SPE 115918

On the IPR Curves of Horizontal Wells in Solution-Gas Drive Reservoirs

H. Jabbari, IOOC; M.J. Economides, University of Houston

Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 21–24 September 2008.

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

Inflow performance relationship (IPR) curves have been extensively studied in the petroleum engineering community; from
the classic Vogel’s method for vertical wells to modified models for horizontal wells. Previous works have indicated that the
performance of horizontal wells can be different from that in vertical wells due to their more complex geometries. Hence, this
encourages us to aim for modified IPR correlations.
Modeling the production performance in a horizontal well requires an understanding of the parameters that may affect the
fluid flow geometry and well/reservoir interface. In this work, numerical modeling was employed to study the performance
of horizontal wells under different well/reservoir conditions. A new IPR relationship was proposed for horizontal wells
producing from solution-gas drive reservoirs along with a modified absolute open-flow potential (AOFP) which was
proposed initially by Kabir. This was to introduce new terms that accounted for the effect of bubble-point pressure and
recovery factor which were found to be significant. The developed model was tested against field data, and it was also
evaluated and compared with the current IPR curves.
In order to generate an IPR curve for a horizontal well at the specified recovery factor, simulation models were constructed
and run for each bottomhole pressure. Then, computer codes were used to extract the results from each results file. Next, the
coefficicents and parameters of the equations were obtained from non-linear regression and curve fitting. Then, IPR curves
from the analytical model were generated at specified well/reservoir conditions, and at a certain recovery factors. Finally, the
results from the model were compared to the simulation model and field data.
This work confirmed that the IPR curves in horizontal wells producing from a saturated reservoir may need modified
relationships due to more cmplex flow geometry and well/reservoir interactions. The developed three-parameter IPR
relationship presented reasonable accuracy as was compared to the currenmt models and field/simulation data. Also, the new
AOFP equation showed a reasonable error of 3% compared to the simulation results.

Introduction

The prediction of production behavior in a horizontal well given a host of several possible operation scenarios can be
challenging. One can estimate the maximum profitable reserve by predicting the response of the reservoir to a range of
scenarios of well, completion, and surface facilities. Computing schemes for the performance prediction of solution-gas-
drive reservoirs have evolved since the early 1950’s. However, most methods were algebraically intensive and required
considerable computation time. The original work on the performance of wells was conducted for vertical wells, and later on
it was modifed to represent the inflow relationships in horizontal wells. Generally, the well performance can be presented as a
relationship between the flowing bottomhole pressure vs. flow rate plotted on a Cartesian graph. This plot is known as IPR
curve.
This study examines a few factors that are mentioned in the literature and can affect the IPR curves in horizontal wells, such
as: rock properties, fluid properties, bubble-point pressure, skin, and depletion (i.e. the stage of recovery). Using a wide
range of these parameters, simulation models were run for many cases in order to determine the sensitivity of well
performance to each parameter. The results from such models helped also in the curve-fiiting and regression stage for
developing new IPR equations. The new model can be used to predict the response of a well to damage or stimulation which
is useful.
2 SPE 115918

Background

In 1968, Vogel [1968] performed a classic numerical study on several types of solution-gas-drive reservoirs and proposed a
curve fitted equation for vertival wells, given by:
2
qo p  p 
 1.0  0.2  wf   0.8  wf  (1)
qo ,max  p   p 
where qo is the oil flow rate, qo max is the maximum flow rate at 100% pressure drawdown, pwf is the flowing bottomhole
pressure, and p is the average reservoir pressure. Fetkovich [1973] presented a slightly different IPR model which in
normalized form is as follows:
n
qo   pwf  2 
 1     (2)
qo ,max   p  
where n is a field-dependent exponent. Note that if n = 1.24, both IPR equations will result in almost the same curves.
Bendakhlia and Aziz [1989] presented new IPR model for horizontal wells given by:
n
qo   pwf   pwf  
2

 1.0  v    (1  v)    (3)
qo ,max   p   p  
 
Also, Cheng [1990] further modified the previous models and presented the following:
2

qo  pwf   pwf 
 0.9885  0.2055    1.1818   (4)
qo ,max  p   p 
Similarly, Retnanto and Economides [1998] proposed the following model which described the dependency of IPR curves on
bubble-point pressure and the stage of depletion:
n
qo  pwf   pwf 
 1.0  0.25    0.85   (5)
qo ,max  p   p 
  p  p 
2

n   0.27  1.46    0.96    (4  1.66  103 pb ) (6)

  pb   pb  

These IPR models are different from the classic Vogel’s model and may present more accurate IPR curves through the
inclusion of bubble-point and average reservoir pressures. In this study, we introduced new IPR correlations which include
recovery factor in the model rather than average pressure. This enables us to calculate IPR curves for a horizontal well at a
specified recovery factor and under known well/reservoir conditions.

Simulation Model Description

In the simulation process we have considered a base-case model to which other cases were compared for sensitivity studies.
The base-case model is a block of the reservoir with a drainage area of 206 acres and a pay-thickness of 250 ft. Other
properties are:   20%, k x  k y  200 md , k z  50 md , and rw  0.25 ft . The well is located at the middle of
the pay. The model has initially two phases: a) water at intial saturation of 20%, and b) oil at the bubble-point pressure
where gas will evolve as pressure declines in the reservoir. A commercial reservoir simulator was used to generate IPR
curves and evaluate the inflow performance of horizontal wells in solution-gas drive reservoirs.
As for the connection between horizontal well and the reservoir block, the model is based on the assumption that the flow is
steady-state, radial, and single phase [Bendakhlia, H. and Aziz, 1989]. Form that the production of each phase from each
layer can be obtained as [Peaceman, 1983]:
SPE 115918 3

2 kh wfrac
q phase    Phase Mobility    Pblock  Pwell  (7)
 re 
ln    s
 rw 

where; r  geofac areap

e
 wfrac

areap is the area perpendicular to the wellbore, wfrac is a real number between 0 and 1 specifying the fraction of a circle
that the well models, and geofac is a parameter in the Peaceman [1983] formula with the value of 0.28. Peaceman derived
the following expression for re in the case of a horizontal well parallel to y-axis, given by:

 2 kz k 
 x  z 2 x 
kx kz 
re  0.28  1 1
(8)
 kz  4  kx  4
   
 kx   kz 
This model is based on the assumption that the flow is single-phase, reservoir is homogenous, and under uniform grid,
uniform permeability, pseudo-steady state conditions, and block-centered well [Wang, 1998].

Grid Selection

To present proper spatial discretization of the flow equations, we constructed the grids such that the simulation models would
reflect an accurate fluid flow behavior of horizontal wells in solution-gas drive reservoirs. The results from several simulation
models with different grid sizes were compared to the analytical model of Babu and Odeh [1989] in order to obtain the
optimum grid size. Note that the grid size may differ throughout the reservoir since the fluid flow is faster around the
wellbore but slower farther from the well. Hence, the fluid properties and the flow potential may change more rapidly around
the wellbore, thus require finer grids (i.e. LGR) which this was considered in this work.
Four cases of grid zise were considered for grid-selection purposes: uniform-coarse with 150 cells, non-uniform medium with
1423 cells, non-uniform fine with 17260 cells, and uniform-fine with 24365 grid cells. The models with these different grid
sizes were run under similar well/reservoir conditions of BHP=1650 psia and initial reservoir pressure=2600 psia (at the
datum depth). Then, the simulation results were compared to the analytical model of horizontal wells, given by Babu and
Odeh [1989]:

qo  J ( p  pwf )
0.007078 b k x k z
J (9)
 C A  
o Bo  ln  H   0.75  sR  sm 
 
  rw  
The average reservoir pressures were obtained from the simulation runs at the specified recovery factor and plugged into Eq.
9. Also, the oil rates at any time (or at a certain RF) were obtained and plotted versus their corresponding bottomhole
pressures in orde to construct an IPR curve. According to Fig. 1 there is a reasonable match between the analytical model and
the uniform-fine grid size. Therefore, this grid size was picked for the rest of the simulation.
4 SPE 115918

5000
Analytical Model of "Babau & Odeh"

Uniform Fine

4000 Nonuniform Fine

Nonuniform Medium

Uniform Coarse
Oil Rate, STBD

3000

2000

1000

0
100 200 300 400 500 600
Time, day

Figure 1: Comparison plot for gird-size selection Figure 2: Effect of bubble-point pressure on Type I IPR curves

IPR Generating Procedure

To generate an IPR curve in this study, many simulation runs were run for each BHP to obtain a set of points relating BHP to
flow rate at the corresponding recovery factor. Next, two types of IPR curves were generated: Type I where dimensionless
pressure is plotted vs. its corresponding dimensionless rate, and Type II IPR-curves with a slightly different dimensionless
rate where the AOFP was assumed to be under a zero-skin condition. This definition was utilized in the regression analysis
and the correlations curve-fitting process. This procedure was repeted to generate IPR curves for horizontal wells at any
recovery factor of interest. To make the IPR curves dimensionless (normalized) at a certain recovery factor, we divided the
bottomhole pressure by the corresponding average reservoir pressure and plot the points versus the ratio of oil rate to the
maximum rate corresponding to full drawdown and a no-skin case.

Sensitivity Study on IPR Curves in Horizontal Wells

A sensitivity study was conducted to examine the dependence of well performance on each parameter. For Type I IPR
curves, it was inferred that the bubble-point pressure and reservoir depletion may have significant effects on the performance
curves (see Figs. 2 and 3). However, for Type II curves the skin factor is also significant since it’s eliminated from the
normalization fraction (Fig. 4).

Figure 3: Effect of reservoir depletion on Type I IPR curves Figure 4: Effect of skin on Type II IPR curves (RF=10%)
SPE 115918 5

Table 1 lists the parameters which were considered in the sensitivity study with their base-case values and variations.

Table 1: Reservoir data used in the sensitivity studies

Parameters Base-case Range

pb , psia 1330 1330 to 4330

API° gravity 25.6 25 to 45

Reservoir size (length = width), ft 3000 3000 to 9000

Net pay, ft 225 50 to 225

kr End-points
Sgc , % 30 5 to 30

Swi , % 20

Sor , % 5 5 to 25

kx , md 200 2 to 200

ky , md 200 2 to 200

kz , md 50 0.5 to 50

Well Length , ft 1635 1635 to 3000

skin 0 1330 to 4330

Development of IPR Correlations for Horizontal Wells

If we want to come up with specific correlations for IPR curves of a horizontal or vertical well in a certain reservoir, we can
generate IPR curves for one well from reservoir simulation, and then curve fit the generated curves to a general equation
proposed in this study (Eq. 11) and then obtain the coefficients. Next, the curve-fitted IPR correlations can be used for other
wells in the field. This mthod may increase the accuracy of well/reservoir inflow performance analysis since the IPR curves
reflect the characteristics of the rock, fluid, and geology of that particular reservoir. In this work, non-linear regression
method was employed to conduct the curve-fitting and determine the correlation parameters. For example, below is an IPR
curve obtained from the data-fit to a Vogel-type ploynomial at 8% recovery factor:
2
qo p  p 
 1  0.8617  wf   0.1461 wf  (10)
qo ,max  p   p 
A three-parameter general IPR correlation is proposed in this work which is similar to those of Bendakhlia & Aziz [1989]
and Retnanto & Economides [1998], given by:
m
qo   pwf   pwf  
n

 1  v    (1  v)    (11)
qo ,max   p   p  
The coefficients v, n, and m were obtained from regression for the simulated case in this work as given by:

v  h( pb , RF )(1  0.0009873 pb )
n  f ( pb , RF )(1  0.0009873 pb ) (12)
m  g ( pb , RF )(1  0.0004014 pb )
The idea of splitting the coefficients into two functions was taken from the work by Retnanto & Economides [1998]. The
sub-functions then may be obtained for this particular case as:
6 SPE 115918

h( p b , RF )  a 0  a1 ln  p b   a 2 ln  p b   a 3 ln  p b   a 4 ln  p b 

2 3 4

 a 5 ln  p b   a 6 RF  a 7 RF 2  a8 RF 3  a 9 RF 4  a10 RF 5
5
(13)

f  p b , RF   a 0  LNCUM . p b a1 , a 2 , a 3   LNCUM .RF a 4 , a 5 , a 6 

 LNCUM . p b a 7 , a 2 , a 3   LNCUM .RF 1, a 5 , a 6  (14)

(a 0  a1 p b  a 2 RF  a 3 RF  a 4 RF )
2 3
g  p b , RF  
(1  a 5 p b  a 6 RF  a 7 RF 2  a 8 RF 3 ) (15)
where;

  x 
 ln  
a a  a2  
LNCUM .xa1 , a 2 , a 3   1  erfc 3  
2  2 a3 2 
 
  (16)
The coefficients of the IPR correlations were obtained for the simulated case as given in Table 2.

Table 2: Coefficients of IPR correlation from regression

Parameters Eq. 13 Eq. 14 Eq. 15 Eq. 18

a0 696.301 0.36706 0.71816 2.1215688

a1 -304.023 0.607941 -0.00023 -0.001278

a2 40.38494 795.3868 1.2515 1.839e-7

a3 -0.20894 -0.59766 -7.509 6.1178

a4 -0.31507 0.012402 15.999 -26.272

a5 0.01675 0.002642 -0.00027 43.15

a6 -1.04831 -0.01027 2.6334 -0.00059

a7 24.12915 -0.18089 -16.741 8.373e-8

a8 -186.199 36.917 2.0843

a9 562.6924 -8.0918

a10 -578.054 11.78

AOFP in Horizontal Wells

Considering the approach by Kabir [1992] for slanted and horizontal wells, one can take the derivative of IPR correlation and
relate productivity index (PI) (single-phase PI), average reservoir pressure, and the AOFP ( qo ,max ) of a horizontal well.
After the mathematical manipulations and rearrangements, the relationship is given by:
SPE 115918 7

J p
qo ,max  (17)
 ( pb , RF )
Where J is the productivity index (PI) of a horizontal well which could be calculated from Babu and Odeh’s correlation and
p is the average reservoir pressure. What remains is the function  which is a function given by the following for the
particular case-study in this work:

( a0  a1 pb  a2 RF  a3 RF 2  a4 RF 3 )

(1  a5 pb  a6 pb2  a7 RF  a8 RF 2  a9 RF 3 ) (18)
The coefficients of Eq.18 are listed in Table 2. Finally, a comprehensive correlation for calculating the productivity and IPR
curves of horizontal wells producing from solution-gas-drive reservoirs can be given by:
m ( pb , RF )
J p  
n ( pb , RF )
 pwf   pwf 
qo ,max  1  v( pb , RF )    (1  v ( p , RF ))    (19)
 ( pb , RF )   p 
b
 p  

Case Study

The data in Table 3 were used in case study of Field X where the poropsed IPR relationship was compared to the current IPR
models using the data from seven wells. The formation under study was a Creataceous limestone with the following
characteristics:

Table 3: Reservoir data of Field X— case study

Parameters Value

Initial oil in place, MMSTB 1100

Reservoir depth, ft (subsea) 8990

OWC, ft (subsea) 9373-9432

Initial reservoir pressure, psia 4640

Bubble point pressure, psia 4100

Initial reservoir temperature, °F 230

Boi, Rbbl/STB 1.491

Oil gravity, °API 32

Average porosity 19 to 22%

Permeability, md 10 to 30

Using Eqs. 17-19, the AOFP and IPR curves were calculated for those seven wells and compared with the field data. The
field data included the information from flow tests, build-up tests, and production/separator tests. The results are given in
Table 4.

Table 4: Calculated and measured results for the seven wells understudy in Field X

Parameters Wel_01 Wel_02 Wel_03 Wel_04 Wel_05 Wel_06 Wel_07

Productivity Index ( J ) (calc. from welltest) [STBD/psi] 17.85 9.6 6.6 13.9 6.63 3.21 34.08

AOFP (calc. from welltest) (qo ,max ) [ STB/D] 18150 13935 8325 18130 8128 4980 40976

Test Date (Flowing and Build-up) 08/16/2006 08/02/2006 05/06/2005 05/10/2005 05/29/2005 05/04/2005 05/23/2005

Average Reservoir Pressure (from Build up test) [psi] 3055 3830 3890 3910 3705 3986 3590
8 SPE 115918

Flowing Bottomhole Pressure (from Flowing test) [psi] 2680 3440 3344 3555 2955 3250 3476

Oil Production Rate (from production/sep. test) [STBD] 4245 2565 2253 3416 4052 1083 3046

Cumulative Oil Production (up to the test date) [MMSTB] 166.6 166.6 156 156 154 156 156

Est. Recovery Factor 15 % 15% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%

Skin No Damage NDR NDR NDR NDR NDR NDR

Reported

Reservoir Type (Producing Mechanism) Solution-Gas SGD SGD SGD SGD SGD SGD
Drive

v 0.2603453 0.2603453 0.2630732 0.2630732 0.2630732 0.2630732 0.2630732

n 1.9018340 1.9018340 1.9018340 1.9018340 1.9018340 1.9018340 1.9018340

m 0.9008147 0.9008147 0.9008136 0.9008136 0.9008136 0.9008136 0.9008136

 2.8035369 2.8035369 2.8117695 2.8117695 2.8117695 2.8117695 2.8117695

Figures 5 and 6 compare the results from the developed IPR relationship to those from the current IPR equations and field
data, and it can be observed that there is a good match between the field data and the developed model.

Figure 5: Comparison of Developed IPR to current IPR & field Figure 6: Comparison of Developed IPR to current IPR & field
data— RF=15% data— RF=14%

Summary

In this study, a new IPR correlation with three coefficients was proposed for hotizontal wells in solution-gas drive reservoirs.
Due to the presence of gas phase in saturated reservoirs, the coefficicnets fould to be functions of bubble-point pressure and
refocvery factor which are related to how far we are from the bubble-point.
The proposed IPR relation can be considered as a general IPR correlation for any type of wells since the coefficients can be
obtained from simulation. Then, the tuned IPR correlation can be used in other wells of the same type in the same field. Or,
one may use the correlation developed in this study for horizontal wells with the coeffiecnts shown in Table 2 as it showed a
good match with the field data (see Table 4).

Nomenclature
v = parameter pwf = Flowing bottomhole pressure, psia
n = parameter
m = parameter p = Average Reservoir Pressure, psia
 = Two-Phase Coefficient pb = Bubble-point pressure, psi
PI = productivity index, STB/psi
SPE 115918 9

References
[1] Aziz, K., and Settari, A. Petroleum Reservoir Simulation, Elsevier Applied Science, New York, p.75, 1979.
[2] Babu, D. and Odeh, A. “Productivity of a Horizontal Well” SPERE, (November, 1989), 417–21.
[3] Bendakhlia, H. and Aziz, K.: “Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive Horizontal Wells” Paper SPE
19823, 1989.
[4] Fetkovich, M.J.: “The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells,” Paper SPE 4529, 1973.
[5] Kabir, C. S. “Inflow Performance of Slanted and Horizontal Wells in Solution-Gas Drive Reservoirs,” Paper SPE 24056,
1992.
[6] Peaceman, D.W., ”Interpretation of Well-Block Pressure in Numerical Reservoir Simulation with Non-square Grid
Blocks and Anisotropic Permeability”, paper SPE 10528, 1983.
[7] Retnanto, A. and Economides, M. J.: “Inflow Performance Relationships for Horizontal and Multibranched Wells in a
Solution-Gas Drive Reservoir” Paper SPE 50659, 1998.
[8] Vogel, J. V.: “Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive Wells”, JPT, (Jan. 1968), 83-92.
[9]Wang, J., Arbabi, S. and Aziz K.: “Effects of Grid System on Predicting Horizontal Well Productivity”, SPE 46228, 1998.