SPE 99712
Generalized Horizontal Well Inflow Relationships for Liquid, Gas, or Two-Phase Flow
R. Kamkom and D. Zhu, Texas A&M U.
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil
Recovery held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 22–26 April 2006.
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. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The analytical models for horizontal inflow performance
relationships (IPR) are presented in this paper for different
formation fluid types and different boundary conditions. Even
though reservoir simulation models may give more accurate
and detailed results of oil and gas well production, analytical
models are commonly used in the field for quick, practical and
reasonable estimation of well performance. The analytical
models are especially attractive when working on single well
design and performance optimization. Similar to vertical well
models, the analytical models for horizontal wells are
developed for specific conditions. The IPR equations for
horizontal wells are categorized into two boundary conditions;
the steady-state flow condition (constant boundary pressure)
and the pseudo-steady-state flow condition (no flow at the
boundary). For each condition, the IPR equations for oil and
gas wells are presented. Two-phase flow correlations for
horizontal well IPR are also presented for the pseudo-steady-
state condition. The results from different models are
compared in the paper, and the limitations and appropriate
applications of the IPR equations are discussed in the paper.
For each fluid system, examples illustrate how flow
behavior varies with the flow regime. Examples also show the
effect of critical parameters on inflow performance for
horizontal wells. These equations are invaluable for reservoir
and production engineers in their daily practice in horizontal
wells.
Introduction
Predicting well performance is one of the critical steps in
developing new fields, designing a new well, or optimizing oil
and gas well performances. Well performances can be
predicted by either reservoir simulation models or analytical
models. Although reservoir simulation models in general give
more accurate and detailed results, they require extensive
input information, and need more time and effort to be
applied, comparing with analytical modes. Therefore,
analytical models are often used, especially in single well
studies, to predict well performances. Analytical models are
developed based on the assumptions about boundary
conditions and fluid types. They are referred as Inflow
Performance Relationship equations (IPR equations). To
develop IPR equations for horizontal wells, similar boundary
conditions used in the vertical well models are followed in
horizontal wells (the steady-state condition for constant
boundary pressure or the pseudo-steady-state condition for no-
flow boundary condition). The models are developed for
slightly compressible fluid (oil wells), compressible fluid (gas
wells) or two-phase flow wells. Two main differences for the
horizontal well models compared with the vertical well
models; namely drainage pattern change and the effect of
anisotropy in permeability, are considered in various
horizontal well models.
For single-phase, the horizontal well productivity can be
estimated directly from mathematically analytical models. On
the other hand, the complexity of relative permeability causes
difficulty to analytically solve the IPR for two-phase flow.
Thus, correlations are used to predict the two-phase flow IPR
for horizontal wells.
IPR Equations for Horizontal Wells
The IPR equations are summarized in two groups following
the assumption of the boundary condition.
Steady-State Condition. Steady state condition is defined as
the reservoir pressure at the drainage boundary being a
constant. With this assumption, certain geometries of the
reservoir drainage area are assumed to generate the analytical
IPR equations.
Slightly-Compressible Fluid (Oil Well). For horizontal oil
wells, Joshi’s model1 is the most well known models at the
steady-state boundary condition. The model added the
solutions of the horizontal-plane flow and the vertical plane
flow of a horizontal well to obtain the solution for a horizontal
well flow field (Fig. 1). The model was then modified by
Economides, et. al.2 to include the effects of anisotropy and
formation damage (through skin factor). The inflow equation
of a horizontal well is
2 SPE 99712

7.08 × 10 −3 k H h( p e − p wf )
q= (
7.08 × 10 −3 kL p e − p wf )
⎛ ⎛ ⎞ I h ⎛ I h ⎞ ⎞ qo =
⎜ a + a − (L / 2 )
2 2
⎟
μ o Bo ⎜ ln⎜⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎟⎟ + L ln⎜ r (I + 1) ⎟ + s ⎟
ani ani
⎛ ⎡ hI ani ⎤ πy b ⎞
⎜ ⎜ (L / 2)2 ⎝ w ani ⎠ ⎟ μ o Bo ⎜⎜ ln ⎢ ⎥+ − 1.224 + s ⎟
⎟
⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎠ ⎝ ⎣ rw ( I ani + 1) ⎦ hI ani ⎠
(1)
(5)
where,
where, k is defined as k = k H kV , and Eq. 5 can be
rearranged
kH
I ani = (2)
kV
(
7.08 × 10 −3 k H L p e − p wf )
and qo =
⎛ ⎡ hI ani ⎤ πy b ⎞
μ o Bo ⎜⎜ I ani ln ⎢ ⎥+ − I ani (1.224 − s ) ⎟
⎟
⎧ 0.5 ⎫
0.5 ⎝ ⎣ rw ( I ani + 1) ⎦ h ⎠
L⎪ ⎡ ⎛ reH ⎞ ⎤ ⎪
4
⎢
a = ⎨0.5 + 0.25 + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥ ⎬ (3) (6)
2⎪ ⎢ ⎝ L / 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎪
⎩ ⎣ ⎭ Notice that with different approach, Butler’s model and
Furui’s model yield very similar expression for inflow
performance for horizontal wells. If kx is close to ky, at skin
In Eqs. 1-3, kH is horizontal permeability, and kv is vertical factor equal to zero, the only slight difference is the constants
permeability. The geometry parameters are defined in Fig.1, in the denominators (1.14 for Butler and 1.224 for Furui).
and the other variables are defined in the nomenclature. When anisotropic ratio increases, the results from the two
Whenever Iani is used in this paper, it is assumed that kx and ky models deviate slightly. Fig. 3 shows the plots of IPR curves
are equal and replaced by kH. generated by Butler’s and Furui’s models at an Iani of 3
without skin effect.
More-recent models are developed with different
approaches in drainage geometry. Butler3 presented an IPR
model for horizontal wells under the steady-state condition. Compressible Fluid (Gas Well). For horizontal gas well
The model predicts the productivity of fully penetrated deliverability, the model can be derived similar to the one for
horizontal well in a box-shaped reservoir. This model can oil wells. The modifications needed are the gas formation
handle either isotropic or anisotropic reservoir. Fig. 2 shows volume factor which is a function of pressure and temperature,
the geometry used to develop the equation. The model was and the unit of flow rate. Gas wells usually have high velocity
obtained by applying the superposition principle. Butler’s so that non-Darcy flow effect should be considered. We
model can be written as, modified Furui’s model for gas wells. First, the unit of IPR
equation for oil wells needs to be converted for gas wells
(from STB/day to Mscf/day)
(
7.08 × 10 −3 k H L p e − p wf )
qo = (4)
⎛ ⎡ hI ani ⎤ πy b ⎞ 1 ⎛ STB ⎞ 1000 ⎛ Mscf ⎞ ⎛ Mscf ⎞
μ o Bo ⎜⎜ I ani ln ⎢ ⎥+ − 1.14 I ani ⎟
⎟ q o ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟ = 25146.928q g ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎣ rw ( I ani + 1) ⎦ h ⎠ 7.08 × 10 −3 ⎝ day ⎠ 5 . 615 ⎝ STB ⎠ ⎝ day ⎠
(7)
4 Then we need to relate the gas formation volume factor, Bg, to
Furui, et. al. also presented an analytical model for fully
penetrated horizontal well in a box-shaped reservoir using the pressure and temperature. By the Real Gas Law,
same system shown in Fig. 2. It assumed that the flow to a
horizontal well can be divided into two regimes, a radial flow
region near the wellbore and a linear flow region away from znRT / p
Bg = (8)
the wellbore. On the top and bottom of the reservoir, they used z sc nRTsc / p sc
no flow boundary condition. The model can be used to
calculate isotropic and anisotropic reservoir. The well is
located in the center of the reservoir. A skin factor was added where Tsc and psc are the pressure and temperature at the
to the model to include the effect of formation damage on well standard condition. If the pressure and temperature at the
productivity. This model was developed based on the standard condition are 14.7 psi and 520ºR respectively, and
simulation results of a finite element model (FEM) for the gas compressibility factor, Z, at the standard condition is 1,
incompressible fluid. The IPR equation of Furui’s model is we can rewrite Eq. 8 as
SPE 99712 3

zT There are many discussions about the non-Darcy coefficient;

B g = 0.0283 (9) D. it can be obtained from lab experimental data, or from
p
correlations. The equation presented by Thomas, et. al.6 for the
From Eq. 9, the formation volume is calculated by the gas non-Darcy flow for horizontal gas well is
compressibility factor, and the average temperature and
pressure between the reservoir and the wellbore. Now the
corresponding term in Eq. 5, the oil well equation, Lγ g k x k z
qoBo/7.08x10-3, can be changed to, for gas wells, D = 2.2 × 10 −15
μ g ( p wf )
(15)
⎡⎛ β ⎞⎛ 1 1 ⎞ ⎛ β ⎞⎛ 1 1 ⎞⎤
⎛ ⎞ × ⎢⎜⎜ 2d ⎟⎟⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟ + ⎜ 2 ⎟⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟⎥
(25146.928q g )⎜⎜ 0.0283 (p zT
)
⎟ = 1424
⎟
+ p wf / 2 ⎠ (
q g zT
p e + p wf ) ⎣⎢⎝ L ⎠⎝ rw rd ⎠ ⎝ L ⎠⎝ rd re ⎠⎦⎥
⎝ e

(10)
where, the turbulent factor for undamaged and damaged
Substituting Eq. 10 into Eq. 5 and changing oil viscosity to gas zones, β and βd, are estimated by6
viscosity at an average pressure, the IPR equation for
horizontal gas wells can be expressed as
2.6 × 1010
β= (16)
(
kL p e2 − p wf
2
) ( kxkz )1.2
qg =
⎛ ⎡ hI ani ⎞ and
⎤ πy b
1424 z μ g T ⎜ ln ⎢ + − 1.224 + s ⎟
⎜ r ( I + 1) ⎥ hI ⎟ 2.6 × 1010
⎝ ⎣ w ani ⎦ ⎠ βd =
( )d 1.2
ani (17)
(11) kxkz

Using the real gas pseudo-pressure function presented by Al-

Hussainy and Ramey5 The analytical model for gas well IPR gives the agreed
result when the bottomhole flow pressure, pwf, is not too low
compared with the numerical simulation results. Fig. 4 shows
p
m( p ) = 2 ∫
p such a comparison. From the plots, we can see that the
dp (12)
po μg z analytical results slightly deviate at high flow rate or at low
flowing bottomhole pressures. For example, at 10 % recovery
factor and a reservoir pressure of 5152 psi, if the well is
where po is the reference pressure and can be any convenience produced at 3500 psi drawdown, the analytical model gives
base pressure. The IPR equation for horizontal gas wells in 14% difference comparing with the simulation result at the
term of the real gas pseudo-pressure is same condition. However, when the drawdown is below 1400
psi for this case, the analytical model and the simulation
model predict the same production performance. At 20%

qg =
( ( ) ( ))
kL m p − m p wf
(13)
recovery factor and a reservoir pressure of 4023 psi, the
analytical results match the simulation results when the
⎛ ⎡ hI ani ⎤ πy b ⎞ pressure drawdown is below 1200 psi.
1424T ⎜ ln ⎢ ⎥+ − 1.224 + s ⎟
⎜ r (I ⎟
⎝ ⎣ w ani + 1) ⎦ hI ani ⎠
Pseudo-Steady-State Condition. Pseudo-steady-state
condition assumes that there is no flow at the boundary of a
For gas wells, the flow velocity is usually much higher reservoir domain. An average reservoir pressure, p , is
than the one for oil wells, especially near the wellbore. This introduced in the IPR equations. Pressure decline curves, if
high velocity causes additional pressure drop, which is known available, can be used to calculate the average pressure as a
as non-Darcy flow effect. This additional pressure drop is a function of time, and therefore to obtain a production history.
function of flow rate, and can be added to Eq. 13 as

Single-Phase Oil Well. Babu and Odeh7 presented a

qg =
( ( ) ( ))
kL m p − m p wf horizontal well IPR model under the pseudo-steady-state
condition. The model rotates a vertical well to represent a
⎛ ⎡ hI ani ⎤ πy b ⎞ horizontal well, and uses a shape factor to count for the
1424T ⎜ ln ⎢ + − 1.224 + s + Dq g ⎟
⎜ r ( I + 1) ⎥ hI ⎟ drainage area change and a partial penetration skin factor for
⎝ ⎣ w ani ⎦ ani ⎠ partial penetrated wellbores. Fig. 5 shows the geometry model
(14)
4 SPE 99712

used by Babu and Odeh. The model can handle both isotropic k y k z ⎡⎛ 1 x ⎞ ⎤
6.28b 2 x2 ⎟ + L ⎛⎜ L − 3 ⎞⎟⎥
and anisotropic reservoirs and the well can be in any positions Py = ⎢⎜ − mid + mid
in a box-shape reservoir. Babu and Odeh’s IPR equation for ah k x ⎢⎜⎝ 3 b b2 ⎟ 24b ⎝ b
⎠ ⎠⎥⎦
⎣
horizontal well at the pseudo-steady-state condition is
(24)
and
(
7.08 × 10 −3 b k y k z p − p wf )
qo = (18) ⎛b ⎞⎛ 6.28a ⎞⎛ 1 y y2 ⎞
⎡ ⎛ A 0.5 ⎞ ⎤ Pxy = ⎜ − 1⎟⎜ k z k y ⎟⎜ − 0 + 0 ⎟ (25)
μ o Bo ⎢ln⎜⎜ ⎟ + ln C H − 0.75 + s R ⎥
⎟ ⎝ L ⎠⎝ h ⎠⎜⎝ 3 a a 2 ⎟⎠
⎣⎢ ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎦⎥

The functions in Eq. 23, F(L/2b), F((4xmid+L)/2b) and

where in Eq. 18 CH is the shape factor and sR is the partial F((4xmid-L)/2b), are defined as
penetration skin factor. The calculation of CH and sR is as
following.
F (x ) =

ln C H = 6.28
a ⎡1 y ⎛y ⎞ ⎤
2
⎢ − 0 + ⎜⎜ 0 ⎟⎟ ⎥
⎧
[ ]
⎪− (x ) 0.145 + ln (x ) − 0.137(x ) for x = 2b , x =
2 L 4 x mid ± L
2b
≤1
I ani h ⎢ 3 a ⎝ a ⎠ ⎥ ⎪
⎣ ⎦ (19) ⎨
⎛
− ln⎜⎜ sin
πz 0 ⎞ ⎡ a ⎤
⎟⎟ − 0.5 ln ⎢ ⎥ − 1.088
⎪
⎩
[ ] 4x
⎪(2 − x ) 0.145 + ln (2 − x ) − 0.137(2 − x )2 for x = mid
2b
±L
>1
⎝ h ⎠ ⎣ I ani h ⎦ (26)
where
For fully penetrated wellbore (the wellbore length L is equal
to the drainage length b in Fig. 5), the partial penetration skin
is zero. For partially penetrated wellbore (wellbore length L is x mid = 0.5(x1 + x 2 ) (27)
shorter then the drainage length b in Fig. 5), the equation used
to calculate sR depends on the geometry and the permeability
anisotropy. If a k y ≥ 0.75b k x >> 0.75h k z , we have As pointed out in the original paper, the model assumed that
the thickness of the formation, h, is generally much smaller
than the other two dimensions of the drainage box, a and b. If
' this condition does not apply, it should be examined first if a
s R = Pxyz + Pxy (20) horizontal well is the right application for the field. The
equation is very helpful when used to examine the effects of
the reservoir and well parameters on well performance, and
and if b k x > 1.33a k y >> h k z , then sR is therefore to optimize well design and operation. Fig. 6 shows
the IPR curves generated by the Babu and Odeh’s model for
different anisotropic ratio. From the plot, we can see that at
high anisotropic (high difference between vertical and
s R = Pxyz + Py + Pxy (21) horizontal permeability) the production rate is low comparing
with isotropic reservoir. The flow rate reduces rapidly when
the vertical permeability is less than 40 percent of the
In Eqs. 20 and 21 horizontal permeability. Even all developed for single-phase
oil wells, the results from the Butler model and the Furui
model should not be compared with the Babu and Odeh model
⎛b ⎞⎡ h ky ⎛ πz ⎞ ⎤ since the assumptions of the boundary conditions used to
Pxyz = ⎜ − 1⎟ ⎢ln + 0.25 ln − ln⎜ sin ⎟ − 1.84⎥ (22) develop the models are different.
⎝ L ⎠ ⎢⎣ rw kz ⎝ h⎠ ⎥⎦

Single Phase Gas Well. Follow the approach used in steady

2b 2 ⎡ ⎛ L ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ 4 x mid + L ⎞ ⎛ 4x − L ⎞⎤ ⎤ state conditions, the IPR equation for single-phase gas well
'
Pxy = ⎢ F ⎜ ⎟ + 0.5⎢ F ⎜ ⎟ − F ⎜ mid ⎟⎥ ⎥ can be modified from the equation for oil well, and resulting
I ani Lh ⎢⎣ ⎝ 2b ⎠ ⎣ ⎝ 2b ⎠ ⎝ 2b ⎠⎦ ⎥⎦ equation is8

(23)
SPE 99712 5

b k y k z ⎛⎜ p − p wf2 ⎞
2 Examples and Discussions
⎟
⎝ ⎠
qg = (28)
⎡ ⎛A ⎞ 0.5 ⎤ Oil Well. A 4-inche diameter horizontal well fully penetrates
1424 z μ g T ⎢ln⎜ ⎟ + ln C H − 0.75 + s R ⎥
⎜
⎢⎣ ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎟ in the length direction of the box-shaped oil reservoir. The
⎦⎥
reservoir size is 2000 ft in length, 1500 ft in width and 100 ft
in height. The horizontal permeability is 100 md and the
The gas properties are estimated at the average pressure vertical permeability is 10 md. The skin factor is zero. The oil
between the flowing bottomhole pressure and the reservoir viscosity is 2 cp and the oil formation volume factor is 1
pressure. Either squared pressure or the real gas pseudo- resbbl/STB.
pressure function can be used to calculate the gas well For steady state, we can use either the Butler model or the
deliverability for horizontal wells. To use the real gas pseudo- Furui model to predict the well performance. Furui’s model is
pressure, and considering non-Darcy flow effect, the equation used in this example. We first calculate the anisotropic ratio,
becomes Iani, and the average permeability for Furui’s model

( ( ) ( ))
b k y k z m p − m p wf
I ani =
kH
=
100
= 3.16228
qg =
⎡ ⎛ A 0.5 ⎞ ⎤ kV 10
1424T ⎢ln⎜ (
⎟ + ln C H − 0.75 + s R + b s + Dq g )⎥
⎢⎣ ⎜⎝ rw ⎟
⎠ L ⎥⎦ k = k H kV = (100)(10) = 31.6228
(29)
Then the productivity index, qo/(pe-pwf), is
Two-Phase Flow Well. For two-phase, the IPR of horizontal
well can be predicted by using the correlation since the
analytical model for two-phase flow is very difficult to derive qo 7.08 × 10 −3 kL
=
because of the complexity of the relative permeability. Hence, ( pe − p wf) ⎛ ⎡ hI ani ⎤ πyb ⎞
the correlations to estimate the two-phase IPR have been used
μ o Bo ⎜⎜ ln ⎢ ⎥+ − 1.224 + s ⎟
⎟
instead. Vogel's correlation9 is a popular two-phase IPR model
⎝ ⎣ rw ( I ani + 1) ⎦ hI ani ⎠
for vertical wells, and is adapted to horizontal well by using a
horizontal well single-phase oil equation to calculate the 7.08 × 10 −3 (31.6228)(2000)
maximum flow potential. The modified Vogel’s correlation is =
expressed as10 ⎛ ⎡ (100)(3.16228) ⎤ π (750) ⎞
[2][1]⎜⎜ ln ⎢ ⎥ + − 1.224 ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎣ (4 / 24 )((3.16228) + 1) ⎦ (100)(3.16228) ⎠
2
qo ⎛ p wf ⎞ ⎛p ⎞
= 1 − 0.2⎜⎜ ⎟ − 0.8⎜ wf ⎟
⎟ ⎜ p ⎟ (30) and that gives
q o,max ⎝ p ⎠ ⎝ ⎠

qo STB Day
qo,max is the maximum open flow potential, ( pe − pwf ) = 18.14 psi

Jp For pseudo-steady-state, we apply Babu and Odeh’s model

q o,max = (31)
1.8 to calculate the productivity index and obtain

The productivity index, J=qo/Δp, is obtain by using Eq. 18 ⎡ 1 750 ⎛ 750 ⎞ 2 ⎤

1500
while setting pwf to zero. This equation has been tested against ln C H = 6.28 10 100 ⎢ − +⎜ ⎟ ⎥
numerical simulation models with satisfied results10. 100 ⎢⎣ 3 1500 ⎝ 1500 ⎠ ⎥⎦
π (50 ) ⎞
The IPR equations for horizontal wells at different
boundary conditions and for different fluid types are
⎛
− ln⎜⎜ sin
(100) ⎟⎠
[ ]
⎟ − 0.5 ln (1500 / 100 ) 10 100 − 1.088
summarized in Table 1. ⎝
= 0.616

Since the well is fully penetrates, sR is zero, which leads

6 SPE 99712

qo ⎡ (150)(3.162) ⎤ π (1000)
=
(p − p ) wf
ln ⎢ ⎥ +
⎣ (0.1667 )(3.162 + 1) ⎦ (150)(3.162)
− 1.224 = 11.93

7.08 × 10 −3 (2000) (100 )(10)

(2)(1)[ln ((1500 ×100)0.5 (4 / 24))+ 0.616 − 0.75] Thus, the gas rate is related to the pseudo pressure function as
STB Day
= 29.39
psi
(0.316)(2000)(m( p ) − m( pwf ))
qg =
Noticed the significant difference between the results from
the two models; one is assumed steady state flow, and the ( (
1424(670 ) 11.93 + 8.97 × 10 −6 q g ) )
other is assumed pseudo-steady-state flow; even the input data
are the same.
Another common expression for gas well IPR is

Gas Well. The horizontal well is fully penetrated in the box-

shaped reservoir. The well radius is 4 inches. The well
produces 0.7 gas gravity. The reservoir width and length are
(m(p )− m(pwf )) = (1.8 ×10 4 )q g + (1.35 ×10 −2 )q g2
1500 ft and 2000 ft, and the reservoir thickness is 150 ft. The
reservoir is homogeneous with 15% porosity and the
horizontal and vertical permeability are 1 md and 0.1 md For pseudo-steady-state condition, the gas well IPR can be
respectively. The reservoir pressure is 5600 psi with 210 ºF calculated by Eq. 29.
temperature. The gas viscosity at 2000 psi and is 0.017 cp.
The gas well deliverability of this well under steady state can
⎡ 2⎤
be estimated by Eq. 14.
ln C H = 6.28
2000
(0.1) (1) ⎢ 1 − 1000 + ⎛⎜ 1000 ⎞⎟ ⎥
150 ⎢⎣ 3 2000 ⎝ 2000 ⎠ ⎥⎦

k = k H kV = (1)(0.1) = 0.316 ⎛ 180°(75) ⎞

− ln⎜⎜ sin [
⎟ − 0.5 ln (2000 / 150) 0.1 1 − 1.088
(150) ⎟⎠
]
⎝
kH 1 = 0.399
I ani = = = 3.162
kV 0.1
and
2.6 × 1010 2.6 × 1010 ln⎛⎜ ((2000 )(150 ))
1
(0.1667 )⎞⎟ + 0.399 − 0.75 = 7.75
β= = = 1.035 × 1011 2

( kxkz )
1.2
( (1)(0.1) ) 1.2 ⎝ ⎠
Thus,
(2000) (1)(0.1)(m( p ) − m( pwf ))
Since there is no damage, we can calculate non-Darcy by qg =
⎡
1424(670)⎢7.75 +
⎣
2000
2000
((
⎤
8.97 × 10 −6 q g ⎥
⎦
) )
Lγ g k x k z ⎡⎛ β ⎞⎛ 1 1 ⎞⎤
D = 2.22 × 10 −15 ⎢⎜ ⎟⎜ − ⎟⎥
( )
μ g p wf ⎣⎢⎝ L2 ⎠⎜⎝ rw re ⎟⎠⎦⎥
Or in the term of pseudo pressure function,

re = ah = (2000)(150) = 547.72 (m(p )− m(pwf )) = (1.17 ×10 4 )q g + (1.35 ×10 −2 )q g2

D = 2.22 × 10 −15
(2000)(0.7 )(0.316) Two-phase Inflow Calculation. This example shows how to
(0.017 ) use the correlation presented before to calculate flow rate for a
two-phase flow well. For pseudo-steady-state condition, we
× ⎢⎜
(
⎡⎛ 1.035 × 1011 )⎞⎟⎛⎜ 1
−
1 ⎞⎤ use the productivity index from Babu and Odeh’s equation to
⎜ ⎟⎝ 0.1667 547.72 ⎟⎠⎥⎥
⎣⎢⎝ (2000 )
2
⎠ calculate the maximum open flow potential, qo,max, first. From
⎦
the single-phase, pseudo-steady-state example, we have
= 8.97 × 10 −6

qo STB Day
J= = 29.39
and
( )
p e − p wf psi
SPE 99712
Setting pwf to zero,
q o,max =
(29.39)(4500) = 73475 STB
1.8 day
With Vogel’s correlation, the well flow rate is related to the
bottomhole flowing pressure as
2
qo ⎛ p wf ⎞ ⎛ p ⎞
= 1 − 0.2⎜⎜ ⎟ − 0.8⎜ wf ⎟
⎟ ⎜ 4500 ⎟
73475 ⎝ 4500 ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
From the above equations, we can generate the IPR curve for
two-phase flow in the horizontal well. Notice that since the
Vogel correlation is generated under pseudo-steady-state
condition, only the Babu and Odeh equations are used to
calculate qo,max.
Conclusion
This paper summarizes the inflow performance relationship
equations for gas, oil and two-phase flow in horizontal wells.
These analytical models are developed based on two boundary
conditions, the steady state condition and the pseudo-steady-
state condition. For steady-state flow, the oil well models were
developed with different assumptions about the drainage area
and drainage pattern, and the gas well models were modified
from the oil well models considering the gas properties such
as the formation volume factor of gas being a function of
pressure and temperature. For pseudo-steady-state condition,
the oil well model by Babu and Odeh model is more flexible
in well location in the drainage area, and it relaxed the
assumption of fully penetrated wellbore. The model is also
modified for gas wells. Two-phase correlation for horizontal
well is also presented for the pseudo-steady-state conditions.
The paper discussed the conditions each IPR equation applies
carefully, and illustrated the procedures of using each model.
Analytical models are simpler, faster and more practical
compared with numerical reservoir simulation models. When
used correctly, the models give reasonable predictions of
horizontal well performances compared the results from
simulation models. The analytical models can be helpful in
designing, operating and optimizing horizontal wells.
Nomenclature
A = reservoir drainage area, ft2
a = extension of drainage volume of horizontal well in x
direction, ft
Bo = oil formation volume factor, res bbl/STB
b = reservoir length in y-direction, ft
D = non-Darcy flow coefficient, D/Mscf
7
h = reservoir thickness, ft
kx = x direction permeability, md
ky = y direction permeability, md
kz = z direction permeability, md
L = horizontal well length, ft
J = Productivity for toe and heel segment, STB/psi
m( p ) = average reservoir pseudopressure, psi2/cp
m(pwf) = flowing bottomhole pseudopressure, psi2/cp
p = average reservoir pressure, psi
qo = production rate, STB/d
qo,max = absolute open flow potential, STB/d
rw = well radius, ft
s = skin factor
sR = partial penetration skin at constant flow rate
T = Temperature, ºR
x0 = position of well in x-direction
y1 = position of well at the heel in y-direction
y2 = position of well at the toe in y-direction
z0 = position of well in z-direction
β = turbulence factor
βd = turbulence factor for damaged zone
γg = gas gravity
μ = viscosity, cp
References
1. Joshi, S.D.: “Augmentation of Well Productivity with Slant and
Horizontal Wells,” JPT, (June 1988), 729-739.
2. Economides, M.J., Deimbacher, F.X., Brand, C.W., and
Heinemann, Z.E.: “Comprehensive Simulation of Horizontal
Well Performance,” SPEFE, (December 1991), 418-426.
3. Butler, R.M.: Horizontal Wells For the Recovery of Oil, Gas and
Bitumen, Petroleum Monograph No. 2, Petroleum Society of
CIM (1994).
4. Furui, K., Zhu, D. and Hill, A.D.: “A Rigorous Formation
Damage Skin Factor and Reservoir Inflow Model for a
Horizontal Well,” SPEPF, (August 2003), 151-157.
5. Al-Hussainy, R.R. et al.: “The Flow of Real Gases Through
Porous Media,” JPT (May 1966) 624-636.
6. Thomas, L.K. et al.: “Horizontal Well IPR Calculation,” paper
SPE 36753 presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, October 6-9.
7. Babu, D.K. and Odeh A.S.: “Productivity of a Horizontal well,”
SPE Reservoir Engineering (Nov. 1989) 417-421.
8. Billiter, T., Lee, J. and Chase, R.: “Dimensionless Inflow-
Performance-Relationship curve for Unfractured Horizontal Gas
Wells,” paper SPE 72361 presented at the SPE Eastern Regional
Meeting, Canton, Ohio, October 17-19, 2001.
8 SPE 99712

9. Vogel, J. V.: “Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution- 10. Kamkom, R. and Zhu, D.: “Evaluation of Two-Phase IPR
Gas Drive Wells,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, (January Correlations for Horizontal Wells,” paper SPE 93986 presented
1968), 83-92. at the 2005 SPE Production and Operations Symposium,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, April 17-18.

Table 1 IPR equations for horizontal wells

Steady-State Flow Pseudo-Steady-State Flow

(Constant pressure at the boundary) (No flow boundary)

7.08 x10 −3 k H h( p e − p wf )
qo =
⎛ ⎛ ⎞ I h ⎛ I h ⎞ ⎞
⎜ ⎜ a + a − (L / 2 )
2 2
Oil ⎟ ⎟
μ o Bo ⎜ ln⎜ ⎟⎟ + L ln⎜⎜ r (I + 1) ⎟⎟ + s ⎟
ani ani

⎜ ⎜
⎝ ⎝
(L / 2 ) 2
⎠ ⎝ w ani ⎠ ⎟
⎠
Joshi-Economides (
7.08 × 10 −3 b k y k z p − p wf )
qo =
⎡ ⎛ A 0.5 ⎞ ⎤
qo =
(
7.08 x10 −3 k H L pe − p wf ) Bo μ o ⎢ln⎜
⎢⎣ ⎜⎝ rw
⎟ + ln C H − 0.75 + s R ⎥
⎟ ⎥⎦
⎠
⎛ ⎡ hI ani ⎤ πyb ⎞
μ o Bo ⎜⎜ I ani ln ⎢ ⎥+ − 1.14 I ani ⎟
⎟
⎝ ⎣ rw ( I ani + 1) ⎦ h ⎠
Butler

qo =
(
7.08 x10 −3 kL p e − p wf )
⎛ ⎡ hI ani ⎤ πy b ⎞
μ o Bo ⎜⎜ ln ⎢ ⎥+ − 1.224 + s ⎟
⎟
⎝ ⎣ rw ( I ani + 1) ⎦ hI ani ⎠
Furui

qg =
( ( ) ( ))
kL m p − m p wf ( ( ) ( ))
b k y k z m p − m p wf
Gas qg =
⎡ ⎛ A 0 .5 ⎞ ⎤
⎛ ⎡ hI ani
1424T ⎜ ln ⎢
⎤ πy b
+
⎜ r ( I + 1) ⎥ hI
⎞
− 1.224 + s + Dq g ⎟
⎟
1424T ⎢ln⎜⎜ ⎟
(
⎟ + ln C H − 0.75 + s R + b s + Dq g ⎥ )
⎝ ⎣ w ani ⎦ ani ⎠ ⎣⎢ ⎝ rw ⎠ L ⎥⎦
2
qo pwf ⎛ pwf ⎞
= 1 − 0.2 − 0.8⎜⎜ ⎟
⎟
qo,max p ⎝ p ⎠
2-φ
qo, max =
1 ()
7.08 × 10−3 b k y k z p
1.8 ⎡ ⎛ A0.5 ⎞ ⎤
Bo μo ⎢ln⎜ ⎟ + ln CH − 0.75 + sR ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎜⎝ rw ⎟⎠ ⎥⎦
SPE 99712 9

2.5E+07

2.0E+07

Fig. 1 Flow geometries assumed for Joshi’s and 1.5E+07

(pr -pwf )
2
Economides, et. Al. model

2
1.0E+07
Simulation, 10% RF
Analytical, 10% RF
5.0E+06 Simulation, 20% RF
Analytical, 20% RF
z
0.0E+00
y
0.0E+00 5.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.5E+05
L Gas Flow Rate (Mscf/day)

h rw Fig. 4 Comparison of analytical model for gas wells with

numerical simulation results.
2yb

z Streamline
L

x1, y0,, z0 x2, y0,, z0

y
h rw
h a

b
yt
yb
Fig. 5 Geometry model for pseudo-steady-state flow equation.

Fig. 2 Geometry model for steady state flow equations. 12000

10000
5000
8000
4500
Flow Rate (STB/day)

4000 Furui et al model

Butler model 6000
3500
3000 4000
pwf (psi)

2500
2000
2000
1500 0
1000 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
500 The Ratio of Vertical to Horizontal Permeability
0 (kV/kH)
0 20000 40000 60000 80000
Flow Rate (STB/day)
Fig. 6 Flow rate as a function of anisotropic ratio for pseudo-
steady-state equation
Fig. 3 IPR curves for steady-state flow at s=0.