Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

By: Vini Nandi Rahma NIM: 101317059 PE1

Summary
Generalized Inflow Performance Relationships for Three-Phase Flow
M.L Wiggins, U. of Oklahoma
SPE Member

The relationship of the three-phase inflow covering a wide range datas of relative K, fluid
performance relationships (IPRs) for the oil and property data and water saturations.
water phases could estimated the production-
pressure of oil wells producing from homogeneous, Each set of data was used to generate
bounded reservoirs during bourdary-dominated simulator results from irreducible water saturation to
flow. Estimating the well performance can residual oil saturation. Data below are sets of
determine the optimum producstion scheme, design reservoir properties.
production and artificial lift equipment, design
stimulation treatments and forecast production for
planning purposes.

Fluid inflow is proportional to the


difference between reservoir pressure and wellbore
pressure in estimating oilwell performance. First
relationship to be used was the Productivity Index
(PI) derived from Darcy’s Law for the steady-state
flow single incompressible fluid and is the ratio of
the producing rate to the pressure difference. Vogel
then developed an empirical IPR for solution-gas
drive reservoirs that accounted for the flow of oil and
gas.

Empirical gas well delivaribility equation The results were to obtain radial flow
proposed by Rawlins and Schellhardt: geometry and constant oil rate production.
Maximum oil and water production rates were
estimated at each stage of depletion from the
simulator pressure at minimum BHP. The resulting
Vogel’s and Fetkovich’s relations were generalized IPRs are:
developed for solution-gas drive reservoirs. Brown
then approach Vogel’s for three-phase flow to
determine the IPR of oil wells producing water.
Sukarno then proposed a method derived from
computer simulation of three-phase flow and
resulted from nonlinear regression analysis based
on producing water cut and total liquid flow rate.
Overall, the average absolute error was
Generalized IPR are for three-phase flow in
4.39% for the oil IPR and 6.18% for the water IPR
bounded, homogenous reservoirs where gravity and
indicating the generalized curves should be suitable
capillary effect are negligible. This includes
in reservoir which produce flow conditions in under
predicting future performance due to depletion and
boundary-dominated. To test the reliability, those
perfmance when changes occur in the skin region.
were compared with the three-phase IPR methods of
Generalized IPRs Brown and Sukarno in which Brown’s methods are
based on developing a composite IPR curve. Vogel’s
Data about relative permeability or fluid IPR is for rhe oil phase and coupling it with a
propoerty is not reliable, in the analitytical IPR, straight-line PI for the water phase. Both methods
generelized three-phase IPRs similar to Vogel’s difffer in that they couple the water and oil rates and
were developed. The result of IPR equations are assumed it can treat each phase seperately.
based on regression analysis of simulator results
By: Vini Nandi Rahma NIM: 101317059 PE1

All three methos yield similar estimated of Then the maximum flow rate equation approach
producing rates, indicating the generalized three- with a linear regression model:
phase IPRs with suitable results. The maximum
difference between the simulator results and the
generalized IPR is 3.98% for the oil phase and
7.08% for the water phase. Based on simplicity, the
The resulting relationship to predict the future
generalized IPRs are reccomended in applying to
maximum oil rate for oil and water:
field data.

Performance Predictions When Reservoir


Conditions Change

When estimating the pressure-production


behavior under reservoir conditions that are different
in conducting the well test, the two primary
conditions are changes in flow efficiency and at The F-test indicates that the model is
different stafes of reservoir depletion. adequate to describe the information while the t-test
The equation form of flow efficiency: shows the coefficients are significant. Error
increases as we estimate further in time but on an
absolute basis, the predictions are within reasonable
engineering accurcy. The maximum errors between
the prediction and simulator results being less than
15% for the cases studied (includes from the
generalized IPR and flow efficiency)
Ratio of the maximum production rate with and w/o
skin: The methods are limited by assumptions in
all reservoir are initially at the bubble point, no
initial free gas phase, a mobile water phase is phase
is present for three-phase studies, Darcy’s law for
multiphase flow applies, isothermal conditions exist,
there is no reaction between reservoir fluids and
reservoir rock, no gas solubility exists in the water,
The proposed methos does a good work in
gravity effects are negligible and there is a fully
estimating the maximum flow rates for the case
penetrating wellbore.
studied as indicated.

Present maximum flow rate in Taylor serius


approach proposed by Wiggins, Russel and Jennings
in analytical IPR:

If then relate at some future time to the current


maximum rate:

S-ar putea să vă placă și