SPE

International

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 98796

A SIMPLE APPROACH TO MODELLING GAS WELL DELIVERABILITY

Vincent O. Eme, SPE; Chevron Nigeria Limited

Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

method is adequate for most gas reservoirs except for
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 29th Annual SPE International those under strong water drives.
Technical Conference and Exhibition in Abuja, Nigeria, August 1 -3, 2005.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum
Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as
presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject
to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for
commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract
of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must
contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836,
U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The Petroleum industry has recognized the value of
monetizing gas resources. The Nigerian Government
has stated its desire to grow the gas business.
Numerous gas projects are either being planned or in
the execution phase. The objective of this paper is to
present a simple screening tool for evaluating gas well
performance.
Numerical simulation is expensive and time consuming.
Analytical approach to predicting gas performance is
needed as a screening tool. The three components to
performance prediction are: Initial rate estimate,
prediction of rate decline as reservoir pressure
depletes, and prediction of reservoir pressure decline
due to production.
This paper shows that the decline in gas rate for
various tubing sizes (3 ½”, 4 ½”, 5-1/2”, and 7”) on a
dimensionless or normalized scale is similar. The
resulting relationship combined with the material
balance equation for depletion drive reservoirs gives a
method of predicting performance of gas wells. This
The proposed paper will present details of how to
develop a deliverability model for gas wells from very
basic data. The forecast from this model will be
compared with a 3-D numerical simulation result. The
results from this method are close to those obtained
from 3-D numerical simulation.
Introduction
Demand for natural gas is expected to grow faster than
any other fuel. Numerous LNG projects are being
planned to meet the ever rising energy needs.
Developing a reservoir depletion plan is the first step in
any gas development project.
Gas reservoirs, with the exception of low permeability
reservoirs, deplete in a volumetric manner because the
gas voidage is much higher than the water influx.
Arthur et al1 and Corbett2 presented methods for
forecasting gas well performance. These methods
require more data than is usually available to the
Reservoir Engineer. During the appraisal stage of a
reservoir, the available data is usually limited to basic
petrophysical properties obtained from wireline logs.
The objective of this paper is to present a method of
forecasting gas well deliverability from readily
available data. The method presented assumes
volumetric depletion and negligible water production.
This work will show how to develop generalized tubing
performance relationships from nodal analysis. In
combination with the material balance equation, a
method for forecasting gas well performance will be
presented. In addition, a method for forecasting
condensate production will also be presented.
2 A Simple Approach to Modelling Gas Well Deliverability SPE 98796

Forecasting Procedure Figures 1 -4 show a plot of initial gas rate versus

The following steps outline the procedure for making a formation permeability for 3 ½”, 4 ½”, 5 ½” and 7”
production forecast: tubing sizes. The following relationship between Initial
gas rate (MMSCF/D) and formation permeability (mD)
STEP 1. was derived for the four tubing sizes:
Estimate permeability from a correlation. Table 1: Initial Gas Rate Correlation
The Coates and Denoo3 equation can be used: Tubing Size Initial Gas rate Correlation
K 1 / 2 = 100φe 2 [(1 − S wi ) S wi ] (1) 3 ½” Q = 40 *[1 - Exp(-0.0428 * Perm)]
4 ½” Q = 80 *[1 - Exp(-0.025 * Perm)]
STEP 2
Estimate initial gas rate from nodal analysis derived 5 ½” Q = 130 *[1 - Exp(-0.025 * Perm)]
relationship. 7” Q = 250 *[1 - Exp(-0.0128 * Perm)]

STEP 3 Initial Gas Rate Versus Formation Permeability for 3 1/2" TBG

Estimate gas rate as a function of reservoir pressure 50

from relationship between normalized gas rate and

40
reservoir pressure.

Gas rate (MMSC

30

STEP 4
20
Take successive pressure decrements and calculate Q = 40 *[1 - Exp(-0.0428 * Perm)]

cumulative gas produced from 10

Gp = Gi [ 1 - (Zi/Pi)/(Z/Pr)] (2) 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Figure 1 Formation Permeability (MD)

STEP 5 Initial Gas Rate Versus Formation Permeability for 4 1/2" TBG

Calculate incremental production time, ∆t from 100

∆t = ∆Gp/(Average gas rate) 80

Gas rate (MMSC

Total Production time = Σ ∆t 60

40

STEP 6 Q = 80 *[1 - Exp(-0.025 * Perm)]

20
Estimate initial condensate yield from a correlation.
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Estimate condensate yield at current reservoir pressure Figure 2 Formation Permeability (MD)

from a relationship between relative yield and relative Initial Gas Rate Versus Formation Permeability for 5 1/2" TBG

pressure derived from Constant Volume Depletion 150

experimental data. 120

Gas rate (MMSC

Condensate rate = Condensate Yield * Gas rate 90

60

Estimation of Initial Gas Rate Q = 130 *[1 - Exp(-0.025 * Perm)]

30

The initial gas rate estimate can be done via any Nodal
analysis program. The first step is to define a type well 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Figure 3
with properties that cover a good range in the reservoirs Formation Permeability (MD)

of interest. The type well should be adequate to model Initial Gas Rate Versus Formation Permeability for 7" TBG

wells with depths within ±2000 ft TVD. Two to three 300

type wells might be required in some fields to cover the 250

entire productive intervals.

Gas rate (MMSCF

200

For this exercise a type well with the following 150

properties was used:

100

Depth of Well: 8000 FT TVD, Net Pay =50 ft 50

Q = 250 *[1 - Exp(-0.0128 * Perm)]

Initial Pressure = 3600 psig

Initial Temperature = 214oF 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Condensate Yield =50 STB/MMSCF Figure 4 Formation Permeability (MD)

3 A Simple Approach to Modelling Gas Well Deliverability SPE 98796

Gas Rate as a function of reservoir pressure Normalized Gas Rate Versus Normalized Reservoir Pressure
Well at 8000 ft TVD with 50 - 500 MD Permeability
(500 psig Well Head Pressure Constraint)
1.00
The gas rate declines as reservoir pressure depletes.
The effect of reservoir pressure decline on gas rate of 0.80

Dimensionless Gas rate (Q/Qi)

the type well was modeled with a nodal analysis 3 1/2" TBG 4 1/2" TBG

program. Figure 5 is a plot of gas rate versus reservoir 0.60

5 1/2" TBG 7" TBG

pressure for the four tubing sizes. The gas rate decline
is linear with reservoir pressure. 0.40

(Q/Qi) = 1.20 (P/Pi) - 0.20

A plot of normalized gas rate (rate/initial rate) versus 0.20

normalized reservoir pressure (pressure/initial pressure)

for all tubing sizes is on Figures 6 –8. These plots 0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
show that the normalized gas rate is independent of Figure 6
Dimensionless Reservoir Pressure (P/Pi)

tubing size and formation permeability. The only factor Normalized Gas Rate Versus Normalized Reservoir Pressure
that affects the normalized gas rate is the back pressure Well at 8000 ft TVD with 50 - 500 MD Permeability
(750 psig Well Head Pressure Constraint)
imposed on the system. The importance of this finding 1.00

is that one relationship is adequate to model the gas rate

decline for various tubing sizes and formation 0.80

Dimensionless Gas rate (Q/Qi)

3 1/2" TBG 4 1/2" TBG
permeabilities. The derived relationship is shown on 5 1/2" TBG 7" TBG
the following table. 0.60

0.40
Table 2: Normalized Gas rate versus reservoir pressure (Q/Qi) = 1.28 (P/Pi) - 0.28

0.20

Wellhead Normalized Gas rate versus 0.00

Pressure (Psig) Reservoir pressure Correlation 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Figure 7 Dimensionless Reservoir Pressure (P/Pi)

500 (Q/Qi) = 1.20 (Pr/Pi) - 0.20 Normalized Gas Rate Versus Normalized Reservoir Pressure
Well at 8000 ft TVD with 50 - 500 MD Permeability
750 (Q/Qi) = 1.28 (Pr/Pi) - 0.28 (1000 psig Well Head Pressure Constraint)
1.00
3 1/1" TBG 4 1/2" TBG
1000 (Q/Qi) = 1.46 (Pr/Pi) - 0.46 5 1/2" TBG 7" TBG
0.80
Dimensionless Gas rate (Q/Qi)

0.60
Gas Rate Versus reservoir Pressure
(Well Head Pressure =500 psig)
250 0.40
3 -1/2" TBG 4 1/2" TBG
(Q/Qi) = 1.46 (P/Pi) - 0.46
5 1/2" TBG 7" TBG
200 0.20
Gas rate (MMSCFD)

150 0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Figure 8 Dimensionless Reservoir Pressure (P/Pi)
100

50 Production Time
0 The incremental time (∆t) to produce an incremental
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Figure 5 Reservoir Pressure (psig) gas volume ( ∆Gp) is given by:

Incr. prod . gas, ∆Gp

Incr. time, ∆t =
Average gas rate over period

Total Production time = Σ∆t

The cumulative produced gas (Gp) is obtained from

equation 2.
4 A Simple Approach to Modelling Gas Well Deliverability SPE 98796

Condensate rate forecast Relative Condensate Yield Versus Relative Pressure for typical
Gas Condensate Reservoirs
1

The initial condensate yield can be obtained from a drill

stem test or a production test. An initial yield versus

(Relative to initial Condensate Yield)

0.8

Relative Condensate Yield

reservoir temperature or initial pressure correlation can 2
y = 0.5669x - 0.0494x + 0.4784
be made if there is sufficient data. The following yield 0.6

correlation based on the data from Susan Jemmont et

al4 can be used in the absence of any data (see Figure 0.4

9).
0.2
Initial Yield =55 BBL/MMSCFD
2

Initial Cond. Yield = 0.0067*Pr - 14.49 (3) 0

y = 0.2857x + 0.7109x - 0.0003 Initial Yield =130 bbl/MMSCF

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 10
The change in condensate yield during depletion can be Relative Pressure (Relative to Dew Point Pressure)

obtained from a constant volume depletion study of the

reservoir fluid sample. The relationship between Sample Problem
Relative Yield (yield/initial yield) and Relative
Pressure (pressure/dew point pressure) obtained from The procedure outlined will be used to forecast gas and
the data forms the basis for estimating condensate yield condensate production profile (unconstrained) for a
at any reservoir pressure. The following relationship reservoir with the following properties:
derived from lab measurements (see Figure 10) can be
used to estimate condensate yield profile during Original Gas in place = 400 BSCF
depletion: Porosity =0.25, Water Saturation = 0.25
Depth =10,000 FT TVDSS, Net Sand = 60 ft
Relative Initial Pressure =4500 psig,
Yield =0.5667(Pr/Pd)2-0.0494(Pr/Pd)+0.4784 (4) Dew Point Pressure =4500 psig
Reservoir Temperature =255oF
Relative Tubing size = 4 ½”, Well Head Pressure = 500 psig
Yield =0.2857(Pr/Pd)2+0.7109(Pr/Pd)-0.0003 (5)
Step 1
Condensate rate = Condensate Yield * Gas rate Estimate Permeability from equation (1)
(STB/Day) (STB/MMSCF) (MMSCF/D) Permeability = 352 mD

Initial Condensate Yield Correlation based onTrinidad Gas Reservoirs Step 2

60
(SPE 81011)
Estimate initial gas rate from equation in Table 1 for
50
4 ½” tubing:
Initial gas rate = 80 MMSCF/D
Initial Yield (STB/MMSCF)

40

30 Estimate initial Condensate Yield from equation (3)

20
Initial Condensate Yield = 15.6 STB/MMSCF/D
10 Initial Cond. Rate = 80 *15.6 = 1247 BCPD
Initial Yield = 0.0067*Pressure - 14.488
0
2000 3000 4000 5000
Inital Reservoir Pressure (Psig)
6000 7000 8000
Step 3
Figure 9 Cassia Teak Immortelle Flamboyant Amherstia Mohogamy
Utilize 200 psi pressure decrements.
Calculate gas rate and condensate yield for 4300 psig

Calculate gas rate from equation in Table 2 for 500

psig Wellhead pressure: gas rate = 75.7 MMSCF/D

Step 4
Calculate cumulative gas produced from equation (2)
Cumulative gas produced, Gp = 11.66 BSCF

Step 5
Calculate average gas rate over period Qavg
Qavg = 0.5*(80+75.7) = 77.8 MMSCF/D
5 A Simple Approach to Modelling Gas Well Deliverability SPE 98796

Calculate incremental production time ∆t Case 1

∆t = 11.66 *1000/77.8 = 149.8 days
Sand A with the following properties:
Calculate total production time Σ∆t = 149.8 days
Original Gas in place = 243 BSCF
Porosity =0.24, Water Saturation = 0.25
Step 6
Depth =7,500 FT TVDSS, Net Sand = 60 ft
Calculate Condensate Yield from equation (4)
Initial Pressure =3700 psig,
Condensate Yield = 14.86 STB/MMSCF/D
Dew Point Pressure =3700 psig
Condensate rate = 14.86 * 75.7 = 1125 BCPD
Reservoir Temperature =210 oF
Permeability = 800 mD
Repeat Steps 3 to 6 for a new pressure until well
Initial Condensate Yield = 45 STB/MMSCF
reaches economic limit.
Tubing size = 4 ½”, =Wellhead Pressure = 500 psig
Figures 13 and 14 compare model forecast with 3-D
Tables 3 to 6 contain the complete solution for one-
simulation prediction for a one well development
well and two-well development scenarios for the
scenario constrained to a 50 MMSCF/D offtake gas
sample problem. Figure 11 shows the impact of back
rate. The model prediction is close to the 3-D
pressure on the gas rate and recovery. A comparison
simulation forecast.
of two-well development for an unconstrained and
constrained production scenario is shown on Figure
Comparison of model Gas prediction and 3-D Numerical Simulation
12. forecast for Sand A
60 240

Model Forecast for 1 well Development Scheme

50 200
Impact of Well Head Pressure
100 400.00

Gas rate (MMSCFD)

40 160

Gas Cum. (BSCF)

Cumulative Gas Produced (BSCF)

RF=79%
80 320.00
30 120
Gas rate (MMSCFD)

RF=64%
60 240.00 20 80

40 160.00 10 40
Simple Model
Well Head Press =1000 psig 3D Simulation
Well Head Press = 500 psig 0 0
20 80.00 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Figure 13 DAYS

0 0.00 Comparison of model Condensate prediction and 3-D Numerical

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 Simulation forecast for Sand A
Figure 11 Time (Days) 2500 7500

Cumulative Condensate (MSTB)

2000 6000
Condensate Rate (STBD)

Model Forecast for 2 well Development

200 400 1500 4500

Simple Model
3D Simulation
Cumulative Gas Produced (BSCF)

160 320 1000 3000

Gas rate (MMSCFD)

120 240 500 1500

80 160 0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Days
40 80 Figure 14

0 0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
Figure 12 Time (Days)

2 Wells dev. (no Constraint) 2 Well Dev. (Constrained to 80 MMSCFD) Case 2

Sand B with the following properties:
Comparison with 3-D Numerical Simulation
Original Gas in place = 351 BSCF
The results from this model were compared with those Porosity =0.17, Water Saturation = 0.34
obtained from a 3-D compositional simulation model Depth =11,000 FT TVDSS, Net Sand = 90 ft
for two reservoirs. Initial Pressure =6630 psig,
Dew Point Pressure =5250 psig
6 A Simple Approach to Modelling Gas Well Deliverability SPE 98796

Reservoir Temperature =290 oF 3) The results from the method presented

Permeability = 90 mD compares well with those obtained from 3-D
Initial Condensate Yield = 140 STB/MMSCF numerical simulation.
Tubing size = 3 ½”, Well Head Pressure = 500 psig 4) The use of normalized tubing performance
curves makes evaluation of various depletion
Figures 15 and 16 show a comparison of this model schemes easy and less time consuming.
with the simulation model for a three-well development 5) The method presented has the added
scenario constrained to a 75 MMSCF/D total offtake advantage of providing gas and condensate
gas rate. The model result compares well with those of production profiles.
the 3-D simulation.
Nomenclature
Comparison of model Gas Prediction and 3-D Numerical Simulation forecast For
Sand B
80 240 K = Permeability, mD
φe =Effective Porosity, fraction
60 180
Swi= Irreducible Water Saturation, fraction
Gi= Original Gas in place, BSCF
Gas rate (MSCFD)

Gas Cum. (BSCF)

40 120
Gp= Cumulative gas produced, BSCF
Simple Model
3D Simulation Pr= Reservoir Pressure, psig
Pd= Dew point Pressure, psig
20 60
Qi = Initial Gas rate, MMSCF/D
Q = Gas rate, MMSCF/D
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Figure 15 Time (Days) Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank the management of
Chevron Nigeria Limited for the support and
Comparison of model Condensate prediction and 3-D Numerical
Simulation forecast For Sand B permission to publish this work. Special thanks to my
12000 24000 co-workers for their critical review of the material
10000 20000
presented herein.
Cumulative Condensate (MSTB)
Condensate Rate (STBD)

8000 16000 References

6000 12000 1. Arthur J.E, et. al., “Material Balance Modelling and
Simple Model
3D Simulation performance Prediction of a Composite Gas
4000 8000
Reservoir”, SPE 26194 presented at the SPE Gas
2000 4000
Technology Symposium, Calgary, Canada in June
1993.
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0
6000
2. Corbett T.G, et al, “An Analysis of and correction
Figure 16 Time (Days) Method for Gas Deliverability Curves”, SPE 14208
presented at SPE conference, Las Vegas, U.S in
1985.
Conclusions 3. Coates G.R et al, “Permeability Estimation: The
Various Sources and Their Interrelationships”, JPT
1) Normalized gas rate is independent of tubing May 1991.
size and formation permeability. 4. Susan Jemmont et al, “Condensate Performance
2) The method presented can be used to develop trends in Trinidad Gas Reservoirs”, SPE 81011
a production forecast for gas and gas presented at the SPE Conference, Port-of-Spain,
condensate reservoirs. Trinidad in April 2003.
7 A Simple Approach to Modelling Gas Well Deliverability SPE 98796

Table 3: One Well Development Scenario for sample problem

(500 psig Wellhead Pressure Constraint)

Total
Reservoir Max Gas Condensate No of Target Total gas Cum Prod Incremental Total
Z Prod.
Pressure Rate/Well Yield Wells rate/Well Rate Gas Prod. Time Cond. rate
Time
(psia) (MMSCF/D) (bbl/MMSCF) (MMSCF/D) (MMSCF/D) (BSCF) (Days) (Days) (BCPD)
4500 80.0 15.6 1 80 80 0.9650 0.0 0 0 1,247
4300 75.7 14.86 1 80 76 0.9498 11.7 150 150 1,125
4100 71.5 14.2 1 80 71 0.9362 24.3 172 322 1,011
3900 67.2 13.5 1 80 67 0.9242 38.0 197 520 906
3700 62.9 12.9 1 80 63 0.9138 52.7 225 745 809
3500 58.7 12.3 1 80 59 0.9050 68.3 256 1,001 719
3300 54.4 11.7 1 80 54 0.8978 84.7 291 1,292 636
3100 50.1 11.2 1 80 50 0.8922 102.0 330 1,622 560
2900 45.9 10.7 1 80 46 0.8882 119.9 374 1,997 490
2700 41.6 10.2 1 80 42 0.8858 138.5 426 2,422 425
2500 37.3 9.8 1 80 37 0.8850 157.7 485 2,907 366
2300 33.1 9.4 1 80 33 0.8858 177.3 557 3,464 311
2100 28.8 9.1 1 80 29 0.8882 197.2 644 4,108 261
1900 24.5 8.7 1 80 25 0.8922 217.3 755 4,863 215
1700 20.3 8.5 1 80 20 0.8978 237.6 904 5,767 172
1500 16.0 8.2 1 80 16 0.9050 257.8 1117 6,884 131
1300 11.7 8.0 1 80 12 0.9138 278.0 1453 8,337 94
1100 7.5 7.8 1 80 7 0.9242 297.9 2077 10,414 58
900 3.2 7.7 1 80 3 0.9362 317.5 3682 14,096 25

Table 4: One Well Development Scenario for sample problem

(1000 psig Wellhead Pressure Constraint)

Total
Reservoir Max Gas Condensate No of Target Cum Prod Incremental Total Cond.
Total gas Rate Z Prod.
Pressure Rate/Well Yield Wells rate/Well Gas Prod. Time rate
Time
(psia) (MMSCF/D) (bbl/MMSCF) (MMSCF/D) (MMSCF/D) (BSCF) (Days) (Days) (BCPD)
4500 80.0 15.6 1 80 80 0.9650 0.00 0 0 1,247
4300 74.8 14.86 1 80 75 0.9498 11.66 151 151 1,111
4100 69.6 14.2 1 80 70 0.9362 24.34 176 326 985
3900 64.4 13.5 1 80 64 0.9242 38.03 204 531 869
3700 59.2 12.9 1 80 59 0.9138 52.68 237 768 761
3500 54.0 12.3 1 80 54 0.9050 68.26 275 1,043 663
3300 48.8 11.7 1 80 49 0.8978 84.71 320 1,362 571
3100 43.7 11.2 1 80 44 0.8922 101.96 373 1,735 488
2900 38.5 10.7 1 80 38 0.8882 119.93 438 2,173 411
2700 33.3 10.2 1 80 33 0.8858 138.54 519 2,692 340
2500 28.1 9.8 1 80 28 0.8850 157.69 624 3,316 275
2300 22.9 9.4 1 80 23 0.8858 177.28 768 4,084 216
2100 17.7 9.1 1 80 18 0.8882 197.19 981 5,066 160
1900 12.5 8.7 1 80 13 0.8922 217.33 1333 6,398 109
1700 7.3 8.5 1 80 7 0.8978 237.58 2041 8,440 62
1500 2.1 8.2 1 80 2 0.9050 257.83 4283 12,722 18
8 A Simple Approach to Modelling Gas Well Deliverability SPE 98796

Table 5: Two Wells Development Scenario for sample problem

(500 psig Wellhead Pressure Constraint)
Total
Reservoir Max Gas Condensate No of Target Total gas Cum Incremental Total
Z Prod.
Pressure Rate/Well Yield Wells rate/Well Rate Prod Gas Prod. Time Cond. rate
Time
(psia) (MMSCF/D) (bbl/MMSCF) (MMSCF/D) (MMSCF/D) (BSCF) (Days) (Days) (BCPD)
4500 80.0 15.6 2 80 160 0.9650 0.0 0 0 2,495
4300 75.7 14.86 2 80 151 0.9498 11.7 75 75 2,250
4100 71.5 14.2 2 80 143 0.9362 24.3 86 161 2,023
3900 67.2 13.5 2 80 134 0.9242 38.0 99 260 1,813
3700 62.9 12.9 2 80 126 0.9138 52.7 113 372 1,618
3500 58.7 12.3 2 80 117 0.9050 68.3 128 501 1,438
3300 54.4 11.7 2 80 109 0.8978 84.7 145 646 1,273
3100 50.1 11.2 2 80 100 0.8922 102.0 165 811 1,120
2900 45.9 10.7 2 80 92 0.8882 119.9 187 998 980
2700 41.6 10.2 2 80 83 0.8858 138.5 213 1,211 850
2500 37.3 9.8 2 80 75 0.8850 157.7 243 1,454 732
2300 33.1 9.4 2 80 66 0.8858 177.3 278 1,732 623
2100 28.8 9.1 2 80 58 0.8882 197.2 322 2,054 522
1900 24.5 8.7 2 80 49 0.8922 217.3 378 2,432 429
1700 20.3 8.5 2 80 41 0.8978 237.6 452 2,884 343
1500 16.0 8.2 2 80 32 0.9050 257.8 558 3,442 263
1300 11.7 8.0 2 80 23 0.9138 278.0 726 4,168 188
1100 7.5 7.8 2 80 15 0.9242 297.9 1038 5,207 117
900 3.2 7.7 2 80 6 0.9362 317.5 1841 7,048 49

Table 6: Two Wells Development Scenario constrained to 80 MMSCF/D for sample problem
(500 psig Wellhead Pressure Constraint)

Reservoir Max Gas Condensate No of Target Cum Prod Incremental Total Prod. Total
Total gas Rate Z
Pressure Rate/Well Yield Wells rate/Well Gas Prod. Time Time Cond. rate

(psia) (MMSCF/D) (bbl/MMSCF) (MMSCF/D) (MMSCF/D) (BSCF) (Days) (Days) (BCPD)

4500 80.0 15.6 2 40 80 0.9650 0.0 0 0 1,248
4300 75.7 14.86 2 40 80 0.9498 11.7 146 146 1,189
4100 71.5 14.2 2 40 80 0.9362 24.3 159 304 1,133
3900 67.2 13.5 2 40 80 0.9242 38.0 171 475 1,079
3700 62.9 12.9 2 40 80 0.9138 52.7 183 659 1,029
3500 58.7 12.3 2 40 80 0.9050 68.3 195 853 981
3300 54.4 11.7 2 40 80 0.8978 84.7 206 1,059 936
3100 50.1 11.2 2 40 80 0.8922 102.0 216 1,275 894
2900 45.9 10.7 2 40 80 0.8882 119.9 225 1,499 854
2700 41.6 10.2 2 40 80 0.8858 138.5 233 1,732 818
2500 37.3 9.8 2 40 75 0.8850 157.7 248 1,979 732
2300 33.1 9.4 2 40 66 0.8858 177.3 278 2,258 623
2100 28.8 9.1 2 40 58 0.8882 197.2 322 2,580 522
1900 24.5 8.7 2 40 49 0.8922 217.3 378 2,957 429
1700 20.3 8.5 2 40 41 0.8978 237.6 452 3,409 343
1500 16.0 8.2 2 40 32 0.9050 257.8 558 3,968 263
1300 11.7 8.0 2 40 23 0.9138 278.0 726 4,694 188
1100 7.5 7.8 2 40 15 0.9242 297.9 1038 5,733 117
900 3.2 7.7 2 40 6 0.9362 317.5 1841 7,574 49