SPE-187232-MS

Analytical Development of a Dynamic IPR for Transient Two-Phase Flow in

Reservoirs

Pedro Cavalcanti De Sousa, Texas A&M University; Artur Posenato Garcia, The university of Texas at Austin;
Paulo J. Waltrich, Louisiana State University

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, USA, 9-11 October 2017.

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
This work presents a new Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) for transient two-phase flow in reservoirs.
This relationship is called Dynamic IPR and it accounts for the flow dynamics at the near-wellbore region
and provides a simple but robust solution for transient simulations of two-phase flow reservoirs. The Two-
Phase Dynamic IPR not only couples the wellbore bottomhole flowing pressure with oil and gas flow
rates, but it also provides the pressure profile within the reservoir. Commercial software are capable of
coupling discretized reservoir simulators to wellbore models; however, these are computationally more
expensive and complex than the Dynamic IPR. The use of conventional IPRs, on the other hand, is simple
and straightforward, but they cannot account for the wellbore-reservoir dynamic, making them inaccurate
in fully transient models.
The proposed Dynamic IPR is validated against the results from a state-of-the-art reservoir simulator
using finite element methods. The Dynamic IPR shows an agreement of ±8% with results from the
discretized reservoir simulator.

Introduction
To this day, well deliverability is still obtained by nodal analysis, first introduced by Gilbert (1954). This
method consists of plotting the Inflow Performance Relationships (IPR) and the Vertical Flow Performance
(VFP) curves in the same chart to obtain the point where they intercept each other (Economides et al. 2013).
This intersection determines the well deliverability, but it is only reliable if the VFP and IPR curves correctly
represent wellbore and reservoir flows, respectively.
In that regard, conventional VFP models assume steady-state flow, which many wells may never
truly reach. Furthermore, modern technologies allow for increased well complexity (e.g., extended-reach
and deep-water wells). These scenarios present challenges (e.g., severe slugging and start-up of subsea
manifolds), which cannot be evaluated with conventional VFP models. Thus, sophisticated transient models
of multiphase fluid flow in pipes has largely replaced conventional VFP.
IPR models, on the other hand, have been lagging behind in terms of new developments. Hu (2004) has
already shown the inadequacy of conventional steady-state IPR models for capturing the transient behavior
2 SPE-187232-MS

of reservoirs in coupled wellbore-reservoir simulations. In these cases, the only reliable method available in
the industry is the simultaneous solution of a discretized well model and a near-wellbore region model. This
solution provides satisfactory results, but can be computationally expensive and may require information
that is usually not readily available for the production engineer, such as detailed petrophysical information
about the reservoir. That is one of the reasons why conventional IPRs are still used in transient, coupled
wellbore-reservoir simulations worldwide.
Therefore, an IPR model that could capture the transient behavior of the reservoir (i.e., the proposed
Dynamic IPR) would replace both the conventional IPR models and the fully discretized near wellbore
models for most transient simulation of wells. Garcia et al. (2014) developed the mathematical technique
required to obtain such Dynamic IPR and conceptually introduced the form of such IPR. However, the
first fully-functional Dynamic IPR was presented by Garcia, de Sousa, and Waltrich (2016) for the case of
homogeneous single phase undersaturated oil reservoir as
(1)
where and are the first- and second-order time-derivatives of the oil flow rate, and ΔP' and ΔP" are
the first- and second-order time-derivatives of the pressure drawdown.
Moreover, the authors also presented a generalized form of the Dynamic IPR,
(2)
de Sousa, Garcia, and Waltrich (2017) introduced the Gas Dynamic IPR and proved that, for the case of gas
wells, the function f is the real-gas pseudopressure function, m(·), defined as

(3)

where p is the integration variable for pressure, μg is the viscosity of the gas, Z is the real-gas compressibility
factor, and Pe is the pressure at the reservoir external boundaries. Moreover, they showed for the first time
that the concept of the Dynamic IPR could be extended beyond the case of undersaturated oil reservoirs.
The Dynamic IPR has been successful for several single-phase applications, for both oil and gas (Garcia,
de Sousa, and Waltrich 2016, de Sousa, Garcia, and Waltrich 2017). Furthermore, Garcia, de Sousa,
and Waltrich (2016) showed that it can be easily coupled with transient models of production wells.
Nevertheless, most of the reservoir of interest to the industry are subject to two- and three-phase flow. The
traditional solution proposed by Vogel (1968), Fetkovich (1973), and many others were simple correlations
with adjustable coefficients. These correlations implicitly assume infinite transmissibility in the reservoir
at all times, which makes their use unsuitable to transient simulation of coupled wellbore-reservoir models.
Evinger and Muskat (1942) observed that the relative permeability, viscosity, and formation volume
factor ultimately depend on pressure. They integrated Darcy's equation for radial flow and obtained

(4)

where the relative permeability (kro) depends explicitly on fluid saturation which, in turn, depends on the
pressure. The integral presented in Eq. 4 was equally used by Fetkovich (1973) to define the integral
transformation for two-phase flow,
SPE-187232-MS 3

(5)

Solving the integral in Eq. 5 requires the relative permeability to oil flow, kro, to be written as an explicit
function of pressure. Raghavan (1976) proposed that this relationship can be found from the producing gas-
oil ratio, R, through

(6)

where Rs is the solubility ratio, kg and ko are the permeability to gas and oil phases respectively, Bo and Bg
are the formation volume factors of oil and gas, respectively, μo and μg are the corresponding viscosities
of oil and gas at the time of closure of the well. Dake (1983) states that, strictly speaking, the integral
transformation, in a consistent set of units, should be

(7)

In this paper, we apply Eq. 7 to linearize the hydraulic diffusivity equation for two-phase flow. Once
linearized, the analytical solution developed by Garcia et al. (2014) for sinusoidal bottomhole flowing
pressure can be applied to the case of two-phase flow. Finally, a Dynamic IPR is developed following the
same procedure applied by Garcia, de Sousa, and Waltrich (2016) and de Sousa, Garcia, and Waltrich (2017)
for oil and gas flows respectively.
The oil and gas industry lacks the methods that allow for the prediction of two-phase flow dynamics
in reservoirs while being simple enough for general application. This new Dynamic IPR presented in
this work can fulfill that purpose by solving coupled reservoir-wellbore problems in a wide range of
transient conditions. The Dynamic IPR is computationally inexpensive when compared to discretized
reservoir models. Furthermore, since the model development proceeds from fundamental principles, the
new Dynamic IPR is not only accurate, but also physically sound.

Analytical Derivation
The analytical derivation presented in this work assumes a homogeneous, isotropic, circular-shaped, two-
phase (gas and oil) reservoir with a vertical, finite-diameter well in its center. The reservoir is initially shut-
in (no flow). After time t > 0, the reservoir is submitted to a constant pressure at its external boundary and
a sinusoidal bottomhole flowing pressure. Before we show the solution, however, we must first simplify
the problem.
According to Darcy's law, flow rate is directly proportional to the effective permeability of the fluid and
the wellbore cylindrical surface. In the case of oil, for example, Darcy's law is

(8)

Furthermore, we know that the effective permeability for a given fluid is calculated by multiplying the
absolute reservoir permeability (k) with the relative permeability of that fluid. For instance, the effective
permeability of oil is
(9)
4 SPE-187232-MS

With Eqs. 8 and 9, we can interpret multiphase flow in reservoirs as independent, parallel flows of the
different fluids through different cross section areas. These areas correspond to the wellbore perimeter
multiplied by an equivalent reservoir height. In that regard, Darcy's law for oil flow is rewritten as

(10)

This concept can be better explained by the schematic drawing in fig. 1. This approach simplifies the two-
phase problem by separating it in two single-phase problems, which are coupled to each other by the relative
permeability of the fluids. In fact, looking at the relative permeability as an equivalent net pay for different
fluids is the macroscale equivalent to what takes place inside the reservoir pores: when one of the phases
is flowing inside the pores of the reservoir, it partially takes the cross-sectional area of that pore, restricting
the second fluid to flow through the remaining area. Therefore, if we could add the cross-sectional areas
occupied by each fluid at each one of the reservoir pores, we could measure the relative flowing area of
each fluid. Assuming a regular cylindrical shape at the wellbore-reservoir interface, these relative flowing
areas can be simplified as relative heights, or net-pays. Furthermore, since kg + ko < 1, we account for a no-
flow zone to have a simplified reservoir representation as indicated by fig. 1.

Figure 1—Schematic drawing showing how a two-phase flow reservoir

problem can be reinterpreted as two single fluid flow problems.

Since we were able to separate the two-phase flow into two single-phase flow problems, we must solve
them separately. The oil and gas problems are similar; only the properties of the fluids change. For that, we
only show the analytical solution of the oil-phase problem. First, we write the radial diffusivity equation

11

Using the integral transformation shown in Eq. 7 and the chain rule, we can rewrite the diffusivity
equation as

(12)
SPE-187232-MS 5

which is a linear partial differential equation (PDE) as long as the ratio ϕμc/k. is approximately constant.
Equation 12 will be solved for initial condition
(13)
and boundary conditions
(14)

(15)
Garcia et al. (2014) showed that the solution to this PDE problem is
(16)
where F and G are calculated in terms of Kelvin functions (Garcia et al. 2014).
We need to relate the solution of the integral transformation (Eq. 16.) with flow rate. From Eq. 7 we
can derive

(17)

Plugging Eq. 17 into Eq. 10, we have the oil flow rate as a function of the integral transformation as

(18)

with Eqs. 16. and 18, we establish the relationship between oil flow rate and bottomhole flowing pressure as

(19)

Petrophysical Parameters and Fluid Properties

Contrary to the works published by Garcia et al. (2014), Garcia, de Sousa, and Waltrich (2016), and de
Sousa, Garcia, and Waltrich (2017) where a single-phase flow takes place inside the reservoir, here we are
interested in two fluids: oil and gas. Due to the nature of two-phase flow in porous media, some of the
assumptions made in the mentioned works cannot be used here.
In two-phase flows, saturations, permeabilities, viscosities, total compressibility, and formation volume
factors are all, to some extent, dependent of pressure. Therefore, extra effort is necessary in linearizing the
radial hydraulic diffusivity equation. Figs. 2 and 3 shows plots of several fluid properties used in the work
of Raghavan (1976).
6 SPE-187232-MS

Figure 2—PVT relations of oil and gas – from Raghavan (1976).

Figure 3—Gas and oil relative permeabilities – from Raghavan (1976).

SPE-187232-MS 7

Model Validation
In this section, we analyze a few examples to illustrate the applicability of the two-phase Dynamic IPR. The
petrophysical and fluid properties were extracted from the work of Raghavan (1976). The author provided
all the properties necessary to run our case-studies, and the work performes numerical simulations in a
homogeneous, circular-shaped, two-phase reservoir (oil and gas), with a finite diameter well in its center,
which agree with our assumptions. Therefore, we can compare the results obtained from the proposed
Dynamic IPR with the numerical simulation results presented in Raghavan (1976).
Case 1 corresponds to a constant bottomhole flowing pressure, Pwf, for which the flow rate is produced.
We assume that, for this case of constant Pwf., all relevant properties (i.e.; fluid saturation levels, relative
permeabilities, producing gas-oil ratio, oil viscosity, oil density, and total compressibility) are also constants.
Consequently, a well-designed Dynamic IPR should match the analytical solution exactly. The Dynamic
IPR calculated for Case 1 is used for all other cases herein analyzed.
Cases 2, 3, and 4 correspond to simple Drawdown examples with different flow rates. Even though the
input is always a constant flow rate, since the petrophysical and fluid properties are non-linear, it results in
quantitatively and qualitatively different outputs.
The reservoir and fluid properties used in the case studies are given by the graphs in Figs. 2 and 3, and
Table 1.

Table 1—Parameters of hraulic diffusivity equation (Raghavan 1976).

Parameter Description Value Unit

h Reservoir height 7.62 m

Reservoir static pressure
Pe 1.03×107 Pa
and initial pressure
Pwf Bottomhole flowing pressure 8.27×106 Pa
rw Radius ofhe well 0.1524 m
re Outer radius of the reservoir 152.4 m
ct Total compressibility 1.9368×10 −8 Pa−1
ϕ Porosity 0.119
k Permeability 6.16×10−3 Darcy
μo Oiscosity 1.7645 mPa·s

Case 1: Constant Bottomhole Flowing Pressure, Pwf = 82.73 bar (1200 psi)
This case corresponds to a constant bottomhole flowing pressure, lower than the reservoir static pressure,
starting at the initial time. Before this, the reservoir fluids were not flowing and the reservoir was at initial
pressure Pe. The analytical solution to this case was provided by Fetkovich (1973) as

(20)

where the integral transformation (m)s defined by Eq. 5 and tD is the dimensionless time given by

(21)

To determine the coefficients of the Dynamic IPR, we assume that the wellbore pressure is under
sinusoidal oscillations around the given average Pwf of 82.73 bar (1200 psi). Then, we apply the same
procedure develop by Garcia, de Sousa, and Waltrich (2016). However, as previously explained, the
linearization of the hydraulic diffusivity equation is performed through the integral transformation presented
8 SPE-187232-MS

in Eq. 7. We estimate the relative permeability to oil by applying Brooks-Corey model (Brooks and Corey
1963) to the curves presented in Fig. 3 and assuming a constant oil saturation corresponding to the assumed
Pwf.
In Fig. 4 we plotted the responses calculated from the Dynamic IPR and Fetkovich's analytical solution
(Eq. 20).

Figure 4—Comparison of the oil flow rate calculated from the analytical solution and from the
Dynamic IPR, in dashed red and solid black respectively for a constant Pwf = 82.73 bar (1200 psi).

The Dynamic IPR employed in this example shows flow rate results that are in good agreement with
the results obtained from the analytical solution. Even though this example indicates that the Dynamic IPR
can be applied to cases of two-phase flow, it is much more interesting to evaluate its behavior in conditions
where the bottomhole flowing pressure is changing.

Case 2: Drawdown 1, qo = 3.98 m3/d (25 bbl/d)

This case corresponds to a constant non-zero flow rate after the initial time. Before this, the reservoir fluids
were not flowing and the reservoir was at initial pressure Pe. In this case, we compare the results obtained
from the Dynamic IPR against those obtained from numerical simulations presented in Raghavan (1976).
The comparison is plotted in Fig. 5.
SPE-187232-MS 9

Figure 5—Comparison of the bottomhole flowing pressure calculated with the Dynamic IPR and
obtained from numerical solutions (Raghavan 1976), solid red line and blue dots respectively.

The bottomhole flowing pressure calculated from the Dynamic IPR is in good agreement with the results
obtained from numerical simulation, as it can be observed in Fig. 5. However, we observe a deviation of
almost 5% in some time steps. It is relevant to observe that Raghavan (1976) did not provide the density
of the oil used in his numerical simulations. Therefore, we had to assume a value (ρo = 846.15 kg/m3 std or
52.8 lbm/ft3 std) in order to calculate the pseudo-pressure function given by Equation 10.
Another interesting and useful possibility provided by the Dynamic IPR model is the calculation of the
time-varying producing gas-oil ratio. As explained by Raghavan (1976), the producing gas-oil ratio can be
related to the pressure and saturation at the wellbore. However, the author also states that these assumption
have no rigorous theoretical basis and are obtained from empirical observations made from the simulation
results. Following his assumption, we can compare the producing gas-oil ratios obtained from numerical
simulations and from the Dynamic IPR. The results are presented in Fig. 6, which show a good agreement
between Dynamic IPR and the results obtained from numerical simulation.

Figure 6—Comparison of the producing gas-oil ratio calculated with the Dynamic IPR and
obtained from numerical solutions (Raghavan 1976), solid red line and blue dots respectively.
10 SPE-187232-MS

Case 3: Drawdown 2, qo = 1.59 m3/d (10 bbl/d)

This case also corresponds to a constant non-zero flow rate after the initial time, however at a lower oil flow
rate. It is important to test the Dynamic IPR model at different flow conditions because the petrophysical and
fluid properties are non-linear functions of pressure. Consequently, it is not immediately evident that a linear
function such as the proposed Dynamic IPR can be applied to different flow conditions. The comparison
of the bottomhole flowing pressure calculated from the Dynamic IPR against the results obtained from
numerical simulations is presented in Fig. 7.

Figure 7—Comparison of the bottomhole flowing pressure calculated with the Dynamic IPR and
obtained from numerical solutions (Raghavan 1976), solid red line and blue dots respectively.

The pressure drop is lower than the one observed in the previous case, since the flow rate is also lower.
However, the average relative error in Pwf is still generally small, less than 2%.
Once again, we can compare the producing gas-oil ratios obtained from numerical simulations and from
the Dynamic IPR. The results are presented in Fig. 8.

Figure 8—Comparison of the producing gas-oil ratio calculated with the Dynamic IPR and
obtained from numerical solutions (Raghavan 1976), solid red line and blue dots respectively.
SPE-187232-MS 11

The gas-oil ratio calculated from the Dynamic IPR is in good agreement with the results obtained from
numerical simulation. However, it is also interesting to note that the qualitative behavior of the gas-oil
ratio differs from the one presented in the previous case even though this difference is not observed in the
pressure curve shown in Fig. 7. These results emphasize the non-linearity of the cases under study and the
importance of testing at different flow conditions.

Case 4: Drawdown 3, qo = 7.95 m3/d (50 bbl/d), re = 65.35 m (214.4 ft)

For this last case, we increased the oil flow rate and decreased the external radius of the reservoir. The
outer boundary condition assumed for Raghavan (1976) simulations was of no-flow, opposed to the constant
pressure assumed in the derivation of the Dynamic IPR. Consequently, we can only compare the results
during the transient period, which occurs for t < 500 hours. The comparison of the Pwf calculated from the
Dynamic IPR against the results obtained from numerical simulations is presented in Fig. 9.

Figure 9—Comparison of the bottomhole flowing pressure calculated with the Dynamic IPR and
obtained from numerical solutions (Raghavan 1976), solid red line and blue dots respectively.

The pressure drop is higher than the ones observed in the two previous cases, but this is expected since
the flow rate is also higher. Consequently, the pressure varies in a broader range than before and the average
relative error in Pwf can be higher than 5%. However, it is still generally in good agreement with the results
obtained from numerical simulation. This result is relevant because it shows that, even in cases where large
variation in the bottomhole flowing pressure are expected, the two-phase Dynamic IPR can provide reliable
estimates of Pwf.
Finally, we can compare the producing gas-oil ratios obtained from numerical simulations and from the
Dynamic IPR. The results are presented in Fig. 10. The gas-oil ratio calculated from the Dynamic IPR is also
in good agreement with the results obtained from numerical simulation, similarly to what occurred in the
previous cases. It is also interesting to observe that behavior differs qualitatively from all the previous cases.
12 SPE-187232-MS

Figure 10—Comparison of the producing gas-oil ratio calculated with the Dynamic IPR and
obtained from numerical solutions (Raghavan 1976), solid red line and blue dots respectively.

Conclusions
This paper introduced a new Dynamic IPR model for saturated reservoirs based on a simplified
pseudopressure function. This Dynamic IPR can capture the steady-state behavior described by the
conventional IPR models, but also the transient behavior of reservoir subject to sudden or periodic changes
that can occur at the reservoir-wellbore interface.
We have validated the new DIPR against an analytical equation for the case of constant bottomhole
flowing pressure and finite numerical simulations using finite differences for three drawdown cases at
different flow rates. The Dynamic IPR showed good agreement with both cases, with the largest error
being of no more than 8%. Furthermore, the proposed Dynamic IPR model combined with the procedure
defined by Raghavan (1976) can be used to estimate the producing gas-oil ratio as a function of the
bottomhole flowing pressure. However, two-fluid flow in porous media is more complicated than simple
single phase-flows. Permeability hysteresis, minimum saturation for onset of flow, dynamic phase change
(non-equilibrium thermodynamics) are just a few of the complex phenomena that were not accounted for
in our proposed model. Nevertheless, the ultimate proof that the concept works is validation against field
data, which is the next step in the model validation.
The advantage of having a Dynamic IPR representing the near-wellbore dynamics is its simplicity. This
model will hardly – if ever – be able to capture all the complex phenomena occurring in that region.
Essentially, it aims to represent the dynamic relationship between bottom-hole flowing pressure and fluid
flow rate. An alternative to the conventional IPRs is the direct coupling of a transient reservoir model with a
transient well model. This approach is likely more precise but it is not only computationally more expensive
but it also increases the license cost of the software. In this work, we present an alternative approach through
a dynamic coupling that can capture fast transient behavior of the reservoir.

Acronyms
FT Fourier transform
IPR Inflow Performance Relationship
PI Productivity Index
VFP Vertical Flow Performance
SPE-187232-MS 13

Nomenclature
ak Coefficient dependent on reservoir and fluid properties
bk Coefficient dependent on reservoir and fluid properties
Bo Oil formation volume factor
ct Total compressibility, Pa−1
Ei Integral exponential function
h Reservoir height/Net pay, m
i Imaginary number
k Permeability, Darcy
P Pressure, Pa
Average reservoir pressure, Pa
Pe Reservoir pressure, Pa
Pe Pressure at the effective radius, Pa
Pe Reservoir static pressure and initial pressure, Pa
Pi Initial reservoir pressure, Pa
Pwf Bottomhole flowing pressure, Pa
PI Productivity index, m3/d/Pa
qo Oil flow rate, m3/d
re Effective radius of the reservoir
GOR Gas oil ratio, m3/m3
rw Wellbore radius, m
t Time, s
μ Dynamic viscosity, Pa·s
ρo Oil density, kg/m3
ω Angular frequency, rad/s
ϕ Reservoir porosity

References
Brooks, R.H., A.T. Corey. 1963. Hydraulic Properties of Porous Media and Their Relationship to Drainage Design. p.
26–28. American Society of Agricultural Engineers.
Dake, Laurence P. 1983. Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, 1st edition, Developments in Petroleum Science. p.
159, 166, 177. Elsevier Science, Oxford, United Kingdom. (repr. 2013).
de Sousa, Pedro Cavalcanti, Artur Posenato Garcia, Paulo J. Waltrich. 2017. A Transient Inflow Performance Relationship
(IPR) for the Early and Late Life of Gas Wells: The Dynamic Gas IPR, 25-30 June. 36th International Conference on
Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Trondheim, Norway. Conference Paper.
Economides, Michael. J., A. Daniel Hill, Christine Ehlig-Economides et al 2013. Petroleum Production Systems, 2nd
edition. p. 19–120, 261,262, 275. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Evinger, H. H., M. Muskat. 1942. Calculation of Theoretical Productivity Factor. Transactions of the AIME 146 (01):
126–139. December. https://doi.org/10.2118/942126-G.
Fetkovich, M. J. 1973. The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells. Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME,
30 September-3 October, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. https://doi.org/10.2118/4529-MS.
Garcia, A. Posenato, P. Cavalcanti de Sousa, P. J. Waltrich. 2016. A Transient Coupled Wellbore-Reservoir Model
Using a Dynamic IPR Function. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 26-28 September, Dubai, UAE.
10.2118/181691-MS.
Garcia, Artur P., Gilson M. Neto, Marcos B. Machado et al 2014. Dynamic IPR - Modeling Reservoir Well Interactions
to Improve Transient Simulations of Wells. SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference,
21-23 May, Maracaibo, Venezuela. Conference Paper. SPE-169375-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/169375-MS.
Gilbert, W. E. 1954. Flowing and Gas-lift Well Performance. Drilling and Production Practice, 1 January, New York,
NY, 126–157. API-54-126.
14 SPE-187232-MS

Hu, Bin. 2004. Characterizing Gas-Lift Instabilities. Doctoral Dissertation. Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Raghavan, R. 1976. Well Test Analysis: Wells Producing by Solution Gas Drive. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal
16 (04): 196–208. August. https://doi.org/10.2118/5588-PA.
Vogel, J. V. 1968. Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive Wells. Journal of Petroleum Technology 20
(01): 83–92. January. https://doi.org/10.2118/1476-PA.