Inflow Performance Relationships

for SolutionGasDrive Reservoirs

R.G. Camacho-Y., * SPE, and Rajagopa. Raghavan, * * SPE, U. of Tulsa

Summary. In this theoretical study, a numerical model was used to examine the influence of pressure level and skin factor on the
inflow performance relationships (lPR's) of wells producing under solution-gas-drive systems. Examination of the synthetic deliverability
curves suggests that the exponent of the deliverability curve is a function of time and that the exponent is usually greater than unity.
The implication of this observation to field data is discussed. The accuracy of procedures given in the literature to predict oilwell delivera-
bilities is also examined. It is shown that these methods can be used to predict future performance provided that the exponent of the
deliverability curve is known and that extrapolations over large time ranges are avoided. If single-point tests are used to predict future
performance (such tests assume that the exponent of the deliverability curve is constant), then errors in predictions will be minimized
if test conditions correspond closely to actual producing conditions. Under these circumstances, errors in rate predictions will be directly
influenced by the magnitude of the error that results from assuming that the exponent of the deliverability curve is known. Although
relative permeability and fluid property data are required, the Muskat material-balance equation and the assumption that GOR is indepen-
dent of distance can be used to predict future production rates. This method avoids problems associated with other methods in the litera-
ture and always yields reliable results.
New methods to modify the IPR curve to incorporate changes in skin factor are presented. A new flow-efficiency definition based
on the structure of the deliverability equations for solution-gas-drive reservoirs is proposed. This definition avoids problems that result
when the currently available methods are applied to heavily stimulated wells.

Introduction
This paper addresses three concerns pertinent to IPR's under can be eliminated. Unfortunately, the curves developed by Stand-
solution-gas drive. First, by means of numerical simulations, we ing need to be corrected for all values of s. Incidentally, the defini-
examine the IPR when a skin region exists around the wellbore. tion we present is consistent with the definition of Ef used for gas
This phase of our work is intended to address the question of whether wells. A new chart to modify the IPR curve based on the appropri-
the generalized form of the IPR curve is governed by the existence ate deliverability equation (Vogel or Fetkovich) is presented.
of a skin region. Although the skin region has a dominant effect
on the well response, the influence of a skin region has been ig- Numerical Model
nored for all practical purposes. (The seminal work of Vogel, 1
We consider a homogeneous, closed, circular reservoir with the
however, briefly addresses the influence of a skin region.)
well located at the center. The well is capable of producing either
Second, we address the prediction of future IPR's from test data.
at constant oil rate or at constant wellbore pressure. Gravity ef-
Many methods have been proposed in the literature 2- 6 to predict
fects are considered to be negligible. The reservoir initially is
future performance. The methods of Standing 2 and Fetkovich 3 are
assumed to be at the bubblepoint. An annular region concentric with
based on empirical observations of solution-gas-drive reservoir per-
the wellbore, with a permeability different from formation perme-
formance. All methods presented in the literature assume that the
ability, is used to incorporate the influence of a skin region.
mobility function, kro/(JJ.oBo), is a linear function of pressure, p,
Several sets of relative permeability and fluid properties were
where kro is the relative permeability to oil, JJ.o is the viscosity of
used in this study. Figs. I and 2 show the fluid properties for two
oil, and Bo is the FVF of oil. Although the methods of Standing
of the data sets we considered, and Fig. 3 presents the relative per-
and Fetkovich can be justified on the basis of this assumption, this
meability data used in this study. Table 1 presents other informa-
requirement (mobility function is a linear function of pressure) is
tion regarding reservoir properties used in this work. The results
not a necessary condition for the methods given in Refs. 2 and 3
given in this work, however, can be applied over a wider range
(or for that matter, in the other references cited above) to be valid.
of conditions.
We examine the validity of the procedures suggested by Standing
A finite-difference model was used to obtain the results present-
and Fetkovich by means of simulations for a wide range of producing
ed here. The procedures we followed to ensure that the results are
conditions. We show that the success of these methods rests primar-
accurate are similar to those presented in Refs. 10 and 11 and will
ily on the fact that the deliverability equations suggested by Vogel
not be considered here.
and Fetkovich incorporate features that reflect the nonlinear aspects
Non-Darcy flow effects are not considered. The influence of non-
of flow in the reservoir and, more importantly, are calibrated by
Darcy flow for wells producing by solution-gas drive represents
measurements. Their procedures attempt to predict only the
a formidable analytical problem. Many fundamental considerations
endpoint-the final answer. We demonstrate this point by compar-
are involved, which are beyond the scope of this work.
ing mobility-function profiles predicted by methods given in the
literature.
Background
The third part of this paper examines procedures to modify the
IPR curve to incorporate the influence of the skin factor, s. Brown 7 From numerical simulations, Vogel showed that the deliverability
shows that Standing's8 method to modify the IPR curve can result curve for a well producing under solution-gas drive is given by
in inconsistent predictions if s is negative. Whitson 9 says that qolqo.max = 1-0.2(Pw/p)-0.8(P'iv/p2). . ............. (1)
Standing'S method leads to nonphysical results if s<O. Whitson's
observations suggest that Standing'S procedure should be incorrect Here qo.max is the maximum possible flow rate (rate correspond-
if s>O. Here, we show that inconsistent or nonphysical predictions ing to Pwf=O), and qo is the flow rate corresponding to average
are a result of the definition of flow efficiency used by Standing. pressure, p, and wellbore flowing pressure, pwf. In 1973, on the
Standing defined flow efficiency on the basis of liquid flow and basis of field experiments, Fetkovich suggested that the delivera-
not on the quadratic form suggested by Vogel's equation. In this bility curve for solution-gas drive systems is given by the follow-
work, we redefine flow efficiency, Ef , on the basis of the quad- ing relation.
ratic forms of the deliverability equations suggested by Vogell and qo =J~(t)(ji2 _p'i:r)n . ............................... (2)
Fetkovich 3 and show that the inconsistencies mentioned by Brown
Here J~(t) is the productivity index for a well producing under
Now at Inst. Mexicano del Petr61eo
"Now at Texas A&M U.
solution-gas drive. Field tests presented in Ref. 3 indicate that the
Copyright 1989 Society of Petroleum Engineers exponent n should be in the range 0.5:$ n:$ l. On the basis of cur-
Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1989 541
 18~--~--~--~--~--~--~

1.0 - Sor=0.234, Sgc=0.07

SET I
16 - - Sor=Sgc =O,Swi =0.3
.-..J>= 0.8
14 ffi

wo
12 0.025 ~~0.6
we.
Il. ....
w~
> 0.4
~
..J
8 0.02 W
a:: 0.2

0.015

Fig. 3-Relatlve permeability data.

TABLE 1-RESERVOIR PROPERTIES USED IN SIMULATION

Set 1 Set 2
Drainage radius, r., ft 656.17 1,000
Fig. 1-Fluld-property data, Set 1. Porosity, cp, fraction 0.3 0.119
PV, Vp ' MMbbl 1.124 1.665
Permeability, k, md 10 10
Well radius, rw' ft 0.32808 0.5
Initial pressure, Pi, psi 5,704.78 1,500
Initial water saturation, S wi 0.3 0.0
SET 2 Initial system compressibility, 1.085x 10- 5 1.334x10- 4
fLg X400(cp) c~, psi- 1
Initial oil viscosity, J.toi' cp 0.298 1.7645
6 Thickness, h, ft 15.55 25

rent knowledge of gas well behavior, Fetkovich attributes expo-

5 1.25 nent values less than unity to non-Darcy flow, although he
acknowledges that n can be less than unity strictly as a result of
variation in fluid properties. Fetkovich also reports that Vogel's
equation yields n=1.24. As we discuss later, this observation is
4 important. In terms of qo,max, Eq. 2 may be written as
qo/qo,max=[1-(p~/p2W . ......................... (3)
Fetkovich (see also Handy12) further suggested that if the varia-
tion of kro/(ll-oBo) with pressure were known, then well delivera-
bility for a well located at the center of a circle could be calculated
by the following equation.
p(l)
1.1 qo=J] A(p)dp, .................................. (4)
Pwj(t)
where J =kh/{l41.2[ln(re/rw)- * +s]} .................. (5)
1.05 and A(p)=kro/(ll-oBo). Theoretical confirmation ofEq. 4 is given
~-Bg X 102 (RB/SCF) in Ref. 13.
To predict future performance with Eq. 1, Standing suggested
oL-~~~~~~~dl that qo,max in the future can be obtained by the relation
o 400 800 1200 1600 qo,max,ho,max,p = [PjA(PJ)]/[ppA(fii,)] . ................ (6)
PRESSURE, p, psi Here the subscripts f and p refer to future and present conditions,
respectively.
Fig. 2-Fluid-property data, Set 2. Fetkovich proposes that future performance can be predicted by
the relation J~j(t)/J~p(t)=plpp, and in this case, we obtain (for
n=l)
qo,maxiqo,max,p =p]!p). . .......................... (7)

542 Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1989

 10 5
SET I
5 = II 51
,., 4
Q 10
N
X
N~
~
-
I
Np/N
I~ 10 3 0=1.05 I 0.001
2 0.026
3 0.066
4 0.093
5 0.108
Fig. 4-Log-log deliverability plots, s = 11.51.
If we wish to establish a basis for the equations presented by Fet-
kovich or Standing, a convenient method is to assume, as Handy
proposed, that A(p) varies linearly with pressure; i.e.,
A(p) =A(P)- ([A(P) - A(O)]lp} (p-p) . ................. (8)
Substituting the right side of Eq. 8 for A(p) in Eq. 4, we obtain
qo,max,/ qo,max,p = {Pf[ Af(p) + Af(O)]} I {pp [Ap (p) + Ap(O)]}.
...................................... (9)
As long as A(O) is proportional to A(p) [in Vogel's case, this con-
stant of proportionality is 119; in Fetkovich's case, A(O) is assumed
to be zero], we obtain Eq. 6. Fetkovich then proceeds to make the
assumption A(p)=exp2; i.e., A(p)=expp, where ex is a constant
that is independent of time, and under these circumstances, Eq. 7
results ~for n"*
1, in the general case, this may imply that Af(p)/Ap
(p) =Pfntl Pjnp].
It is easy to show that Eq. 2 for n= I can be derived from Eq.
4 if Eq. 8 is valid. As Fetkovich mentioned, we can assume that
A(O)=O. Fetkovich's equation can also be derived if we assume
that A(O)={3(P+P1)' where {3 is a constant of proportionality. In-
spection of Eq. 1 suggests that it can be derived if we assume that
A(O)={3 p.
Note that the assumption given in Eq. 8 is merely a convenient
way to establish a basis for Eqs. 1 and 2 (n = 1) or Eqs. 6 and 7
(n= 1) to be valid. Eq. 8 represents only a sufficient, not a neces-
sary, condition to establish these results. For example, we can read-
ily show that the relation
qo =J{A(iJ)(p-Pwf) - [A(p)- A(0)][(p-Pwf)2/2p]} . .... (10)
generally will be incorrect, 13 although Eqs. 1 and 3 may be valid.
This point may become more readily apparent if we note that Eq.
4 will predict flow rates accurately if the area under the A(p) curve
is accurate. Many A(p) functions can yield identical values of the
integral. Our point is that the success of the methods of prediction
of Standing, Fetkovich, and others does not imply that the A(p)
function for the reservoir is a straight line or that we can predict
the A(p) function from measured data (qo' Pwf' and p).
At this stage, it should be noted that the expressions for stabi-
lized productivity index, J~(t), and productivity index at zero draw-
down, J*, that are derived in the literature on the basis of the
expression for productivity index, J, given by Eq. 5 and the as-
sumption that A(p) is a linear function of pressure generally will
be incorrect. We make this observation on the basis of several sets
of computations we have made. 10 In fact, on the basis of a num-
ber of computations, it can be concluded that the methods given
in Refs. 2 and 3 are successful because the expression for J given
by the right side of Eq. 5 is never calculated explicitly, although
the expression for J given by Eq. 5 is used in deriving the final
result.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1989
10 5
"'~
Np/N
I 0.001 @
,.,
~"O.9'
Q 10
4
2
3
0.026
0.066
4 0.093
N~
N
X
-
~
I
5 0.108
n=0.984
e 10
3
n=1.279 SET I
5 = -I
10 2
10- 1 10 10 2 103
Qo,STB/O
Fig. 5-Log-log deliverability plots, s = - 1.
Results
In this section, we first consider the influence of sand p on the
shape of the deliverability curve. Methods to predict future per-
formance are then examined. Then, we consider modifications to
the IPR curve to incorporate changes in s.
The IPR Curve. Fig. 4 is a log-log plot of the deliverability curve
for a well producing under solution-gas drive. The variable of in-
terest is the fraction of initial oil produced, NplN (or average pres-
sure,p). The data shown here are for s>O. Fig. 5 presents a similar
plot for s<O for identical values of NpIN. Set 1 data are used in
both plots. For each specific value of NplN, well-defined straight
lines (within engineering accuracy) are obtained. Careful exami-
nation of these responses suggests that some curvature exists at high
rates and that the curvature is concave downward. Considerable
care was taken to estimate qo max for each case. The arrows that
point downward in these figu'res denote the value of qo,max' All
data shown here are for boundary-dominated flow; the alignment
of the deliverability curve is insensitive to production mode. Un-
like single-phase flow, however, a family of curves is obtained dur-
ing boundary-dominated flow. Results similar to those shown here
were obtained for Set 2 data. In this case, however, values of n
are greater than unity even for small values of NplN, and this re-
sult can be attributed to the existence of a critical gas saturation.
From a practical viewpoint, the most important points to note
are that (1) the value of n is a function of time or depletion, (2)
the change in n is not monotonic with time, and (3) for most cases,
the value of n is greater than unity. The value of n is approximate-
ly unity only for exceedingly low values of gas saturation.
The above results indicate that n is a function of system com-
pressibility or gas saturation. The change in n with time reflects
the change in the mobility function as a function of pressure. The
fact that n> 1 in many cases suggests that the variation in A(p) with
pressure (distance) is much shallower than the profile suggested
by Fetkovich [A(p)=expp]. Note that Vogel also obtained expo-
nent values greater than unity (n = 1.24). The results in Fig. 6 dem-
onstrate this point where the variation of A(p) with pressure for
a specific case is shown for both transient and boundary-dominated
flow. Here, the symbol tiAD represents dimensionless time based
on the drainage area, A, and is given by
tiAD = (0.OO6328kk roi t)/(c/>C t iJl.oiA ) . ................... (11)
These profiles are typical of cases where Sgc=O and the well is
produced at a constant rate. If Sgc >0 and/or the well is produced
at a constant wellbore pressure, then the profiles are shallower than
those shown here. The dashed lines represent profiles predicted by
the Fetkovich hypothesis. The Fetkovich hypothesis clearly pre-
dicts mobility-function profiles that are much steeper than those
obtained by simulations.
543
 z
o
SET I
i= s'O"eD'500,qo'80 ST8/0
NplN SET 1,5' 11.51
~ 0.8
10.001 -n'l 0
=>

l!~i~ ~y$
LL
>-
j~0.6
m~
0_

Y' '{/
::!:~04
0-< .
10.
UJ
N
:J
~ 0.2

~
o 0.25 0.5 0.75
NORMALIZED PRESSURE, p(r,tl/pi

Fig. 6-Mobility-function profiles as a function of time. Fig. 7-Log-log deliverability plot-.1p mode of plotting.

It is difficult to make further generalizations regarding the
mobility-function profile without additional assumptions. Ifwe as-
sume for convenience that the mobility function is given by Eq.
8 and note that A(O) must be zero for n to be unity. then n can be
greater than unity under three circumstances: (1) A(O) > 0; (2)
A(O)<O and IA(O)I<m(p+pwf); and (3) A(O)<O and
IA(O)I > m(p+pwf)' where m is the slope of the straight line (see
the Appendix).
Although we can conclude on the basis of our results and those
of Vogel that the exponent of the deliverability curve usually will
be greater than unity, this observation does not imply that the
deliverability equation for single-phase flow will be valid; i.e., data
should not be plotted in terms of the pressure difference (p -Pwf)'
[In the gas case, if n> 1, then this result would suggest that the
deliv~rability equation is of the form qo=C(t)(P-pwf)'] The re-
sults in Fig. 7 are a replot of the data shown in Fig. 4 in terms
of the pressure difference, dp. These plots exhibit an upward bend
at higher flow rates; i.e., the decline in oil rate will be much faster
than that predicted by the equation for single-phase flow. It is pos-
sible to fit straight lines through portions of the data. The dashed
lines shown in Fig. 7 represent a fit through data at lower rates.
The exponent corresponding to these straight lines is approximate-
ly equal to 0.9. Straight lines with slopes equal to unity are also
shown for reference (unbroken lines). If we perform an analysis
similar to that shown in the Appendix under the assumption that
A(p) is a straight line and that the deliverability equation is of the
form qo =C(t)(p-pwf)n(t), then we can show that n(t) will be less
than unity. In this case, as expected, n = 1 only if the slope of the
mobility function is zero. Note that even if n = I, estimates of
q o.max obtained by extrapolating these straight lines will be in-
correct.
The results shown above substantiate Fetkovich's claim that a
near-wellbore effect is the probable cause for field curves exhibit-
ing slopes much less than unity. The fact that all field experiments
presented by Fetkovich yield values of n:S 1 and that simulations
yield estimates of n ~ 0.9 leads to the following observations: (1)
for wells under solution-gas drive, the non-Darcy flow component
should not be ignored; (2) the value of n generally will change with
depletion, unless the change is completely overshadowed by the
non-Darcy flow effect; and (3) if field experiments suggest that
n"" 1, then this result does not necessarily imply that non-Darcy
flow is insignificant. (Of course, one could argue that the field re-
sults of Fetkovich may not be representative of other cases, but
the evidence in Ref. 3 is convincing. Similar conclusions can be
derived if the results in Figs. 9 and 10 of Ref. 14 are examined.)
Ifwe compare the results in Figs. 4 and 5, nothing in these figures
suggests that the shape of the deliverability curve is influenced by
s. Fig. 8 presents results we obtained for both positive and nega-
tive s, and solutions are presented along the lines presented by
Vogel. I The unbroken line represents the solution of Vogel and
the dashed line represents the deliverability equation given by
Fetkovich 3 (n = 1). Fig. 8a through c presents information for

(a) (b) a,b,e

0.8 0.8
S
0.6 ~ 0.6

-
IQ. IQ.
..... ..... ~ 0 0
t1 0.4 A~o 'i
Q. 0.4
~ 011.51
(;, -I
0.2 Np/N = 0.001 0.2 Np IN=0.066 -VOGEL EQN.
--FETKOVICH EQN.
(n. I)
00 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6
qo Iqo,max qo Iqo,max

0.8
(e)
0.8 ... ~
(d)
d

Np/N
I~
IQ.
.....
'i
0.6 IQ.
.....
'i
0.6
0-
... 0- .. 0.0037
0.038
Q. 0.4 c. 0.4 reo =2000 I~:\ 0.078
s =20 I ~ 0.105
0.2 N p /N=0.108 0.2
-VOGEL EQN.
rso=2.8
- - FETKOVICH EQN.
0 0 (n al)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
qo Iqo,max qo Iqo,max

Fig. 8-Deliverability plots-Cartesian coordinates.

544 Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1989

 s
o 0 ?
o 11.51 3.7,7.3 1SET I o 11.51 3.7,7.3 5SET'
"-I 3.7 "-I 3.7
20 2.8 SET 2 20 2.8 SET 2
- - STANDING'S "'-
IQ. - FETKOVICH'S
EQUATION
EQUATION

"
'i~ 10

I,OL_-:1-'--''-'-..J...L.......,I''--.......-I......./-U..LU.L- . . I - . . I -........u..u,..L-=2-.....
I 10 10 0
qo,max,p / qo,mox,f qo,mox,p /qo,mox,f

Fig. 9-Predictlon of future performance, Standing method. Fig. 10-Prediction of future performance, Fetkovich method.

several values of s for fixed values of NplN (Set 1 data), and Fig.
8d presents data for several values of NplN for a fixed value of
s (Set 2 data). The results shown here and in Figs. 4 and 5 are in-
tended to demonstrate that the shape of the deliverability curve is
essentially unchanged whether results are presented along the lines
presented by Fetkovich (log-log plots) or by Vogel (Cartesian plots).
The results shown in Figs. 4, 5, and 8 clearly show that there is
no basis for the contention in Refs. , and 8 that the deliverability
curve changes from a quadratic form to a linear form as s increases
(see Ref. 15). In fact, these results show that Eqs. 1 and 3 can be
used to analyze data if s*O, provided that we assume that the ap-
propriate relations are valid. This observation also suggests that
the correction suggested by Couto and Golan 5 to incorporate the
change in s is unnecessary. We return to this point later in the paper.
Prediction of Future IPR Curves. The data we have generated
enable us to test the validity of the equations suggested by
Standing 2 and Fetkovich 3 to predict the shift in the deliverability
curve with time. As mentioned in the Introduction, to our knowl-
edge, verification of these suggestions is yet to be published. Fig.
9 presents data that test the validity of Eq. 6, which is denoted by
the unbroken line. Data for several values of NplN and s are
presented. Results for both sets of data that we considered are shown
here. The data points reflect results obtained from log-log deliver-
ability plots similar to Figs. 4 and 5 and estimates of A(jJ). The
alignment of the data points with the unbroken line is good. For
purposes of discussion, most of the data points are labeled. The
nomenclature used here is as follows. The first number refers to
present conditions; the second, to future conditions. Thus, ' ...... 2
represents values at Pressure Levels 1 and 2, respectively, and 2 ...... 4
represellts values at Pressure Levels 2 and 4, respectively. The sym-
bo12 ...... 4 implies that data at Pressure Level 2 were used to predict
the value of qo,max at Pressure Level 4. The results given here sug-
gest that if data are used to predict responses over a short time range,
then Standing's method should provide an adequate engineering ap-
proximation to the actual value of qo.max,J. For example, consider
Points 4 ...... 5,3 ...... 5,2 ...... 5, and 1 ...... 5 for Set 1 data. Points 4 ...... 5 and
3 ...... 5 are closer to the unbroken line than Point 2 ...... 5 is, and all
three of these points are closer to the unbroken line than Point ' ...... 5
is. Thus, predictions over a longer time span are less reliable.
If we consider the alignment of the data points with the unbroken
line, we note that all data points fall on or to the left of this line.
This result implies that if A(jJ) values are estimated accurately, then
estimates of qo,max,J will be lower than the correct values of
qo,max,f- Thus, values of qo predicted by this method will be low-
er than actual values of qo.
As mentioned by Fetkovich, Standing's method requires that the
k ro curve be well-defined. Fetkovich suggested, on the basis of em-
pirical observations, that Eq. 7 be used to avoid the need for rela-
tive permeability data. Fig. 10 presents information that can be used
to verify this hypothesis. The unbroken line in Fig. 10 represents
Eq. 7. The data points reflect information extracted from the deliver-
ability curves for several values of jJ. Except for the fact that re-
sults are presented in terms of average pressure, the information
given here is identical to that given in Fig. 9. The results shown
here suggest that if predictions are made over a short time span,
then the recommendation of Fetkovich should yield an accurate es-
timate of qo,max,J' For example, Points 1 ...... 2, ' ...... 3, and 3 ...... 4 are
much closer to the unbroken line than Points 1 ...... 5 or 2 ...... 5 are (the
nomenclature used here is identical to that used in Fig. 9). On the
basis of the results shown here, we can conclude that Fetkovich's
suggestion will yield estimates of qo,max,J that are good approxi-

1.1 .---~--...,---T"----r---r---r----,

SET 2, reo' 2000, s=20, 'so = 2.8, Pwf Ipj=0.5333
TEST I, 'iAO= 0.058, Pwf Ijj = 0.5354
TEST 2' 'IAO= 0.122, Pwf/jj = 0.5376
SET 2, reo = 2000, s = 20, rSO = 2.8, Pwf IPi =0.5333
o TEST I' 'iAO=0.2903, Pwf/ji = 0.5429
~
TEST2' 'iAO =0.5230, Pwf lji = 0.5498
~o 0.9

w w
~ 0.8
!;i 0.8
0::
o o
~ 0.7
~ 0.7 ::::i STANDING
:J <l
<l ~
0.6 FETKOVICH
~ PIVOT-POINT
~
0::
0.6
~ 0.5
Qo,2 IqO,1 =0.9838
o I 2 3
0.5 l:---J.---!1!-----'----:2l:----'----:!3!---...J DIMENSIONLESS TIME, 'iAD
0
DIMENSIONLESS TIME, 'iAD
Fig. l2-Prediction of rate responses-influence of test con
Fig. ll-Predlctlon of rate responses-comparison of vari- ditions.
ous approaches.

Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1989 545


SET I, S:: 0, reo:: 2000
"j' 0.48
~" 0.46
tiAo=10.27, Pwf/Pj::0.5941
CD
~ !;[
Q.
20.44
-z
~
Q.
, .(
~0.42
o 3 0.9162 7.21 X10- 6
~ 0.40
z DIMENSIONLESS TIME. tiAD
:::>
~
~0.38
~
:J
a5 0.36
o Note that this approach does not require rate or pressure measure-
~ ments; relative permeability and fluid property data, however. are
0.34~------~--------~--------
0.85 0.9 0.95
NORMALIZED PRESSURE, Pwt'i>
Fig. 13-Mobility-function profile predictions.
mations of the actual values of qo,max,f, provided that extrapola-
tions are conducted over a short time range. From a practical
viewpoint, this method will provide estimates as accurate as the
method suggested by Eq. 6, although the procedure recommended
by Standing (Fig, 9) will result in more consistent predictions. From
the information given above, we can conclude that the suggestions
of Standing or Fetkovich can be used to predict future performance.
Care should be taken in applying the information given in Figs.
9 and 10 to field data, particularly if single-point tests are used to
predict future performance. First, the information given in Figs.
9 and 10 assumes that the deliverability curve is well-defined-
i.e., that n is known. Second, the procedures suggested by Stand-
ing and Fetkovich provide no information on the future value of
n. One would have to assume n to be unity or that n is unchanged
(implicitly assumed in Refs. 2 and 3). In the following, we con-
sider the consequences of assuming that n is constant (unity or un-
changed) in performance prediction.
Fig. 11 presents results that compare rates predicted by various
methods. For convenience, we also present results obtained by the
two-rate methods suggested in Refs. 4 and 6, which require data
at two pressure levels. (In this work, we make no distinction be-
tween the two Kelkar-Cox 6 methods because the differences in
rates predicted by the two methods are negligible.) All results given
here are normalized on the test rate at the first time level, qo,l (the
arrows denote times corresponding to the two tests). Predictions
for the single-point methods were made with Test 1 data. Because
*
these methods have never been tested when s 0, results shown
here are for s = 20 and are typical of the results obtained in this
study. For constant-pressure production, we have found that the
Vogel-Standing (n= 1.24) method generally predicts rates that are
lower than the Fetkovich method (n= 1). Although not of direct
interest to this work, the Fetkovich method predicts rates essen-
tially identical to the two-test methods of Uhri and Blount 4 or
Kelkar and Cox 6 in most cases, although the former requires only
one data point. Unfortunately for the specific case considered here,
errors with the Couto-Golan 5 procedure are exceedingly high. Rate
predictions with Eq. 4 and the constant-GOR assumption suggest-
ed by Levine and Prats l6 are also shown. The GOR for each spe-
cific average pressure was obtained from the Muskat l7 material-
balance equation. Unlike the other methods,2-6 this procedure pre-
dicts actual rates very well after the onset of boundary-dominated
flow, and in most of the cases, it yields the best results. A similar
546
1.1.---,--""--.-----,----,--,-----,
FETKOVICH PROCEDURE
s = 20. reo = 2000. SET 2
ui
0.8
0:
faN 0.7
::::i
~
0.6 p
Pwf/p J .STB/D/Psi 2
0: I 0.0679 1.054X10-5
oZ 0.5 2 0.5429 8.43XI0-6
0.4 !:----'---+1----'----:!2:----'-----,3:------'
0
Fig. 14-lnfluence of test conditions on rate predictions.
conclusion was also reached by Levine and Prats for the s=O case.
needed. (The method we have used is slightly different from that
used in Ref. 16. The authors in Ref. 16 assumed that the pressure
and the GOR obtained from the differential material-balance equa-
tion correspond to the values at the outer boundary. In Ref. 13,
we show that results from the differential material-balance equa-
tion correspond to the average reservoir pressure; hence, in this
work we assume that the GOR given by the Muskat material-balance
corresponds to p. In some cases, these differences can be sig-
nificant.)
An unfortunate aspect of the prediction methods given in the liter-
ature is that it is not possible to derive definite conclusions regard-
ing the accuracy of these methods. If test conditions are different,
then the differences in rate predictions can be significant. This point
is demonstrated in Fig. 12, where all conditions except the test con-
ditions are different. In this particular case, the two-point methods
are superior to the single-point methods. Nevertheless, in this case
also, the single-point methods are reasonably accurate if short time
spans are considered. This example emphasizes the need to obtain
data at regular intervals and to not rely on extrapolations over long
time ranges. The prediction methods cited above can be used only
for constant-pressure production. We have not considered produc-
tion at a constant rate because this mode of production is not perti-
nent to rate predictions. For the constant-rate case, only the
constant-GOR method yields consistent results.
In summary, on the basis of the results in Figs. 11, 12, and others,
we conclude that (1) all methods predict rates that are reasonably
accurate for times immediately following test times-in this regard,
two-test methods and single-point methods are equally good for en-
gineering purposes; (2) predictions based on two-test methods gener-
ally are better than single-point methods, and predictions become
more accurate if the gas saturation in the reservoir is greater than
the critical gas saturation; (3) Standing's method generally predicts
rates that are lower than all other predictions; (4) in many instances,
Fetkovich's method predicts rates as accurately as the two-test
methods; and (5) predictions based on the Muskat material-balance
equation and the assumption that the GOR is independent of dis-
tance are reliable.
Although the results presented in Figs. 11 and 12 and in other
computations not shown here suggest that future production rates
can be predicted with reasonable accuracy, one cannot conclude
that A(p) can be predicted by any of these methods. In Fig. 13,
we plot A(p) predicted from some of the methods discussed in the
literature at a given instant in time. The results shown here dem-
onstrate the point we made earlier: the success of these methods
in predicting future production rates does not require that A(p) be
known accurately. The principal reason for the inability of these
methods to predict the mobility function is that the expression for
J given by the right side of Eq. 5 generally is not valid if it is
assumed that the mobility function is a straight line. Note, how-
ever, that the constant-GOR assumption predicts the mobility func-
Journal of Petroleum Technology, May [989
 - - TWO-PHASE FLOW
- - SINGLE-PHASE FLOW
.0.
~ 0.75
~ ~
0. Ef
0 0.60
fi
a:
~ 0.45
a:
::;)
C/)
C/) 0.30
w w
a:
Q.
0.15
00
Fig. 15-Modifications to IPR curve-effect of the definition
of flow efficiency.
tion fairly well. In summary, neither the value of A(p) as a function
of pressure nor the value of A(p) at any instant in time can be pre-
dicted on the basis of test data and the assumption that A(p) is a
linear function of pressure.
The results presented in Figs. II and 12 and in the literature as-
sume that the well will be produced under conditions identical to
test conditions. This assumption may not always be true. Because
n can be different from unity and because it also changes with time,
additional errors can be introduced if test conditions are widely
different from actual producing conditions. Fig. 14 presents results
that address this situation. Here we compare predictions based on
three values of J~(t) obtained from three points on a deliverability
curve under the assumption that n = 1. The actual value of n was
1.362. Curves 1 through 3 represent predictions made with the
highest, intermediate, and lowest flow rates, respectively. Differ-
ences in the predictions are significant, and these differences are
a result of the use of different values for qo,max,p. If the operator's
intent is to produce the well at conditions similar to those of Test
2, then the value of J~p(t) corresponding to Test 2 should be used
in predicting future production rates. Fig. 14 also presents simula-
tor results corresponding to well conditions identical to those in
Test 2. From these results, the testing of wells at conditions that
reflect actual producing conditions is clearly preferable.
Modifications to IPR Curve To Incorporate Changes in Skin
Factor. Because Vogel' s 1 deliverability equation was developed
for s=O, StandingS suggested a simple method to incorporate the
effect of a change in s. His method is based on the assumption that
the definition of flow efficiency for single-phase flow will also be
valid for solution-gas drive. As mentioned earlier, Brown 7 and
Whitson 9 showed that inconsistent results are obtained when this
method is used if s<O. The deliverability plots shown in Figs. 4,
5, and 8 conclusively suggest that quadratic forms of the delivera-
bility curves suggested by Vogel and Fetkovich also apply if s *0.
These results imply that the definition of flow efficiency must also
reflect the quadratic form of the deliverability equation. Thus, in
the following discussion, we define flow efficiency by
Er [(1 + VP:Vip)(1-P:Vf 1p)]![(1 + VPwf1p)(1-Pwf1p)] . .. (12)
Here V takes on values of 0.8 (Vogel) or 1 (Fetkovich), and P:Vf
is the well pressure when s=O. Note that this definition of flow
efficiency is consistent with definitions commonly used in gas wells,
where the quadratic form of the deliverability equation usually is
valid. For this definition of flow efficiency, the flow rate when
EF* 1 can be obtained by
qolq;!;;;a~ =Ef [1 + V(Pwflp)][I-(Pwflp)] . ............. (13)
Fig. 15 presents solutions of Pwflp vs. qolq;!;;;a~. The unbroken
lines are solutions for the V = 0.8 case (Vogel's relationship of the
deliverability curve) when Eq. 12 is used to define flow efficien-
Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1989
.e.
~ 0.75
e. Ef
0 0.60
fia:
w 0.45
a:
::;)
C/)
C/) 0.30
a:
Q.
0.15
00
Fig. 16-IPR curves using quadratic definition of flow efficien-
cy, influence of V.
cy; the dashed lines are solutions when Standing's definition of flow
efficiency is used. The curves are distinct for all values s or Ef ,
except for Ef = 1. For the Ef = 1.2 and 1.6 cases, as indicated by
Brown, the dashed line bends over and indicates that flow rate
decreases as pwf is lowered. This incorrect behavior is avoided if
Eq. 12 is used. It is also interesting that all unbroken curves predict
that qolq;r;;.~ =Ef when Pwf=O. This is the expected result. How-'
ever, none of the dashed lines reflect this result, further confirma-
tion that the liquid-flow definition of flow efficiency should not be
used. Similar results are obtained when the Fetkovich deliverabili-
ty equation is used. The above observations are also applicable to
the results presented in Ref. 18.
At this stage, two points regarding the use of Standing'S method
deserve clarification. For purposes of discussion, let us assume that
Standing's definition of flow efficiency is correct. In this case, it
can be shown that the point at which qo begins to decrease is given
by P wf lp=(Ef -1.l25)IEf . If we examine this relationship, it is
clear that problems with this approach will arise if Ef > 1.125. It
can also be shown that the ideal well response, P:Vf' will be less
than zero when Pwf1p < (Ef-l)IEf . Again, this relationship sug-
gests that no problems will be evident if Ef < I (damaged wells).
Note that the point at which the flow rate is a maximum is not iden-
tical to the point at which Pwf=O. Note also that computations that
suggest that Pwf$O are consistent with the van Everdingen 19 and
Hurst 20 concept of skin factor.
Fig. 16 compares responses for both the Vogel and Fetkovich
deliverability equations under the assumption that the quadratic form
of the definition of flow efficiency is valid. The unbroken lines are
the Vogel solutions; the dashed lines are solutions corresponding
to the Fetkovich deliverability curve. In this case, all curves indi-
cate that qolq;!;;;a~ =Ef when Pwf=O and, more importantly, the
incorrect behavior or nonphysical result is not evident. [Actually,
the suggestion of Brown 7 that a log-log plot be used to determine
qo.max when incorrect behavior is evident tacitly assumes the quad-
ratic definition of flow efficiency; the procedure recommended by
him must be modified, however, because he assumes that the liq-
uid definition of flow efficiency is valid before the incorrect be-
havior (see Figs. 2.22 and 2.23 of Ref. 7). Also, the solutions in
Fig. 2.25 of Ref. 7 do not show that qolq;!;;;a~ =Ef at Pwf=O.]
Results summarized in Table 2 demonstrate the advantages of
our recommendations. The log-log deliverability curves generated
in the course of this study were used to obtain the results given
here. Three data sets are considered in Table 2. Cols. 2 and 3 list
values of s and the pressure ratio, Pwip, for each value of s. Col.
4 presents qo.max obtained from the deliverability plots (values in
parentheses in the column are n.) Cols. 5 and 6 present appropri-
ate values of flow efficiency computed with results in Col. 3. Cols.
7 and 8 present values of q~(max obtained from the Vogel and Fet-
kovich relations with the information in Col. 3. Differences be-
tween the results obtained from the deliverability curve and the
547
 TABLE 2-EFFECT OF DEFINITION OF FLOW EFFICIENCY ON FLOW-RATE PREDICTION

Skin Maximum Production

Data Factor, Pressure Maximum Flow Efficiency, E f Rate, qa,max
Set s Ratio, P wf1p Rate, q a,max' log-log Vogel Fetkovich Vogel Fetkovich
0 0,8993 440 (0.93) 1.0 1.0 508.37 460.23
-1 0.9174 530 (0.93) 1.2082 1.2068 614.21 555.44
11.51 0.6619 151 (0.964) 0.3348 0.3404 170.20 156.64
0 0.7942 238 (0.986) 1.0 1.0 261.52 238.36
2 -1 0.8273 275 (0.984) 1.1726 1.1700 306.66 278.87
11.51 0.2822 102.6 (1.05) 0.3825 0.4011 100.02 95.61
0 0.3130 100 (1.04) 1.0 1.0 102.44 97.56
3 -1 0.4444 131 (1.204) 1.1405 1.1240 116.83 109.65
Set 1, reO = 2,000.
Flow rate for all computations: q a = 88 STB/D.

equations of Vogel and Fetkovich reflect the influence of n. Vogel's flow. Although these extensions demonstrate considerable insight
method predicts larger values of qo max than Fetkovich's method, regarding the mechanics of fluid flow under solution-gas drive, in-
because Vogel's equation assumes 'n> I, and Fetkovich's proce- consistencies exist, particularly regarding the influence of s, the
dure is used with the assumption that n = I. If we now compute value of n, and the shape of A(p). One of the objectives of this work
qff!max Iq~t,;a~ for a specific data set, then this ratio will be equal is to attempt to resolve some of these inconsistencies by examining
to the appropriate value of Ef (Cols. 5 and 6). These results con- well performance in a rigorous manner and to lay a foundation for
firm that the definition of flow efficiency given by Eq. 13 is correct. further work. For example, we have shown that s does not influ-
On the basis of the results presented in Figs. 15 and 16 and Ta- ence the shape of the deliverability curve and that problems en-
ble 2, we can again conclude that the general shape of the deliver- countered in mOdifYing the IPR curve to study the effect of a change
'*
ability curve is unchanged if s 0 and that there is no basis for the in s are a result of ignoring the shape of the deliverability curve.
conclusion that the curve will be linear if s > 0. 1. 8 . 18 On the basis of this work, the following conclusions are warranted.
Results in Fig. 17 demonstrate the effect of using the quadratic \. The exponent n is a function of time or pressure level, and
definitions of flow efficiency. The test conditions are noted on the changes in n are not monotonic with time. In most of the simula-
figure; also noted are the values of q~{;.~. As indicated by Brown, tions we conducted, n> \. Even for early stages of depletion, n
the results obtained by Standing's method suggest that the flow rate can be different from unity. Because many of the synthetic deliver-
will decrease as the wellbore pressure approaches zero. If the quad- ability curves predict n> I (this conclusion can also be reached on
ratic definition of flow efficiency is used, then the maximum flow the basis of Vogel's work) and field results suggest that n < I, it
rate is obtained, as expected, when Pwf=O. Also shown in this appears that non-Darcy flow is the norm rather than the exception
figure is the response predicted by Harrison's equation (see Eq. in solution-gas-drive reservoirs.
2.39 of Ref. 7). At lower pressures, both the Standing and the Har- 2. The shape of the deliverability curve does not change from
rison methods, which are based on the definition of flow efficien- a quadratic to a linear form if the well is damaged. Methods pro-
cy for single-phase flow, predict rates much lower than the responses posed in the literature that assume that the shape of the curve is
predicted by the quadratic definition of flow efficiency, and these a function of s are incorrect.
differences are significant. 3. The suggestions by Standing and Fetkovich can be used to
predict future IPR curves, provided that extrapolations over long
Conclusions time spans are avoided. Predictions with single-point tests will be
A finite-difference model was used to evaluate IPR's in solution- as accurate as predictions based on two-point tests. If single-point
gas-drive reservoirs for a wide range of producing conditions. The tests are used to predict future production rates, then test condi-
effects of pressure level, well condition, and production mode were tions should reflect actual producing conditions. Under these cir-
studied. The consequences of using the Vogel l and Fetkovich 3 cumstances, errors in future production rates will be primarily a
deliverability equations (under identical conditions) are examined. function of the error in the initial estimate of n.
Many of the methods proposed in the literature for analyzing IPR 4. The method of prediction that uses the Muskat material-balance
curves have been derived by extending ideas based on single-phase equation to compute A(ji) and the constant-GOR assumption always
yields reliable results for boundary-dominated flow for all values
of s. This conclusion is an extension of the results in Ref. 16 to
2000~~~-.~~~'-~~~r-~~-r~~--'
skin factors different from zero. This procedure requires relative
permeability and PVT data, but it does not require any data point
.c;; TEST DATA' qo =200 STB/D as the other methods do; thus, concerns pertaining to extrapola-
Cl. Pwf =1500 psi tions over long time spans are not pertinent.
'i 1500 P =2000 psi 5. Problems that arise in applying Standing's modification to the
Cl. Ef =2 IPR proposed by Vogel to incorporate changes in s can be avoided
w qo,max if Ef is defined after consideration is given to the factors that
a: govern the pressure distribution in solution-gas-drive reservoirs;
=> STBID
~ 1000 VOGEL 250.0 i.e., the quadratic form of the deliverability equation must be used
W FETKOVICH 228.6
a: to define EI , and this definition should be used for both positive
a.. HARRISON 281.7
and negative s. Differences in predicted rates by the Vogel and Fet-
w STANDING 285.7
a: kovich (n= I) relations do not appear to be significant.
g 500
...J
...J Nomenclature
W
:;: a = function of time (Eq. A-2)
A = drainage area, ft2
h = function of time
h' = function A(p) at p=O (Eq. A-I)
Bg = FVF, RB/scf [res m 3 /std m 3 ]
Fig. 17-Comparison of methods on rate predictions.
Bo = oil FVF, RB/STB [res m 3 /stock-tank m 3]

548 Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1989

 CI = system compressibility, psi -1 [kPa -1] 2. Standing, M.B.: "Concerning the Calculation of Inflow Performance
C(t) = function of time (Eq. A-3) of Wells Producing From Solution Gas Reservoirs," JPT(Sept. 1971)
Ef = flow efficiency 1141-42.
3. Fetkovich, M.J.: "The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells," paper SPE
h = formation thickness, ft [m]
4529 presented at the 1973 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Ex-
J = productivity index, defined by Eq. 5 hibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 30-0ct. 3.
J~(t) = productivity index for well producing under solution- 4. Uhri, D.C. and Blount, E.M.: "Pivot Point Method Quickly Predicts
gas drive, STB/[D-(psi2)n] Well Performance," World Oil (May 1982) 153-64.
[stock-tank m 3 /d'(kPa 2 )n] 5. Dias-Couto, L.E. and Golan, M.: "General Inflow Performance Rela-
J* = productivity index at zero drawdown, STBID-psi [stock- tionship for Solution-Gas Reservoir Wells," JPT (Feb. 1982) 285-88.
6. Kelkar, B.G. and Cox, R.: "Unified Relationship to Predict Future
tank m 3 /d' kPa]
IPR Curves for Solution Gas-Drive Reservoirs," paper SPE 14239
k = absolute permeability, md presented at the 1985 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
krg = relative permeability to gas tion, Las Vegas (Sept. 22-25).
k ro = relative permeability to oil 7. Brown, K.E.: The Technology ofArtificial Lift Methods, PennWell Pub-
m = slope of straight line (Eq. A-I) lishing Co., Tulsa, OK (1984) 4, 13-21.
n = exponent of inflow performance curve 8. Standing, M.B.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for Damaged Wells
Producing by Solution Gas Drive," JPT(Nov. 1970) 1399-1400.
N = initial oil in place, STB [stock-tank m3 ]
9. Whitson, C.S.: "Reservoir Well Performance and Predicting Deliver-
Np = cumulative oil produced, STB [stock-tank m3 ] ability," paper SPE 12518 available at SPE, Richardson, TX.
P = pressure, psi [kPa] 10. Camacho-V., R.G.: "WeIl Performance Under Solution Gas Drive,"
t:.p = pressure difference, psi [kPa] PhD dissertation, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK (1987).
Pi = initial pressure, psi [kPa] 11. Camacho-V., R.G. and Raghavan, R.: "Performance of Wells in So-
Pwf = wellbore flowing pressure, psi [kPa] lution Gas Drive Reservoirs," paper 16745 presented at the 1987 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 27-30.
P'wJ = wellbore flowing pressure when s=O (Eq. 12), psi [kPa] 12. Handy, L.L.: "Effect of Local High Gas Saturations on Productivity
P = average reservoir pressure, psi [kPa] Indices," Drill. & Prod. Prac., API (1957) II 1-22.
q0 = oil flow rate, STB/D [stock -tank m 31 d] 13. Camacho-V., R.G. and Raghavan, R.: "Some Theoretical Results Use-
qo,1 = oil flow test rate at the first level ful in Analyzing WeIl Performance Under Solution Gas Drive," paper
qo,max = maximum oil rate, STBID [stock-tank m 3 /d] 16580 available at SPE, Richardson, TX.
r = radius, ft [m] 14. Millikan, C.V. and Sidwell, C.V.: "Bottomhole Pressures in Oil
Wells," Petroleum Development and Technology, Petroleum Div.,
re = external drainage radius, ft [m]
AIME (1931) 194-205.
rsD = dimensionless skin-zone radius 15. Raghavan, R.: "Well Test Analysis for Multiphase Flow," paper SPE
r w = wellbore radius, ft [m] 14098 presented at the 1986 IntI. Meeting on Petroleum Engineering,
R = producing GOR, scf/STB [std m 3 /stock-tank m3 ] Beijing, March 17-20.
Rs = solution GOR, scf/STB [std m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ] 16. Levine, J.S. and Prats, M.: "The Calculated Performance of Solution-
s = skin factor Gas-Drive Reservoirs," SPEJ (Sept. 1961) 142-52; Trans., AIME,
222 .
Sgc = critical gas saturation
17. Muskat, M.: "The Production Histories of Oil Producing Gas-Drive
So = oil saturation Reservoirs," J. App. Phys. (March 1945) 147-59.
Sor = residual oil saturation 18. Nind, T.E.W.: "Skin Factor and Flow Efficiency in Wells Producing
Swi = initial water saturation Under Solution Gas Drive," paper CIM 85-36-9 presented at the 1985
t = time, days CIM Annual Technical Meetirig, Edmonton, Alta., June 2-5.
tiAD = dimensionless time based on A and initial conditions 19. van Everdingen, A.F.: "The Skin Effect and Its Influence on the Produc-
tive Capacity ofa Well," JPT(June 1953) 171-76; Trans., AIME (1953)
V = constant (0.8 or I), see Eq. 12
198.
Vp = PV, MMbbl [m 3 ] 20. Hurst, W.: "Establishment of the Skin Effect and Its Impediment to
z = gas compressibility factor Fluid Flow Into a Wellbore," Pet. Eng. (Oct. 1953) 25, B-6.
ex = constant independent of time 21. Carter, R.D., Miller, S.C., and Riley, H.G.: "Determination ofStabi-
(3 = constant of proportionality Iized Gas Well Performance From Short Flow Tests," JPT(June 1963)
'Y = Euler's constant, 0.57721, .. 651-58.
"A(p) = mobility function (Eq. 4)
Appendix-Discussion on the Value of the
/A-g = gas viscosity, cp [Pa' s]
Exponent of the Dellverabllity Curve
/A-o = oil viscosity, cp [Pa' s]
<P = porosity In this section, we examine the value of n when "A(p) is a straight
line. Carter et at. 21 present a similar analysis for gas wells.
Subscripts Let the mobility function be given by
D = dimensionless "A(p)=mp+b' . .................................. (A-I)
1 = future conditions
i = initial conditions Then Eq. 4 can be written as
max = maximum
qo(t)=a(p L p2,q)+b(p-pwf)' .................... (A-2)
o = oil
P = present conditions where a and b can be functions of time but independent of
pLp~f'
Acknowledgments If we follow Fetkovich, 3 the deliverability curve is given by
We thank M.J. Fetkovich, M.D. Bradley, D. Epps, S. Joshi, and qo(t) = C(t)(p~rp~f )n(t). . ....................... (A-3)
T. Thrasher for their advice, suggestions, and comments. We ac-
knowledge the assistance of our colleague, Kermit E. Brown, who Combining Eqs. A-2 and A-3 and assuming C(t) to be independent
has patiently explained the significance of this topic to Raghavan of (p2_p~), we obtain
for the past 10 years. Camacho-V. acknowledges the support of n(t) = {a+b[d(p-pwf)]/[d(p2 -p2,q)j}[a+bl(p+Pwf)]-I.
the Inst. Mexicano del Petr6leo. Computing time was provided by
the U. of Tulsa. .................................... (A-4)
Eq. A-4 suggests that n will not remain constant for isochronal
References curves if "A(p) is given by Eq. A-I.
I. Vogel, J.V.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive In the following discussion, we will first assume that a > O. Equa-
Wells," JPT (Jan. 1968) 83-92; Trans., AIME, 243. tion A-4 suggests that if b=O [i.e., 1(0)=0], then n= 1.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1989 549
 We also have Case B (Eq. A-7 Is Valid). Combining Eq. A-4 and Inequality
A-7, we have (1) if b> 0, then n> 1, and (2) if b<O, five possibil-
[d(p-Pwt))/d(p 2 -p2,.t) = (p+Pwt+(P-Pwf)
x {1+ [2/(dpldpwr l)J} t 1................ (A-5)
ities exist. We will restrict our attention to the cases that yield values
of n observed in practice: if Ib[d(p-Pwt)/d(p2 -p4)] I<a, then
O<n< I, and if IbII(p+pwta, then n> 1.
From Eq. A-4 we note that the value of n will be dictated by one
If a =0, then for fixed value of p, Eqs. A-4 and A-5 suggest that
of the following inequalities.
n ~ 1. This result is well known, and this behavior also results when
d(p- Pwt)/d(p L p2,.t) < II(P+Pwt) ................. (A-6) data that should be approximated by the liquid-flow equations are
plotted in terms of (p2 -p2,.t).
or d(p-Pwt)/d(p 2 -p4 II(P+Pwt) . ................ (A-7)
If neither of these inequalities is valid, then n = I. The inequality 51 Metric Conversion Factors
given in Eq. A-6 will apply if the well is produced at a constant bbl x 1.589873 E-Ol m3
pressure or if dpldPwt= 1. (Note that dpldpwf= 1 for single-phase cp x 1.0* E-03 Pa's
liquid flow, constant-rate production, and that dpldPwt:51 for the ft x 3.048* E...,OI m
production of real gas under the assumption that p.z is proportional ft3 x 2.831 685 E-02 m3
to p). Inequality A-7 will apply if dpldPwt< 1 or if we study the md x 9.869233 E-04 p.m 2
shape of the deliverability curve for fixed values of p. psi x 6.894757 E+OO kPa
Case A (Eq. A-6 Is Valid). Combining Inequality A-6 and Eq. Conversion factor is exact. JPT
A-4, we have (1) if b>O, then O<n< 1, and (2) if b<O, then there
are five possibilities. Only two that yield values of n that have been Original SPE manuscript received for review March 8, 1987. Paper accepted for publica-
tion Feb. 14, 1989. Revised manuscript received Jan. 23. 1989. Paper (SPE 16204) first
observed in practice are of interest to this work: if Ibl/(p+pwf) <a, presented at the 1987 SPE Production Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City, March
then n> 1, and if Ibd(p-Pwt)/d(p2_p 2,.t)1 >a, then O<n< 1. 8-10.

550 Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1989