See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/310447785

A Comparison on Vertical Well and Horizontal Well Inflow Performance

Relations (IPR) For Gas Wells in the Niger Delta

Thesis · August 2003

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17232.30729

CITATIONS READS

0 1,384

1 author:

Ibianga Sukubo
Shell Petroleum Development Company, Port Harcourt, Nigeria
9 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ibianga Sukubo on 17 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

RIVERS STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY FACULTY OF
ENGINEERING

A Comparison on Vertical Well and

Horizontal Well Inflow Performance
Relations (IPR) For Gas Wells in the
Niger Delta

By

Sukubo Ibianga Alu

(DE 97/0971)

PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL

FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR
THE AWARD OF BACHELOR OF
TECHNOLOGY IN PETROLEUM
ENGINEERING

August, 2003.
 CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that every bit of this project work was planned, executed and
successfully completed in the Department of Petroleum Engineering, Rivers State
University of Science and Technology, Port Harcourt, during the 2001/2002
academic session.
This project work is unique in itself. It has not been presented in any form nor
for the award of any other degree in our Nigerian Universities and it fulfils the
requirement for the award of a Bachelor of Technology (B. Tech) degree in the
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Rivers State University of Science and
Technology, Port Harcourt.

............................................ .......................................
Sukubo Ibianga A. Date
(Researcher)

............................................ .......................................
Prof. D. T. Numbere Date
(Project Supervisor)

........................................... .......................................
Dr. S. A. Amadi Date
(Head of Department)

.............................................. .......................................
External Examiner Date

i
 DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to everybody who has similar and/or better zeal for work
– all those persons who are creative, constructive and innovative by
demonstration and at heart. Together we can better the world.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
My special thanks to God Almighty for being my only source of hope and
inspiration and for his loving kindness and favour unleashed upon me: like I have
never seen or heard.
My appreciation goes to my project supervisor, Professor D.T Numbere,
University of Missouri-Rolla, U.S.A for being a very strong drive to the success of
this work. Also, my thanks to Mrs. Areje Atike-Odibe, SPDC-East, Port Harcourt,
for providing me with the necessary data I needed.
To my parents, Chief and Mrs. Alu Mark Sukubo Ekwe; my brothers Tonye
Minaibi, Japu, Tekena, Owanaba and Abioton-a and my only sister, Mina; who
have been of immense assistance in innumerable ways. Also, thanks to
Tamunoibelemam Nangi Obu for prayers and moral support.
I must appreciate the effort of every other person and acquaintance towards the
successful completion of this project work. Particularly, my thanks go to Preye
Nelson Allagoa for setting his magic typing-fingers on this work. Thanks to all.

iii
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Typical Performance curves for Solution Gas Drive Reservoirs
Figure 1.2 Typical Performance curves for Water Drive Reservoirs
Figure 1.3 Typical Performance curves for Gas Cap Drive Reservoirs
Figure 1.4 A plot of q Vs Pwf
Figure 3.1 Real gas Pseudo-pressure versus Pressure
Figure 4.1 No Turbulence Drawdown Plot
Figure 4.2 Turbulence Drawdown Plot
Figure 4.3 No Turbulence AOFP Plot
Figure 4.4 Turbulence AOFP Plot
Figure 4.5 Vertical Well Turbulence Effect
Figure 4.6 Horizontal Well Turbulence Effect

iv
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Development of PVT Data
Table 3.2 PVT Data at 190°F
Table 3.3 Calculation procedure for Gas Pseudo-pressure, m(p)
Table 3.4 Pseudo-steady State IPR Calculations for Vertical Gas Well
Table 3.5 Pseudo-steady State IPR Calculations for Horizontal Gas Well

v
 ABSTRACT
Horizontal wells in recent years have become the common feature of the
development plans in several hydrocarbon fields worldwide. But here in the Niger
Delta of Nigeria, due to the high permeability, horizontal wells are only employed
in the oil wells with no single horizontal gas well. Reason being that the high
permeability will cause excessive near wellbore turbulence in the horizontal wells.
However, no study has been conducted to validate this premise. This project
work, therefore, analysed and compared the horizontal and vertical gas well
inflow performance relationships (IPR) for Niger Delta gas fields where
turbulence was accounted for.

Due to the fact that, there are no available horizontal gas well data to work with
– the effective wellbore radius concept, assuming unstimulated vertical well, is
applied and an analogous horizontal gas well deliverability equation was
developed for comparative purposes. This equation is solvable by reducing it to
an equivalent form of the Forchheimer equation. The results, based on a fixed
1000ft of horizontal well length, showed the following:

1. A horizontal gas well will produce considerably more gas than a vertical gas
well with or without turbulence.

2. Turbulence substantially reduces the flow rate of horizontal gas wells. This
reduction increases with decreasing bottom-hole flowing wellbore pressure.
Thus, the decrease in AOFP due to turbulence is much higher in the
horizontal well as compared with the vertical well. This confirms the reason
for the lack of horizontal gas wells in the Niger Delta. The data used was
from a well in one of the gas fields in Niger Delta.

Cost analysis, whether vertical or horizontal, will be the determining factor.

However, this is not within the scope of this study.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATION .................................................... i
DEDICATION ..................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................. iii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES ................................................... v
ABSTRACT ....................................................... vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................. vii
CHAPTER ONE ..................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................... 1
1.1 TYPES OF RESERVOIRS ......................................... 2
1.1.1 Solution Gas Drive .......................................... 2
1.1.2 Water Drive ............................................... 3
1.1.3 Gas Cap Expansion Drive...................................... 5
1.2 INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS ............................ 6
1.2.1 Productivity Index ........................................... 7
1.3 NIGER DELTA FORMATION ....................................... 8
1.4 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM .................................... 9
1.5 SCOPE ..................................................... 10
CHAPTER TWO ................................................... 11
LITERATURE REVIEW............................................... 11
2.1 Rate-Pressure Relation for Gas Wells ............................... 14
2.2 Horizontal Wells in Gas Reservoirs ................................. 19
2.3 Horizontal Well Application ...................................... 20
2.3.1 Tight Gas Reservoirs ......................................... 20
2.3.2 High Permeability Reservoirs ................................... 21
2.4 Horizontal Gas Well Equations .................................... 22
2.5 Effective Wellbore Radius, r’w Concept .............................. 23
CHAPTER THREE .................................................. 26
METHODOLOGY ................................................... 26
3.1 Calculation of the Real Gas Pseudo-pressure Function, m(p): ............. 29
3.2 Calculation Of The Gas IPR ...................................... 31
CHAPTER FOUR ................................................... 41

vii
ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF RESULTS ............................... 41
4.1 No Turbulence Drawdown ....................................... 41
4.2 Turbulence drawdown .......................................... 42
4.3 No Turbulence AOFP ........................................... 43
4.4 Turbulence AOFP ............................................. 44
4.5 Vertical Well Turbulence Effect ................................... 45
4.6 Horizontal Well Turbulence Effect ................................. 46
CHAPTER FIVE .................................................... 48
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ................................. 48
REFERENCES ..................................................... 50
NOMENCLATURE .................................................. 52
APPENDIX "A" .................................................... 55
APPENDIX ”B" .................................................... 56
APPENDIX "C" .................................................... 58
APPENDIX "D" .................................................... 59
APPENDIX "E" .................................................... 61

viii
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

The inflow performance of a well represents the ability of that well to give up
fluids. It could be analysed using typical plots of bottom-hole flowing pressure
against the flow rate of the well. The resulting curve gives the inflow
performance relationship (IPR) for the well. IPR curves may differ in shape,
depending upon the drive type. For instance, the flowing pressure versus rate
may be essentially a straight line (for water drive and /or pressure above
saturation pressure) or it may curve (for solution gas drive and flow below the
bubble point). The ability of a well to give up fluids depends to a great extent
upon the type of reservoir and drive mechanism and such variables as reservoir
pressure, permeability, etc.1

It is common practice to assume that inflow into a particular well with constant
conditions is directionally proportional to average reservoir pressure (PR).
Normally, this is true only for flowing pressures above bubble point (single phase
flow). Hence the productivity index of the well, which is the negative inverse of
the first derivative of the inflow performance, is constant. When the value of the
slope of the inflow performance is constant the well is said to have a single
productivity index (PI).

However, it is known that curvature exists in this plot for many wells. Hence, a
well cannot be said to have a linear PI (i.e. straight line), because the slope
varies with the variation in drawdown.

The IPR (Inflow Performance) and PI are not equivalents. The IPR is the
relationship between flowing bottom-hole pressure and flow rate. The PI is the
first differential of the IPR in the special case where the IPR is a straight line, or
is close enough to being straight that curvature can be neglected.

The ability to predict inflow performance is further complicated because the

inflow performance curve and PI may also change with cumulative production

1
and again depends upon the type of reservoir. For a very active drive in which
the pressure remains above the bubble point, the PI remains constant, and for a
solution gas drive in which the flowing pressures are below the bubble point, the
PI changes rapidly.1 If an inflow performance curve is constructed at any time in
the life of a practical reservoir then the q against Pwf curve will probably be a
straight line for the water drive reservoir and curved for the solution gas drive
reservoir. The PI will probably be high for the water drive with very little drop in
average reservoir pressure at the high rates.

In order to better understand the concept of inflow performance, brief discussion

on types of reservoirs with a more detailed discussion on inflow performance
follows.

1.1 TYPES OF RESERVOIRS

The type of reservoir will materially influence the production rate, hence the
shape of inflow performance curve.1 There are generally conceded to be three
basic reservoir types with possible two - and three - way combination of these
three. A brief discussion of each follows.

1.1.1 Solution Gas Drive

This type of reservoir drive may also be referred to as internal gas drive,
depletion drive and/or volumetric performance. Some of the associated
characteristics are1:

1. A constant volume. This means that there is no change in the initial size of
the reservoir. There is no water-encroachment for this particular type of
drive mechanism

2. There is two-phase flow at pressures below the bubble point. In other words,
gas coming out of solution flows along with the oil

3. The gas comes out of solution but does not move to form a gas cap. Gas
bubbles formed in the oil phase remain in the oil phase, resulting in

2
 simultaneous flow of both oil and gas

4. Oil production is the result of the volumetric expansion of the solution gas
and the volumetric expulsion of oil

5. This type of reservoir drive mechanism approaches a flash gas liberation

process

In the early production life of the reservoir, oil is replaced by gas on an equal
volume basis, but as pressure declines, a larger gas phase develops. More gas
expansion is then required per unit volume of oil produced because of the free-
flow ability of the gas phase.1 Now, creating excessive drawdown in a depletion
drive reservoir results in an increased gas phase in the reservoir - an increased
permeability to gas and decreased permeability to oil.

Figure (1.1) shows typical performance curves for the type of reservoir. Of
particular importance is the rapid decline in pressure, the rapid decline in PI and
the increase in the gas-oil ratio. Generally, wells in this type of reservoir can
expect to be low rate producers of oil (but high rate producers of gas) in their
latter life unless they have long pay intervals.1

Figure 1.1: Typical Performance curves for Solution Gas Drive Reservoir

1.1.2 Water Drive

The water drive mechanism may also be referred to as water encroachment or

3
hydraulic control. Some of the associated characteristics are 1:

1. The reservoir volume for oil does not remain constant. Water encroaches,
changing the initial volume of the reservoir

2. There is a displacement of oil by water

3. This reservoir type could also have a gas phase, resulting in a combination
water depletion drive

4. There will be an optimum rate of production for the reservoir type

Figure (1.2) shows typical performance curves for this type of reservoir. In a
very active water drive, the pressure decline may be very small and in fact,
pressure may remain constant. Of great importance is the trend of the PI to
remain constant over the life of the well. In return the GOR remains constant.

Figure 1.2: Typical Performance curves for Water Drive Reservoir

In a water drive reservoir, the PIs of individual wells are normally more reliable
than those of a depletion drive reservoir. Water encroachment may be such that
there is very little loss in bottom-hole pressure. It is generally conceded that PI
information may be extrapolated linearly for drawdowns necessary to give the
desired production. Probably, in most cases, the pressure remains above the
bubble point. However, there are instances where an increase in water-cut
causes a decrease in PI.

4
1.1.3 Gas Cap Expansion Drive
This type of reservoir drive mechanism may also be referred to as segregation
drive. The reservoir is in a state of segregation – an oil zone overlain by a gas
cap. The drive may be further classified as to whether or not gas coming out of
solution in the reservoir flows to the gas cap. A segregation drive with counter
flow will have gas coming out of solution and moving to the gas cap. As
production proceeds, the gas cap expands and moves down, resulting in gas cap
expansion drive.

Generally, the permeability of the formation determines whether or not counter

flow will occur. As an estimate, it could be expected to occur for permeabilities in
excess of 100 millidarcies.1 The segregation drive with counter flow approaches a
differential gas liberation process; defined as a process in which the gases
liberated from solution in the oil where the pressure is reduced are removed
from contact with the oil as rapidly as they are formed.1

In figure (1.3), the performance curve appears to be somewhere between those

for solution gas drive and water drive. In general, the pressure declines fairly
rapidly and the PI follows the same trend.

Figure 1.3: Typical Performance curve for Gas Cap Drive Reservoir

Summarily, there are many reservoirs having combination drive mechanisms and

5
their performance may differ considerably from the typical curves given for water
drive, solution gas drive, or gas-cap expansion drive mechanisms. An effort
should be made to identify the reservoir drive mechanism in order to permit a
better determination of the ability of the well to give up fluids. There is no
substitute for good data taken during the early life of the reservoir in predicting
future performance.1

1.2 INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS

In discussing inflow performance relationships, we must keep in mind the type of

reservoir and the shape of the IPR curve, which is a plot of flowing pressure
against rate. We must also recall that inflow performance of a well is very likely
to change with time and cumulative production.

All well deliverability equations relate the well production rate and the driving
force in the reservoir, that is, the pressure difference between the initial, outer
boundary or average reservoir pressure and the flowing bottom-hole pressure.

If the bottom-hole pressure is given, the production rate can be obtained readily.
However the bottom-hole pressure is a function of the wellhead pressure which,
in turn, depends upon production engineering decisions, separator or pipelines
etc. Therefore, what a well will actually produce must be the combination of
what the reservoir can deliver and what the imposed wellbore hydraulics can
allow.2

It is then useful to present the well production rate as a function of the bottom-
hole pressure. This type of presentation is known as an "Inflow Performance
Relationship" (IPR) curve. Usually the bottom-hole pressure, Pwf is graphed on
the ordinate and the p reduction rate, q is on the abscissa.

It can be deduced that the inflow performance is dependent upon the

reservoir/well fluid type - gas wells, oil wells and/or water wells or even a
combination.

6
1.2.1 Productivity Index
The commonly used term, PI (Productivity Index), represents one point on the
inflow performance curve. The PI is defined as q/∆p in bpd per psi pressure drop
(for oil wells) from static reservoir pressure to flowing bottom-hole pressure.1 It
is common practice to measure one or two PIs in the early life of a well, then use
that same PI to estimate drawdowns necessary for greater production rates as
well as assuming that the same PI exists later in the life of the well. This is
probably fairly safe for wells in a water drive field where the flowing pressure is
above the bubble point. But this may be in error for wells in a solution gas drive
reservoir or at flow below the bubble point.1

The Productivity Index not only changes with time or cumulative production but
is also subject to change with increased drawdown at any one specific time in
the life of the well. If we measure several PIs in a well during a specific time
interval, a relationship will be obtained between rate and flowing pressure which
normally is not linear for a solution gas drive field. This phenomenon may be due
to one or more of the following factors: 1

1. Increased gas saturation with subsequent lowering of permeability to oil near

the wellbore as a result of reduced reservoir pressure near the well bore at
higher producing rates.

2. Change from laminar to turbulent flow in some flow capillaries near the
wellbore at increased producing rates.

3. Exceeding critical flow rates through pores at formation face in the wellbore.
These pores act as orifices and when the critical rate is exceeded, increased
drawdowns have a diminished effect on increasing rates.

A plot of q vs Pwf is called Inflow Performance and was first used by Gilbert3 in
describing well performance. A typical plot is noted in figure (1.4) and differs
depending upon the type of reservoir.

7
Figure 1.4: Plots of q vs Pwf

1.3 NIGER DELTA FORMATION

The Niger Delta Basin is a prolific oil (and gas) province with an area covering
some 80,000 sq. km. The bulk of the reserves are onshore although sizeable oil
reserves have also been discovered offshore.

The basin had its origin closely associated with the rift separation of Africa and
South America in early Cretaceous times. The formation of the Niger Delta,
however, can be traced back to the start of Oligocene while the present cone-
shaped front developed during the Miocene. The thick wedge of clastic
sediments beneath the Niger Delta is therefore of early Tertiary to recent age.
Gravity and Magnetic data indicate the sediment fill to be over 40,000 ft thick,
with the thickest part, west of the Niger River. The floor of the basin is
characterised by basement block faulting.4

The tertiary sequence of the Niger Delta is subdivided vertically into three broad
lithofacies units (in descending order) as follows4:

1. Benin Formation (or continental sequence), consisting of poorly sorted,

medium to coarse-grained, fresh water bearing sands and gravels.
Thickness: 0 - 7000ft

8
2. Agbada Fo rmation (or paralic sequence), consisting of inter-bedded
sandstones, siltstones and shales. This sequence is associated with
synsedimentary growth faulting and contains the bulk of the known oil
accumulations in the Niger Delta. Estimated thickness: about 4,000 - 10,000
ft

3. Akata Formation (or Marine Shales), consisting of deeper marine shales. In

general, the shales are overpressured and this provides the mobile base for
subsequent growth faulting associated with the deposition of the overlying
paralic sequence

In the Paralic and Continental intervals, there are a few anomalous thick clay-
filled bodies interpreted as submarine channel features (e.g. the Afam, the Qua
Iboe and the Opuama).4These features are located on the NW and the SE fringes
of the Niger Delta. One of the most important and conspicuous geological
features of the Niger Delta is its growth fault pattern. Growth faulting is the main
structure and trap forming element of the Delta and it is as a result of density
contrasts and gravity sliding caused by rapid deltaic sedimentation.

It should be of note however that the boundaries between each unit or formation
are not always sharp and transitional situations are common. Typically, a well in
the Niger Delta will penetrate a section of Continental sands on top, grading
downwards through paralic sands and shales into marine shale sediments which,
at depth, are in a state of undercompaction. Only a small number of wells drilled
on the Delta have penetrated into the marine Akata shales.

1.4 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The statement of problem as well as the purpose of this study is to compare the
IPRs of both vertical and horizontal gas wells using similar data from the Niger
Delta field. Hence, this project, on conclusion, is expected to serve as a simple
reference to vertical and horizontal gas wells IPRs. This would help in enhancing
our understanding of horizontal gas well technology and reasons for its

9
application or disapproval in the Niger Delta gas formations. Also, this would give
a positive contribution into the effects of production optimization of our fields.

1.5 SCOPE

An understanding of the basic petroleum engineering flow equation - Darcy's

equation and its specific application and manipulation in solving gas flow
problems, is a prerequisite for a successful evaluation of the Inflow Performance
Relationship. As the reservoir gives up its fluid continually owing to continuous
pressure drops, it is as well important to note that this pressure drawdown is
directly proportional to the rate. Summarily, the uses of the Inflow Performance
Relations (IPR) are as follows:

1. Monitoring of the well production rate with drawdowns.

2. Estimation of the performance of a depletion type and other reservoirs.

3. Determination of the need for pressure maintenance and plan for future
artificial lift requirements.1

4. Prediction of future performances of rapidly declining fluids.

5. The design of artificial lift installations.1

Therefore the obvious reason for the IPR is to determine what the production
rate will be if a certain backpressure is exerted on the wellhead.

10
 CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

The term "Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR),” customarily, is used to define

the relation between surface oil rate and wellbore flowing pressure. Another
expression, "back pressure curve" is commonly used by engineers dealing with
the performance of gas wells.5

The Inflow Performance relationship (IPR) of a well is the relationship between

the flow rate of the well and its flowing bottom-hole pressure. This relationship
can be derived theoretically (after simplifying assumptions) or can be field
measured (without any assumptions).6 Typical simplifying assumptions made in
order to derive the IPR theoretically include single phase linear or radial flow,
laminar flow in the steady or pseudo-steady state regime. Because of these, the
theoretically derived equation shows a linear relationship between the well flow
rate and the flowing bottom-hole pressure (Pwf) or linear with the average
reservoir pressure (PR). Thus a plot of the flowing bottom-hole pressure (Pwf)
versus the surface flow rate (qs) gives a straight line, the slope of which gives
the productivity index. In field measurements however, the simplifying
assumptions of laminar, single phase, steady or pseudo-steady state linear or
radial flow rarely hold together. Therefore, curvature exists for most field IPR
curves.6

Perhaps the simplest and most widely used IPR equation is the straight line IPR
which states that rate is directly proportional to pressure drawdown in the
reservoir. The constant of proportionality, J is called the productivity index;
defined as the ratio of rate to pressure drawdown in the reservoir. This can be
directly obtained from Darcy's radial steady state flow equation as:

11
 𝐾𝑜 ℎ(𝑃𝑅 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓 )
𝑞𝑜 = 7.08 𝑥 10−3 (2.1)
𝑟 1
𝜇𝑜 𝐵𝑜 [𝐼𝑛 ( 𝑒⁄𝑟𝑤 ) − ]
2

𝑞𝑜 7.08 𝑥 10−3 𝐾𝑜 ℎ
𝐽= = (2.2)
(𝑃𝑅 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓 ) 𝑟 1
𝜇𝑜 𝐵𝑜 [𝐼𝑛 ( 𝑒⁄𝑟𝑤 ) − ]
2

Equation (2.2) can be written as:

𝑞𝑜 = 𝐽(𝑃𝑅 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓 ) (2.3)

A limitation on the straight line IPR is the assumption that oil is undersaturated
and so is only slightly compressible. Obviously, this condition does not apply to
gases or saturated oil wells; which evolve considerable amount of gas, both of
which are highly compressible. The effect of compressible gas at two-phase flow
on IPR was observed in the 1920's and 1930's during field testing. Instead of
linear rate increase with pressure drawdown, it was observed that larger-than-
linear pressure drops were required to increase the rate. The rate-pressure
relationship shows curvature pronounced at higher rates. In terms of
Productivity Index, J decreases with increase in drawdown. Note that, J is not
represented by the tangent to the rate-pressure curve but defined as in equation
(2.2).

Gilbert3 called the flow from reservoir into the well "Inflow Performance" and a
plot of producing rate versus bottom-hole flowing pressure is called "Inflow
Performance relationship" or IPR.

Methods for predicting IPR's for both the present, real time and for future times
shall be mentioned. Oil and gas reservoir performance shall be highlighted.

Vogel7 introduced an empirical relationship for qo based on a number of history-

matching simulations. The relationship, normalised for the absolute open flow
(AOF) potential, qo(max) is:

12
𝑞𝑜 𝑃𝑤𝑓 𝑃𝑤𝑓 2
⁄𝑞𝑜,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1 − 0.2 𝑃̅ − 0.8 ( 𝑃̅ ) (2.4)
𝑅 𝑅

Although, the method was proposed for saturated dissolved-gas drive reservoir
mainly, it has been observed to apply for any reservoir in which gas saturation
increases as pressure decreases. The reason why equation (2.4) is only valid for
two-phase flow in the reservoir is because, Vogel neglected gravity segregation
in his assumptions and simulation. In fact, Vogel's method did not account for
the effects of a non-zero skin factor.

Standing8 extended Vogel's method to account for damaged or simulated wells.

Unlike Vogel, he proposed a common chart to account for conditions where the
decline flow efficiency was not equal to 1.0. This extension of Vogel's work is
very useful to know whether or not stimulation is profitable.

Weller9 proposed a reservoir model used to develop the original Vogel

method to generate IPRs for wider range of conditions. He then re-plotted the
IPRs as reduced or dimensionless pressure (Pwf/PR) versus dimensionless rate
(qo/qomax) as can be seen in equation (2.4). It was noted that the general shape
of the dimensionless IPR was similar for all of the studied conditions.

Fetkovich10 proposed a method for predicting Inflow Performance for oil wells
using the Multipoint testing procedure as for gas wells. The procedure involves
analysing flow-after-flow and Isochronal tests conducted in reservoirs with
permeabilities ranging from 6md to greater than 1000md. Pressure conditions in
the reservoir range from highly undersaturated to saturated at initial pressure
and to partially depleted fields with gas saturation above the critical. He noted
that oil wells producing below the bubble point behave much like gas wells.

It is frequently necessary to estimate the inflow performance of a well before the

well is completed. However, no stabilized test result is available. The
construction of an IPR before completion is required to determine the tubing
size, the number of perforations, and the need for stimulation and for sizing of

13
the surface equipment.

The method of completion can have several advantages when compared to

conventional vertical completions. In horizontal completed wells, fluid produced
does not have to converge into such a small area, hence velocities and friction
losses are reduced. Water and gas coning tendencies are lower for horizontal
wells such that, a larger volume of the reservoir can be drained by each well.

However, the actual production mechanism or reservoir regimes are more

complicated for horizontal wells than those for vertical wells, especially if the
horizontal section is of considerable length.

2.1 Rate-Pressure Relation for Gas Wells

Rawlins and Schellhardt11, engineers from the US bureau of Mines, proposed the
classic backpressure equation relating gas rate, to flowing pressure.
𝑛
𝑞𝑔 = 𝐶(𝑃𝑅 2 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓 2 ) (2.5)

Equation (2.5), though generally accepted for gas wells, has been shown to be
an accurate relation even for saturated oil wells.

The backpressure equation was derived from field observations. However, it

matches the behaviour predicted by Darcy's law for low-pressure gas wells with
backpressure coefficient, n = 1. Lower values of n reflect deviations from Darcy's
law; that have tremendous effects on the calculations and interpretations of gas
well production.

Since, Darcy's law breaks down at high flow velocity, there had been several
proposed models to either replace or modify the Darcy's law for high-velocity
flow. The most accepted model was that proposed by Forchheimer12:

𝜕𝑃⁄ = 𝑎𝑣 + 𝑏𝑣 2 (2.6)
𝜕𝑟

where 𝑎 and 𝑏 are constants and 𝑣 = 𝑞/𝐴 is the apparent fluid velocity. Later

14
equation (2.6) was expressed in terms of fluid and rock properties by Green and
Duwez13 and Cornell and Katz14.

𝜕𝑃⁄ = (𝜇⁄ ) 𝑣 + 𝛽𝜌𝑣2 (2.7)

𝜕𝑟 𝐾

where;

𝜇 = gas viscosity
𝜌 = gas density
𝐾 = formation permeability
𝛽 = high veloicty coeffiient; which is a property of the formation rock that accounts
for the deviation from Darcy ′ s law

Note that the deviation from Darcy's flow is more pronounced in gas wells than
in oil wells.

In relation to the radial flow equation, there are two major notable differences
between gas and undersaturated oil flow:

1. At low and intermediate pressures, gas properties have a strong pressure

dependence

2. At relatively low rates, high-velocity effects are exhibited by gas flow

According to Golan, M. et al5, it is possible to account for the above phenomena

in a gas radial flow model, to establish inflow performance equations valid for
the entire range of reservoir pressure and flow velocity. They said, the equations
are developed a terms of reservoir parameters and can be used for both
production prediction and data interpretation:
𝑃𝑒
0.000703𝐾ℎ 𝑃
𝑞𝑔 = 𝑥 2∫ 𝑑𝑝 (2.8)
𝑟 𝑃𝑤𝑓 𝜇𝑔 𝑍
𝑇 [𝐼𝑛 ( 𝑒⁄𝑟𝑤 ) − 0.75]

The integral represents the area under the curve of 𝑃/𝜇8 𝑍 versus pressure,
popularly known as the real gas pseudo-pressure, 𝑃/𝜇8 𝑍 plot; which is linear at

15
low pressures of less than 2000psia, and intercepts at the origin5. At high
pressures of greater than 3000psia, the pressure function is nearly constant,
showing some decrease in increasing pressures. And at intermediate pressures –
between 2000psia and 3000psia – the pressure function shows distinct
curvature.

Now, at low pressures;

𝑃𝑅
𝑃 𝑃𝑅 2 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓 2
2∫ 𝑑𝑝 = (2.9)
𝑃𝑤𝑓 𝜇𝑔 𝑍 𝜇𝑔 𝑍

This implies that, 1/𝜇𝑔 𝑍 is constant. Hence, 𝜇g and 𝑍 can be evaluated at any
pressures. But conventionally, they are evaluated at PR. Thus equation (2.8) now
becomes;

0.000703𝐾ℎ (𝑃𝑅 2 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓 2 )

𝑞𝑔 = (2.10)
𝑟
𝑇𝜇𝑔 𝑍 [𝐼𝑛 ( 𝑒⁄𝑟𝑤 ) − 0.75 + 𝑆]

0.000703𝐾ℎ 2
Where the skin, 𝑆 = ′
(𝑃𝑤𝑓 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓 2 )
𝑞𝑔 𝑇𝜇𝑔 𝑍

′
𝑃𝑤𝑓 = Wellbore flowing pressure for an ideal well

𝑃𝑤𝑓 = Wellbore flowing pressure for a non-ideal well

Using the Forchheimer modification of Darcy's law for high velocity flow;

0.000703𝐾ℎ (𝑃𝑅 2 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓 2 )

𝑞𝑔 = (2.11)
𝑟
𝑇𝜇𝑔 𝑍 [𝐼𝑛 ( 𝑒⁄𝑟𝑤 ) − 0.75 + 𝑆 + 𝐷𝑞𝑔 ]

Where 𝐷 is proportional to the constant 𝑏 in the Forchheimer equation (2.6). The

term 𝐷𝑞𝑔 is commonly referred to as rate-dependent skin.

At high pressures – usually greater than 3000psia to 3500psia – the pressure

function is nearly constant and the pressure integral becomes;

16
 𝑃𝑅
𝑃 𝑃
2∫ 𝑑𝑝 = 2 (𝑃 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓 ) (2.12)
𝑃𝑤𝑓 𝜇𝑔 𝑍 𝜇𝑔 𝑍 𝑅

Note; 𝑃/𝜇8 𝑍 is evaluated at any pressure between 𝑃𝑤𝑓 and 𝑃𝑅 . The resulting

IPR equation for gas wells producing at high flowing and static pressure is:

1.406 𝑥 10−3 𝐾ℎ (𝑃⁄𝜇 𝑍) (𝑃𝑅 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓 )

𝑔
𝑞𝑔 = (2.13)
𝑟
𝑇 [𝐼𝑛 ( 𝑒⁄𝑟𝑤 ) − 0.75 + 𝑆 + 𝐷𝑞𝑔 ]

This high-pressure approximation of gas well IPR is not commonly used by

engineers. It is only mentioned to bring attention to the similarity between high
pressure gas and undersaturated oil flow. According to Golan, M. et al 5, the
pressure-squared approach for low pressure gas wells and the straight line IPR
for high pressure gas wells are only valid in the regions of pressure for which
they are designed. Hence, a more general approach to account for the pressure
dependence of gas properties is to perform the integration of 𝑃/𝜇8 𝑍 [equation
(2.8)] for the entire range of pressures applicable to a given well. This amounts
to calculating the area 𝑃/𝜇8 𝑍 curve from 𝑃𝑤𝑓 to 𝑃𝑅 ; which is 𝐴(𝑃𝑅 ) − 𝐴(𝑃𝑤𝑓 )

such that;

𝑃
𝐴(𝑃) = ∫0 (𝑃⁄𝜇 𝑍) 𝑑𝑝 (2.14)
𝑔

𝑃
A special name is given to 2 ∫0 (P/𝜇𝑔 𝑍)𝑑𝑝 = 2𝐴(𝑃).This special name is the

pseudo-pressure, 𝑚(𝑃) by Al-Hussainy, et al15, 1966.

Al-Hussainy and Ramey15 derived the real gas flow equation by solving the
partial differential equation of real gas flow, which comes from the combination
of the continuity equation and Darcy's law for radial flow. They used the
transformation;
P
P
𝑚 (𝑃 ) = 2 ∫ ( ) dp (2.15)
0 𝜇𝑔 𝑍

17
which is analogous to Kirchhoff’s transformation, to solve the equation and called
it the gas pseudo-pressure6; where 𝑚(𝑃) is the analogue to pressure or
pressure-squared in equation (2.9). The differential pseudo-pressure, ∆𝑚(𝑃) =
𝑚(𝑃𝑅 ) − 𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 ), represents the driving force or potential, moving gas toward
the well.

Mathematically, ∆𝑚(𝑃) is given by

P𝑅
∆𝑚(𝑃) = 2 ∫ (𝑃⁄𝜇 𝑍) dp
P𝑤𝑓 𝑔

P𝑅 P𝑤𝑓
= 2∫ (𝑃⁄𝜇 𝑍) dp − 2 ∫ (𝑃⁄𝜇 𝑍) dp
0 𝑔 0 𝑔

∆𝑚(𝑃) = 𝑚(𝑃𝑅 ) − 𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 ) (2.16)

Equation (2.8), and including the effect of high-velocity flow, now becomes

0.000703𝐾ℎ[𝑚(𝑃𝑅 ) − 𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 )]
𝑞𝑔 = (2.17)
𝑟
𝑇 [𝐼𝑛 ( 𝑒⁄𝑟𝑤 ) − 0.75 + 𝑆 + 𝐷𝑞𝑔 ]

Equation (2.17) may be considered the most general gas IPR for stabilized flow.
The relation for skin is then given as:
0.000703𝐾ℎ ′
𝑆= [𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 ) − 𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 )] (2.18)
𝑞𝑔 𝑇

′ ′
where 𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 ) corresponds to the ideal wellbore flowing pressure 𝑃𝑤𝑓 and

𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 ) corresponds to the actual (non-zero skin) flowing pressure, 𝑃𝑤𝑓 .

Two practical problems are usually associated with the pseudo-pressure

function5:

1. It must be calculated by tabulating P, 𝜇𝑔 and Z, plotting P/𝜇𝑔 𝑍 and

integrating graphically or numerically

18
2. The magnitude of 𝑚(𝑃) is much larger than pressure (usually on the order of
100 times pressure-squared, or 𝑚(𝑃) ≈ 100𝑃2 .

However, these problems can be overcome by approximating the integral in

equation (2.15) with sufficient accuracy from the trapezoidal rule of integration 5.
According to Golan M. et al5, an important characteristic of the pseudo-pressure
function is that, it is only necessary to calculate gas pseudo-pressure once for a
given field. Afterward, it can apply to all wells in a gas field throughout the
production life.

Note that, the constant 𝐷 in the rate-dependent skin factor is related to 𝑏 in the
Forcehheimer model and it is related to the rock properties;
𝛾𝑔 𝐾ℎ
𝐷 = 2.222 𝑥 10−18 𝛽 (2.19)
𝜇𝑔 𝑟𝑤 ℎ𝑝2

The high velocity coefficient, 𝛽 (1/ft) can be approximated by an empirical

correlation;

𝛽 = 2.73 𝑥 1010 𝐾𝑎−1.1045 (2.20)

where 𝐾𝑎 is the permeability used to evaluate 𝛽, equal to the effective gas

permeability near the wellbore. In equation (2.19), ℎ𝑝 is the formation thickness
open to flow. If the near-wellbore region is not damaged or stimulated, the 𝐷
term is essentially independent of permeability, since 𝛽 is approximately
proportional to 1/k and 𝐷 is proportional to 𝛽k. Without an estimate of
permeability, 𝐷 can be written (with 𝛽 ≈ 1.69 ∗ 1010 /𝑘):

𝛾𝑔 ℎ
𝐷 = 3.75 𝑥 10−8 2 , (1⁄𝑆𝐶𝐹𝐷 ) (2.21)
𝜇𝑔 𝑟𝑤 ℎ𝑝

2.2 Horizontal Wells in Gas Reservoirs

Horizontal wells can be suitable for gas reservoirs. They are applicable in low
permeability reservoirs as well as in high-permeability gas reservoirs (Joshi,

19
S.D).16

In the low permeability reservoirs, it is difficult to drain large volumes using

vertical wells. For example, reservoirs with permeabilities of less than 0.01md
may need vertical wells with less than 40-acre spacing to drain them effectively
in a reasonable time frame. Fracturing vertical wells does help drainage, but
creating long fractures in a tight reservoir is difficult. Hence, horizontal wells
provide an alternative in order to achieve long penetration lengths in the
formations.

In high permeability gas reservoirs, wellbore turbulence limits the deliverability

of a vertical well. To reduce turbulence near the wellbore, the only alternative is
to reduce the gas velocity around the wellbore. This can be partly achieved by
fracturing a vertical well. However, fracturing is not very effective in a high
permeability reservoir, because proppants themselves have a limited flow
capability, which may be comparable to that of the reservoir rock. The most
effective way to reduce gas velocity around the wellbore is to reduce the amount
of gas production per unit well length16. According to Joshi, this could be
achieved by using horizontal wells. The long wells may produce less gas per unit
well length than a vertical well, and total horizontal well production can be
higher than that for a vertical well because of the long length. Thus, horizontal
wells provide an excellent method to minimize near-wellbore turbulence and at
the same time, enhance total gas production from a well.

2.3 Horizontal Well Application

Here, we shall be discussing the usefulness of horizontal wells in tight gas

reservoirs, and examine their application in high permeability reservoirs.

2.3.1 Tight Gas Reservoirs

Though, it is important to space wells so as to deplete a given gas reservoir by

effective drainage from the reservoir. In tight gas reservoirs (where the time to

20
start off pseudo-steady state flow can be very large), vertical wells can be drilled
at close spacing to efficiently drain the reservoir. But this would require a large
number of vertical wells.

One alternative is to stimulate vertical wells by fracturing (not just to improve

productivity) but also to increase drainage along the length of the fracture.
However, it is difficult to create long fractures in tight reservoirs, especially when
the reservoir is either overlain or underlain by a weak cap or base rock. This is
because stimulation by fracturing in such tight reservoirs would result in an
excessive fracture height and fracture growth into unproductive zones resulting
in a less-than-desired fracture extension in the reservoir. Hence, in such
reservoirs, horizontal wells provide an alternative to obtain long fracture
extension, since horizontal wells represent a long fracture with a height equal to
the wellbore diameter.

Horizontal wells also provide an alternative to creating long extensions in the

reservoir to pre-empt the problem of "Screen Out" (as a result of excessive fluid
loss during fracturing operation); in which case, the reservoir is overlain or
underlain by highly fractured rock.

Note that, a fracture job that establishes a link with a natural open fault may
result in a high productivity well, since an open fault itself represents a high-
conductivity fracture.16

Horizontal wells can be used effectively to enhance drainage in an anisotropic

tight gas reservoir. Such situations are common in naturally fractured reservoirs
where it is possible to drill a long horizontal well along the low permeability
direction to enhance drainage volume by intersecting natural fractures.

2.3.2 High Permeability Reservoirs

In gas wells where near-wellbore turbulence is very high (i.e. high permeability
gas wells) horizontal wells are also applicable. The near wellbore turbulence is
inversely proportional to the wells perforated interval. By drilling a horizontal

21
well, production length can be increased and so, decrease the near-wellbore
turbulence and enhance well productivity.

2.4 Horizontal Gas Well Equations

Joshi, S.D17 presented a horizontal well deliverability relationship that was

augmented by Economides et al.18 The relationship (mixed steady state in the
horizontal plane and pseudo-steady state in the vertical plane) for gas well is:

𝐾𝐻 ℎ(𝑃𝑅 2 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓 2 )
𝑞𝑔 =
𝐿 2
𝑎 + √𝑎2 − ( ) 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ
1424𝜇𝑔 𝑍𝑇 𝐼𝑛 2 + [𝐼𝑛 { } + 𝐷𝑞𝑔 ]
𝐿 𝐿 𝑟𝑤 (𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 + 1)
2
[ { } ]

(2.22)

where 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 is a measurement of vertical-to-horizontal permeability anisotropy and

is given by2;

𝐾𝐻
𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 = √ (2.23)
𝐾𝑉

In equation (2.22), 𝑎 is the large half-axis of the drainage ellipsoid formed by a

horizontal well of length L. The expression for this ellipsoid is 2, 16:
0.5
4 0.5
𝐿 𝑟𝑒𝐻 𝐿
𝑎 = {0.5 + [0.25 + (𝐿 ) ] } 𝑓𝑜𝑟 < 0.9𝑟𝑒𝐻 (2.24)
2 ⁄2 2

Equation (2.22) is the non-Darcy steady state equation for horizontal gas wells.
The non-Darcy pseudo-steady state equation for horizontal gas well is2:
𝐾𝐻 ℎ(𝑃𝑅 2 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓 2 )
𝑞𝑔 =
2
𝐿
𝑎 + √𝑎2 − ( ) 𝐼 ℎ 𝐼 ℎ
1424𝜇𝑔 𝑍𝑇 𝐼𝑛 2 + 𝑎𝑛𝑖 [𝐼𝑛 { ( 𝑎𝑛𝑖 } − 0.75 + 𝐷𝑞𝑔 ]
𝐿 𝐿 𝑟𝑤 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 + 1)
2
[ { } ]
(2.25)
Using real gas pseudo-pressures, 𝑚(𝑃) equations (2.22) and (2.25) become:

22
 𝐾𝐻 ℎ[(𝑚(𝑃𝑅 ) − 𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 )]
𝑞𝑔 =
𝐿 2
𝑎 + √𝑎 2 − ( ) 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ
1424𝑇 𝐼𝑛 2 + [𝐼𝑛 { } + 𝐷𝑞𝑔 ]
𝐿 𝐿 𝑟𝑤 (𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 + 1)
2
[ { } ]
(2.26)
𝐾𝐻 ℎ[(𝑚(𝑃𝑅 ) − 𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 )]
𝑞𝑔 =
𝐿 2
𝑎 + √𝑎 2 − ( ) 𝐼 ℎ 𝐼 ℎ
1424𝑇 𝐼𝑛 2 + 𝑎𝑛𝑖 [𝐼𝑛 { ( 𝑎𝑛𝑖 } − 0.75 + 𝐷𝑞𝑔 ]
𝐿 𝐿 𝑟𝑤 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 + 1)
2
[ { } ]
(2.27)

2.5 Effective Wellbore Radius, r’w Concept

The effective wellbore radius concept is used to represent the well which is

producing at a rate different than that expected from calculations based upon a

drilled wellbore radius. Effective wellbore radius is the theoretical well radius

required to match the observed production rate.16

The effective wellbore radius of a horizontal well may be calculated by converting

productivity of a horizontal well into that of an equivalent vertical well.

To calculate the required vertical wellbore diameter to produce gas at the same

rate as that of a horizontal well, equal drainage volumes, 𝑟𝑒ℎ = 𝑟𝑒𝑣 and equal

productivity indices, (𝑞/∆𝑃)ℎ = (𝑞/∆𝑃)𝑣 are assumed. This gives16,

23
 2𝜋𝐾ℎ ℎ 2𝜋𝐾ℎ ℎ
⁄𝜇 𝐵 ⁄𝜇 𝐵
𝑔 𝑔 𝑔 𝑔
=
2
𝑟 𝐿
𝑇 [𝐼𝑛 ( 𝑒⁄ )] 𝑎 + √𝑎2 − ( ) 𝐼 ℎ 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ
𝑟′𝑤 𝑇 𝐼𝑛 2 + 𝑎𝑛𝑖 {𝐼𝑛 }
[ ]𝑣 𝐿 𝐿 𝑟𝑤 (𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 + 1)
[ [ { 2 } ]]ℎ

(2.28)

Solving equation (2.28) for 𝑟′𝑤 gives:

𝑟𝑒ℎ (𝐿⁄2)
𝑟′𝑤 = 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ (2.29)
2
𝐿 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ 𝐿
𝑎 [1 + √1 − ( ) ][ ]
2𝑎 𝑟𝑤 (𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 + 1)

If the reservoir is non-anisotropic, the effective wellbore radius may be given

as16:

𝑟𝑒ℎ (𝐿⁄2)
𝑟′𝑤 = ℎ (2.30)
2
𝐿 ℎ 𝐿
𝑎 [1 + √1 − ( ) ][ ]
2𝑎 2𝑟𝑤

Note that for an anisotropic reservoir, 𝐾𝐻 > 𝐾𝑉 hence for a non-anisotropic

reservoir, 𝐾𝐻 = 𝐾𝑉 .

According to Joshi16, for effective comparison of vertical and horizontal well

productivities, an unstimulated vertical well is assumed. That is, a vertical well
with a negligible skin of zero must be assumed to effectively compare the inflow
performance relationship (IPR) for vertical and horizontal wells. Hence,

𝑟′𝑤 = 𝑟𝑤 exp (−𝑆) (2.31)

An unstimulated well is assumed is because, vertical well stimulation varies from

region to region and so, only unstimulated vertical well productivities are used for

24
general comparison. Hence, the effective wellbore radius concept as employed in
general comparison gives a fair estimation of productivity improvements with
horizontal wells.16

25
 CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
From the single point data and gas composition given by the industry, the PVT
data for the wet-gas reservoir is developed using fluid properties correlations.

Primarily, the pseudo-critical pressure and pseudo-critical temperature of the gas

composition is obtained from standard table. However, the critical pressure and
critical temperature of the C7+ (i.e. Heptane plus) component of the gas
composition is obtained using the Stewart, et al19 method at the given molecular
weight and specific gravity of the C7+ fraction.

Hence, the molecular weight and specific gravity of the gas condensate is
obtained. Then, the pseudo-reduced pressure and pseudo-reduced temperature
relations, together with the Beggs and Brill's correlation (1973) for Z-factor
which, according to Golan M. et al5 serves as one of the best-fit correlation for
the Standing-Katz Z-factor graphical correlation (1942) and the Lee et al
correlation for gas viscosity calculation are used to write a simple programme in
Excel to calculate the PVT properties of the gas condensate (specifically the gas
compressibility factor, Z and the gas viscosity, 𝜇𝑔 ) at various working pressures
but constant temperature.

The trapezoidal rule of integration and its tabular approach is used to calculate
the real gas pseudo-pressures at the various wellbore flowing pressures through
Excel programme; during which the Z-factor and gas viscosities at the various
pressures are used as input variables, and the result displayed in tabular form.
Then, a plot of real gas pseudo-pressure versus pressure is made for the given
gas field in the Niger Delta. This may apply to all wells in the gas field throughout
the production life.

Similarly, the IPR is calculated for Darcy and non-Darcy flows, using the vertical
and horizontal gas well deliverability equations, at the various pseudo-pressures.

26
For ease in computation, a programme in Excel is written and result shown in
both tabular and graphical forms, using the given data by the industry in
Appendix ‘A’, and the gas deliverability equations at the various pseudo-
pressures.

Table 3.1: Development of PVT Data

𝑴𝒐𝒍𝒆
𝑪𝒐𝒎𝒑 𝑴𝒊 𝑷𝒄𝒊 𝑻𝒄𝒊 𝒚𝒊 𝑴𝒊 𝒚𝒊 𝑷𝒄𝒊 𝒚𝒊 𝑻𝒄𝒊
𝒇𝒓𝒂𝒄. (𝒚𝒊 )
N2 0.0004 28.013 493 -232.7 0.0112 0.1972 -0.0931
CO2 0.0016 44.010 1071.33 87.8733 0.0704 1.7141 0.1406
H2S 0.0000 34.076 1036.0 212.6 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
C1 0.8409 16.043 667.8 -116.88 13.4906 561.5530 -98.2844
C2 0.0320 30.070 707.8 90.1 0.9622 22.6496 2.8832
C3 0.0277 44.097 616.3 206.01 1.2215 17.0715 5.7065
i-C4 0.0094 58.125 529.1 274.96 0.5464 4.9735 2.5846
n-C4 0.0138 58.125 550.7 306.62 0.8021 7.5997 4.2314
i-C5 0.0075 72.151 490.4 369.03 0.5411 3.6780 2.7677
n-C5 0.0063 72.151 488.6 385.6 0.4546 3.0782 2.4293
C6 0.0103 86.178 436.9 453.6 0.8876 4.5001 4.6721
C7+ 0.0501 137.000 *366.2 *666.9 6.8637 18.3466 33.4117
1.0000 25.8514 645.3615 -39.5504
* Values of the critical pressure and critical temperature of the C 7+ fraction, using the Steward et al
correlation: shown in Appendix “B”.

From table (3.1) above the following data are obtained;

Gas Molecular Weight, 𝑀𝑔 = 25.8514lbm/ lb-mole

Gas pseudo-critical Pressure, 𝑃𝑝𝑐 = 645.3615psia

Gas pseudo-critical Temperature, 𝑇𝑝𝑐 = [-39.5504+460] °R = 420.4496 °R

Gas specific gravity, 𝛾𝑔 = 𝑀𝑔 /𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 25.8514/28.964 ≈ 0.8925

Beggs and Brill Z-factor correlation:

(1−𝐴)
𝑍=𝐴+ + 𝐶𝑃𝑝𝑟 𝐷 (3.1)
𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝐵

27
Where:

𝐴 = 1.39 (𝑇𝑝𝑟 − 0.92)0.5 − 0.36𝑇𝑝𝑟 − 0.101

0.066 0.32
𝐵 = (0.62 − 0.23𝑇𝑝𝑟 )𝑃𝑝𝑟 + [ − 0.037] 𝑃𝑝𝑟 2 + 𝑃𝑝𝑟 6
(𝑇𝑝𝑟 − 0.86) 109 (𝑇𝑝𝑟 − 1)

𝐶 = (0.132 − 0.32𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑇𝑝𝑟 )

2)
𝐷 = 10(0.3106 – 0.49𝑇𝑝𝑟 + 0.1824𝑇𝑝𝑟
𝑇 𝑃
𝑇𝑝𝑟 = ; 𝑃𝑝𝑟 =
𝑇𝑝𝑐 𝑃𝑝𝑐

Where:
𝑇𝑝𝑟 = pseudo-reduced temperature of the gas mixture,
𝑃𝑝𝑟 = pseudo-reduced pressure of the gas mixture,
T = working temperature of the gas mixture, and
P = working pressure of the gas mixture.

Lee, et al gas viscosity, 𝝁𝒈 correlation:

𝜇𝑔 = 𝐾 ∗ 10−4 exp(𝑋𝜌𝑔 𝑌 ) , 𝑐𝑝 (3.2)

Where:

(9.4 + 0.02𝑀)𝑇1.5
𝐾=
209 + 19𝑀 + 𝑇

986
𝑋 = 3.5 + + 0.01𝑀
𝑇

𝑌 = 2.4 − 0.2𝑋

𝛾𝑔 𝑃
𝜌𝑔 = 0.0433 , 𝑔/𝑐𝑐 (T is in °R)
𝑍𝑇

Table (3.2) shows the generated PVT data at a temperature of 190ºF across the
possible pressure ranges.

28
Table 3.2: PVT Data at 190°F
𝒁−
𝑷𝒊 , 𝒑𝒔𝒊𝒂 𝝁𝒈 , 𝒄𝒑
𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒓
0 1.0000 0.0122
14.7 0.9984 0.0122
400 0.9498 0.0126
800 0.8972 0.0135
1200 0.8510 0.0147
1600 0.8166 0.0163
2000 0.7967 0.0183
2250 0.7917 0.0197
2500 0.7921 0.0212
2750 0.7975 0.0228
3000 0.8072 0.0243
3250 0.8206 0.0259
3500 0.8370 0.0274
3750 0.8558 0.0289
4000 0.8765 0.0303
4250 0.8986 0.0317
4500 0.9218 0.0331
4750 0.9458 0.0344
5000 0.9703 0.0357
5150 0.9851 0.0364
5167 0.9868 0.0365

3.1 Calculation of the Real Gas Pseudo-pressure Function, m(p):

Basic input data:

1. P: pressure (psia)
2. Z: Gas compressibility factor
3. 𝜇𝑔 : Gas viscosity (cp)
Calculation procedure:
4. P/𝜇𝑔 𝑍: pressure function (psia/cp)
5. (P/𝜇𝑔 𝑍)𝑎𝑣 : average for two successive entries (psia/cp)

6. ∆P: pressure difference for two successive entries (psia)

29
7. 2(P/𝜇𝑔 𝑍)𝑎𝑣 ∆P: incremental pseudo-pressure (psi2/cp)

8. 𝑚(𝑃): the sum of products in column 7 (psi2/cp)

Note that, each step corresponds to a column in table (3.3) below which
tabulates the eight quantities.

Table 3.3: Calculation procedure for Gas Pseudo-pressure, m (p)

m(p) =
P Z µg P/µgZ (P/µgZ)av ∆P 2*[5]*[6]
sum[7]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
[8]
0 1.0000 0.0122 0.0
14.7 0.9984 0.0122 1209.1 604.6a 14.7 1.78E+04b 1.78E+04
400 0.9498 0.0126 33339.9 17274.5 385 1.33E+07 1.33E+07
800 0.8972 0.0135 66178.3 49759.1 400 3.98E+07 5.31E+07
1200 0.8510 0.0147 95983.1 81080.7 400 6.49E+07 1.18E+08
1600 0.8166 0.0163 120115.1 108049.1 400 8.64E+07 2.04E+08
2000 0.7967 0.0183 137069.8 128592.5 400 1.03E+08 3.07E+08
2250 0.7917 0.0197 144077.3 140573.5 250 7.03E+07 3.78E+08
2500 0.7921 0.0212 148720.4 146398.8 250 7.32E+07 4.51E+08
2750 0.7975 0.0228 151459.1 150089.8 250 7.50E+07 5.26E+08
3000 0.8072 0.0243 152758.4 152108.8 250 7.61E+07 6.02E+08
3250 0.8206 0.0259 153027.2 152892.8 250 7.64E+07 6.78E+08
3500 0.8370 0.0274 152590.8 152809.0 250 7.64E+07 7.55E+08
3750 0.8558 0.0289 151690.4 152140.6 250 7.61E+07 8.31E+08
4000 0.8765 0.0303 150494.6 151092.5 250 7.55E+07 9.06E+08
4250 0.8986 0.0317 149117.3 149806.0 250 7.49E+07 9.81E+08
4500 0.9218 0.0331 147632.7 148375.0 250 7.42E+07 1.06E+09
4750 0.9458 0.0344 146088.5 146860.6 250 7.34E+07 1.13E+09
5000 0.9703 0.0357 144515.4 145302.0 250 7.27E+07 1.20E+09
5150 0.9851 0.0364 143566.2 144040.8 150 4.32E+07 1.24E+09
5167 0.9868 0.0365 143458.6 143512.4 17 4.88E+06 1.25E+09

a
Column [5] is the arithmetic average of the pressure function, P/μg Z in the
pressure interval, ∆P.
b
1.78E+04 is the notation for 1.78 * 104

30
Below is a plot of the calculated pseudo-pressures against the working pressures
in the above table.

Figure 3.1: Real Gas Pseudo-pressure Vs Pressure

3.2 Calculation Of The Gas IPR

For vertical wells, the IPR for Darcy pseudo-steady state flow is2:

7.03 𝑥 10−4 𝐾ℎ[𝑚 (𝑃𝑅 ) − 𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 )]

𝑞𝑔 = (3.3)
𝑟
𝑇 [𝐼𝑛 ( 𝑒⁄𝑟𝑤 ) − 0.75 + 𝑆]

and for non-Darcy flow, the equation is modified to2:

7.03 𝑥 10−4 𝐾ℎ[𝑚 (𝑃𝑅 ) − 𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 )]

𝑞𝑔 = (3.4)
𝑟
𝑇 [𝐼𝑛 ( 𝑒⁄𝑟𝑤 ) − 0.75 + 𝑆 + 𝐷𝑞𝑔 ]

Where 𝐷 is the rate-dependent non-Darcy skin and is given by equations (2.19)

and (2.20) as follows2:
𝛾𝑔 𝐾ℎ
𝐷 = 2.222 𝑥 10−18 𝛽 (2.19)
𝜇𝑔 𝑟𝑤 ℎ𝑝 2

31
𝛽 = 2.73 𝑥 1010 𝐾𝑎−1.1045 (2.20)

Where; 𝛾𝑔 is the gas specific gravity; 𝜇𝑔 is the gas viscosity; 𝑟𝑤 is the wellbore
radius; ℎ𝑝 is the perforation thickness and 𝛽 is the high velocity coefficient.

But, if there is no damage or stimulation (i.e., s = 0) near the wellbore , 𝐾𝑎 = 𝐾.

Then 𝛽 can be approximated by2:
𝛽 ≈ 1.69 ∗ 1010 /𝑘 (2.20𝑎 )

Substituting equation (2.20a) into (2.19) gives2:

𝛾𝑔 ℎ
𝐷 = 3.75 𝑥 10−8 (2.21)
𝜇𝑔 𝑟𝑤 ℎ𝑝 2

Now, rearranging equation (3.4) yields the following:

𝑟
𝑇 [𝐼𝑛 (𝑟𝑒 ) − 0.75 + 𝑆] 𝑇𝐷
𝑤
[𝑚(𝑃𝑅 ) − 𝑚 (𝑃𝑤𝑓 )] = 𝑞𝑔 + 𝑞𝑔 2
7.03 𝑥 10−4 𝐾ℎ −4
7.03 𝑥 10 𝐾ℎ
(3.5)

Equation (3.5) is an equivalent form of the Forchheimer equation. Thus,

Let
𝑟𝑒
𝑇 [𝐼𝑛 ( ) − 0.75 + 𝑆]
𝑟𝑤
𝐴=
7.03 𝑥 10−4 𝐾ℎ

𝑇𝐷
𝐵=
7.03 𝑥 10−4 𝐾ℎ

𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐶 = [𝑚(𝑃𝑅 ) − 𝑚 (𝑃𝑤𝑓 )]

Equation (3.5) may be rewritten as:
𝐵𝑞𝑔 2 + 𝐴𝑞𝑔 − 𝐶 = 0 (3.6)

Equation (3.6) is a quadratic equation and it may be solved by:

√𝐴2 + 4𝐵𝐶 − 𝐴
𝑞𝑔 = (3.7)
2𝐵

32
Example 3.1
Using the data in Appendix ‘A’, calculate the vertical gas well IPR when the gas
viscosity, 𝜇𝑔 = 0.0122cp; the gas specific gravity, 𝛾𝑔 = 0.8925, 𝑚(𝑃𝑅 ) =
1.25E+09psi2/cp and 𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 ) = 1.78E+04psi2/cp [Hint: ℎ=ℎ𝑝 ]

Solution
First, the rate-dependent non-Darcy skin is determined where there is no
damage or stimulation near the wellbore , 𝐾𝑎 = 𝐾𝑔 . Then,

𝛾𝑔 ℎ
𝐷 = 3.75 𝑥 10−8 2 = 1.512 𝑥 10−8 , (1⁄𝑆𝐶𝐹𝐷 )
𝜇𝑔 𝑟𝑤 ℎ𝑝

𝐾ℎ = (420mD)(395ft) = 165,900mD-ft

𝑟
[𝐼𝑛 ( 𝑒⁄𝑟𝑤 ) − 0.75 + 𝑆]= 7.2076

Hence, the Darcy pseudo-steady state gas deliverability equation (3.3) may be
solved by substituting values from the deductions as:
7.03 𝑥 10−4 (165,900)[1.25 𝑥 109 − 1.78 𝑥 104 ]
𝑞𝑔 = , 𝑀𝑠𝑐𝑓/𝑑
(650)(7.2076)
= 31,117.27Mscf/d ≈ 31.117MMscf/d

Now, the non-Darcy pseudo-steady state gas deliverability equation may be

solved using equation (3.7) where:

(650)(7.2076)
𝐴= ≈ 40.17
7.03 𝑥 10−4 (165,900)

(650)(1.512 𝑥 10−8 )
𝐵= −4
≈ 8.43 𝑥 10−8
7.03 𝑥 10 (165,900)

𝐶 = [1.25 𝑥 109 − 1.78 𝑥 104 ] ≈ 1.25 𝑥 109

33
Hence,

−8 9 0.5
[(40.17)2 + 4(8.43 𝑥 10 )(1.25 𝑥 10 )] − 40.17
𝑞𝑔 = −8
, 𝑀𝑠𝑐𝑓/𝑑
2(8.43 𝑥 10 )

= 29,314.37Mscf/d ≈ 29.314MMscf/d

For Horizontal wells, the IPR for Darcy pseudo-steady state flow is2:

𝐾𝐻 ℎ[(𝑚(𝑃𝑅 ) − 𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 )]
𝑞𝑔 =
𝐿 2
𝑎 + √𝑎 2 − ( ) 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ
1424𝑇 𝐼𝑛 2 + [𝐼𝑛 { } − 0.75]
𝐿 𝐿 𝑟𝑤 (𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 + 1)
2
[ { } ]
(3.8)

Also, the IPR for non-Darcy pseudo-steady state follow is2:

𝐾𝐻 ℎ[(𝑚(𝑃𝑅 ) − 𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 )]
𝑞𝑔 =
𝐿 2
𝑎 + √𝑎 2 − ( ) 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ
1424𝑇 𝐼𝑛 2 + [𝐼𝑛 { } − 0.75 + 𝐷𝑞𝑔 ]
𝐿 𝐿 𝑟𝑤 (𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 + 1)
2
[ { } ]
(2.27)

2, 16, 17
Where :

0.5 0.5
2𝑟𝑒𝐻 4 𝐿
𝑎 = 0.5𝐿 {0.5 + [0.25 + ( ) ] } 𝑓𝑜𝑟 < 0.9𝑟𝑒𝐻 (2.24)
𝐿 2

L = horizontal well length, ft

According to Economides2, 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 = √𝐾𝐻 /𝐾𝑉 and 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ/𝐿 is the reservoir anisotropic
scaled aspect ratio.

When the vertical permeability, 𝐾𝑉 is equal to the horizontal permeability, 𝐾𝐻 of

34
the reservoir, 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 becomes equal to unity. Hence, the ratio ℎ/𝐿 may be referred
to as the isotropic aspect ratio, in the course of this work.

Using the effective wellbore radius, 𝑟′𝑤 concept according to Joshi, S.D13; for
steady state Darcy flow:

𝑟𝑒ℎ (𝐿⁄2)
𝑟′𝑤 = ℎ (2.30)
2
𝐿 ℎ 𝐿
𝑎 [1 + √1 − ( ) ][ ]
2𝑎 2𝑟𝑤

It can be proved (as shown in Appendix ‘E’) that the effective wellbore radius for
Darcy and non-Darcy pseudo-steady state flows are:

0.472𝑟𝑒ℎ (𝐿⁄2)
𝑟′𝑤𝑝 = ℎ
(3.9)
2
𝐿 0.472ℎ 𝐿
𝑎 [1 + √1 − ( ) ][ ]
2𝑎 2𝑟𝑤
and

0.472𝑟𝑒ℎ (𝐿⁄2)
𝑟′𝑤𝑛𝑝 = ℎ
(3.10)
2 ℎ
𝐿 0.472ℎ 𝐿
𝑎 [1 + √1 − ( ) ][ ] 𝑒 |(𝐷𝐻 𝐿 −𝐷𝑉)|𝑞𝑔
2𝑎 2𝑟𝑤

This implies:

𝑟 ′ 𝑤𝑝
𝑟′𝑤𝑛𝑝 = ℎ (3.11)
𝑒 |(𝐷𝐻 𝐿 −𝐷𝑉)|𝑞𝑔
Where; 𝑟 ′ 𝑤𝑝 is the Darcy pseudo-steady state effective wellbore radius; 𝑟′𝑤𝑛𝑝 is

the non-Darcy pseudo-steady state effective wellbore radius and (𝐷𝐻 ℎ/𝐿 − 𝐷𝑉 ) is
a measure of the horizontal isotropic rate-dependent skin deviation: 𝐷𝐻 ℎ/𝐿 is the
non-Darcy horizontal rate-dependent skin; dependent upon the reservoir
isotropic aspect ratio and 𝐷𝑉 is the vertical rate-dependent skin.

35
It should be of note that 𝐷𝐻 < 𝐷𝑉 . Hence, 𝐷𝐻 ℎ/𝐿 is always less than 𝐷𝑉 . 𝐷𝐻 is
given mathematically as:

𝛾𝑔 ℎ
𝐷𝐻 = 3.75 𝑥 10−8 (3.12)
𝜇𝑔 𝑟𝑤 𝐿2
and 𝐷𝑉 = 𝐷

Now, the difference between 𝐷𝐻 ℎ/𝐿 and 𝐷𝑉 i.e., (𝐷𝐻 ℎ/𝐿 − 𝐷𝑉 ) gives a negative
number. However, since both 𝐷𝐻 ℎ/𝐿 and 𝐷𝑉 are scaler (that is to say, skin is
scalar and so has no direction), their difference will be scaler. Hence, the
negative sign is only an indication of an improvement in the rate-dependent skin
along the horizontal well length – that is, the rate-dependent skin decreases (or
improves) with increasing horizontal well length as can be seen in equation (3.5).
Therefore, absolute values of the difference in skin alone may be considered in
the course of using equations (3.9) and (3.10) since the magnitude of this
difference is a prime concern.

Hence, equations (3.8) and (2.27) now reduce to:

𝐾𝐻 ℎ[𝑚(𝑃𝑅 ) − 𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 )]
𝑞𝑔 = (3.13)
𝑟𝑒
1424𝑇 [𝐼𝑛 ( ) + 𝑆]
𝑟 ′ 𝑤𝑝

and

𝐾𝐻 ℎ[𝑚(𝑃𝑅 ) − 𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 )]
𝑞𝑔 = (3.14)
𝑟𝑒 ℎ
1424𝑇 [𝐼𝑛 ( ′ ) + 𝑆 + |(𝐷𝐻 − 𝐷𝑉 )| 𝑞𝑔 ]
𝑟 𝑤𝑝 𝐿

The Forchheimer equivalent equation developed for horizontal pseudo-steady

state flow now becomes:

𝑟𝑒 ℎ
1424𝑇 {𝐼𝑛 ( ) + 𝑆} 1424𝑇 |(𝐷𝐻 − 𝐷𝑉 )|
𝑟 ′ 𝑤𝑝 𝐿
[𝑚(𝑃𝑅 ) − 𝑚 (𝑃𝑤𝑓 )] = 𝑞𝑔 + 𝑞𝑔 2
𝐾𝐻 ℎ 𝐾𝐻 ℎ
(3.15)

36
Equation (3.15) is equivalent to: 𝐶 = 𝐴𝑞𝑔 + 𝐵𝑞𝑔 2

Hence, it can be solved using equation (3.7) with;

𝑟𝑒
1424𝑇 {𝐼𝑛 ( ) + 𝑆}
𝑟′ 𝑤𝑝
𝐴=
𝐾𝐻 ℎ

ℎ
1424𝑇 |(𝐷𝐻 − 𝐷𝑉 )|
𝐿
𝐵=
𝐾𝐻 ℎ

and 𝐶 = [𝑚(𝑃𝑅 ) − 𝑚 (𝑃𝑤𝑓 )]

Example 3.2
Calculate the horizontal gas well IPR for both Darcy and non-Darcy pseudo-
steady state, using the data in Example 3.1. Assume; 𝑟𝑒ℎ = 𝑟𝑒𝑣 and L = 1000ft.

Solution
First, the rate-dependent non-Darcy skins, 𝐷𝐻 and 𝐷𝑉 , are determined. Then, the
half-axis of the drainage ellipsoid formed by the horizontal well of length, 1000ft
is determined so that the pseudo-steady state effective wellbore radius may be
deduced. Also, the skin improvement due to the horizontal drain-hole is
calculated.

𝛾𝑔 ℎ
𝐷𝐻 = 3.75 𝑥 10−8 = 2.359 𝑥 10−9 , (1⁄𝑆𝐶𝐹𝐷 )
𝜇𝑔 𝑟𝑤 𝐿2

𝐷𝑉 = 1.512 𝑥 10−8 , (1⁄𝑆𝐶𝐹𝐷 )

0.5 0.5
2𝑟𝑒𝐻 4
𝑎 = 0.5𝐿 {0.5 + [0.25 + ( ) ] }
𝐿

37
 0.5
4 0.5
2(1312.336)
= 0.5(1000) {0.5 + [0.25 + ( ) ] }
1000

= 1360.79ft

1000
0.472(1312.336) ( )
𝑟 ′ 𝑤𝑝 = 2
2 0.395
1000 0.472(395)
1360.79 [1 + √1 − ( ) ][ ]
2 𝑥 1360.39 2 𝑥 0.4593

= 14.460ft

𝑆 = −𝐼𝑛 (𝑟 ′ 𝑤𝑝 /𝑟𝑤 ) = −𝐼𝑛(14,460/0.4593) ≈ −3.4

ℎ 395
𝐷𝐻 = 2.359 𝑥 10−9 ( ) = 9.32 𝑥 10−10
𝐿 1000

Hence, the IPR for the horizontal pseudo-steady state Darcy flow can be solved
as:

(165,900)[1.25 𝑥 109 − 1.78 𝑥 104 ]

𝑞𝑔 = , 𝑀𝑠𝑐𝑓/𝑑
1312.336
1424(650) {𝐼𝑛 ( ) + (−3.4)}
14.460
= 211,610.957Mscf/d ≈ 211.611MMscf/d

Also, the IPR for the horizontal pseudo-steady state non-Darcy flow is calculated
thus:

1312.336
1424(650) {𝐼𝑛 ( ) − 3.4}
𝐴= 14.460 ≈ 5.9070
165900
1424(650)|(9.32 𝑥 10−10 − 1.513 𝑥 10−8 )|
𝐵= ≈ 7.917 𝑥 10−8
165900
𝐶 = [1.25 𝑥 109 − 1.78 𝑥 104 ] ≈ 1.25 𝑥 109

Hence,

38
 [(5.9070)2 + 4(7.917 𝑥 10−8 )(1.25 × 109 )]1/2 − 5.9070
𝑞𝑔 = , 𝑀𝑠𝑐𝑓/𝑑
2(7.917 𝑥 10−8 )

= 93,769.757Mscf/d ≈ 93.770MMscf/d

The pseudo-steady state IPRs are calculated and displayed in tables (3.4) and
(3.5) below for the vertical and horizontal well scenarios respectively.

Table 3.4: Pseudo-steady State IPR Calculations for Vertical Gas Well
𝑷𝒘𝒇 𝒎(𝑷𝒘𝒇 ) ∆𝒎(𝒑) 𝝁𝒑𝒘𝒇 𝑫𝑽 q (scf/d)
(psi) (psi2/cp) (psi2/cp) (cp) 1/(scf/d) No Turb. Turb.
0 0 1.25E+09 0.0122 1.516E-08 31,108,459 29,306,584
14.7 1.78E+04 1.25E+09 0.0122 1.515E-08 31,108,017 29,306,189
400 1.33E+07 1.24E+09 0.0126 1.461E-08 30,776,634 29,010,930
800 5.31E+07 1.20E+09 0.0135 1.369E-08 29,785,667 28,126,036
1200 1.18E+08 1.13E+09 0.0147 1.256E-08 28,170,920 26,677,801
1600 2.04E+08 1.05E+09 0.0163 1.131E-08 26,019,090 24,735,474
2000 3.07E+08 9.42E+08 0.0183 1.007E-08 23,458,133 22,404,998
2250 3.78E+08 8.72E+08 0.0197 9.350E-09 21,708,407 20,800,691
2500 4.51E+08 7.99E+08 0.0212 8.692E-09 19,886,172 19,119,274
2750 5.26E+08 7.24E+08 0.0228 8.101E-09 18,017,996 17,383,990
3000 6.02E+08 6.48E+08 0.0243 7.581E-09 16,124,689 15,613,264
3250 6.78E+08 5.71E+08 0.0259 7.127E-09 14,221,623 13,820,880
3500 7.55E+08 4.95E+08 0.0274 6.731E-09 12,319,600 12,016,656
3750 8.31E+08 4.19E+08 0.0289 6.385E-09 10,425,897 10,207,314
4000 9.06E+08 3.43E+08 0.0303 6.083E-09 8,545,240 8,397,304
4250 9.81E+08 2.68E+08 0.0317 5.816E-09 6,680,597 6,589,501
4500 1.06E+09 1.94E+08 0.0331 5.579E-09 4,833,765 4,785,715
4750 1.13E+09 1.21E+08 0.0344 5.366E-09 3,005,782 2,987,063
5000 1.20E+09 4.81E+07 0.0357 5.173E-09 1,197,200 1,194,208
5150 1.24E+09 4.88E+06 0.0364 5.066E-09 121,469 121,438
5167 1.25E+09 0.00E+00 0.0365 5.055E-09 0 0

39
Table 3.5: Pseudo-steady State IPR Calculations for Horizontal Gas Well
𝑷𝒘𝒇 𝒎(𝑷𝒘𝒇 ) ∆𝒎(𝒑) 𝝁𝒑𝒘𝒇 𝑫𝑯 q (scf/d)
2 2
(psi) (psi /cp) (psi cp) (cp) 1/(scf/d) No Turb. Turb
0 0 1.25E+09 0.0122 2.36E-09 211,551,494 93,752,831
14.7 1.78E+04 1.25E+09 0.0122 2.36E-09 211,548,485 93,751,975
400 1.33E+07 1.24E+09 0.0126 2.28E-09 209,294,929 93,108,895
800 5.31E+07 1.20E+09 0.0135 2.14E-09 202,555,908 91,166,631
1200 1.18E+08 1.13E+09 0.0147 1.96E-09 191,574,907 87,937,268
1600 2.04E+08 1.05E+09 0.0163 1.76E-09 176,941,495 83,499,685
2000 3.07E+08 9.42E+08 0.0183 1.57E-09 159,525,841 77,996,022
2250 3.78E+08 8.72E+08 0.0197 1.46E-09 147,626,913 74,079,485
2500 4.51E+08 7.99E+08 0.0212 1.36E-09 135,234,897 69,848,587
2750 5.26E+08 7.24E+08 0.0228 1.26E-09 122,530,461 65,330,126
3000 6.02E+08 6.48E+08 0.0243 1.18E-09 109,655,125 60,538,225
3250 6.78E+08 5.71E+08 0.0259 1.11E-09 96,713,422 55,472,550
3500 7.55E+08 4.95E+08 0.0274 1.05E-09 83,778,813 50,116,861
3750 8.31E+08 4.19E+08 0.0289 9.96E-10 70,900,783 44,436,746
4000 9.06E+08 3.43E+08 0.0303 9.49E-10 58,111,470 38,375,025
4250 9.81E+08 2.68E+08 0.0317 9.07E-10 45,431,057 31,842,288
4500 1.06E+09 1.94E+08 0.0331 8.70E-10 32,871,770 24,697,176
4750 1.13E+09 1.21E+08 0.0344 8.37E-10 20,440,668 16,702,050
5000 1.20E+09 4.81E+07 0.0357 8.07E-10 8,141,496 7,406,341
5150 1.24E+09 4.88E+06 0.0364 7.90E-10 826,043 817,095
5167 1.25E+09 0.00E+00 0.0365 7.89E-10 0 0

40
 CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF RESULTS
From the results of the previous chapter, particularly from tables (3.4) and (3.5),
several plots are made to enhance effectively, the discussion, analysis and
comparison of the results so obtained. Thus, to compare the IPRs for vertical and
horizontal gas wells, the analysis and comparison are done graphically under the
following headings:
1. No turbulence drawdown (figure 4.1)
2. Turbulence drawdown (figure 4.2)
3. No turbulence Absolute Open Flow Potential (figure 4.3)
4. Turbulence Absolute Open Flow Potential (figure 4.4)
5. Vertical Well Turbulence effect (figure 4.5)
6. Horizontal Well Turbulence effect (figure 4.6)

4.1 No Turbulence Drawdown

One fair way of comparing horizontal and vertical gas well productivities is to
compare their drawdowns that would yield the same rate. It is important to note
that an increase or a decrease in the wellbore flowing pressure of a well would
result in a corresponding decrease or increase in the drawdown, respectively.
The drawdown is a measure of the energy required to lift the gas from the
subsurface reservoir strata to the surface through the wellbore. Hence, a higher
drawdown would mean a higher energy required to raise the gas to the surface –
to produce the gas, at the stipulated rate.

In similar sense, the higher the wellbore real gas pseudo-pressure, the lower the
drawdown and hence lower the required energy. However, from figure (4.1) it
can be seen that a specified deliverability rate of 20MMscf/d requires a
corresponding change in the real gas pseudo-pressures, ∆𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 ) of 8.0 x
108psi2/cp for the vertical well and 1.21 x 108psi2/cp for the horizontal well.
Hence, it can be deduced that, it requires a lower energy to produce at a

41
particular (required) rate for horizontal wells than it does for vertical wells in non-
turbulent flow.

Figure 4.1: No Turbulence Drawdown Plot

4.2 Turbulence drawdown

Like in figure (4.1) the change in real gas pseudo-pressure, ∆𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 ), in the form
of energy required to produce the gas at a fixed rate of 20MMscf/d for the
vertical well is 8.4 x 108psi2/cp whereas that required for the horizontal well is
1 . 5 2 x 108psi2/cp as shown in figure (4.2). This implies that, it requires less
energy to produce the gas well, in the case of turbulence, using horizontal well
than it does for the vertical well.

42
Figure 4.2: Turbulence Drawdown Plot

4.3 No Turbulence AOFP

The Absolute Open flow Potential (AOFP) is the rate of flow or deliverability at
maximum drawdown, ∆𝑃 or ∆𝑚(𝑝), corresponding to the average reservoir
pressure, P𝑅 or the real gas pseudo-pressure at the reservoir pressure, 𝑚(𝑃𝑅 ). In
other words, the AOFP is the maximum recordable rate of flow or deliverability at
a zero wellbore flowing pressure (i.e., P𝑤𝑓 = 0); where the energy required to
produce the well is natural. Although in practice, this may not be a condition at
which the well can produce, it has a useful definition and widespread usage
particularly for comparing the performance or potential of different wells in the
same field5 hence, the higher the AOFP, the higher the tendency (though
hypothetic) of the well to produce fluid from the reservoir.

From figure (4.3), the AOFP for the horizontal well (which is 211.55MMscf/d) is
higher than the AOFP of the vertical well (31.11MMscf/d) in the no turbulence
situation of flow. This means that the horizontal well has better productive
capabilities than does the vertical well.

43
Figure 4.3: No Turbulence AOFP Plot

4.4 Turbulence AOFP

Similar to figure (4.3), figure (4.4) shows AOFP of 93.75MMscf/d and
29.31MMscf/d for the horizontal well and vertical wells respectively at the real
gas pseudo-pressure, 𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 ) of 1.25 x 109psi2/cp corresponding to the reservoir
pressure, P𝑅 of 5167psia. Hence, the horizontal well (even under turbulence), like
in the non-turbulence case, has a better prospect than does the vertical well.

44
Figure 4.4: Turbulence AOFP Plot

4.5 Vertical Well Turbulence Effect

Generally, turbulence in the well reduced the flow rate of the well by increasing
friction along the wellbore. It is pertinent to note that friction or frictional losses
results in irreversible pressure losses due to viscous drag and slippage.

Friction loss is rate-dependent, characterized by the flow regimes - Laminar and

Turbulent - separated by a transition zone. The rate dependence of friction-
related pressure loss differs with the flow regime. At low rates, the flow is
laminar and the pressure drawdown, ∆P changes linearly with rate or flow
velocity. At high rates the flow is turbulent and the pressure drawdown ∆P
increases more than linearly with increasing flowrate.5 Thus, as the wellbore
flowing pressure reduces or decreases (for laminar flow), the rate increases
linearly and for turbulence, the rate increases less than linearly. Now, the
difference or deviation from the linear plot due to turbulence is what is referred
to as the turbulence effect.

From figure (4.5) below, it can be deduced that, at real gas pseudo-pressure of

45
about 10.0 x 108psi2/cp (corresponding to 6.0MMscf/d) and above, the vertical
gas well exhibits laminar flow regime; below which the vertical gas well
experiences turbulence. The effect of turbulence (causing a reduction in the
flowrate) on the vertical well increases with decreasing real gas pseudo-pressure
around the wellbore and hence increasing drawdown (energy required). At a
given gas rate of 25 MMscf/D, the turbulence effect on the real gas pseudo
pressure is 0.4 x 108psi2/cp.

Figure 4.5: Vertical Well Turbulence Effect

4.6 Horizontal Well Turbulence Effect

From figure (4.6) below, the horizontal gas well flow is laminar at higher real gas
pseudo-pressure up to 12 x 108psi2/cp (corresponding to 7.4MMscf/d). The
turbulence effect on the horizontal well becomes more and more glaring with
decreasing real gas pseudo-pressure below 12 x 108psi2/cp. At the given gas rate
of 25MMscfd, the turbulence on the real gas pseudo-pressure is 0.6 x 109psi2/cp;
about 15times higher than what was observed in the vertical well for the same
well rate.

46
Figure 4.6: Horizontal Well Turbulence Effect

47
 CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Considering the amount of energy, based upon the drawdown required for
producing at a given rate, it is pertinent to conclude that horizontal gas wells
require lower energy and stress to produce. Also, in terms of the gas wells
potential for flow, the horizontal gas well has higher potential to flow than the
vertical gas well. Howbeit, it is important to recap here that, the influence of
turbulence is to increase the pressure drop or pressure drawdown (around the
wellbore) required to produce at the given gas rate. Thus, the presence of
turbulence reduces net production from the well; both for the horizontal and
vertical gas wells. But the effect at a given flowing bottom-hole pressure is more
on the horizontal gas well than on the vertical gas wells. However, the turbulence
effect can be minimized by reducing fluid velocity near the wellbore – since the
highest fluid velocity is expected near the wellbore where flow converges. Hence
if there is no turbulence near the wellbore, there will be no turbulence in the
reservoir. The fluid velocity is reduced by increasing perforation/producing height
(ℎ𝑝 ) in the vertical well or the well length (L) for the horizontal well.

The horizontal-vertical well cost ratio in the Niger Delta, based upon how
sophisticated the available technology used is, is about 1.4 to 3 times; depending
upon drilling method and the completion technique employed and drilling
experience in the Niger Delta area. Obviously, the incremental cost of drilling
horizontal wells over vertical wells has reduced significantly over the last decade.

Presently in the Niger Delta, a typical horizontal wells costs 1.4 times the vertical
well cost. With time and extensive drilling experience, the horizontal well cost
would be reduced even further.

Conclusively therefore, it is evident that horizontal gas well technology is better,

even in the Niger Delta, than the existing vertical well technology, in spite of the
cost of drilling. However the need for gas in the Niger Delta is infinitesimal

48
compared to the reserves; this is probably the reason why most of the Niger
Delta produced gas are flared rather than processed. Lack of the proper
processing size and handling equipment may also have been one of the reasons
for the very small gas need in this area. Otherwise, the following
recommendations are made for present (if the need arises) and future purposes
of improved technology, cost ratio and infrastructure.

Recommendations
Based on the whole work done, the following recommendations are made. These
recommendations should be considered if the need for gas production increases
with increasing market demand.

 Horizontal gas wells should be drilled in the Niger Delta - with high
permeability reservoirs.

 Preliminary calculations indicate that horizontal gas wells should be drilled

with well lengths ranging from 2000ft, depending upon the size of the
reservoir external radius. This is to reduce the effective and overall turbulence
around the wellbore.

49
 REFERENCES
1. Brown, K. E., “The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods”, Vol. 1, PennWell
Books, Tulsa, Oklahoma, pp 1-5

2. Economides, M.J., Hill, D.A and Ehlig-Economides, C., “Petroleum Production

Systems”, Prentice - Hall, England Cliffs, NJ, 1994, pp 31 - 33, 79

3. Gilbert, W.E., "Flowing and Gas-Lift Well Performance", Drilling and Production
Practice, 1954, API p. 143

4. Shell Petroleum Development Company, East, "Geology of the Niger Delta"

Lecture Note 2002

5. Golan, M. and Whitson, C.H., Well Performance, IHRDC, Boston, MA, 1986, pp
21, 127-147

6. Numbere, D.T., Personal Communication

7. Vogel, J.V., "Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive Wells",

JPT January 1968, pp 88-93

8. Standing, M.B., "Inflow Performance Relationships for Damaged Producing by

Solution Gas Drive", JPT, November 1970, pp 1399 - 1400

9. Weller, W.T., "Reservoir Performance During Two-Phase Flow", JPT, February

1966, p.240

10. Fetkovich, M.J., "The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells", SPE Paper No. 4529 -
48th Annual Fall Meeting of SPE of AIME, Las Vegas, Nevada, September 30 to
Octobers 3, 1973

11. Rawlins, E.L., and Schellhardt, M.A., "Back-Pressure Data on Natural gas Wells
and Their Application to Production Practices", U.S Bureau of Mines Monograph
7, 1936

50
12. Forchheimer, P., "Wasserbewegung durch Boston", Zeitz. Ver Deutsch Ing,
Berlin, 45,1901, pp 1781 – 1788

13. Green, L. and Duwez, P., "Fluid Flow through porous materials", J. Appl. Mech.
(March, 1951) 18, 39

14. Cornell, D. and Katz, D. L., "Flow of Gas through Consolidated Porous Media",
Ind. and Eng. Chem. (Oct., 1953) 45,2145

15. Al-Hussainy, R., and Ramey, H.J., Jr. "Application of Real Gas Theory to Well
Testing and Deliverability Forecasting", JPT, May 1966, p.637

16. Joshi, S.D., “Horizontal Well Technology”, PennWell Books, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
1991, pp 90 - 91, 329 - 220 and 345-350

17. Joshi, S.D., "Augmentation of Well Productivity with Slant and Horizontal Wells",
JPT, June 1988, pp.729 – 739

18. Economides, M.J., Deimbacher, F.X. Brand, C.W., and Heinemann, Z.E.,
"Comprehensive Simulation of Horizontal Well Performance", SPE 20717, 1990
and SPEFE, December 1991, pp418 -426

19. Lee, J and Wattenberg, R.A., “Gas Reservoir Engineering”, SPE inc, Richardson
TX, 1996, p.4

51
 NOMENCLATURE
a = Half the major axis of an elliptical drainage Area.

A = Area of flow

B = Fluid Formation Volume Factor

 = Fluid Velocity Coefficient

C = Backpressure Constant

D = Non-Darcy Coefficient, 1/SCFD

h = Reservoir thickness, ft

hp = Well Perforated thickness, ft

Iani = Anisotropic sealed aspect ratio, dimensionless

J = Productivity Index

K = Reservoir effective permeability, md

Ka = Near wellbore reservoir permeability, md

L = Horizontal Well Length, ft

m(p) = Real gas pseudo-pressure, psi2/cp

M = Molecular Weight, lbm/lb-mole

 = Fluid Viscosity, cp

n = Backpressure exponent, dimensionless

P = Pressure, psia

∆P = Change in pressure, psia

52
PR = Initial Reservoir pressure, psia

PR = Average reservoir pressure, psia

Pwf = Wellbore flowing pressure, psia

Pwf’ = Ideal Wellbore flowing flowing pressure

q= Flow rate, MMscf/d or bpd

re = Reservoir external drainage radius, ft

rw = Well bore radius, ft

rw’ = Effective well bore radius, ft

S = Skin due to damage or stimulation or skin improvement due to horizontal

drain hole

T = Temperature, °R

V = Fluid velocity, ft/sec

Z = Gas compressibility factor

 = pi = 3.1416

 = Fluid specific gravity, dimensionless

ρ = Fluid density, g/cc

Subscripts
H, h = horizontal

V = vertical

g = gas

53
o = oil

max. = maximum

pc = pseudo-critical

pr = pseudo-reduced

air = air as a fluid

p = Darcy pseudo-steady state

s = surface

Abbreviations
GOR = Gas-Oil Ratio

PI = Productivity Index

IPR = Inflow Performance Relationship

AOFP = Absolute Open Flow Potential

Hor. = Horizontal

Vert. = Vertical

Turb. = Turbulence

No-Turb. = No Turbulence

54
 APPENDIX "A"
GAS CONDENSATE STUDY DATA

Initial Conditions at Wellbore:

Initial Reservoir Pressure, PR = 5167psia
Bottom Hole Temperature, T = 190°F

Constant Mass Study at 190°F:

Dew Point Pressure, PD = 5150psia

Gas Condensate Composition:

Composition Mole (%) Specific Gravity Molecular Weight
N2 0.04
CO2 0.16
H2S 0.00
C1 84.09
C2 3.20
C3 2.77
i-C4 0.94
n-C4 1.38
i-C5 0.75
n-Cs 0.63
C6 1.03
C7+ 5.01 0.786 137
100.00

Reservoir Permeability, K = 420md

Reservoir Thickness, h = 395ft

Reservoir External Radius, re = 400m = 1312.336ft

Wellbore Radius, rw = 14cm ≈ 0.459ft

No Damage nor Stimulation is assumed, S = 0

55
 APPENDIX ”B"
Stewart et al Method for Calculating Pseudo-Critical Properties of the
C7+ fraction of Hydrocarbon Composition
0.15178 0.15427 3
𝑇𝑏𝑐7+ = (4.5579𝑀𝑐7+ 𝛾𝐶7+ ) , °𝑅 (𝐵. 1)

0.0566 2.2898 0.11837 𝑇𝑏𝐶7+

8.3634 − − (0.24244 + + 2 ) 103 +
𝛾𝑐7+ 𝛾𝑐7+ 𝛾𝐶7+
𝑃𝑃𝑐𝐶7+ = 𝑒𝑥𝑝 { 2 3 } , 𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑎
3.648 0.47227 𝑇𝑏𝐶7+ 1.6977 𝑇𝑏𝐶7+
(1.4685 + 𝛾 + 𝛾2 ) 107 − (0.42019 + 𝛾2 ) 1010
𝑐7+ 𝐶7+ 𝐶7+

(𝐵. 2)

𝑇𝑃𝑐𝐶7+ = (341.7 + 811𝛾𝑐7+ ) + (0.4244 + 0.1174𝛾𝑐7+ )𝑇𝑏𝐶7+

105
+ (0.4669 − 3 3.2623𝛾𝑐7+ ) , °𝑅 (𝐵. 3)
𝑇𝑏𝐶7+

Example B.1:
Given the data in Appendix "A"; calculate the pseudo-critical pressure and
temperature of the C7+ fraction.

Solution:
From the data in Appendix "A":

MC7+ = 137lbm/lbm-mole and 𝛾C7+ = 0.786

Then, from equation (B.1);

TbC7+ = [4.5579 x (137)0.15178 x (0.786)0.15427]3, °R ≈ 795.8 °R

Also, from equation (B.2) and (B.3):

PpcC7+ ≈ 366.2psia and

TpcC7+ ≈ 1126.8°R (≈ 666.8°F)

Where:

MC7+ = Molecular Weight of the C7+ fraction, lbm/lbm–mole

𝛾C7+= Specific gravity of the C7+ fraction, dimensionless

Tbc7+ = Base Temperature of the C7+ fraction, °R

56
PpcC7+ = Pseudo-critical pressure of the C7+ fraction, psia

TpcC7+ = Pseudo-critical temperature of the C7+ fraction, °R

57
 APPENDIX "C"
Beggs and Brill (1973) Correlation for Calculating Z-factor

(1 − 𝐴) 𝐷
𝑍=𝐴+ + 𝐶𝑃𝑃𝑟 (𝐶. 1)
𝑒𝐵
Where:

𝐴 = 1.39(𝑇𝑃𝑟 − 0.92)0.5 − 0.36𝑇𝑃𝑟 − 0.101 (𝐶. 2)

0.066 2
0.32 6
𝐵 = (0.63 − 0.23𝑇𝑃𝑟 )𝑃𝑃𝑟 + [ − 0.037] 𝑃𝑝𝑟 + 9 𝑃𝑝𝑟
(𝑇𝑃𝑟 − 0.86) 10 (𝑇𝑝𝑟 − 1)
(𝐶. 3)

𝐶 = (0.132 − 0.32𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑇𝑝𝑟 ) (𝐶. 4)

2
𝐷 = 10(0.3106−0.49𝑇𝑝𝑟 +0.1824𝑇𝑝𝑟) (𝐶. 5)
Recall: 𝑇𝑝𝑟 = 𝑇⁄𝑇 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑃𝑝𝑟 = 𝑃⁄𝑃
𝑝𝑐 𝑃𝑐

Example C.1:
Given, Tpc = 420.62°R; Ppc = 645.36psia; T = 650°R and P = 14.7 psia. Calculate
the gas compressibility factor (z-factor) using Beggs and Brill correlation.

Solution:
Tpr =1.546 and Ppr = 0.023

From equations (C.4) and (C.5);

C ≈ 0.07145

D ≈ 0.97502

Also, from equations (C.2) and (C.3);

A ≈ 0.4422

B ≈ 0.006053768 ≈ 0.00605

Therefore:

Z = 0.9984

58
 APPENDIX "D"
Lee et al Correlation for calculating Gas Viscosity

𝜇𝑔 = 𝐾 ∗ 10−4 exp(𝑋𝜌𝑔 𝑌 ) , 𝑐𝑝 (𝐷. 1)

Where:
(9.4 + 0.02𝑀)𝑇1.5
𝐾= (𝐷. 2)
209 + 19𝑀 + 𝑇
986
𝑋 = 3.5 + + 0.01𝑀 (𝐷. 3)
𝑇

𝑌 = 2.4 − 0.2𝑋 (𝐷. 4)

𝛾𝑔 𝑃 𝑔
𝜌𝑔 = 0.0433 , (𝐷. 5)
𝑍𝑇 𝑐𝑐
(T is in °R)

𝛾𝑔 = gas specific gravity

Example D.1:
Given T = 650°R; P = 14.7psia; Z = 0.998; M = 25.8514 lbm/lb-mole and 𝛾𝑔 =
0.8925.

Calculate the gas viscosity, 𝜇𝑔 using Lee et al correlation

Solution:
From equation (D.5);

0.04353 × 0.8925 × 14.7

𝜌𝑔 =
0.998 × 650
≈ 8.7539 x 10-4 g/cc

Also, using equations (D.2), (D.3) and (D.4);

(9.4 + 0.02 × 25.8514) × 650)1.5

𝐾=( ≈ 121.7197
209 + (19 × 25.8514) + 650
986
𝑋 = 3.5 + + 0.01 × 25.8514 ≈ 5.2754
650

𝑌 = 2.4 − 0.2(5.2754) ≈ 1.3449

Therefore, from equation (D.1) the gas viscosity, 𝜇𝑔 becomes;

59
𝜇𝑔 = 121.7197 × 10−4 𝑒𝑥𝑝[5.2754 𝑥 (8.7539 𝑥 10−4 )1.3449 ]

= 0.012177cp ≈ 0.0122cp

60
 APPENDIX "E"
The Horizontal well Pseudo-steady State Rate Equation for Horizontal-
Vertical Well Productivity Comparison
(Developed by Sukubo, Ibianga Alu)

Introduction:
The basic concept used in this work of developing the horizontal well pseudo-
steady rate equation for effective horizontal and vertical well productivity
comparison, is the effective wellbore radius concept as discussed in Chapter 2 of
the project work. It should therefore be of note that the effective wellbore radius
concept is used to determine what the productivity would be for horizontal wells
(when horizontal well data are not available) from given vertical well data. This
concept, though theoretical, can be used for practical comparison in fields and
reservoirs where no horizontal well has been drilled.

Hence, the equation may be used to ascertain or justify one's reasons for or
against drilling horizontal wells in oil, gas or both reservoirs or fields. Even
though one's choice as a petroleum production engineer may be based on cost
effectiveness.

However the assumption made in course of developing my formula are the same
as the basic assumption made by Joshi S.D in developing his effective wellbore
radius concept. These assumptions are as follows:

1. Unstimulated Vertical Well

2. Vertical reservoir external radius, 𝑟𝑒𝑣 , equals horizontal reservoir external

radius, 𝑟𝑒ℎ .

3. Equal productivity indices for vertical and horizontal wells.

Development:-
Joshi has already developed the effective wellbore radius concept for steady
state radial flow. However, the steady state radial flow system is only an ideal
case of flow. Hence, the equation developed herein is for pseudo-steady
state radial flow for both non-turbulent and turbulent regimes.

For pseudo-steady state non-turbulent regime – Darcy flow:

𝑞 𝑞
[ ] =[ ] (𝐸. 1)
∆𝑃 𝑉 ∆𝑃 ℎ

61
This implies;

𝑎+√𝑎 −( 2 𝐿⁄ )2
𝑟
] + 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ⁄𝐿 [𝐼𝑛 (
2 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ
[𝐼𝑛 ( 𝑒⁄𝑟 ′ ) − 0.75] = 𝐼𝑛 [ 𝐿⁄ ) − 0.75]
𝑤 2 𝑟𝑤 (𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 +1)

(𝐸. 2)

But 𝑟𝑒 = 𝑟𝑒𝑣 = 𝑟𝑒ℎ hence,

𝑎+√𝑎 −( 2 𝐿⁄ )2 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ⁄𝐿

𝑟
− 0.75 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ⁄𝐿
2 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ
𝐼𝑛 ( 𝑒ℎ⁄𝑟 ′ ) − 0.75 = 𝐼𝑛 [ 𝐿⁄ ] + 𝐼𝑛 ( )
𝑤 2 𝑟𝑤 (𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 +1)

Note that mathematically, any number, 𝑥 = −𝐼𝑛 𝑒 −𝑥 hence,

𝑎+√𝑎2 −( 𝐿⁄ )2 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ⁄𝐿

𝑟 2 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ ℎ⁄
𝐼𝑛 ( 𝑒ℎ⁄𝑟 ′ ) + 𝐼𝑛 𝑒 −0.75 = 𝐼𝑛 [ 𝐿⁄ ] + 𝐼𝑛 ( ) + 𝐼𝑛 𝑒 −0.75 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 𝐿
𝑤 2 𝑟𝑤 (𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 +1)

𝑎+√𝑎2 −( 𝐿⁄ )2 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ⁄𝐿

𝑟 2 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ ℎ⁄
𝐼𝑛 [( 𝑒ℎ⁄𝑟 ′ ) 𝑒 −0.75 ] = 𝐼𝑛 [( 𝐿⁄ )( ) 𝑒 −0.75 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 𝐿]
𝑤 2 𝑟𝑤 (𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 +1)

𝑎+√𝑎2 −( 𝐿⁄ )2 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ⁄𝐿

𝑟 2 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ ℎ⁄
( 𝑒ℎ⁄𝑟 ′ ) 𝑒 −0.75 = ( 𝐿⁄ )( ) 𝑒 −0.75 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 𝐿
𝑤 2 𝑟𝑤 (𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 +1)

𝑎+√𝑎2 −( 𝐿⁄ )2 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ⁄𝐿

𝑟 2 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ ℎ⁄
0.4724 ( 𝑒ℎ⁄𝑟 ′ ) = ( 𝐿⁄ )( ) 𝑒 −0.75 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 𝐿
𝑤 2 𝑟𝑤 (𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 +1)

Making 𝑟𝑤′ the subject of the formula:

0.4724 𝑟𝑒ℎ (𝐿⁄2)

𝑟𝑤′ =
𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ⁄𝐿
𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ ℎ⁄
(𝑎 + √𝑎2 − (𝐿⁄2)2 ) ( ) 𝑒 −0.75 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 𝐿
𝑟𝑤 (𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 + 1)

2 2
Let 𝐴 = 𝑎 + √𝑎2 − (𝐿⁄2) = 𝑎 (1 + √1 − (𝐿⁄2𝑎) )

Then the effective wellbore radius for the pseudo-steady state Darcy flow, 𝑟′𝑤𝑝 , now
becomes:

62
 0.4724 𝑟𝑒ℎ (𝐿⁄2)
𝑟𝑤′ = 𝑟𝑤𝑝
′
= (𝐸. 3)
𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ⁄𝐿
𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 ℎ ℎ⁄
𝐴( ) 𝑒 −0.75 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 𝐿
𝑟𝑤 (𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 + 1)
Assuming an isotropic reservoir then, 𝐼𝑎𝑛𝑖 = 1

Hence, equation (E.3) now becomes:

0.4724 𝑟𝑒ℎ (𝐿⁄2)

′
𝑟𝑤𝑝 = ℎ⁄ (𝐸. 4)
𝐿 ℎ
𝐴 (ℎ⁄2𝑟 ) 𝑒 −0.75 ⁄𝐿
𝑤

The horizontal well skin or skin due to horizontal drain hole, according to Joshi
now becomes:

′
rwp
S = −In ( ⁄ rw ) (E. 5)

Therefore, the horizontal well rate equation now becomes, in a simplified vertical
well rate form;

For oil wells:

7.08 𝑥 10−3 𝐾𝐻 ℎ∆𝑃

𝑞𝑜 = (𝐸. 6)
𝑟
𝜇𝑜 𝐵𝑜 [𝐼𝑛 ( 𝑒⁄𝑟𝑤𝑝 ) + 𝑆]

For gas wells:

2
𝐾𝐻 ℎ(𝑃𝑒2 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓 )
𝑞𝑔 = (𝐸. 7)
𝑟
1424𝜇𝑔 𝑍𝑇 [𝐼𝑛 ( 𝑒⁄𝑟𝑤𝑝 ) + 𝑆]

Alternatively, using real gas pseudo-pressure:

𝐾𝐻 ℎ[𝑚(𝑃𝑅 ) − 𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 )]
𝑞𝑔 = (𝐸. 8)
𝑟
1424 𝑇 [𝐼𝑛 ( 𝑒⁄𝑟𝑤𝑝 ) + 𝑆]

Also, for non-Darcy flow – turbulence regime, assuming isotropic reservoirs;

63
 𝑟 𝐴 ℎ
[𝐼𝑛 ( 𝑒ℎ⁄𝑟 ′ ) − 0.75 + 𝐷𝑣 𝑞] = 𝐼𝑛 ( ) + ℎ⁄𝐿 [𝐼𝑛 ( ) − 0.75 + 𝐷ℎ 𝑞]
𝑤 𝐿⁄ 2𝑟𝑤
2
(𝐸. 9)

ℎ
𝑟𝑒ℎ 𝐴 ℎ 𝐿 ℎ ℎ
𝐼𝑛 ( ′ ) + 𝐼𝑛 𝑒 −0.75 − 𝐼𝑛 𝑒 −𝐷𝑣𝑞 = 𝐼𝑛 ( ) + 𝐼𝑛 ( ) + 𝐼𝑛 𝑒 −0.75 𝐿 − 𝐼𝑛 𝑒 −𝐷ℎ 𝑞 𝐿
𝑟𝑤 𝐿⁄ 2𝑟𝑤
2
ℎ
𝑟𝑒ℎ 𝐴 ℎ 𝐿 −0.75 ℎ 𝑒 −𝐷𝑣𝑞
[𝐼𝑛 ( ′ ) 𝑒 −0.75 ] = 𝐼𝑛 [( )( ) 𝑒 𝐿 ] + 𝐼𝑛(
ℎ)
𝑟𝑤 𝐿⁄ 2𝑟𝑤 −𝐷ℎ 𝑞
2 𝑒 𝐿

ℎ
𝑟𝑒ℎ 𝐴 ℎ 𝐿 −0.75 ℎ (−𝐷𝑣𝑞+𝐷ℎ 𝑞 ℎ)
( ′ ) 𝑒 −0.75 = ( )( ) 𝑒 𝐿𝑒 𝐿
𝑟𝑤 𝐿⁄ 2𝑟𝑤
2

Then the effective wellbore radius for the pseudo-steady state non-Darcy
′
flow, 𝑟𝑤𝑛𝑝 , now becomes:

0.4724𝑟𝑒ℎ (𝐿⁄2)
′
𝑟𝑤𝑛𝑝 = ℎ (𝐸. 10)
ℎ 𝐿 ℎ ℎ
𝐴 (2𝑟 ) 𝑒 −0.75 𝐿 𝑒 (𝐷ℎ 𝐿 −𝐷𝑣)𝑞
𝑤

This implies:

′
𝑟𝑤𝑝 ℎ
′
𝑟𝑤𝑛𝑝 = ℎ
′
= 𝑟𝑤𝑝 ∗ 𝑒 −(𝐷ℎ 𝐿 −𝐷𝑣)𝑞
𝑒 (𝐷ℎ 𝐿 −𝐷𝑣)𝑞

The rate-dependent skin then becomes:

′
ℎ 𝑟𝑤𝑛𝑝
(𝐷ℎ )
− 𝐷𝑣 𝑞 = −𝐼𝑛 ( ′
)
𝐿 𝑟𝑤𝑝

ℎ ℎ
But, 𝐷ℎ << 𝐷𝑣 hence, 𝐷ℎ − 𝐷𝑣 shall be negative. However, the rate-dependent
𝐿 𝐿
′
skin cannot be negative and the implication is that 𝑟𝑤𝑛𝑝 cannot be greater
′
than 𝑟𝑤𝑝 . Hence, absolute value is considered. Thus:

ℎ
′
𝑟𝑤𝑛𝑝 ′
= 𝑟𝑤𝑝 ∗ 𝑒 −(|𝐷ℎ 𝐿 −𝐷𝑣|)𝑞

Therefore for oil wells, the rate becomes:

64
 7.08 ∗ 10−3 𝐾𝐻 ℎ∆𝑃
𝑞𝑜 = (𝐸. 11)
𝑟 ℎ
𝜇𝑜 𝐵𝑜 [𝐼𝑛 ( 𝑒⁄𝑟𝑤𝑝 ) + 𝑆 + (|𝐷ℎ 𝐿 − 𝐷𝑣 |) 𝑞𝑜 ]

For gas wells:

2
𝐾𝐻 ℎ(𝑃𝑒2 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓 )
𝑞𝑔 = (𝐸. 12)
𝑟 ℎ
1424𝜇𝑔 𝑍𝑇 [𝐼𝑛 ( 𝑒⁄𝑟𝑤𝑝 ) + 𝑆 + (|𝐷ℎ 𝐿 − 𝐷𝑣 |) 𝑞𝑔 ]

Alternatively, using real gas pseudo-pressures:

𝐾𝐻 ℎ[𝑚(𝑃𝑅 ) − 𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 )]
𝑞𝑔 = (𝐸. 13)
𝑟 ℎ
1424 𝑇 [𝐼𝑛 ( 𝑒⁄𝑟𝑤𝑝 ) + 𝑆 + (|𝐷ℎ 𝐿 − 𝐷𝑣 |) 𝑞𝑔 ]

These equations are solvable by reducing them to the equivalent forms of the
Forchheimer equation. For instance, equation (E.13) is thus solvable:

𝑟 ℎ
1424 𝑇 [𝐼𝑛 ( 𝑒⁄𝑟𝑤𝑝 ) + 𝑆] 1424 𝑇 (|𝐷ℎ 𝐿 − 𝐷𝑣 |)
𝑚(𝑃𝑅 ) − 𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 ) = 𝑞𝑔 + 𝑞𝑔2
𝐾𝐻 ℎ 𝐾𝐻 ℎ
(𝐸. 14)
𝑟 ℎ
1424 𝑇[𝐼𝑛( 𝑒⁄𝑟𝑤𝑝)+𝑆] 1424 𝑇(|𝐷ℎ −𝐷𝑣 |)
Let C = 𝑚(𝑃𝑅 ) − 𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 ), A = and B = 𝐿
𝐾𝐻 ℎ 𝐾𝐻 ℎ

Equation (E.14) can then be written as:

𝐶 = 𝐴𝑞𝑔 + 𝐵𝑞𝑔2

This is a quadratic equation of the form:

𝐵𝑞𝑔2 + 𝐴𝑞𝑔 + 𝐶 = 0 .

Its solution point is expressed as:

√𝐴2 + 4𝐵𝐶 − 𝐴
𝑞𝑔 = (𝐸. 15)
2𝐵

65

View publication stats