PAPER 2009-086

Determination of Inflow Performance

Relationship (IPR) by Well Testing
A. JAHANBANI
Petroleum University of Technology/University of Calgary

S. R. SHADIZADEH
Petroleum University of Technology
This paper is accepted for the Proceedings of the Canadian International Petroleum Conference (CIPC) 2009, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 1618 June 2009. This paper will be considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals.
Publicationrightsarereserved.Thisisapreprintandsubjecttocorrection.

Abstract

The approach presented in this paper eliminates the need

for multipoint tests, and the required data can be obtained from
a buildup test. This approach can be applied to both initial well
tests (transient flow) and tests done later during production
(pseudo steady state flow). The new analytical method proposed
for determination of IPR curve is considered a reliable method
since it can closely match the flow tests data.

The knowledge of Inflow Performance Relationship is an

essential piece of information for well performance evaluation
and optimization. For single phase oil flow, production rate is
proportional to pressure drawdown and therefore the IPR curve
is a straight line. Several empirical relations have been
proposed in the literature to predict the performance of oil
wells producing with two phase flow conditions. However, these
relationships are empirical and limited in application.
This paper presents a general approach for determination
of IPR curves of oil wells below the bubble point pressure. This
approach uses the results of well test analysis along with
relative permeability and PVT data in the proper fluid flow
equations for generation of IPR curves. The proposed method is
also capable of predicting future IPR curves.
To show that the presented approach is applicable to a wide
variety of cases, it is applied to an example oil well in a
naturally fractured reservoir. The new method proposed for
fractured reservoirs is then compared with some of the
empirical methods. It is shown that the new method can predict
well deliverability more accurately than other methods. Among
different methods evaluated in this work, although
underestimating flow rates, Vogels relation best matched our
work.

Introduction
Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) of a well is the
relation between the production rate and flowing bottom hole
pressure. For oil wells, it is frequently assumed that fluid inflow
rate is proportional to the difference between reservoir pressure
and wellbore pressure. This assumption leads to a straight line
relationship that can be derived from Darcys law for steady
state flow of an incompressible, single phase fluid and is called
the Productivity Index (PI). However, this assumption is valid
only above the bubble point pressure.
Evinger and Muskat [1], based on multi-phase flow
equations showed that a curved relationship existed between
flow rate and pressure, when two phase flow occurs in the
reservoir (i.e. saturated oil).
In 1968, Vogel [2] presented an empirical inflow
performance relationship for solution-gas drive reservoirs,

based on computer simulation results and a wide range of rock

and fluid properties. His famous dimensionless IPR was
developed for flow of saturated oil from a solution-gas drive
reservoir into well ignoring skin effects.
After Vogel, several empirical relationships have been
developed to predict the performance of oil wells in saturated
reservoirs [3-12]. However, these IPRs are empirical and have
been developed for homogeneous, solution-gas drive reservoirs
and may not be applicable to other cases.
Therefore, the current study is intended to present a general
approach for determination of (non linear) IPR curves for oil
wells in reservoirs existing at or below bubble point pressure.
This method is based on using the results of well test analysis
and other required data in the proper flow equations to find a
relation between flow rate and pressure. Little has been
published on this subject in petroleum literature.
The important aspect of the presented approach is its
generality. To show this characteristic, the approach is extended
to include oil wells in naturally fractured reservoirs. This
extension, considered as a new work for fractured reservoirs, is
then applied to an Iranian oil well in a NFR. Comparison of the
results with the IPRs obtained by empirical methods is
presented.

as transient or stabilized tests. Stabilized tests are used to

determine the productivity index.
Transient tests seek to evaluate formation parameters,
characterize formation heterogeneities and determine drainage
area and shape. The most common values to obtain from a
transient well test analysis are permeability, skin and average
reservoir pressure. Transient well test analysis has been covered
thoroughly in the literature [13-15].
In the case of transient flow, the well is assumed to be
located in a reservoir that is infinite in extent so that the
pressure distribution is not affected by reservoir boundaries.
Including the effect of skin and making some simplifications,
the solution to diffusivity equation for transient flow at the
wellbore is as below:

p wf (t ) = p i

3.23 + 0.87 s (2)

Equation 2 is the basis for drawdown test analysis during

transient flow period.
When the flow from or to the well starts feeling the effect of
boundary, the flow regime is no longer unsteady state but is
pseudo steady state. For the case of a well at the center of a
circular reservoir, the solution of diffusivity equation in terms
of average reservoir pressure at the wellbore becomes:

Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR)

It is very important in petroleum engineering to formulate
the relation between production rate (q) and flowing wellbore
pressure (pwf) over the practical range of production conditions.
This relation is commonly known as inflow performance
relationship (IPR). Productivity index is a measure of the ability
of a well to produce. It is the ratio of the liquid flow rate to the
pressure drawdown defined as below:

PI =

kt
162.6 q B
log
2
kh
c t rw

p wf = p R

141.2 q B re
ln
kh
rw

0.75 + s ............................ (3)

The methods of drawdown and buildup tests analysis are

thoroughly discussed in many references [13-15].

qo
q
= o ..................................................................... (1)
p R p wf
p

A General Approach for Determination

of IPR Curves

Productivity index is also denoted by J. It is a reliable

indication of the well productive capacity only if the well is
producing during pseudo steady state flow regime. Hence, it is
important to allow the well to flow at constant flow rate for a
sufficiently long period of time to reach the pseudo steady state.
For performance analysis of oil wells, engineers often
assume that flow rate is directly proportional to pressure
drawdown, with productivity index J as the proportionality
constant. The resulting IPR is a straight line passing through the
origin and is only applicable to undersaturated oils. The effect
of two phase flow on the shape of IPR curve was first observed
in 1920s and 1930s during field testing with a curved rather
than straight line IPR [1]. In this case, the productivity index is
not constant and decreases with increasing drawdown. Several
empirical methods have been proposed in the literature [2-12] to
generate the present and future IPRs in solution-gas drive
reservoirs. Some of these methods are briefly introduced in
Appendix.

With an estimation of reservoir parameters obtained from

well test analysis and an idea about the drainage area of well
and reservoir shape factor (i.e. A and CA) and also PVT and
relative permeability data, a relation between flow rate and
bottom hole pressure can be established using flow equations
presented earlier. Here, we focus on the generation of IPR
curves below the bubble point pressure. Generally, two cases
are investigated depending on whether the flow regime is
transient or pseudo steady state. The former corresponds to
initial well tests and the latter to tests conducted later during
production. In addition, the approach is extended to oil wells in
naturally fractured reservoirs.
During transient flow period, the average reservoir pressure
in the drainage area of the well is almost equal to initial
reservoir pressure, therefore: pR - pwf pi - pwf. Combining this
approximation with equation 1 and using equation 2, one can
write:

PI =

Well Test Analysis

The primary objective of well testing is the estimation of
well productivity and reservoir properties from downhole
pressure and rate measurements. Most well tests are categorized

q
=
pR pwf

kh

(4)

kt

3.23 + 0.87 s
162.6 Blog
2
ct rw

This equation reveals that as the time proceeds, pressure

drop increases and productivity index decreases.
2

For single phase flow (above bubble point pressure), since

kro=1 and B is nearly constant, a straight line IPR is obtained
that varies for different producing times.
For two phase flow conditions, there is a different scenario.
Equation 2 for oil phase can be written as below:

pwf = pi

162.6 qo o Bo
ko h

p wf = p R

ko t
3.23 + 0.87 s ...(5)
log
2

o ct rw

pav = ( pwf + pR ) / 2 .......................................................................(13)

Equation 12 can be solved for qo as:

k o = k k ro ........................................................................................(6)

qo =

Substituting equation 6 into equation 5 gives:

162.6 qo k t
log
k h ct rw 2

k
ro 3.23 + 0.87 s

o pav

pav = ( pwf + pi ) / 2 ..........................................................................(8)

Equation 7 can be rearranged and solved for qo as:

0.00615k h ( pi pwf )

k ..(9)
ro
o Bo pav
k ro
kt

+
3
.
23
0
.
87
s
2
ct rw o pav

As discussed before, equation 3 is used to describe fluid flow

during pseudo steady state flow. The productivity index is
therefore obtained as:

PI =

q
=
p R p wf

= f ( p) =

.......................(10)
0.00708 k h
re

B ln + s 0.75
rw

p wf

k ro
p
1
=
o B o ( o B o ) pb p b

......................................(15)

This simple approximation is useful when there is no access

to PVT and relative permeability data. However, it may cause
erroneous results in some cases.

Extension of the Proposed Approach to

Oil Wells in Fractured Reservoirs

As can be seen, productivity index is constant with time

during the pseudo steady state flow period, unlike transient
flow.
When two phase flow conditions prevail, equation 3 for oil
phase flow is written as:

141.2 q o o Bo re
= pR
ln
ko h
rw

........................(14)

pav

There are several parameters in the flow equations to be

determined. As mentioned, Values of k, s, pR (or pi) and re can
be obtained from well test analysis.
To determine the variations of relative permeability with
pressure, it is necessary to first establish a relationship between
saturation and pressure. This is done by performing a material
balance calculation on the reservoir to estimate the oil saturation
at each pressure. Then using proper correlations or relative
permeability curves (if available), the value of kro can be
estimated at each value of oil saturation corresponding to the
desired pressure.
Oil viscosity and formation volume factor are pressure
dependent fluid properties. For generation of IPR curves,
variation of these properties with pressure should be known.
One way to obtain the relationship between these properties and
pressure is to use PVT tests data. Various correlations presented
in the literature can also be used [11, 12].
Fetkovich [4] suggested that below the bubble point pressure,
the mobility function () can be assumed to be a linear function
of pressure as below:

Notice that for determination of IPR curve, the value of qo is

needed at each pwf, but as the pressure changes, pressure
dependent properties (i.e. kro, o and Bo) change. Therefore,
these properties should be evaluated at an average pressure for
each pwf, defined by:

log

0.00708 k h ( p R p wf ) k ro

re
o Bo
ln + s 0.75

rw

Parameters Estimation

B
o o .........................................................................................(7)
k ro pav

qo =

.(12)

pav

Here, fluid properties (o and Bo) and relative permeability

(kro) are evaluated at:

Where

pwf = pi

o Bo
141.2 qo re
ln + s 0.75
k h rw
k ro

In this section, the general approach presented previously for

determination of IPR curves is applied to fractured reservoirs.

Flow Equations in Fractured Reservoirs

+ s 0.75 ...........(11)

Solution to diffusivity equation for transient flow can be

used as the basis for drawdown test analysis when solved at r =
rw. Solved for pwf, it can be written in logarithmic form as: [16]

Substituting equation 6 in the above equation gives:

p wf = pi

and

162.6 qB g t
log 2 3.23 + 0.87 s ................ (16)
Tf

rw

g =

Where g is a generalized time-dependent hydraulic

diffusivity defined as:

g =

Tf
S f + S m f (t , )

tanh

k rf ,o

o

kfht
[log( 2

rw ( S f + S m f (t , ))
pav

) 3 .23 + 0 .87 s ] ................................................... (25)

pav

Pseudo Steady State (PSS) IPR

Equation 21 describing pseudo steady state fluid flow in
fractured reservoirs is written for oil phase flow as:

p wf = p R

+ s 0.75 .......................... (21)

p wf = p R

Under the conditions of transient two phase flow, equation

16 for fluid flow through fractured reservoirs can be written for
oil phase as below:

141 .2 q o B o o

k
kfh
rf ,o

re
ln

pav rw

+ s 0.75 (28)

Equation 28 can be rearranged as:

qo =
......... (22)

Using the definition of fracture transmissibility (equation 20)

and relative permeability concept, one can write:

q o Bo q o Bo o
q B
=
= o o o
Tf
k f ,o h
k f h k rf ,o

.................... (27)
141 .2 q o Bo re
ln + s 0.75
Tf
rw

Substituting equation 23 into the above equation gives:

Transient IPR

g t
log 2 3.23 + 0.87 s

rw

0.00615k f h ( pi pwf )

k f ht
k
log 2
rf ,o 3.23 + 0.87 s
rw (S f + Sm f (t, )) o pav

k rf ,o ................................................................................... (26)

o Bo pav

This equation is essentially similar to equation 3 including

fracture transmissibility.

162.6 q o Bo
Tf

162 .6 qo Bo o

k
kfh
rf , o

qo =

....................................................................................... (20)

141.2 q B re
= pR
ln
Tf
rw

p wf = p i

.............................................................. (24)

Where pressure dependent properties are evaluated at

average pressure, pav=(pwf + pi)/2. Equation 25 can be solved
for oil flow rate as:

Various equations and type curves have been presented in

the literature [17] to analyze drawdown and buildup tests in finite
naturally fractured reservoirs. All the equations for pseudo
steady state flow in fractured reservoirs (with either transient or
pseudo steady state inter-porosity flow) can be simplified to
yield:

p wf

o ( S f + S m f (t , ))

........................................................... (18)

Fracture transmissibility is defined as:

k rf ,o

S f + S m f (t , ) o

p wf = pi

f (t , ) = 1 e ( t / ) ....................................................................... (19)

kf h

kfh

k f ,o h

Substituting equations 23 and 24 into equation 22 yields:

For pseudo steady state inter-porosity flow (assumed by

Warren and Root), f (t,) can be defined as [16]:

Tf =

S f + S m f (t , )

................................................................. (17)

For unsteady state inter-porosity flow (i.e. flow from matrix

to fractures), various expressions have been presented for
estimation of f (t,) for different matrix block shapes [16]. For the
stratum model, it is as below:

f (t , ) =

Tf

0.00708 k f h ( p R p wf ) k rf ,o

re

o Bo
ln + s 0.75
rw

pav

.................... (29)

Application Example
Parsi oilfield is located in the region of Dezful embayment
and North of Agha-Jari oilfield. Structurally, Parsi oilfield is a
symmetric anticline typical of many giant Iranian oilfields. It is

............................................... (23)

aerially elliptical in shape and is approximately 36 km long and

about 7 km wide.
The selected well for analysis in this study is well No.20
located on the southwestern flank of Parsi oilfield, 3.8 km from
well No.1. It was drilled on April 27, 1972 as a development
well in the southern half of the field. This oil well is producing
from Asmari formation. The rock type of this formation is
fractured carbonate; therefore, we are dealing with a naturally
fractured reservoir. Presence of an initial gas cap (0.07 of the
initial oil volume) is also evident in this reservoir. At the
present time, the well is producing at 3500 STB/D.
On July 25, 2007 a buildup test was conducted on well
No.20. After 72 hours production at constant rate of 3500
STB/D, the well was shut-in for 24 hours. After shut-in, the well
was flowed with different choke sizes and results of pressure
versus rate measurements are given in Table 1. These
measurements will be used later in matching the obtained IPR
curves to the flow test data points.
In order to analyze well test data, we have used modern
commercial well test analysis software, Pan System, due to its
widespread use in the industry. For the analysis of well No.20
by Pan System we used:
Wellbore Storage Model: Classic Wellbore Storage
Flow Model: Dual Porosity (Transient)
Boundary Model: Single Fault
Input data for well test analysis is given in Table 2. For
interpretation we have also used the data given in Table 3.
Figures 1 and 2 show the results of well test analysis by Pan
System. These results are given in Table 4.
The reservoir (indicated to be a fractured reservoir with a gas
cap) exists at its bubble point pressure (equal to reservoir
pressure, 2369.44 psia).

hm = m
2370

0.5

..............................................................................(32)

Matrix and fracture storages are calculated to be 3.21 10-5

ft/psi and 1.07 10-5 ft/psi, respectively by equations 33 and 34:

S m = m c mt hm ...............................................................................(33)
and

S m .............................................................................(34)
(1 )

To obtain the variations of relative permeability with

pressure, first a material balance is performed:

Above the bubble point pressure

So
= c e ( p i p ) ................................................................(35)
S oi

Substituting ce = 2 10-5 psia-1 obtained from equation 36:

ce = c o +

S wcw
c
+ r
1 Sw 1 Sw

.........................................................(36)

into equation 35 gives Sob = 0.6828.

Below the bubble point pressure

Generation of IPR Curves

In this part, present and future time IPR curves for well
No.20 will be generated using the proposed approach.

S o B ob
S ob B o

Bg
Bt B tb + m B ob
1

Bg b

=
B t + B g ( R p R sb )

.......................(37)

Parameters Estimation
Using the above equation and PVT data (given in Figures 3
to 6), values of oil saturation at different pressures are
calculated and presented in Table 5. Using relative permeability
curve (Figure 7), values of kro are then evaluated at different
saturations as shown in Table 5.
Values of oil formation volume factor and oil viscosity at
different pressures are obtained from PVT data (Figures 3 and
4). These values together with the calculated relative
permeability are used in the inflow equations presented earlier
for wells in fractured reservoirs.

From Figure 1 (semi-log plot), the beginning of the last

straight line occurs at:
=1.527 hrs
Notice that the first straight line is masked possibly by
wellbore storage.
In this study, a stratum model is assumed for analysis. For
the stratum model with a producing time of 72 hours, equation
18 gives f (t,)=0.993.
With cmt =1.3 10-5 psia-1 estimated by:

c mt = S om c o + S wm c w + c r

......................................................(30)

Transient IPR
Equation 26 is used to generate the transient IPR curve.
Substituting the parameters calculated before and t=72 hrs in
this equation gives a relationship between flow rate and flowing
pressure (i.e. IPR) which is plotted in Figure 8. It is observed
that the transient IPR curve does not match the test points
(given in Table 1). It is then concluded that the flow regime is
not transient.

and using:

m =

km
m c mt

...............................................................................(31)

Matrix hydraulic diffusivity is calculated to be 715856.508

md.psi/cp. The size of matrix blocks is estimated to be 21.476 ft
by the following equation:

Pseudo Steady State (PSS) IPR

For plotting the IPR curve with pseudo steady state model,
radius of well drainage area should be known. Since there is no

reservoir limit test conducted on well No.20, a method is

suggested to determine the value of re.
Using the well test analysis results and the parameters
estimated before and applying equation 29 (PSS IPR), IPR
curves for some arbitrary values of re are plotted. Well drainage
radius is determined by matching the PSS IPR curve to the flow
test points (given in Table 1). As shown in Figure 9, the PSS
IPR curve matches the test points at re = 942.5 ft.
It is therefore concluded that the well is producing with
pseudo steady state flow regime with drainage radius of 942.5
ft. The value of AOF is estimated to be 97788.51 STB/D.

To overcome the limitations of the previous methods, a

general approach for determination of IPR curve has been
proposed in this study, using well test analysis. This method has
the capability of forecasting future well performance.
In this method at first, an appropriate flow equation is chosen
according to the flow regime existing in the reservoir. Then it is
necessary to substitute for the parameters appearing in the flow
equation.
This method uses well test analysis results for estimation of
reservoir parameters. Quite often, if properly conducted and
interpreted, well test interpretation methods yield the most
representative values of the reservoir parameters. These values
are normally the volumetric average values in the radius of
investigation, whereas other sources of information (e.g. the
analysis of well logs and cores) determine the values (e.g.
permeability or thickness) at discrete points around the
wellbore. In this method, it is recommended to use real fluid
properties (from PVT tests) and relative permeability data (if
available).
As stated before, the proposed approach is quite general and
applicable to a wide variety of reservoirs and flow conditions.
Therefore, as the main objective of this paper and as a novel
work, we have applied the method to an important type of
reservoirs, naturally fractured reservoirs.
The methodology proposed for fractured reservoirs was
tested on an example oil well in an Iranian oilfield. Present and
future IPR curves were generated using pseudo steady state
inflow equation and the results of well test analysis.
As a part of this study, the IPR curves generated here were
compared with those obtained by empirical methods.
Comparison showed that our IPR better matches the flow test
data. Therefore, our method is more reliable than other methods
for determination of IPR curve. Wiggins method except at high
pressures over predicted flow rates. Other methods highly
underestimated flow rates in most cases. Although not exact,
Vogels method was in better agreement with our work
compared to other methods. The reason why the empirical
methods cannot match the data points as well as our method is
because these methods are limited in application and cannot be
used for fractured reservoirs and should be applied within their
range of validity.
Some of the empirical relations for well inflow performance
analysis, especially Vogels method have received much
attention due to simplicity and accuracy. Although accepted and
widely used in the industry, these methods are based on
empirical equations without supporting mathematical or
physical models in most cases. Furthermore, as mentioned
before these methods cannot be applied in all conditions. On
the other hand, the method proposed in this study is based on
rigorous mathematical derivations and physical models
describing fluid flow in the reservoir under different conditions.

Future IPR Prediction

It is attempted to obtain a mathematical expression for the
calculated mobility function (kro/oBo) as a function of pressure.
Linear, polynomial, logarithmic and exponential curves were
fitted through the data points. It was seen that the best curve fit
is the polynomial of degree two, that is:

( p av ) =

k ro

o Bo

= 10 7 p av + 0.0007 p av 0.2382 ............ (38)

2

Ratio of future to present inflow performance equations

using the PSS IPR equation is given by:

q 2 ( p R 2 p wf ) ( p av 2 ) ................................................. (39)

=
q1 ( p R1 p wf ) ( p av1 )
Where it is assumed that the mobility function at future time
is the same function of pressure as present time, and
pav = ( pR + pwf ) / 2 .
Using the above equations and the present time IPR
determined before, flow rate at each bottom hole pressure can
be calculated for future declining reservoir pressures.
Future IPR curves at three different values of average
reservoir pressures are plotted in Figure 10.

Comparison of IPR Curves

Present time IPR curves for the case study well obtained by
different methods (explained briefly in the appendix) are
compared with the curve generated in this study as shown in
Figure 11.
It is verified that this studys IPR best matches the flow test
data points. Therefore, our method is considered more reliable
than other methods for determination of IPR curves. Totally, it
can be stated that the Vogels IPR better matches this studys
IPR in comparison with other methods. Vogels AOF (96657.95
STB/D) is very close to this studys estimate (97788.51 STB/D).
However, still Vogels IPR underestimates flow rates.

Conclusion
The following specific conclusions can be drawn based on
our findings in this research work:
1.
Methods presented previously for determination of
IPR curves were developed for special cases and cannot be
applied in all conditions. Furthermore, they are not based on
mathematical derivations in most cases.
2.
In this study, a general approach has been presented
to generate IPR curves using well test analysis. This method
uses the values of reservoir parameters (obtained from well test
analysis) together with other required data in the proper inflow

Discussion
Based on this study, several points are worth discussing here.
Over time, several analytical and empirical methods have been
presented for determination of well inflow performance
relationship. However, these methods were developed on the
basis of simplifying assumptions for special cases and cannot be
generally applied.

equations. This method has the capability of forecasting future

IPR curves.
3.
The important aspect of the proposed approach is its
generality. Unlike various methods developed for
homogeneous, solution-gas drive reservoirs with boundary
dominated flow; this method is applicable to a wide variety of
cases. As a novel work, the approach has been particularly
extended to include oil wells in fractured reservoirs.
4.
The proposed method for fractured reservoirs was
applied to an example oil well and the resulting IPR curves
were compared with those obtained by empirical methods.
Results show that our method can predict the well deliverability
more accurately than other methods since it can closely match
the flow test data. Therefore, our method is considered more
reliable than other methods.
5.
Among different methods evaluated in this work,
Vogels IPR best matched our work; however, it is not exact
and underestimates the flow rates. This is because although
widely used, empirical methods are not applicable to all cases.
In this study, we have examined their applicability to an oil well
in a fractured reservoir. Therefore, it is very important to use
empirical relationships within their range of validity.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express gratitude to Petroleum
University of Technology for preparing the opportunity to do
this research study and support during the course of this work.

=
=
=
=
=

c
CA
ce
cr
d
FE
h
hm
J
k
kf,o

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

ko
krf,o
kro
m

=
=
=
=

n
p
pav
pi
pR
pwf
q
qo, max

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

=
=

Rs
rw
s
Sf
Sm
So
Soi
Sw
Swi
t
Tf
tp
t
v

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

=
=
=
=

=
=

Drainage Radius, [ft]

Cumulative Produced Gas/Oil Ratio,
[scf/STB]
Solution Gas/Oil Ratio, [scf/STB]
Wellbore Radius, [ft]
Skin Factor
Fracture Storage, [ft/psia]
Matrix Storage, [ft/psia]
Oil Saturation
Initial Oil Saturation
Water Saturation
Initial Water Saturation
Time, [hr]
Fracture Transmissibility, [md.ft/cp]
Production Time, [hr]
Shut-in Time, [hr]
Parameter Defined by Equation A-9
Hydraulic Diffusivity, [md.psi/cp]
Generalized Time-Dependent Hydraulic
Diffusivity, [md.psi/cp]
Inter-porosity Flow Coefficient
Mobility Function, [STB/cp.bbl]
Viscosity, [cp]
Time of Beginning the Second Straight Line
on Semi-Log Plot, [hr]
Porosity
Storativity Ratio

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

Bubble Point
Fracture
Gas
Initial Conditions
Matrix
Oil
Total
Wellbore

Subscripts

b
f
g
i
m
o
t
w

NOMENCLATURE
A
AOF
Bg
Bo
Bt

re
Rp

Drainage Area, [ft2]

Absolute Open Flow, [STB/D]
Gas Formation Volume Factor, [bbl/scf]
Oil Formation Volume Factor, [bbl/STB]
Total (Two-Phase) Formation Volume
Factor, [bbl/STB]
Performance Coefficient in Fetkovichs
Equation, [STB/D/ psia2n]
Compressibility, [psia-1]
Shape Factor
Effective Compressibility, [psia-1]
Rock Compressibility, [psia-1]
Exponent Defined by Equation A-6
Flow Efficiency
Formation Thickness, [ft]
Matrix Thickness (height), [ft]
Productivity Index, [STB/D/ psia]
Permeability, [md]
Effective Oil Permeability in Fractures,
[md]
Effective Oil Permeability, [md]
Oil Relative Permeability in Fractures
Oil Relative Permeability
Pore Volume of Gas Cap/ Pore Volume of
Oil Zone
Flow Exponent in Fetkovichs Equation
Pressure, [psia]
Average Pressure, [psia]
Initial Reservoir Pressure, [psia]
Average Reservoir Pressure, [psia]
Flowing Wellbore Pressure, [psia]
Flow Rate, [STB/D]
Maximum Oil Flow Rate, [STB/D]

REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.

4.

5.

6.

EVINGER, H.H. and MUSKAT, J., Calculations of

Theoretical Productivity Factors; Trans., AIME, 146, pp.
126-139, 1942.
VOGEL, J.V., Inflow Performance Relationship for
Solution Gas Drive Wells; Trans., AIME, 243, pp. 8391, January 1968.
STANDING, M.B., Inflow Performance Relationships
for Damaged Wells Producing by Solution-Gas Drive;
Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp. 1399-1400,
November 1970.
FETKOVICH, M.J., The Isochronal Testing of Oil
Wells; SPE paper 4529 presented at the SPE 48th
Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, 30 September-3
October 1973.
KLINS, M.A. and MAJCHER, M.W., Inflow
Performance Relationships for Damaged or Improved
Wells Producing Under Solution-Gas Drive; Journal of
Petroleum Technology, pp. 1357-1363, December 1992.
WIGGINS, M.L., RUSSELL, J.E. and JENNINGS,
J.W., Analytical Development of Vogel-Type Inflow
Performance Relationships; SPE Journal, pp. 355-362,
December 1996.

7.
8.

9.

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

GALLICE, F. and WIGGINS, M.L., A Comparison of

Two-Phase Inflow Performance Relationships; SPE
Production & Facilities, pp. 100-104, May 2004.
ILK, D., CAMACHO-VELAZQUEZ, R. and
BLASINGAME, T.A., Inflow Performance Relationship
(IPR) for Solution Gas-Drive Reservoirs- Analytical
Considerations; SPE paper 110821 presented at the
2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Anaheim, California, U.S.A., 11-14 November 2007.
ECONOMIDES, M.J., HILL, A.D. and EHLIGECONOMIDES, C., Petroleum Production Systems;
Prentice Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey,
1994.
GOLAN, M. and WHITSON, C.H., Well Performance;
Tapir Publishing Company, Trondheim, Norway, 1996.
BRADLEY, H.B., Petroleum Engineering Handbook;
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas,
U.S.A., February 1992.
AHMED, T., Reservoir Engineering Handbook; Gulf
Professional Publishing Company, Houston, Texas,
2001.
EARLOUGHER, R.C., Advances in Well Test Analysis;
SPE Monograph Series, Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Dallas, U.S.A., 1977.
HORNE, R.N., Modern Well Test Analysis, A
Computer-Aided Approach; Petroway, Inc., Palo Alto,
California, U.S.A., May 1995.
BOURDAROT, G., Well Testing Interpretation
Methods; Technip Publication, Paris, 1998.
AGUILERA, R., Well Test Analysis of Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs; SPE Formation Evaluation, pp.
239-252, September 1987.
VAN GOLF-RACHT, T.D., Fundamentals of Fractured
Reservoir Engineering; Elsevier Scientific Publishing
Company, Amsterdam, 1982.

ln
FE =

re
0.75
rw

r
ln e 0.75 + s
rw

............................................................(A-3)

Fetkovichs Method

qo = C p R p wf

2 n

...........................................................(A-4)

This method requires that a multi-rate test be conducted to

obtain the values of C and n.

Klins-Majcher Method
qo
q o ,max

p wf
= 1 0.295
pR

p
0.705 wf

pR

.............(A-5)

Where

p
d = 0.28 + 0.72 R (1.235 + 0.001 pb ) ..................(A-6)
pb

Wiggins Method
Having one flow point (pwf, qo), IPR is generated by:

Appendix: Brief introduction to some of

the empirical methods for determination
of IPR [2-12]

qo
q o ,max

p wf
= 1 0.52

pR

p
0.48 wf

pR

..................(A-7)

Vogels Method
Having one flow point (pwf, qo), IPR is generated by:

qo
q o ,max

p wf
= 1 0.2
pR

p
0.8 wf

pR

Vogel-Type IPR

qo

............................... (A-1)

q o ,max

For damaged wells, Standings relation is:

FE =1

q o ,max

p wf

= 1.8 FE 1
pR

p
(1 v) wf

pR

...........................(A-8)

Where v is defined by:

Standings Method

qo

p wf
= 1 v
pR

0.8 FE 2 1 wf
pR

v=

2 ( p av = 0)
.....................................................(A-9)
( p av ) + ( p av = 0)

........ (A-2)

PSS+Vogel
Where

Value of AOF is estimated by:

q o ,max =

J pR
1.8

Table 3: Required data for interpretation.

..........................................................................(A-10)

Where

J=

0.00708 k f h
r
o Bo ln e
rw

..............................................(A-11)

+ s 0.75

Then Vogels relation is used to generate the IPR curve.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

bbl 1.589873 E-01 = m3
cp 1.0
E-03 = Pa.s
ft 3.048
E-01 = m
ft3 2.831685 E-02 = m3
psi-1 1.450377 E-04 = Pa-1
psia 6.894757 E+00 = kPa
md 9.869233 E-04 = m2

pwf (psia)

qo (STB/D)

0.125

2334.5

2500

0.25

2329

2910

0.375

2321.639

3500

Value

Wellbore radius (rw)

0.51 ft

Net pay thickness (h)

153 ft

Porosity ()

Initial reservoir pressure (pi)

3588 psia

Matrix permeability (km)

1 md

Initial water saturation (Swi)

0.3

Oil compressibility (co)

1.35 10-5 psia-1

Water compressibility (cw)

3 10-6 psia-1

Rock compressibility (cr)

2.6 10-6 psia-1

Parameter

Value

Permeability (k)

760 md

Skin factor (s)

1.85

Storativity ratio ()

0.25

Inter-porosity flow coefficient ()

5 10-6

Reservoir pressure (pi)

2369.44 psia

Distance to fault (L)

600 ft

Table 5: Variations of oil saturation and relative

permeability with pressure.

Table 2: Input data for well test analysis by Pan System.

Parameter

Value

Table 4: Results of well test analysis by Pan System.

Table 1: Results of flowing the well with different

choke sizes.
Choke size (in.)

Parameter

pwf (psia)

pav (psia)

So

kro

2369.44

2369.44

0.6828

2000

2185

0.656616

0.921585

1700

2035

0.633786

0.853215

1200

1785

0.591948

0.727922

1185

1777.5

0.590712

0.72422

1000

1685

0.573383

0.672326

700

1535

0.545147

0.587765

0.115

500

1435

0.530053

0.542564

Oil formation volume factor (Bo)

1.33913 bbl/STB

250

1310

0.509735

0.481716

Oil viscosity (o)

0.9344 cp

100

1235

0.496439

0.445

Total compressibility (ct)

5 10-6 psia-1

14.7

1192.35

0.490893

0.42529

Figure 1: Radial (Semi-log) plot of well test analysis of well

No. 20.
Figure 5: Solution gas/oil ratio versus pressure.

Figure 2: Log-log plot of well test analysis of well No. 20.

Figure 6: Gas formation volume factor versus pressure.

Figure 3: Oil formation volume factor versus pressure.

Figure 7: Relative permeability curve.

Figure 4: Oil viscosity versus pressure.

Figure 8: Transient IPR curve.
10

Figure 9: PSS IPR curve matching the test points at re=942.5

ft.

Figure 10: Future IPR curves.

Figure 11: Comparison of IPR curves obtained by various

methods.

11