SPE 163030

Effects of Partial Completion on Productivity Index

Dankwa O. K, and Igbokoyi A. O, SPE, African University of Science and Technology, Abuja

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2012 SPE Nigerian Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Abuja, Nigeria, 6-8 August 2012.

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 arrive at the economic feasibility of drilling a well,

Petroleum engineers require proven and reliable
A new method for analyzing productivity index (PI) methods to estimate the expected productivity of that
on vertical wells is presented. Well performance is well. Well productivity is often evaluated using the
often measured in terms of the well’s productivity which productivity index, de!ned as the production rate per
is dependent on a number of factors such as the unit pressure drawdown. Petroleum engineers often
reservoir’s configuration, the type of completion, relate the well productivity evaluation to the long-time
petrophysical and fluid properties, formation damage, performance behaviour of a well, that is, the behaviour
etc. The effect of partial completion is the main focus of during pseudo-steady-state or/and steady-state "ow of a
this study since almost all vertical wells are partially closed system or/and constant pressure system
completed due to the reasons of water coning or gas respectively.
cap issue, etc.
Productivity of a well is usually evaluated on the Partial completion is the completion of or flow from
long time performance behavior, thus the pseudo- less than the entire producing interval. This situation
steady state (late time) approach has been employed for causes a near-well flow constriction that result in a
the calculation of the productivity index. Closed system positive skin effect in a well-test analysis. The net result
(no-flow boundary) and constant pressure boundary of partial completion yields extra pressure drop in the
(mixed boundaries) cases are investigated. near wellbore region and reduces the well productivity.

Several key factors have been tested on productivity
index such as pseudo skin, shape factors, penetration
ratio, reservoir drainage area and etc. The effects of
these factors have been analyzed on productivity index.
Shape factors of various well positions in bounded
reservoirs were computed and compared with the
results obtained by Dietz.
Introduction
Well productivity is one of the major concerns in oil
!eld development, and provides the means for oil !eld
development strategy. Sometimes, well performance is
measured in terms of productivity index. In order to
Many authors have shared their views on the issue of
partial completion. Babu and Odeh (1989) worked on
productivity of horizontal well and considered partial
penetration. This study uses the same approach
employed by these authors but rather for vertical wells
with partial completion.
We developed an analytical model for evaluating
productivity index (P.I) of vertical wells with partial
completion, where the effect of pressure drop due to
partial completion is taken into account and compare
results with conventional methods. Secondly, shape
factors are calculated from new equations derived from
this study
2 SPE 163030

Mathematical Formulation

Gringarten and Ramey’s source functions (1973) for

closed boundary system have been used in conjunction
with Babu and Odeh’s approach (1989) for obtaining
pressure drawdown in terms of average reservoir
pressure. Finally new productivity index equation is
derived for a vertical well with partial completion and
consequently the shape factors formula. Figure 1 Schematic illustrating the reservoir and
The source functions are obtained from Gringarten and well model
Ramey (1973) which depict the closed boundary
reservoir type. For a closed system reservoir the productivity index
Employing Babu and Odeh’s approach used for equation for a partial completion case can be deduced
horizontal well, the source functions are integrated from the pressure drop equation as:
twice along the vertical direction of the well and also !"!!!"!"#
!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !!" ! !!" ! !!"
with respect to time !. According to Carslaw and Jaeger ! !! !!
(1959), the line sink source solution becomes: ! !!"# !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!! ! !! ! ! !! !! !! ! !!
!
!!
!" !
!!"!!!"# !!
! !! !! !! !!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !! !!
!"!!" !! !
!
!"!!!"!" !! ! !! ! !! ! !!" ! !!" ! !!" ! !!"#
where !!!
! ! !"#!!"#$!!! !!"#$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! ! !! !!
!" ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
! ! !! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !"!!!"!" !! ! !! ! !!"

!!! ! Equation (9) is the productivity index for full

!"#$!!!!"!!"#$%&'(")!!"#$%&'(!!"!!"#$%&'(!!"## completion case.
Expressions for Px, Py, Pz, Pxy, Pxz, Pyz, Pxyz are given in
Parameters: a, b and h are distances in the x, y and z appendix A.
directions respectively.
The reservoir is considered to be of a rectangular shape The pressure drop for a 3-D partial completion in a
with the well at its centre. vertical well in closed system can be further expressed
as:
The following point source functions depicting a no- !!
flow boundary case from Gringarten and Ramey are
!"!!!!"# !! !!"# !!!" ! !! ! !! ! !!" !"##$%&"
used: ! !"
!! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! !! !! !! !!!" !!!"
!
!"# !"!! ! ! ! ! !! !
!!!! !"# !"# !"# ! ! !! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"!
! ! !! !
!!!
!!! !"!!!!"# !
!! ! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !" !! ! !!!" ! !!
! ! !! !! !!
! !
!"# !"!! ! ! !! !
!!!! !"# !"# !"# ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
! ! !! !
!!!
!!! where, CA is a shape factor.
SR is the skin factor due to partial completion and Sm is
!! ! !! !! !! ! ! the damaged skin factor.
!
!"# !"!! ! ! ! ! !! !
!!!! !"# !"# !"# ! ! !! !!
! ! !!! !" !
!!!
!!! !
!"!!!!"# !" ! ! !!!" ! !! ! !!
!! !
!!"!
SPE 163030 3

For a full completion case: The results obtained are plotted to show the trend of PI
! !! !! versus varying completion intervals as well as pressure
!" ! drops and pseudo-skin factor due to partial completion.
! These can be seen in figures 2, 3 and 4. For partial
!"!!!!"# !" ! ! !!!" ! !!
!! !
completions, it is clearly seen from the equations that PI
!!"! is dependent on the completion/productive interval
(Lp). Thus, the higher the penetration ratio, the higher
the PI and vice versa which is as a result of decreasing
Shape Factor CA and Pseudo-Skin pressure drop, and consequently a decrease in pseud-
From equation (7), in terms of the shape factor, the skin factor.
terms [Px+Py+Pxy] represent the 2D effects of a full
penetration case. The other terms [Pz+Pxz+Pyz+Pxyz) are A Comparative Analysis with Dietz Shape
identified with skin due to partial completion. Factors
Therefore equations for skin due to partial completion Dietz (1965) came up with shape factors which show a
and shape factor for vertical well case are given particular well position in regular reservoir
respectively as: configurations (shapes). For irregular shapes,
!! ! !! ! !!" ! !!" ! !!"# !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"! interpolation between these geometrical configurations
!"
And presented by Dietz may be necessary.
!!!"#$! Naturally it is never possible to obtain the exact shape
!"!! ! !" ! ! !! ! !! ! !!" !!!!!!!!"! of the drainage volume but a reasonable estimate can
!! !"
For fully penetrating completion, the term SR is zero. usually be made which, when interpreted in terms of a
Therefore, shape factor and used, can considerably improve the
! !! accuracy of calculations made using pressure drop
!" !"# !! ! !! ! !!" ! !" ! !!!!!!!!!"! equation and consequently, the productivity index.
!" ! !! !!!
The magnitude of shape factor depends on the shape of
Expanding equation (16) and making CA subject of the the area being drained and also upon the position of the
formula will yields the general formula for the well with respect to the boundary.
calculation of the shape factors as: Equations (17) and (19) have been employed to
!!!"#$! calculate shape factors for bounded reservoirs using the
!"!! ! !" ! ! !! ! !! ! !!" !!!!!!!"! same configurations employed by Dietz. The results are
!! !"
presented in Table 2. These were not in any way
expected to be the same as Dietz’s because the
Equation (17) is used to compute the three dimensional
conditions under which he came up with his values are
shape factors in a closed system equivalent to Dietz
different from ours.
shape factor.
The essence of this analysis helps one to predict the
shape factor of a particular well bore configuration and
New Shape Factors for Vertical Wells how much they contribute to productivity index gain or
From equation (10), a new shape factor equation has loss.
been derived for vertical wells.
!! !"# !!!" ! !! ! !! ! !!"
!"##$%&"
!! ! !!!!!!!!!"! Factors and Parameters that
!
!! !"# !! ! !! ! !!" !"##$%&" Influence/Control PI
!! ! !!!!" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"! Several factors and parameters have been identified to
!
greatly influence PI values. These parameters are
Equation (19) gives an expression similar to that of vertical permeability, pseudo skin, well position,
Babu and Odeh for horizontal wells in a rectangular drainage area and etc. These have been analyzed and
system. Knowing the rectangular area ab – ft2 of the their results show the extent of influence they have on
horizontal plane, well position, CA can be estimated. productivity index values.

• Effects of Pseudo-Skin Factor (1) on PI

Application of Closed System PI Model
Table 1 contains hypothetical data comprising of
reservoir and well properties generated for testing the
PI and Pressure models derived.
Equation (14) is used to calculate the additional
pressure drop due to partial completion and the
associated productivity index. In equation (14), SR is the
skin factor due to partial completion and it is estimated
with the expressions for Pz, Pxz, Pyz and Pxyz.
4 SPE 163030
Pseudo skin as a result of partial completion is analyzed
by varying penetration ratio. Pseudo skin contributes to
excess pressure drop leading to a decrease in
productivity index. It is observed from figure 4 that, as
completion/perforation interval decreases there is a rise
in pseudo skin values. It can be concluded that, any
small restriction of flow caused by the
perforated/completion interval has a positive skin
associated with it but for an open-hole or a fully
completed interval of perforation, there is no associated
pseudo skin. This is an ideal case which may not be the
case in practice.
• Effects of Permeability on PI
Analysis on the effect of vertical to horizontal
permeability ratio on PI is carried out, and the result
shows a clear dependency of productivity on vertical
permeability though a weak one. The effect of
permeability ratio on productivity index gives a positive
slope curve in figure 5. It is established from the graph
that PI is directly proportional to permeability ratio.
Whereas a high permeability ratio enhances
productivity, a low permeability ratio leads to low PI.
• Effects of Geometric Shape Factors
on PI
It is ascertained from this study that, well positions
affect PI through the shape factors. The optimum
position to place a well is at the centre of the drainage
area since its effects on productivity loss is minimal.
More so, the maximum effect of shape factor occurs
when skin due to partial completion is zero (fully!
completed well) and the corresponding pressure drop is
minimum as!presented in Table 2. On the other hand,
off-centred wells and wells placed at the borders of the
drainage area have very high shape factors. They also
contribute most to pressure drops and consequently
leading to high productivity loss.
Figure 2 Reservoir Drainage Area showing different
Well Positions
1.
• Effects of Reservoir Area Extent on
PI
2.
This analysis was carried out considering a fully
completed well case and also a partially completed well
with penetration ratio of 0.5. From the results, it is
observed that, large areas contribute less to pressure
drop whiles relatively smaller areas give large pressure
drops.
From Table 5.4, one can observe a larger area extent
leading to high productivity, small area extent giving
out relatively low values of productivity index.
However, the issue of area extent on productivity is
relative because it would largely depend on the number
of wells drilled within such an area and also the well
position. From this study and considering a single well
reservoir, it can clearly be stated that large area extent
contributes to high productivity index relative to small
area extent. For off-centred well, pressure drop was
equally high as compared to centrally positioned wells.
Conclusions
An analytical model of evaluating productivity index in
vertical wells which accounts for the effect of pressure
drop due to partial completion has been obtained.
For a partially completed vertical well, PI is strongly
controlled by the producing length, and weakly
controlled by pay zone thickness, vertical permeability,
well position and reservoir size.
For fully penetrated/completed wells, PI is strongly
influenced by the well position through the shape
factors.
Nomenclature
"P pressure drop, psi
PI productivity index, stb/d/psi
Lp Completion Interval, ft
P average reservoir pressure, psi
qo Oil flow rate in stb/day for liquid
Bo Oil formation volume factor rbbl/stb
SR Pseud-Skin factor
k permeability, md
kx permeability in x direction
ky permeability in y direction
kz permeability in z direction
µ viscosity, cp
h formation thickness, ft
A area, ft2
a reservoir length, ft
b reservoir width, ft
References
Babu, D. K. and Odeh, A. S.: “Productivity of a
Horizontal Well”. SPE Reservoir Engineering, Vol.4,
No.4, 417- 421, (Nov, 1989).
Carslaw, H. S., and Jaegar, J. C.: “Conduction of
Heat in Solids,” Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1959,
2nd Edition, pp. 185.
 SPE 163030 5

3. Dake, L. P.: "Fundamentals of reservoir" Elsevier,

1978
4. Dietz, D. N.: “Determination of Average Reservoir
Pressure from Build-Up Surveys”. J. Pet. Tech.,
August, 1965.
5. Gringarten, A. C., and Ramey, H. J., Jr.: “The use of
Source and Green’s functions in Solving Unsteady
Flow Problems in Reservoirs,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Oct.
1973) 285-296; Trans., AIME, Vol. 255.
6. Reynolds, A.C., Chen, J. C., and Raghavan, R. :
“Pseudo-skin factors caused by Partial Penetration,”
paper SPE 12178 presented at the 1983 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco,
Oct, 5-8.
Appendix A
!"#$%& !"#$%!!
!! !! ! !
!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!" !! !!
!!!
!"#$%& !"#$%!!
!! !! ! !
!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!" !! !!
!!!

!!
!"#$%& !"#$%!! !"#$%!!
!!! !
! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!
! !"#!! ! !
!!!

!!"
!"#$%& !"#$%!! !"#$%& !"#$%!!
! !! !! ! ! ! !
! !!!!
!"# ! !!
! ! ! !!
!!! !
!!! !! !!
!!!!
!!"
!"#$%& !"#$%!! !"#$%& !"#$%!! !"#$%!!
!" !! !! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !! ! !!
! ! !"#
!!! ! ! !
!!! !! !
!!!!
!!"
!"#$%& !"#$%!! !"#$%& !"#$%!! !"#$%!!
!" !! !! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !! ! ! !!
! ! !"#
!!! ! ! !
!!! !! !

!!!!
!!"# !
!"#$%&!"#$%!! !"#$%&!"#$%!! !"#$%& !"#$%!! !"#$%!!
!"# !! !! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !
!! !"# !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!
! ! ! ! !
!!! !! ! !
6 SPE 163030

Figure 2 Productivity index versus completion Figure 5 Relationship between PI and

Permeability ratio
length
Table 1: Reservoir, Well and Fluid Property values

Figure 3 Pressure Drop versus Completion Length

Table 2: Results for Wells within Reservoir Area

Figure 4 Relationship between Pseudo skin and

Completion Interval
 SPE 163030 7

Table 3: Shape Factors (comparison with !

Dietz shape factors (1965))
Bounded lnCA lnCA lnCA
reservoirs Dietz Obtained Obtained
Shape for equation for
Factors (4.28) equation
(4.26)

! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
"#$"! "#$$%&! $#'"'&!

! !

! ! ! !
! ! !
(#&%! (#%()%! $#)"*+!
! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
)#&(! (#%()&! (#$'*+!

! !

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(! ! ! !
! ! ! !
)! "#)(! "#)"! "#)"!
! !
! $!!!!!! ! ! !
! ,)#$%! "#$*-%! ,-#&)+'!
)! ! ! !
!
&! ! ! !
! ! ! !
)!!!!!!! -#'%! &#%*''! ,)#+*%&!
! !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$! ! ! !
! ! ! !
,%#'-"!
)! )#)%'! &#-$"(!
!