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

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 simplified 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 flow under stabilized or pseudo-steady-state flow conditions and a wide range of rock and
fluid properties are used to generate an empirical correlation for calculating gas well deliverability. The rock, fluid
Keywords:
and system properties, used in developing previous correlations found in literature, were limited to reservoir
gas
deliverability
pressure, reservoir temperature, gas specific 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 Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR). It is found
dimensionless IPR that the general correlation, developed is this study, presents the observed field 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 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 from a buildup test, or a single-point flow test, instead of an elaborate multipoint flow test. Further, the
broad range of practically all rock and fluid properties used in developing the modified dimensionless IPR curves
should cover the majority of the field situations generally encountered. The use of the modified 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 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-term stabilized 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 line that reflects the stabilized deliverability of
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. 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 flow rate, Pr and Pwf are current average
reservoir pressure and bottom hole flowing 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 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, ts, given by Eq. (2), can become very large
when testing tight gas reservoirs.
948 u μ ct re2
ts = ð2Þ
k
where, ϕ is porosity, μ 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 inflow performance relationship (IPR) of a gas
well and its absolute open flow potential (AOFP). The AOFP represents
the theoretical maximum flow rate the well can sustain against a zero
sandface back-pressure, Pwf and is used mainly in wells comparisons.
Properly conducted in the field, multipoint back-pressure tests
ð1Þ
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.

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) 97–104

Table 1 ability of a fractured gas well using the average reservoir pressure, Pr, the
Rock, fluid and system properties used in developing correlations. flowing bottom hole pressure, Pwf, the stabilized flow rate, q, and either
Parameter and symbol Values ranges Units the ratio of radiuses of external boundary, xe to uniform flux fracture, xf,
Reservoir pressure (P) 1000a–8000 psia or the skin factor, s, obtained from the analysis of a pressure buildup or
Reservoir temperature (T) 100–300a °F drawdown test. They proposed the following general dimensionless IPR
Gas gravity (γ) 0.5a–1.0 Air = 1 to predict the inflow performance of gas wells.
Reservoir permeability (k) 1–1000 (500a) md
Wellbore radius(rw) 0.25a–0.5 ft N
Drainage area (A) 640a–2640 acres Y = 1 − MX ð5Þ
Shape factor (CA) 5.379–31.62a dimensionless
Porosity (φ) 0.1–0.3 (0.15a) fraction where,
Net formation thickness (h) 20–500a ft
Mechanical skin factor (s) (− 6.0)–(− 2.0a) dimensionless Pp ðPwf Þ
Y= ð6Þ
a
Base case for sensitivity analysis. Pp ðPr Þ
q
X= ð7Þ
qmax; @xe = 1
xf
xe s=r
= ð0:37xe Þe w ð8Þ
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 logðMÞ = 0:004865 + 0:143121 log e − 0:00989 log e ð9Þ
xf xf
conditions using a single-flow test. Their equation, given as a ratio of the  3
x
current gas flow rate, q, to the current AOFP, qmax, is shown in Eq. (3). + 0:00039 log e
xf    2
  h i! x x
q 5
mðPwf Þ
−1
logðNÞ = 0:296498 + 0:106181 log e + 0:00874 log e ð10Þ
= 1 −5 mðPr Þ
ð3Þ xf xf
qmax 4  3
xe
− 0:0004278 log
xf
where m(p) is the real gas pseudopressure, give by 2∫(P/μz)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/μz)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 −0:4½ ð r; f Þ ð r;i Þ
m P =m P modified isochronal method, with a maximum error of 15%. In
= ð4Þ
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 five 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) fitting 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-field 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 confidence 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 analysis—effect of pressure.
 H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97–104 99

Fig. 3. Sensitivity analysis—effect of temperature. Fig. 5. Sensitivity analysis—effect of permeability.

non-Darcy flow in unfactured gas reservoirs. The rock, fluid and system Under these conditions, the equation describing gas flow 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
specific gravity, reservoir permeability, wellbore radius, well drainage Pp ðPr Þ − Pp ðPwf Þ = aq + bq
2
ð11Þ
area, and shape factor. Additional key properties such as reservoir
1637ðT = khÞ
porosity, formation thickness and skin factor are included in this work to a=   ð12Þ
develop a rather simple, accurate, and more general (IPR) that can be log A = rw
2
+ logð2:2458 = CA Þ + 0:87s
used as an alternative to the elaborate multipoint testing methods. TD
b = 1422 ð13Þ
kh
− 15 βkMPsc
D = 2:715 × 10 ð14Þ
2. Development of new dimensionless IPR curves hμ @Pwf
10 − 1:47 − 0:53
β = 1:88 × 10 k u ð15Þ
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 flow in the reservoir.
(iv) Turbulent flow 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, μ @Pwf is gas viscosity measured at bottom hole
flowing 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 ðPr Þ−Pp ðPwf Þ
q= ð16Þ
2b

and,

h i0:5
2
−a + a + 4bPp ðPr Þ
qmax = AOFP ðPwf = 0Þ = ð17Þ
2b

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

h
i0:5
q −a + a2 + 4b Pp ðPr Þ− Pp ðPwf Þ
= h i0:5 ð18Þ
qmax −a + a2 + 4bPp ðPr Þ

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 analysis—effect of gas gravity. sV= s + Dq ð19Þ

100 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 Pp ðPwf Þ
=H ð20Þ
qmax Pp ðPr Þ

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 = ð21Þ
2b

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

h
i0:5
qmax;f −a + a2 + 4bPp Pr;f
= h
i0:5 ð22Þ
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 fluid 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 fluid 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 ð23Þ 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, fluid 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 specific gravities using strong trend of the data plot is observed as shown in Fig. 1. The data
Excel spreadsheet. points were best fit by the sixth order polynomial given in Eq. (24)

Fig. 6. Sensitivity analysis—effect of wellbore radius. Fig. 8. Sensitivity analysis—effect of porosity.

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

Fig. 9. Sensitivity analysis—effect of net thickness. Fig. 11. Sensitivity analysis—effect 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 ð24Þ 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 fit 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 ð25Þ the experimental data.

and, 6 5
Y = 10:436 X − 31:143 X + 33:876 X − 15:374 X
4 3
ð27Þ
2
X = Pp ðPwf Þ = Pp ðPr Þ ð26Þ + 1:4779 X + 1:7044 X + 0:0234

Where in Eq. (27),

Eq. (24) represents a modified general dimensionless IPR which
can be used for calculating current gas deliverability. Y = qmax;f = qmax;c ð28Þ
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. 2–11. Among the ten variables
X = Pp ðPr;f Þ=Pp ðPr;c Þ ð29Þ
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), Eq. (27) represents a modified 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 analysis—effect of skin factor. Fig. 12. New dimensionless IPR for future conditions—basic data.
102 H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97–104

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 Modified 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 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 (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 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 and Caudle (1984) proposed a future dimensionless IPR curve
that can be used to find 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 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.
 H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97–104
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 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 P2-approximation, Mishra–Caudle model, Eq. (4), Mishra–
Caudle model using P2-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 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 flow period, 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
103
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 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 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 new dimensionless 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.
104 H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97–104

References CA: shape factor (dimensionless)

C: constant reflects the position of the stabilized deliverability curve on the log–log
Brar, G.S., Aziz, K., 1978. Analysis of modified isochronal tests to predict the stabilized plot (MSCFD/psi2n)
deliverability potential of gas wells without using stabilized flow data. Trans. AIME D: turbulence factor (MSCFD− 1)
265, 297–304. 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.2–4. n: reciprocal of the slope of the stabilized deliverability curve
Chase, R.W., Anthony, T.M., 1988. A simplified method for determining gas-well P: pressure (psia)
deliverability. SPE Reserv. Eng. 1090–1096 (Aug.). Psc: standard pressure (14.7 psia)
Cullender, M.H., 1955. The isochronal performance method of determining flow Pr: current average reservoir pressure (psi)
characteristics of gas well. Trans. AIME 204, 137–142. Pwf: bottom hole flowing pressure (psi)
Kamath, J., 2007. Deliverability of gas-condensate reservoirs—field experiences and q: current gas flow rate (MSCFD)
prediction techniques. JPT 94–100 (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, 997–1000. T: reservoir temperature (°R)
Mishra, S., Caudle, B.H., 1984. A simplified 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. 16–19. 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 flux fracture (ft)
application to production practices. Monograph, vol. 7. U.S.Bur. Mines. Y: gas flow 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 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. β: coefficient of turbulence (ft− 1)
ϕ: porosity (dimensionless)
μ: gas viscosity (cp)
γ: gas specific gravity (Air = 1)
Glossary
Subscripts
a: deliverability coefficient (psi2/cp MSCFD)
A: drainage area (ft2) c: current conditions
AOFP: Absolute Open Flow Potential (MSCFD) f: future conditions
B: deliverability coefficient (psi2/cp MSCFD2) i: initial conditions
ct: total system compressibility (psi− 1)