Page tree

Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

For a single layer formation with low-compressibility fluid (like water) the PI does not depend on drwadown drawdown (or flowrate) 

LaTeX Math Inline
bodyJ_s = \rm const
 and WFP – Well Flow Performance plot is reperented by a straight line (Fig. 1)


Image RemovedImage Added

Fig.1. WFP – Well Flow Performance plot for low-compressible fluid production constant productivity (water , and undersaturated oil)


This is a typical WFP – Well Flow Performance plot for water supply wells, water injectors and oil producers above bubble point.

...

 

LaTeX Math Inline
body\epsilon = 0.5
 for steady-state SS flow and 
LaTeX Math Inline
body\epsilon = 0.75
 for pseudo-steady state PSS flow.


For gas wells, condensate producers, light-oil producers, and oil producers below bubble point 

LaTeX Math Inline
bodyP_{wf} < P_b
  the fluid compressibility is high , and formation flow in well vicinity becomes non-linear (deviating from Darcy) and free gas slippage effects inflict fot high flowrates, inflicting the downward trend on WFP – Well Flow Performance plot (Fig. 2).

It can be interpreted as deterioration of near-reservoir zone permeability with fluid velocity is growing.



Image Added

Image Removed

Fig. 2. WFP – Well Flow Performance for compressible fluid production (gas, light oil, saturated oil)gas reservoir



In general case of saturated oil, the PI 

LaTeX Math Inline
bodyJ_s
 features a complex dependance on bottom-hole pressure 
LaTeX Math Inline
bodyp_{wf}
( or flowrate 
LaTeX Math Inline
bodyq
) which can be etstablished based on numerical simulations of multiphase formation flow.

But when field-average formation pressure is above bubble-point 

LaTeX Math Inline
bodyp_R > p_b
 (which means that most parts of the drainage area are saturated oil) the PI can be farily approximated  by some analytical correlations.


For 2-phase oil-gas formation flow below bubble point 

LaTeX Math Inline
bodyP_{wf} < P_b
  the free gas slippage effects inflict the downward trend on WFP – Well Flow Performance plot (Fig. 3).

It can be interpreted as deterioration of near-reservoir zone permeability when the fluid velocity is high and modelled as rate-dependant skin-factor.


Image Added

Fig. 3. WFP – Well Flow Performance for 2-phase oil+gas production below and above bubble point


For 3-phase water-oil-gas flow the IPR analysis is perfomed on oil and watr components (see Fig. 4.1 and Fig. 4.2).


Image Added

Image Added

Fig. 4.1. Oil WFP – Well Flow Performance for 3-phase (water + oil + gas) formation flow

Fig. 4.2. Water WFP – Well Flow Performance for 3-phase (water + oil + gas) formation flow



Note

Excerpt Include
Definition specifics on formation pressure and productivity index in between Dynamic Modelling, Well Flow Performance and Well Tests
Definition specifics on formation pressure and productivity index in between Dynamic Modelling, Well Flow Performance and Well Tests
nopaneltrue

...