SPE 25458

Generalized Inflow Performance Relationships for

Three-Phase Flow

Society of Petroleum Engineers

M.L. Wiggins, U. of Oklahoma

SPE Member
Copyright 1993, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Production Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City, OK, U.S.A., March 21-23, 1993.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). 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. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 750833836, U.S.A. Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

ABSTRACT
Generalized three-phase inflow
performance relationships (IPRs) for the oil
and water phases are presented in this paper.
These relationships yield adequate estimates of
the production-pressure behavior of oil wells
producing from homogeneous, bounded
reservoirs during boundary-dominated flow.
The IPRs are empirical relationships based on
linear regression analysis of simulator results
and cover a wide range of reservoir fluid and
rock properties. Methods to study the effects of
changes in flow efficiency and to predict future
performance are also presented.

single incompressible fluid and is the ratio of

the producing rate to the pressure difference.
However, Evinger and Muskat2,3 pointed out
that a straight-line relationship should not be
expected when multiple phases are flowing in
the reservoir. They presented theoretical
calculations that showed a curved relationship
between flow rate and pressure for two- and
three-phase flow.
Vogel4 later developed an empirical
inflow performance relationship (IPR) for
solution-gas drive reservoirs that accounted for
the flow of two phases, oil and gas, in the
reservoir based on computer simulation results.
The resulting IPR equation is

INTRODUCTION

~ = 1 - 0.2 Pwf - 0.8 (Pwfj2

Predicting the performance of

individual oil wells is an important
responsibility of the petroleum engineer.
Reasonable estimates of well performance allow
the engineer to determine the optimum
production scheme, design production and
artificial lift equipment, design stimulation
treatments and forecast production for
planning purposes. Each of these items is
important to the efficient operation of
producing wells and successful reservoir
management.

qo;nax

Pr

(1)

Pr

Fetkovich5 also presented an empirical inflow

performance relationship based on field data
that has gained wide acceptance.
His
relationship, of a form similar to the empirical
gas well deliverability equation proposed by
Rawlins and Schellhardt6 , is

(2)

When estimating oil well performance,

it is often assumed that fluid inflow is
proportional to the difference between reservoir
pressure and wellbore pressure. One of the
first relationships to be used based on this
assumption was the Productivity Index (PI).
This straight-line relationship can be derived
from Darcy'sllaw for the steady-state flow of a

Both Vogel's and Fetkovich's relations were

developed for solution-gas drive reservoirs and
are widely used due to their simplicity.
In an attempt to extend Vogel's
approach to three-phase flow, Brown7
presented a method proposed by Petrobras for
determining the inflow performance of oil wells
483

GENERALIZED INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS

FOR THREE-PHASE FLOW

producing water. The method uses a constant

PI for the water production and adds it to a
Vogel relation for the oil production to obtain a
composite inflow performance relationship.
Sukarno8 proposed a method derived from
computer simulation of three-phase flow. This
method resulted from nonlinear regression
analysis of the generated simulator results and
is based on the producing water cut and total
liquid flow rate. The resulting relationship is
a quadratic whose coefficients are functions of
water cut. As of yet, no one has addressed the
problem of predicting future performance or
studied the effect of a skin region around the
wellbore during three-phase flow.

SPE 25458

zero flowing pressure. This profile can then be

used to develop the analytical IPRs for the oil
and water phases.
Unfortunately, we do not always have
reliable relative permeability or fluid property
information. In this case, the analytical IPR is
only of academic interest in our operations. To
overcome this problem, generalized three-phase
IPRs similar to Vogel's were developed and are
presented here. The resulting IPR equations
are based on regression analysis of simulator
results covering a wide range of relative
permeability information, fluid property data
and water saturations.
Development of Simulator Results

In this paper, generalized inflow

performance relationships are presented for
three-phase flow in bounded, homogeneous
reservoirs. The proposed IPRs are compared
with other three-phase methods currently
available. The methods presented are based on
homogeneous reservoirs where gravity and
capillary effects are negligible. Methods are
also presented for predicting performance when
reservoir conditions change from test
conditions. This includes predicting future
performance due to depletion and predicting
performance when changes occur in the skin
region near the wellbore.

To develop the generalized equations to

predict inflow performance, IPR curves were
generated from simulator results for four basic
sets of relative permeability and fluid property
data. Each set of data was used to generate
simulator results from irreducible water
saturation to residual oil saturation. Sixteen
theoretical reservoirs were examined from
initial pressure to the minimum flowing
bottomhole pressure. Table 1 presents the
range of reservoir properties used in the
development of the generalized IPRs.
Simulator results were obtained for a
radial flow geometry and constant oil rate
production.
Maximum oil and water
production rates were estimated at each stage
of depletion from the simulator results at a
minimum flowing bottomhole pressure of 14.7
psia. If the flowing bottomhole pressure did
not reach this minimum during the simulation,
the maximum rate was estimated from the
production information available and then
checked by rerunning the simulator.

GENERALIZED IPRs
Wiggins, Russell and Jennings9
recently proposed an analytical IPR for threephase flow in bounded reservoirs.
An
advantage of the analytical IPR is that one can
develop an IPR specific to a particular
reservoir and its operating conditions. The
major disadvantage, however, is that it
requires knowledge of relative permeability
and reservoir fluid properties and how they
behave with pressure. This is not a large
obstacle if relative permeability and pressurevolume-temperature data are available for the
reservoir of interest, along with an idea of the
average reservoir pressure and water
saturation. With this information, one can
develop the required mobility function profiles
from the current reservoir pressure to near-

Figs. 1 and 2 present typical oil and

water inflow performance curves for Case 3
with an initial water saturation of 20% at
several stages of depletion. These curves have
the same characteristic concave shape noticed
by Vogel in his research. The curves were
normalized by dividing each point of

484

SPE 25458

MICHAEL L. WIGGINS

infonnation by the maximum rate and average

pressure at the stage of depletion. The
resulting IPR curves are presented in Figs. 3
and 4. The individual curves are now almost
indistinguishable and can be represented by a
single curve. The simulator results from all
cases studied were normalized in this manner.

Comparison with Other Methods

In order to test their reliability, the
generalized IPRs were compared with the
three-phase IPR methods of Brown and
Sukarno. Brown's method was proposed by
Petrobras and is based on developing a
composite IPR curve. The composite curve is
generated by using Vogel's IPR for the oil
phase and coupling it with a straight-line PI
for the water phase. Sukarno's method is
based on nonlinear regression analysis of
simulator results. Both methods differ from
the generalized three-phase IPR method
presented in this paper in that they couple the
water and oil rates. The proposed method
assumes we can treat each phase separately.

IPRs
To develop the generalized three-phase
IPRs, the production rate ratios were regressed
on the pressure ratios. A linear regression
model of the fonn

(3)
was used to fit the infonnation. The statistical
analysis was performed using the linear
regression procedure available in the SAS
System lO, a general purpose software system
for data analysis.

To evaluate the three methods,

infonnation presented by Sukarno in his
Tables 6-24 to 6-26 was selected for comparison
purposes. This information was generated by
Sukarno using a simulator and was not used in
the development of the proposed method. It
was felt that these cases would give an
unbiased indication of the reliability of the
proposed IPRs.

The resulting generalized IPRs are

Tables 4-6 present the results of this

analysis. All three methods yield similar
estimates of producing rates, indicating the
generalized three-phase IPRs yield suitable
results. The maximum difference between the
simulator results and the generalized IPR is
3.98% for the oil phase and 7.08% for the water
phase. This analysis shows that any of the
three methods appear suitable for use during
boundary-dominated flow; yet, the proposed
method is much simpler to use without yielding
any degree of reliability. Based on simplicity,
the generalized IPRs are recommended for use
in applying to field data.

... (4)

and

... (5)

Figs. 5 and 6 present the simulator infonnation

for all cases studied with the resulting IPR
equations. Statistical infonnation is presented
in Tables 2 and 3. Overall, the average
absolute error was 4.39% for the oil IPR and
6.18% for the water IPR indicating the
generalized curves should be suitable for use
over a wide range of reservoir properties if the
reservoir is producing under boundarydominated flow conditions.

PERFORMANCE PREDICTIONS WHEN

RESERVOIR CONDITIONS CHANGE
The generalized IPRs presented in the
previous section are useful in allowing the
petroleum engineer to calculate the pressure
and production behavior of an oil well given
the necessary test infonnation. The resulting

485

GENERALIZED INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS

FOR THREE-PHASE FLOW

Eqs. 6 and 7 can be used with well test

information to study the effects of changes in
flow efficiency.

estimates of flowing pressure or production

rates assume that there is no change in
reservoir conditions from those under which
the well test was made. This is fine for many
situations where one desires to estimate the
effect of changing the flowing pressure on the
production rate, or the effect on the flowing
pressure if the rate is changed.

To utilize the proposed method, one

would estimate the maximum oil and water
production rates from the generalized threephase IPRs (Eqs. 4 and 5) and the flow
efficiency from Eq. 6 using the skin factor
estimated from a transient well test. It should
be noted that large errors in estimating the
outer boundary radius of the reservoir results
in small errors in the flow efficiency. The
maximum flow rates for the oil and water
phases without skin are then estimated from
Eq.7.

There are times, however, when the

engineer desires to estimate the pressureproduction behavior under reservoir conditions
that are different from those at which the well
test was conducted.
The two primary
conditions of interest are changes in flow
efficiency and at different stages of reservoir
depletion. Changes in flow efficiency are of
interest when one is considering a stimulation
treatment to remove damage or improve
permeability near the wellbore. The effects of
depletion are encountered in predicting future
performance at an average reservoir pressure
less than the test pressure. In this section, we
will look at using test data to predict well
performance when reservoir conditions have
changed.

Once the maximum flow rates are

determined at a flow efficiency of one, Eq. 7
can be used to predict the maximum
production rates at a new flow efficiency.
Inflow performance curves are then predicted
for the well at the new flow efficiency by using
the generalized IPRs.
Table 7 presents a comparison of the
proposed method to account for changes in skin
during three-phase flow to simulator results.
The maximum production rates calculated and
presented in the table are from selected test
information. The resulting error between the
calculated maximum rates and simulator rates
includes errors in the generalized IPRs and
error in the flow efficiency approximation, Eq.
6. As indicated, the proposed method does a
good job of estimating the maximum flow rates
for the cases studied.

Changes in Flow Efficiency

Flow efficiency can be defined as the
ratio of the measured production rate to the
ideal production rate. The ideal production
rate is that rate which would be observed at
the measured well bore pressure if skin equals
zero. In equation form, this reduces to
T.

Tw

In-

E, =

T.

InTw

3
4

SPE 25458

(6)

Predicting Future Performance

+$

If we apply the Taylor series approach

proposed by Wiggins, Russell and Jennings in
developing the analytical IPR, we can write the
present maximum flow rate as

This definition of flow efficiency allows the

ratio of the maximum production rates with
and without skin to be written as

(8)

(7)

where D is related to the mobility function by

486

MICHAEL L. WIGGINS

SPE 25458

As the average reservoir pressure decreases,

we see a corresponding decrease in the
maximum flow rate.
When the average
reservoir pressure reaches zero, there is
physically no flow from the reservoir.
Consequently, a linear regression model with
no intercept was chosen.

(9)

The resulting relationship to predict

the future maximum oil rate is

The subscript p in Eq. 8 indicates present

conditions.
If we relate the maximum
production rate at some future time to the
current maximum rate, we obtain
qtl,JrJU1 = Pr,D]n,-o
qtl,JrJU,

qtl,m&x,
qtl,JrJU,

-vJ P :
lpr

= O.15376__ -

r ]

(12)

(10)

Pr,[D]u,~

where the f subscript refers

conditions.

while the relationship for water is

to future

qW,m&x1

Eq. 10 states that the ratio of the

maximum production rate at some future
reservoir pressure to the current maximum
production rate is related to the ratios of the
reservoir pressures and the mobility function
terms, D. Since the mobility function terms
are functions of the average reservoir pressure,
Eq. 10 suggests that the production rate ratio
can be written as a polynomial in the ratio of
average reservoir pressures.

qw,m&xp

= 0.59245433(Pr/ ]
Pr.p

(13)

The statistical information for this analysis is

presented in Tables 8 and 9. The coefficient of
determination for the two relationships is
greater than 0.9, indicating a good fit of the
information. The F -test indicates that the
model is adequate to describe the information
while the t-test shows the coefficients are
significant.

Maximum oil rate ratios versus the

average pressure ratios for all the cases
studied in this research are presented in Fig. 7.
This information appears to follow a quadratic
relationship. As indicated, there is some
variation between the curves due to relative
permeability and fluid property effects;
however, there is no great deviation in the
curves. This agrees with the information
studied in developing the generalized IPR. Fig.
8 presents the same comparison information
for the water phase.

To use the proposed future performance

method, one would estimate the maximum
production rates from the generalized IPRs
(Eqs. 4 and 5).
The maximum future
production rates can be estimated from Eqs. 12
and 13 at the desired average reservoir
pressure. New inflow performance curves at
the future depletion stage can be developed by
using the generalized IPR equations with the
desired reservoir pressure and maximum
future production rates.

The information presented in Figs. 7

and 8 was fit with a linear regression model of
the form

Tables 10-12 present a comparison of

simulator results and future production rates
predicted by the proposed future performance

(11)

487

GENERALIZED INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS

FOR THREE-PHASE FLOW

method. The results presented in these tables

indicate that the error increases as we estimate
further in time, however, on an absolute basis,
the predictions are within reasonable
engineering accuracy.

proposed methods may have limited

applicability, since very few reservoirs
completely satisfy the assumptions. One might
speculate that the methods have merit under
less stringent conditions than those under
which they were developed. Examples would
include: reservoirs that have very limited water
influx; reservoirs that initially had no mobile
water phase but began producing water due to
limited water influx; large reservoirs
experiencing water influx where portions of the
reservoir are isolated from the influx by
producing wells nearer the reservoir
boundaries. Other examples might include
reservoirs that are relatively thin with respect
to the drainage area where gravity effects are
negligible, and partially penetrating wells
where there is little vertical permeability.
These examples are only speculation and
further research is required before the
proposed methods can be extended to these
situations.

The analysis suggests that care should

be taken in estimating future performance over
large stages of depletion as the error may
increase. This error may not be significant if
the absolute difference in production values are
small, as indicated by several of the examples.
Based on analysis of information used in
developing this method, one should exercise
caution in predicting future rates at reservoir
pressure ratios less than 70%. While estimates
at pressure ratios less than 70% may be
relatively accurate, they may contain
significant errors. It is recommended that
initial future performance estimates be
updated every six months to one year. This
would progressively reduce the uncertainty in
earlier estimates as depletion occurs in the
reservoir.

CONCLUSIONS

APPLICABILITY

1. Generalized three-phase IPRs have

been presented that are suitable for use over a
wide range of reservoir properties.
The
proposed relationships are Vogel-type IPRs
that require single point estimates of oil and
water production rates, flowing wellbore
pressure and average reservoir pressure.

The proposed IPRs and methods

presented in this research for three-phase flow
were developed from analysis of multiphase
flow in bounded, homogeneous reservoirs where
there is no external influx of fluids into the
reservoir, and apply to the boundarydominated flow regime. The methods are
limited by the following assumptions: 1) all
reservoirs are initially at the bubble point; 2)
no initial free gas phase is present; 3) a mobile
water phase is present for three-phase studies;
4) Darcy's law for multiphase flow applies; 5)
isothermal conditions exist; 6) there is no
reaction between reservoir fluids and reservoir
rock; 7) no gas solubility exists in the water; 8)
gravity effects are negligible; and 9) there is a
fully penetrating wellbore. Strictly speaking,
the methods cannot be considered correct when
other types of reservoir conditions exist, and
the engineer should exercise great care in
utilizing the proposed methods.
From

practical

viewpoint

SPE 25458

2. The generalized IPRs have been

verified using information presented by
Sukarno and by comparison to the three-phase
methods of Brown and Sukarno. The proposed
method yielded results as reliable as these two
methods while being much simpler to use.
3. A method has been presented to
estimate pressure-production behavior due to
changes in flow efficiency.
The method
appears to yield suitable results with
maximum errors between the predictions and
simulator results being less than 15% for the
cases studied. This error includes errors from
the generalized IPR and the definition of flow
efficiency.

the

488

MICHAEL L. WIGGINS

SPE 25458

4. A method has been proposed for

predicting future performance that is similar in
form to a Vogel-type IPR The method is
suggested by the Taylor series expansion of the
multiphase flow equations proposed by
To the
Wiggins, Russell and Jennings.
author's knowledge, no one has proposed a
method for predicting future performance
during three-phase boundary-dominated flow.

3.

4.
5.

NOMENCLATURE

~
p

Pr
Pwf

CIo
CIo,rnax

6.

flow efficiency, dimensionless

relative permeability to oil
pressure, psi
average reservoir pressure, psi
flowing wellbore pressure, psi
oil production rate, BOPD
maximum oil production rate,
BOPD
water production rate, BWPD
maximum water production
rate, BWPD
external boundary radius, ft
wellbore radius, ft
skin factor, dimensionless
regression coefficient
oil viscosity, cp

7.

8.

9.

REFERENCES
1.

2.

Evinger, H.H. and Muskat, M.:

"Calculation of Productivity Factors for
Oil-gas-water Systems in the Steady
State", Trans., AIME (1942) 146, 194203.
Vogel, J.V.: "Inflow Performance
Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive
Wells", JPT (Jan. 1968) 83-92.
Fetkovich, M.J.: "The Isochronal
Testing of Oil Wells", paper SPE 4529
presented at the 1973 SPE Annual
Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 30 - Oct.

3.

oil formation volume factor,

RB/STB

Ef

Darcy, H.: Les Fontaines Publiques de

la Ville de Dijon, Victor Dalmont, Paris
(1856) 590-594.
Evinger, H.H. and Muskat, M.:
"Calculation of Theoretical Productivity
Factors", Trans., AIME (1942) 146,
126-139.

10.

489

Rawlins, E.L. and Schellhardt, M.A:

Backpressure Data on Natural Gas
Wells and Their Application to
Production Practices, USBM (1935) 7.
Brown, KE.: The Technology of
Artificial Lift Methods, PennWell
Publishing Co., Tulsa, OK (1984) 4, 1835.
Sukarno, P.: "Inflow Performance
Relationship Curves in Two-Phase and
Three-Phase Flow Conditions", Ph.D.
dissertation, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK
(1986).
Wiggins, M.L., Russell, J.E. and
Jennings, J.W.: "Analytical Inflow
Performance Relationships for ThreePhase Flow in Bounded Reservoirs",
paper SPE 24055 presented at the
1992 Western Regional Meeting,
Bakersfield, CA, Mar. 30-Apr. 1.
Freund, RJ. and Littell, RC.: SAS
System for Regression, SAS Institute,
Cary, NC (1986).

Table 2. SAS Statistics for Oil IPR

Table 1. Reservoir Properties

Property

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

CaseS

Porosity

0.18

0.12

0.20

0.24

15.0md

1O.0md

l00.0md

5O.0md

Permeability

DEP VARIABLE: QORATI

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE

Height

25 ft

10ft

10ft

25ft

Temperature

150F

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

30.0%

15.0%

18.0%

Water Solids

12.0%

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

506ft

l085ft

WeUbore
Radius

0.328ft

0.328 ft

0.328ft

0.328ft

HODEL
ERROR
U TOTAL

OF

2 160.09582759 80.04791379
408
0.26264508 0.0006437379
410 160.35847267

VARIABLE
PRAT
PRAT2

PRAT
PRAT2

1
1

PARAMETER
ESTIMATE

0.0001

PARAMETER
STANDARD
ESTIMATE
ERROR
-0.519167 0.008038153
-0.481092 0.01012434

DF
1
1

T FOR HO:
PARAMETER&O
-64.588
-47.518

PROB>ITI
0.0001
0.0001

Test Information:

F VALUE

PROB>F

124348.602

0.0001

PARAMETER ESTIMATES

OF

PROB>F

Table 4. Comparison of Proposed IPR to Other Methods

Using Information in Sukamo's Table 6-24

ROOT MSE
0.02537199
R-SQUARE
0.9984
DEP MEAN
-0.564403
ADJ R-SQ
0.9984
C.V.
-4.49537
NOTE: NO INTERCEPT TERM IS USED. R-SQUARE IS REDEFINED.

VARIABLE

F VALUE
141748.766

PARAMETER ESTIMATES

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
MEAN
SQUARE

2 144.14973559 72.07486780
408
0.20745539 0.0005084691
410 144.35719098

ROOT MSE
0.02254926
R-SQUARE
0.9986
DEP MEAN
-0.526888
ADJ R-SQ
0.9986
C.V.
-4.2797
NOTE: NO INTERCEPT TERM IS USED. R-SQUARE IS REDEFINED.

DEP VARIABLE: QWRATI

SUM OF
SQUARES

MEAN
SQUARE

SUM OF
SQUARES

DF

MODEL
ERROR
U TOTAL

Table 3. SAS Statistics for Water IPR

SOURCE

SPE 25458

GENERALIZED INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS

FOR THREE-PHASE FLOW

STANDARD
ERROR

T FOR HO:
PARAMETER-O

PROB>ITI

-0.7222350.009044375
-0.284777 0.01139171

-79.855
-24.999

0.0001
0.0001

fr,~i

Simulator

Wiggins
S",BOPD
2252
65.48
105.45
142.44
176.44
207.46
235.50
260.56
282.62
310.13

2100

So,BOPD
176.31

Sw,BWPD
50.16

Sukarno
S",BOPD
23.21
66.52

Brown
S",BOPD
22.82
65.94
10554
141.38
173.20
200.71
223.59
241.46
253.89
264.46

fwf,fsi
1995
1785
1575
1365
1155
945
735
525
315
0

S2:BOPD
23.06
66.10
105.88
142.66
176.31
207.oI
234.45
259.00
279.34
301.77
Simulator

Wiggins

Sukarno

Brown

fwf,~i

SW, BWPD
5.91
17.54
28.85
39.73
50.16
60.01
69.18
77.46
84.64
92.67

9w,BWPD

Sw,BWPD
6.02
17.65
28.89
39.71
50.06
59.90
69.18
77.85
85.86
96.50

9w , BWPD

1995
1785
1575
1365
1155
945
735
525
315
0

490

fwf,fsi
1155

5.51
17.47
28.89
39.75
50.06
59.81
69.02
77.67
85.77
96.89

10650

143.14
176.44
206.41
233.05
256.35
276.31
300.00

6.47
18.71
29.94
40.11
49.14
56.94
63.43
68.50
72.03
75.03

MICHAEL L. WIGGINS

SPE 25458

Table 5. Comparison of Proposed IPR to Other Methods

Table 6. Comparison of Proposed IPR to Other Methods

Using Information in Sukamo's Table 6-25

Using Information in Sukamo's Table 6-26

Test Information:

Test Information:
pwf, psi
1463
Simulator
pwf,psi

<jo,

BOPD

pr,psi
2660

qw, BWPD
58.29

qo,BOPD
76.18

Pwf,psi
1008

Wiggins

Sukarno

Brown

q",BOPD

q",BOPD

So,BOPD

pwf, psi

qo,BOPD
7.76

pr,psi
1600

qw, BWPD
33.58

Simulator

Wiggins

Sukarno

Brown

q",BOPD

q",BOPD

q",BOPD

q",BOPD

1.65
3.84

3.62
5.68

2527

9.98

9.72

9.96

9.42

1488

1.63

1.63

2261

27.60

28.25

28.60

27.47

1328

3.82

3.83

1168
1008

5.87

5.87
7.76

5.88

7.76

7.76

7.66

9.52

9.50

9.49

9.53

11.16

11.08

11.05

11.18

12.60

12.51

12.45

12.30
13.18

1995

44.82

4550

45.83

44.36

1729

60.67

61.68

59.93

1463

76.18

61.46
76.13

76.13

73.95

1197

90.44

89.51

89.18

86.15

931

102.81

100.84

96.13

848
688
528

151

665

117.08

101.61
112.42

111.10

103.37

368

13.91

13.78

13.70

399

124.45

121.94

119.97

107.49

208

15.07

14.89

14.78

14.05

135.44

133.81

130.66

112.76

16.29

16.11

15.95

15.19

Simulator

Wiggins

Sukarno

Brown

Simulator

Wiggins

Sukarno

Brown

pwf, psi

qw,BWPD

qw,BWPD

qw, BWPD

qw, BWPD

pwf,psi

qw, BWPD

qw, BWPD

qw, BWPD

qw, BWPD

2527

6.92

6.43

7.12

7.22

1488

6.68

6.37

6.77

6.51

2261

19.62

20.38

20.SO

21.06

1328

15.99

15.87

16.07

15.64

1995

32.64

33.69

33.92

34.02

1168

25.01

24.92

25.00

24.53

1729

45.75

46.35

46.46

45.95

1008

33.58

33.54

33.54

33.09

1463

58.29

58.37

58.37

56.71

848

41.87

41.71

41.67

1197

70.61

69.75

69.62

66.06

688

49.71

49.44

49.37

41.15
48.28

931
665

82.40

SO.49

SO.15

73.71

528

56.85

56.72

56.61

53.13

93.92

90.68

89.92

79.26

368

6350

6357

63.37

56.91

399

102.45

100.02

98.89

82.42

208

6951

69.97

69.62

60.70

112.85

112.99

110.73

86.46

75.93

77.64

76.94

65.62

Table 7. Comparison of Predicted Maximum Production Rates to

Simulator Results in the Presence of Skin
Table 8. SAS Statistics for Oil Future Performance Relationship
Case 2, 40% Initial Water Saturation

Skin
-2
+5
+20

Skin
-2
+5
+20

pwf,psi
1223
937
60

pwf,psi
1223
937
60

Pr,psi

1863
2045
2163

1863
2045
2163

Simulator

Predicted

Test

qo,max,

qo,max,

So-

BOPD

BOPD

ence,

(5=0)

(s=O)

38.95
48.49
54.85

40.28
50.82
56.63

BOPD
-1.33
-2.33
-1.78

BOPD
25.00
20.00
15.00

Test
qw,
BWPD
3.98
2.73
1.82

Differ-

Simulator

Predicted

qw,max,

qw,max,

BWPD

BWPD

ence,

(S=O)

(5=0)

6.15
6:87
7.28

6.41
6.94
6.88

BWPD
-0.26
-0.06
0.41

Percent
Error
-3.42
4.SO
-3.24

DEP VARIABLE: QORAT

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DifferPercent
Error
4.15
-0.93
5.61

SOURCE

DF

SUM OF
SQUARES

MODEL
ERROR
U TOTAL

2
234
236

74.45855221
0.37840779
74.83696000

MEAN
SQUARE
37.22927611
0.001617127

F VALUE

PROB>F

23021.859

0.0001

ROOT MSE
0.04021352
R-SQUARE
0.9949
DEP MEAN
0.4476028
ADJ R-SQ
0.9949
C.V.
8.984198
NOTE: NO INTERCEPT TERM IS USED. R-SQUARE IS REDEFINED.
PARAMETER ESTIMATES

Case 3, 50% Initial Water Saturation

Test

So-

Skin
-2
+5
+20

Skin
-2
+5
+20

pwf,psi
1047

902
465

?wf,psi
1047

902
465

Pr,psi
2716
2886
2003

p"psi
2716
2886
2003

BOPD
200.00
100.00
25.00

VARIABLE

Simulator

l'Tedkted

qo.max,
BOPD

qo,max,
BOPD

ence,

(5=0)

(5=0)

200.03
220.95
117.36

191.28
222.39
118.15

BOPD
8.75
-1.44
-o.SO

Simulator

Predkted

Differ-

Test

qw,max, qw,max,

Sw,

BWPD

BWPD

ence,

BWPD
183.19
82.60
25.75

(5=0)

(5=0)

177.78
191.55
122.39

175.20
183.69
121.71

BWPD
2.58
7.86
0.68

PRAT
PRAT2

Percent
Error
4.38
-0.65
-0.68

DifferPercent
Error
1.45
4.10
0.55

491

DF

PARAMETER
ESTIMATE

STANDARD
ERROR

T FOR HO:
PARAMETER-O

PROB>ITI

0.15376309
0.83516299

0.01896232
0.02247023

8.109
37.168

0.0001
0.0001

10

GENERALIZED INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSIDPS

FOR THREE-PHASE FLOW

SPE 25458

Table 10. Comparison of Simulator Results and Future Performance

Predictions Using Proposed Relationship for Case 2
Table 9. SAS Statistics for Water Future Performance Relationship
Test Information: 30% Initial Water Saturation
pr.p, psi
90,max,p' BOPD
2375
96.34
DEP VARIABLE: QWRAT
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
MODEL
ERROR
U TOTAL

DF

SUM OF
SQUARES

MEAN
SQUARE

F VALUE

PROB>F

2
234
236

81. 58898652
0.31074416
81.89973068

40.79449326
0.001327966

30719.520

0.0001

pr,f,psi
1886
1447
633

ROOT MSE
0.03644127
R-SQUARE
0.9962
DEP MEAN
0.4943643
ADJ R-SQ
0.9962
C.V.
7.371341
NOTE: NO INTERCEPT TERM IS USED. R-SQUARE IS REDEFINED.

pr,f, psi
1886
1447
633

9w,max,p, BWPD
0.63

Simulator
90,max,f,
BOPD
56.17
29.02
5.86

Calculated
qo,max,l,
BOPD
62.50
38.89
9.66

DiUerence

Simulator

Calculated

Difference

qw. max,(,

qW,max,f,

BWPD
0.46
0.36
0.16

BWPD
0.44
0.31
0.12

BOPD
~.33

-9.87
-3.81

Percent
Difference
%
-11.28
-34.04
~.99

BWPD
0.02
0.04
0.04

Percent
DiHerence
%
4.31
12.58
27.05

PARAMETER ESTIMATES

VARIABLE
PRAT
PRAT2

DF

PARAMETER
ESTIMATE

STANDARD
ERROR

T FOR HO:
PARAMETERaO

PROB>ITI

0.59245433
0.36479178

0.01718355
0.0203624

34.478
17.915

0.0001
0.0001

Test Information: 40% Initial Water Saturation

pr.p, psi
90,max,po BOPD
2428
76.47
Simulator

Difference

BOPD
47.73
1754
2.36

Calculated
qo,max,l,
BOPD
54.52
25.30
3.94

Simulator

Calculated

Difference

qW,max,(,

qw,max,f,

BWPD
6.82
4.21
1.24

BWPD
7.20
4.13
1.09

qo,max,f,

pr,f, psi
2031
1321
420

pr,f, psi
2031
1321
420

pr,f,psi
2671
1790
549

pr,f, psi
2671
1790
549

Calculated

Difference

BOPD
300.60
146.93
2151

BOPD
17.17
8.91
3.56

Simulator

Calculated

DiUerence

qw,max,{,

qW,max,(,

BWPD
40.03
24.37
6.57

BWPD
37.46
22.27
5.61

qo,max,(,

BWPD
2.58
2.10
0.96

Test Information: 50% Initial Water Saturation

pr,p' psi
9o,max,po BOPD
3364
264.73
Simulator
qo,max,f,

pr,f' psi
2945
1900
445

BOPD
227.87
107.09
11.66

pr,f, psi
2945
1900
445

Simulator
qW,max,f,
BWPD
196.23
114.92
23.11

Difference

Calculated

DiUerence

BOPD
22.79
13.57
2,41

qw,rnax,f,

BWPD
181.96
102.81
19.32

BWPD
14.26
12.11
3.79

Percent
Difference
%
5.40
5.72
14.20

pr,f, psi
1155
926
507

Percent
Difference
%
6.43
8.61
14.59

pr,f, psi
1155
926
507

BWPD
-C.38
0.08
0.16

Percent
Difference
%

-5.64
2.01
12.48

Difference

Simulator

Calculated
qw,max,l,
BWPD
0.82
0.61
0.29

DiUerence

BWPD
0.89
0.72
0.38

BOPD
-1.71
-2.71
-1.24

BWPD
0.07
0.11
0.09

Calculated

BOPD
0.69
-C.25

596

BOPD
26.64
18.66
7.27
Calculated
qw,max,f,
BWPD
14.42
11.10
5.65

Difference

pr,f, psi
1244
1022
596

Simulator
qw,max,f,
BWPD
14.85
1150
5.65

Difference

qo,max,f,

-C.35

BWPD
0.43
039
0.01

Percent
Difference
%
-4.57
-11.49
-15.50
Percent
DiUerence
%
8.39
15.05
23.63

9w,max,p, BWPD
18.06

Simulator
qo,max,l,
BOPD
27.33
18.41
6.92

pr,f,psi
1244
1022

492

9w,max,,,, BWPD
1.04

Calculated
qo,max,f,
BOPD
39.16
26.26
9.24

Test Information: 50% Initial Water Saturation

pr,p, psi
9o,max,,,, BOPD
1421
34.39

Percent
Difference
%
10.00
12.69
20.64
Percent
Difference
%
7.27
10.54
16.41

~7.51

Simulator
qo,ma",f,
BOPD
37.45
23.56
7.99

qw,rr.ax,{,

9w,max,p, BWPD
227,96

Calculated
qo,max,l,
BOPD
205.08
93.52
9.25

~.79

-7.76
-1.59

Test Information: 40% Initial Water Saturation

Pr.p, psi
90,max,,,, BOPD
1333
5151

9w,max,p, BWPD
49.44

Simulator
qo,max,l,
BOPD
317.77
155.83
25.07

BOPD

Percent
DiHerence
%
-14.23
-44.23

Table 12. Comparison of Simulator Results and Future Performance

Predictions Using Proposed Relationship for Case 4

Table 11. Comparison of Simulator Results and Future Performance

Predictions Using Proposed Relationship for Case 3
Test Information: 20% Initial Water Saturation
pr,p' psi
90,max,p' BOPD
3172
416.54

9w,max,,,, BWPD
9.59

Percent
Difference
%
2.52
-1.34
-5.12
Percent
DiHerence
%
2.93
3.43
0.12

SPE 25458

MICHAEL L. WIGGINS

1000

2000

3000

11

4000

pwf,psia
Fig. 2 Water inflow performance curves for Case 3, 20% Swi,
at several stages of depletion generated from simulator results.

Fig. 1. Oil inflow performance curves for Case 3, 20% Swi, at

several stages of depletion generated from simulator results.

1.0
1.0

0
0

%
0.8

cP
0

0.8

00

00

cDo

/1
~

l;l

'b

0.6

t5%

......
0

0" 0.4

0
0

0.6

a:t

~
......

DC

eg.

0
00
0

0
[JJ

~
0" 0.4

Bo
0

Cu::J

&
0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

QJ

0.0

IC

0.2

0.0
0.0

1.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

pwf/pr

pwf/pr

Fig. 4. Water IPR curves for Case 3, 20% Swi.

Fig. 3. OilIPR curves for Case 3, 20% Swi.

493

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.6

1;l

"-

"-

S-

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

qw / qwmax - 1.0000 - 0.722235 (pwf/pr)

-0.284m (pwf/prl"2

qo/qomax -1.0000 - 0519167 (Pwf/pr) - 0.481092 (pwf/prl"2

O'O+-----~_r----~----r-~----,_----~_,----~~

0.0
0.0

0.4

0.2

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0

0.2

pwf/pr

0.6

0.8

1.0

Simulator Results
Pmposed Relation

Simulator Results
Proposed Relation

0.8

y - 0.15376309 x + D.83516299 ><"'2

Y - 059245433x + 0.364?9178x"2

Po.

xPo.

1;l'

Ii.

0.6

0.6

0'

"-

.....

1;l

Ii.

'II'"
.......

0.4

... ..
. F'alf.

..

0.2

O.o~~~-'----~-----r----~

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.4

0.2

o.o~~~-r----~~-----------'------~-r------~
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.0
1.0
0.2

__r-~-----r--------i
0.6

1.0

Fig. 6. Comparison of simulator results with generalized water IPR.

1.0

0.8

0.4

pwf/pr

Fig. 5. Comparison of simulator results with generalized oil IPR.

Simulator Results

0.8

0.6

1;l

Simulator Results

0.8

g.
"]
~
C7'

SPE 25458

GENERALIZED INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSIDPS

FOR THREE-PHASE FLOW

12

0.8

1.0

pr,f/pr,p

pr,f/pr,p

Fig. 8. Comparison of simulator results to proposed method

for determining future performance for the water phase.

Fig. 7. Comparison of simulator results to proposed method

for determining future performance for the oil phase.

494