.
6iiita9 9
SPE 37146
Methodology of IPR Study for Steam Stimulation Horizontal Well
Huiqing Liu, SPE, and Xiaodong Wu, SPE, Qi Zhang, University of Petroleum, China
Shumin Liu, SPE, and H. G. Harris, SPE, EORI, University of Wyoming
Gapynght 1996, S-xIety of Petroleum Engm@m, Inc
This papar was prepared for prasentatwn at the 1996 SPE Internatmnal Conference On
Horizontal Well Technology held in Calgary, Canada, 1&2U Nwem&er 199S
This paper was salac.ted for prasentatioo by an SPS Program Committee followng m+mw
of mformatlon Contsmd m an abstract submitfad by tlw author(s) Contwda cdthe paper,
as presented, have not baen rawa..wd by the .%ciefy of Petroleum Engmaers and are
sub]eci to correctmn by the author(s) The material, as presentad, d-s not necessarily
reflecl ay pm!tlon of tha Sc.aety of Petrobum Engineers, ib ofhcars or membars
Papsrs presented at SPE meetings are subject to pubhcation rtiew by Editorial
CammKt.?es of the Society of Petroleum Enginear% Permssion to copy K restricted to an
abstract of not more than ?03 words Illustrations may n~ be copied The abstract should
contmn conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by tiom the paper was presantad
Wnta Llbrsnan, SPE, P O Sax CLS3SM, Richardson, TX 750833S3% U S A fax 01.214.
952.943s
Abstract
Steam stimulation well shows much difference
production performance with conventional well. An
extensive inflow ,performance relationship(lPR) for
steam stimulation well was obtained by regression
based on the thermal numerical simulation. It has
been shown that the amount of energy injected and
horizontal well length play an important role. Two
stages appear about reservoir pressure performance
in the production period, joint is at the point where
cumulative production to injection ratio is unity;
maximum production rate shows two stages, joint is at
at the point where ln(~~ ) is 0.003. For the same
amount of energy injected, production performance is
almost identical. Well performance become better as
the horizontal well length increase for a specific
drainage area. The new IPR equations have been
successfully tested through a numerical simulation
running and applied in artificial lift designing of two oil
fields in China,
Introduction
Although steam stimulation has been successfully
used in heavy oil resetvoir for decades, there exists
unsolved problem in well operation designing, no
suitable IPR equa#ion is available for this kind of well.
As the progress of horizontal well drilling, horizontal
887
] Society of Petroleum Engineers
well with steam injection makes this problem more
complex.
Several authorsl2 have made studies on IPR. In
1968, Vogel developed a famous IPR equation, this
equation states the relation between dimensionless
bottom-hole pressure and dimensionless production
rate for solution gas drive reservoir, resetvoir is under
the steady state. Reservoir pressure and maximum
production rate are constant and can be known with
the help of well-test operation. However, this equation
can not be used in artificial lift designing for steam
stimulation well due to the limitation of well-test
operation, reservoir is composite after steam injeotion
and is under strong unsteady state. Obviously, it
defies the Vogels guidelines, reservoir pressure and
maximum production rate are definitely changing in
the production period. So, the purpose of this work is
to extend Vogels equation, including to construct the
relation between reservoir pressure or maximum
production rate and recovery; energy injected and
horizontal well completion length will be involved.
With the same way, water-cut and liquids temperature
changing relations can be found also.
Brief of IPR Study Method
The followng simplifying assumptions have been
made:
(l) Resewoir is horizontal, with no dipping, both of
upper and bottom cap rocks have no difference;
(2)There is neither gas cap at the top nor free gas
inside the sand and no hydrocarbon distillation occurs,
oil viscosity reduction is a principal mechanism;
(3) Fluid saturation are uniform throughout the
resewoir, steam stimulation is in the first cycle;
(4)A specific(X type) water/oil and gas/oil relative
permeability curve and no temperature dependent
was used;
(5)N0 capillary pressure effect was involved;
Thermal recoveq numerical simulation was used
 2 HUIQING LIU, XIAODONG WU, QI ZHANG, SHUMIN LIU, H. G. HARRIS SPE 37146

to study IPR because of its comprehensive, most quantity and quality were selected as shown in Table 3,
resewoir characters and operating conditions can be injection and soaking time are 15 days and 10 days
involved. Vogel and some other authors did it in the respectively. Production rate for these three different
same way. energy values are 60m3/d, 80m3/d and 90m3/d, there
It has been proved that injection and production are twelve stages about cumulative liquids produdlon,
rate, soaking time have a little influence on production maximum cumulative production is 12,000m3.
performance, injection energy(including steam In order to find the effect of horizontal well
quantity and quality) is a major factor to affect completion length, three values were selected for the
performance. Gomma4 has ever developed a set of specific drainage area, they are listed in Table 4,
charts based on the energy injected to predict the injection and production scenarios are same as Table
steamflooding recovety for a specific well pattern. For 3 and followed the same simulation running
heavy oil resemoir with a little solution gas, energy procedures for every length value.
source to keep the well production comes from
temperature effect and resewoir pressure increment
after steam injection. Energy source depletes as Results and Discussion
production continues, the depletion degree depends Two vanables( Xd and X,d ) were constructed, they
on energy injected, recovery and the completion
are pore volume changing percent in the drainage
length as a eignvalue of horizontal well. So, the
area and cumulative production to injection ratio
energy injected, recovery and horizontal well
respectively, namely:
completion length are the major variable candidates.
The study procedures are as following:
(l) Reservoir base case is given; lJ. +v,t
(2) Numerical simulation running for a series of
Xd= p ...............................(1)
v:
injection and produtilon scenarios. For one scenario,
several recovety stages are selected first. When a
stage has been reached with a specific rate in the
running process, production rate will be set nought
and keep the calculation for ten days in order to get ..,...,...,,, ..................(2)
reservoir pressure. Repeating this process, then, the
bottom-hole pressure corresponding to the specific Reservoir pressure and bottom hole fluid
production rate, reservoir pressure, water-cut and temperature are divided by their initial values to
liquids temperature can be recorded for every become dimensionless parameters l~d and Twd),
recovery stage; they are defined:
(3)Calculating maximum production rate from the data
obtained above;
(4) Constructing the relation between targets and .............................(3)
principal variable candidates;
(5) Results analyzing and discussion;

Numerical Simulation Performing

Twd= +
n ..............................(4)
Reservoir base case is detailed in Table 1, equilibrium
gas saturation is 0.05. Oil viscosity vs. temperature
Effect of Energy injected. Fig. 1 to 3 illustrate the
data are listed in Table 2, most of the data comes
resewoir pressure, maximum production rate and
from two oil field in China. No universal rel~lve
water-cut with three energy injected, good agreements
permeability curve was available, a set of X type was
are shown from the figures for different enewy
selected based on the consideration of unconsolidated
injected. Bottom hole liquids temperature presents a
sand for most heavy oil reservoir and capilla~
different character, it increases as steam quality
pressure effect has been neglected. Any variations
improves for the same energy injected.
from this set could affect the final results.
Reservoir pressure in fig.1 behaves two stages,
Steam quantity and quality are all available in the
which separate at the point where ~d is unity,
injection process and. involved in the energy injected.
For this kind of reseivoir case enthalpy of steam resewoir pressure returns its original value when
vapor and liquid are 271 0.3KJ/Kg and 1434.6KJ/Kg. cumlative liquids production is equal to the steam
Three energy values and corresponding steam injection. Maximum production rate in fig. 2 behaves

888
 SPE 37146 METHODOLOGY OF IPR STUDY FOR HORIZONTAL WELL 3

two stages too, which separate at the point where the completion lengths and steam injection conditions
h(~d) is 0.003. Both of reservoir pressure and in the production process, its equation is as following:
maximum production rate present linear trend in the
production process. 1.2
Water-cut in fig. 3 shows logistic function tendency
ln(lw) = 3.4 + In(xd)-o 0017
00025
for all the injection and production scenarios, and it l+e ...............(9)
behaves a large decrease around the point where
Xd is unity.
Resufts Testing
Effect of Steam Quality to Fluid Temperature, Fig.4 A set of injection and production programs have been
illustrates the bottom-hole fluids temperature vs. specified to test the results obtained above, where:
recove~ and steam quality. Steam quantity has a little L ~ = os, energy injected= 6,67 x 10AU, three
effect on the liquids temperature for the same X,J, / e

actually, liquids temperature is higher for large steam steam quantity (???3) and quality combination are
quantity when cumulative liquids production are same,
4000:0.2,34750.4,3072:0.6 respectively, production
Energy will be brought out with the liquids in the
rate is 70m3/d. Interpolation can be performed with the
production process. It will be favorable to keep high
temperature for high steam quality after soaking data in table 5 and table 6 at L ~ = 0.5 to get the
because of different heat latent existing. / e

Effect of Horizontal Well Completion Length. coefficients of pressure, maximum production rate
Reservoir pressure trends keep same for all the and temperature equation ,they are:
completion lengths and injection conditions at first
production stage, pressure equation is as following: Al = -4 for In(X, )< O
AP = -30.7 for ln(Xd ) >0
In(pud ) = -4 ln(~d ) .........................(5)
Aq = - 192.66,Bq = 6.75 for ln(~d )s 0.003
Horizontal well completion length has effect on A~ = -73.81,11~ = 6.4 for In(Xd)20.003
reservoir pressure for the second stage, pressure
equation is as following: ,4, = -0.3241,11, = 0.6258 for X = 0.2
A,= -0.3386,B, = 0.7295 for x = 0.4
ln(~d) = ~PIII(x~) ,,......................(6) A,= -0.3542,B, = 0.8557 for X = 0.6

Horizontal well completion length has effect on Table 7 to Table 9 show the comparsions between
maximum production rate, its equation is as following: performance predictions and testings, good
agreements have been obtained, and these results
ln(~~)= ~~ ln(Xd)+Bq .,...............(71 have been successfully applied in artificial [ift
designing of two oil fields in China.

Table 5 shows the values of AP, ~~ and Bqfor

both production stages and different horizontal well Conclusions
completion length values, it has been shown that well Both of reservoir pressure and maximum production
performance become better as the horizontal well rate present linear trend in the production process,
length increase for a specific drainage area. well performance become better as the horizontal well
Bottom hole liquids temperature change with length increase for a specific drainage area.
steam quality and well completion length, temperature (l) Resewoir pressure behaves two stages, which
equation is shown as following: separate at the point where ~d is unity, reservoir
pressure returns its original value when cumlative
ln(TWd ) = A, ln(~r. )+B( liquids production is equal to the steam injection,
...................(8)
pressure trends keep same for all the completion
lengths and injection conditions at first production
Table 6 shows the values of At and B,for different
stage.
horizontal well completion length and steam quality. (2) Maximum production rate behaves two stages too,
Water cut trend keeps the same logistic form for all

889
 4 HUIQING LIU, XIAODONG WU, QI ZHANG, SHUMIN LIU, H. G. HARRIS SPE 37146

which separate at the point where ln(~d ) is 0,003. the field applications of the results; TETRAD soflware
(3) Bottom hole liquids temperature increases as co. for providing TETRAD simulator to perform all the
steam quality improves for the same energy injected, simulation running; Shengli oil field administration
steam injection quantity has a little effect on the fluid and Liaohe oil field administration for providing the
field data.
temperature for the same X,d .

Nomenclature
VP =pore volume in the drainage area,
~ =cold water equivalent injected,
Vlp=cumulative liquids production,
P. = reservoir pressure, MPa
~ = initial reservoir pressure, A4Pa
Tw= Bottom hole fluid temperature,
~ = initial reservoir temperature,
PW= water cut, YO
References
1.Vogel J. V.:Inflow Performance Relationships for
m3 Solution-Gas Drive Wells, JPT (1 968) 83-92
2. Fetkovich M. J.:The Isochronal Testing of Oil
m3 Wells, paper SPE 4529, presented at the 48th
Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, SPE
m3
Reprint Series NO. 14265, 1973
3. Huiqing Liu and Yueming Chen:Thermal recove~
optimized designing program for WA-38 petroleum
reservoir, Liaohe oil field J. of University of
C Petroleum, China(Jan. 1995)
4. Gomaa E. E.:Correlations for Prediction Oil
0C
Recovery by Steamflood, JPT(l 980) 325-332

X = steam quality, fraction

Acknowledgments
We thank Yueming Chen for valuable discussions on

TABLE 1- THE BASE CASE

Crude Properlies,AP1 14.0
Drainage Area 9621 1.2m2
Horizontal Permeability 3500x 10-3pm2
Vettical Permeability 1750x1 03pm2
Porosity 0.25
FormationThickness 16.8m
Formation Depth 1000m
Initial Pressure 10.OMPa
Initial Temperature 56 C
Initial Oil Saturation 0.7
Initial Water Saturation 0.3
Connate Water Saturation 0.3
Residual Oil Saturation to Water 0,25
Residual Oil Saturation to Gas 0.3
Location of Horizontal Well Formation Center

I TABLE 2- CRUDE VISCOSITY VS. TEMPERATURE I

Temperature, C 52.0 64.0 98,0 140.0
OilViscosity, mPa.s 18000.0 2100.0 520.0 108,0

890
SPE 37146 METHODOLOGY OF IPR STUDY FOR HORIZONTAL WELL 5

TABLE 3- INJECTION AND PRODUCTION SCENARIOS

Steam Vapor Enthalpy = 2710.3 KJ/Kg, Steam Liquid Enthalpy =1434 .6KJ/Kg
Injection Time = 15 days, Soaking Time =1 O days
Energy lnjected(KJ) 5.07X109 8.45x109 10.14X109
Steam Quantity* :Quality 3000:0.2 (A) 5000:0.2 (D) 6000 :0.2 (G)
Steam Quantity* :Quality 2607 :0.4 (B) 4344 :0.4 (E) 5213 :0.4 (H)
Steam Quantity* :Quality 2304 :0.6 (c) 3840 :0.6 (F) 4609 :0.6 (1)
Production Rate(m3/d) 60 80 I 90
Cold Water Equivalent(CWE) in ms

TABLE 4- EFFECT COMPLETION LENGTH

Drainage Diameter ~, = 350??1

Completion Length L (m) 219.5 140 105
L 0.627 0.4 0.3
/.D,

TABLE 5- COEFFICIENTS OF PRESSURE AND MAXIMUM PRODUCTION RATE

PREDICTION EQUATIONS
ln(x~) <0 ln(Xd) 20 ln(Xd) 50.003 ln(Xd) >0.003

A, A, .4, Bq A, B,

L D = 0.627 -4.0 -24.0 -183.33 6.95 -63.64 6,59

/ e

LD =0.4 -4.0 -35.2 -200.0 6.6 -81.82 6.25

/ e
LD = ().3 -4.0 -42.86 -216.67 6.35 -100,0 6,0
/ e

TABLE 6- COEFFICIENTS OF LIQUIDS TEMPERATURE PREDICTION EQUATION

L~ = 0,627 LD =0.4 L De = 0.3

/ e / e /
A, B, A, B, A, B,
x = 0,2 -0.307 0.6014 -0.3376 0.645 -0.3595 0.6497
x = 0.4 -0.3249 0.7232 -0.3493 0.7344 -0.3797 0.7833
X = 0.6 -0.3353 0.8231 -0.3691 0.8813 -0.3912 0.9035

891
6 HUIQING LIU, XIAODONG WU, QI ZHANG, SHUMIN LIU, H. G. HARRIS SPE 37146

I TABLE 7- COMPASSION OF PREDICTIONS AND TESTINGS FOR I

STEAM QUANTITY=4000 m3 AND STEAM QUALITY=O.2
CUM. LIQ. RESERVOIR MAX. LIQ. PROD. Bottomhole WATER-CUT
PROD. (m) PRESSURE(MPa) (m/d) LIQ. TEMP. (C) (%)

PRED. TEST. PRED. TEST. PRED, TEST. PRED. TEST.

700 10.334 10.32 4161.81 5205.73 184.20 182.83 97.29 98.9

I 2100 I 10.191 I 10.197 12122.28 I 2347.271 129.02 I 123.56 91.35 I 88.5

3500 10.050 10.039 1084.76 1021.82109.34 105.22 74.98 76.3
5600 8.855 8.897 449.27 414.05 93.89 91.56 42.34 41.1
7000 7.964 8.065 348.18 305.57 87.34 86.00 33.47 34.7
11200 5.807 6.048 162.92 162.2 75.00 75.83 30.02 29.7

I TABLE 8- COMPASSION OF PREDICTIONS AND TESTINGS FOR I

STEAM QUANTITY=3475 m3 AND STEAM QUALITY=O.4
CUM. LIQ. RESERVOIR MAX. LIQ. PROD. Bottomhole WATER-CUT
PROD. (m) PRESSURE(MPa) (m/d) LIQ. TEMP. ~C) (?0)

I
700
2100
3500
5600
I
PRED.
10.28
I 10.138
9.981
.8.509
TEST.
10.277
] 10.148
9.886
8.535
I
PRED.
3232.1
] 1649.61]
843.92 I
408.27
TEST.
3671.84
PRED.
199.81
1662.831137.74
815.101 115.86
410.00 98.82
m
118.89 66.01 65.7
I

7000 7.654 7.717 316.51 305.06 91.63

I 11200 5.584 5.761 148.25 I 159.3 78.15 78.50 30.00 I 29.6 I

I TABLE 9- COMPASSION OF PREDICTIONS AND TESTINGS FOR I

STEAM QUANTITY=3072 m3 AND STEAM QUALITY=O.6
CUM. LIQ. RESERVOIR MAX. LIQ. PROD. BOTTOMHOLE WATER-CUT
PROD. (m) PRESSURE(MPa) (m31d) LIQ. TEMP. CC) (?0)

PRED. TEST. PRED. TEST. PRED. TEST. PRED. TEST.

700 10.239 10.241 2662.55 2286.01 222.5 210.83 94.18 89.9
2100 10.097 10.104 1359.84 1324.47 150.77 156.33 81.94 88.5
3500 9.679 9.619 696.13 746.46 125.82 130.67 58.92 58.7
5600 8.254 8.236 379.39 407.45 106.52 107.72 35.42 36.6
\
7000 7.425 7.423 294.2 304.44 98.43 97.94 31.41 31.9
11200 5.418 5.493 137.9 156.86 83.33 81.33 29.99 29.5

892
SPE 37146 METHODOLOGY OF IPR STUDY FOR HORIZONTAL WELL 7

Ln(Xd)

0.01 0.015 002 0. 25

Fig 1 Reservoir Pressure for UDe=O.627

r_----F---
~~ 1
X* 9: 0 (A) o (B)
1 6 (c) x (D)
A -%
-% A x (E) o (F)
-w. m~ + (G) - (H)
- %x kA - (1) - (FIT)

A
%
Ln(Qm)= -18333 Ln(Xd) + 695 *
w ~w
;%. -
% ~A- - A.. .

I
I Ln(Qm)= -6364 Ln(Xd) + 6.59

4
Ln(Xd)
-0015 -001 -0005 0 0.005 001 0015 002 0025

Fig 2 Maximum Production Rate for L/De= O.627

893
8 HUIQING LIU, XIAODONG WU, QI ZHANG; SHUMIN LIU, H. G. HARRIS SPE 37146

A Q
I

o
A
x
+

32
Ln(Xd)

-0.015 -001 -0005 0 0.005 0.01 0015 002 0025

Fig. 3 Water-cut for L/De=O.627

Ln(Twd)= -0.307 Ln(Xrd] + 0.6014 u?~~:~q>

Ln(Twd)= -0.3249 Ln(Xrd) + 0.7232 0,4 U.

.

Ln(Twd)= -0.3353 Ln(Xrd) + 0.8231 02

W+SO6 a<+

X=O.2 -
Ln(Xrd)
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2

Fig. 4 Fliud Temperature for Steam Quality at L/De=O.627

894