SPE *******

Furuis IPR Model Correction and its Application in Horizontal Well

Cresting Control & Inflow Control Device Installation
Kareem Lateef, A. SPE* (King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals);
& Omeke James Emeka, SPE.
Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 36th Annual SPE International Technical Conference and Exhibition in Abuja, Nigeria, August 6-8, 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, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not
necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial
Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes 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 acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836,
U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
The problem of reservoir heterogeneity has made the continued use of Inflow Performance Relation (IPR)
models developed on the assumption of homogeneity impractical. Furui in 2003 (and previously Butler in
1994) solved the problem using fully penetrating well idea so that the model can be applied to different
sections of the reservoir.
This paper corrects two errors in Furuis model. The first error is the use of arithmetic mean of radii to
evaluate the elliptic surface area of the well when an anisotropic reservoir is converted into an isotropic
equivalent. This was corrected using an equivalent cylindrical surface area. The second error is the use
of a planar isobaric surface at the end of the radial flow region instead of a circular one. These
corrections gave the model a better performance-average of 99% against 96% by the original version,
when compared with line source solution obtained by using Green function.
Equating the hydrostatic and viscous pressure differences between the well and the water oil contact
(WOC), a cresting equation that predicts the critical production rate and pressure drawdown for each
zone needed to prevent water (or gas) encroachment was developed.
Based the IPR and cresting equation, this work presents a mathematical concept on installation of Inflow
Control Device (ICD) so that production from each zone is designed according to its requirements.

Introduction
Cresting impacts the worth of a well in two ways. Besides lowering the oil production rate and eventually
the recovery, it also impose additional cost of treating produced water and exposes the production tubing
to the corrosive action of the water. As a result cresting has thus considerably drawn attention of
production and reservoir engineers. Large amount of effort has been dispensed at developing a good
model to accurately describe cresting in horizontal wells. All the methods rely on one idea- predicting the
critical rate of production below which the pressure drop will not be sufficient to initiate the movement of
unwanted fluids. Since the idea require a connection between production rate and pressure drop, the
inflow performance relation becomes an important tool in this quest.

Literature review
Efros (1963) proposed a critical flow rate based on the assumption that the critical rate is nearly
independent of effective drainage radius. His correlation also neglected the effect of vertical mobility.
Water cresting
2

Qoc =0.0783 10

k h ( w o ) [ h( hD b ) ] L

o Bo y e + y 2e +

( )]
h2
3

Gas cresting
2

Q oc =0.0783 10

k h ( o g ) [ h( hD t ) ] L

o Bo y e + y e +

( )]
2

h
3

1 '' <702 y e <4 L

Where

''=

( yh ) kk
e

v
h

Chaperson (1986) presented a simple estimate of critical rate under a steady or pseudo-steady state flow
condition in an isotropic formation.
Water cresting

Qoc =0.0783 10

k h [ h( hDb ) ]
L q c
w o )
(
ye
o B o

( )

Gas cresting

Qoc =0.0783 10

k h [ h( hDt ) ]
L q c
o g )
(
ye
o Bo

( )

Karcher (1986) proposed a correlation that is very similar to Efros equation.

Water cresting
2

Qoc =0.0783 10

k h ( w o ) ( hB ) L
o Bo ( 2 y e )

[ ( )]
1

1 hB
24 y e

Gas cresting
2

Q oc =0.0783 10

k h ( o g ) ( hT ) L
o B o (2 ye )

[ ( )]
1

1 hT
24 y e

Where

B=hD bT =hDt
Joshi (1988) suggest the following relationship for determining critical oil flow rate in horizontal wells
Water cresting

( w o ) k h [ h ( hDb )
2

Qoc =0.0246 10

o Bo ln

r eh
r 'w

( )

Gas cresting

Qoc =0.0246 10

2
2
( o g ) k h [ h ( hDt ) ]

o B o ln

Where

r eh
r'w

( )

L
(
2a )
2r
L
r' =
a=( )[ 0.5+ 0.25+ (
2
L )]

L
h ( )
[1+1( 2a ) ]( 2 r )
r eh

0.5

eh

h
L

r eh =

43560 A

All these models relied on IPR equations derived by looking at the plan view of a horizontal well and as
such failed to consider the upper and lower no flow boundaries on the steady state equations.
Butler (1994) and Furui et. al. (2003) solved this problem by deriving a model from the side view of the
well, looking in the axial direction of the well and assuming that fluids produced from the well travel
horizontally from the outer boundaries and radially in the vicinity of the well.

Butlers IPR
3

7.08 10 k h L( P e P wf )

Q=

[ (

o B o I ani ln

h I ani
Yb
+
1.14 I ani
h
r w ( I ani +1 )

Furuis IPR
3

Q=

7.08 10 kL( Pe Pwf )

[(

o B o ln

h I ani
Yb
+
1.224+ s
r w ( I ani +1 ) h I ani

Where

k = k v k hI ani =

kh
kv

Sensitivity studies conducted with real well data have shown that Furui and Butlers models match actual
IPR in most case.
Modelling a new IPR.

( kc ) dpdt for anisotropic reservoir .(1)

2 p=

2 p
2 p
dp
k h 2 +k v 2 = c t
for an anisotropic reservoi (2)
dt
x
z
This will give an elliptic isobaric line (equipotential surfaces when

x ' =x

kv kh

k3

z ' =z

kh kv

k 3

k h k v ). To simplify, we substitute

where k = k h k v

Then

kv kh
dx '
=
dx

k3

dz '

dz

kh kv

k 3

Hence,
2

2
2 p
2 p
2 p d x '
2 p dz ' 2
2 p k k
2 p k k
k h 2 +k v 2 =k h '2
+k v ' 2
=k h ' 2 v 3 h + k v '2 h 3 v
x
z
x dx
z dz
x
z
k
k

( )

( )

( )

( )

k v k h 2 p 2 p
dp
+ '2 = c t
3
'2
dt
k
x z

Simplifying our substitution we get,

x ' =x

1
(
)
k4
v

1
4

()

kh

z ' =z

1
(
)
k4
h

( 1)

k v4

So, if we set

I ani=

kh
kv

We have,

x'=

x
z ' =z I ani
I ani

The effect of the transformation is that it replaces our reservoir with an isotropic equivalent with the
vertical measurement scaled up by a factor of square root of Iani while the horizontal measurement is
scaled down by the same factor.

The well bore is also affected and the shape is now an elliptic cylinder. Hence using the perimeter of an
ellipse, the area open to flow at the well bore gives

2 L

((
1
2

rw

I ani

+ ( r w I ani )

Comparing this with the area open to flow for an equivalent cylindrical well bore we have,

2 L r ' w =2 L

((
1
2

rw 2
2
+ ( r w I ani )
I ani

Hence our equivalent well bore radius gives

r ' w =r w

I 2ani +1
.( 3)
2 I ani

For radial flow,

Qo
2 L

h I ani
2

r 'w

pc

dr
k
=
dp
r o Bo p
w

Giving

Q o o Bo
ln
2 kL

h I ani
Q o o Bo
h I ani
2
=
ln
=p c pw .. ( 4 )
2
2 kL
r'w
r w 2 ( I ani +1 )

( )

For the outer part of linear horizontal flow, we use two approaches

1. Assume vertical plane surface at a distance

h I ani
2

from the well bore have the same

h I ani
pressure as the circular equipotential surface of radius
.
2
2. We take the pressure drop from the no-flow boundary to the equipotential surface of radius

h I ani
.
2
For the first case,

yb

I ani

Qo o B o

2 kLh I ani h I

pe

dx= dp
pc

ani

Qo o B o
2 kLh I ani

yb
h I ani

= p e p c .. ( 5 )
2
I ani

Combining equation (4) and (5)

{ (

)}

Q o o B o 1
h I ani
1 yb h
ln
+
= pe pw
2
2 kL
r w 2 ( I ani + 1 ) h I ani 2
Qo
=
p e p w

) (

2 kL

{(

o Bo ln

h I ani

rw

yb
+

2
h I ani 2
2 ( I ani +1 )

)(

)}

.. ( 6 )

For the second case, we take a strip of the reservoir having thickness
centre plane.

dm at a height m above the

 o Bo
4 kL

( (
yb

I ani

Qo

h I ani
2

o Bo
d Qo =
4 kL ( pe pc ) 0
m=0

Qo o B o
=
4 kL ( pe pc )

h I ani
d Qo
m 2
= p e p c
2
dm

( (

dm

yb

I ani

h I ani
m2
2

2 y b 4 y 2bh 2 I 2ani ) +2 y b tan1

(
2

h I ani
4 y 2bh 2 I 2ani

4 y h I
2
b

2 2
ani

Q o o Bo

4 kL

(2 y b 4 y 2bh2 I 2ani ) +2 y b tan1

2

4 y h
2
b

2 2
ani

Combining this with equation (5), we have,

Q o o Bo
{ RC + LC }= pe p w
2 kL
Where

h I ani
4 y 2b h2 I 2ani

= pe pc ..(7)

RC=ln

h I ani

r w 2 ( I 2ani +1 )

)
4 y 2b h2 I 2ani

LC =

(2 y b 4 y 2bh2 I 2ani ) +4 y b tan1

h I ani
4 y 2bh2 I 2ani

Qo
2 kL
=
.( 8 )
p e p w o Bo { RC + LC }
Recognizing that

W =2 y b
We can write

W 2h2 I 2ani

LC =

(W W 2h 2 I 2ani ) +2W tan1

h I ani
W 2h2 I 2ani

Converting to field units we have,

Qo
=
p e p w

0.00708 kL

{(

o Bo ln

h I ani

rw

yb
+

2
h I ani 2
2 ( I ani +1 )

)(

Qo
0.00708 kL
=
(8 a)
p e p w o Bo { RC + LC }
To account for the effect of skin we have

)}

.. ( 6 a )

Qo
=
p e p w

0.00708 kL

{(

o Bo ln

h I ani

rw

yb
+
+s
h I ani 2
2 ( I 2ani +1 )

)(

.. ( 6 b )

Qo
0.00708 kL
=
(8 b)
p e p w o Bo { RC + LC+ s }

Comparison with Butlers and Furuis models

Horizontal Effective Well Length(Le),ft

3343

Assumed Drainage Width (2Yb or W),ft

8700

Wellbore Radius(rw),ft

0.26

Effective Drainage Radius(re),ft

3170

Net Pay Thickness(h),ft

180

Reservoir Pressure(Pe),psi

3000

Wellbore Flowing Pressure(Pwf),psi

2666

Horizontal Permeability (kh),md

784

0.62Vertical Permeability(kv),md

2.5

Formation Volume Factor(Bo),resbbl/STB

1.34

Skin Factor(s)

-3.5

Fluid Viscosity (o), cp

0.62

Actual Productivity Index (PI), bbl/day/psi

2018.8

Using Butlers IPR,

3

7.08 10 k h L

J=

[ (

o B o I ani ln

I ani=

h I ani
Yb
+
1.14 I ani +s
h
r w ( I ani +1 )

kh
784
=
=17.71
kv
2.5

7.08 10 k h L=7.08 10 784 3343=18556.0570

I ani ln

h I ani
180 17.71
=17.71 ln
=114.8512
r w ( I ani +1 )
0.26 ( 17.71+1 )

Y b 4350
=
=75.9218
h
180
1.14 I ani + s=1.14 17.713.5=23.6894
J=

18556.0570
=133.7 STB/day / psi
0.62 1.34 [ 114.8512+75.921823.6894 ]

Using Furuis IPR,

J=

7.08 103 kL
h I ani
Yb
o B o ln
+
1.224+ s
r w ( I ani +1 ) h I ani

[(

k = k h k v =k= 784 2.5=44.27

7.08 103 kL=7.08 103 44.27 3343=1047.8018

ln

h I ani
180 17.71
=ln
=6.4851
r w ( I ani +1 )
0.26 ( 17.71+1 )

) (

Yb
4350
=
=4.2869
h I ani 180 17.71
1.224 +s=1.2243.5=4.7240

J=

1047.8018
=208.5 STB / day / psi
0.62 1.34 [ 6.4851+4.28694.7240 ]

Using Equation 6b
3

7.08 10 kL

J=

{(

o B o ln

h I ani

r w 2 ( I 2ani +1 )

)(
+

yb
+s
h I ani 2

7.08 103 kL=7.08 103 44.27 3343=1047.8018

ln

h I ani

2
ani

r w 2 ( I +1

)) (
=ln

180 17.71
0.26 2 ( 17.712+1 )

=6.1919

yb
4350

=
=2.7162
h I ani 2
180 17.71 2

J=

)(

1047.8018
=233.2 STB/day / psi
0.62 1.34 { 6.1919+2.71623.5 }

Using Equation 8b

J=

0.00708 kL
o B o { RC + LC+ s }

7.08 103 kL=7.08 103 44.27 3343=1047.8018

RC=ln

h I ani

2
ani

r w 2 ( I +1 )

) (
=ln

180 17.71
0.26 2 ( 17.712 +1 )

=6.1919

W 2h2 I 2ani

LC=

(W W h I
2

2 2
ani

) +2W tan

h I ani
W 2h2 I 2ani

1047.8
=220.9 STB /day / psi
0.8308 {6.1919+3.01733.5 }

8094.93
( 87008094.93 ) +17400 tan

3187.8
8094.93

=3.0173

Note that tan1

3187.8
( 8094.93
) is evaluatedradians

Applying the idea to cresting

The minimum pressure drop between the well bore and the WOC to initiate migration of water into the oil
zone is the pressure drop between the well bore and the equipotential surface whose radius is
so we have,

0.433 ( w 0 )
pc pw =

( h2 ) =0.00347 ( ) h
w

62.4

From Furui IPR,

((
ln

pc pw =

[(
ln

))

h I ani
( Pe Pwf )
r w ( I ani +1 )

h I ani
Y b
+
1.224
r w ( I ani +1 ) h I ani

Hence the maximum allowable pressure drawdown gives,

[(
ln

pe pw =0.00347

h I ani
Y b
+
1.224 ( w 0 ) h
r w ( I ani +1 ) h I ani

h I ani
ln
r w ( I ani + 1 )

( 9)

Similarly from Butlers IPR,

[(
ln

pe pw =0.00347

h I ani
Y b
+
1.14 ( w 0 ) h
r w ( I ani +1 ) h I ani

)
(

h I ani
ln
r w ( I ani +1 )

(10 )

h I ani
2

From our first IPR equation we have,

[(
ln

pe pw =0.00347

h I ani

2
ani

r w 2 ( I +1 )
ln

Yb
( ) h
h I ani 2 w 0

h I ani

r w 2 ( I ani + 1 )

(11)

From the second IPR equation we have

pe pw =0.00347

[ RC + LC ] ( w 0 ) h
RC

( 12 )

From this we can determine the critical rate oil production and that will give

Qoc =( pe pw ) J
For Furui and Butler, we have

Qoc =

0.0246 103 ( w 0 ) kLh

h I ani
o Bo ln
r w ( I ani +1 )

( 13 )

For our two equations, we have

3

Qoc =

0.0246 10 ( w 0 ) kLh
o Bo ln

h I ani

r w 2 ( I ani +1 )

.. ( 14 )

Skin due to formation damage around the well bore also affects the oil critical rate and maximum
allowable pressure drawdown. So taking skin into consideration we have,
Equation 9 gives

[(
ln

pe pw =0.00347

h I ani
Y b
+
1.224+ s ( w 0 ) h
r w ( I ani +1 ) h I ani

h I ani
ln
+s
r w ( I ani + 1 )

(9b)

Equation 10 gives

[(
ln

pe pw =0.00347

h I ani
Y b
+
1.14+ s ( w 0 ) h
r w ( I ani +1 ) h I ani

)
(

h I ani
ln
+s
r w ( I ani + 1 )

( 10 b )

Equation 11 gives

[(
ln

pe pw =0.00347

h I ani

r w 2 ( I ani +1 )
ln

Yb
+ s ( w 0 ) h
h I ani 2

h I ani

r w 2 ( I 2ani + 1)

(11 b)

+s

Equation 12 becomes

pe pw =0.00347

[ RC + LC+ s ] ( w 0 ) h
RC + s

. ( 12 b )
Equation 13, gives

Qoc =

0.0246 103 ( w 0 ) kLh

((

) )

h I ani
o B o ln
+s
r w ( I ani +1 )

Equation 14 becomes

( 13 b )

Qoc =

0.0246 103 ( w 0 ) kLh

((

o Bo ln

h I ani

r w 2 ( I 2ani + 1 )

))

.. ( 14 b )

+s

To use the equation for gas conning calculation, we simply replace the water- oil density difference with
gas oil density difference.

The design of ICD(s) and ICV(s)

These equipments are used to control inflow from different sections of a horizontal well in order to achieve
effective sweep of the drainage volume. Proper use of the equipments requires the knowledge of critical
flow rate and maximum allowable pressure draw down in the different sections of the reservoir. While and
ICV can be adjusted continually during the life of the well, an ICD cannot. Hence it is important that the
device is properly designed from the beginning of production.

An ICD/ICV can be designed as follows:

1. Determine the critical production rate per unit length of the well from different sections of the
reservoir.
2. Select about 80% of the minimum value of the rates calculated in (1.) in order to allow for
inaccuracies in the delineation of water-oil and gas-oil contact.
3. Using the value in (2), determine the corresponding production rate from other section using a
uniform production rate per unit length (uniform flux).
4. Convert this production rates to pressure drawdown(s) for other sections.
5. Calculate the additional drawdown(s) required through the openings of the ICD/ICV.
6. Calculate opening size needed for the pressure drop at the calculated flow rates.

Example:
Horizontal section is 10,000'
Permeability variation is as follow:
Section 1: 500' Kh= 20 md
Section 2: 500' Kh= 200 md
Section 3: 1000' Kh= 50 md
Section 4: 1500' Kh= 150 md
Section 5: 1000' Kh= 40 md
Section 6: 1500' Kh= 10 md
Section 7: 200' Kh= 400 md
Section 8: 800' Kh= 80 md
Section 9: 400' Kh= 60 md
Section 10: 600' Kh= 40 md

Section 11: 300' Kh= 600 md

Section 12: 700' Kh= 70 md
Section 13: 250' Kh= 50 md
Section 14: 450' Kh= 35 md
Section 15: 300' Kh= 15 md
Anisotropic factor Kv/Kh=0.1
The reservoir thickness = 200'
The reservoir width =2500
The wellbore radius is 6"
Oil viscosity = 2cp
Formation Volume Factor = 1.2STB/bbl
Oil API = 45.4o
Solution.
Critical rate per unit length
3

Q oc 0.0246 10 ( w 0 ) kh 0.0246 10 ( w 0 ) k h h
=
=
L
h I ani
h I ani
o Bo ln
I ani o Bo ln
r w 2 ( I 2ani +1 )
r w 2 ( I 2ani +1 )

Among the parameters needed to calculate the critical rate per unit length, only the horizontal
permeability varies from one section to the other. The region with the smallest critical rate per unit length
is the region with the lowest horizontal permeability.

I ani=

0=

kh
1
=
=10=3.162
kv
0.1

141.5 w
141.5 62.4
lb
=
=49.92 3
( API +131.5 ) 45.4 +131.5
ft

3
Q oc 0.0246 10 ( w 0 ) k h h 0.0246 103 ( 62.449.92 ) 200 k h
=
=
=0.004571k h STB/ Dft
L
200 3.162
h I ani
3.162 2 1.2 ln
I ani o Bo ln
2
0.5 2 ( 10+1 )
r w 2 ( I ani +1 )

The minimum value of

( QL )
oc

min

Q oc
L

occur at the section having 10md permeability

=0.00457110=0.04571 STB/ Dft

With 80% of this value, we calculate the pressure drop through the reservoir in other section when they
are producing at the same rate per unit length.

pe pw =141.2 I ani o B o

RC=ln

h I ani

2
ani

r w 2 ( I +1 )

Q oc [ RC + LC ]
L
kh

( )

=ln

=5.597
( 0.52003.162
2 ( 10+1 ) )

W 2h2 I 2ani

LC =

(W W h I
2

2 2
ani

) +2W tan

141.2 3.162 21.2 0.036571

h I ani
2

2 2
ani

W h I

1897.37

( 20001897.37 ) +4000 tan

( 5.597+3.705 )
kh

364.5
kh

We can now tabulate what each section will produce and the corresponding pressure drop.

Secti
on

Lengt
h(ft)

Permeability
(md)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

500
500
1000
1500
1000
1500
200
800
400
600
300
700
250
450

20
200
50
150
40
10
400
80
60
40
600
70
50
35

Allocated
production rate
(STB/day)

Qo=0.036571 L
18.29
18.29
36.57
54.86
36.57
54.86
7.31
29.26
14.63
21.94
10.97
25.60
9.14
16.46

Pressure drop
(psia)

pe pw =

364.5
kh

18.23
1.82
7.29
2.43
9.11
36.45
0.91
4.56
6.08
9.11
0.61
5.21
7.29
10.41

632.46
1897.97

=3.705

15

300

10.97

15

24.30

Using section #6 with the highest pressure drop across the reservoir, we can now calculated the
additional pressure drop required across the ICV/ICD

Section

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Length(ft
)

Permeability
(md)

500
500
1000
1500
1000
1500
200
800
400
600
300
700
250
450
300

20
200
50
150
40
10
400
80
60
40
600
70
50
35
15

Pressure drop
(psia)

Allocated production
rate (STB/day)

Qo=0.036571 L

pe pw =

18.29
18.29
36.57
54.86
36.57
54.86
7.31
29.26
14.63
21.94
10.97
25.60
9.14
16.46
10.97

364.5
kh

Required pressure
drop across valves
(psia)

36.45( p e p w )

18.23
1.82
7.29
2.43
9.11
36.45
0.91
4.56
6.08
9.11
0.61
5.21
7.29
10.41
24.30

18.23
34.63
29.16
34.02
27.34
0.00
35.54
31.89
30.37
27.34
35.84
31.24
29.16
26.04
12.15

The diameter of the valve required for the required pressure drop at the calculated production rates is

q2 L
d=K
P

( )

0.25

where K is a function of :
Reynolds number

Ratio of restriction diameter pipe diameter .

For designe problems , a value of k =0.033917psia 0.25 /

bbl
day

0.5

( )

may be used .

If the specific gravity of the fluid is known. In this case 0.8, we can calculate the opening sizes

Allocated production
rate (STB/day)

Qo=0.036571 L

Section

Required pressure drop

across valves
(psia)

36.45( p e p w )
18.29
18.29
36.57
54.86
36.57
54.86
7.31
29.26
14.63
21.94
10.97
25.60
9.14
16.46
10.97

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

18.23
34.63
29.16
34.02
27.34
0.00
35.54
31.89
30.37
27.34
35.84
31.24
29.16
26.04
12.15

Required Valve opening

d (inches)

q2 L
d=K
P

( )

0.25

0.06639
0.05655
0.08347
0.09837
0.08483
Full opening
0.03552
0.07302
0.05226
0.06571
0.04342
0.06865
0.04173
0.05761
0.05690

Even in a case where we are producing above the critical rate, this concept can also be applied to ensure
uniform flux and simultaneous water breakthrough along the entire length of the horizontal section.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The equations so derived are applicable to water and gas cresting for a well that is centrally
located with respect to the reservoir boundary.
2. The equations are based on steady state model, so gives the delta P between the wellbore and
the boundary
3. More works need to be done to account for eccentricity with respect to boundaries.
4. Butlers IPR should be used in the form

Q=

7.08 103 k h L( P e Pwf )

[ (

o B o I ani ln

h I ani
Yb
+
+ ( s1.14 ) I ani
h
r w ( I ani +1 )

REFERENCES
1. Bournazel, C., and Jeanson, B., Fast Water Coning Evaluation, SPE Paper 3628 presented at
the SPE 46th Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans, Oct.36, 1971.
2. Calhoun, John, Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering. Norman, OK: The University of
Oklahoma Press, 1960.
3. Chaney, P. E. et al., How to Perforate Your Well to Prevent Water and Gas Coning, OGJ, May
1956, p. 108.
4. Chaperson, I., Theoretical Study of Coning Toward Horizontal and Vertical Wells in Anisotropic
Formations: Subcritical and Critical Rates, SPE Paper 15377, SPE 61 st Annual Fall Meeting,
New Orleans, LA, Oct. 58, 1986.
5. Butler, R.M.: Horizontal Wells for the Recovery of Oil, Gas and Bitumen, Petroleum Monograph,
Petroleum Society of CIM (1994) 2.
6. Furui, K., Zhu, D. and Hill, A.D.: A Rigorous Formation Damage Skin Factor and Reservoir Inflow
Model for a Horizontal Well, SPEPF (August 2003) 151.
7. Babu, D.K. and Odeh A.S.: Productivity of a Horizontal Well, SPE Reservoir Engineering
(November 1989) 417.
8. Penmatcha, V.R. and Aziz K.: Comprehensive Reservoir/Wellbore Model for Horizontal Wells,
SPEJ (September 1999) 224.
9. Brigham, W.E.: Discussion of Productivity of a Horizontal Well, SPE Reservoir Engineering (May
1990) 254.

10. Joshi, S. D., Augmentation of Well Productivity Using Slant and Horizontal Wells, J. of
Petroleum Technology, June 1988, pp. 729739.
11. Joshi, S., Horizontal Well Technology. Tulsa, OK: Pennwell Publishing Company, 1991.
12. Ozkan, E., and Raghavan, R., Performance of Horizontal Wells Subject to Bottom Water Drive,
SPE Paper 18545, presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Charleston, West Virginia,
Nov. 24, 1988.
13. Papatzacos, P., Herring, T. U., Martinsen, R., and Skjaeveland, S. M., Cone Breakthrough Time
for Horizontal Wells, SPE Paper 19822, presented at the 64th SPE Annual Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, Oct.811, 1989.
14. Pirson, S. J., Oil Reservoir Engineering. Huntington, NY: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company,
1977.
15. Schols, R. S., An Empirical Formula for the Critical Oil Production Rate, Erdoel Erdgas, A.,
January 1972, Vol. 88, No. 1, pp. 611.

NOMENCLATURES
''

=Dimensionless half well separation

a=Half major axis of an ellipsoidal drainage volume (ft )
A= Area (Acres)

= Anisotropic factor
B=Vertical separation between the wellthe gas oil contact (ft)

B o=Oil formation volume factor (rb /STB)

D b=Vertical separation between the wellthe water oil contact (ft )
D t =Vertical separation between the wellthe gas oil contact (ft )
h=Reservoir thickness(ft )

L=Horizontal welllength( ft )
k =Geometric mean of verticalhorizontal permeability (md)

k h =Horizontal permeability(md)
k v =Vertical permea bility (md)
3

g =Density of gas(lb/ ft )
3

o= Density of oil(lb / ft )
3

w =Density of water (lb/ft )

Q oc =Critical rate of oil production( STB /day)

q c =Dimensionless critical oil rate

r eh =Effective reservoir radius( ft )
r w =Wellbore radius( ft )
T =Vertical separation between the wellthe water oil contact (ft )
W =Width of thereservior (ft)

y eh=Half reservoir width(ft )