SPE 152837

New Methods to Predict Inflow Performance of Multiply Fractured

Horizontal Wells under Two-Phase Condition and Optimize Number of
Fracture Stages
He Zhang, Guoqing Han*, Fabien Houeto, Rodney Lessard, Wenhao Wang, and Jun Li, Schlumberger
Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Cairo, Egypt, 2022 February 2012.

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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.


Abstract
A new method is presented to calculate the total inflow and associated productivity index (PI) under two-phase conditions by
a sum of contributions from matrix and N multiple fractures using semi-analytical methods. Maximizing the net Present
present value (NPV), the new inflow performance relationship (IPR) models can determine the optimal fracture stage
number. Furthermore, the deliverable PI is used as an input to a network model to calculate the operating rate, taking into
account the network constraints such as the node pressure, allowed flowrate, or choke in place. Through this analysis, one
may determine that the horizontal well of interest may not flow at the maximum PIit suggests that the network constraints
dissipate the contribution from m stage(s) fractures. The number of fracture stages is then reset to (Nm), the IPR model is
rerun, and an updated PI is imported into the network model. This process is iterated until the final optimization is achieved.

This method can quickly optimize the number of fracture stages for horizontal wells under two-phase solution-gas conditions,
assisting operating companies in planning field development.

Introduction
A very high percentage of wells drilled today are horizontal and most of those require stimulation. Because of the high cost
of fracturing, the optimal number of fracture stages needs to be determined as soon as possible when drilling is being
completed. Ideally, a numerical reservoir and fracturing simulation would give the most accurate results, but such simulation
is time consuming and sometimes impractical as it requires logging data, fluid sampling, and pressure transient analysis
(Taylor et al. 2011).

Inflow performance relationship (IPR) models can be used to quickly estimate the productivity index (PI) and inflow rate.
However, none of the IPRs in literature is satisfactory for a horizontal fractured well under two-phase conditions. Thomas et
al. (1998) presented a method to calculate the IPR for a horizontal well by considering non-Darcy flow effects in terms of an
additional skin. Their model integrates a production forecasting dynamic reservoir model, which enables the calculation of
the PI over time. However, the innovative skin calculation is for the existing single-phase steady/pseudosteady state models
(Joshi 1991; Babu and Odeh 1989; Economides et al. 1996). This indeed suggests that such approach is restricted to single-
phase flow only. Retnanto and Economides (1998) presented a generalized dimensionless IPR curve for a horizontal and
multilateral well by a nonlinear regression in a similar form to Vogels model (1968). It is specifically useful for a solution-
gas drive reservoir. This empirical equation employs a pseudosteady PI proposed by Economides et al. (1996) earlier. Yildiz
(2001) presented an analytical IPR curve for a perforated multisegment horizontal well in a 3D anisotropic reservoir. This
work focused on the completion damage by calculating the perforation total pseudoskin across different segments of the
horizontal well, but again this analytical equation is for single phase flow. Billiter et al. (2001) developed the fundamental
IPR for an unfractured, horizontal gas well including non-Darcy effects from the Babu and Odeh (1989) model. Furthermore,
with a nonlinear regression, they developed an empirical multivariable-dependent dimensionless IPR curve based upon 384
cases generated by the fundamental IPR. However, this work focused on the gas reservoir only. Wiggins and Wang (2005)
presented new forms of generalized IPR for a horizontal well in a solution-gas drive reservoir based on numerical simulation
study. Two empirical equations were presented: one is similar to the dimensionless Vogels model for vertical well; the other
* Guoqing Han currently holds the faculty position at China University of Petroleum Beijing
2 SPE 152837
one includes the factor for reservoir depletion stage to determine the maximum oil flowrate. The authors also compared the
correlations in the literature including the models of Bendakhlia and Aziz (1989), Cheng (1990), and Retnanto and
Economides (1998). Kamkom and Zhu (2005) used a numerical reservoir simulator to evaluate existing two-phase IPRs for
horizontal wells among the modified Vogels model by Kabir (1992), Bendakhlia and Aziz (1989), Cheng (1990), and
Retnanto and Economides (1998). The Bendakhlia and Aziz correlation yields the closest results at high or low recovery
factors, while the modified Vogel model performs the best at the recovery factors in between. Chase and Steffy (2004)
presented a single-oil-phase IPR curve for a single-stage fractured horizontal well. This IPR model is characterized by the
ratio of the external drainage radius to the fracture half-length, based on Joshis model, which is not appropriate for two-
phase systems.

The industry has also devoted great efforts to modeling fracturing jobs in recent years. Valko and Economides (1998)
introduced a concept of proppant number unified fracture design (UFD), which is proportional to fracture permeability and
propped volume, and inversely proportional to reservoir permeability and reservoir volume. The proppant number can be
used to calculate the maximum PI corresponding to the optimum fracture conductivity in pseudosteady-state condition. Later,
Daal and Economides (2006) further optimized the hydraulically fractured wells in irregularly shaped drainages by the UFD
method. This work provided a factor labeled optimization function (F-function) and fit it into the dimensionless PI equation
for a square reservoir. The maximum PI can be calculated in differently shaped reservoirs for any proppant number by this
method. However, this works only for single-phase flow. Because of the high cost of hydraulic fracturing operations, industry
used numerical simulations to estimate and optimize the net present value (NPV) and fracture number (Guglielmo et al. 2006;
Sadrpanah et al. 2006; Butter et al. 2006). The predictions are even when compared with analytical results. However, it is
difficult to estimate the accurate fracture half-length and infinite permeability. The results are quite different considering the
incapacity of the analytical solution for multiphase flow and transient conditions. Yuan and Zhou (2010) presented a new
model to predict the PI of a fractured horizontal well at steady-state condition. This model adds up the inflow from matrix
and fractures, but again it is for a single-phase system.

Here we propose a new method to predict the PI of a multistaged fractured horizontal well for a two-phase solution-gas drive
reservoir. We also develop an iterative scheme to calibrate the new IPR model with the network model and obtain an optimal
production system for mature reservoirs.

New IPR Model Description
To develop the general coupling concept of the inflow from rock matrix and fractures under solution-gas drive two-phase
condition, this work starts with the idea proposed by Yuan and Zhou (2010) in Eq. 1. The summation gives the total
contributed production from fracturing stimulation.

... (1)

=
+ =
N
i
i f m
q q q
1
,

where q is the total flow rate for a multiply fractured horizontal well, q
m
is the flow rate from matrix without stimulation, q
f,i

is the flow rate from the i-th fracture, and N is the total number of fractures.

In the first step, the Retnanto and Economides model (1998) is used for demonstration purposes to calculate the inflow from
matrix, q
m
, in Eq. 2.

=
r
wf
r
wf
m
p
p
p
p
q q 75 . 0 25 . 0 0 . 1
max
n
(2)

where n is the exponent on the IPR curve as a function of bubblepoint pressure and reservoir depletion in Eq. 3, q
max
is the
absolute open flow which is calculated in Eq. 4, p
wf
is the bottomhole flowing pressure, and p
r
is the average reservoir
pressure.

(
b
b
r
b
r
p
p
p
p
p
n
3
10 66 . 1 4 96 . 0 46 . 1 27 . 0

+

+ = )
2
.. (3)

where p
b
is the bubblepoint pressure in psi.

SPE 152837 3

n
q
r
75 . 0 25 . 0
max
+
=
Jp
...... (4)

where J is the productivity index which is calculated in Eq. 5.

+
=
total
e
D
e c
s
L
x
p B
J

2
22 . 887
x k
.... (5)

where k
c
is the corrected reservoir permeability due to the existence of fractures in Eq. 6, x
e
is the extent of drainage area in
the x-axis direction (reservoir length), B is the oil formation volume factor, is the oil viscosity, p
D
is the calculated
dimensionless pressure in Eq. 7 from Economides et al. (1996), L is the well length, and s
total
is all the damage and
pseudoskin factors.

=

=
N
i e
i f
i
m
i f
m c
r
x
L
w
k
k
k k
1
, ,
12
1 , 0 max ........... (6)

where k
m
is the matrix permeability, k
f,i
is the fracture permeability for the i-th fracture, w
i
is fracture width, x
f,i
is half-length
of the fracture, and r
e
is the effective reservoir radius, which can be approximated by

/, with y
e
being the extent of
drainage area in y-axis direction (reservoir width). Note that when the summation in the bracket is larger than 1, it indicates
that the inflow is dominated by fractures and the inflow from the rock matrix is ignored.

+ =
L
h
r
h
L
x
h
C x
p
w
e H e
D
6 2
ln
2 4
(7)

where C
H
is the shape factor, h is reservoir thickness, and r
w
is the wellbore radius. Note that Eq. 7 is a simplified form of the
equation from Retnanto and Economides (1998) assuming that the horizontal well is placed vertically in the middle of the
reservoir.

The second step is to calculate the contributed inflow from fractures as proposed by Yuan and Zhou (2010).

= 5 . 0
2
ln
1
00059 . 0
,
h
x
r
h
B
p w k
q
f
w
f f
i f

... (8)

where p
f
is the pressure drawdown from the tip of the fracture to the wellbore, which is calculated in Eq. 9. Note that Eq. 8
is derived with the assumption of a linear and a radial flow inside the fracture.

The pressure distribution of the horizontal well needs to be calculated to obtain the pressure drawdown, p
f
, by Eq. 9.

( )
2 2 2 2
f
f
wf e f
x b l a
l x
p p p
+
+
=
2 2
. (9)

where p
e
is the pressure at the reservoir outer boundary, l is the distance between a fracture and the center of drainage ellipse,
a and b are respectively the half major axis and minor axis of the drainage ellipse from Eqs. 10 and 11.

( )
4
/ 2 25 . 0 5 . 0
2
L r
L
a
e
+ + = ... (10)
4 SPE 152837
( )
2
2
2
L
a b = ... (11)

Finally, we use Eq. 1 to precompute the grid of the total flowrates as a function of different fracture stages, N.
This model has made several assumptions which are summarized for future field application:
1. Inherited assumptions from general IPRs apply, and include homogenous reservoir, Vogels form IPR, etc.
2. The horizontal well is placed vertically in the middle of the reservoir.
3. The flow around the wellbore inside the fracture is radial.
4. This work considers the effects of the fracture inflow depending on the contacted reservoir volume. However, it
does not take into account the interference among any adjacent fractures.
Assumption 2 can be removed by using the original equations (Economides et al. 1996), with a definition of eccentricity
effects in the vertical direction. Assumption 3 can be modified by replacing Eq. 8 with other flow patterns (Yuan and Zhou
2010). Once the total inflow is known, the fracture stages of a horizontal well can be optimized to maximize the NPV.

Fracture Number Optimization Scheme
Because of the high cost of the stimulation operations, excessive fracturing jobs may not lead to the maximum NPV.
Assuming that a horizontal well is multiply fractured and PI is obtained, we can estimate the cumulative production for a
steady-state period. Total revenue is estimated by using an average oil price. Given a certain confidence interval on the oil
price and a single-fracture job cost, the optimal fracture stage number, N, can be quickly determined by a sensitivity analysis.
The ideal behavior of the NPV versus fracture stage number is shown in Fig. 1.




Fig. 1NPV and PI versus numberof fracturing stages.



However, in a mature field, the allowable flowrate is subject to further network constraints like wellhead pressure
requirement, choke, manifold capacity, sale point condition, etc. The deliverable PI is then used as an input to the surface
network model which takes into account all the engineering constraints from facilities and wellbores. This requires the use of
network simulation methods (Narahara et al. 2004). The network simulation results might predict that a horizontal well will
not produce at the maximum PI. It implies that the network constraints dissipate the contribution from m stage(s)
fractureswhere the value of m can be obtained from the precomputed grid of total flowrates. Then the number of fracture
stages is set to N-m. By rerunning the proposed IPR model, we can update the PI. This new PI is then used in the surface
network model. An iterative optimization scheme in Fig. 2 can lead to the final optimal production system.

Case Study
An example is presented below (most data are adapted from Economides et al. 1996).
A horizontal well of L = 1,500 ft long is situated vertically in the middle in a square reservoir with x
e
= 2,000 ft, y
e
= 4,000 ft.
Later we use drainage radius for calculation. We approximate the horizontal well drainage area, r
e
, by conserving the area of
rectangular regions with the side lengths x
e
and y
e
. Consequently,
1595.77 /
e e
= = y x
e
r

ft. As h = 20 ft, r
w
= 0.4 ft,

07 . 2
1500 6
20
4 . 0 2
20
ln =

x
s . (12)


SPE 152837 5
Assuming that y
e
/x
e
= 2, L/x
e
= 1500/2000 = 0.75, the shape factor is determined C
H
= 2.53. Thus, p
D
is obtained from Eq. 7,

57 . 20 07 . 2
1500 2 20 4
=

=

D
p
2000 53 . 2 2000
(13)




Fig. 2 Scheme of the optimization workflow.


If k
h
(isotropic throughout) = 10 md, k
v
= 1 md, total skin s = 2, B
o
= 1.25 res-bbl/STB, and
o
= 1 cp, PI can be calculated by
Eq. 5, where the corrected permeability is based on the 3D average,

D psi
STB
399 . 0
2
1500 2
2000
57 . 20 1 25 . 1 22 . 887
2000 1 10
3 2

+

=

J ..... (14)

We assume reservoir pressure p
r
= 5,000 psia, and bubblepoint pressure p
b
= 4,600 psia. By Eq. 3, the exponent of IPR, n, is
calculated.

( ) 13 . 2 4600 10 66 . 1 4
4600
5000
96 . 0
4600
5000
46 . 1 27 . 0
3
2
= +

+ =

n ... (15)

By Eq. 4, the maximum flowrate, q
max
, is calculated.

D / STB 84 . 1079
13 . 2 75 . 0 25 . 0
5000 399 . 0
max
=
+

= q ...... (16)

Substituting q
max
and bottomhole pressure = 2,800 psia into Eq. 2,

6 SPE 152837
D / STB 693.12
5000
2800
75 . 0
5000
2800
25 . 0 0 . 1 84 . 1079
13 . 2
=

=
m
q

... (17)
Inflow from matrix is obtained, but the corrected permeability is the formation matrix average. Once the fracture effect of
Eq. 6 is considered, the inflow is expected to decrease.

We assume all the fractures have the same width, half-fracture length, and permeability: w = 1 in., x
f
= 180 ft, k
f
= 3,000 md.
The half major axis and minor axis of the drainage ellipse, a and b, can be calculated by Eqs. 10 and 11.

( ) ft 18 . 1686 1500 / 77 . 1595 2 25 . 0 5 . 0
2
1500
4
= + + = a ... (18)

( ) ft 20 . 1510
2
1500
18 . 1686
2
2
= = b ... (19)

The next step is to calculate the pressure drawdown from the pressure at the drainage boundary, p
e
, to the tip of the fracture.
The average reservoir pressure can be obtained from periodic pressure buildup tests5,000 psia in this example. Assuming
p
e
= 5,630 psia, we plug Eqs. 18 and 19 into Eq. 9 and get

( )
10 2 2
2 2
10 389 . 7 18 . 1686
180 2830
+
+
=
l
l
p
f
. (20)

Different placements of the multiple fractures lead to different results. This case study investigated two scenarios (Fig. 3).




(A) (B)

Fig. 3 Top view of different placement of the multiple fractures along the horizontal well.
The horizontal line represents the 1,500 ft-long well.
Each horizontal line represents the horizontal well with a different fracture pattern.
The blue dotted line indicates the mid-point of the horizontal well.
The short perpendicular lines represent the multiple fractures
and their location along the well. Scenario (A) includes five different cases, and scenario (B) includes eight different cases.



In scenario (A), the pressure at each fracture tip is obtained by Eq. 20 with l = 750, 562.5, 375, 187.5, and 0 ft. Each l is
labeled with a numerical case number from top to bottom in Fig. 3(A) and Table 1. The related fracture tip drawdown and
inflow at different locations are also summarized. The total inflow from Eq. 1 is summarized in Table 2.




SPE 152837 7
Table 1FRACTURE PRESSURE AND
INFLOW ANALYSIS
ON DIFFERENT LOCATIONS FOR SCENARIO
(A)
Distance of the Fracture
from the Middle of
Horizontal Well, ft
Pressure At
The Tip Of
Fractures, psi
Inflow from
Fracture,
STB/D
750. 4101.54 61.59
562.5 3800.46 47.34
375. 3511.43 33.67
187.5 3258.52 21.70
0. 3137.31 15.96


Table 2INFLOW ANALYSIS FOR
SCENARIO (A)
Case
Number
Corrected
Permeabil
ity, md
Inflow from
Matrix,
STB/D
Total Inflow from
Multi-Fractures,
STB/D
0 4.642 693.04 0.
1 4.623 690.24 61.59
2 4.604 687.43 108.94
3 4.585 684.62 142.60
4 4.566 681.82 164.30
5 4.548 679.01 180.26



Varying the bottomhole pressure from 14.7 psia to the reservoir pressure 5,000 psia, IPR curves for different fracture stages
under two-phase condition are calculated in Fig. 4.





Fig. 4IPR curves of different fracture stages under two-phase condition for scenario (A).
The blue dashed line represents the original Economides model (1998).



From Fig. 4, we can see after a fracturing job with 2 to 3 stages, the marginal production enhancement is less. This suggests
that an economic analysis of the NPV is needed. According to the cost of any single-stage fracture and the projected oil price,
we can optimize the stage number. Let us assume the fracturing cost is USD 1 million per stage and the current oil price is
estimated at USD 100 per barrel for a year. A simple economic analysis based on this 1-year period is given in Table 3 and
Fig. 5. Note that the cost used in this analysis is much simplified compared to the cost in reality.

8 SPE 152837
Table 3ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR SCENARIO (A)
Stage
No.
Inflow
Increased
Rate
1-year
Production
Additional
Production
Revenue Cost Value
Numerical
PI
STB/D STB/D MMSTB MMSTB Million $ Million $ Million $ STB/D/psi
0 693.04 0. 0.25 0. 24.95 0. 24.95 0.315
1 751.83 58.78 0.27 0.02 27.07 1.00 26.07 0.342
2 796.37 103.32 0.29 0.04 28.67 2.00 26.67 0.362
3 827.23 134.18 0.30 0.05 29.78 3.00 26.78 0.376
4 846.12 153.07 0.30 0.06 30.46 4.00 26.46 0.385
5 859.27 166.23 0.31 0.06 30.93 5.00 25.93 0.391





Fig. 5Economic analysis for scenario (A) which meets the expectation of Fig. 1.



Further, the results from scenario (A) indicate an opportunity for the investigation of different patterns of the fracture
placement. In scenario (B), the fractures are evenly placed along the horizontal well. The same procedure as was followed for
scenario (A) gives the results in Tables 4 and 5, and Figs. 6 and 7.



Table 4INFLOW ANALYSIS FOR SCENARIO (B)
Case
Number
Corrected
Permeability,
md
Inflow from
Matrix, STB/D
Total Inflow from
Multi-Fractures,
STB/D
0 4.64 693.04 0.00
1 4.62 690.24 15.96
2 4.60 687.43 67.33
3 4.59 684.62 139.15
4 4.57 681.82 173.86
5 4.55 679.01 206.48
6 4.53 676.20 240.85
7 4.51 673.39 275.21
8 4.49 670.59 292.97




SPE 152837 9


Fig. 6 IPR curves of different fracture stages under two-phase condition for scenario (B).
The blue dashed line represents the original Economides model (1998).



Table 5ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR SCENARIO (B)
Stage
No.
Total
Inflow
Increased
Rate
1-year
Production
Additional
Production
Revenue Cost Profit
Numerical
PI
STB/D STB/D MMSTB MMSTB Million $ Million $ Million $ STB/D/psi
0 693.04 0. 249.50 0. 24.95 0. 24.95 0.32
1 706.20 13.16 254.23 4.74 25.42 1.00 24.42 0.32
2 754.76 61.72 271.71 22.22 27.17 2.00 25.17 0.34
3 823.77 130.72 296.56 47.06 29.66 3.00 26.66 0.37
4 855.67 162.63 308.04 58.55 30.80 4.00 26.80 0.39
5 885.49 192.44 318.78 69.28 31.88 5.00 26.88 0.40
6 917.05 224.00 330.14 80.64 33.01 6.00 27.01 0.42
7 948.60 255.56 341.50 92.00 34.15 7.00 27.15 0.43
8 963.56 270.51 346.88 97.38 34.69 8.00 26.69 0.44






Fig. 7Economic analysis for scenario (B) which meets the expectation of Fig. 1.


Discussion
As the average distance between the fracture location and the center of the ellipse increases, we see a better enhancement in
production. Fractures at the ends of the horizontal well make more contact with the reservoir. From the above two case
studies, evenly placing the fractures can maximize the NPV and minimize the interference effects of adjacent ones. Different
patterns of the placement of fractures affect the stimulation results. In scenario (A), three stages of fracturing leads to the
optimal NPV; while in the scenario (B), the pattern of seven-stage fracturing gives the best NPV (USD 0.37 million more
10 SPE 152837
profit).
Field operations do not always allow the maximum flowrate due to the network constraints such as the situated node
pressure, allowed flowrate, placed choke, etc. Incorporating a network simulation to derive deliverable flowrate is
recommended. An example is given in Fig. 8. All the node pressures from J1 to J5 are in the range of [2080, 2150] psia. If
we connect a horizontal well into this network, the joint node pressure must be evaluated in advance to avoid backflow and
eventual well shut-in. Fig. 2 shows an iterative process to model a feasible production system and maximize the NPV.

Finally, this work not only presents a further integration of the model of Retnanto and Economides (1998), but also allows
the use of other two-phase IPRs with the same concept.




Fig. 8An example of network constraints and iterated calculation is normally required.

Future work
The authors would like to validate the model with field data and potentially conduct further investigation on the fracture
patterns.

Conclusions
This paper presents a new method to predict the PI of a multiply fractured horizontal well for two-phase solution-gas drive
reservoir. The study shows that placement of fractures evenly and close to the fracture ends can improve NPV. It also
proposes an iterative scheme between the new IPR model and surface network model to obtain the optimal production system
for mature fields. The proposed approach can be used to quickly determine the number of fracture stages for a horizontal well
in a two-phase solution-gas drive reservoir. This presents an innovative and effective way to assist operators in formulating a
field development plan.


Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Schlumberger for allowing us to publish this paper and Colin Watters, Chukwuemeka
Ovuworie, and Ghislain Fai-Yengo for the valuable discussions.


Nomenclature

a = half major axis of the drainage ellipse, ft
b = half minor axis of the drainage ellipse, ft
B
o
= Formation Volume Factor, res-bbl/STB
C
H
= shape factor, dimensionless
D = time, days
h = reservoir thickness, ft
J = productivity index, STB/d/psi
l = distance between a fracture and the center of drainage ellipse, ft
L = well length, ft
m = the number of unnecessary fracture, dimensionless
N = total number of fractures, dimensionless
n = exponent on IPR curve
p = pressure, psi
q = flow rate, bbl/D
SPE 152837 11
r
e
= reservoir radius, ft
r
w
= wellbore radius, ft
s = skin factor, dimensionless
s
x
= Kuchuk skin factor, dimensionless
w = fracture width, inch
x
e
= extent of drainage area in x-axis direction, ft
x
f
= half length of the fracture, ft
y
e
= extent of drainage area in y-axis direction, ft
= viscosity, cp

Subscripts

b = bubble-point
c = corrected
f = fracture
h = horizontal
i = i-th fracture
m = matrix
max = maximum
o = oil
r = reservoir
total = total
v = vertical
wf = bottomhole

References
Babu, D.K. and Odeh, A.S. 1989. Productivity of a Horizontal Well. SPE Reservoir Engineering 4(4): 417421.
Bendakhlia, H. and Aziz, K. 1989. Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive Horizontal Wells. SPE paper 19823 presented
at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 811 October. DOI: 10.2118/19823-MS.
Billiter, T., Lee, J., and Chase, R. 2001. Dimensionless Inflow-Performance-Relationship Curve for Unfractured Horizontal Gas Wells.
Paper SPE 72361 presented at SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Canton, Ohio, USA, 1719 October. DOI: 10.2118/72361-MS
Butter, M., East, L., and Kuvshinov, I. 2006. The Potential of Multiple Fractured Horizontal Wells in Layered Reservoirs (Russian). SPE
paper 102633 presented at SPE Russian Oil and Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, Russia, 36 October. DOI:
10.2118/102633-RU.
Chase, R.W., and Steffy, C.R. 2004. Predicting Horizontal Gas Well Deliverability Using Dimensionless IPR Curves. Paper SPE 91101
presented at SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Charleston, West Virginia, USA, 1517 September. DOI: 10.2118/91101-MS
Cheng, A.M. 1990. Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas-Drive Slanted/Horizontal Wells. Paper SPE 20720 presented at
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 2326 September. DOI: 10.2118/20720-MS
Daal, J.A. and Economides, M.J. 2006. Optimization of Hydraulically Fractured Wells in Irregularly Shaped Drainage Areas. Paper SPE
98047 presented at SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana USA, 15-17
February. DOI: 10.2118/98047-MS
Economides, M.J., Brand, C.W., and Frick, T.P. 1996. Well Configurations in Anisotropic Reservoirs. SPE Formation Evaluation 11(4):
257262.
Guglielmo, D., Soliman, M., Kontarev, R., Latkin, K., and Faizullin, I. 2006. Fracture Stimulation in Waterflood Fields of Western Siberia:
A Case Study of Water Prediction and Oil Production Optimization Using Multiphase Reservoir Simulation Techniques. Paper SPE
98259 presented at International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 1517
February 2006. DOI: 10.2118/98259-MS.
Joshi, S.D., 1991. Thermal Oil Recovery with Horizontal Wells. Journal of Petroleum Technology 43(11): 13021304.
Kabir, C.S. 1992. Inflow Performance of Slanted and Horizontal Wells in Solution-Gas Drive Reservoirs. Paper SPE 24056 presented at
SPE Western Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, California, USA, 30 March1 April. DOI: 10.2118/24056-MS.

12 SPE 152837
Kamkom, R. and Zhu, D. 2005. Evaluation of Two-Phase IPR Correlations for Horizontal Wells. Paper SPE 93986 presented at SPE
Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 1619 April. DOI: 10.2118/93986-MS
Narahara, G.M, Holbrook, J.A., Shippen, M., Erkal, A. 2004. Optimization of Riser Design and Drill Centers with a Coupled Reservoir and
Facility Network Model for Deepwater Agbami. Paper SPE 90976 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, Texas, USA, 2629 September. DOI: 10.2118/90976-MS.
Retnanto, A., and Economides, M.J. 1996. Performance of Multiple Horizontal Well Laterals in Low- to Medium-Permeability Reservoirs.
SPE Reservoir Engineering 11(2): 7378.
Retnanto, A., and Economides, M.J. 1998. Inflow Performance Relationships of Horizontal and Multibranched Wells in a Solution- Gas-
Drive Reservoir. Paper SPE 50659 presented at the 1998 European Petroleum Conference, The Hague, Netherlands, 2022 October.
DOI: 10.2118/50659-MS.
Sadrpanah, H., Charles, T., and Fulton, J. 2006. Explicit Simulation of Multiple Hydraulic Fractures in Horizontal Wells. Paper SPE 99575
presented at SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, 1215 June. DOI: 10.2118/99575-MS.
Taylor, R.S., Glaser, M.A., Kim, J., Wilson, B., Nikiforuk, G., Noble, V., Rosenthal, L., Aguilera, R., Hoch, O., Storozhenko, K., Soliman,
M., Riviere, N., Palidwar, T., and Romanson, R. 2011. Optimizing Horizontal-Wellbore and Fracture Spacing with Interactive
Reservoir and Fracturing Simulation. Journal of Petroleum Technology 10: 7072.
Thomas, L.K., Todd, B.J., Evans, C.E., Pierson, R.G. 1998. Horizontal Well IPR Calculations. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering.
1(5): 392399.
Vogel, J.V. 1968. Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive Wells. Journal of Petroleum Technology. 20(10): 9392.
Valko, P.P. and Economides, M.J. 1998. Heavy Crude Production from Shallow Formations: Long Horizontal Wells Versus Horizontal
Fractures. Paper SPE 50421 presented at SPE International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
14 November. DOI: 10.2118/50421-MS.
Wiggins, M.L., and Wang, H-S. 2005. A Two-Phase IPR for Horizontal Oil Wells. Paper SPE 94302 presented at the SPE Production
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 1619 April. DOI: 10.2118/94302-MS.
Yildiz, T. 2001. Inflow Performance Relationship for Perforated Horizontal Wells. Paper SPE 67233 presented at SPE Production and
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 2427 March. DOI: 10.2118/67233-MS.
Yuan, H., and Zhou, D. 2010. New Model for Predicting Inflow Performance of Fractured Horizontal Wells. Paper SPE 133610 presented
at SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anaheim, California, USA, 2729 May. DOI: 10.2118/133610-MS.