SPE 23580
Analytical Development Of Vogel-Type Inflow Performance Relationships
Michael L. Wiggins, SPE, School of Petroleum & Geological Engineering, University of Oklahoma, Norman OK 73019-
0628, e-mail: mvviggins@ou.edu; Jame~ E. Russell, ~PE, Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University,
College Statlo~, T><: 77843-3116, e-mail: russell@spmdletop.tamu.edu; and James W. Jennings, SPE, Department of
Petroleum Engmeenng, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3116, e-mail: jennings@spindletop.tamu.edu.
CoJight 1996. Society of P","",eum Engineers, nco
SPE 23580 first presen1ed at the 1992 SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference held in
Meland. Texas, 18-20 March, 1992.
Permission to copy is restricted to on abstract of not more than 300 words. lIust-ations may not be
copied. The abstract shwd contain conspicuous aclcnolMedgment of loIotIere and by loIotIom the paper
was presen1ed. Write Ulnrion, SPE, P.O. Box 833836. Richardson, TX 7~. U.SA, fax 01-
214.s52.w35.
AbstraGt
In 1962, Vogel proposed an empirical inflow performance
relationship (IPR) for solution-gas drive reservoirs based on
numerical simulation results. This relationship is
~ = 1- 0.2 P,:f _0.8(P.:f )2
qo,max p, p,
and was based on a wide range of rock and fluid properties.
This generalized relationship gained almost immediate
acceptance in the industry due to its relative ease of use and
because it gave reasonable engineering accuracy. This paper
presents a theoretical basis for Vogel's IPR based on the
physical nature of the multi phase flow system. The resulting
analytical IPR follows from a Taylor series expansion of the
multiphase flow equations and is verified by computer
simulation results.
Introduction
Predicting the performance of individual oil wells is an
important responsibility of the petroleum engineer. Estimates
of well performance allow the engineer to determine the
optimum production scheme, design production and artificial
lift equipment, design stimulation treatments and forecast
production for planning purposes. Each of these activities is
integral to the efficient operation of producing wells and
successful reservoir management.
When estimating oilwell performance, engineers often
assume that fluid inflow is proportional to the difference
SPE Journal. December 1996
between reservoir pressure and wellbore pressure. One of the
first relationships to be used based on this assumption was the
Productivity Index (PI). This straight-line relationship is
derived from Darcy's law for the steady-state incompressible
flow of a single-phase fluid and is the ratio of the producing
rate to the pressure difference. In equation form, the PI is
defined by
J= q ........................................................... (1)
Pr - Pwf
However, Evinger and Muskat! pointed out that a straight-
line relationship should not be expected when two phases, oil
and gas, are flowing in the reservoir. They presented
theoretical calculations that showed a curved relationship
between flow rate and pressure. Their method, however, did
not gain wide acceptance by petroleum engineers since it
required extensive knowledge of rock and fluid properties.
Vogel 2 later developed an empirical inflow performance
relationship (IPR) for solution-gas drive reservoirs that
accounted for the flow of two phases, oil and gas, in the
reservoir based on computer simulation results. The resulting
IPR equation is
~ = 1- 0.2 P,:f _0.8(P,:f) 2 ............................. (2)
qo,rrurx p, p,
Vogel's relationship gained almost immediate use within the
industry due to its simplicity and accuracy. The method,
which required knowledge only of a single flow rate, flowing
wellbore pressure and average reservoir pressure, was easy to
use and gave good approximations of the pressure-production
behavior of an oil well over a wide range of operating
conditions.
In this paper, an analytical IPR for solution-gas drive
355
2 ANALYTICAL DEVELOPMENT OF VOGEL-TYPE INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS SPE 23580

reservoirs is developed which serves as a theoretical basis for If one lets

Vogel's IPR. The resulting relationship is based on a Taylor
series expansion of the integral solutions to the multiphase ~= Pr - p .............................................................. (7)
flow equations. This investigation has been limited to radial
flow in bounded, homogeneous reservoirs where gravity then
effects are negligible. Other assumptions utilized in this
research include: 1) all reservoirs are initially at the bubble dp = -d(~) ............................................................. (8)
point; 2) no initial free gas phase is present; 3) Darcy's law
for multiphase flow applies; 4) isothermal conditions exist; 5)
and Eq. 6 becomes
there is no reaction between reservoir fluids and reservoir
rock; 6) no gas solubility exists in the water; and 7) there is a 6.p k
fully penetrating wellbore. qo(t)=CJ-"_O d(Ap). .............. .............. .......... (9)
o f.JoBo
Analytical Development
A mathematical model that describes the flow of multi phase Eq. 9 can be normalized by dividing by Pro which yields
fluids in a porous media can be obtained by combining
physical principles concerning conservation of mass, Darcy's 6.p
law for the flow of fluids and an appropriate equation of state.
The general form of these equations for oil and gas flow are qo(t) = CPr Jk~ {
o f.Jo 0
~) ....................................... (10)
Pr

V'L~;" V+ !(~:)(3) At any instant of time during boundary-dominated flow,

the flow rate can be written as a function of pressure drop
only. Eq. 10 can then be expanded about zero in a Taylor
and series as

v.{ kk; + kkro;s}vp =~(~g + E~Rs) ......... (4) > qinl(o) n

qo(n) =qo(O) + L-I-(n) ...............................(11)
n~l n.
f.J g g f.Jo 0 g 0

where
ignoring capillary effects, gravity, and solubility of gas in
water.
Several researchers 3 -6 have presented solutions to these n = Pr - P = Ap .................................................... (12)
partial differential equations for isotropic, homogeneous, Pr Pr
bounded reservoirs producing under boundary-dominated
flow conditions. These solutions, while yielding identical Evaluating the terms in Eq. 11 results in
mathematical results, are approached in different manners.
The second integral of the oil partial differential equation qo(O) = 0 ................................................................. (13)
for radial flow can be written in terms of the average reservoir
pressure, as
q~(O) = ~r [~] .................................... (14)

1. f.JoBo n~o

qo (t) = 27lkh 3 JJ-tJdp

k
Pr .................. (5) and
[ In(r / r ) - - + s Pwf f.Jo 0
e w 4
(n-ll

q~n)(o) = ~r ~ ,n ~ 2 .............................. (15)

Eq. 5 can be written in the general form n. [
f.J oBo ] n~o

qo(f) = c
p(r)
J k~ dp ................................................. (6) If one assumes the first five terms in Eq. 11 are sufficient
to estimate Eq. 10 at a given time, then
Pwj f.J o 0

where C is a constant that depends on the geometry of the

producing area and flow regime.

356 SPE Journal, December 1996

SPE 23580 M.L. WIGGINS. J.E. RUSSELL AND J.w. JENNINGS 3

C3 = _{~[~]"
f.1o Bo II=O
+.!..[~]
6 B
f.1o o II=O
}. . . """"".",,(21)

where & is the error term resulting from truncating the series
c, ~ 2t:~l. ..................... . (22)

after the first five terms.

Eq. 16 allows one to estimate the flow rate for any given
flowing wellbore pressure at the time the average reservoir
pressure equals Pr' To estimate the maximum flow rate, let
the wellbore flowing pressure equal zero. Then I1 becomes
one, and

It is interesting to note this relationship implies there is

Vogel suggested that at a given time the ratio of the oil
rate to its maximum rate could be determined from the
pressure ratios of Eq. 2. Using this suggestion, the ratio of
Eq. 16 to Eq. 17 is
no explicit dependence of flow geometry, type of flow or
presence of a skin zone on the IPR, since the constants that
contain this information ratio out. Eq. 18 has the same form
as Vogel's IPR, which suggests the coefficients in his
relationship have a physical basis and are not arbitrary fitting
parameters.
Eq. 18 is an analytical IPR which can be used to describe
any reservoir if one can estimate the mobility function and its
derivatives with respect to pressure. It is important to realize

~ = 1+C
qo.frW(
1
P:,f
D Pr
+
Cz ( P:,f
D Pr
r+ r
C3 ( P:,f
D Pr """" (18)
Eq. 18 gives a description of the inflow performance
relationship based on the physical nature of the system, which
makes it easier to study the multi phase system.

Factors Affecting the Mobility Function

+ C4 (P:'f)4 Vogel's IPR is a generalized relationship for a wide range of
D Pr
reservoir properties, production rates, and stages of depletion.
Vogel was not interested in isolating individual factors that
after expanding the polynomials, grouping similar terms and affected the IPR curve. He wanted to develop a single, easy-
performing the necessary algebra. The coefficients are to-use relationship that would give reasonable results over a
defined as: wide range of operating conditions. The analytical IPR
developed shows the coefficients are dependent on the
mobility function and requires that we investigate factors
which may influence the mobility function. The mobility
term is explicitly a function of pressure and saturation, which
are affected by three primary factors: depletion, production
rate, and the presence of an altered permeability zone.
Numerical simulation was used to evaluate these factors and
their effect on the mobility function.
Table 1 presents the range of reservoir rock and fluid
information used to generate simulator results with details of
the actual properties presented in Ref. 6. It was felt these
properties covered a wide range of operating conditions and
would allow a thorough evaluation of the proposed method.

SPE Journal, December 1996 357

4 ANALYTICAL DEVELOPMENT OF VOGEL-TYPE INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS SPE Z3580
0.4
Table 1. Reservoir Properties
Property Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 B Np/N c 0.1%
Porosity 0.18 0.12 0.20 0.24
Permeability, md 15.0 10.0 100.0 50.0
Np/N= 2.0%

HeiQht, It 25 10 10 25 0.3 Np/N c 4.0%

Temperature, of 150 175 200 200 c:;

0
Np/N=6.0%
Initial Pressure, psi a 2500 3500 1500 2ffX) ',p c Np/N = 8.0%
u
Oil Gravity, API 25.0 45.0 15.0 35.0
~
Gas Gravity 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7
Water Solids, % 12.0 30.0 15.0 18.0 ~ 02
Residual Oil Saturation 0.35 0.10 0.45 0.05 :00
Connate Water Saturation 0.20 0.10 0.30 0.50 ::E
Critical Gas Saturation 0.050 0.000 0.025 0.075
6
DrainaQe Radius, It 1085 506 506 1085
Well bore Radius, It 0.328 0.328 0.328 0.328 0.1

Depletion Effects. Vogel, though he does not directly 50 BOPD

address the issue, presents evidence that depletion affects the 0.04----...---,.----.------,r-----.----i
shape of the IPR curve. Klins and Majcher7 also show that o 1000 2000 3000

reservoir depletion can affect the IPR curve. In relation to the Pressure, psia
analytical IPR, these observations indicate the mobility Fig. 1. Mobility function profiles at various stages of
function is affected by the stage of depletion experienced in a depletion during two-phase flow, Case 2.
reservoir. This was noticed by Camacho and Raghavan 8
when they reported the exponent n in Fetkovich's4 0.4.,.-------------------,
deliverability equation was a function of time or depletion.
Their observation was based on recognizing the mobility B Np/N=O.l%
function profiles changed as a function of time. Np/N:20%
In this work, it was also noticed that depletion affects the Np/N=4.0%
0.3
shape of the mobility function profiles. Fig. 1 presents Np/N = 6.0%
c:;
mobility function profiles for several stages of depletion 0
',p
c Np/N=8.0%
u
during two-phase boundary-dominated flow for Case 2. The I::
;l
values plotted in this figure are from simulation results; the ~

curves are typical of those obtained for other cases, indicating ~ 02

:0
the profiles are a function of depletion. Fig. 2 reinforces this 0
::E
observation; in it are plotted the mobility functions versus IT,
(5
the dimensionless variable used to evaluate the mobility
function. These results show that different analytical IPRs 0.1

can be developed for different stages of depletion, a point that

will be addressed later.
5OBOPD

Rate Effects. The analytical IPR was developed for a given 0.0 4---.----,.---.---r--...-----.-~-_,_-..._---l
point in time. We have already demonstrated that depletion 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

will affect the shape of the mobility function and, therefore,
the shape of the IPR curve. Now we need to determine
whether the mobility function that spans the entire pressure
range of interest at the maximum rate is suitable for use with
all production rates. This concern is valid since we have used
a single mobility function profile in the development of the
analytical IPR, implying that all rates, at a given depletion
stage, can be estimated from a single profile. Mobility
function profiles for two-phase, boundary-dominated flow at
several different rates are presented in Fig. 3 for Case 2. Rate
does not appear to have a major affect on the mobility
function profiles, as each curve essentially lays over the other.
To verify rate does not have a major affect, a complete
analysis was performed for two-phase flow based on simulator
Normalized Pressure, IT
Fig. 2. Mobility function profiles versus normalized
pressure at various stages of depletion during two-phase
flow, Case 2.
results for several different cases. In this analysis, a
polynomial was fit to the mobility function for each rate
examined at each stage of depletion. A polynomial was then
fit to a rate near the maximum rate for each depletion stage.
The polynomials for each rate were integrated and evaluated
from the flowing wellbore pressure to the external boundary
pressure for that particular rate, providing an estimate of the

358 SPE Journal. December 1996

SPE 23580 M.L. WIGGINS. J.E. RUSSELL AND JW. JENNINGS 5
03~---------------------------------'

analyzed. Production rate and pressure results were used to

/
Np/N =2.ll%
develop normalized IPR curves for two different solution-gas-
drive reservoirs. The saturation and pressure information was
used to develop mobility function profiles in terms of n
which were fit with a polynomial to allow evaluation of the
~
0 0.2 Rtf mobility function and its derivatives. An analytical IPR was
lJ
~ O.f> developed for each reservoir and compared with the IPR
;j
I-'< Cf- curve developed from the simulator results.
~ c! Case 2 will be used as an example to demonstrate the use
:0 +
0 of the analytical IPR for two-phase flow. Fig. 4 presents a
::E +
0.1
normalized oil mobility function profile for a depletion stage
<5 + o 25BOPD of 1%. This profile can be fit with a third-degree polynomial;
A SOBOPD the resulting equation is
o 7S BOPD
+ 100BOPD k
_ro_ = 0.2955 - 0.5856II + 0.7936II2 - 0.4901II 3 (24)
J.1oBo
0.0
0 1000 2000 3000

Pressure, psia From this relationship, the coefficients of the analytical IPR
Fig. 3. Oil mobility profiles for different rates at the same can be calculated by taking the appropriate derivatives of Eq.
stage of depletion during two-phase flow, Case 2. 24 and using Eqs. 19-23. The resulting IPR is

area under the mobility function profile. This area was

compared to the area estimated from the maximum rate
~ = 1- 0.0933 P-,:-f -1.618{ P-,:-f
qo,ltW( Pr Pr
r
.................... (25)

profile evaluated over the same pressure range. The percent

difference was then estimated by subtracting the area under +1.557{ ~: ) 3 _ 0.8464( ~: ) 4

the maximum rate profile from the area under the actual rate
profile and dividing by the area under the actual rate profile.
The maximum difference experienced for the cases
examined was 1.69% and indicates rate has no m~or effect
on the mobility function profile and its evaluation in the
analytical IPR. All that is required is a mobility function near
the maximum rate ensuring an almost complete profile over 0 . ~------------------------------.,
the pressure range of interest. This allows the proper 125 BOPD, Np/N = 1.0%

determination of the coefficients in the analytical IPR.

Skin Effects. The presence of an altered permeability zone 03

~
can significantly affect the pressure profile near the wellbore. 0
.~
u
To investigate this effect on the mobility function, simulator
results for cases with skin values ranging from -2 to 20 were I-'<

analyzed in a manner similar to the investigation of rate .f' 0.2

effects. Results of this analysis indicate the maximum
:50
::E
percent difference in the mobility profiles due to skin effects
was 1.78% for the cases examined. 0
Skin effects do not appear to significantly affect the 0.1
mobility function and its use in the analytical IPR, indicating
that the presence of an altered zone should not affect the
shape of the IPR curve. This observation agrees with the
y: 0.29552 - 0.58559n + 0.?9363n"2 - 0.49006n"3 R"2: 0.996
research of Klins and Majcher, and Camacho and Raghavan,
who have reported that skin has no effect on IPR curves. 0.0 0.2 0. 0.6 0.8 1.0
~Orn1~ Pressure, 11
Verification of the Analytical IPR
Fig. 4. Oil mobility function profiles for Case 2 during
To verify the analytical IPR developed and presented in Eq.
18, information from twenty-six simulation runs was
two-phase flow, Np/N 1.0%. =

SPE Journal. Decemher 1996 359

6 ANALYTICAL DEVELOPMENT OF VOGEL-TYPE INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS SPE 23580

This relationship and Vogel's IPR are compared with the
simulator results in Fig. 5. The analytical IPR is concave
downward and does a reasonable job of estimating the
production information over a wide range of depletion, from
0.1% to 10.0%. The maximum absolute percent difference
between the analytical IPR and the simulator results is 5.31%
while the percent difference in Vogel's relationship is 1.64%.
The larger differences correspond to lower flow rates that
are the result of small pressure drawdowns. The percent
difference in the analytical IPR was less than 2.5% for flow
rate ratios greater than 30% and pressure drawdowns greater
than 20%. This has important practical implications for field
operations since, to obtain reliable information for an IPR,
one must ensure the pressure drawdown is greater than 20%
of the average reservoir pressure.
It was previously shown that depletion affects the shape
of the IPR curve. To check this observation, an analytical
IPR was developed for a depletion stage of 8% and compared
with the IPR for 1% depletion. Fig. 6 presents the
normalized oil mobility function profile. The analytical IPR
developed from this profile is
The coefficients of Eqs. 25 and 26 are indeed different.
Fig. 7 compares the two analytical IPRs to the simulator
results. As observed, the analytical IPR at 8% depletion
begins to straighten and does not estimate the simulator
results as well as the IPR developed at 1% depletion. For
either case, when the pressure drawdown is greater than 20%
of the average reservoir pressure, the maximum absolute
relative error between the analytical IPR and the simulator
IPR is less than 5% for 8% depletion and 3% for the 1%
depletion.
In explaining why the earlier IPR estimates the simulator
results better than the IPR developed for a later stage of
depletion, one must consider what actually occurs in the
reservoir. At early stages of depletion, the average reservoir
pressure is very near initial reservoir pressure. If a mobility
profile is developed for the maximum flow rate at this time,
then that profile will span from a pressure very near the
initial reservoir pressure to zero pressure at the wellbore.
This profile captures most of the non-linear behavior in the
mobility function over the whole range of production history,
indicated by how well the early IPR predicted the simulated
production results.

~ = 1- 0.2869 P.:.f _ 0.960{ P,:,f )

On the other hand, as depletion occurs, the average
2 reservoir pressure decreases and a mobility function profile is

r
qo,ttIJlX. Pr Pr .. ................ (26) developed that only covers a portion of the entire pressure

~: ) ~:
range experienced in depleting the reservoir. This is
+0.4482( 3 - 0.2013( evidenced by the later IPR predicting the later production
information well, but not the early production information, as

1~~~-------------------------------' 0.16 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
50 BOrD, Np/N = 8.0%

0.14
0.8
VogeilPR
0.12
!:::
o
'Jj
u
0.6 !:::
1;) J! 0.10
Ei ~
g. :5
......
g. ~ 0.08
0.4
(5
0.06

0.2
0.04

o Simulator results y = 0.14028 -0.1385011 + 9.0092e-211"2 - 6.7137e-211"3 R"2 = 1.0

0.02 +---.-~----.----.---.-__,----.---.__--.....--;
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
p/pbar Normalized Pressure, n
Fig. 5. Comparison of analytical IPR and Vogel's IPR to Fig. 6. Oil mobility function profiles for Case 2 during
simulator results for two-phase flow, Case 2. two-phase flow, Np/N 8.0%. =
360 SPE Journal, December 1996
SPE Z3680 M.L. WIGGINS. J.E. RUSSELL AND JW. JENNINGS
1.0.,....=---------------~
0.8
0.6
0.(
0.2
[J Simulator results
O.o+--.....-....,..--.--y-~-_r_-..-__r-__._~
0.0 0.2 0.( 0.6 0.8 1.0
p/pbar
Fig. 7. Comparison of analytical IPRs developed from oil
mobility function profiles at two different stages of
depletion, two-phase flow, Case 2.
earlier pressures are greater than those used in developing the
later IPR. These observations suggest that a mobility function
profile developed at an early stage of depletion will give a
reasonable estimate of flow rate ratios over almost the entire
range of depletion, and one should not be too concerned with
the stage of depletion in applying the analytical IPR
approach.
Application Of The Analytical IPR
The primary application of the analytical IPR is the ability to
estimate pressure-production behavior of individual wells in a
reservoir based on the particular properties of the reservoir.
A reservoir specific IPR can be developed by making one
judicious reservoir simulation run which covers the entire
pressure range of the reservoir. This IPR can then be used by
the production engineer and field personnel in much the same
manner they would use Vogel's relationship except now the
coefficients of the pressure ratios have been developed based
upon the reservoir's mobility characteristics. The resulting
IPR should yield improved estimates of well performance in
the reservoir.
To develop the analytical IPR one would follow the same
procedure described in the verification of the IPR. Utilizing
fluid property, relative permeability, and pressure data for the
reservoir, one would make a single-well reservoir simulation
run at a constant production rate or a constant flowing
wellbore pressure. The purpose of this simulation is to
develop a pressure profile in the reservoir from the average
reservoir pressure towards the outer boundary of the reservoir
to almost zero pressure at the wellbore.
SPE JOllll1al. December 1996
7
By selecting one pressure profile from the boundary
dominated flow regime, the simulation results would provide
the relative permeability, viscosity, and formation volume
factor data required to develop the mobility function profile
over most of the pressure range of the simulation. This is
accomplished by calculating the mobility function values
versus pressure from the wellbore to the outer boundary at a
time-step which covers the pressure range of interest.
The mobility function profile is then curve fit with a
polynomial. Using this relationship, the derivatives required
for the coefficients (Eqs. 19-23) of the analytical IPR can be
determined. The analytical IPR (Eq. 18) is then determined
using the coefficients just calculated.
This procedure requires only one judiciously designed
reservoir simulation run to develop an analytical IPR which
will yield results with suitable engineering accuracy subject to
the assumptions stated in the introduction. This contrasts
with the effort required to make an entire series of reservoir
simulation runs to develop pressure-production data for use in
preparing inflow performance curves. In addition to saving
time, it also allows a Vogel-type IPR to be developed based on
the actual properties of the reservoir of interest.
Conclusions
Based on this research, and under the identified assumptions,
the following conclusions are presented.
1. An analytical Vogel-type IPR has been developed
based on the physical nature of the multi phase flow system.
The relationship is based on a Taylor series expansion of the
multi phase flow equation for oil. This relationship indicates
production rate ratios are functions of relative permeability,
fluid properties, flowing wellbore pressure and average
reservoir pressure. The analytical IPR has been verified for
two-phase boundary-dominated flow based on simulator
results. In general, maximum errors between simulator
results and estimates in predicted performance from the
proposed analytical IPR are less than 5%.
2. The analytical IPR allows an IPR to be developed for
any reservoir of interest if suitable estimates of relative
permeability and fluid property behavior with respect to
pressure can be made. This can be accomplished by making
one judicious reservoir simulation run to generate the
required data.
3. Based on the analytical IPR, evidence has been
presented that flow geometry, reservoir porosity, absolute
permeability and formation thickness have no effect on the
shape of the IPR curve. Evidence also indicates the presence
of a skin region near the wellbore has no effect on the shape
of the IPR curve.
4. Error analysis of pressure-production estimates
generated from the analytical IPR and reservoir simulation
results indicate reliable field data for IPR generation requires
pressure drawdowns greater than 20% of the average
reservoir pressure.
361
8 ANALYTICAL DEVELOPMENT OF VOGEL-TYPE INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS SPE 23580

5. While depletion affects the shape of the IPR curve, it
does not appear substantial errors are introduced by ignoring
depletion in the analytical IPR as the maximum error for the
cases studied was less than 5% when the pressure drawdown
was greater than 20% of the average reservoir pressure.
Nomenclature
gas formation volume factor, RBIMscf
oil formation volume factor, RBISTB
height, ft
productivity index, BPD/psi
absolute permeability, md
relative permeability to gas
relative permeability to oil
pressure, psi
average reservoir pressure, psi
flowing wellbore pressure, psi
oil production rate, BOPD
maximum oil production rate, BOPD
solution gas-oil ratio, Mscf/STB
radius, ft
external boundary radius, ft
wellbore radius, ft
gas saturation, fraction
oil saturation, fraction
skin factor, dimensionless
time, days
gas viscosity, cp
oil viscosity, cp
porosity, fraction
7. 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.
8. Camacho-V., R.G. and Raghavan, R.: "Inflow
Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas-Drive
Reservoirs," JPT(May 1989) 541-550.
Michael L Wiggins is an assistant professor of petroleum
and geological engineering at the U. of Oklahoma where he
specializes in the areas of production operations, reservoir
management, and environmental issues. He holds BS, ME,
and PhD degrees in petroleum engineering from Texas A&M
U. Wiggins is a member of the Engineering Registration
Committee and was the U. of Oklahoma SPE Student
Chapter faculty adviser from 1991 through 1996. James E.
Russell is the Hughes Tool Professor of Petroleum
Engineering at Texas A&M U. where he teaches and conducts
research in the areas of rock mechanics and fluid flow in
porous media related to drilling, completing and producing oil
and gas wells. Russell holds BS and MS degrees from South
Dakota School of Mines and Technology and a PhD degree
from Northwestern U. James W. Jennings is a professor
emeritus of petroleum engineering at Texas A&M University
where he specializes in artificial lift and well performance
predictions. He previously was vice president of production
research at Gulf Oil . Co. A 1992 Distinguished Lecturer,
Jennings holds BS and MS degrees from Colorado School of
Mines and a PhD degree from the U. of Pittsburgh.

References
1. Evinger, HH and Muskat, J.: "Calculation of
Theoretical Productivity Factors," Trans., AIME (1942)
146, 126-139.

2. Vogel, 1. V.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for

Solution-Gas Drive Wells," JPT (Jan. 1968) 83-92.

3. Levine, 1.S. and Prats, M.: "The Calculated Performance

of Solution-Gas Drive Reservoirs," SPEJ (Sept. 1961)
142-152.

4. Fetkovich, M.J.: "The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells,"

paper SPE 4529 presented at the 1973 SPE Annual
Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 30-Oct. 3.

5. Camacho-V., R.G.: "Well Performance Under Solution

Gas Drive," PhD dissertation, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK
(1987).

6. Wiggins, M.L.: "Inflow Performance of Oil Wells

Producing Water," PhD dissertation, Texas A&M u.,
College Station, TX (1991).

362 SPE Journal. December 1996