Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97104

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / p e t r o l

Research paper

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

Article history: This paper presents a general and a simplied method for deliverability calculations of gas wells, which among
Received 2 September 2007 other advantages, eliminates the need for conventional multipoint tests. The analytical solution to the diffusivity
Accepted 14 May 2009 equation for real gas ow under stabilized or pseudo-steady-state ow conditions and a wide range of rock and
uid properties are used to generate an empirical correlation for calculating gas well deliverability. The rock, uid
Keywords:
and system properties, used in developing previous correlations found in literature, were limited to reservoir
gas
deliverability
pressure, reservoir temperature, gas specic gravity, reservoir permeability, wellbore radius, well drainage area,
test and shape factor. Additional key properties such as reservoir porosity, net formation thickness and skin factor are
well included in this work to develop a more general dimensionless Inow Performance Relationship (IPR). It is found
dimensionless IPR that the general correlation, developed is this study, presents the observed eld data much closer than previous
performance ones found in the literature. In addition, based on the larger data set, an empirical relation to predict future
deliverability from current ow test data is also developed.
The two modied and general relations developed in this work provide a simple procedure for gas deliverability
calculations which greatly simplies the conventional deliverability testing methods. The required data can be
obtained from a buildup test, or a single-point ow test, instead of an elaborate multipoint ow test. Further, the
broad range of practically all rock and uid properties used in developing the modied dimensionless IPR curves
should cover the majority of the eld situations generally encountered. The use of the modied dimensionless 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 ow-after-ow test
(Rawlins and Schellhardt, 1936), the isochronal test (Cullender, 1955),
and the modied isochronal test (Katz et al., 1959) have been employed
to predict the short- and long-term stabilized deliverability of gas wells.
Typically, a well is produced at a minimum of four different ow rates,
and the pressure-ratetime response is recorded. Plotting the bottom
hole pressure versus ow rate data obtained from the test, on loglog
paper, produces a straight line that reects the stabilized deliverability of
the well. The stabilized deliverability of a well may be dened as its
ability to produce against a given back-pressure at a given stage of
reservoir depletion. The empirically derived relationship given by Eq. (1)
represents the equation of the stabilized deliverability curve.

n
2 2
q = C Pr Pwf
where, q is current gas ow rate, Pr and Pwf are current average
reservoir pressure and bottom hole owing pressure, respectively, and
Corresponding author. Tel.: +971 33040; fax: +971 37624262.
E-mail address: Hazim.Alattar@uaeu.ac.ae (H. Al-Attar).
C and n are constants. The constant C reects the position of the
stabilized deliverability curve on the loglog 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, ts, given by Eq. (2), can become very large
when testing tight gas reservoirs.
948 u ct re2
ts = 2
k
where, is porosity, is gas viscosity, ct is total system compressi-
bility, re 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 inow performance relationship (IPR) of a gas
well and its absolute open ow potential (AOFP). The AOFP represents
the theoretical maximum ow rate the well can sustain against a zero
sandface back-pressure, Pwf and is used mainly in wells comparisons.
Properly conducted in the eld, multipoint back-pressure tests
1
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
modied isochronal tests to predict the stabilized deliverability of gas
wells using unstabilized ow data. Their methods, however, still
require running a minimum of four ow tests on a well.

0920-4105/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2009.05.003
98 H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97104

Table 1 ability of a fractured gas well using the average reservoir pressure, Pr, the
Rock, uid and system properties used in developing correlations. owing bottom hole pressure, Pwf, the stabilized ow rate, q, and either
Parameter and symbol Values ranges Units the ratio of radiuses of external boundary, xe to uniform ux fracture, xf,
Reservoir pressure (P) 1000a8000 psia or the skin factor, s, obtained from the analysis of a pressure buildup or
Reservoir temperature (T) 100300a F drawdown test. They proposed the following general dimensionless IPR
Gas gravity () 0.5a1.0 Air = 1 to predict the inow performance of gas wells.
Reservoir permeability (k) 11000 (500a) md
Wellbore radius(rw) 0.25a0.5 ft N
Drainage area (A) 640a2640 acres Y = 1 MX 5
Shape factor (CA) 5.37931.62a dimensionless
Porosity () 0.10.3 (0.15a) fraction where,
Net formation thickness (h) 20500a ft
Mechanical skin factor (s) ( 6.0)( 2.0a) dimensionless Pp Pwf
Y= 6
a
Base case for sensitivity analysis. Pp Pr
q
X= 7
qmax; @xe = 1
xf
xe s=r
= 0:37xe e w 8
xf    2
Mishra and Caudle (1984) developed a single dimensionless IPR x x
curve for predicting the IPR of an unfractuned gas well at current logM = 0:004865 + 0:143121 log e 0:00989 log e 9
xf xf
conditions using a single-ow test. Their equation, given as a ratio of the  3
x
current gas ow rate, q, to the current AOFP, qmax, is shown in Eq. (3). + 0:00039 log e
xf    2
  h i! x x
q 5
mPwf
1
logN = 0:296498 + 0:106181 log e + 0:00874 log e 10
= 1 5 mPr
3 xf xf
qmax 4  3
xe
0:0004278 log
xf
where m(p) is the real gas pseudopressure, give by 2(P/z)dP.
In addition, Mishra and Caudle (1984) proposed a second dimen- In Eq. (6), Pp(p) represents the real gas pseudopressure, give by
sionless curve to assist in the prediction of future performance. From this 2(P/z)dP, similar to m(p) in Eqs. (3) and (4). Chase and Alkandari
curve a correlation Eq. (4) is derived to predict the AOFP of a well from (1993) tested their dimensionless IPR against data from eight wells
the future dimensionless IPR at some future average reservoir pressure. presented in the work of Brar and Aziz (1978) and found that the
 
computed AOFP values compared favorably to those obtained from the
qmax;f 5 
1 0:4 r; f r;i 
m P =m P modied isochronal method, with a maximum error of 15%. In
= 4
qmax;i 3 addition, they reported that the skin factor, of either a fractured or
unfractured well, can be converted to an xe/xf ratio using the apparent
where the subscripts f and i are future and initial conditions, respectively. wellbore radius concept and that their new dimensionless IPR curve
Chase and Anthony (1988) demonstrated that the curves pre- correlation can be then used to predict the performance of the well.
sented by Mishra and Caudle (1984) and their respective equations Kamath (2007) outlined the ve steps to predict deliverability loss
could also be used to predict the performance of some fractured gas caused by condensate banking. These steps are: (1) appropriate
wells. They also showed that for average reservoir pressures less than laboratory measurements, (2) tting laboratory data to relative
approximately 2000 psi (13.8 MPa), pressure-squared values could be permeability models, (3) use of spreadsheet tools, (4) single-well
substituted for pseudopressures, whereas for pressures above models, and (5) full-eld models (FFMs). He concluded that continued
2000 psi (13.8 MPa), the pseudopressures must be used. Equations extensive testing of existing relative permeability models and more
(3) and (4), however, do not account for variation in skin factors, nor measurements in the high gas to oil relative permeabilities, krg/kro, and
do they account for the presence of a hydraulically induced fracture. capillary-number region increases the condence in the predictions.
As opposed to using conventional four-point testing methods, Chase The present study expands upon the work of Mishra and Caudle
and Alkandari (1993) developed a method for predicting the deliver- (1984) to develop more accurate dimensionless IPR curves for stabilized

Fig. 1. New dimensionless IPR for current conditions basic data. Fig. 2. Sensitivity analysiseffect of pressure.
 H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97104 99

Fig. 3. Sensitivity analysiseffect of temperature. Fig. 5. Sensitivity analysiseffect of permeability.

non-Darcy ow in unfactured gas reservoirs. The rock, uid and system Under these conditions, the equation describing gas ow in a
properties, used in developing the correlations of Mishra and Caudle porous medium is given by Eq. (11).
(1984), were limited to reservoir pressure, reservoir temperature, gas
specic gravity, reservoir permeability, wellbore radius, well drainage Pp Pr Pp Pwf = aq + bq
2
11
area, and shape factor. Additional key properties such as reservoir
1637T = kh
porosity, formation thickness and skin factor are included in this work to a=   12
develop a rather simple, accurate, and more general (IPR) that can be log A = rw
2
+ log2:2458 = CA + 0:87s
used as an alternative to the elaborate multipoint testing methods. TD
b = 1422 13
kh
15 kMPsc
D = 2:715 10 14
2. Development of new dimensionless IPR curves h @Pwf
10 1:47 0:53
= 1:88 10 k u 15
2.1. Basic assumptions

where, A is drainage area, T is reservoir temperature, CA is shape

(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 ow in the reservoir.
(iv) Turbulent ow effects are characterized by a constant turbu-
lence factor, D, and a rate dependant skin Dq.
factor, h is net formation thickness, M is molecular weight of gas, Psc is
standard pressure, @Pwf is gas viscosity measured at bottom hole
owing pressure (Pwf), rw is wellbore radius, and Tsc 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:

h
i0:5
a + a2 + 4b Pp Pr Pp Pwf
q= 16
2b

and,

h i0:5
2
a + a + 4bPp Pr
qmax = AOFP Pwf = 0 = 17
2b

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

h
i0:5
q a + a2 + 4b Pp Pr Pp Pwf
= h i0:5 18
qmax a + a2 + 4bPp Pr

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,

Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysiseffect of gas gravity. sV= s + Dq 19

100 H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97104

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

!
q Pp Pwf
=H 20
qmax Pp Pr

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

The objective therefore would be to generate the dimensionless
groups (q/qmax) and (Pp(Pwf)/Pp(Pr)) from a variety of cases and
develop an empirical correlation in the form of 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,

h
i0:5
2
a + a + 4bPp Pr;f
qmax;f = 21
2b

Thus, Fig. 7. Sensitivity analysiseffect of drainage area.

h
i0:5
qmax;f a + a2 + 4bPp Pr;f
= h
i0:5 22
qmax;c a + a2 + 4bPp Pr;c (ii) Generate a database of (q/qmax) and (Pp(Pwf)/Pp(Pr)) for a
broad range of rock and uid properties using MATLAB
program, as given in Table 1.
Similar to Eq. (20), Eq. (22) can be rearranged to the following form: (iii) Evaluate the effects of changing rock and uid properties, over
the range given in Table 1, on a dimensionless IPR generated for
0
1
Pp Pr;f a base case. The properties of the base case are highlighted in
qmax;f
= I @
A 23 Table 1.
qmax;c P P
p r;c (iv) Using the same conditions as in Eq. (2) to generate a data base
of (qmax, f/qmax, c) and (Pp(Pr,f)/Pp(Pr,c)).
where I is some other functional form (Mishra and Caudle, 1984).
The objective here would be to generate the dimensionless groups Correlations used in this program were: Lee et al. (1966) for gas
(qmax, f/qmax, c) and (Pp(Pr,f)/Pp(Pr,c)) and develop a second empirical viscosity, Smith et al. (2001) for gas deviation factor, and Swift and
relation of the form of Eq. (23). This will then be the IPR for Future Kiel (1962) and Katz and Cornell (1955) for turbulence factor.
Deliverability.
2.4. Development of general dimensionless IPRs and sensitivity analysis
2.3. Programming considerations
Employing the rock, uid and system properties listed in Table 1, a
set of 25,344 data points-pairs of (q/qmax) and (Pp(Pwf)/Pp(Pr)) was
Excel spreadsheet was used and a computer program was written
generated for all combinations of the variables investigated. The
in MATLAB software to perform four basic objectives.
number of data points generated in this study is almost 2.5 times more
(i) Generate a database of pseudopressures and pressure for a than the 10,206 data points generated by Mishra and Caudle (1984). A
broad range of temperatures and gas specic gravities using strong trend of the data plot is observed as shown in Fig. 1. The data
Excel spreadsheet. points were best t by the sixth order polynomial given in Eq. (24)

Fig. 6. Sensitivity analysiseffect of wellbore radius. Fig. 8. Sensitivity analysiseffect of porosity.

 H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97104 101

Fig. 9. Sensitivity analysiseffect of net thickness. Fig. 11. Sensitivity analysiseffect of shape factor.

using Excel with R2 value of 0.984, which indicates good presentation to the correlation developed in this work, Eq. (24), over that
of the experimental data. developed by Mishra and Caudle, especially when considering wide
range of skin effects.
6 5 4 3
Y = 0:7193 X + 0:6221 X + 0:3037 X 0:6108 X 24 Based on the seven pressure levels used in developing Eq. (24), a
2 data set comprising of 25,344 points of (qmax, f/qmax, c) and (Pp(Pr,f)/Pp
+ 0:0756 X 0:6712 X + 1:0006
(Pr,c)) was generated and plotted as shown in Fig. 12. The data points
where in Eq. (24), were best t by the sixth order polynomial given in Eq. (27) using
Excel with R2 value of 0.975, which also indicates good presentation of
Y = q = qmax 25 the experimental data.

and, 6 5
Y = 10:436 X 31:143 X + 33:876 X 15:374 X
4 3
27
2
X = Pp Pwf = Pp Pr 26 + 1:4779 X + 1:7044 X + 0:0234

Where in Eq. (27),

Eq. (24) represents a modied general dimensionless IPR which
can be used for calculating current gas deliverability. Y = qmax;f = qmax;c 28
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
and,
properties given in Table 1. Each of the variables was varied over a
range and the results are shown in Figs. 211. Among the ten variables
X = Pp Pr;f =Pp Pr;c 29
considered in this study, only reservoir pressure, permeability, and
skin factor were found to have signicant effect on the dimensionless
IPR. Similar observations were reported by Mishra and Caudle (1984), Eq. (27) represents a modied general dimensionless IPR which
however, the skin effect was not accounted for. This gives superiority can be used for calculating future gas deliverability. As previously

Fig. 10. Sensitivity analysiseffect of skin factor. Fig. 12. New dimensionless IPR for future conditionsbasic data.
102 H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97104

Table 2 Table 3
Comparison of AOFP values (MMScf/D) estimated from multipoint and single-point Associated error percent of AOFP values calculated by different models (Table 2).
tests.
Well Eq. (24) Eq. (24) Mishra and Mishra and Chase and
Wells Modied Eq. (24) Eq. (24) Mishra and Mishra and Chase and using Pp using P2 Caudle [5] Caudle [5] Alkandari [7]
isochronal using using Caudle [5] Caudle [5] Alkandari [7] using Pp using Pp using Pp
model Pp P2 using Pp using P2 using Pp Wells presented by Brar and Aziz [4]
Wells presented by Brar and Aziz [1978] 1 24.483 6.814 30.404 33.083 10.95
1 2.128 1.607 1.983 1.481 1.424 1.895 2 1.558 +3.976 10.354 4.281 2.27
2 2.289 2.253 2.380 2.052 2.191 2.237 3 13.676 7.570 20.703 11.418 + 1.09
3 2.391 2.064 2.210 1.896 2.118 2.417 4 1.592 1.161 8.614 8.165 2.62
4 5.340 5.255 5.278 4.880 4.904 5.200 5 0.321 0.380 7.609 7.638 + 2.41
5 6.847 6.825 6.821 6.326 6.324 7.012 6 + 4.042 1.711 + 0.636 8.054 10.89
6 17.296 17.995 17.000 17.406 15.903 15.412 7 + 1.915 3.444 3.994 9.698 + 10.66
7 20.005 20.388 19.316 19.206 18.060 22.137 8 + 15.696 + 6.447 + 12.870 + 2.379 + 10.22
8 184.167 213.074 196.040 207.870 188.548 202.987
Well presented by Chase and Anthony [6]
Wells presented by Chase and Anthony [1988] 9 + 3.84 + 1.64 4.205 5.945
9 10.988 11.410 11.168 10.526 10.335
Unpublished data-fractured reservoir in the Middle East
Unpublished data-fractured reservoir in the Middle East 10 + 2.178 4.461 4.210 10.341
10 135 137.94 128.978 129.316 121.040 11 2.585 9.793 4.077 11.204
11 130 126.64 117.269 124.70 115.435 12 4.050 7.063 12.005 14.438
12 40 38.38 37.175 35.198 34.225 13 4.240 8.124 11.634 15.216
13 50 47.88 45.938 44.183 42.392 14 13.682 17.182 20.395 23.614
14 22 18.99 18.220 17.513 16.805 15 3.960 7.600 12.100 15.080
15 50 48.02 46.200 43.950 42.460

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 eld 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 (Pp(Pwf)/Pp(Pr)) was
replaced with (P2wf/P2r ) 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 eld 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 modied 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 and Caudle (1984) proposed a future dimensionless IPR curve
that can be used to nd qmax,f or the AOFP at some future Pr. However,
same as for their current conditions IPR curve, the curve AOFP developed
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 eld 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.
 H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97104
Table 4
Comparison of future AOFP calculation by the new IPR (Eq. (27)) and the Mishra and
Caudle model [5] (Eq. (4)).
Future reservoir Pseudopressure Estimated future Estimated future
pressure (psia) ratio Pp(Pr,f)/Pp(Pr,c) AOFP (MMScf/D) AOFP (MMScf/D)
using Eq. (4) using Eq. (27)
1600 0.706 7.23 7.28
1155 0.532 4.77 4.75
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 signicantly
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 P2-approximation, MishraCaudle model, Eq. (4), Mishra
Caudle model using P2-approximation, and ChaseAlkardani model,
respectively, versus eld modied isochronal tests.
Within the rst eight wells presented by Brar and Aziz (1978), and
assuming the modied isochronal method is correct, the predicted
values of AOFP by the ve 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 ve out of eight wells in comparison to
ChaseAlkandari model (1993). This superiority is also reected 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 low permeability,
namely 1 and 8, is partly attributed to the fact that the back-pressure
data of these wells is probably from the transient ow period, whereas
the new model developed in this work, the MishraCaudle (1984)
model and the ChaseAlkandari (1993) model, all assume stabilized
ow. Another reason, which may have played a role in causing this
divergence in the predicted AOFP values, is relying on assumed values
of signicant 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
103
IPR graphs and equations, such as those developed by Mishra and
Caudle (1984) and in the present work. However, this simplication 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 ve 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 P2-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 new model 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 specic 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 MishraCaudle model.
These results are in excellent agreement indicating that the new
model can be also used to predict future gas well deliverability with
condence.
6. Conclusions
(1) A new dimensionless IPR model is developed for calculating the
performance of fractured and unfractured gas wells from a
single-point ow test data under current reservoir conditions.
The accuracy, simplicity, applicability and generality of the
proposed model make it more attractive over existing single-
point ow test dimensionless IPR models and conventional
multipoint tests.
(2) For the eld 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-ow 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 eld data are necessary to test the proposed relation-
ships and further verify their implementation in practice.
104 H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97104

References CA: shape factor (dimensionless)

C: constant reects the position of the stabilized deliverability curve on the loglog
Brar, G.S., Aziz, K., 1978. Analysis of modied isochronal tests to predict the stabilized plot (MSCFD/psi2n)
deliverability potential of gas wells without using stabilized ow data. Trans. AIME D: turbulence factor (MSCFD 1)
265, 297304. h: net formation thickness (ft)
Chase, R.W., Alkandari, H., 1993. Prediction of gas well deliverability from just a pressure k: reservoir permeability (md)
buildup or drawdown test. Paper SPE 26915 presented at the Eastern Regional m(p) or Pp: real gas pseudopressure (psi/cp)
Conference and Exhibition, Pittsburgh, Nov.24. n: reciprocal of the slope of the stabilized deliverability curve
Chase, R.W., Anthony, T.M., 1988. A simplied method for determining gas-well P: pressure (psia)
deliverability. SPE Reserv. Eng. 10901096 (Aug.). Psc: standard pressure (14.7 psia)
Cullender, M.H., 1955. The isochronal performance method of determining ow Pr: current average reservoir pressure (psi)
characteristics of gas well. Trans. AIME 204, 137142. Pwf: bottom hole owing pressure (psi)
Kamath, J., 2007. Deliverability of gas-condensate reservoirseld experiences and q: current gas ow rate (MSCFD)
prediction techniques. JPT 94100 (April). qmax: current AOFP (MSCFD)
Katz, D.L., Cornell, D., 1955. Flow of natural gas from reservoirs. Notes on intensive rw: wellbore radius (ft)
course. InUniversity of Michigan Publishing Services, Ann Arbor, Michigan. re: drainage area radius (ft)
Katz, D.L., et al., 1959. Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering. McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc., s: mechanical skin factor (dimensionless)
New York City. s: total skin factor (dimensionless)
Lee, A.L., Gonzalez, M.H., Eakin, B.E., 1966. The viscosity of natural gasses. Trans. AIME ts: time to stabilization (h)
237, 9971000. T: reservoir temperature (R)
Mishra, S., Caudle, B.H., 1984. A simplied procedure for gas deliverability calculations Tsc: standard temperature (520 R)
using dimensionless IPR curves. Paper SPE 13231 presented at the SPE Annual X: pseudopressure ratio = Pp(Pwf)/Pp(Pr) (dimensionless)
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Sept. 1619. xe: radius of external boundary (ft)
Rawlins, E.K., Schellhardt, M.A., 1936. Back-pressure data on natural gas wells and their xf: radius of uniform ux fracture (ft)
application to production practices. Monograph, vol. 7. U.S.Bur. Mines. Y: gas ow rate ratio = q/qmax (dimensionless)
Smith, J.M., Van Ness, H.C., Abbott, M.M., 2001. Intorduction to Chemical Engineering z: gas deviation factor (dimensionless)
Thermodynamics, Sixth edition. McGraw Hill.
Swift, G.W., Kiel, O.G., 1962. The prediction of gas well performance including the effect Greek symbols
of non-Darcy ow. Trans. AIME 225, 791798.
Vogel, J.L. (1968). Inow Performance Relationship For Solution-Gas Drive Wells. JPT
(Jan.) 8392. Trans. AIME, 243. : coefcient of turbulence (ft 1)
: porosity (dimensionless)
: gas viscosity (cp)
: gas specic gravity (Air = 1)
Glossary
Subscripts
a: deliverability coefcient (psi2/cp MSCFD)
A: drainage area (ft2) c: current conditions
AOFP: Absolute Open Flow Potential (MSCFD) f: future conditions
B: deliverability coefcient (psi2/cp MSCFD2) i: initial conditions
ct: total system compressibility (psi 1)