Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Performance Relationships
Frederic Gallice,* SPE, and Michael L. Wiggins, SPE, U. of Oklahoma
described briefly, and the methods used to develop the relationship
qo pwf pwf 2
are discussed.
= 1 0.2 0.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
On the basis of actual vertical-well data, the relationships are qo,max pR pR
used to predict performance for 26 cases. The predicted perfor-
mance is then compared to the actual measured rate and pressure Fetkovich3 proposed the isochronal testing of oil wells to esti-
data. The variation between the predicted and measured data is mate their productivity. This relationship is based on the empirical
analyzed, and from this analysis, an assessment is made on the use gas-well-deliverability equation proposed by Rawlins and Schell-
of inflow performance relationships and of the quality of the per- hardt.8 Using data from multirate tests on 40 different oil wells in
formance estimates. six fields, Fetkovich showed that the following approach was suit-
able for predicting performance:
Introduction
When considering the performance of oil wells, it is often assumed qo = CpR2 pwf
2 n
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
that production rates are proportional to pressure drawdown. This
which can be expressed in a form similar to Vogels IPR, as follows:
straight-line relationship can be derived from Darcys law for
steady-state flow of a single, incompressible fluid and is called the
productivity index (PI).
Evinger and Muskat1 were some of the earliest investigators to
qo
qo,max
= 1
pwf
pR
2 n
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
look at oilwell performance. They pointed out that a straight-line This method requires that a multirate test be conducted to obtain
relationship should not be expected when two fluid phases are the values of C and n. A log-log plot of the pressure-squared
flowing in the reservoir. They presented evidence, based on mul- difference vs. flow rate is expected to plot as a straight line, where
tiphase flow equations, that a curved relationship existed between the inverse of the slope of the curve yields the deliverability ex-
flow rate and pressure. ponent n required in Eq. 3.
This work led to the development of several empirical inflow Using Forchheimers9 model to describe non-Darcy flow, Jones
performance relationships (IPRs) to predict the pressure/ et al.4 proposed the following relationship between pressure and rate.
production behavior of oil wells producing under two-phase flow
conditions. These estimates assist the engineer in evaluating various pR pwf
= A + Bqo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
operating conditions, determining the optimum production scheme, qo
and designing production equipment and artificial-lift systems.
This paper reviews and compares five IPRs proposed in the This method requires that a multirate test be conducted to deter-
literature for predicting individual-vertical-well performance in so- mine the coefficients, A and B, in which A is the laminar-flow
lution-gas-drive reservoirs. The IPRs studied are Vogel2; Fetkov- coefficient and B is the turbulence coefficient. From Eq. 4, it is
ich3; Jones, Blount, and Glaze4; Klins and Majcher5; and Sukarno evident that a Cartesian plot of the ratio of the pressure difference
and Wisnogroho.6 Each IPR was developed for various conditions to the flow rate vs. the flow rate yields a straight line, with the
but essentially represents vertical wells producing from a single y-intercept being A and the slope, B. Once the coefficients are
solution-gas-drive reservoir under boundary-dominated flow con- estimated, the flow rate at any flowing pressure can be determined
ditions. A homogeneous reservoir is assumed in all the methods with Eq. 5.
except for Fetkovichs; however, Wiggins et al.7 have shown that
this assumption does not restrict the applicability of an IPR A + A2 + 4BpR pwf
qo = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
method. Using data from 26 field cases, the five IPR methods are 2B
used to predict the pressure/production behavior for the individual
cases, and the predictions are compared to the actual well perfor- On the basis of Vogels work, Klins and Majcher5 developed an
mance and to the other methods predictions to develop an under- IPR that incorporated the bubblepoint pressure. The authors simulated
standing of their reliability. 21 wells using Vogels data and developed 1,344 IPR curves. Using
nonlinear regression analysis, they presented the following IPR.
This paper (SPE 88445) was revised for publication from paper SPE 52171, first presented
at the 1999 SPE Mid-Continent Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 2831 pR
March. Original manuscript received for review 1 July 1999. Revised manuscript received 5 d = 0.28 + 0.72 1.235 + 0.001pb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
March 2004. Paper peer approved 6 March 2004. pb
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
in which
FE = a0 + a1
pwf
pR
+ a2
pwf
pR
2
+ a3
pwf
pR
3
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
and
IPR Comparison multirate methods have differences of less than 10%. The average
To compare the various IPRs, data from 26 cases presented in the absolute difference for Fetkovichs method is 4%, while Jones
literature are analyzed. Each case uses actual field data represent- et al.s is 7%. The single-point methods have an absolute average
ing different producing conditions. Data from each case are used to difference ranging from 18 to 31% for Klins and Majcher and
select rate and pressure information for test points, and these points Vogel, respectively. In general, the difference tends to increase
are used to predict well performance with each IPR method. The with increasing pressure drawdown. This increased difference in
predictions are then compared to the actual measured production predicted vs. actual performance is expected. Because each IPR is
data at drawdowns greater than the test data. Several cases are used actually used to extrapolate performance behavior at drawdowns
to demonstrate the analysis and to provide insight into the behavior greater than the test point, one would expect these estimates to
of the various predictive models. Complete details of the analysis increase in error as one moves further from the known data point.
are presented by Gallice,10 while the cases analyzed are summa- Because the test data cover a wide range of pressure draw-
rized in Table 2. downs, they allow an investigation of the effect of drawdown on
performance estimates. Table 6 presents a summary of the average
Case 1. Millikan and Sidewell11 presented multirate-test data for a absolute differences for each method based on drawdown percent-
well producing from the Hunton Lime in the Carry City Field, ages (8, 21, 38, 51, and 78%) of the test point. As shown, the average
Oklahoma. The test was conducted in approximately 2 weeks, with
the well producing at random rates rather than in an increasing or
decreasing rate sequence. The average reservoir pressure was
1,600 psi, with an estimated bubblepoint pressure of 2,530 psi
and an assumed skin value of zero. The field data are summarized
in Table 3.
Table 4 presents the performance predictions for test informa-
tion at a flowing bottomhole pressure of 1,267 psi, representing a
21% pressure drawdown. As can be seen, the maximum well de-
liverability varies from 2,562 to 3,706 STB/D. The largest flow
rate was calculated with Vogels IPR, while the smallest rate was
obtained using Fetkovichs method.
Fig. 1 shows the various IPR curves generated from the test
data. Visual inspection indicates that the methods of Fetkovich and
Jones, Blount, and Glaze estimate the actual well performance
more accurately. The other methods capture the general shape of
the data but overestimate actual performance. If the straight-line
PI is used in this case, a maximum flow rate of 6,054 STB/D
would have been predicted from the test point. This estimate is
more than 60% greater than the highest rate predicted by the IPR
methods and shows the importance of using a multiphase flow
relationship to evaluate well performance when multiphase flow
occurs in the reservoir.
Table 5 shows the percent difference between the recorded
flow-rate data and the computed rate for the five IPR methods. The