|
|
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
Line 85: |
Line 85: |
|
| |
|
| The choice of the IPR used depends on the fluid properties and reservoir drive mechanism. Standing's IPR is most appropriate for solution-gas-drive reservoirs, whereas a linear IPR is more appropriate for waterdrive reservoirs producing at pressures above the bubblepoint and for hydrocarbons without substantial dissolved gas. A more detailed discussion of this is provided in Peters<ref name="r5">Peters, E.J. 1990. Class notes. Department of Production Engineering, University of Texas at Austin (1990)</ref>. | | The choice of the IPR used depends on the fluid properties and reservoir drive mechanism. Standing's IPR is most appropriate for solution-gas-drive reservoirs, whereas a linear IPR is more appropriate for waterdrive reservoirs producing at pressures above the bubblepoint and for hydrocarbons without substantial dissolved gas. A more detailed discussion of this is provided in Peters<ref name="r5">Peters, E.J. 1990. Class notes. Department of Production Engineering, University of Texas at Austin (1990)</ref>. |
|
| |
| [[File:DamageRatio01.PNG|thumb|Damage Ratio]]
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| <gallery>
| |
| File:DamageRatio01.PNG|'''Fig. 6—Undamaged, damaged, and improvement.
| |
| File:DamageRatio02.PNG|'''Fig. 6—Undamaged, damaged, and improvement.
| |
| </gallery>
| |
|
| |
| Undamaged, damaged and improvement
| |
|
| |
|
| == Formation damage vs. pseudodamage == | | == Formation damage vs. pseudodamage == |