Dynamic Data Analysis - v4.12.

03 - KAPPA 1988-2012

Chapter 12 Well modeling & Performance Analysis - p455/558

12 Well modeling & Performance

Analysis
OH OSF DV

12.A Introduction
The objective of any dynamic data analysis is the best possible understanding of the system
Reservoir / Well. To achieve that, it is absolutely necessary to dissociate the respective
influences of the reservoir side and of the well side. Not only the performance of the system
depends on both, but also the analysis of the reservoir requires being able to correct the data
for the wellbore effect in order to extract the pure reservoir response.
The following paragraph will deals with the well modeling, necessary to correct the pressure
data for depth and to include the wellbore effects in the reservoir analysis.

12.B Inflow Performance Relationship and A.O.F.

The goal of an Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) is to establish a relation between the
flowing pressure and the flowing rate. The Absolute Open Flow (AOF) uses this IPR in order to
estimate the maximum possible rate when the flowing pressure is as low as possible, i.e. at
atmospheric pressure.
Objection: Needless to say the idea of IPR and AOF is an anathema to the purist Pressure
Transient Analyst. Everyone knows that, even in the optimistic case of an infinite reservoir, the
pressure will continue drawing down when we are at constant rate, and the rate will keep
declining when we are at constant flowing pressure. So, from a well testing point of view, this
makes as little sense as the notion of a productivity index.
Objection to objection: Of course this objection is not completely correct. There is a regime
where there is such a relationship and that is Pseudo-Steady State. When PSS is reached the
shape of the pressure profile stabilizes and moves downwards. A relation between the
production and the difference between the average pressure and the flowing pressure can be
established.
Objection to objection to objection: Unfortunately we generally do not wait for PSS to be
reached before performing an IPR, and the conditions under which the data is acquired are,
generally, transient. We therefore look for changes that become small enough to be ignored.
This complete process is therefore not strictly correct.
Objection to objection to objection to objection: This will not be too far out and, in any case, it
has proven to work relatively well in the past, especially for gas reservoirs. In addition, IPR
from PSS models are the best we have to simulate production networks and input in reservoir
simulators where the details of the transient responses are not this important. IPR / AOF are
useful because they give accurate ideas of the performance of the wells, and they are really
the least bad thing to use when we optimize reservoir production.

Dynamic Data Analysis - v4.12.03 - KAPPA 1988-2012

Chapter 12 Well modeling & Performance Analysis - p456/558

12.B.1 The IPR types

Any available method is based on an equation which links the rate and the flowing pressure
drawdown values.
These equation parameters can either be determined by adjusting the IPR curve to measured
well test data set or they can be calculated using empirical equations.

12.B.1.a Straight line Constant IPR:

The constant productivity index (P.I.), only used in oil wells, was during a long time the only
approach to oil IPR. Nowadays this is applicable to undersaturated oil only.
It is the simplest inflow performance relationship where the inflow is directly proportional to
the drawdown.

PI

Q
Pr Pwf

Where:
Pwf

flowing wellbore pressure

liquid flow rate

Pr

reservoir average pressure

It just requires a minimum of two measured rate and pressure values under flowing conditions.

12.B.1.b Darcy Equation

The Darcy IPR describes a linear relationship, where the parameters are calculated from the
reservoir properties. Its equation results directly from the solution of a radial flow around a
well within a circular drainage area of constant external boundary pressure, assuming a
laminar flow.
It requires the knowledge of the well and reservoir drainage area parameters.

Oil case

Pr Pws Q141.2B ln re / rw 0.75 sCA s / kh

Where:
Q

liquid flow rate

permeability

net formation drained thickness

rw

wellbore radius

skin

viscosity

Pws

flowing sandface pressure

Pr

reservoir average pressure

sCa

shape skin

mechanical skin

Dynamic Data Analysis - v4.12.03 - KAPPA 1988-2012

Chapter 12 Well modeling & Performance Analysis - p457/558

Gas case
The equation is expressed in terms of Pseudo pressure m(p):

m( Pr ) m( Pws ) ((1.42248e 6)TQ(ln(re / rw) 0.75 sCA s) QDg) / kh

Where:
Q

gas flow rate

m(p)

pseudo pressure

sCa

shape skin

Dg

Drainage area factor

permeability

hw

perforated interval

net formation drained thickness

drainage area

rw

wellbore radius

gg

gas specific gravity

skin

viscosity

reservoir absolute temperature ( R)

12.B.1.c C&n IPR

Several approaches were made to add the turbulent or the diphasic flow influences, among
which is the C&n approach.
It was first used in gas cases, where the turbulent flow cannot be ignored or neglected, then it
was extended to oil cases.
The measured production rates and their corresponding flowing pressure values are used to
determine the C & n coefficients values.

Gas case
In 1936, Rawlins and Shellhardt published the IPR equation:
2

q C p 2 pwf

Where:
C

is the performance coefficient

the turbulent flow exponent, equal to 0.5 for fully turbulent flow and equal to 1 for
laminar flow.

Oil Case

In 1973 Fetkovich demonstrates that the same can be used for oil wells.
The effect of the reservoir turbulences can be modeled with the use of the back pressure
equation:

Q C p 2 pwf

2 n

Dynamic Data Analysis - v4.12.03 - KAPPA 1988-2012

Chapter 12 Well modeling & Performance Analysis - p458/558

Where:
Q

pwf

main phase

average drainage area pressure

well flowing pressure

12.B.1.d Gas LIT IPR

The LIT (Laminar Inertial Turbulent) IPR equation, deduced from the Houpeurt or Forchheimer
equation, also includes the turbulence effects:

m( p) m( p) aq bq 2
Where:
a = laminar flow coefficient

b = turbulent flow coefficient

The method consists in getting from a multirate well test the pressure values corresponding to
the production rate and to determine graphically the equation coefficients values, respectively
C&n or a&b, then, eventually to calculate the Absolute Open Flow.

Another approach is to evaluate the a&b values from empirical equations using the well and
reservoir parameters values as input (i.e. Jones method below).

12.B.1.e Vogel Oil IPR for Solution gas drive reservoir

This Vogel relationship can be regarded as a general equation for solution gas-drive reservoir
producing below the bubble point.
The rate is governed by:

Q
Pwf
1.0 0.2
Qmax
Pr

Pwf
0.8 Pr

If the reservoir pressure is above bubble point, the Vogel IPR is only valid when the well
flowing pressure is below the bubble point pressure.
In this case, the combination of Vogel and other IPR method is recommended.
Above Pb it is a Darcy equation or a constant PI.
Below Pb it is the Vogel relationship:

PI .Pb
Q
1.8
With:

1.0 0.2 Pwf

Pb

Pwf
0.8 Pb Qb

Dynamic Data Analysis - v4.12.03 - KAPPA 1988-2012

Qmax Qb

Chapter 12 Well modeling & Performance Analysis - p459/558

PI Pb
1.8

Where:
Q

Total liquid rate flow rate

Qmax

Maximum flowrate

Qb

Rate at bubble point pressure

Pr

Average reservoir pressure

Pwf

Bottom hole flowing pressure

The method consists in using pressure and production data to determine the Pi, then the Qmax
value.

12.B.2 Different types of multirate tests

The IPR equations assume stabilized rate and flowing pressure conditions, the most basic
multirate test design is the back pressure test also called the flow after flow test which is a
sequence of flow periods long enough to reach stabilized conditions originally proposed by
Rawlins et al in 1936.

Fig. 12.B.1 Back pressure (Flow after Flow) test

A second approach is based on the fact that only the laminar coefficient of the equations
depends on the flow duration, the NonDarcy coefficient remains independent.
The test design includes short flow periods of equal duration, not necessarily stabilized, at
various rates followed by shut-ins of equal duration until stabilization which are not necessarily
the same duration as the drawdowns. The resulting values are used to determine the
NonDarcy flow coefficient.
An extended flow period until stabilization allows determining the correct laminar coefficient.
This is the isochronal test proposed by Cullender in 1955.

Dynamic Data Analysis - v4.12.03 - KAPPA 1988-2012

Chapter 12 Well modeling & Performance Analysis - p460/558

Fig. 12.B.2 Isochronal test

The flowing pressure drawdown values are calculated from the initial average pressure.

The modified isochronal test, proposed by Katz et al in 1959, is characterized by short shut-ins
between production periods, of equal duration, with neither of the periods necessarily
stabilized. The final flow to stabilization is followed by a final long shut-in.

Fig. 12.B.3 Modified isochronal test

The flowing pressure drawdown values are calculated from the previous last shut in pressure.

12.B.3 Different IPR/AOF calculation methods

12.B.3.a The Rawlins and Shellhardt method (C&n)
It can use either the p2 valid for Oil or Gas:

2
q C p 2 pwf

Or, for gas only, the pseudo pressure m(p):

q C m p m pwf

Dynamic Data Analysis - v4.12.03 - KAPPA 1988-2012

Chapter 12 Well modeling & Performance Analysis - p461/558

The pressure and rate data are plotted on a log-log scale:

2
log p 2 p wf
versus log( q)

Or

logm p m p wf versus log( q)

Fig. 12.B.4 Back pressure test

Fig. 12.B.5 Isochronal test

The n value is calculated from the slope, C from the line intersect.

Then:

AOF C p 2 patm

Or

AOF C m p m patm

2 n

12.B.3.b The LIT Method

Developed specifically for gas, it is based on the equation:

m( p) m( p) aq bq 2

The pressure and rate data are plotted:

m( p ) m( pwf )
q

versus(q)

Dynamic Data Analysis - v4.12.03 - KAPPA 1988-2012

Chapter 12 Well modeling & Performance Analysis - p462/558

Fig. 12.B.6 Back Pressure test

Fig. 12.B.7 Isochronal test

The b value is calculated from the line slope and the a value from the intersect:
The AOF is then:

AOF

a a 2 4bm( p) m( patm )
2b

12.B.3.c Jones method

The method is also based on the equation suggested by Jones, Blount and Glaze in 1976 to
account for turbulences in a producing oil well:

Pr Pwf aQ bQ2

Where a and b parameters are calculated from empirical equations:

Oil case
The equation:

Pr Pwf aQ bQ2
With:

a (141.2B (ln(re / rw) 0.75 sCA s) / kh

1 1
1.4352 1012 l B 2
rw re
b
2
hw
SCA

Shape skin (from Dietz shape factor)

permeability

hw

perforated interval

formation volume factor

liquid specific gravity

turbulence coefficient

net formation drained thickness

re

drainage radius

Dynamic Data Analysis - v4.12.03 - KAPPA 1988-2012

Chapter 12 Well modeling & Performance Analysis - p463/558

rw

wellbore radius

viscosity

skin

Gas Case
The same principle equation, using m(p) is:

m( p) m( p) aq bq 2

But the parameters a and b are estimated from the following empirical equations:

2.2458
A
1495.6T log 2 log
0.87 s

rw
CA

a
kh
b

1299.15TD
kh

0.00003gg
hrw k 0.333

Where:
Ca

Dietz shape factor

Turbulence factor (1/ft)

permeability

hw

perforated interval

net formation drained thickness

drainage area

rw

wellbore radius

gg

gas specific gravity

skin

viscosity

reservoir temperature (deg R)

Other similar methods exist for various well geometries, the difference remains in the empirical
equations.

Dynamic Data Analysis - v4.12.03 - KAPPA 1988-2012

Chapter 12 Well modeling & Performance Analysis - p464/558

12.C Intake models in PTA and PA

12.C.1

Classic pressure correction

The fact that the pressure gauges sensing points are seldom at the level of the sandface is
most often overlooked by the interpretation engineer.
Classically, the static pressure (pi, p*, p bar, final build-up pressure) are corrected:
-

from the gauge depth to the sandface using the static well static gradient.

from the sandface to a common reservoir datum using the reservoir gradient taking into
account any gradient changes if it is necessary to move through a fluid contact in the
reservoir.

This correction is usually done manually and is essential to establish reservoir pressure trends,
declines and depletion rates.
The resulting corrected static pressure maps can be used to study:
-

The effectiveness of artificial or natural pressure maintenance.

It can also reveal reservoir compartmentalization.

It is an essential part of material balance studies and full field simulations.

Little attention has been put on the correction of flowing pressures and the fact that the skin
calculation returned by Pressure Transient Analysis is in fact at the gauge level, therefore it
includes the pressure loss due to friction between the sandface and the gauge.
In that way, the skin, and specially the rate dependant skin, can be considerably over
evaluated. We are only interested in sandface values but this problem has largely been ignored
by the well test community until recently.
Most Pressure Transient and Production Analysis software packages include such corrections.
This can be a correction of the model to simulate the pressure at a given depth, or to correct,
a priori, the pressure history from the gauge depth to sandface.

12.C.2

Correction methods

It is necessary to evaluate the pressure profile and lift curve of the well under flowing and
shut-in conditions.
The pressure profile is defined by:

A temperature profile;

A flow correlation or a lift curve;

PVT definitions;

The completion configuration including deviation.

The below figure shows a Vertical intake curve; pressure vs. rate at a selected well depth
using a fixed GOR and water cut.

Dynamic Data Analysis - v4.12.03 - KAPPA 1988-2012

Chapter 12 Well modeling & Performance Analysis - p465/558

Fig. 12.C.1 Vertical intake curve, flowing pressure vs. rate

12.C.2.a Flow correlations for oil

Duns-Ross: The result of laboratory work where liquid holdup and flow regimes were observed.
This utilizes a flow pattern map to determine the slip velocity, and consequently liquid holdup,
and friction factor. This correlation is recommended for wells where high GLRs and flow
velocities have induced flow regime behavior.
Orkiszewski: Developed using work from both Duns & Ross and Hagedorn & Brown. It uses the
Griffith and Wallis method for bubble flow, a new method for slug flow, and Duns and Ross for
transition and mist flow.
Hagedorn-Brown: Developed experimentally using a 1500ft test well with 1, 1.25, and 1.5
tubing. The correlation is used extensively throughout the industry and is recommended in
wells with minimal flow regime effects.
Beggs-Brill: This correlation was developed experimentally using 1 and 1.5 pipe, inclined at
several angles. Correlations were made to account for the inclined flow. The correlation is
recommended for deviated or horizontal wells.
Mukherjee-Brill: Developed experimentally using 1.5 steel pipe inclined at several angles. This
includes downhill flow as a flow regime. This is recommended for inclined or horizontal wells.
Dukler-Eaton: Based on 2600 laboratory and field tests to generate an expression for frictional
pressure losses along pipelines. It can be used for horizontal flow.

12.C.2.b Flow correlations for gas

Cullender & Smith: This correlation is based on gas properties as defined by the PVT, and a
general friction factor calculated using the Colebrook and White equation. Note that when
handling a condensate case with equivalent gas gravity and total rates, the proper gradient
and rates are used in Cullender and Smith to account for the presence of condensate. The
presence of water can be accommodated, based on a constant water to gas production ratio.

Dynamic Data Analysis - v4.12.03 - KAPPA 1988-2012

Chapter 12 Well modeling & Performance Analysis - p466/558

12.C.2.c Lift curves

The interpretation engineer can input lift curves generated by third party programs such
Amethyste, Eclipse and Prosper. The lift curves are usually imported in Eclipse format.
Lift curves usually provide the pressure drop between the well head and lift curve depth.
However, it can happen that they correspond to a pressure drop between a given depth that is
different from the well head and the lift curve depth.
External lift curves are discrete data. When using them the pressure drop calculations are
performed by interpolations in the lift curve table in each of the required dimensions.
Therefore it is recommended to provide as many lift curves as possible to cover the widest
possible range of situations such as varying rates, phase ratios and well head pressures.

12.C.3

General calculation method

In vertical multiphase flow calculations the pipe is divided into small depth increments. The
pressure loss in each increment is determined in a reiterative process using average pressure
and temperature values to calculate fluid properties. This is necessary as flow regimes and
subsequent fluid and flow properties continually change through the pipe. As a result, a
computer solution is almost mandatory.
Multiphase cases are treated using multiphase flow correlations. In the event that the
interpreter has identified more than one phase rate, Perrines method is usually used and the
phase ratios are calculated at each step from the loaded measured multiphase rates and used
in the intake calculator for the pressure depth correction.
If a non-linear numerical model is used the numerical model output will provide sandface
phase rates. The phase ratios are calculated at each step from the simulated multiphase rates
and used in the intake calculator for the pressure depth correction.
Pressure drop correlations are valid under dynamic conditions only, not during build-ups or
fall-offs. To ensure continuity of the corrected pressure, the limit of the pressure drop when
the flowrate tends to zero is used during shut-ins. With the flow correlations, this amounts to
dividing the tubing into small segments where each contains phase rates corresponding to the
amount given by the flash PVT, and consequently the deduced holdups.

12.C.4

Correcting gauge data vs. correcting model

Correcting the data: In production analysis, Topaze, when the intake pressure model has been
defined, the interpretation engineer will decide during extraction to make the pressure
correction to whatever depth is desired. There is an option to create a new pressure gauge
with the corrected pressure. In Saphir it is possible to transform the pressure data to whatever
depth at any time.
Correcting the model: In Saphir, when the intake pressure model has been defined, the
interpretation engineer will decide that when generating the model the model response will be
corrected to gauge depth.
The downhole rates are calculated by the model and will therefore incorporate wellbore storage
effects. This ensures that, with significant friction, there will be no discontinuity in the
corrected model when the surface rate changes.
The model match will now return results at sandface.