Introduction

The inflow performance relationship is the production engineer’s short hand description or
the performance potential for a reservoir at a given average reservoir pressure. It is the
relationship between the bottomhole flowing pressure and flow rate, and is the starting point
in the analysis or a well’s behavior.

Inflow performance is the major contributor to the production process, yet our knowledge or
the factors that control it, and the way it varies over time, is inexact because or the
numerous variables that can affect it. While it is the first link in the chain or our production
system, it is unfortunately, the weakest link.

We will look at some or the techniques currently used for calculating IPR’s, learn some or the
basic assumptions involved, and see how IPR curves are applied in practice. A flowing well
never achieves its maximum pumped-off potential flow rate. Pressure losses in the tubing,
chokes, and other surface equipment, make it impossible to get the pressure opposite the
formation down to zero. The bottomhole flowing pressure is equivalent to the backpressure
exerted by the flowing column of fluid as it moves to the surface. This backpressure is
usually quite large.

The inflow rate that may exist against this backpressure is not a true reflection of what the
flow rate of the well might be after installation of artificial lift because artificial lift unloads
the fluid column, reduces the bottomhole pressure, and with it, the backpressure on the
formation. It is important in the analysis of a well for an engineer to know the relationship
that exists between the bottomhole flowing pressure and flow rate even down to a very low
pressure. For this reason the engineer must define the IPR and predict how it changes with
time. The following bottomhole pressure could come close to zero with a pump. However,
there are other very important reasons why a very low bottomhole pressure may not be
desirable. These include such problems as production, and water or gas coning, which
preclude a low pwf.

INFLUENCE OF DRIVE MECHANISM ON IPR

IPR curves have different shapes for different reservoirs, depending primarily on the drive
mechanism of the reservoir ( Figure 1 ). A reservoir with a strong water drive, or a solution
gas drive above the bubble point will have a straight line IPR. In the special case where the
IPR is a straight line, J equals the reciprocal of the slope of the IPR and is constant.
 Figure 1

For a solution-gas-drive reservoir, the straight-line portion above the bubble point reflects
the dynamic flow characteristics of single-phase liquid flow through the formation ( Figure 2
).
 Figure 2

However, when the flowing pressure in the formation falls below the bubble point, Pb, gas
comes out of solution, reduces the permeability to the oil phase, decreases the productivity
index, and reduces the oil flow rate within the formation. Remember, the relative
permeability to the oil phase is dependent on the oil-phase saturation.

At increased production rates, pwf decreases and more gas comes out of solution within the
formation. At higher gas saturations, the relative permeability to oil drops further. This
results in a downward curving IPR and a steadily decreasing productivity index at decreasing
flowing bottomhole pressure, with its antecedent phase-behavior dependence on relative
permeabilities. Other factors such as increased oil viscosity, rock compressibility, and
turbulence can add to these effects as wellbore pressures fall and rates increase.

We conclude, then, that a solution-gas-drive reservoir below the bubble point has a
downward curving IPR. Often a well’s IPR curvature is intermediate between a straight line
and this classic solution-gas drive curve. In such cases the average reservoir pressure is
receiving support from gas cap expansion or a water drive.

VOGEL’S METHOD
Vogel’s main objective was to simulate two-phase flow through a reservoir into a wellbore.
By analyzing a number of different solution-gas-drive reservoirs, he established an empirical
relationship which could apply to all such reservoirs.
The computer program that he prepared solved the equations of flow for somewhat
he assumed that the reservoir was
idealized reservoirs. For example,
circular, completely bounded, and with a fully penetrating
well at its center; that the formation was uniform,
isotropic, and had a constant water saturation; that
gravity and compressibility could be neglected and that
semi-steady-state flow occurred.
Vogel simulated reservoirs covering a wide range of conditions. These conditions included
differing reservoir relative permeability characteristics as well as the various effects of well
spacings, fracturing geometry, and skin restrictions. Analysis was limited to flow conditions
below the bubble point.

Vogel found that as depletion occurs in a solution-gas-drive reservoir, the productivity of a

typical well decreases. This occurs primarily because (1.) the reservoir pressure is reduced,
and (2.) because increasing gas saturation causes greater resistance to oil flow. The result is
a progressive downward shift of the IPR ( Figure 1 ).

Figure 1

The values on the lines reflect the percentage of reserves produced. Vogel, then, took the
important step of plotting each curve as "dimensionless" IPR’s or "type curves." He obtained
these curves by plotting the bottomhole flowing pressures divided by the average reservoir
pressure on the vertical axis and the production rate divided by the maximum flow rate, C’’,
on the horizontal axis. When this was done for each curve, they were replotted as shown in
Figure 2 .

Figure 2

It is immediately apparent with this transformation that the curves now are remarkably
similar throughout most of the producing life of the reservoir.

After analyzing twenty-one different reservoirs with various crude oil properties, relative
permeabilities, and wellbore characteristics, Vogel found that IPR’s generally exhibited a
similar shape, as long as the bottomhole flowing pressure was below the bubble point.
Extending this observation one step further, he developed a standard reference curve which
can be used for all solution-gas-drive reservoirs. This standard curve is shown in Figure 3 .
 Figure 3

Specific plot points for this curve are given in the table below.

The use of this curve does not imply that all reservoirs are identical, but that it may be used
as a reference standard for all reservoirs within a tolerable error. This reference curve is
described exactly by the following equation:

Note that q is the producing rate corresponding to a given bottomhole flowing pressure, pwf;
q’ is the well’s potential at 100 percent drawdown, and R is the average reservoir pressure
or the bubble-point pressure, whichever is lower.

X-q/q’

1.00 0.000

0.95 0.088

0.90 0.172
 0.85 0.252

0.80 0.328

0.75 0.400

0.70 0.468

0.65 0.532

0.60 0.592

0.55 0.648

0.50 0.700

0.45 0.748

0.40 0.792

0.35 0.832

0.30 0.868

0.25 0.900

0.20 0.928

0.15 0.958

0.10 0.972

0.05 0.988

0.00 1.000

Example:

Assume:

q = 1172 BOPD

pwf = 716 psi

R = 1420 psi

R = pb

Construct the IPR curve for this well at the average reservoir pressure. Assume that Vogel’s
dimensionless standard curve describes this well’s behavior.

First, we calculate the dimensionless pressure.

With this value and Vogel’s dimensionless standard curve (or Equation 1.2), we find the
dimensionless rate (see Figure 4 ).

Figure 4

= 0.696.

This gives a value of:

q’= = 1684 BOPD.

The type curve can now be made into this well’s IPR curve simply by adding the values for
average reservoir pressure and C;’ at the appropriate end points. The scale of the graph is
now established and any desired point can now be read ( Figure 5 ).
 Figure 5

Remember that Vogel’s results are only for the curved portion of the IPR curve which exists
below the bubble point. Above the bubble point the IPR curve is a straight line. We can
obtain its shape by drawing the tangent to the curve at the bubble-point pressure and
extending it to the original average reservoir pressure, pi. Such as extrapolation is shown in
Figure 6 .
 Figure 6

In order to determine the shape of the IPR curve at a future average reservoir pressure, we
need to know a single bottomhole flowing pressure and its corresponding flow rate at that
average reservoir pressure. Using our dimensionless curve and a known data point we would
repeat what we have just done. This would yield a second curve. The difficulty is that we do
not have well test data at some future, unknown average reservoir pressure.

STANDING'S EXTENSION OF VOGEL'S METHODS

With Vogel’s type curve, one flowing well test, and a value for the average reservoir
pressure, we can obtain a single IPR curve for our well. But how do we calculate the IPR
curve at a future average reservoir pressure?

That is the same question that Marshall B. Standing (1970) asked when he published the
results of his work. His approach was as follows. We remember that the productivity index, J,
is defined as:

(1.3)
If we substitute J into Vogel’s equation with the average reservoir pressure below the bubble
point, we obtain this relationship:

(1.4)

J is given in terms of flow rates and pressures. If J could be calculated for some future
average reservoir pressure, then with this value of J and the above equation, the pressure
and flow rate values needed to find the future IPR curve could be determined. Standing
suggested that, in the limiting case, that is, where there is very small drawdown, the
bottomhole flowing pressure would tend to be equal to average reservoir pressure, that is:

The value of J, under these conditions, is referred to as J* and, by substituting this ratio into
Eq. 1.4, we obtain:

(1.5)

The next step is to calculate how J*, changes with average reservoir pressure.

Standing suggested that J*, at different average reservoir pressures, is proportional to

relative permeability and inversely proportional to the formation volume factor and the
viscosity. This is referred to as the relative mobility and is written:

J* = (1.6)

With this relationship, a future value of J* referred to as, Jf*, is equal to the present value of
J*, Jp* multiplied by the inverse ratio of the respective mobilities, that is:

(1.7)

Combining these relationships into the Vogel equation, (Eq. 1.2), Standing found that future
IPR curves could be plotted from the following equation:

(1.8)
Finding the IPR curve is rather direct. First, we assume a value for the future average
reservoir pressure at which we would like to know an IPR curve. Then we calculate a value
for Jf*.

Substituting these two values into Eq. 1.8 yields an equation in q and p wf This equation give
us the future IPR curve.

In substance, Vogel’s type curve is used for the well’s IPR curve at the original reservoir
pressure. This gives us q’ and Jp* which we need for Standing’s method. We then use
Standing’s technique to obtain IPR curves at lower pressures. There is a good example as to
how this calculation proceeds on page 56 of Nind’s text (1981).

FETKOVICH'S METHOD
Fetkovich (1973) proposed an alternative method for calculating IPR curves for solution-gas-
drive reservoirs.

He made a number of assumptions including the idea that two-phase flow occurred through
a uniform, circular, horizontal reservoir with a constant outer boundary pressure below the
bubble point. One of Fetkovich's key assumptions was that the relative permeability to oil
divided by the oil viscosity and formation volume factor varied linearly with pressure as
shown in the following equation:

(1.9)
The straight line passes through the origin. With this basic relationship assumed, Fetkovich was able to
show:

(1.10)
We may calculate Jo' at the original reservoir pressure pi using Eq. 1.11. This value of Jo' is referred to as
Joi' and is a function of effective permeability to oil at the original reservoir boundary pressure, pi.
Saturation is assumed to be constant for the well being analyzed.

(1.11)
Joi' may be thought of as a replacement for J, the productivity index.

With these equations, it is not difficult to plot the IPR curve at a given reservoir or boundary
pressure pRs

Let's now solve the same problem that we did earlier using Vogel's method.

Example: Assume:

q = 1172 BOPD

pwf = 716 psi

pi = 1420 psi
We insert these values into Eq. 1.10 to obtain:

Substituting this constant into Eq. 1.10 gives:

q = 7.793 10-4 (pi2 - pwf2)

This equation gives us the inflow rate as a function of bottomhole pressure with it we can
generate the IPR curve. For the original reservoir pressure, pi, we may now calculate the
potential, q', of the well under these conditions, that is where p wf = 0.

q' = 7.793 l0-4 (14202 - 0) = 1572 BOPD

For comparison purposes, you will remember that we calculated a value of 1684 B0PD using
the Vogel technique.

The agreement between these two methods of calculation is generally good in the
intermediate pressure ranges, but there is often deviation at the outer ranges of pressure-
rate axes. Major differences between these exist; however, either method may be used with
the assurance that the results from the other will not differ dramatically.

To learn how Fetkovich's method is used for calculating future IPR curves, we must assume
that Joi' will decrease in proportion to the average reservoir pressure.

When the average reservoir pressure drops below pi a new value of Joi', referred to as Jo , can
be calculated using Eq. 2.11.

So in our example, if pR drops to 1000 psi, we would calculate:

Jo = 7.793 X 10-4 =5.488 X 10-4

Knowing this value of Jo' for an assumed future value of p R, we have a new IPR equation:

q = 5.488 10-4 (10002 - pwf2)

Fetkovich's method, then, yields two equations--one describing the initial reservoir
performance and another describing performance, at an assumed future average reservoir
pressure. From these two equations, we can calculate values for J o' and plot IPR curves for
any future average reservoir pressure. In Figure 1 we see the two curves from the example
we just solved.
 Figure 1

We would proceed in the same manner if we wanted to find another IPR curve at a lower
value.

IPR AND SKIN EFFECT

The skin effect is a near-wellbore phenomenon. In an ideal flowing well—one that fully
penetrates the formation, where the full formation is open to flow and where no formation
damage or stimulation exists—the pressure profile during flow looks like the one shown in
Figure 1 .
 Figure 1

In this case, the drawdown is equal to:

R - pwf.

If, however , the formation near the wellbore has been damaged (for example, by drilling
fluid invasion)...or if the well only partially penetrates the formation or has limited
perforations...or if there is turbulent flow in the formation near the wellbore...there will be an
additional pressure drop ( Figure 2 ).
 Figure 2

Because this additional pressure drop occurs near the wellbore, it is referred to as pskin. The
total pressure drop in a damaged well is equal to:

( R - pwf) + pskin

The skin effect (s) is defined as

s = (kh)/(constant X B X pskin)

where B is the formation volume factor.

Because a damaged well causes an additional pressure drop, the skin effect is said to be
positive.

If, on the other hand, the formation near the wellbore has been stimulated (say by fracturing
or acidizing) rather than damaged, then the drawdown will be reduced ( Figure 3 ). The
reduced pressure drop is again referred to as pskin, but this time it is negative and the skin
effect is negative. The total pressure drop in an enhanced well is:

( R - pwf) - pskin (1.12)

 Figure 3

The magnitude of the skin effect and whether it is positive or negative is obtained by
conducting special well tests. These tests give us a value forpskin and enable us to calculate
the flow efficiency (FE) of the well. FE is defined as the drawdown of an ideal well divided by
the drawdown of the well with skin effects.

Flow efficiency for a damaged well is less than one, and is equal to:

FE= (1.13a)

For an enhanced well, the skin relationship will be negative and the value of the flow
efficiency will be greater than 1.0:

FE= (1.13b)

IPR AND FLOW EFFICIENCY

Standing prepared a series of curves which may be used by us to calculate the IPR for wells
that have flow efficiencies different than 1.0. Using these curves we can calculate the IPR of
a well if the damage were removed or the well stimulated. His curves are shown in Figure 1 .

Figure 1

The vertical axis is the dimensionless pressure of the flowing well and the horizontal axis is a
dimensionless flow rate, specifically the flow rate of the well divided by its maximum flow
rate with damage or fracturing. The curves are drawn for flow efficiencies from 0.5 to 1.5.
The curves have the following relationship:

(1.14)

Where F is the flow efficiency. Neither this equation nor the curves should be extrapolated
effectively to q/q’ values greater than unity.

STRATIFIED FORMATIONS
Often, the producing intervals in a well are separated by relatively thin but highly
impermeable horizontal shale breaks. Production rates and fluid properties in any one layer
may not be the same as those in other layers contributing to the well's overall production.

Consider a well that is completed in a horizon having three zones, in which there is no
vertical communication among the zones:

 Zone 1 has an average permeability of 1 millidarcy (md) and an average pressure of 1500 psi.
 Zone 2 has an average permeability of 10 md and an average pressure of 1200 psi.
 Zone 3 has an average permability of 100 md and an average pressure of 1000 psi.

Initially, the bulk of the production will come from Zone 3, and the smallest contribution will
come Zone 1. Thus, after the well has been producing for several months, Zone 3 will be the
most depleted and at the lowest average reservoir pressure, while Zone 1 will be the least
depleted and at the highest average reservoir pressure.

The well is now tested at various production rates to establish the IPR. If the IPRs of each
zone are as shown in Figure 1 , then the Gross IPR curve is the sum of all three.

Figure 1

At any given pressure, a point on the Gross IPR curve has a flow rate which is equal to the
sum of the flow rates of the three individual curves.
In general, because of differential depletion, a well producing from a stratified formation will
exhibit a Gross IPR as shown in Figure 2 : that is to say, an improving productivity index with
increasing production at lower rates but a deteriorating productivity index at the higher
rates.

Figure 2

Now consider a well completed in a two-layered horizon where water breakthrough has
occurred in the more permeable, more depleted layer. In such a circumstance the watered-
out zone has the higher permeability but the lower pressure of the two zones.

Let us assume further that the watered-out layer produces 100 percent water, while the
other layer produces water-free oil. Beginning with the oil zone’s IPR and adding the water
zone’s IPR, we obtain the Gross IPR ( Figure 3 ). At any given bottomhole flowing pressure
we can observe the oil rate, the water rate, and the gross production rate. This allows us to
calculate and plot the water cut as a function of the gross production rate.
 Figure 3

The water cut is zero until we reach a bottomhole flowing pressure low enough for water to
flow. Thereafter the water cut at any pressure and flow rate is equal to the ratio of the water
production rate divided by the gross production rate.

When the bottomhole flowing pressure is. greater than the average reservoir pressure in the
water zone, oil will enter into the water zone by inter flow taking place through the wellbore.

CONDUCTING AN INFLOW PERFROMANCE TEST

Below is a practical procedure for conducting an inflow performance test.

First: Shut the well in and conduct a pressure buildup test. This will give you the average
reservoir pressure.

Second: With a recording pressure gauge on the bottom, place the well on production at a
low rate and, after ample time is allowed for the rate to stabilize, record the bottomhole
flowing pressure.

Third: Flow the well at two successively higher flow rates. Let each rate stabilize and note
the bottomhole flowing pressure.

Fourth: After the last test is run, shut the well in and conduct another buildup test. This test
will give four points on the IPR curve.
Unfortunately this test requires a great deal of time and so, for economic reasons, we often
have only sufficient time to conduct a single flow test. A single-flow test and a value for the
average reservoir pressure is sufficient for flowing and artificial lift well predictions;
however, the complete multiple flow test provides more accuracy.

Remember that the IPR is a characteristic of an individual well, and that it is best to
generate an appropriate family of IPR curves for that well based on its known reservoir and
fluid properties, pressures, downhole hardware and completion data. A variety of software
products are available for this purpose. You should review your company’s capabilities in
this area.

EXERCISES
1.- Use Vogel's Method to solve the following exercises.

(i) Given that q = 100, BOPD at pwf = 500 psi, and = 1000 psi, calculate q' and the
production rate at 80 percent drawdown.

(ii) A well producing under solution-gas-drive conditions is tested at two different flow
rates as follows:
Test 1: q = 150 B0PD, pwf = 1500 psi
Test 2: q = 250 BOPD, pwf = 1000 psi
Using Vogel's equation find and q'.

(iii) Construct the IPR curve given that = 4000 psi, pb = 2000 psi, and pwf =
3000 psi when q = 200 BOPD. How would the curve change if the flow rate of 200
BOPD had occurred at pwf - 1000 psi?

ANSWER

(i)

(ii)
Figure 1

Figure 1

(iii)
From Figure 2

Figure 2

(1)
(2)

Figure 3 represents the IPR curve.

Figure 3

2.- A well is flowing at the rate of 1120 BOPD through 2 7/8-inch tubing. Water cut is zero and the GLR is
820 scf/bbl. The bottomhole flowing pressure measured at 6470 ft (the foot of the tubing) is 675 psi while
the pressure buildup survey gives an average reservoir pressure of 2080 psi at a datum level of 6500 ft.

(a) Using Vogel's method draw the IPR curve and estimate the well's potential.
 (b) Reservoir analysis indicates the ratio of the value of kro/Boµo now to its value at
an average reservoir pressure of 1,500 psi is 1.57. Using Standing's method estimate
its potential when the average reservoir pressure has dropped to 1,500 psi.

ANSWER

This gives the following results:

Pwf q

2095 0

1800 315

1500 591

1200 824

900 1013

690 1120

300 1262

0 1322

Figure 1
(b)

3.- Using Fetkovich’s method, draw the following well's IPR at average reservoir pressures of 2,080 and
1,500 psi. What is the well's potential at these pressures?

Well parameters:

q = 1120 STB/D
WOR = 0
 GLR = 820 SCF/STB
Tubing: 2 7/8 in, bottom at 6470 ft
THP at 6470 ft = 675 psi

Average reservoir pressure = 2080 psi at 6500 ft

Reservoir analysis indicates that the ratio of kro/Boo at current reservoir pressure to its value at an average reservoir
pressure of 1500 psi is 1.57.

ANSWER

This gives the following results:

Pwf q

2095 0

1800 329

1500 612

1200 843

900 1024

690 1119

300 1230

0 1255

Figure 1
4.- Using Standing's flow efficiency curves solve the following exercises.

(a) Given that q = 150 BOPD, pR = 2,400 psi and pwf = 2,000 psi, find the maximum possible
flow rate when FE = 0.7. What is the flow rate when pwf = 1,200 psi?

(b) A damaged well is stimulated and shows substantial improvement. Data from the well
prior to stimulation is as follows:

q = 100 BOPD

pR = 2,400 psi
 pwf = 1,800 psi

FE = 0.7

After stimulation FE is estimated to be 1.3. Find q' for FE = 1.3 and the flow rate when

pwf = 1,800 psi. How much benefit has been realized?

(c) For the well in part (b), how would you calculate FE before and after stimulation?

ANSWER

(a)

From Figure 1

(b)
 Figure 1

5.- A well produces from two zones with the following data provided on each:

Zone 1: pR = 2,500 psi; q = 200 B0PD when pwf = 1,250 psi

Zone 2: pR = 1,500 psi; q = 125 BOPD when pwf = 1,250 psi

Construct the well's IPR's, determine the interflow pressure and rates, and state the
expected producing rates for the well pwf = 1,600, 1,500, and 500 psi.

ANSWER
For the purpose of simplicity, linear IPR relationships have been used.

Figure 1

Pwf Production Rate

BOPD

1600 230

1500 260

500 520