FLUID FLOW:

WELL PRODUCTIVITY

Liquid Flow
Pressures Recorded in a Flowing Well
ƒ No boundaries felt:
Infinite Acting pressure varies with the Log of time.

ƒ First boundary felt:

End of Infinite Acting – start of late transient flow. Pressure
change depends on well position and reservoir shape.

ƒ All boundaries felt:

Pseudo Steady State (Semi-Steady State) – reservoir is in
pressure depletion and pressure now starts to decline
linearly with time.

ƒ Boundary replenishes fluid removed:

Steady State – pressure does not change with time.

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.2
 Open System
qB
Pressure

Increasing Time qB

Transient
Steady State

rw re
Radius
Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.3
 Closed System
qB
Pressure

No influx
Increasing Time

Transient
(Steady State)
Pseudo-Steady State
rw Radius re
Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.4
 Boundaries – When do they occur?
Boundaries

None felt Some felt All felt

Pressure at the well

End of Infinite Acting

Start of Pseudo Steady State

Transient Late Transient Semi-Steady State

Time
Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.5
 Dietz Shape Factor Table
kt
tD = Cnst
φμctrw2 rw2 (pages 16-52, 16-53)
tDA = tD
kt A
tDA = Cnst
φμct A Start of PSS End of Infinite Acting

cA ln cA Exact <1% errorTransient solution

Cnst
for tDA > for tDA > has <1% error
1 SI units for tDA <
0.0002637 Field units 31.6 3.45 0.1 0.06 0.10

21.9 3.09 0.4 0.12 0.08

1 2

4.5 1.51 0.6 0.30 0.025

1
3.2 1.15 0.4 0.15 0.005
2

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.6
 Example

Time to Reach Pseudo-Steady-State Flow in a Circular Drainage Radius

From Dietz Table Dimensionless Time, Tda = 0.1

Need to Convert Dimensionless Time to Real Time. Equation t = Tda * Φ * μ * Ct * A / (K*0.0002637)

Property Value
so time to Pseudo-Steady- State is
Permeability, md 25
Porosity, frac 0.17 t= 381.3 hrs
Viscosity, cp 1.6
Oil Saturation, frac 0.75
Oil Compressibility, psi-1 0.000010 Time to PSS can become larger for,
Water Saturation, frac 0.25 low permeability
Water Compressibility, psi-1 0.000003 high viscosity fluid
Rock Compressibility, psi-1 0.000005 high fluid compressibility (gas)
Total Compressibility, psi-1 0.00001325 non-circular drainage shape
Drainage Radius, ft 1,490
Drainage Area, ft2 6,974,644

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.7
 Steady State Solution
qB

∂p
= 0 for all r and t
∂t
p qB
p = pe = constant, at r = re

rw re

S.I. Units Field Units

qB μ r 141 .2 qB μ r
p − p wf = ln ln
2 π kh rw kh rw

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.8
 Pseudo-Steady State Solution
qB

∂p
=0 at r = re
∂r
p 0
∂p
= cons tan t for all r and t
∂t

rw re

S.I. Units Field Units

qB μ ⎧ r r2 ⎫ 141.2qBμ ⎧ r r2 ⎫
p − p wf = ⎨ ln − 2 ⎬ ⎨ln − 2 ⎬
2π kh ⎩ r w 2 r e ⎭ kh ⎩ rw 2re ⎭

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.9
Theoretical Basis of Productivity Index
Pseudo Steady State radial flow for Oil:

qo =
kk ro h ( p − p wf )
141.2 μo Bo ⎛ re 3 ⎞
⎜⎜ ln − + s ⎟⎟
4
⎝ rw ⎠
Rearrange for Productivity Index (PI) or J:

kk ro h
J =
⎡ ⎛ re ⎞ 3 ⎤
141.2 μo Bo ⎢ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − + s⎥
r 4
⎣ ⎝ w⎠ ⎦
Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.10
Empirical Basis for Productivity Index

qo BOPD
PI = =J
p − pwf psi

Flow a well and measure oil rate and pwf

or FTP (calculate pwf). Find p from
static test or other wells.

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.11
 Uses of PI

ƒ Comparisons between wells.

ƒ Quick estimate of productive capacity.
PI = 2 Δp = 3500 psi what is q?
ƒ Identify stimulation candidates.
ƒ Identify stimulation success/failure.
ƒ Map rock quality or productive capacity.

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.12
 Uses of PI

ƒ Identify plugging or damage.

ƒ Identify extraneous water or gas entry.
(J vs. WOR or GOR)
ƒ Evaluation of rates with artificial lift.
ƒ Projecting future rates as pressure
depletes.

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.13
 PI to Identify Well Problems

Plugging/Loading

PI

time

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.14
 PI With Extraneous Water

PI WOR

time

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.15
 Problems With the PI Constant

ƒ Kro = fn (saturation)
ƒ Saturation changes with Pressure < Pbp
ƒ Saturation changes with fluid displacement.
ƒ Kabs = fn (over burden)
ƒ Over burden increases with depletion.
ƒ μ & B = fn (P)
ƒ Skin possibly changes with time.
ƒ Skin can change with rate.

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.16
 Oil Relative Permeability Effects PI
q
• p and pwf > pbp
• no free gas
Pbp • no effect on productivity
• PI constant
rw re

q • p > pbp while pwf < pbp

• free gas near wellbore
Pbp • free gas reduces productivity (PI)
• reductions in pwf increase region of
rw re free gas

q • p and pwf < pbp

• free gas present everywhere
Pbp • free gas saturation higher near
wellbore
rw re • free gas reduces productivity (PI)
Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.17
PI vs. Time in Solution Gas Drive

transient

pss above Bubble Point

P<PBP
Flush Production

PI

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.18
Inflow Performance Relationships
IPR - Another Way to Represent Well Productivity

4,500
Pres = 4,000 psia and Pwf > Pbp
Constant PI Projection
4,000
Pres = 4,000 psia and Pwf < Pbp
Pres = Pbp and Pwf < Pbp
Bottom Hole Flowing Pressure (psia)

3,500
Pres = 1,500 psia and Pwf < Pbp
Bubble Point Pressure
3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
Flow Rate (BOPD)

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.19
 Inflow Performance Relationships

ƒ Oil Reservoirs flowing below bubble

point studied by Vogel in 1968.
ƒ To account for changing Kro, μo and Bo
in region near wellbore developed fit of
simulation data for his IPR relationship:
2
qo ⎛ pwf ⎞
pwf
= 1 − .2 − .8 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
qo max p ⎝ p ⎠

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.20
 Vogel’s IPR Relationship:
Vogel IPR Relationship

1.2

When All IPR Curves Normalized and Plotted Together for

Pressures Below the Bubble Point Pressure, They Overlay
1
on a Single Curve. This Curve Shows the Impact of Lowering
Pwf on Well Productivity.

Qo/Qomax = [ 1.0 - 0.2*(Pwf/Pres) - 0.8*(Pwf/Pres)^2 ]

0.8
Pwf / Pres

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Qo / Qomax

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.21
To Establish Vogel’s IPR Relationship:

ƒ Test well and measure qo, pwf and p

ƒ Solve for qomax

ƒ Then can estimate different qo at varying pwf

for a particular value of p

ƒ Need another concept as reservoir pressure

drops below bubble point pressure

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.22
 Standing’s J* Concept
ƒ J* = productivity at very small drawdown
ƒ J* calculated from pseudo-steady state flow
equation, including effect of skin
ƒ J* declines as pressure declines below bubble
point, effecting Kro, μo and Bo
ƒ Equations Relating J and J*:
1.8 qo max J ⎛ p wf ⎞
J* = or = ⎜⎜1 + 0.8 ⎟⎟
p J* ⎝ p ⎠
⎛ k ro ⎞ ⎛ k ro ⎞
J * future = J * present ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ μo B ⎠ future ⎝ μo Bo ⎠ present
Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.23
 Use of J* Concept
ƒ Need J* for depletion studies
ƒ Well Test for J
ƒ Use J to find qo and pwf relationship at tested
pressure
ƒ Once p drops below pbp, then find J*
ƒ To find productivity at lower pressures, adjust
Jp* Æ Jf* using Kro, μo and Bo characteristics
ƒ Use Jf* to find qo and pwf relationship at
pressures < bubble point

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.24
 Multiphase Flow, Dispersed Case
1.0 kro

So qo kr
h krw
Sw = 1-So qw
0
0 100
Sw(%)

Water:
k rw μo Bo
WOR = ⋅
qo =
0 . 00708 k k ro h (p − p wf ) k ro μ w Bw
μ o B o ⎡⎢ l n ⎛⎜ r e r ⎞⎟ − 3 4 + s ⎤⎥ where k ro , k rw = fn (S w )
⎣ ⎝ w ⎠ ⎦

qw =
0 . 00708 k k rw h (p − p wf ) k rg μ o Bo
⎡ ⎛ re ⎞ − 3 + s⎤ GOR = R s + ⋅
μwBw ⎢⎣ l n ⎜ r w ⎟⎠ 4 ⎥⎦ k ro μ g Bg
⎝
where k ro , k rg = fn (S g )
Gas:

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.25
 Multiphase Flow, Segregated Case
1.0 kro @ swi

So = Soi qo kr
ho Sw = 1-Soi
Krw @ sorw

qw
hw So = Sor
0
Sw = 1-Sorw 0
Sw(%)
100

Swi 1 - Sorw

Water: k rw @ s orw h w μ o Bo
WOR = ⋅
qo =
(
0 . 00708 k kr ro @ s wi h o p − p wf ) k ro @ s wi h o μw Bw
μ o B o ⎡⎢ l n ⎛⎜ re r ⎞⎟ − 3 4 + s ⎤⎥ where h o , h w = fn (S w )
⎣ ⎝ w ⎠ ⎦

qw =
(
0 . 00708 k kr rw @ s or hw p − p wf )
μ w B w ⎡⎢ l n ⎛⎜ re r ⎞⎟ − 3 4 + s ⎤⎥ k rg @ sorg h g μ o Bo
⎣ ⎝ w ⎠ ⎦ GOR = R s + ⋅
k ro @ Sg = 0 ho μ g Bg
Gas: where h o , h g = fn (S g )

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.26
 Multiphase Flow, Three Phases Present

ƒ Oil, gas and water present in same rock

volume (i.e. So, Sg, Sw)
Impact on Kro and Productivity?
ƒ Two Phase Relative Permeability Tests
– Water – Oil: Krow and Krw as a fn(Sw)
– Gas – Oil: Krog and Krg as a fn (Sg)
ƒ For a Given Saturation Distribution
– Krw Determined from Sw
– Krg Determined from Sg
– Kro Function of Both Sw and Sg (i.e. Krow and Krog)

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.27
 Three Phase Oil Relative Permeability

ƒ Impacts Oil Productivity

ƒ Used in Simulation Models
ƒ Several Alternatives Available
– Stone 1 and Stone 2
– Saturation Weighted
– Several Other Methods/Modifications
ƒ Example of Saturation Weighted Approach:

k rog ∗ S g + k row ∗ (S w − S wirr )

k ro −3 phase =
S g + (S w − S wirr )

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.28
 FLUID FLOW:
WELL PRODUCTIVITY

Gas Flow
 Gas Well Deliverability Testing

ƒ 3 Alternative Testing Procedures

– Back Pressure Test
– Isochronal Test
– Modified Isochronal Test

ƒ 2 Type of Analysis
– Rawlins and Schellhardt Equation
– Laminar Inertial Turbulent (LIT)

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.30
 Traditional Back-Pressure Test
Also called a standard 4 Point Test or Flow after Flow Test

Flow at a constant rate until BHFP stabilizes

(Less than 1% change in 15 minutes)

Then change rate and let well re-stabilize at another FBHP

Repeat for 4 rates and then analyze the relationship of

Rate versus Stabilized Pressure

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.31
 Back Pressure Test
Rawlins and Schellhardt Equation
Empirical relationship

( )
p = Shut - in pressure
2 n
p = Flowing BHP
f
Q=C p − p 2
f
AOFP = Abs. Open Flow Potential
log-log plot

• Stabilized (pss) flow required (tDA for <1%error) pf = 0

• Used to estimate (extrapolate) deliverability
• n=1 laminar flow, n=0.5 turbulent flow p 2 − pf2 1
• Plot assumed not to change with declining n=
slope
reservoir pressure 0 .5 ≤ n ≤ 1
• Significant test time due to pss requirement per
flow period) AOFP
Q

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.32
 Deliverability Testing
ƒ Considerations for Rawlins and Schellhardt
Analysis
– m(p) pressure transform preferred - at high rates ΔP2
analysis will tend to decrease n (act more turbulent)
– Bottomhole pressure measurements preferred over
wellhead. Analyzing wellhead data without
conversion to bottomhole conditions includes tubing
hydraulics in the analysis. An n of 0.5 likely indicates
a tubing restricted well. Better to analyze reservoir
and tubing performance separately then recombine to
a wellhead pressure curve.
– Layered no crossflow systems can exhibit n < 1 even
though all flow is laminar.
Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.33
 Deliverability Testing

ƒ Laminar Inertial Turbulent (LIT) Analysis

ƒ Also know as Houpert Equation
ƒ Identical to Forcheimer Equation
m( p ) i − m( p ) wf = aq + bq 2
Δm( p )
= a + bq
q
Δm(p) Δp 2
Plot or versus q on Cartesian paper
q q
Slope equals b, intercept equals a
Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.34
 LIT Analysis

b = slope
P2/q

a = intercept

Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.35
 LIT Analysis
ƒ Can be used with isochronal and
modified isochronal data
ƒ Like C from Rawlins and Schellhardt, “a”
coefficient changes with time until
stabilization - so use pss data to
calculate “a”
ƒ If b = o, flow is all laminar. If b > o,
then there is non-Darcy pressure drop.
ƒ If b = o may want to compare with
Rawlins and Schellhardt analysis
Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.36
 Isochronal Test
• Reduces overall test time
• Isochronal transient flow periods
• Same rinv per flow period
• t> 4*end of WBS or 100 ft rinv
• Intermediate build-up to p
Q (BU’s may not be of equal length!)
• Followed by extended flow to pss
• Avoids flowing to pss at all rates
• Assume pss & transient slopes are equal
• C must be calculated from pss line
t
log-log plot

p pss
2
p p − p2wf
Transient

t Reservoir Engineering Q
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.37
 Modified Isochronal Test

• Further reduces overall test time

Q compared to the Isochronal Test
• Flow and build-up periods have same
duration
• Flow rates MUST be in increasing
t sequence
• Previous final closed-in pressure is used
to approximate p for next flow period
p
• Still requires extended flow period to pss
p • Proved to be an excellent approximation
to the true Isochronal Test

Reservoir Engineering
t Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.38
Using Gas Well Deliverability Results
pi

p5 year Lift curve

(tubing performance)

p10 year
1 hour
10 hours
100 hours

pss

Flowrate
Reservoir Engineering
Fluid Flow: Well Productivity 7.39