SPE 76719

Use of Vogel Equation to Estimate Drainage-Area Static Pressure and Skin Factor
Raul A. Medina Parra, SPE, Innovaciones Medina C.A.
Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Western Regional/AAPG Pacific Section
Joint Meeting held in Anchorage, Alaska, U.S.A., 2022 May 2002.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
A mathematical adaptation of the Vogel correlation was
developed to obtain the drainage-area average pressure ( P )
and the skin factor (s) values from multi-stabilized-rate (flowafter-flow) tests data. A methodology is presented to smooth,
validate and compute the data of these tests. The analysis of a
theoretical example is presented to show the application of the
methodology. The proposed graphic method Pwf vs. J
contributes to verify the applicability of Vogel model to a
specific data set.
Introduction
This paper presents a second method (a first one was
previously presented by the author1) to analyze multistabilized-rate (flow-after-flow) test data with the main
objective of estimating well-reservoir system properties. The
method is based on the popular correlation of Vogel2.
Conventionally, this correlation has been used for analyzing
these kinds of tests with the final objective of determining the
production capacity of wells. This utilization is named in the
present paper as the production approach of the correlation.
On the other hand, this paper presents the reservoir
approach of the correlation among the current (transientpressure) analysis techniques as an alternative and additional
tool to determine the well-reservoir system properties in the
special conditions of the multiphase reservoir flow.
At present, the most common method used for evaluating
multiphase reservoir flow is the use of analytical single-phase
flow models considering the Perrine3-Martin suggestions.
Although Vogel correlation is based only on simulated
solution-gas-drive reservoir results, with a certain number of
assumptions constrains, the daily engineering practice with
this correlation has been verified satisfactory. A graphic

method is proposed to validate the acceptable fitting of a data

set with the Vogel correlation model.
Method Development
Previous Theoretical Considerations. The graphical
behavior of a Flow-After-Flow test run in an undersaturated
reservoir is expected to be linear. The slope of this linear
performance is denominated productivity index. In the
literature has also been reported some field cases contrasting
this linear rule. It is considered that these cases has been due
to the presence of rate-dependent effects on the skin factor,
drainage area and even on the average-pressure. These kinds
of phenomena are not considered in this specific work.
On the other hand, the graphical behavior of these tests
when run in solution-gas-drive reservoirs is expected to be
rather curve, basically due to the increasingly restrictive effect
of the gas phase to the oil flow specially near the wellbore
when the pressure drawdown P -Pwf is increasing. In this
case, the slope of the test graphical behavior is dependent of
the drawdown value and is denominated differential
productivity index described by:
J (Pwf ) =

dQ(Pwf )

(1)

dPwf

Muskat4 proposed the use of a constant reference slope

value J0 computed at the asymptotic approximation of J(Pwf) to
a pressure drawdown zero. Expressing this concept in terms of
reservoir parameters with a pseudosteady state flow, a
drainage-area static pressure P and a skin effect factor s
present, we have:
J0 =

k
k h
r
141.2 (ln (re rw ) 3 4 + s ) Br

(2)

Some few attempts have been realized to describe the

whole curve behavior of these tests under the saturation
condition. The quantity and complexity of the variables
involved offers a high difficulty to find simple analytical
solutions meanwhile the reservoir numerical simulation offers
only specific solutions to specific well-reservoir situations.
In 1969, Vogel presented a practical solution. He evaluated
the reservoir numerical approximation of Weller5 under
different solution-gas-drive reservoir conditions and found a

RAUL MEDINA

simple average correlation applicable to most of the

studied cases:

Pwf
Q(Pwf ) = QMAX 1 0.2

P
0.8 wf

J0 P
1.8

(4)

dPwf

0.2
Pwf
= QMAX
+ 1.6 2
P
P

= J (P )
wf

Then, solving for Pwf we have:

2

P
Pwf =
1.6 QMAX

J (P ) 0.125 P
wf

(5)

This means a linear relation, with a slope to denominate

(A) and an intercept to denominate (B), which could be both
determined from a Cartesian graph of Pwf vs. J(Pwf) . So:
P=

(B )

(6)

0.125

and,
2

QMAX =

P
1.6 ( A)

Pwf
1 0.2
Pwf
P

0.2 + 1.6

P
J (Pwf ) P

P
0.8 wf

Arranging it conveniently:

Mathematical Deduction of Present Method. To deduce the

present method, we find first the derivative of the Vogel
explicit function (Eq. 3), respect Pwf :
dQ(Pwf )

Q(Pwf ) =

(3)

where QMAX and P are assumed constants.

The utilized Weller reservoir model consisted of a
bounded circular homogeneous and isotropic reservoir
producing in pseudosteady state regimen from a completely
penetrating well in its center. The gas saturation gradients
were negligible along the solution-gas-drive reservoir.
Vogel explained that the best match of the correlation
(equation) was found in the early stage of the reservoir life and
at the higher pressure drawdowns. Likewise, the worst
matches were found with viscous crude, positive skin effect
and initially saturated reservoir cases. These Vogel theoretical
observations should be considered also in the application of
the present method. The feasible presence of the previously
mentioned rate-dependant effects in the test actual data should
be also taken in account.
In spite of this some limitations, the Vogel correlation has
been long verified as satisfactory in its field use since its
publication. Additionally, in 1992 Wiggins6 presented an
analytical deduction of this equation-correlation for the
description of reservoir multiphase flow.
For the interest of this work, it is also utilized a relation
defined by Standing7 between QMAX and J0:
QMAX =

SPE 76719

(7)

Another useful expression can be obtained solving QMAX

from Eq.5 and introducing it in Eq. 3 :

0 = J (Pwf ) P

(
0.8(J (

0.2 J (Pwf )Pwf + Q(Pwf ) P

Pwf

2
)Pwf + 2Q(Pwf )Pwf

And finding the (positive) root of this last second degree

polynomial, we obtain an expression to determine P at each
specific point data (Pwfi , Q):
J (Pwf )Pwf + Q(Pwf )
10 J (Pwf )

P=

81 J (Pwf )2 Pwf 2 + 162 J (Pwf ) Pwf Q(Pwf ) + Q(Pwf )2

10 J (Pwf )
(8)

The skin value is derived from Eq. 2 and Eq. 4:

s=

k hP
254.2 QMAX

k
r
Br

Ln(re rw ) + 3 4
P

(9)

Recap of Method. The equations described above are used

through the next method:
1) Run a flow-after-flow test. This means to produce the
oil well until finding a stabilized rate Q1 at the pseudosteady
state bottomhole pressure Pwf,1. Then to change the rate until
stabilizes in Q2 at Pwf,2 , and so on until x number of changes .
The greater total x number of changes, the greater confidence
of the method final results.
Tubing head pressures
information could be used to calculate respective required Pwf,i
values if good correlation are available in the exploitation area
of the testing well.
2) Plot the Pwf,i vs. Qi data on a Cartesian plane and find
the best fitting curve or equation Q=f(Pwf) to the data.
Determine the smoothed Qi values on the curve or
computed equation at each Pwf,i value. Determine also the
respective Ji values as the slope of the tangent to the curve at
each point (Pwf,i , Qi) or its mathematical equivalent, the
derivative of the function Q(Pwf) respect Pwf at each
mentioned point (Fig. 1).
3) Plot the computed data Ji (abscissa axis) vs. the
original Pwf,i data (ordinate axis) on a Cartesian graph. This
proposed plot should draw a straight line if the data are
consistent with Vogel model. Determine the slope (A) and the
intercept (B) of the best straight line (Fig. 2).
4) Finally obtain ( P ) through Eq. 6 and (s) through Eq.
8 and Eq. 9.

SPE 76719

USE OF VOGEL EQUATION TO ESTIMATE DRAINAGE-AREA STATIC PRESSURE AND SKIN FACTOR

3000

1,900

2500

(P w f ,i , Q i )

2000

Pwf(psi)

1,600
1500

Q' =f(P w f )

(P w f ,i , Q' i )

1000

J (Pw f ) = - dQ' .

1,300

dP w f

500

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Q '= -2,722E-04(P wf )2
-0,1769(P wf )+2300
J = 0,0006(P wf ) +0,1769

1400

P wf

1,000

Fig. 1-Cartesian plot of Pwf,i vs. Qi and determination of the best

fitting curve (Q) . Computation of respective J and Q values for
each Pwf,i .

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

1,500
Q(STB/D)

1,600

1,700

1,800

Fig. 3- Cartesian plot of example source data. Determination of

best fitting equation Q=f(Pwf) and differential productivity index
J(Pwf) functions.

2100.000

1900.000

slope=(A )
Intercept= (B )

TABLE 2 COMPUTATION OF Qi AND Ji VALUES.

Pwf

1700.000

1500.000

From Fig. 3:

1300.000

Q= -2.722E-04(Pwf) 0.1769(Pwf) +2300

1100.000

900.000

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

1.100

1.200

1.300

J =(dQ/dPwf)= 5.444E-04(Pwf)
+0.1769

Fig. 2- Proposed Cartesian (Pwf) vs. (J) graph: determination of

straight-line slope (A) and intercept (B).

J
(STB/D/psi)
1.1024
1.0479
0.9935
0.9391
0.8846
0.8302

Q
(STB/D)
1213
1320
1422
1519
1610
1696

i.
1
2
3
4
5
6

2500

TABLE 1 - DATA OF THE EXAMPLE.

i .
1
2
3
4
5
6

Q
(STB/D)
1213
1320
1422
1519
1610
1696

Pwf
(psi) .
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200

kkr= 40 md
h=20 ft
re=490 ft
rw=0.7 ft
=0.5 cp
Br=1.2 RB/STB

slope:(A )= 1837
Intercept:(B )= -325

2000

1500

Pwf

Example of the Method Application

A theoretical example is presented to show the application of
the methodology described above. Table 1 shows the test data
and the required reservoir information. The original test data
was plotted on the Cartesian plane Pwf,i vs. Qi as shown in Fig.
3. Through this graph, the best-fit equation Q=f(Pwf) was
determined, and consequently the smoothed rates (Qi ) and
the differential-productivity-index values (Ji ) were obtained as
shown in Table 2. The Fig. 4 shows the computed Ji and
original Pwf data values in a Cartesian plot fitting a linear
trend. Therefore, the method values, slope (A) and intercept
(B) are determined.

1000

500

-500

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Fig. 4- Method Cartesian (Pwf) vs. (J) graph of the example.

Determination of straight-line slope (A) and intercept (B).

Finally, with the method values (A)=1837 and (B)= -325,

the sought values are determined:
From Eq.6: P = 2600 psi
From Eq.7: QMAX = 2300 STB/D
From Eq.9: s = 0.12
Conclusions
A mathematical adaptation of the Vogel correlation was
developed to obtain the drainage-area average pressure ( P )
and the skin factor (s) values from multi-stabilized-rate (flowafter-flow) tests data. A methodology is presented to (1)
smooth the field test data previously to analyze, (2) validate

RAUL MEDINA

the consistency of the data with the Vogel equation model

through the proposed graph Pwf vs. J , and (3) compute the
sought values. The analysis of a theoretical example is
presented to show the application of the methodology.
The work lead to the following conclusions:
1. The proposed graph Pwf vs. J validates, in a nonexcusive way, the consistency of Multi-stabilized-rate (or
Flow-after-flow) tests data with the Vogel equation-model.
2. The computation of the drainage-area average pressure
( P ) and the skin factor (s) values from these tests, through
methods like the one presented in this paper, represents an
additional tool to consider besides the conventional techniques
of pressure-transient analysis. In the paper, this methodology
is denominated the reservoir approach of the multistabilized-rate tests analysis.
Acknowledgments
Author acknowledges the benefits obtained from the SPE
initiatives in the electronic communication media.
This work is dedicated to our father in the heaven.
Nomenclature
A = slope of the best straight line in the present
proposed graphic method Pwf vs. J, m2/L4t3,
psi2/(STB/D)
B = intercept of the best straight line in the present
proposed graphic method Pwf vs. J, m/Lt2, psi
Br = oil formation volume factor, RB/STB
h = formation thickness, L, ft
J(Pwf) = differential productivity index evaluated at Pwf,
L4t/m, (STB/D)/psi
J0 = differential productivity index evaluated
asymptotically at Pwf = P , L4t/m, (STB/D)/ psi
k = formation absolute permeability, L2, md
kr = relative formation permeability to oil, fraction.
2
P = reservoir drainage-area average pressure, m/Lt ,
psi
Pwf = bottomhole flowing pressure, m/Lt2, psi
Q = oil flowrate, L3/t, STB/D
Q = oil flowrate computed from curve trend of flowafter-flow data, L3/t, STB/D
re = drainage area radius, L, ft
rw = wellbore radius, L, ft
s = skin effect factor, dimensionless
= oil viscosity, m/Lt, cp
Subscript
i = index of flow-after-flow data
References
1. Medina, R. A.: Use of Well Flowrate-Pressure Data to
Estimate Formation Drainage-Area Static Pressure, paper SPE
72377 presented at the 2001 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Canton, Ohio, Oct. 17-19.
2. Vogel, J.V.: Inflow Performance Relationships for SolutionGas Drive Well, JPT (January 1968), 83-92.
3. Perrine, R. L.: Analysis of Pressure Buildup Curves, Drill.
and Prod. Prac., API (1956), 482-509.

SPE 76719

4. Muskat, M.: Physical Principles of Oil Production, McGrawHill Book Company (1949), 341.
5. Weller, W. T.: Reservoir Performance During Two-Phase
Flow, J. Pet. Tech. (Feb., 1966) 240-246.
6. Wiggins, M. L., Russell, J. E. and Jennings, J. W.: Analytical
Development of Vogel-type Inflow Performance Relationships,
SPE Journal (Dec., 1996) 355-362.
7. Standing, M. B.: Concerning the Calculation of Inflow
Performance of Wells Producing by Solution Gas Drive, J. Pet.
Tech. (Sept., 1971) 1141-1142.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

bbl x1.589 873
E-01 = m3
cp x 1.0*
E-03 = Pas
ft x 3.048*
E-01 = m
md x 9.869 233 E-04 = m2
psi x 6.894 757 E-03 = Mpa
*Conversion factors are exact.