Socety of Petrolewn Engineers

SPE 24055

Analytical Inflow Performance Relationships for Three-Phase Flow

in Bounded Reservoirs
M.L.Wiggins, U. of Oklahoma, and J.E. Russell and J.W. Jennings, Texas A&M U.
SPE Members

Copyright 1992, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Western Regional Meeting held in Bakersfield, California, March 30-April 1, 1992.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author@). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author@). 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.Permissionto copy is restrictedto an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuousacknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 750833836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT
The methods used by Evinger and Muskat to estimate well
The performance of oil wells producing water during boundary- performance required knowledge of reservoir rock and fluid properties
dominated flow was investigated to develop a better understanding of and how they behaved with pressure. Due to this requirement, their
multiphase flow and its effects on single well performance. This methods were not widely utilized. voge13 would later present an
understanding can assist the petroleum engineer in predicting the empirical, simple-to-use relationship based on simulator results to
pressure-production behavior of oil wells producing under boundary- estimate the pressure-production behavior of oil wells producing from
dominated flow conditions. solution-gasdrive reservoirs. This inflow performance relationship (PR)
has gained wide acceptance within industry due to its simplicity and the
An analytical Vogel-type inflow performance relationships (PR) fact that it yields reasonable engineering accuracy.
was developed from the multiphase flow equations. This relationship is
based on the physical nature of the multiphase flow system and Recently, Wiggins, Russell and ~ennings~ have presented a
contributes to a better understanding of the pressure-productionbehavior theoretical basis for Vogel's empirical IPR based on the physical nature
of an individual well. The analytical IPR was verified using simulator of the multiphase flow system. In this paper, we will extend these ideas
information for three-phase flow. The analytical IPR provides a method for two-phase flow to three-phase systems, as did Evinger and Muskat,
for the petroleum engineer to develop individual IPRs for each reservoir. by investigating the individual performance of oil wells that produce
water in bounded reservoirs where gravity effects are ignored. The
INTRODUCTION research has been limited to the study of homogeneous oil reservoirs at
or below the bubble point that initially have no free gas phase but do
The petroleum engineer is often required to estimate the have a mobile water phase. The flow regime of interest in this study is
pressure-production performance of an oil well in order to determine its boundary-dominated flow, which occurs after the end of the infinite-
productive capacity. Estimates of well performance allow the engineer acting flow period where there is an appreciable drop in the pressure at
to determine the optimum production scheme, design production and the boundary of the reservoir.
artificial lift equipment, design stimulation treatments and forecast
production for planning purposes. Each of these activities is an integral Other assumptions utilized in this research included: 1) all
part of the efficient operation of producing wells and successful reservoir reservoirs are initially at the bubble point; 2) no initial free gas phase is
management. present; 3) a mobile water phase is initially present; 4) Darcy's law for
multiphase flow applies; 5) isothermal conditions exist; 6 ) there is no
Evinger and ~uskat'9' were some of the earliest investigators to reaction between reservoir fluids and reservoir rock; 7) no gas solubility
study two- and three-phase flow. Their investigation was prompted by exists in the water; and 8) there is a fully penetrating wellbore.
concern that the single-phase productivity index was not appropriate for
multiphase flow systems. In their two-phase study they presented ANALYTICAL DEVELOPMENT
theoretical calculations that showed a curved relationship between flow
rate and pressure. They extended their two-phase study to three-phase The mathematical model that describes the flow of multiphase
flow which indicated that gas-oil ratio and water saturation did affect the fluids in porous media is obtained by combining physical principles
homogeneous productivity index. From their investigations they concerning conservation of mass, Darcy's law for the flow of fluids and
concluded that the commonly used productivity index was not an an appropriate equation of state. The general form of these equations for
appropriate measure for use in multiphase flow systems. oil, water and gas flow are

References and f i g u r e s a t end of DaDer.

2 ANALYTICAL INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS FOR THREE-PHASE FLOW IN BOUNDED RESERVOIRS SPE 24055

and
Following the derivation presented in Refs. 4 and 8, one can let

and
which can be substituted in Eq. 9 to yield

ignoring capillary effects, gravity and solubility of gas in water.

Several researchers5-' have presented solutions to these partial
iifferential equations for homogeneous, bounded reservoirs producing
~nderboundary-dominated, two-phase flow conditions. These solutions,
vhile yielding identical mathematical results, are approached in different
nanners and can be readily extended to the second liquid phase.
At any instant of time during boundary-dominated flow, the flow
rate can be written as a function of pressure drop only. Eq. 11 can then
be expanded about zero in a Taylor series as

The second integral of the oil partial differential equation for

adial flow can be plritten in terms of the external boundary pressure, p,,
LS

where E is the error term resulting from truncating the series after the
First five terms.

)r in terms of the average reservoir pressure, p,, as Eq. 12 allows one to estimate the flow rate for any given flowing
- wellbore pressure at the time the reservoir pressure equals p,. To
:stimate the maximum flow rate, let the wellbore flowing pressure equal
cero. Then lI becomes one, and

For the water phase, the solutions can be written as

The ratio of Eq. 12 to Eq. 13 is

and
-

Eqs. 4-8 can be written in the general form

where C is a constant that depends on the geometry of the producing

area and flow regime and the j subscripts refer to the oil or water phase.
In terms of the average reservoir pressure, Eq. 8 can be written as
SPE 24055 M.L. WIGGINS, J.E. RUSSELL AND J.W.
It is interesting to note that this relationship implies that there is no
e:xplicit dependence of flow geometry, type of flow or presence of a skin
2:one on the IPR, since constants that contain this information divide out.
Evaluating Eq. 14 by expanding the polynomials, grouping
Similar termsand performing the necessary algebra results in
Pthere the coefficients are defined as:
JENNINGS 3
De~letionEffects
In our work, we have noticed that depletion affects the shape of
the mobility function profiles. Figs. 1 and 2 present mobility function
profiles for the oil and water phases at several stages of depletion during
three-phase flow for Case 3. These curves are typical of those obtained
for other cases and indicate the profiles are a function of depletion.
Figs. 3 and 4 reinforce this observation when the mobility functions are
plotted versus II, the dimensionless variable used to evaluate the mobility
function. As one can see, depletion does affect the shape of the mobility
function. These results show that analytical IPRs can be developed for
each stage of depletion. This point will be discussed later.

Rate Effects

The analytical IPR was developed for a given point in time. We

have shown that depletion will affect the shape of the mobility function
and, therefore, the shape of the IPR curve. A concern arises as to
whether the mobility function that spans the entire pressure range of
interest at the maximum rate is suitable for use with all production rates.
This concern is important since we have used a single mobility function
profile in the development of the analytical IPR, implying that all rates,
at a given depletion stage, can be estimated from a single profile. Figs.
5 and 6 present oil and water mobility function profiles for three-phase
flow at several different rates. As indicated, rate does not appear to have
a major affect on the mobility function profiles.

To verify the assumption, a complete analysis was performed for

three-phase flow based on simulator results for several different cases.
In this analysis, a polynomial was fit to the mobility function for each
rate examined at each stage of depletion. A polynomial was then fit to
a rate near the maximum rate for each depletion stage. The polynomials
for each rate were integrated and evaluated from the flowing wellbore
pressure to the external boundary pressure for that particular rate,
providmg an estimate of the area under the mobility function profile.
This area was compared to the area estimated from the maximum rate
Eq. 15 is an analytical IPR that can be used to describe any profile evaluated over the same pressure range. The percent difference
Ireservoir if one can estimate the mobility function and its derivatives
was then estimated by subtracting the area under the maximum rate
with respect to pressure. It is important to realize that this relation gives profile from the area under the actual rate profile and dividing by the
a description of the inflow performance relationship based on the area under the actual rate profile.
I physical nature of the system. With this basis, it is easier to study the
Imultiphase system. A summary of this analysis is presented in Figs. 7 and 8. The
maximum error experienced for the cases examined was 1.87%,
FACTORS AFFECTING THE MOBILITY FUNCTION indicating that rate has no major effect on the mobility function profile
and its evaluation in the analytical IPR. All that is required is a mobility
The analytical IPR represented by Eq. 15 shows that the function near the maximum rate to ensure an almost complete profile
(coefficients are dependent on the mobility function. This requires that over the pressure range of interest. This allows the proper determination
we investigate factors that may influence the mobility function in regard of the coefficients in the analytical IPR.
1to the analytical IPR. The mobility term is explicitly a function of
Ipressure and saturation. Pressure and saturation are affected by three Skin Effeds
I primary factors: depletion, production rate and the presence of an altered
Ipermeability zone. The effects of these factors were studies for two- The presence of an altered zone can significantly affect the
Iphase flow by several investigator^?^^^'^ In this investigation we found pressure profile near the wellbore. To investigate this effect on the
1that depletion, production rate and the presence of s k i all have a similar mobility function, simulator results for cases with skin values ranging
teffect on the analytical IPR for both two- and three-phase flow. from -2 to 20 were analyzed in a manner similar to the investigation of
rate effects. Fig. 9 presents the results of the analysis and indicates that
The effects of depletion, production rate and the presence of skin the maximum percent difference in the mobility profiles due to skin
were evaluated using computer simulation results. Table 1 presents the effects was 1.42% for the cases examined.
Irange of reservoir properties used to generate simulator results. It was
1felt that this range of reservoir properties would cover a large portion of Skin effects do not appear to significantly affect the mobility
I3perating conditions experienced and would allow a thorough evaluation function and its use in the analytical IPR, indicating that the presence of
Iof the proposed method. Ref. 8 presents complete details on the an altered zone should not affect the shape of the IPR curve. This
I properties used in this study. observation agrees with the research of others499p10 concerning two-phase
flow.

- - d
 ANALYTICAL INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS FOR THREE-PHASE FLOW IN BOUNDED RESERVOIRS SPE 24055
OF THE ANALYTICAL IPR
1
depletion effects (Figs. 14 and 15) and suggest that we can consider
changes in initial water saturations in much the same manner as
To verify the analytical IPR developed and presented in Eq. 15, depletion.
information from 135 simulation runs was analyzed. Production rate and
pressure results were used to develop normalized IPR curves for four CONCLUSIONS
different reservoirs. The saturation and pressure information was used
to develop mobility function profiles in terms of 11, which were fit with Based on this research, and under the identified assumptions, the
1 a polynomial to allow evaluation of the mobility hnction and its following conclusions are presented.
derivatives. An analytical IPR was developed for each reservoir and
compared with the IPR curve developed from the simulator results. 1. Analytical IPRs have been developed for three-phase floa
based on the physical nature of the multiphase flow system. The
Simulator results from Case 3 were used to investigate the relationship is based on a Taylor series expansion of the multiphase flow
suitability of the analytical relationship for three-phase flow. Fig. 10 equations for oil and water. This relationship indicates that production
presents the mobility function profiles of the oil and water phases at a rate ratios are functions of relative permeability, fluid properties, flowing
1% stage of depletion for Case 3 when the initial water saturation is wellbore pressure and average reservoir pressure.
50%. The profiles were fit with a thirddegree polynomial and the
equations used in developing the analytical IPR for each phase. The 2. The analytical JPR has been verified for three-phase
resulting IPRs are boundarydominated flow based on simulator results. In general,
maximum errors between simulator results and estimates in predicted
performance from the proposed analytical IPR are less than 10%.

3. The analytical IPR allows an IPR to be developed for any

reservoir of interest if suitable estimates of relative permeability and fluid
property behavior with respect to pressure can be made.

4. Based on the analytical IPR, evidence has been presented that

flow geometry, reservoir porosity, absolute permeability and formation
thickness have no effect on the shape of the IPR curve. Evidence also
indicates that the presence of a skin region near the wellbore has no
effect on the shape of the IPR curve for three-phase boundary-dominated
flow.

5. The shape of the IPR curve is affected by depletion and initial

water saturation; however, these effects are not so great as to introduce
significant errors into the analytical IPR. The maximum difference
experienced between simulator results and predictions by the proposed
method was less than 15%, which should be suitable for most uses.

NOMENCLATURE
Figs. 11 and 12 show that comparison of the analytical IPRs with
the simulator information for each phase. The graphs indicate that the
gas formation volume factor, RBIMscf
analytical relationships sufficiently estimate the simulator pressure and oil formation volume factor, RBISTB
production results. The maximum relative enor in the oil IPR was water formation volume factor, RBISTB
10.9 %; in the water IPR it was 9.9%. The largest errors occurred at the height, ft
smallest pressure drawdowns. Other than at this extreme, the errors
absolute permeability, md
were less than 5 % . relative permeability to gas
relative permeability to oil
To investigate depletion effects on the three-phase JPRs, a
relative permeability to water
relationship was developed based on information at 6% depletion. Fig.
pressure, psi
13 presents the mobility function profiles for the oil and water phases
external boundary pressure, psi
that allowed the determination of the analytical IPRs. Figs. 14 and 15
average reservoir pressure, psi
present the calculated IPRs in comparison with the simulator information.
flowing wellbore pressure, psi
The maximum error between the analytical IPR at 6% depletion and the production rate, STBID
simulator results was 7.7% for the oil phase and 10.9% for the water oil production rate, BOPD
phase, with most of the errors less than 5%. The analytical IPRs
developed at each stage of depletion do a satisfactory job of estimating maximum oil production rate, BOPD
the simulator information. These results show that depletion affects the water production rate, BWPD
analytical IPR curve, but not to the extent of introducing large errors in maximum water production rate, BWPD
the development of the analytical IPR. solution gas-oil ratio, MscfISTB
radius, ft
To qualitatively evaluate the effects of initial water saturation on external boundary radius, ft
the analytical IPR, relationships were developed for initial water wellbore radius, ft
saturations of 30%, 50 96 and 70 % for Case 3. These IPRs are shown gas saturation, fraction
in Figs. 16 and 17 for the oil and water phases, respectively. As oil saturation, fraction
indicated in these graphs, the IPR curves tend to straighten as the initial water saturation, fraction
water saturation increases; however, the resulting curves are not that skin factor, dimensionless
different. These curves are similar to those developed to investigate time, days
SPE 24055 M.L. WIGGINS, J.E. RUSSELL AND J.W. JENNINGS 5
k gas viscosity, cp 5. Levine, J.S. and Prats, M.: "The Calculated Performance o
PO oil viscosity, cp Solution-Gas Drive Reservoirs, " SPEJ (Sept. 1961) 142-152.
Pw water viscosity, cp
#J porosity, fraction 6. Fetkovich, M.J.: "The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells," papa
SPE 4529 presented at the 1973 SPE Annual Meeting, La!
REFERENCES Vegas, NV, Sept. 30 - Oct. 3.
1. Evinger, H.H. and Muskat, J.: "Calculation of Theoretical 7. Camacho-V., R.G.: "Well Performance Under Solution Ga!
Productivity Factors," 7hms., AIME (1942) 146, 126-139. Drive," PhD dissertation, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK (1987).
2. Evinger, H.H. and Muskat, M.: "Calculation of Productivity 8. Wiggins, M.L.: "Inflow Performance of Oil Wells Producing
Factors for Oil-Gas-Water Systems in the Steady State," Trans., Water," PhD dissertation, Texas A&M U., College Station, T2
AIME (1942) 146, 194-203. (1991).
3. Vogel, J.V.: "Inflow PerformanceRelationships for Solution-Gas 9. Camacho-V., R.G. and Raghavan, R.: "Inflow Performance
Drive Wells," JPT (Jan. 1968) 83-92. Relationships for Solution-Gas-Drive Reservoirs," JPT (Maj
1989) 541-550.
4. Wiggins, M.L., Russell, J.E. and Jennings, J.W.: "Analytical
Development of Vogel-type Inflow Performance Relationships," 10. Klins, M.A. and Majcher, M.W.: "Inflow Performanm
paper SPE 23580 presented at the 1992 SPE Permian Basin Oil Relationships for Damaged or Improved Wells Producing Unde~
and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, TX,March 18-20. Solution-Gas Drive," paper SPE 19852 presented at the 1985
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio.
TX,Oct. 8-11.

Table 1. Reservoir Properties

Property Case 2 Case3 Case 4 Case 5

Porosity 0.18 0.12 0.20 0.24

Permeability 15.0 md 10.0 md 100.0 md 50.0 md

Height 25 ft 10 ft 10 ft 25 ft

Temperature 150" F 175" F 200" F 200" F

Initial
Pressure 2500 psi 3500 psi 1500 psi 2600 psi

Oil Gravity 25.0" API 45.0" API 15.0' API 35.0" API

Gas Gravity 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7

Water Solids 12.0% 30.0% 15.0% 18.0%

Residual Oil
Saturation 0.35 0.10 0.45 0.05

Irreducible
Water
Saturation 0.20 0.10 0.30 0.50

Critical Gas
Saturation 0.050 0.000 0.025 0.075

Drainage
Radius 1085 ft 506 ft 506 ft 1085 ft

Wellbore
Radius 0.328 ft 0.328 ft 0.328 ft 0.328 f t
 100 BOPD

100 BOPD

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.O
Pressure, psia Normalized Pressure, Ii

Fig. 1. Oil mobility function profiles at various stages of depletion Fig. 3. Oil mobility function profiles versus normalized pressure
during threephase flow, Case 3,50% initial water saturation. at various stages of depletion during threephase flow, Case 3,
50% initial water saturation.

I Q

A
Np/N = I.O%, 74.9 B W m
Np/N = 2.0%. 78.9 BWPD
Np/N = 4.02, 90.7B W D
o Np/N = 6.0%. 110.1 BWPD

Pressure, psia
*
Np/N = LO%, 74.9 BWPD
Np/N = 2.01, 78.9 BWPD
Np/N = 4.0%. 90.7BWPD
Np/N = 6.0%. 110.1 BWPD

Normalized Pressure, n
Fig. 4. Water mobility function profiles versus normalized pressure
Fig. 2. Water mobility function profiles at various stages of depletion at various stages of depletion during three-phase flow, Case 3,50%
during three-phase flow, Case 3,50% initial water saturation. initial water saturation.
 Inaeasine
" Oil Rate +
Oil Saturation

(a) Low Initial Water Saturation

03 0 0 1000 2m 3000
Inaeasing Oil Rate +
Pressure, psia Oil Saturation

Fig. 5. Oil mobility function profiles for several different rates

at the same stage of depletion during threephase flow, Case 3,
50% initial water saturation.

(b)Average Initial Water Saturation

Fig. 7. Comparisonof percent diierence between the oil mobility

function at a given rate to the oil mobility function at the maximum
rate during three-phase flow.

Inaeasine Oil Rate +

Oil Saturation

I I I I

25.1BWPD
A 51ABWPD
+ 110.1 BWPD

0.4 ! I
0 loo0 2000 3MX)

Pressure, psia
(c) High Initial Water Saturation

Fig. 6. Water mobility function profiles for several different

rates at the same stage of depletion during three-phase flow, Fig. 7.Continued.
Case 3,50% initial water saturation.
 SPE 55

Inaeasine Water Rate + I

Oil Saturation

I I I I

(a) Low Initial Water Saturation (a) Oil Phase

IncreasingWater Rate +
OiI Saturation

(b) Average Initial Water Saturation (b) Water Phase

Fig. 8. Comparison of percent differencebetween the waterimobility Fig. 9. Comparison of percent difference between the mobility functions
function at a given rate to the water mobiity function at the maximum in the presence of skin at a given rate to the mobility function at the
rate during &eephase flow. maximum rate without skin during three-phase flow.

1.o
haeasing Water Rate +
,0111 -0.WRII + 1.698311A2- 1.526311A3

Water:
-
= o . m m alomsn + 0.4m811~z- 0.~34511~3
RA2= 0.992

(c) High Initial Water Saturation Np/N = 1.096

Q Oil Mobility, 250 BOPD
Water Mobility, 214.4 BWPD
Fig. 8. Continued.
0.2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.O

Normalized Pressure, n
Fig, 10. Mobilify function profiles for Case 3 during three-
phase flow, 50% initial water saturation.
 0.7

0.6

0.5
Oil Mobility, 100 BOPD
Water Mobility, 110 BWPD

0.4

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.O

Normalized Pressure, ll

Fig. 11. Comparison of analytical oil IPR to simulator results Fig. 13. Mobility function profiles during threephase flow
for threephase flow, Case 3,50% initial water saturation. at 6% depletion, Case 3,5056 initial water saturation.

Fig. 12. Comparison of analytical water IPR to simulator results Fig. 14. Comparison of analytical oil IPR's developed at two
for threephase flow, Case 3,50% initial water saturation. different stages of depletion during threephase flow, Case 3,
50% initial water saturation.
 PIP&
0.8 -
Fig. 15. Comparison of analytical water IPR's developed at two
different stages of depletion during three-phase flow, Case 3,
50% initial water saturation. 0.6 -

Fig. 17. Comparison of analytical water IPR's during threephase

flow for different values of initial water saturation, Case 3.

Fig. 16. Comparison of analytical oil IPR's during three-phase

flow for different values of initial water saturation. Case 3.