Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ESTIMATION
@
A
JANUARY, 19611
of making complete IPR predictions for a reservoir. $mch the bubbie point, Computations were made for reservoirs
predictions for a typical solution-gas drive reservoir are initially above the bubble point, but only to ensure that
shown as a family of IPR cur:’ s on Fig. 2. Note that this initial condition did not cause a significant change in
they confirm the existence of curkdure. behavior below the bubble point.
U appeared that if several solution-gas “drive reservoirs
were examined with the aid of this program, empirical Shape of Inflow Performance Relationship
relationships might be established that would apply to Curves with Normal I’/eterioration
solution-gas drive reservoirs in general. This p&per sum-
marizes the results of such a study that dealt with several As depletion proceeds in a solutlon-gas drive reservoir,
simulated reservoirs covering a wide range of conditions. the productivity of a typical well decreases, primarily
These “conditions included differing crude oil character- because the reservoir pressure is reduced and because
istics and differing reservoir relative permwbiiity charac- increasing gas saturation causes greater resistance to oil
teristics, as well as the effects of well spacing, fractwing flow, The result is a progressive deterioration of the IPRs,
and skir~restrictions. typified by the IPR curves in Fig. 2. Exarr.ination of these
The i:westigation sought relationships valid only below curves does not make it apparent whether they have any
properties in common other ‘:han that they are all con.
2800
cave to the origin.
One useful operation is to plot all the IPR’s as “di-
RESERVOIR CONDITIONS:
ORIGINAL PRESSURE I 2130 Psi
mensionless IPR’s”. The prissure for each point on an
2400 BuBBLE POINT , 2130 psi IPR curve is divided by the maximum or shut-in pres-
CRUDE OIL PVT CHARACTERISTICS sure for that particular curve, and the corresponding pro-
FROM FIG. A-10 duction rate isdivided bytt.e maximum (l OOpercentdrtw-
~ RELATIvE PERMEABILITY CHAR-
ACTERISTICS FROM FIG. A-20
down) producing rate for the same curve. When this is
- 2000
w
a WELL SPACING * 20 ACRES done, the curves from Fig, 2 can bereplotted as shown in
WEI L RAOIUS I 0.33 FOOT Fig. 3. It is then readily ~ppaI’entthat with this construe.
J
tion the curves are,, remmkably similar throughout most
g, 1600
CUMULATIVE RECOVERV,
of the producing life of the reservoir
-1 , !,
‘14+ PERCENT OF ORIGINAL
d
. k k \ “o. I OIL IN PLACE
2500 ———
A+PR FROM FIG 2FCIR Npfld ’01%
BIPRw IT HP DIFFERENT CRUDE OIL
FLOWING, ALI. OTHER CON OIIIONS
2000
BEING THE SAltE. CRUOE OIL PROP-
~TIE” FRO M)”l G, A-lb,
1500 -
B
@
1000 \
.—
.0
500
PRODUCING RATE , bo$~
r~
Fhr.
., 2—Contrx4ter-culculatetl inflow performance F\ \ ~~
o l—_L_L~
relationships for a solution-gas drive reservoir. 50 100 !50 200 250 300
PRODUCING RATE , bopd
I .0
(al ACTUAL IPR’S
k!
a
g g 0,8
& Np/N=OJ%,2eh,4”l.
:go, 6“le,8”h
~g ‘
.3b Io%
~z
~o
g ~ 0.4 I 2 “A
v I 4“/.
ZS
ok
1- --
RESERVOIR CONDITIONS
g go.?
SAME AS FIG.2
.J.
1,
w
K 0.
a
m
u)
w
a
a
E
5
>
a
w
m
w
a
0,
m
JANUARY, 1968
,, ,-
Lo
TWO-PHASE FLOW
(REFERENCF CURVE I
0.8 1-
g
u 1.0
a
0.6 -
!==
>
LIQUIO FLOW
.;
,REFERENCE CURVE 0.4 -
,,
08 2-
12% 0 ~—
I 4 “/. 0 0.2 0,4
. cl/qmQR
RESERVOIR CONDITIONS
sAME AS FIC.2 Fig. G-Comparison of IPR’$ for !iquid flow, gas flow
and fwo-phase ffow.
2000~\poNToFMATcH(
1800
wELLTEsT)
o
\
1600 -
\
\
\ \
1400
\
Y? ~
[000
\ { ‘~,
\ \f2 \ \
600 \
\-\ \@ \ i, \
\\. ? i\
400
~IPREXTRApOLAJF~\
\~o’f \\\
~\;\ \ :tiv:EFERENcE \
20 0
so
\\ i, \ , \
~“ \ \ ‘ %.-
1 lU 1 Ii 1
II 1 I,i ! \\r l\ I 1 1 1 ! 1 1\
OK
0 20 40 60 60 100 120 f40 [60 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 :
I Fig. 7—Deviations when IPRs are predicted by reference curve from well tests at low drawdowns.
““[’ooo~”o :[:+—-----:
200 - [600 - 4.0
I 50 . - 1200 .-
N
o
- 3,0 ; 150
I I 1200
-w ~w RS
K* a- \
x K“’
Pg
- 100 - 800 - - 2!0 *O I 00 800
.
L m“
1
-1 .~f$ B.
m
50 - - 1.0 50 400 1,0
PO
0 - f) Jo nflt I -10
. “-o 1000 Zooo “o 1000 2009
PRESSURE psi PREsSURE, psi
t
[50 - 3,0N: .. ~,f)
I 200
l/Bg ~
m
e a’” 2
‘9 am
100 800 - 2.0 “ - 440
m“
-1. ~
%
B. ,0
50 400 3.0
~o
““[’
ooo~”o “or ‘o”o~~’(o
II
200 [600 - 4.0
N
0
l;!3g
I50 1200 - 3,0 “m
m a.
: K- L
100 s 00 - 2,0 ?
Pg
II”
B.
50 IL 400 Po - 1.0
Fig, 9-Input data, crude oil PVTchoracteristics (c,= 12 XIO-gin all cases).
,.. . 87
JANUARY, 196S
,
identical any more than wou!d the preser.: use of straight- The equation of a curve that gives a reasonable empirical ‘1
line PI’s for all such reservoirs. Rather. the curve can be fit is
regarded as a general solution af the solution-gas drive ,qo _
reservoir flow equaticms with the constants for particular /. 1 – 0.20&- – 0,80 &M~\’ , , , (1)
solutions depending on the individual reservoir charac- (q. )nmx Pn \ Pli /
0.40
t
0.35 Sgc : 2.1 % Sgc : .s,0%
: 19.49/0 Sw : 19840/”
Sw
+ : 13.90/. .# : 13,9%
0.30
h : 23.5fl h’ = 23.5ft
k : 20md k : 20md
0.25
k ~. (l OO?/. s,,): 0,444 k ~. (100% s,,1= 0.444 ‘
[
I k ro
k
k
rq
ro
I k
f9 \ /
-0,3 0,4 0.5 0(6 0.7 0,8 0.9 1,0 0,3 ‘ 0,4 0,5 C,6 0,’7 OS 0.9 1.0
(0) (b)
0.45
0,40
k :20md k : 20md
L1 25 kro (l OOO/OS+l ): 0.444
r“” ..[
0.20 -
0.15 -
k
r9
0.10 -
0.05 -
1 L 1 1 1
0’ b
0.3 0,4 0,5 0.6 0,7 08 0!9 1,0 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 o#E 0.9
—
.
psi, Find (~) the maximum producing rate with 100 per-
cent drawdown, and (2) the producing rate if artificial
lift were installed to reduce the producing bottom-hole
When q./(q.)~., from Eq, 1 is plotted vs p,,,/5,, the pressure to 500 psi.
dimensionless IPRreference curve results, Onthe basis of
The solution is: (1) with p., = 1,500 psi, p.,/~R=
the cases studied, it is assumed that about the same curve
will result for all wells, If q,, is plotted vs p~,, the actual 1,530/2,000=0,75, From Fig, 5, when p,,j/~k =0.75,
lPR curve fora particular well should result. q.~(q,)t,,ii. = 0.40> 65/(qr>)[tlrix = 0,4j, (q. ),,,,. = 162
A comparison of this curve with those calculated on BOPD; (2) with p., = 500 psi, p,. J/p,, = 500/2,000 =
the computer is illustrated in Fig. 6. The curve matches 0,25, From Fig. 5,q./(q,, ),,,,,, = 0.90, q./l62 = 0.90, q. =
more closely the IPR curves for early stages of depletion 146 BOPD,
than the IPR curves for later stages of depletion. In this If the same calculations had been made by straight-line
way, the percent of error is least when dealing with the PI extrapolation, the productivity with artificial lift would
kigher producing rates in the early stages of depletion. have been estimated as 195 BOPD rather than 145 IK)PD.
The percentage error becomes .greater in the later stages ..This illustrates a significant conclusion to be drawn for
of depletion, but here production rates are low and, as cases in which such IPR r.,xvature-exists, Production in-.
a consequence, numerical errors would be less in absolute creases resulting from pulling a well harder will be less
magnitude, thafi those calculated by the straight.line PI extrapolation;
Use of Reference Curve conversely, production losses resulting from higher back
The method of using the curve in Fig. 5 is best illu- pressures will be less than those anticipated by straight-
strated by the following example problem. A well tests Iine methods,
65 130PD with a flowing bottom-hole pressure of 1,500 It is ditlicult to overstate the importance of using sta-
psi in afield where rhe average reservoir pressureis2 ,000 bilized well tests in the calculations. In a low-permeability
0.80 -
0.60 - I4 %
I2 %
Io%
I 4 % ——
0,4( -
~
CRUOE OIL PROPERTIES, FIG A-1o
RELATIVE PERMEABILITY ,FIG, A-20 ~
I 00
0.80 -
I 4 “/.
12”/e—
0.60 - 14%
E
I 9 “A
?
6 “/e, 8 %
~:
0.40 -
CASE 3
1
1 ! 1 I
o
o 020 0.+0 0.60 0.80 0 0<20 040 0.60 0.80 1.00
qo/(%lmaa
[d]
.
ieservoir it frequently will be found that significant changes The maximum error for the reservoir considered in Fig.
in producing conditions should not be made for several 7 is less than 5 percent !hroughout most of its producing
“days preceding an important test. This presents no prob- iife, rising to 20 percent during final stages of depiction.
lem if a well is to be tested at its normal producing rate, Although the 20 percent error may seem high, the actual
but it becomes more difficult if multi-rate tests are required magnitude of the error is less than ?4 BOPD,
Accuracy of Reference Curve It is obvious from Fig. 7 that if well tests are made
It is anticipated that the most common use of the refer- at higher drawdowns than the extreme cases illustrated,
ence IPR curve will be ‘to predict producing rates at high- the point of match of the estimated and actual IPR curves
cr drawdowns from data measured at lower drawdowns. is shifted further out along the curves and better agree-
For example, from well tests taken under flowing condi- ment will result,
tions, predictions will be made of productivities to be Maximum-erro: calculations were made for all the res-
expected upon installation of artificial lift. It is necessary ervoir conditions investigated. Except for those cases with
to arrive at the approximate accuracy of such predictions, viscous crudes and with flow restricted by skin effect,
Maximum error will occur when well tests made at very it appears that a maximum error on the order of 20 per-
cent should be expected if al! solution-gas drive IPR’s
low producing rates and correspcmdingly low drawdowns
follow the reference curve as closely as have the several
are extrapolated with the aid of the reference curve to
cases investigated. For comparison, the maximum errors
estimate maximum productivities as [he drawdown ap-
for the straight-line PI extrapolation ‘method were gen-
proaches 100 percent of the reservoir pressure. The error
that would result under such conditions was investigated, erally between 70 and 80 percent, dropping to about
30 percent only during final stages of depletion.
and typical results are shown in Fig, 7. in this figure the
dashed lines represent IPR’s estimated from well tests at The figures cited above refer to the maximum errors
low drawdowns (1 I to 13 percent), and the solid lines that should be expected. In most applications the errors
represent the actual IPR’s calculated by the computer. should be much less {on the order of 10 percent) be-
1.00
—
‘\
\
\
\
\ BuBBLE POINT
0.s0
=. ~Np/N: 0,1’/.,6”/,,10”/.
\-
\
\
\
0.50 yA
K
5
la
\
\
0.40 \
\ I o “/.
\
CASE 5 CASE6
\
\ SAME AS CASE 1, EXCEPT THAT
020 SAME AS CASE 1, ExCEPT WELL HAS
PLUS 5 SKIN \ RESERVOIR PRESSU2E IS INITIALLY
ABOVE THE BuB@LE PO IN T, BEING
3040psi IN STEAO 0F2130Psi
0
, 1 1 [
(o)
1.00
0.s0
I4 “/. 8%
12 ●
{*
0.40
CASE 7 C=
1
1 I I I
“o 0.20 0.40 0.60 0,60 1,00 0 0,20 0.40 0460 0.80 1, )
qo/(%)mOx
(cl (d)
[.00
0.80 -
10 “/0
= 060 -
c 16%
? o “/”
5
n
0.40 -
CASE 9 cASE 10
02:t:,;:,E~,;,,,,,;,,?
\ SAME AS CASE I, ExCEPT WITH HIGHER SAME AS CASE 1, EXCEPT wITH
BUBBLE POINT CRUDE OIL FROM FIG. A-le PERMEABILITY CHARACTERISTICS
FROM FIG. A-2b
(a)
Loo
\
\
0.80 - yA
\
20 %
\ Io %
Io %
= 0.60 - N ~ IN =0.1%
\’
< 18 “A
28”/*— \
; \
a \
040
\
\,” CASE 12
CASE [1
) o 0!20 0.40 )
“\ \:’’N=O’’*’*
N,
\
\
\ ‘\
10% 6 v, Iov. T,A
\ 20 “i.
\ 26%
0.4C \ \
\ \
CA \
.— SE13 \
CASE [4 \
\ \
0.20 SAME AS CASE 1, EXCEPT WITH LOW- \ SAME AS CASE 1, EXCEPT WITH \
GOR CRUDE FROM
“\\ FIG. A-if \ PERMEABILITY CHARACTERISTICS
\
‘Y FROM FIG, A-2b ANO CRUDE OIL
PROPERTIES FROM FIG. A-le
0
(b)
1,00
0.80
IO*A —
2% —
4 ‘(*
0,40
CASE [5 CASE 16
FROM FIG, A-2c AN0 CRUDE OIL PROP- OF FIG, A.2d AND CRUDE OIL PROPERTIES
ERTIES FROtd FIG, A-[b APPROXIMATE FROM STRAIGHT LINES OF
FIG. A-Ic
~ 1 I 1 I I 1
0 )
0.40 0.60 0.80 Lc 0.20 0.40 0.60 0,80 I
%A%)maa
(c) (d)
I
replaced. **
oil PV’T characteristics and relative permeability charac-
teristics) from which the theoretical behavior of simulated Editor’s no(e: A pictl(re and biograplzical sketch o/
reservoirs was calculated by the computer, J. V, Vogel appear on page 60.
“1