SKIN FACTOR AND FLOW EFFICIENCY IN WELLS

PRODUCING UNDER SOLUTION GAS DRIVE

T.E.W. NIND

this article begins on the next page F

JCPT86-04-02 PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORTATION Skin factor and flow efficiency in wells producing under solution gas drive T.E.W. NIND Trent University Peterborough, Ontario ABSTRACT It is argued that the skin factor is an inappropriate measure of damage around the well bore for wells producing from solu- tion gas drive reservoirs in which the pressure has fallen below the bubble point. This is because the value of the skin factor is influenced by the high gas saturations close to the well which lead to reduced effective permeabilities to oil. The curvature exhibited by the inflow
performance relation- ships of Vogel and Fetkovich is a reflection of the increased gas saturations in the vicinity of a producing well so that a value of flow efficiency, based on a comparison of actual per- formance with the "type-curve" IPR, should give a truer measure of skin damage than that given by the skin factor. Formulas are presented which enable the value of the flow efficiency to be determined from a two-point rate flowing BHP test together with knowledge of the static pres- sure at the well in question. An estimate of the production rate increase, resulting from remedial
work to improve the flow ef- ficiency of a particular well, is readily obtainable. Introduction In many producing wells the value of the formation's permeability close to the well bore is different from its value further back in the reservoir. There are several possible reasons for this: well completion techniques, for example, may result in formation damage due to the mechanical disturbance of the sand grains, or to the invasion of the pores by mud filtrate, or to resistance to flow created by a gravel pack or by inadequate casing perforation techniques. On the other hand, bullet per-
foration of the casing and cement may create channels around he well bore that improve the effective permeability, while acidization or fracturing jobs are designed to improve that permeability. When production takes place at a flowing BHP that is below the bubble point, the presence of free gas in the pressure sink centred on the well reduces the ease with which oil flows in this region, that is, alters the effective permeabilities. It is useful in the field to have a method for determining the extent to which the average permeability around the well bore differs from that of the
formation in order to assess and im- Keywords: Skin factor, Inflow performance relationship, Bubble point, Bottom hole pressure. prove completion practices, and to judge the necessity for and the profitability of possible remedial work at some stage in a well's life-perhaps an acid wash, an oil backflush, or a reper- foration. Skin Factor The most commonly used measure of the degree of damage around the well is the skin factor, the value of which is routinely determined as part of a pressure build-up survey. Referring to Figures I and 2, and using standard symbols, a dimensionless number S
is defined by S @ 2 7rhk (AP,ki@)/qliB...(1) or, in North American units S = 'IP,ki,:'(0.87 irn)....(2) where m - 162.6q[tB@/hk..........(3) is the slope in psi/cycle logio of the straight-line portion of the pressure build-up plot (Fig. 2). The pressure drop over the skin (AP,ki., Fig. 1) is not known, nor can it be measured directly, so that Eq. 2 is not immediately useful. Referring to Figure 2, it can be shown(l) that S = 1. 151 1 plh,-p,,f)/m - loglo (kl[L<xr2) + 3.231........................ (4) w The number S is called the skin factor, and it is clear from Eq. 2 that if
S >O, AP,ki, >so that there is reduced permeability around the well bore,, S = 0, 'AP,ki,, = 0 so that there is no skin effect. S <O, apski,, < 0 s-a that the effective permeability to oil in the vicinity of the well is enhanced. Of the various; factors appearing in Eq. 4 some uncertainty surrounds the value of (k//A), although this may be determined with reasonable accuracy from m (Eq. 3) provided that the for- mation thickness, h, can be adequately defined; some uncer- tainty also
surrounds the value to be used for porosity, p, and for the compressibility, c. But each of these factors appears in the logarithm term so that any inaccuracies in the values assigned to them have little influence on the value of S. The principal shortcomings of S lie in the assumptions made in deriving Eq. 3-namely the radial flow of a single slightly compressible fluid through a homogeneous reservoir drained Paper reviewed and accepted for publication by the Editorial Board of the Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology. July-August 1986, Montreal
31
 PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORTATION
... ~ ,.

Skin factor and flow efficiency r

;.

in wells producing under solution gas drive ~: ...

T.E.W. NINO "

Trent University
Peterborough, Ontario
,- '- .-:
(:"
I
ABSTRACT
It is argued thar the skin factor is an inappropriate measure of prove completion practices. and to judge the necessity for and
damage around the well bore for wells producing from solu- the profitability of possible remedial work at some srage in a
tion gas drive reservoirs in which the pressure has/allen below weU's life-perhaps an acid wash, an oil backflush, or a reper-
the bubble point. This is because the value of the skin/actor is foration. ,
influenced by the high gas saturations close to the welJ which
lead to reduced effeclh'eo permeabilities to oi/. Skin Factor
The curvature eXhibited by the inflow performance relation- The mosr commonly used measure of the degree of damage
ships 0/ Vogel and Fetkovich is a reflection of the increased around the weU is the skin factor, the value of which is routinely
gas saturations ill the vicinity of a producing well so that a determined as part of a pressure build-up survey_Referring to
value offlow efficiency, based on a comparison ofactual per- Figures 1 and 2, and using standard symbols, a dimensionless
formance with the Htype_curve H [PR, should give a truer number S is defined by
measure 0/ skin damage than that given by the skin factor.
Formulas are presented which enable the value of the flow S = 2 ..,.hk (.aPsl:.in)Jq~Bo.'.' ' - '.' - " ,... (1)
efficiency to be determined from a two-point rate/ or, in North American units
flowing RHP test together with knowledge 0/ the static pres- S = AP~kin'(0.87 m) _............................ _ _. __ .(2)
sure at the well in question. An estimate ofthe production rate
where
increase, resulting/rom remedial work (0 improve the flo w ef-
ficiency of a particular well, is readily obtainable. m ~ 162.6q"B o /hk (3)

Introduction
is the slope in psi! cycle 10gJO of the straight-line portion of the
pressure build-up plot (Fig. 2).
t~~ ..
In many producing wells the value of the formation's The pressure drop over the skin (.L\Psl:in' Fig_ 1) is not kilown, I

permeability close to the well bore is different from its value
further back in the reservoir. There are several possible reasons
for this: well completion techniques, for example, may result
in formation damage due to the mechanical disturbance of the
sand grains, or to the invasion of the pores by mud filtrate, or
to resistance to flow created by a gravel pack or by inadequate
casing perforation techniques. On the other hand, bullet per-
foration of the casing and cement may create channels around
the well bore that improve the effective permeability, while
acidization or fracturing jobs are designed to improve that
permeability _
When production takes place at a flowing BHP that is below
the bubble point, the presence of free gas in the pressure sink
centred on the well reduces the ease with which oil flows in this
region, that is, alters the effective permeabilities.
It is useful in the field to have a method for determining the
extent to which the average permeability around the well bore
differs from thaL of the formation in order to assess and im-
Keywords: Skin factor. Inflow performance relationship. Bubble
point, Bottom hole pressure.
nor can it be measured directly, so that Eq. 2 is not
immediately useful. Referring to Figure 2, it can be shown(l) that
S = 1.I51 [Pllir-P\\r)Jm-log10(k/Jl?'Cra,) + 3,23] __ _ (4)
The number S is called the skin factor. and it is clear from
Eq. 2 that if
S >0, .aP~k.in > 0 so lha[ [here is reduced permeability around the well bore,
S = 0, dPskin = 0 so [hat there is no skin effect.
S <0, ,!),P~kin < 0 so that the eFFeclive permeability to oil in lhe vicinity of
[he well is enhanced.
Of the various factors appearing in Eq. 4 some uncertainty
surrounds the value of (kJ~), although this may be determined
with reasonable accuracy from m (Eq. 3) provided that the for-
mation thickness, h, can be adequately defined; some uncer-
tainty also surrounds the value to be Ilsed for porosity, V', and
for the compressibility, c_ But each of these factors appears in
the log-arithm term so that any inaccuracies in the values
assigned to them have little influence on the value of S.
The principal shortcomings of S lie in the assumptions made
in deriving Eq_ 3-namely the radial flow of a single slightly
compressible fluid through a homogeneous reservoir drained

Paper reviewed and accepted for publication b}' the Edilorial Board of the Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology.

JulyAugust 1986, Montreal 31

 ----,~ r ------------------- --
Pr~~~ur~ pr{]nl~
slope m
I, IR formation

J -t- ---------------- - -- - - - P 1hr

! .o.P~kln ~ QrBoS/11Thk = O.SimS
----JT:
I_' __ - - - -
., I
~

'---',I-----\-----,i 0
---'.;'---'--'3"'-
h,.
IOIJ\o[(T+t)/t)

FIGURE 1. Pressure profile around well. FIGURE 2. Pressure build-up analysis.

by a single well that has been producing steadily at a constant
rate. If the formulas resulting from the theory are applied LO
pressure build-up measurements taken in a well producing
with a flowing BHP below the bubble point in a solution gas
drive field, then inevitably some uncertainty as to the meaning
of S is going to arise. In particular. the decreased effective
permeability to oil in the neighbourhood of the well, due to
high gas saturations in the pressure sink, will appear as forma-
tion damage, and it may be impossible to isolate effects that
can or should be remedied from the influence of this free gas
saLuration.
Flow Efficiency
Consider the case of radial flow to a steadily producing well of
a single, slightly compressible fluid through a uniform homo-
geneous formation. In such a case-which may be regarded as
a first approximation 10 the description of the flow of oil when
the flowing BHP exceeds the bubble point-the IPR is a
straight line.
Let AC (Fig. 3), represent the IPR for the ideal (undamaged)
well, and AS represent the IPR fa the actual well. Then
ASIAT (= SR/TW) = TV/TW = DB/De
or
[P5 - (P"I + .j,P~I;IIl) j/(P,-P"r) = q/ql = q' lq' = constant = F, say .....(5)
where
P~, p,,[, ..3.P,I-lIl are as defined in Figure I,
q' is the potential of the actual well
q; is (he potenlial of (he ideal well
q is thc actual well's production rale at FBHP of P"r
q, is the ideal weU's production rate at FBHP of p",[
The constant F is the/low efficiency: it is commonly defined
as the ratio of the drawdowns(2l, viz.:
(p, - p.fll/(p, - p",) = F
where
P,,11 = P"r+dP1kln (see Fig. I)
Since P"fJ must be less than P,. F must be positive. Further,
if the actual well is not as good a producer as the ideal well,
P"n is greater than P",j and F is less than L Similarly, if S <0,
then F> 1, and if S = 0, then F = l.
If J is the productivity index of the actual well, J is constant
by the assumptions of this section and
P5 -P",,- = qlJ
Substituting into Eq _5
[(q/J)-uPsl..mI1(q/J) = F
F = I - J(..3.Psl..in1q)
= I - O.87mSJlq from Eq. 2
= 1- l41.5J,uB oSlhk _ (7)
from Eq. 3. The restriction that F must be positive implies, in
practical terms, that .!i.Psl..i11 must be less than thc drawdown in
the actual well, which is self-evident.
Under the assumptions here made, all of the terms in Eq. 7
are consLams, so that F and S are clearly derined measures of
the degree of damage.
Flowing BHP Below Bubble Point
In this case the IPR is curved, and J is no longer a constanl.
The simple ratios from Figure 3 that lead to the equations (Eq.
5) no longer hold and a question arises as LO whether F is bc~t
defined by a ratio of drawdowns, a raLio of rates, or a ratio of
potentials. The most usual, and the most userul definition is
the ratio of dra\-vdowns (Eq. 6) and it is this definition that will
form the basis of the balance of this paper- It should, however,
be emphasized that if the damage factor is described by a now
efficiency, F, defined by Eq. 6, and if F is regarded as a conslant,
independent of q (and of P"r), then neither q/ql nor S can be
taken as constants, nor wilt q' f q; be equal 10 F.
VogellJl and Fetkovichl-l) have suggested forms for the IPR
under solution gas drive conditions, and the curvature ex
hibited in their type curves (Fig. 4) is a reflection of the in-
fluence of the free gas saturation near the well bore. That is,
the behaviour of an "ideal" well, operating with a BHP below
the bubble point, is epitomized by (he Vogel or the FClkovich
(PR, and any deviation from this shape should be a measure of
remediable formation damage (or of the improvement) near lO
the well.
Standingl2l published a set of type curves, based on the
Vogel IPR, for wells producing at various now efl'iciencies.
His curves (Fig. 5) are derived from Eq, 6 which may be writ-
ten in the form
P",ufp, == 1- F + Fp"'rfPI_ _ (1:1)
(6)
If F is known, then an assumed value of P"rfp, gives a Ligllre
for P"nfps' From the Vogel (or the Fetkovich) type curve (Fig.
4), the corresponding q/q; may then be read off. The .~}rmbol
q; is the potential of the undamaged well, while q is the prod-
uction rate from the actual well at the assumed P"rfp,. The
Standing curves give a plot of q' fqj' against P"rfp~ for various F
values. Table 1 outlines the calculation procedure for F' .= 0,7.
An apparent limitation on the use of the curves is that eiLher
the value of F for the actual well must be known in ordcr to
determine the capabilities of the undamaged well: or Lhe
capability of the undamaged well (i.e. q() must be known In
order to put a number to Lhe flow efficiency of the acLual wcll.
However, this limitation is more apparent than real, and it i:-.
shown in the next section that the definition of Eq. 6, used in

32 The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology