4 views

Uploaded by 1000amores

- Evaluation of Hot-Brine Stimulation Technique for Gas Production From Natural Gas Hydrates
- Strata Sim
- Undersaturated Oil-gas Simulation - Impes Type Solution
- Pvt Experiments
- Field Application of After-Closure Analysis of Fracture Calibration Tests
- Ercb Duvernay Ofr 2012 06
- SPE-160703-MS
- PETSOC-98-44
- k Reservoir.types
- Geochemical Limitations of Shale Gas Resource Assessment
- Eclipse tutorial1.docx
- Diagnosis of High Water Cut
- Calculation fluid saturation in carbonate reservoir
- Ahmad i 2014
- SPE-116119-MS-P
- mini frac ppt.ppt
- CH 1 Welltesting(DST)
- OTC-24470-MS
- IBP1181_12
- PE-037 Q 1

You are on page 1of 8

**A general approach for deliverability calculations of gas wells
**

Hazim Al-Attar ⁎, Sulaiman Al-Zuhair

Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering Department, UAE University, 17555 Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates

a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 2 September 2007

Accepted 14 May 2009

Keywords:

gas

deliverability

test

well

dimensionless IPR

performance

This paper presents a general and a simpliﬁed method for deliverability calculations of gas wells, which among

other advantages, eliminates the need for conventional multipoint tests. The analytical solution to the diffusivity

equation for real gas ﬂow under stabilized or pseudo-steady-state ﬂowconditions and a wide range of rock and

ﬂuid properties are used to generate anempirical correlation for calculating gas well deliverability. The rock, ﬂuid

and system properties, used in developing previous correlations found in literature, were limited to reservoir

pressure, reservoir temperature, gas speciﬁc gravity, reservoir permeability, wellbore radius, well drainage area,

and shape factor. Additional key properties such as reservoir porosity, net formation thickness and skin factor are

included inthis work to develop a more general dimensionless InﬂowPerformance Relationship (IPR). It is found

that the general correlation, developed is this study, presents the observed ﬁeld data much closer than previous

ones found in the literature. In addition, based on the larger data set, an empirical relation to predict future

deliverability from current ﬂow test data is also developed.

The two modiﬁed and general relations developed in this work provide a simple procedure for gas deliverability

calculations which greatly simpliﬁes the conventional deliverability testing methods. The required data can be

obtained froma buildup test, or a single-point ﬂowtest, instead of an elaborate multipoint ﬂowtest. Further, the

broad range of practically all rock and ﬂuid properties used in developing the modiﬁed dimensionless IPR curves

shouldcover the majorityof the ﬁeld situations generallyencountered. The use of the modiﬁeddimensionless IPR

curves, the pseudopressure formulation and the sensitivity analysis indicate a generality of the approach

presented in this paper, irrespective of the gas reservoir system under study.

© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Predicting the performance of a gas well is a process that has almost

exclusively relied on using some form of multipoint well-testing

procedure. The conventional back-pressure test or ﬂow-after-ﬂow test

(Rawlins and Schellhardt, 1936), the isochronal test (Cullender, 1955),

and the modiﬁed isochronal test (Katz et al., 1959) have been employed

to predict the short- and long-termstabilized deliverability of gas wells.

Typically, a well is produced at a minimum of four different ﬂow rates,

and the pressure-rate–time response is recorded. Plotting the bottom

hole pressure versus ﬂow rate data obtained from the test, on log–log

paper, produces a straight linethat reﬂects thestabilizeddeliverabilityof

the well. The stabilized deliverability of a well may be deﬁned as its

ability to produce against a given back-pressure at a given stage of

reservoir depletion. Theempiricallyderivedrelationshipgivenby Eq. (1)

represents the equation of the stabilized deliverability curve.

q = C P

2

r

−P

2

wf

_ _

n

ð1Þ

where, q is current gas ﬂow rate, P

r

and P

wf

are current average

reservoir pressure and bottomhole ﬂowing pressure, respectively, and

C and n are constants. The constant C reﬂects the position of the

stabilized deliverability curve on the log–log plot. The constant n

represents the reciprocal of the slope of the stabilized deliverability

curve and normally has a value between 0.5 and 1.0.

The time to stabilization, t

s

, given by Eq. (2), can become very large

when testing tight gas reservoirs.

t

s

=

948 u μ c

t

r

2

e

k

ð2Þ

where, ϕ is porosity, μ is gas viscosity, c

t

is total system compressi-

bility, r

e

is drainage area radius, and k is reservoir permeability. The

stabilized deliverability curve, or the correlation derived from it, may

be used to predict the inﬂow performance relationship (IPR) of a gas

well and its absolute open ﬂowpotential (AOFP). The AOFP represents

the theoretical maximumﬂow rate the well can sustain against a zero

sandface back-pressure, P

wf

and is used mainly in wells comparisons.

Properly conducted in the ﬁeld, multipoint back-pressure tests

yield very reliable deliverability projections. However, four-point tests

are usually highly time-consuming and expensive, particularly in the

case of low permeability reservoirs or where offshore rig time is

involved. Brar and Aziz (1978) proposed methods for analyzing

modiﬁed isochronal tests to predict the stabilized deliverability of gas

wells using unstabilized ﬂow data. Their methods, however, still

require running a minimum of four ﬂow tests on a well.

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97–104

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +971 33040; fax: +971 37624262.

E-mail address: Hazim.Alattar@uaeu.ac.ae (H. Al-Attar).

0920-4105/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2009.05.003

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ pet r ol

Mishra and Caudle (1984) developed a single dimensionless IPR

curve for predicting the IPR of an unfractuned gas well at current

conditions using a single-ﬂowtest. Their equation, given as a ratio of the

current gas ﬂow rate, q, to the current AOFP, q

max

, is shown in Eq. (3).

q

q

max

=

5

4

_ _

1 −5

m P

wf

ð Þ

m P

r

ð Þ

−1

_ _

_ _

ð3Þ

where m(p) is the real gas pseudopressure, give by 2∫(P/μz)dP.

In addition, Mishra and Caudle (1984) proposed a second dimen-

sionless curve toassist inthe predictionof future performance. Fromthis

curve a correlation Eq. (4) is derived to predict the AOFP of a well from

the future dimensionless IPR at some future average reservoir pressure.

q

max;f

q

max;i

=

5

3

_ _

1 −0:4

m P

r; f ð Þ=m P

r;i ð Þ ½

_ _

ð4Þ

where the subscripts f andi are future andinitial conditions, respectively.

Chase and Anthony (1988) demonstrated that the curves pre-

sented by Mishra and Caudle (1984) and their respective equations

could also be used to predict the performance of some fractured gas

wells. They also showed that for average reservoir pressures less than

approximately 2000 psi (13.8 MPa), pressure-squared values could be

substituted for pseudopressures, whereas for pressures above

2000 psi (13.8 MPa), the pseudopressures must be used. Equations

(3) and (4), however, do not account for variation in skin factors, nor

do they account for the presence of a hydraulically induced fracture.

As opposed to using conventional four-point testing methods, Chase

and Alkandari (1993) developed a method for predicting the deliver-

abilityof a fractured gas well using the average reservoir pressure, P

r

, the

ﬂowing bottom hole pressure, P

wf

, the stabilized ﬂow rate, q, and either

the ratio of radiuses of external boundary, x

e

to uniformﬂux fracture, x

f

,

or the skin factor, s, obtained from the analysis of a pressure buildup or

drawdown test. They proposed the following general dimensionless IPR

to predict the inﬂow performance of gas wells.

Y = 1 − MX

N

ð5Þ

where,

Y =

P

p

P

wf

ð Þ

P

p

P

r

ð Þ

ð6Þ

X =

q

q

max; @

x

e

x

f

=1

ð7Þ

x

e

x

f

= 0:37x

e

ð Þe

s =r

w

ð8Þ

log M ð Þ = 0:004865 + 0:143121log

x

e

x

f

_ _

− 0:00989log

x

e

x

f

_ _

2

+ 0:00039log

x

e

x

f

_ _

3

ð9Þ

log N ð Þ = 0:296498 + 0:106181log

x

e

x

f

_ _

+ 0:00874log

x

e

x

f

_ _

2

− 0:0004278log

x

e

x

f

_ _

3

ð10Þ

In Eq. (6), P

p

(p) represents the real gas pseudopressure, give by

2∫(P/μz)dP, similar to m(p) in Eqs. (3) and (4). Chase and Alkandari

(1993) tested their dimensionless IPR against data from eight wells

presented in the work of Brar and Aziz (1978) and found that the

computed AOFP values compared favorably to those obtained fromthe

modiﬁed isochronal method, with a maximum error of 15%. In

addition, they reported that the skin factor, of either a fractured or

unfractured well, can be converted to an x

e

/x

f

ratio using the apparent

wellbore radius concept and that their new dimensionless IPR curve

correlation can be then used to predict the performance of the well.

Kamath (2007) outlined the ﬁve steps to predict deliverability loss

caused by condensate banking. These steps are: (1) appropriate

laboratory measurements, (2) ﬁtting laboratory data to relative

permeability models, (3) use of spreadsheet tools, (4) single-well

models, and (5) full-ﬁeld models (FFMs). He concluded that continued

extensive testing of existing relative permeability models and more

measurements in the high gas to oil relative permeabilities, k

rg

/k

ro

, and

capillary-number region increases the conﬁdence in the predictions.

The present study expands upon the work of Mishra and Caudle

(1984) to developmore accurate dimensionless IPR curves for stabilized

Table 1

Rock, ﬂuid and system properties used in developing correlations.

Parameter and symbol Values ranges Units

Reservoir pressure (P) 1000

a

–8000 psia

Reservoir temperature (T) 100–300

a

°F

Gas gravity (γ) 0.5

a

–1.0 Air =1

Reservoir permeability (k) 1–1000 (500

a

) md

Wellbore radius(r

w

) 0.25

a

–0.5 ft

Drainage area (A) 640

a

–2640 acres

Shape factor (C

A

) 5.379–31.62

a

dimensionless

Porosity (φ) 0.1–0.3 (0.15

a

) fraction

Net formation thickness (h) 20–500

a

ft

Mechanical skin factor (s) (−6.0)–(−2.0

a

) dimensionless

a

Base case for sensitivity analysis.

Fig. 1. New dimensionless IPR for current conditions basic data. Fig. 2. Sensitivity analysis—effect of pressure.

98 H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97–104

non-Darcy ﬂowin unfactured gas reservoirs. The rock, ﬂuid and system

properties, used in developing the correlations of Mishra and Caudle

(1984), were limited to reservoir pressure, reservoir temperature, gas

speciﬁc gravity, reservoir permeability, wellbore radius, well drainage

area, and shape factor. Additional key properties such as reservoir

porosity, formationthickness andskinfactor are includedinthis work to

develop a rather simple, accurate, and more general (IPR) that can be

used as an alternative to the elaborate multipoint testing methods.

2. Development of new dimensionless IPR curves

2.1. Basic assumptions

(i) A homogeneous, isotropic, unfractured reservoir with a closed

outer boundary.

(ii) A single, fully penetrating well.

(iii) Stabilized conditions prevail, i.e. pseudo-steady state equations

can be used to describe gas ﬂow in the reservoir.

(iv) Turbulent ﬂow effects are characterized by a constant turbu-

lence factor, D, and a rate dependant skin Dq.

Under these conditions, the equation describing gas ﬂow in a

porous medium is given by Eq. (11).

P

p

P

r

ð Þ − P

p

P

wf

ð Þ = aq + bq

2

ð11Þ

a =

1637 T = kh ð Þ

log A= r

2

w

_ _

+ log 2:2458= C

A

ð Þ + 0:87s

ð12Þ

b = 1422

TD

kh

ð13Þ

D = 2:715 × 10

−15

βkMPsc

hμ

@Pwf

ð14Þ

β = 1:88 × 10

10

k

−1:47

u

−0:53

ð15Þ

where, A is drainage area, T is reservoir temperature, C

A

is shape

factor, h is net formation thickness, M is molecular weight of gas, P

sc

is

standard pressure, μ

@Pwf

is gas viscosity measured at bottom hole

ﬂowing pressure (P

wf

), r

w

is wellbore radius, and T

sc

is temperature at

standard conditions.

2.2. Development of functional relationships for current and future well

deliverability

Solving Eq. (11) and taking the positive root to be q, yields:

q =

−a + a

2

+ 4b P

p

P

r

ð Þ−P

p

P

wf

ð Þ

_ _ _ _

0:5

2b

ð16Þ

and,

q

max

= AOFP P

wf

= 0 ð Þ =

−a + a

2

+ 4bP

p

P

r

ð Þ

_ _

0:5

2b

ð17Þ

Dividing Eq. (16) by Eq. (17) yields the following expression:

q

q

max

=

−a + a

2

+ 4b P

p

P

r

ð Þ−P

p

P

wf

ð Þ

_ _ _ _

0:5

−a + a

2

+ 4bP

p

P

r

ð Þ

_ _

0:5

ð18Þ

The left-hand side of Eq. (18) is dimensionless and similar to the

one derived by Vogel (1968) for gas drive reservoirs, but for s′ ≠0;

where,

sV= s + Dq ð19Þ

Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis—effect of gas gravity.

Fig. 3. Sensitivity analysis—effect of temperature.

Fig. 5. Sensitivity analysis—effect of permeability.

99 H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97–104

Eq. (18) can be rearranged to the following form:

q

q

max

= H

P

p

P

wf

ð Þ

P

p

P

r

ð Þ

_ _

ð20Þ

where, H is some functional form (Mishra and Caudle, 1984).

The objective therefore would be to generate the dimensionless

groups (q/q

max

) and (P

p

(P

wf

)/P

p

(P

r

)) from a variety of cases and

develop an empirical correlation in the formof Eq. (20). This will then

be the IPR for “Current Deliverability”.

Designating future and current conditions by the subscripts f and c,

respectively, Eq. (17) can be rewritten as,

q

max;f

=

−a + a

2

+ 4bP

p

P

r;f

_ _ _ _

0:5

2b

ð21Þ

Thus,

q

max;f

q

max;c

=

−a + a

2

+ 4bP

p

P

r;f

_ _ _ _

0:5

−a + a

2

+ 4bP

p

P

r;c

_ _ _ _

0:5

ð22Þ

Similar to Eq. (20), Eq. (22) can be rearranged to the following form:

q

max;f

q

max;c

= I

P

p

P

r;f

_ _

P

p

P

r;c

_ _

_

_

_

_

ð23Þ

where I is some other functional form (Mishra and Caudle, 1984).

The objective here would be to generate the dimensionless groups

(q

max, f

/q

max, c

) and (P

p

(P

r,f

)/P

p

(P

r,c

)) and develop a second empirical

relation of the form of Eq. (23). This will then be the IPR for “Future

Deliverability”.

2.3. Programming considerations

Excel spreadsheet was used and a computer program was written

in MATLAB software to perform four basic objectives.

(i) Generate a database of pseudopressures and pressure for a

broad range of temperatures and gas speciﬁc gravities using

Excel spreadsheet.

(ii) Generate a database of (q/q

max

) and (P

p

(P

wf

)/P

p

(P

r

)) for a

broad range of rock and ﬂuid properties using MATLAB

program, as given in Table 1.

(iii) Evaluate the effects of changing rock and ﬂuid properties, over

the range given in Table 1, on a dimensionless IPR generated for

a base case. The properties of the base case are highlighted in

Table 1.

(iv) Using the same conditions as in Eq. (2) to generate a data base

of (q

max, f

/q

max, c

) and (P

p

(P

r,f

)/P

p

(P

r,c

)).

Correlations used in this program were: Lee et al. (1966) for gas

viscosity, Smith et al. (2001) for gas deviation factor, and Swift and

Kiel (1962) and Katz and Cornell (1955) for turbulence factor.

2.4. Development of general dimensionless IPRs and sensitivity analysis

Employing the rock, ﬂuid and system properties listed in Table 1, a

set of 25,344 data points-pairs of (q/q

max

) and (P

p

(P

wf

)/P

p

(P

r

)) was

generated for all combinations of the variables investigated. The

number of data points generated in this study is almost 2.5 times more

than the 10,206 data points generated by Mishra and Caudle (1984). A

strong trend of the data plot is observed as shown in Fig. 1. The data

points were best ﬁt by the sixth order polynomial given in Eq. (24)

Fig. 8. Sensitivity analysis—effect of porosity.

Fig. 7. Sensitivity analysis—effect of drainage area.

Fig. 6. Sensitivity analysis—effect of wellbore radius.

100 H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97–104

using Excel with R

2

value of 0.984, which indicates good presentation

of the experimental data.

Y = − 0:7193 X

6

+ 0:6221 X

5

+ 0:3037 X

4

− 0:6108 X

3

+ 0:0756 X

2

− 0:6712 X + 1:0006

ð24Þ

where in Eq. (24),

Y = q= q

max

ð25Þ

and,

X = P

p

P

wf

ð Þ = P

p

P

r

ð Þ ð26Þ

Eq. (24) represents a modiﬁed general dimensionless IPR which

can be used for calculating current gas deliverability.

To study the effect of the variables listed in Table 1 on Eq. (24), a

base case was selected for sensitivity analysis with respect to the

properties given in Table 1. Each of the variables was varied over a

range and the results are shown in Figs. 2–11. Among the ten variables

considered in this study, only reservoir pressure, permeability, and

skin factor were found to have signiﬁcant effect on the dimensionless

IPR. Similar observations were reported by Mishra and Caudle (1984),

however, the skin effect was not accounted for. This gives superiority

to the correlation developed in this work, Eq. (24), over that

developed by Mishra and Caudle, especially when considering wide

range of skin effects.

Based on the seven pressure levels used in developing Eq. (24), a

data set comprising of 25,344 points of (q

max, f

/q

max, c

) and (P

p

(P

r,f

)/P

p

(P

r,c

)) was generated and plotted as shown in Fig. 12. The data points

were best ﬁt by the sixth order polynomial given in Eq. (27) using

Excel with R

2

value of 0.975, which also indicates good presentation of

the experimental data.

Y = 10:436 X

6

− 31:143 X

5

+ 33:876 X

4

− 15:374 X

3

+ 1:4779 X

2

+ 1:7044 X + 0:0234

ð27Þ

Where in Eq. (27),

Y = q

max;f

= q

max;c

ð28Þ

and,

X = P

p

ðP

r;f

Þ=P

p

ð

Pr;c

Þ ð29Þ

Eq. (27) represents a modiﬁed general dimensionless IPR which

can be used for calculating future gas deliverability. As previously

Fig. 12. New dimensionless IPR for future conditions—basic data.

Fig. 11. Sensitivity analysis—effect of shape factor.

Fig. 10. Sensitivity analysis—effect of skin factor.

Fig. 9. Sensitivity analysis—effect of net thickness.

101 H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97–104

mentioned, the corresponding correlation of Mishra and Caudle

(1984) in this case is Eq. (4).

3. Evaluation of the new dimensionless IPR equation for current

reservoir pressure

The following published and unpublished ﬁeld data are used to

evaluate the new general correlations, Eqs. (24) and (27), against the

previous correlations of Mishra and Caudle (1984) and Chase and

Alkandari (1993). In addition, the ratio of (P

p

(P

wf

)/P

p

(P

r

)) was

replaced with (P

wf

2

/P

r

2

) to measure how close the squared-pressure

approximation could represent the real gas pseudopressure. A

comparison of the AOFP values calculated by the present technique

and the existing methods versus ﬁeld data is shown in Table 2 and

Fig. 13. The associated percentage errors of this comparison are shown

in Table 3.

(i) The paper by Brar and Aziz (1978) contains results of both

deliverability tests and pressure buildup or drawdown tests of

eight gas wells that cover a spectrum of different reservoir

conditions.

(ii) The paper by Chase and Anthony (1988) contains complete

deliverability test data from a single gas well.

(iii) Unpublished modiﬁed isochronal test data of six gas wells

completed in a fractured reservoir located in the Middle East.

4. Predicting the future performance of a gas well

Mishra andCaudle (1984) proposeda future dimensionless IPRcurve

that can be used to ﬁnd q

max,f

or the AOFP at some future P

r

. However,

sameas for their current conditions IPRcurve, the curve AOFPdeveloped

did not take into account skin factor, porosity and net formation

thickness. Nevertheless, their correlation was tested against twenty

back-pressure tests of dry gas reservoirs and the results compared

favorably with the ﬁeld data. In order to evaluate the new AOFP

correlation developed in this study, the calculations of future AOFP

values by Eq. (27) are compared to those predicted using Eq. (4) at two

Fig. 13. Broad comparison of new IPR model Eq. (24) with existing methods.

Table 3

Associated error percent of AOFP values calculated by different models (Table 2).

Well Eq. (24)

using P

p

Eq. (24)

using P

2

Mishra and

Caudle [5]

using P

p

Mishra and

Caudle [5]

using P

p

Chase and

Alkandari [7]

using P

p

Wells presented by Brar and Aziz [4]

1 −24.483 −6.814 −30.404 −33.083 −10.95

2 −1.558 +3.976 −10.354 −4.281 −2.27

3 −13.676 −7.570 −20.703 −11.418 +1.09

4 −1.592 −1.161 −8.614 −8.165 −2.62

5 −0.321 −0.380 −7.609 −7.638 +2.41

6 +4.042 −1.711 +0.636 −8.054 −10.89

7 +1.915 −3.444 −3.994 −9.698 +10.66

8 +15.696 +6.447 +12.870 +2.379 +10.22

Well presented by Chase and Anthony [6]

9 +3.84 +1.64 −4.205 −5.945 –

Unpublished data-fractured reservoir in the Middle East

10 +2.178 −4.461 −4.210 −10.341 –

11 −2.585 −9.793 −4.077 −11.204 –

12 −4.050 −7.063 −12.005 −14.438 –

13 −4.240 −8.124 −11.634 −15.216 –

14 −13.682 −17.182 −20.395 −23.614 –

15 −3.960 −7.600 −12.100 −15.080 –

Table 2

Comparison of AOFP values (MMScf/D) estimated from multipoint and single-point

tests.

Wells Modiﬁed

isochronal

model

Eq. (24)

using

P

p

Eq. (24)

using

P

2

Mishra and

Caudle [5]

using P

p

Mishra and

Caudle [5]

using P

2

Chase and

Alkandari [7]

using P

p

Wells presented by Brar and Aziz [1978]

1 2.128 1.607 1.983 1.481 1.424 1.895

2 2.289 2.253 2.380 2.052 2.191 2.237

3 2.391 2.064 2.210 1.896 2.118 2.417

4 5.340 5.255 5.278 4.880 4.904 5.200

5 6.847 6.825 6.821 6.326 6.324 7.012

6 17.296 17.995 17.000 17.406 15.903 15.412

7 20.005 20.388 19.316 19.206 18.060 22.137

8 184.167 213.074 196.040 207.870 188.548 202.987

Wells presented by Chase and Anthony [1988]

9 10.988 11.410 11.168 10.526 10.335 –

Unpublished data-fractured reservoir in the Middle East

10 135 137.94 128.978 129.316 121.040 –

11 130 126.64 117.269 124.70 115.435 –

12 40 38.38 37.175 35.198 34.225 –

13 50 47.88 45.938 44.183 42.392 –

14 22 18.99 18.220 17.513 16.805 –

15 50 48.02 46.200 43.950 42.460 –

102 H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97–104

different future reservoir pressures, 1600 psia [11.04 MPa] and 1150 psia

[7.935 MPa], respectively, and the results are shown in Table 4.

5. Discussion of results

In this work, an attempt to extend the work of Mishra and Caudle

(1984) is done by accounting for additional key properties that

characterize individual wells. These properties include the skin factor,

porosity and net formation thickness. Including these variables

resulted in the derivation of two new dimensionless Vogel (1968)

type IPR models for current and future reservoir pressure conditions,

respectively. The new IPR curve shown in Fig. 1 and expressed in

Eq. (24) for current reservoir pressure seems to have signiﬁcantly

improved the computation of AOFP from a single-point test. Table 2

summarizes the data of the eight well tests presented in the paper of

Brar and Aziz (1978), a single-well test in the paper of Chase and

Anthony (1988), and six well tests from unpublished source in the

Middle East. Also shown in Table 2 is a comparison between the

AOFP values computed by the new model, Eq. (24), the new model

using P

2

-approximation, Mishra–Caudle model, Eq. (4), Mishra–

Caudle model using P

2

-approximation, and Chase–Alkardani model,

respectively, versus ﬁeld modiﬁed isochronal tests.

Within the ﬁrst eight wells presented by Brar and Aziz (1978), and

assuming the modiﬁed isochronal method is correct, the predicted

values of AOFP by the ﬁve models in Table 2 are mostly of acceptable

accuracy from a practical stand point. Nevertheless, the new IPR

model presented in this work, Eq. (24), more accurately predicted

AOFP values in six out of eight wells in comparison with Mishra–

Caudle model (1984) and in ﬁve out of eight wells in comparison to

Chase–Alkandari model (1993). This superiority is also reﬂected on

the percentage errors shown in Table 3. Five out of eight wells have

percentage errors less than 5%, while the maximum error observed is

24.48% for well number 1. On the other hand, using Mishra and Caudle

(1984) model, the percentage errors of only two out of the eight wells

is less than 5% and the maximum error observed is 30.4% for well

number 1. Similarly, with the Chase and Alkandri (1993) model, the

percentage errors of four wells out of eight is less than 5% and the

maximum error observed was 10.95% for well number 1. The

divergence in predicted AOFP values for the wells of lowpermeability,

namely 1 and 8, is partly attributed to the fact that the back-pressure

data of these wells is probably fromthe transient ﬂowperiod, whereas

the new model developed in this work, the Mishra–Caudle (1984)

model and the Chase–Alkandari (1993) model, all assume stabilized

ﬂow. Another reason, which may have played a role in causing this

divergence in the predicted AOFP values, is relying on assumed values

of signiﬁcant information, such as the gas gravity and composition,

required in the calculations of the pseudopressures, due to the

absence of this information in Brar and Aziz (1978) paper. On the

other hand, Chase and Alkandari (1993) model shows a better

accuracy in predicting the AOFP of well number 3, which happens to

have a relatively high positive skin factor of +7.8. This high value of

skin factor is outside the range considered in developing Eq. (24), and

that may explain the superiority of Chase and Alkandari (1993) model

for this case.

Chase and Anthony (1988) pointed out that pressure-squared

values can be substituted for pseudopressures in the dimensionless

IPR graphs and equations, such as those developed by Mishra and

Caudle (1984) and in the present work. However, this simpliﬁcation is

limited to values of the average reservoir pressure, or static bottom

hole for a gas well, less than 2000 psi [13.8 MPa]. For average reservoir

pressures above 2000 psi, pseudopressure must be used in the process

of constructing IPR curves from the dimensionless plots. To further

evaluate Eq. (24), it was used with pressure-squared method to

predict current AOFP values. The percentage errors shown in Table 3

shows that ﬁve out of eight wells has errors less than 5% with

maximum error observed for well number 3 of 7.57%. The predictions

of Mishra and Caudle model using the pressure-squared approxima-

tion was also used in the comparison. The results show that only two

out of eight wells have percentage errors less than 5% and maximum

error of 33.08% is observed in well number 1. The results of this part

are consistent with the Chase and Anthony's (1988) conclusion,

regarding the applicability of using the pressure-squared ratio to

replace the pseudopressures ratio, for reservoir pressures less than

2000 psi (wells 1 through 5 in Table 2).

For further validation of the new dimensionless IPR model,

Eq. (24), its prediction is compared to the test data of a single gas

well presented in the paper of Chase and Anthony (1988). Referring to

Tables 2 and 3, it is clearly seen that that the AOFP value predicted by

Eq. (24) is more accurate than that of Mishra and Caudle (1984). In

addition, the prediction of Eq. (24) using P

2

-approximation is just as

good as that found when using the pseudopressure method. The

Chase and Alkandari model (1993) was not included in this

comparison due to the lack of information regarding the skin factor

of this well.

The newmodel was also validated against unpublished test data of

six wells in a fractured gas reservoir located in the Middle East. Again

here, the superiority of Eq. (24) over the Mishra and Caudle model

(1984) is clearly seen in Tables 2 and 3, and Fig. 13 for predicting AOFP

values. In addition, the very good predictions of Eq. (24) prove its

applicability to the speciﬁc fractured reservoir attempted in this study.

Predicting the future performance of a gas well is also investigated

and a new dimensionless IPR model was developed as expressed in

Eq. (27). This model is validated using the example presented in the

paper of Mishra and Caudle. Table 4 shows the results of AOFP values

computed at two pressure levels, 1600 psia [11.04 MPa] and 1150 psia

[7.935 MPa], respectively, using Eq. (27) and Mishra–Caudle model.

These results are in excellent agreement indicating that the new

model can be also used to predict future gas well deliverability with

conﬁdence.

6. Conclusions

(1) A newdimensionless IPR model is developed for calculating the

performance of fractured and unfractured gas wells from a

single-point ﬂow test data under current reservoir conditions.

The accuracy, simplicity, applicability and generality of the

proposed model make it more attractive over existing single-

point ﬂow test dimensionless IPR models and conventional

multipoint tests.

(2) For the ﬁeld data used in this work, the new IPR developed in

the present work is shown to have superiority when compared

with the existing methods.

(3) Another general dimensionless IPR is developed in this work for

predicting future deliverability from current single-ﬂow test

data and is found to be as good as the existing correlation.

(4) The application of the pressure-squared approximation for

fractured and unfractured wells is found to be very accurate at

reservoir pressures below 2000 psi. This conclusion is con-

sistent with published literature.

(5) Additional ﬁeld data are necessary to test the proposed relation-

ships and further verify their implementation in practice.

Table 4

Comparison of future AOFP calculation by the new IPR (Eq. (27)) and the Mishra and

Caudle model [5] (Eq. (4)).

Future reservoir

pressure (psia)

Pseudopressure

ratio P

p

(P

r,f

)/P

p

(P

r,c

)

Estimated future

AOFP (MMScf/D)

using Eq. (4)

Estimated future

AOFP (MMScf/D)

using Eq. (27)

1600 0.706 7.23 7.28

1155 0.532 4.77 4.75

103 H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97–104

References

Brar, G.S., Aziz, K., 1978. Analysis of modiﬁed isochronal tests to predict the stabilized

deliverability potential of gas wells without using stabilized ﬂow data. Trans. AIME

265, 297–304.

Chase, R.W., Alkandari, H., 1993. Prediction of gas well deliverability fromjust a pressure

buildup or drawdown test. Paper SPE 26915 presented at the Eastern Regional

Conference and Exhibition, Pittsburgh, Nov.2–4.

Chase, R.W., Anthony, T.M., 1988. A simpliﬁed method for determining gas-well

deliverability. SPE Reserv. Eng. 1090–1096 (Aug.).

Cullender, M.H., 1955. The isochronal performance method of determining ﬂow

characteristics of gas well. Trans. AIME 204, 137–142.

Kamath, J., 2007. Deliverability of gas-condensate reservoirs—ﬁeld experiences and

prediction techniques. JPT 94–100 (April).

Katz, D.L., Cornell, D., 1955. Flow of natural gas from reservoirs. Notes on intensive

course. InUniversity of Michigan Publishing Services, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Katz, D.L., et al., 1959. Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering. McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc.,

New York City.

Lee, A.L., Gonzalez, M.H., Eakin, B.E., 1966. The viscosity of natural gasses. Trans. AIME

237, 997–1000.

Mishra, S., Caudle, B.H., 1984. A simpliﬁed procedure for gas deliverability calculations

using dimensionless IPR curves. Paper SPE 13231 presented at the SPE Annual

Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Sept. 16–19.

Rawlins, E.K., Schellhardt, M.A., 1936. Back-pressure data on natural gas wells and their

application to production practices. Monograph, vol. 7. U.S.Bur. Mines.

Smith, J.M., Van Ness, H.C., Abbott, M.M., 2001. Intorduction to Chemical Engineering

Thermodynamics, Sixth edition. McGraw Hill.

Swift, G.W., Kiel, O.G., 1962. The prediction of gas well performance including the effect

of non-Darcy ﬂow. Trans. AIME 225, 791–798.

Vogel, J.L. (1968). Inﬂow Performance Relationship For Solution-Gas Drive Wells. JPT

(Jan.) 83–92. Trans. AIME, 243.

Glossary

a: deliverability coefﬁcient (psi

2

/cp MSCFD)

A: drainage area (ft

2

)

AOFP: Absolute Open Flow Potential (MSCFD)

B: deliverability coefﬁcient (psi

2

/cp MSCFD

2

)

c

t

: total system compressibility (psi

−1

)

C

A

: shape factor (dimensionless)

C: constant reﬂects the position of the stabilized deliverability curve on the log–log

plot (MSCFD/psi

2n

)

D: turbulence factor (MSCFD

−1

)

h: net formation thickness (ft)

k: reservoir permeability (md)

m(p) or P

p

: real gas pseudopressure (psi/cp)

n: reciprocal of the slope of the stabilized deliverability curve

P: pressure (psia)

P

sc

: standard pressure (14.7 psia)

P

r

: current average reservoir pressure (psi)

P

wf

: bottom hole ﬂowing pressure (psi)

q: current gas ﬂow rate (MSCFD)

q

max

: current AOFP (MSCFD)

r

w

: wellbore radius (ft)

r

e

: drainage area radius (ft)

s: mechanical skin factor (dimensionless)

s′: total skin factor (dimensionless)

t

s

: time to stabilization (h)

T: reservoir temperature (°R)

T

sc

: standard temperature (520 °R)

X: pseudopressure ratio=P

p

(P

wf

)/P

p

(P

r

) (dimensionless)

x

e

: radius of external boundary (ft)

x

f

: radius of uniform ﬂux fracture (ft)

Y: gas ﬂow rate ratio=q/q

max

(dimensionless)

z: gas deviation factor (dimensionless)

Greek symbols

β: coefﬁcient of turbulence (ft

−1

)

ϕ: porosity (dimensionless)

μ: gas viscosity (cp)

γ: gas speciﬁc gravity (Air=1)

Subscripts

c: current conditions

f: future conditions

i: initial conditions

104 H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97–104

- Evaluation of Hot-Brine Stimulation Technique for Gas Production From Natural Gas HydratesUploaded byBEN
- Strata SimUploaded byahmed_497959294
- Undersaturated Oil-gas Simulation - Impes Type SolutionUploaded bysoheilvb6
- Pvt ExperimentsUploaded byndlr81
- Field Application of After-Closure Analysis of Fracture Calibration TestsUploaded byRamanamurthy Palli
- Ercb Duvernay Ofr 2012 06Uploaded byBirzhan Alimbekov
- SPE-160703-MSUploaded byJose Miguel Gonzalez
- PETSOC-98-44Uploaded bywsanchez_sotelo
- k Reservoir.typesUploaded byAchmad Rochi Habibi
- Geochemical Limitations of Shale Gas Resource AssessmentUploaded byIOSRjournal
- Eclipse tutorial1.docxUploaded byAnonymous vmQboRN
- Diagnosis of High Water CutUploaded byLuis Alberto Izarra
- Calculation fluid saturation in carbonate reservoirUploaded byReza Dago
- Ahmad i 2014Uploaded byKatherine Linton
- SPE-116119-MS-PUploaded by姚嵩
- mini frac ppt.pptUploaded byvignesh
- CH 1 Welltesting(DST)Uploaded byKellen Sanchez
- OTC-24470-MSUploaded bykpratik41
- IBP1181_12Uploaded byMarcelo Varejão Casarin
- PE-037 Q 1Uploaded byMus'ab Usman
- Artículo_Reservoir Engineering Primary Recovery_JPT-1999_10.pdfUploaded byMiguel Vidal Arango
- 15018-Properties of Homogeneous Reservoirs, Naturally FractuUploaded byErick Ramirez
- seminaronwaterinfluxandwelltesting-120622030930-phpapp01.pptxUploaded byShabaz Ahmad
- Petroleum_Reservoir_Fluids.pdfUploaded bysfsd
- TEAM3_2012Uploaded byRichard Chan
- m3 InteractiveUploaded byArt Stephen Pilapil
- lec 7Uploaded byبشير الزاملي
- Corteii, YacimientosUploaded byOswa Lr
- Reservoir Model Design a Practitioner s GuideUploaded byadeeyo
- Lecture 7Uploaded byShadman Anto

- Guía Ejercicios Distribución NormalUploaded byJosé Luis Zúñiga Sotomayor
- Calculo de caudal de agua en Tuberias.pdfUploaded byAlbert Skmz Más
- registros eléctricosUploaded bynicolasgaitanp
- Íù¸´Ñ¹Ëõ»ú±ê×¼API-618¡¢API-11PµÄÒìÍ¬µã¼°ÆäÓ¦ÓÃÇ³Ì¸Uploaded by1000amores
- Gas flow rate calculation from wellhead pressures.docUploaded by1000amores
- Homework FormatUploaded by1000amores
- 3181Uploaded by1000amores
- CompositeUploaded byViviana Karen Lima Irigoyen
- Registros de Pozos Entubados Umsa 2011Uploaded byDct Oscar
- NX-19 (1).pdfUploaded by1000amores
- Lifting Plan - 3800 Series DraftUploaded byafif_wiludin
- Estadistica ZuritaUploaded by1000amores
- 2016 Crosby General Catalog Spanish ImperialUploaded by1000amores
- Abreviaturas de InstrumentacionUploaded byAlvarinho Martinez
- Z - Redlich Kwong BarxukUploaded by1000amores
- Physical PropertiesUploaded byjnmanivannan
- Ecuacion General de Flujo de GasUploaded byPascual Wilfredo Ticona
- 137282419-PE2000-ManualUploaded by1000amores
- Docslide.us Special CorrelationUploaded by1000amores
- Los CincoLenguajes Del AmorUploaded byRaúl Cornejo
- Problem as Combinat or i AUploaded byjoseph141088
- Problem as Combinat or i AUploaded byjoseph141088
- Hall Yarborough Z (2)Uploaded by1000amores
- Manual Aspen Hysys v8.0 - EspañolUploaded byEdgar Jamanca Antonio
- GRM-chap1-Gas Mat Bal (1)Uploaded by1000amores
- Desidratacion Con GlicolUploaded byAdrian Figueroa
- Hall Yarborough z (1)Uploaded by1000amores
- ANEXOS 18575109-501-13Uploaded by1000amores
- Skiller.txtUploaded by1000amores
- 13. Realistic Equations of State 3Uploaded byKaramYass

- Father's Day PoemsUploaded byNicholas Gordon
- Maternal Residence Near Agricultural Pesticide Applications and AutismUploaded byRiuin23
- Group -5 -Sieve AnalysisUploaded bySajid Raza
- Analysis of student work for differentiation purposesUploaded bylucs123
- Scientific Analysis/Reflection: The Intelligent UniverseUploaded byDavid Pendery
- Birthday TestimonyUploaded byDabertte Sanchez
- A Geeks Toy Complete ManualUploaded byinestiago
- Jaimini Chara Dasha in AstrologyUploaded byErika Issinger
- VIRUS.ppt2.pptUploaded byVladimir Sabarez Linawan
- Civil Engineering Interview Questions and AnswersUploaded byabhijithmv
- Women in Literature (Essay)Uploaded byUmmul Khoiriyah
- UG Applied Business Research Project Manual April 2016.pdfUploaded byJayson Shrestha
- Radical America - Vol 3 No 2 - 1969 - March AprilUploaded byIsaacSilver
- LTE Quick Reference_RNTIUploaded byArjun Aslekar
- SIAND - PDF - Peculiar Interesting.pdfUploaded byStickyKeys
- Rational and Behavioral Decision MakingUploaded byjaymangal_singh
- Abbreviated Self Leadership Questionnaire_Vol7.Iss2_Houghton_pp216-232.pdfUploaded byArdrian Goller
- Peter Druckers Leap to FaithUploaded byNuno Maria
- TT-CSME-2018Uploaded bysangu1434
- KayakoUploaded byRazaMobizo
- Dinamalar Tamil News Paper VaramalarUploaded byMadasamy Ganapathy
- sharePointEndUserManual.pdfUploaded byrbvweb
- BSME.pdfUploaded bychristian
- PMI Books24x7 AnswersUploaded byDevesh Paliwal
- chap10Uploaded bymttla
- Cutting Conics AsUploaded bybabe09
- PCA ConfigurationUploaded byGirijadevi Kalpakkam Ramamurthi
- Investment in Bursa Saham Malaysia (Step4)Uploaded bycheehui
- A Warrior's Guide to Healing - Bruce ChingUploaded bySegundoRoldan
- Student Faculty Partnership in Explorations of Pedagogical Practice a Threshold Concept in Academic DevelopmentUploaded byDina Batshon