IPR curves exhibit approximately the
same shape, with little variance, it seemed desirable to fit all
data points to an empirical equation that was simple and could
be applied as a general reference curve for all solution-gas-
drive reservoirs. Nonlinear regression techniques were used to
determine the regression parameters and to make inferences
for them.
curves were reproduced using Eqs. 3, 4, and 1, respectively. V
values of 0.164 and n values of 0.98 were used for reproducing
Bendakhlia and Azizs curve. Our model used an n value of
2.05 which is related to p,~pb of 0.83. As expected, the curves
are similar to Vogels reference curve which has been
developed for relatively low bubblepoint pressures.
However, the higher-pressure curves are well outside the
Vogels reference curve. Figure 15 illustrates the comparison
of horizontal well IPR curves at a bubblepoint pressure of
5,000 psi. From this plot, it is shown that our model gives a
very close fit to the IPR curve at a recovery factor of 6% (p,/pb
=0.75). Besides providing a much-improved fit, Eqs. 11 and
12 allow a simple means for a more universal application for a
dimensionless IPR curve.

Development of Empirical IPR Equations

We developed a new generalized IPR curve for horizontal Conclusions
and multilateral well following the Klins and Majchers20 Dimensionless IPR curves were calculated for horizontal and
model. Nonlinear regression techniques were used to develop multilateral wells in solution-gas-drive reservoirs. These
empirical equations that fit dimensionless flowrate as a reservoirs encompassed a wide range of reservoir data, PVT
function of dimensionless pressure, depletion, and bubblepoint properties, and relative permeability characteristics. The
pressure. The dimensionless IPR for horizontal and effects of several reservoir and fluid properties on the
multilateral wells is calculated curves were investigated. Bubblepoint pressure and
reservoir depletion have a significant effect on the curves. An
q,,
0-025[9-075[:)
empirical equation was developed that related dimensionless

q
=() ,Illll,t (1) flow rate to dimensionless pressure. This equation was tested
and proved to be sound and suitable as a general references
curve for solution-gas-drive reservoirs. The new reference
curve allows a simple means with broader applications to

=[-027+046[fi)-096[fill4+1
predict the performance of these wells.

.......(12) Nomenclature
B = formation volume factor, resbbl/STB
Table 3 provides statistical information on the proposed
CH = shape factor
equation with a maximum error of 14.8%.
To evaluate the absolute open flow potential (AOFP) or the h = reservoir thickness, ft
maximum flow rate, q,),,,,{,x,we differentiate Eq. 11 with respect J = productivity index, STB/d/psi
to p,,f . This derivative (-dq,Jdp,,,T) is also known as the k = permeability, md
productivity index, J. The maximum rate occurs when p,,f
~ = average permeability, md
equals pfi or p, in a solution-gas-drive reservoir. Thus
L = well length, ft
Jpr n = exponent on inflow performance relationship
q (),111(IX . .. . ... .. . ... . .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. (13)
curve
= 0.25+ 0.75 X n
p, = average reservoir pressure, psi
where the productivity index, ./, can be directly used from our
production model. Parameter n, a function of bubblepoint p,vf = bottomhole flowing pressure, psi
pressure and reservoir depletion, is given by Eq. 12. q = flowrate, STB/d
A comparison between the fitted curves and the simulated r,w = wellbore radius, ft
ones is illustrated in Fig. 13. From this plot, it is apparent that
Eqs. 11 and 12 give a close fit to the IPR curves at a recovery S = saturation
s = skin effect
factor of 4% for various bubblepoint pressure.
Figure 14 shows the comparison of horizontal well IPR Xc = extent of drainage area in x-direction, ft
curves of Cheng,8 Bendakhlia and Aziz,T Vogel,2 and our Z,v = distance of well from middle of reservoir, ft
model at a recovery factor of 8% for lower bubblepoint
pressures. Bendakhlia and Azizs, Chengs and Vogels IPR @ = porosity, fraction

258
SPE 50659 INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS OF HORIZONTAL AND MULTIBRANCHED WELLS 5

/l = viscosity, cp
A = pore size distribution index
Subscripts
max = maximum
o = oil phase
x =x-direction
y =y-direction
z = z-direction
References
1. Evinger, H.H. and Muskat, M.: Calculation of Theoretical
Productivity Factor, Trans., AIME ( 1942) 146, 126-139.
2. Vogel, J.H.: Inflow Performance Relationships for Sohrtion-
Gas Drive Wells, JFT (Jan. 1968) 83-92.
3. Weller, W.T.: Reservoir Performance During Two-Phase
Flow, .IFT(Feb. 1966) 240-246.
4. Fetkovich, M.J.: The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells, SPE
4529, 1972.
5. VIP Manual Version 3.31, Western Atlas Software, Houston
(1996).
6. Pfahn, S.V., Startzman, R.A., and Wattenbarger, R. A.: A
Method for Predicting Horizontal Well Performance in
Solution-Gas-Drive Reservoirs, SPE 16201, 1987.
7. Bendakhlia, H. and Aziz, K.: Inflow Performance
Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive Horizontal Wells, SPE
19823, 1989.
8. Cheng, A.M.: Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-
Gas-Drive Slanted/Horizontal Wells, SPE 20720, 1990.
9. Kabir, C.S.: Inflow Performance of Slanted and Horizontal
Wells in Solution-Gas Drive Reservoirs, SPE 24056, 1992.
10, Economies, M.J., Brand, C.W., and Frick, T.P.: Well
Configurations in Anisotropic Reservoirs, SPEFE (Dec. 1996)
257-262.
11. Retnanto, A., Frick, T.P., Brand, C.W., and Economies, M.J.:
Optimal Configurations of Multiple-Lateral Horizontal Wells,
SPE 35712, 1996.
12. Kuchuk, F.J., Goode, P.A., Brice, B.W., Sherrard, D.W., and
Thambynayagam, R. K.M.: Pressure Transient Analysis and
Inflow Performance for Horizontal Wells, SPE 18300, 1988.
13. Beggs, H.D.: Oil System Correlations: Petroleum Engineering
Handbook, H.C. Bradley (cd.), SPE, Richardson, TX (1987) 1,
Chap. 22.
14. Sutton, R.P.: Compressibility Factors for High-Molecular-
Weight Reservoir Gases, SPE 14265, 1985.
15. Dranchuk, P.M. and Abou-Kassem, J.H.: Calculation of Z
Factors for Natural Gases Using Equations of State: JPT (July-
Sept. 1975) 34-36.
16. Lee, A.L., Gonzalez, M.H., and Eakin, B.E.: The Viscosity of
Natural Gases, .iPT (Aug. 1966) 997-1000; Trans., AIME
(1966) 237.
17. Egbogah, E.O.: An Improved Temperature-Viscosity
Correlation for Crude Oil Systems, paper 83-34-32 presented
at the 1983 Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society
of CIM, Banff, Alberta, May 10-13.
18. Brooks, R.H. and Corey, A.T.: Properties of Porous Media
Affecting Fluid Flow, .L [t-rig.Drain. Div. (June 1966)61-88.
19. Peaceman, D.W.: Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in
Numerical Simulation With Nonsquare Grid Blocks and
Anisotropic Permeability, SPEJ (June 1983) 531-543.
20. Klins, M.A. and Majcher, M.W.: Inflow Performance
Relationships for Damaged or Improved Wells Producing Under
Solution-Gas Drive, JPT (Dec. 1992) 1357-1363.
21. Burdine, N.T.: Relative Permeability Calculations From Pore
Size Distribution Data, Trans., AIME ( 1953) 198,71-78.

Table 1 Shape Factors for Various Single and Multibranch Well ConfigurationslOll

r
Llxe CH CH
Xe= 2 y,> 0.25 3.19 x,>= y> LY=2L., [.,10
n
1.80 & I L.Jxe=o.4 L?= L.{ I .88
0.5
Ly = 0.5L.r z,52
c1 0.75 1.02 -1 I
1 0.52 I I

.Y<>= ),<> 0.25 3.55 Xe= ye Ly = 2L.V 0.79

L.&=O.4 Ly = L., 1.51

=
0.4 2.64
2.21 Ly = 0.5L,, 2.04
0.5 ~]
0.75 I .49

m
1 1.04
x. ye L?= 2L.r 0.66
L.,Jxe=O.4 L?= L.r 1.33
0.25 4.59
3.26 Ly = 0.5L.r 1.89
0.5
0.75 2.53
1 2.09

x,>= .s,. 0.25 2.77

El 0.5
0.75
1
1.47
0.81
0.46

259
6 A. RETNANTO AND M.J. ECONOMIES SPE 50659

Table2 Reservoir and fluid properties for IPR

developments

I Variable I Base ! Range I

PI) (Psi) 4,000 1,000-5,000

1
.
%
Oil gravity (API) 35 I 25-.45
SEC(%) 5 0-1o 0.8
so, (%) 30 20-40
S.,c(%) 30 20-40
k (red) 10 1-100 0.6
rj (%) 15 10-20 Q \
a. .. 1
2 ,
4_cxJ
$

I L/x, 0.45 0.2- 0.6 I 0.4 .......... \ \

pb = 5000psi \

,C-,
-----pb = 4000psi
Table 3 Statistical summary of empirical dimensionless -pb = 3000psi
0.2
IPR equations ---- pb = 2000psi
-- pb = 1000 psi
Average error 0.001354
Average absolute error 0.020116 0
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sum of Squares of Error about the 39.2902
Mean (SSM) q./ q. ~ax
Sum of Squares of Residuals (SSE) 0.3173
Fig.2-Effect of the bubblepoint pressure on dimensionless IPR
Correlation coefficient (Rz) 0.9919 curves
Maximum error (%) 14.8 I

4000, [ 1 1

K
......
\x ~ 0.5,1, 0.8 ......... ........

4,6,
8,10,
12, 1b~o 0.6
w (from right to left)
a
\
z
Q
0.4

Np/N = 0.5%
0.2 ----- Np//V= 1.5%
-- NP/N = 6%
---- Np/N= 10%

0 0
o 2000 4000 6000 8000 o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8- 1

Oil Flowrate, STB/d q./ q. ~ax

Fig. 1-IPR curves of the base case for different reservoir Fig. 3--Effect of reservoir depletion on dimensionless IPR curves
depletions

260
SPE 50659 INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS OF HORIZONTAL AND MULTIBRANCHED WELLS 7

Fig.
Q
\
Q
3
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

4-Effect
0
1

.r
o
API
-----

of
--

API
API=35
API=45

0.2
\

gravity
=25
..... . .

0.4

q./

on
\ ............

\
\
-

q. ~ax
\

0.6

dimensionless
\

\
Np/N = 4 %

.........

\... ,.
\
\

~
:

.. ......

0.8

IPR
:. \
*I
\

curves
.1
Q

:3
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

Fig. 6-Effect
1

0
0
.........

_ 0.2

of critical
?.>:<. ,,.. ,:

0.4

q./

gas saturation
0.6

q. ~ax
0.8

on dimensionless IPR
1

curves

0.8
Y:NP,N=4%

\ ,.
.,.:... 0.8
1

h ......... .=.. ...]

Q_-
0.6

X cL-
\
0.6

-. -h
i
z E
Q a
0.4 0.4

0.2

0
o
n..: 0
[I
0
so, = 0.2
so, = 0.3
so, = 0.4

0.2
-

0.4
q./ q. ~ax
0.6 0.8 1.
0.2

0
o
0
II
0

..
Sw, = 0.2
Swi = 0.3
Sw, = 0.4

0.2 0.4

q./
0.6

q. ~ax
0.8 1

Fig. 5-Effect of residual oil saturation on dimensionless IPR Fig. 7-Effect of initial water saturation on dimensionless IPR
curves curvas
8 A. RETNANTO AND fvf.J. ECONOMIES SPE 50659

=4%

F
\ . ..
0.8

0.6

0.4 .

0.2 j......

L
o k=lmd
D k.10md \
o k=100md

o
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
q./ q. ~ax q./ q. ~ax

Fig. 6-Effect of absolute permeability on dimensionless IPR Fig. 10-Effect of porosity on dimensionless IPR curves
curves

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

n---:
a=2 j
--k=4
-- A=inf
0 0
0.8 1 o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6

q./ q. ~ax q./ q. ~ax

Fig. 9-Effect of relative permeability on dimensionless IPR Fig. 1l-Effect of well length on dimensionless IPR curves
curves

262
SPE 50659 INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS OF HORIZONTAL AND MULTIBRANCHED WELLS 9

0.8
\
b

\ %1
\\
. .
1

O.E
\:
-:
R
%;
,%
%-; .........
N:
...
:\
...

.-\.
J
:.\
:.
\ \
\
b

0.6 !.% ......... O.e . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ...*

b
\
\

\ Q .
Q \

\ s
\ \ ---J
s !

Q
0.4 . .. . 0.4 ....... .. \ ..

[ ~
----
[
:2 -- Cheng8
\
\

0.2 . . . . ..
[
----
[
:1 . 0.2 ---- Bendakhlia and Aziz7
\

--- Vogelz
-.: Our model
[ .
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

q./ q. ~ax q./ q. ~8x

.*% ..
.
Fig.1243fect of well configurations on dimensionless IPR Fig. 14-Comparison of horizontal well IPR curves (Pb = 2,000 psi)

\.x
curves

:
0.8

0.6

0.4
1

7....
.
.
..?.*...

~
.
..
I

.. .

., :..
?..
:..
:.
:.,
pb=
5000 psi
4000 psi
3000 psi
.

..
,

) .
.
,.
.

.
.
.;
.!.

.
.
.

.
.:

.,.
.

.,.
.:

.:
:

:.

:.
.,
.
.,.,,

.
.
.
.
Q

:2
1

0.8

0.6

0.4
K .
.
.

i:;
.*\
*\

k

fN@V = 6%
:pb = 5,000 psi

+;\
.\
,\ , ,:

9;;.\
:
:

9.\ . .
2000 psi ;.
.
1000 psi :.
,.
.
.
0.2 0.2

8 I , : --
1 1 I I
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

q. /q. ~ax q./ q. ~ax

Fig. 13-IPR curves fined with the new equation compared to Fig. 16-Comparison of horizontal well IPR curves (PL!= 5,000 psi)
actual curves