Literature review

Gilbert (1954) was the first to propose well analysis with the use of inflow
performance relationship where he determined the IPR for different wells on
a periodic basis at different inflow and reservoir conditions which indicates
the productivity behavior of a well and determines the feasibility of
producing that well.
Muskat & Evinger (1942) observed that when pressure drops below bubble
point pressure, IPR deviates from that of a simple straight line relationship
which shows that the straight line IPR is only valid for single phase flow or
solution gas drive reservoirs. The various IPR correlations that came into
existence after then tried to address this problem.
Vogel (1968) introduced empirical relationships for the determination of oil
flow rate, and this relationship normalized for ideal absolute flow potential
and it can also be referred to as backpressure equation. It is used in two
phase reservoirs when reservoir pressure is less than bubble point pressure.
In this model the IPR relationship can be formulated if either the absolute
flow potential and reservoir pressure are known or if the reservoir pressure
and flow rate corresponding the bottomhole pressure are known.
The relationship which introduces dimensionless flow rate and pressure is
shown in equation 3.
2

[ ] [ ]

qo
P
P
=10.2 wf 0.8 wf
qomax
Pr
Pr

(1)

The bottomhole pressure is gotten from downhole gauges and the reservoir
pressure is derived from buildup tests and they are measured in psig. The
equation is also valid for water production; hence the dimensionless flow rate
ql
is in this form qlmax , where ql =q +q in cases where the water cut is
o

greater than 0.97, which makes it suitable for water production.

Vogel method can be used in both saturated and under-saturated reservoirs
in combination with the straight line IPR. The major disadvantage of Vogel
method is its sensitivity to the match point i.e. the stabilized flow test data
points used in generating the IPR curve. Also, the IPR relation is independent
of skin factor, which makes it inapplicable to damaged and stimulated wells
and also reservoirs with high viscosity fluids. Another disadvantage is that it
doesnt take the bubble point into consideration, and cannot be used to

forecast future flow rates. Also its a good match using actual field
performance but deviates at later stages of the reservoir life hereby affecting
the prediction of IPR curve in the case of solution gas drive reservoirs due to
the amount of free gas at later life of well.
Standing (1970) extended Vogels work and proposed the concept of flow
efficiency which helps to relate the IPR relationship to damaged and
stimulated wells. Flow efficiency which is a function of reservoir pressure is
the ratio of the ideal drawdown of the reservoir pressures to the actual
drawdown i.e. as shown in the equation 4 below:
F . E=

Ideal drawdown
actual drawdown

Pr PwfI
Pr Pwf

(2)
Pr

Where,

= reservoir pressure

Pwf = bottomhole pressure of undamaged well (ideal well condition)

Pwf

= bottomhole pressure of damaged well

In cases when F.E = 1, this means the well is in its ideal state, i.e.
undamaged well, also when F.E >1 or F.E <1, then the well is stimulated or
damaged respectively.
Flow efficiency can also be calculated using well testing methods to get the
eq. 5 below,
F . E=

ln t D 0.80907
pD(s=0)
=
pD (s)
ln t D 0.80907+2 s

(3)
Where,

pD=

The values of

kh( PiP wf )
141.2 qB

p D' s

and

and

tD =

0.000264 kt
Ct r 2w

t D s can be obtained from appropriate curves or

well test information and other available reservoir parameters.

Standing eventually proposed this relationship that relates the ideal
bottomhole pressure to the actual drawdown of the damaged well, as a
function of flow efficiency to the dimensionless flow rate, eq. 4
PIwf =F . E(Pr Pwf )

(4)

Standing rewrote Vogels IPR to,

2

[ ] [ ]

qo
PI
PI
=10.2 wf 0.8 wf
qomax
Pr
Pr

(5)

However, for high F.E values and low pressures, the IPR predicts a lower rate
with lower values of bottomhole pressures which is contrary to reality
therefore limiting its use to damaged wells only. It cannot be used for
stimulated wells.
Standing (1970) also extended Vogels work in order to predict future IPRs,
where he introduced productivity index in the form;
J=

{ [ ]}

q omax
P wf
1+ 0.8
Pr
Pr

(6)

And also at zero drawdown, the productivity index is related as;

J p=1.8

Where

[ ]
q omax
Pr
J p

(7)

and

J f

are the present productivity index and future

productivity index respectively at zero drawdown

predicted from

J p

J f

with the relation in eq. 8.

o B o
K ro / f

o B o
K ro / p

J f =J p
K ro

can be estimated and

(8)

is the measure of the relative permeability to oil of the formation and

in cases where the data is unavailable, eq. 9 is used.

Pr

J p=J p

(9)

However, Standings correlation requires reliable permeability information

and also requires material balance calculations to predict oil saturation of
future average reservoir pressure.
Fetkovich (1973) applied the principle of multipoint backpressure tests which
is commonly used to determine the deliverability of gas wells to oil wells
whose reservoir pressure where greater than and also less than bubble point
pressure.
He proposed a linear relationship of oil mobility as a function of reservoir
pressure which is seen in the illustration below:

Fig. 1. Mobility-pressure behavior for a solution gas drive reservoir (After Fetkovich)

Fetkovich also proposed the following relationship between oil mobility

function and reservoir pressure:
k ro ( So )
=x Pr
o Bo
(10)
Where

is a constant.

He eventually concluded from these tests that as in gas wells, the ratepressure relationship in an oil well is of the form:
q o=c [ P2r P2wf ]

(11)

Equation 11 is the oil and gas deliverability equation with n values ranging
from 0.5 to 1.000 and for n<1, but for n=1, this shows the flow is a nonDarcy flow and it affects the quality of the backpressure test and he also
assumed that the value of n would not change with decline in reservoir
pressure.
He proposed an empirical relationship which makes use of the absolute open
flow potential and also the deliverability exponent. The empirical relationship
is shown in the equation below;
qo

2 n

[ ( )]

P
= 1 wf
qomax
PR

(12)

It should be borne in mind that the linear relationship between oil mobility
and reservoir pressure isnt described accurately which causes errors in the
IPR prediction and also the backpressure exponent n does not take into
consideration changes in average reservoir pressure.
Wiggins (1991) et al (1992) developed a generalized equation for IPR
prediction with the use of a simulator to generate curves. This equation can
be applicable to homogeneous bounded reservoir and also three phase
reservoir and it assumes that the reservoir initially existed at bubble point
pressure.
The equations started with basic principle of mass balance with pseudosteady state solution to develop the IPR stated below:
C1 Pwf C 1 Pwf 2 C1 P wf 3 C1 Pwf
=1+
+
+
+
qomax
D Pr
D Pr
D Pr
D Pr
qo

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Where C1 , C2

, , Cn

(13)

and D coefficients are determined based on oil

mobility function and its derivatives at reservoir pressure.

Wiggins generated relationships by using four sets of relative permeability
data as basic input to develop equations to predict future performance by
providing expressions to estimate future maximum flow rates and he
expressed them as a function of average pressure ( Pr ) f , current maximum

( q omax ) p as well as water flow rate ( q wmax ) p .the relationships are

oil flow rate

shown in the equations 16 and 17 below:

[
[

( )]

( Qomax ) f =( Qomax ) p 0.15

Pr f
P
+0.84 rf
Prp
Pr p

( Qwmax ) f =( Q wmax) p 0.15

P rf
P
+ 0.84 r f
Pr p
Pr p

(14)

( )]
2

(15)

Wiggins assumed a polynomial relationship between oil mobility and

reservoir pressure and the model is complicated in practice because of the
requirement of oil mobility representation and its derivatives as a function of
reservoir pressure which is difficult in application.

Klins and Clark (1993) proposed an IPR relationship in which the factord was
introduced to improve the predictive capability of Vogel IPR relationship.

[ ]

qo

d= 0.28+0.72

( )]

[ ]

P
P
=10.295 wf 0.705 wf
qomax
Pr
Pr

Pr
( 1.24+ 0.001 Pb )
Pb

(16)

, where Pb is the bubble point pressure.

Klins and Clark (1993) developed empirical correlations that correlate the
changes in Fetkovichs performance coefficient C and the flow exponent n
with the decline in the reservoir pressure. They observed that exponent n
changes considerably with reservoir pressure. Klins and Clark concluded that
the future values of ( n )f and C at ( Pr ) f pressure are related to the values
of n and C at the bubble point pressure.
Wiggins et al (1996) proposed general polynomial form for the oil mobility
function which led to the following IPR:
qo
qomax

=1+ 1

Pwf
P 2
P 3
P
+ 2 wf + 3 wf + 4 wf
Pr
Pr
Pr
Pr

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(17)

Equation 18 is similar to equation 15, and the coefficient

is determined

using oil mobility function and its derivatives all taken at average reservoir
pressure.
However, Wiggins IPR relationship requires mobility derivation as a function
of Pr which is very difficult in practice.
Sukarno and Wisnogroho (1995) proposed a method of developing IPR based
on simulation results that attempts to account for the flow efficiency (F.E)
variation caused by rate dependent skin.

( )}

qo
Pwf
Pwf 2
P
=F . E 10.1489
0.4416
0.4093 wf
qomax
Pr
Pr
Pr

( )

( )

(18)

The flow efficiency is also derived analytically as a function of reservoir and

wellbore pressures which make this method to be prone to errors.
De Castillo (2003) proposed some relations which he regarded as an
approximate result for the case of oil flow in a solution-gas drive reservoir
system .He assumed a condition of linear relationship between oil mobility
and pressure (Fetkovich 1973), and he stated this condition mathematically
as:
ko
=a+2 bp
o Bo
(19)
He further developed the following IPR relation:
qo
qomax

=1v

Pwf
P
(1v) wf
Pr
Pr

( )

( )

(20)
v=
And

1
d
1+
P
e r

()

, where e and d are established from presumed behavior

of the oil mobility profile.

ko
However, in a single phase condition of constant mobility i.e. o Bo =constant ,
equation 21 reverts back to
index.

q=J ( Pr Pwf )

with J being the productivity

It should be borne in mind that these relations cannot be directly inferred

due to their dependence on oil mobility profile which has a linear relationship
with reservoir pressure and the assumptions made hereby reduces the
accuracy of the model.
Fattah et al. (2012) developed a new IPR model using a single, 3D radial
model for shape investigation and determination of an empirical relationship
between oil mobility and reservoir pressure with the use of MORE simulators
by using 47 actual field cases in addition to simulated tests. This relationship
is;

[ ]
k ro
o Bo

=
Pr

1
x . Pr + y

(21)
Where x and y are constants that are established from pressure and oil
mobility profile behavior. The IPR generated from this correlation is;
qo
qomax

=1

Where

ln ( . P wf +1 )
ln ( . Pr +1 )

x
y

(22)

which is the oil IPR parameter which is not a constant but

rather varies with changes in average reservoir pressure.

Fattahs IPR relationship cannot be used for low pressure reservoirs that is, at
reservoir pressures below 1000psi, this relationship cannot be used.