Zakho University – Faculty of
Engineering
Production Engineering (I)
Department: Petroleum Engineering
Level: 4
Code: PRE03273
Year: 2023 - 2024
Module Leader: Salar Jaladet M.S Al-Sofi
Lecturer: Salar Jaladet M.S. Al-Sofi 1
IPR Methods
There are several empirical methods that are designed to predict the non-linearity behavior of the
IPR for solution gas drive reservoirs. Most of these methods require at least one stabilized flow test
in which Qo and Pwf are measured. All the methods include the following two computational steps:
• Using the stabilized flow test data, construct the IPR curve at the current average reservoir
pressure Pr.
• Predict future inflow performance relationships as to the function of average reservoir pressures
Lecturer: Salar Jaladet M.S. Al-Sofi 2
IPR Methods
The following empirical methods that are designed to generate the current and future inflow
performance relationships:
1. Vogel’s method
2. Standing’s method
3. Couto`s Method
4. Al saadoon`s Method
5. Fetkovich’s method
6. Wiggins’ method
7. The Klins-Clark method
Lecturer: Salar Jaladet M.S. Al-Sofi 3
Vogel’s Method
• Vogel (1968) based on a computer simulation of dissolved gas drive reservoirs, where in his
calculated IPRs using a wide range of reservoir and fluid parameters, proposed the general IPR
curve. Often this same Vogel relation is successfully applied to other types of reservoir drive
systems.
• Vogel normalized the calculated IPRs and expressed the relationships in a dimensionless form. He
normalized the IPRs by introducing the following dimensionless parameters:
𝑃𝑤𝑓
• Dimensionless pressure =
𝑃𝑅
𝑄𝑜
• Dimensionless flow rate =
(𝑄)𝑚𝑎𝑥
• Where (Qo)max is the flow rate at zero wellbore pressure (100% drawdown), i.e., AOF.
Lecturer: Salar Jaladet M.S. Al-Sofi 4
Vogel Method
Vogel plotted the dimensionless IPR curves for all
the reservoir cases as shown in figure and arrived
at the following relationship between the previous
dimensionless parameter:
Where:
• Qo = oil rate at Pwf
• (Qo)max = maximum oil flow rate at zero
wellbore pressure, i.e., AOF
• Pr = current average reservoir pressure, psig
• Pwf = wellbore pressure, psig
Lecturer: Salar Jaladet M.S. Al-Sofi 5
Vogel Method
Vogel’s methodology can be used to predict the IPR curve for the following two types of reservoirs:
• Saturated oil reservoirs Pr ≤ Pb
• Undersaturated oil reservoirs Pr > Pb
Lecturer: Salar Jaladet M.S. Al-Sofi 6
Saturated Oil Reservoirs
• When the reservoir pressure equals the bubble-point pressure, the oil reservoir is referred to as a
saturated oil reservoir. The computational procedure of applying Vogel’s method in a saturated
oil reservoir to generate the IPR curve for a well with a stabilized flow data point, i.e., a recorded
Qo value at Pwf, is summarized below:
• Step 1: Using the stabilized flow data, i.e., Qo and Pwf, calculate: (Qo)max from Equation
• Step 2: Construct the IPR curve by assuming various values for Pwf and calculating the
corresponding Qo from:
Lecturer: Salar Jaladet M.S. Al-Sofi 7
Example 3
A well is producing from a saturated reservoir with an average reservoir pressure of 2500 psig.
Stabilized production test data indicated that the stabilized rate and wellbore pressure are 350
STB/day and 2000 psig, respectively. Calculate:
A. Oil flow rate at Pwf = 1850 psig
B. Calculate oil flow rate assuming constant J
C. Construct the IPR by using Vogel’s method and the constant productivity index approach.
Lecturer: Salar Jaladet M.S. Al-Sofi 8
Solution
Lecturer: Salar Jaladet M.S. Al-Sofi 9
Solution
Part C.
Generating the IPR by using the constant J
approach and Vogel’s method:
Assume several values for Pwf and calculate the
corresponding Qo.
Lecturer: Salar Jaladet M.S. Al-Sofi 10
Under-Saturated Oil Reservoirs
Beggs (1991) pointed out that in applying Vogel’s method for under-saturated reservoirs, there are
two possible outcomes to the recorded stabilized flow test data that must be considered, as shown
schematically in Figure
• The recorded stabilized bottom-hole
flowing pressure is greater than or
equal to the bubble-point pressure,
i.e., Pwf ≥ Pb.
• The recorded stabilized bottom-hole
flowing pressure is less than the
bubble-point pressure Pwf < Pb.
Lecturer: Salar Jaladet M.S. Al-Sofi 11
Case 1: Pwf ≥ Pb
The Value of the Recorded Stabilized Pwf ≥ Pb: Beggs outlined the following procedure for determining
the IPR when the stabilized bottom-hole pressure is greater than or equal to the bubble point pressure
Figure:
Step 1: Using the stabilized test data point (Qo and Pwf) calculate the productivity index J:
Step 2: Calculate the oil flow rate at the bubble-point pressure:
Where:
Qob: is the oil flow rate at Pb
Lecturer: Salar Jaladet M.S. Al-Sofi 12
Case 1: Pwf ≥ Pb
Step 3: Generate the IPR values below the bubble-point pressure by assuming different values of
Pwf < Pb and calculating the corresponding oil flow rates by applying the following relationship
• The maximum oil flow rate (Qomax or AOF) occurs when the bottomhole flowing pressure is zero,
i.e., Pwf = 0, which can be determined from the above expression as:
• It should be pointed out that when Pwf ≥ Pb, the IPR is linear and is described by:
Lecturer: Salar Jaladet M.S. Al-Sofi 13
Example 4
An oil well is producing from an under-saturated reservoir that is characterized by a bubble-point
pressure of 2130 psig. The current average reservoir pressure is 3000 psig. Available flow test data
show that the well produced 250 STB/day at a stabilized Pwf of 2500 psig. Construct the IPR data.
• The problem indicates that the flow test data were recorded above the bubble-point pressure;
therefore, the Case 1 procedure for under-saturated reservoirs as outlined previously must be
used.
Lecturer: Salar Jaladet M.S. Al-Sofi 14
Solution
Step 1: Calculate J using the flow test data.
Step 2: Calculate the oil flow rate at the bubble-point pressure by applying
Step 3: Generate the IPR data by applying the constant J approach for all pressures above Pb and
equation (1.17) for all pressures below Pb.
Lecturer: Salar Jaladet M.S. Al-Sofi 15
Solution
Lecturer: Salar Jaladet M.S. Al-Sofi 16
Case 2: Pwf <Pb
• When the recorded Pwf from the stabilized flow test is below the bubble- point pressure, he
following procedure for generating the IPR data is proposed: c
• Step 1: Using the stabilized well flow test data and combining Equation (1.16) with (1.17), solve
for the productivity index J to give:
• Step 2: Calculate Qob by using below Equation (Oil flow rate at the bubble point pressure):
Lecturer: Salar Jaladet M.S. Al-Sofi 17
Case 2: Pwf <Pb
• Step 3: Generate the IPR for Pwf ≥ Pb by assuming several values for Pwf above the bubble point
pressure and calculating the corresponding Qo from:
• Step 4: Use equation (1.17) to calculate Qo at various values of Pwf below Pb, or:
Lecturer: Salar Jaladet M.S. Al-Sofi 18
Example 5
• The well described in example (4) was retested and the following results obtained: Pwf = 1700
psig, Qo = 630.7 STB/day, Generate the IPR data using the new test data.
• Notice that the stabilized Pwf is less than Pb
Lecturer: Salar Jaladet M.S. Al-Sofi 19
Solution
• Step 1: Solve for J by applying equation (1.19):
• Step 2: Qob = 0.5 (3000 − 2130) = 435 STB/day.
• Step 3: Generate the IPR data.
Lecturer: Salar Jaladet M.S. Al-Sofi 20
Skin Effect
What is Skin Effect: The skin factor was originally developed to account for the effects of fluid
mobility changes in the near wellbore reservoir due to formation damage. The concept was
originally formulated to account for a change, due to invasion of the reservoir by wellbore fluids
during drilling, completion, workover operations etc, in one or more of the following:
• Absolute permeability
• Relative permeability
• Fluid viscosity
This reduction in mobility in the invaded zone, as shown
in Figure, results in increased hydraulic resistance and
hence reduced well deliverability. The difference
between the ideal Pw, based upon ideal/no damage
conditions and the actual PW as shown in Figure is
defined as follows:
Lecturer: Salar Jaladet M.S. Al-Sofi 21
Skin Effect
In some cases, for example due to near wellbore fractures or matrix dissolution, the reservoir would
deliver fluid at a higher-than-expected deliverability and bottom hole pressure. As a result, for a constant
flow rate in such cases, we can get a pressure profile as shown in below left Figure.
Impact of increased conductivity Impact of damage near Wellbore Profile
Lecturer: Salar Jaladet M.S. Al-Sofi 22
Skin Effect
The impact of the skin factor on the IPR is shown in below Figure. The original concept of skin was
to correct the simple inflow equations for the effects on near wellbore damage. In general,
however, skin can account for both types of non ideal flow, namely:
• Damage ie, reduced mobility of hydrocarbons
• Variations in well completion geometry
Lecturer: Salar Jaladet M.S. Al-Sofi 23
Variations in Well Completion Geometry
In reality, the typical well will be
completed with one or more
characteristics
• Non vertical wells (inclined/deviated)
• Not fully penetrating the reservoir
section (partial penetration)
• Not open hole (cased/cemented
/perforated)
• Not fully accessing reservoir (selective
or partial completion).
Each of these situations results in an
individual skin factor that can include
one or more variables.
Completion Geometry Effects
Lecturer: Salar Jaladet M.S. Al-Sofi 24
