MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062313358 · doi:10.2118/2009-086

Determination of Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) by Well Testing

2009· article· en· W2062313358 on OpenAlex
A. Jahanbani, Seyed Reza Shadizadeh

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInflowComputer scienceReliability engineeringGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The knowledge of Inflow Performance Relationship is an essential piece of information for well performance evaluation and optimization. For single phase oil flow, production rate is proportional to pressure drawdown and therefore the IPR curve is a straight line. Several empirical relations have been proposed in the literature to predict the performance of oil wells producing with two phase flow conditions. However, these relationships are empirical and limited in application. This paper presents a general approach for determination of IPR curves of oil wells below the bubble point pressure. This approach uses the results of well test analysis along with relative permeability and PVT data in the proper fluid flow equations for generation of IPR curves. The proposed method is also capable of predicting future IPR curves. To show that the presented approach is applicable to a wide variety of cases, it is applied to an example oil well in a naturally fractured reservoir. The new method proposed for fractured reservoirs is then compared with some of the empirical methods. It is shown that the new method can predict well deliverability more accurately than other methods. Among different methods evaluated in this work, although underestimating flow rates, Vogel's relation best matched our work. The approach presented in this paper eliminates the need for multipoint tests, and the required data can be obtained from a buildup test. This approach can be applied to both initial well tests (transient flow) and tests done later during production (pseudo steady state flow). The new analytical method proposed for determination of IPR curve is considered a reliable method since it can closely match the flow tests data. Introduction Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) of a well is the relation between the production rate and flowing bottom hole pressure. For oil wells, it is frequently assumed that fluid inflow rate is proportional to the difference between reservoir pressure and wellbore pressure. This assumption leads to a straight line relationship that can be derived from Darcy's law for steady state flow of an incompressible, single phase fluid and is called the Productivity Index (PI). However, this assumption is valid only above the bubble point pressure. Evinger and Muskat [1], based on multi-phase flow equations showed that a curved relationship existed between flow rate and pressure, when two phase flow occurs in the reservoir (i.e. saturated oil). In 1968, Vogel [2] presented an empirical inflow performance relationship for solution-gas drive reservoirs, based on computer simulation results and a wide range of rock and fluid properties. His famous dimensionless IPR was developed for flow of saturated oil from a solution-gas drive reservoir into well ignoring skin effects. After Vogel, several empirical relationships have been developed to predict the performance of oil wells in saturated reservoirs [3–12]. However, these IPRs are empirical and have been developed for homogeneous, solution-gas drive reservoirs and may not be applicable to other cases.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it