Tripoli University

Department of Petroleum Engineering

Postgraduate Program for M.Sc. Degree
Advanced Gas Technology (PE-640)

Deliverability Analysis
Faregh Field
Well BB6-59

Prepared by:

Osama Gouma Abo Aliga

Mohamed Abdulhafid Elgmati
Hassan Awedan
Abdurazak Said Gouma

Supervised by:

Dr. Mohamed El Houny

Fall 2017
1 Introduction:
Gas reservoir deliverability is gas production rate achieved from a reservoir at a given
bottomhole flowing pressure (Pwf). Gas reservoir deliverability is evaluated using well
inflow performance relationship (IPR). Gas well IPR determines gas production rate as
a nonlinear function of pressure drawdown (reservoir pressure minus bottom-hole
pressure).

Determination of inflow performance for a gas well requires a relationship between flow
rate coming into a well and the flowing bottomhole pressure. This relationship may be
established by the proper solution of Darcy's law, which depends on the condition of
flow existing in the reservoir or the flow regime type, that is, transient, steady state, or
pseudo-steady state flow, which are determined by reservoir boundary conditions.

The most common method for determining gas well deliverability is called multi-point
testing in which a well is produced at several different rates, and from measured flow
rates and well pressures, an inflow performance equation can be evaluated.

2 Well Deliverability Testing:

Well deliverability testing provides a direct means of estimating productivity of gas
wells. Testing procedures include:
 Flow-after-flow test (stabilized flow test).
 Isochronal test.
 Modified isochronal test.
The objective of these tests is to deliver values of “C” and “n” or “a” and “b” that are
used for defining well inflow performance relationship (IPR).
2.1 Flow-After-Flow Test:
In this testing procedure, a well flows at a selected constant rate until pressure stabilizes
to reach the pseudo-steady state flow condition. This may require considerable amount
of time depending on the permeability of the reservoir. Once stabilization is reached, the
flow rate and (Pwf) are recorded. The rate is then changed and the well flows until the
pressure stabilizes again at the new rate. The process is repeated for a total of 3 to 4
rates. Flow rates and pressures follow the pattern depicted in Figure (1).

Figure 1 Sequence of flow-after-flow test

2.2 Isochronal Test:

The isochronal testing procedure was developed to obtain data with reduced test time.
An isochronal test is conducted by flowing a well at a fixed rate, then shutting it in until
the pressure builds up to original pressure. The well is then flowed at a second rate for
the same length of time, followed by another shut-in. The process is repeated for a total
of 3 to 4 rates. If possible, the final flow period should be long enough to achieve
stabilized flow condition. Isochronal testing sequence is shown in Figure (2).

Figure 2 Sequence of isochronal test

2.3 Modified Isochronal Test:

The modified isochronal testing procedure was developed to obtain the same data as in
the isochronal test without spending the lengthy shut-in time required for pressure to
stabilize completely (to return to the initial reservoir pressure) before each flow test is
run. In this testing method, the well is shut in for the same length of time that it was
allowed to flow for each chock size. The modified isochronal testing sequence is shown
in Figure (3). While the isochronal tests are modeled exactly by rigorous theory, the
modified isochronal tests are not. It uses approximations.
 Figure 3 Sequence of modified isochronal test

3 Test Data Analysis Techniques:

There are three different techniques that can be used to analyze test data:
 The empirical method.
 The modified method.
 The exact method.
3.1 The Empirical Method:
It is based on the empirical equation (back-pressure flow equation) presented by Rawlins
and Schellhardt. It is also called the classical method, since it has been in use since
1930’s. The use of this method to forecast flow rates outside the tested pressure range
can result in serious errors. The empirical method postulate the relationship between the
gas flow rate and pressure as follows:
Q g = C(p̅r 2 − pwf 2 )n → (1)
where
Qg = Gas flow rate, Mscf/d.
𝑝̅𝑟 =Average reservoir pressure, psi.
Pwf = Bottomhole flowing pressure, psi.
C = Inflow (performance) coefficient, Mscf/d/psi2, which represents the combined effect
of k , h , z , s , re/rw , T , and µ.
n = Performance exponent constant, which is introduced to compensate for the deviation
of the actual gas flow from the ideal radial flow, gas slippage and turbulence, and the
fact that “µz” product is not constant for all pressure ranges.
Depending on the flowing conditions, the exponent “n” may vary from 1.0 for
completely laminar flow to 0.5 for fully turbulent flow.
If the coefficients of the equation (i.e., n and C) can be determined, the gas flow rate Qg
at any flowing bottomhole pressure Pwf can be calculated and the IPR curve can be
constructed. Equation (1) can be re-written in the following form:
log(Q g ) = log(C) + n log(p̅2r − p2wf ) → (2)
A plot of Q g versus (p̅r 2 − pwf 2 ) on log-log paper should produce a straight line with
a slope equal to (1/n), as shown in Figure (4). This plot is commonly referred to as “the
deliverability graph” or “the back-pressure plot”.

Figure 4 Well deliverability graph

.
The deliverability exponent “n” can be determined from any two points on the straight
line, i.e., (Q g1 , ∆p12 ) and (Q g2 , ∆p22 ), according to the following expression:
log(Q g1 ) − log(Q g2 )
n= → (3)
log(∆p12 ) − log(∆p22 )
Given “n”, any point on the straight line can be used to compute the performance
coefficient “C” from:
Qg
C= n → (4)
̅r 2 − Pwf 2 )
(P

3.2 The Modified Method:

This method is based on modification of the pseudo-steady state solution of the
Diffusivity equation. The basic assumption incorporated in this method is that the
system pressure should be less than 2000 psi.
The modified method is based on re-writing the pseudo-steady state inflow equation in
a simplified form as follows:
p̅2r − p2wf = aQ g + bQ2g → (5)
or
pr 2 − pwf 2
= a + bQ g → (6)
Qg
The theoretical values of “a” and “b” can be calculated using the following equations:
1422Tµ̅z̅ re
a= (ln ( ) − 0.75 − s) → (7)
kh rw
1422Tµ̅z̅
b= D → (8)
kh
The coefficients “a” and “b” can be determined by plotting (p̅2r − p2wf )⁄Q g versus Q g
on a Cartesian scale. This linear plot should produce a straight line with a slope equal to
the actual “b” and intercept equal to the actual “a” as shown in Figure (5).
Once the values of “a” and “b” have been determined, we can find Qg at any Pwf from
the following equation:
−a + √a2 + 4b(pr 2 − pwf 2 )
Qg = → (9)
2b
By assuming different values of Pwf and calculating Qg , the current IPR of the gas well
at the current reservoir pressure ̅
Pr can be generated.

Figure 5 Test data analysis (the modified method)

3.3 The Exact Method:
This method is also called the theoretical and the analytical method. It is based on the
original analytical solution derived for the pseudo-steady state case. This method is more
accurate than the previous two methods for all pressure ranges. The main difficulty with
this method is the need to calculate the pseudo-gas potential at each pressure.
The exact method is based on the original pseudo-steady state inflow equation. The
equation can be re-written in the following simplified form:
m(p̅r ) − m(pwf ) = aQ g + bQ g 2 → (10)
or
m(p̅r ) − m(pwf )
= a + bQ g → (11)
Qg
where
1422 re
a= (ln ( ) − 0.75 − s) → (12)
kh rw
1422
b= D → (13)
kh
The pseudo gas potential at any pressure is defined by the following equation:
p
2p p2 − p2b
m(p) = ∫ dp ≈ → (14)
µz µ̅z̅
pb

where
Pb = The base pressure.
The coefficients “a” and “b” can be determined by plotting (m(p̅r ) − m(pwf ))⁄Q g
versus Q g on a Cartesian scale. This linear plot should produce a straight line with a
slope equal to “b” and intercept equal to “a” as shown in Figure (6).
Once the values of “a” and “b” have been determined, we can find Qg at any Pwf from
the following equation:
 −a + √a2 + 4b(m (p̅r ) − m(pwf ))
Qg = → (15)
2b

Figure 6 Test data analysis (the exact method)

4 Case Study: Gas Well Deliverability Analysis

Well and Measurement Information

General Information
Oil Company Waha
Field Faregh
Well Name BB6-59
Zone Sarir Sandstone
Country Libya
Operation Data
Test Date 03 to 22-Dec-09
Test Type Production Test
Rig / Installation Rig-Less
Well Data
Well Type Production Well
Fluid Type Gas Condensate
Depth Information
Total Depth 10392 ft
Depth Reference KB
Well Head
Head N/A
Choke FMF-F/794
Separators
Separator A SEP-C/773
Gravitometers
Oil Hydrometer
Gas Ranarex
 PVT Analysis (Constant Composition Expansion Study)
At: 226 °F (107.8 °C)

Reservoir Gas Condensate Properties

Pressure Relative Density Compressibility Z- Retrograde

Vol. liquid
(psia) (gm/cc) (1/psia) Factor
(cc/cc) Volume
(%)
5820 0.8448 0.2994 1.0498
5610 0.8608 0.2938 9.370E-05 1.0310
5388 0.8796 0.2875 9.883E-05 1.0117
5130 0.9025 0.2802 1.038E-04 0.9882
4951 0.9206 0.2747 1.165E-04 0.9727
4703 0.9483 0.2667 1.260E-04 0.9517
4481 0.9767 0.2589 1.372E-04 0.9337
4317 1.0000 0.2529 1.425E-04 0.9275 0.00
4084 1.0333 1.556E-04 1.96
3883 1.0698 2.003E-04 2.24
3681 1.1196 2.477E-04 3.91
3467 1.1852 2.579E-04 3.91
3253 1.2505 2.613E-04 4.68
3073 1.3139 3.439E-04 4.47
2870 1.4235 3.575E-04 6.36
2551 1.5796 3.690E-04 6.70
2269 1.7738 3.879E-04 6.92
2065 1.9140 4.952E-04 6.62
1875 2.1472 6.43
Dew Point Pressure = 4317 psia
 PVT Analysis (Constant Volume Depletion Study)
At: 226 °F (107.8 °C)
CVD Data Results
Pressure Retrograde Cumulative Gas** FVF of Z1 Z2 P/Z1 P/Z2
(psia) Liquid Produced Viscosity Liberated (psia) (psia)
Deposited Gas (cp) Gas
(% of fluid (mol% of (cf/scf)
vol. at Pd) init. fluid)
4317 0.00 0.00 0.9275 0.9275 4654 4654
4080 0.91 3.84 0.0250 0.00438 0.9235 0.9106 4447 4480
3795 2.72 9.20 0.0241 0.00438 0.9014 0.8955 4210 4238
3445 3.00 16.72 0.0226 0.00501 0.8882 0.8840 3878 3897
3123 4.96 22.90 0.0213 0.00548 0.8809 0.8676 3545 3600
2753 4.12 32.05 0.0199 0.00617 0.8745 0.8599 3148 3202
2415 5.24 39.83 0.0187 0.00705 0.8764 0.8482 2755 2847
2040 4.89 49.13 0.0175 0.00841 0.8828 0.8420 2310 2423
1714 4.82 57.03 0.0166 0.01011 0.8918 0.8311 1922 2062
1363 4.96 66.25 0.0157 0.01296 0.9097 0.8258 1498 1651
984 4.89 75.90 0.0148 0.01837 0.9302 0.8105 1058 1214
618 4.75 84.86 0.0142 0.03000 0.9541 0.7925 647 780
335to Pa 4.33 100.00 0.0137 0.05653 0.9743 0.7768 344 431
**Liberated gas viscosity is calculated from gas composition
 4.1 Well Test Data Analysis (Isochronal Test Analysis):
An isochronal test was run on the well BB6-59, and the following data was collected
from the test:

Period Choke Size Gas Rate

Period Type Start Time Duration FBHP
No. (1/64) (MMscf/d)
1 Clean up 04/12/2009 @ 06:15 11h05' 64 ….. …..
2 Resume clean up 05/12/2009 @ 02:55 18h35' 64 ….. …..
3 Flow on a fixed choke 06/12/2009 @ 09:30 07h41' 24 4287 9
4 Shut in for build up 06/12/2009 @ 05:12 06h12' ….. ….. …..
5 Flow on a fixed choke 06/12/2009 @ 11:25 07h52' 32 4186 14.1
6 Shut in for build up 07/12/2009 @ 07:17 05h58' ….. ….. …..
7 Flow on a fixed choke 07/12/2009 @ 01:15 07h46' 48 3923 25.5
8 Shut in for build up 07/12/2009 @ 09:00 14h09' ….. ….. …..
9 Flow on a fixed choke 08/12/2009 @ 11:10 10h50' 64 3746 32
10 Shut in for final build up 08/12/2009 @ 10:00 297h00' ….. ….. …..

4.2 Deliverability Analysis of Test Data:

Prepare a table of the data required for the plots and the calculations using the three
different techniques (the empirical, the modified, and the exact).
4.2.1 The Empirical Method:
Step 1: Prepare the following table:

Flow Period Choke Size (1/64) Pwf (psia) qg (MMscf/d) Pr2-Pwf2

Initial Conditions ….. 4443 0 0
1 24 4287 9 1361880
2 32 4186 14.1 2217653
3 48 3923 25.5 4350320
4 64 3746 32 5707733

Step 2: Plot Q g versus (Pr 2 − Pwf 2 ) on a log-log plot as shown in Figure (7). Draw the
best straight line through the points.
 10000000

y = 113026x1.129
R² = 0.9998

Slope = 1.129038455
Pr^2-Pwf^2

n = 1/slope = 0.885709424

1000000
1 10 100
Qg

Figure 7 The Empirical method

Step 3: Calculate the exponent “n” using Equation (3), or from Figure (7).
Step 4: Calculate the performance coefficient “C” from Equation (4).
The values of “n” and “C” are 0.885709424 and 3.31808E-05, respectively.
Step 5: Once the values of “n” and “C” are determined, the inflow performance
relationship can be represented by:
0.885709424
Q g = 3.31808 × 10−5 (p̅2r − p2wf )
Step 6: For P = 14.7 psia:
Q g = AOFP = 3.31808 × 10−5 (44432 − 14.72 )0.885709424 =96.03837731 MMscf/d
Step 7: Generate the IPR curve by assuming different values of Pwf and calculate the
corresponding Qg as shown in Figure (8).
 Pwf Qg
4443 0
4400 2.905396014
4000 22.0072806
3600 37.27220579
3200 50.24953979
2800 61.34414585
2400 70.75161271
2000 78.58640983
1600 84.92200158
1200 89.80759304
800 93.27630546
400 95.34953042
14.7 96.03837731

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000
Pwf

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Qg

Figure 8 IPR curve (the empirical method)

4.2.2 The Modified Method:
Step 1: Construct the following table:

Choke Size
Pwf (psia) qg (MMscf/d) Pr2-Pwf2 (Pr2-Pwf2)/qg
Flow Period (1/64)
Initial Conditions ….. 4443 0 0 ……
1 24 4287 9 1361880 151320
2 32 4186 14.1 2217653 157280.3546
3 48 3923 25.5 4350320 170600.7843
4 64 3746 32 5707733 178366.6563

Step 2: Plot (p̅2r − p2wf )/Q g versus Q g on a Cartesian scale and draw the best straight line
as shown in Figure (9).

180000
y = 1174.6x + 140723
175000 R² = 1

170000
(Pr^2-Pwf^2)/Qg

165000

160000

155000

150000

145000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Qg

Figure 9 The modified method

Step 3. Determine the intercept and the slope of the straight line to give:
a = intercept = 140723.0159
b = slope = 1174.636868
Step 4: Once the values of “a” and “b” are determined, the inflow performance
relationship can be represented by:
44432 − p2wf = 140723.0159Q g + 1174.636868Q2g
Step 5: For P = 14.7 psia:
Q g = AOFP

−(140723.0159) + √(140723.0159)2 + 4 × (1174.636868) × (44432 − 14.72 )

=
2 × 1174.636868
= 82.9045 MMscf/d
Step 6: Generate the IPR curve by assuming different values of Pwf and calculate the
corresponding Qg as shown in Figure (10).

Pwf Qg
4443 0
4400 2.643767
4000 22.39311
3600 36.84798
3200 48.15446
2800 57.22787
2400 64.55758
2000 70.43809
1600 75.05896
1200 78.54639
800 80.98457
400 82.42743
14.7 82.9045
5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Figure 10 IPR curve (the modified method)

4.2.3 The Exact Method:
Step 1. Construct the following table:

Pwf qg Z-Factor Viscosity P/µz m(p) (m(Pr)-m(Pwf))/qg

3746 32 0.899552 0.02389 174311.2229 830806691.2 7744973.674
3923 25.5 0.911325614 0.024504 175672.5948 892755171.3 7289830.49
4186 14.1 0.92528903 0.025335 178568.7314 985837981.1 6582118.28
4287 9 0.926993671 0.025654 180271.4575 1022081186 6284962.503
4443 0 0.932263415 0.026146 182275.0264 1078645849 ……

Step 2: Plot (m(pr ) − m(pwf ))/Q g versus Q g on a Cartesian scale and draw the best
straight line as shown in Figure (11).

9000000

8000000 y = 63277x + 6E+06

R² = 0.999
7000000

6000000
(mpr-mpwf)/qg

5000000

4000000

3000000

2000000

1000000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
qg

Figure 11 The exact method

Step 3: Determine the intercept and the slope of the straight line to give:
a = intercept = 5700447.5
b = slope = 63276.612
Step 4: Once the values of “a” and “b” are determined, the inflow performance
relationship can be represented by:
1078645849 − m(pwf ) = 5700447.5Q g + 63276.612Q2g
Step 5: For P = 14.7 psia:
Q g = AOFP

−(5700447.5) + √(5700447.5)2 + 4 × (63276.612) × (1078645849 − 0)

=
2 × 63276.612
= 93.07009216 MMscf/d
Step 6: Generate the IPR curve by assuming different values of m (Pwf) and calculate the
corresponding Qg as shown in Figure (12).

Pwf Z-Factor µg P/µZ m(P) Qg

14.7 0.9743 0.0137 1101.296 0 93.07009216
400 0.96966042 0.013814841 29860.32 11949322.24 92.38474388
800 0.9422153 0.014498361 58562.68 47364312.04 90.333154
1200 0.91851662 0.015312929 85317.08 105147922.6 86.91729097
1600 0.89761368 0.016307692 109304.5 183127131.3 82.1622371
2000 0.88390429 0.017389571 130117.6 279089625.7 76.05459501
2400 0.876656 0.018652 146776.5 389982612.7 68.58854985
2800 0.87531297 0.020077838 159322.7 512580494 59.71697993
3200 0.88264565 0.02161087 167761.1 643539277.1 49.32356057
3600 0.89404571 0.023264286 173082.5 780087213.9 37.09783279
4000 0.91729649 0.024747368 176206.2 919849840.1 22.32454243
4400 0.9306378 0.026010526 181770.3 1062991901 2.66712829
4443 0.93226341 0.026146316 182275 1078645849 0
 5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Figure 12 IPR curve (the exact method)

By comparing the gas flow rates as calculated by the three different methods, we get the
following results of the IPR calculation:

Pwf Qg (Emp.) Qg (Mod.) Qg (Exact)

4443 0 0 0
4400 2.905396 2.643767 2.6671283
4000 22.007281 22.393109 22.324542
3600 37.272206 36.847976 37.097833
3200 50.24954 48.154456 49.323561
2800 61.344146 57.227872 59.71698
2400 70.751613 64.557579 68.58855
2000 78.58641 70.438086 76.054595
1600 84.922002 75.058963 82.162237
1200 89.807593 78.546391 86.917291
800 93.276305 80.984568 90.333154
400 95.34953 82.427428 92.384744
14.7 96.038377 82.904497 93.070092
AAE (%) 3.2 6 …...
Since the exact method is considered more accurate and rigorous than the other two
methods (because it is applicable to all pressure ranges), the accuracy of each of the
methods in predicting the IPR data is compared with that of the exact method. Figure
(13) compares graphically the performance of each method with that of exact method.
Results indicate that the empirical method generated the IPR data with an absolute
average error of 3.2 % as compared with 6% for the modified method.

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000
Pwf

2500 Empirical

2000 Modified
Exact
1500

1000

500

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Qg

Figure 13 Comparison of the IPR curves of the three methods

To make sure that we have used our techniques in the right manner using excel sheets,
we have compared our results with those calculated with the computer software
(Prosper), and we have found that the absolute relative error in AOFP using excel
calculations compared to that of software calculations is as follows:

Method AOFP (Software) AOFP (Excel) ARE %

Empirical 96.195 96.038377 0.162818234
Modified 82.875 82.904497 0.035592157
Exact 92.308 93.070092 0.825596915
 Summary

 Gas reservoir deliverability is gas production rate achieved from a reservoir at a given
bottomhole flowing pressure (Pwf). It is evaluated using well inflow performance
relationship (IPR).
 Well deliverability testing provides a direct means of estimating productivity of gas
wells. Testing procedures include: Flow-after-flow test (stabilized flow test),
Isochronal test, and Modified isochronal test. The objective of these tests is to deliver
values of “C” and “n” or “a” and “b” that are used for defining well inflow
performance relationship (IPR).
 There are three different techniques that can be used to analyze test data: The
empirical method, The modified method, and The exact method.
 The exact method is considered more accurate than the two other methods because it
is applicable to all pressure ranges.
 The empirical and the modified methods are recommended for applications at
pressures below 2000 psi.
 Since the exact method is considered more accurate and rigorous than the other two
methods (because it is applicable to all pressure ranges), the accuracy of each of the
methods in predicting the IPR data is compared with that of the exact method. Results
indicate that the empirical method generated the IPR data with an absolute average
error of 3.2 % as compared with 6% for the modified method.
 When using the computer software (Prosper) to calculate the AOFP using the three
methods (the empirical, the modified, and the exact), an absolute relative error of
(0.1628%, 0.0356%, and 0.8256%), respectively, is found when comparing the excel
calculations to the software calculations.
 References

 GUO, B. and GHALAMBOR, a. Natural Gas Engineering Handbook. Houston, TX:

Gulf Publishing Co., 2005.

 Ahmed, .T, “Reservoir Engineering Handbook" fourth edition, 2010.