Production-Systems Analysis

for Fractured Wells

James L. Hunt, SPE, Halliburton Services

Summary. Production-systems analysis has been in use for many years to design completion configurations on the basis of an
expected reservoir capacity. The most common equations used for the reservoir calculations are for steady-state radial flow.
Most hydraulically fractured wells require the use of an unsteady-state production simulator to predict the higher flow rates
associated with the stimulated well. These high flow rates may present problems with excessive pressure drops through production
tubing designed for radial-flow production. Therefore, the unsteady-state nature of fractured-well production precludes the use of
steady-state radial-flow inflow performance relationships (IPR's) to calculate reservoir performance. An accurate prediction of
fractured-well production must be made to design the most economically efficient production configuration.
It has been suggested in the literature that a normalized reference curve can be used to generate the IPR' s necessary for
production-systems analysis. However, this work shows that the reference curve for fractured-well response becomes time-
dependent when reservoir boundaries are considered. A general approach for constructing IPR curves is presented, and the use of
an unsteady-state fractured-well-production simulator coupled with the production-systems-analysis approach is described. A field
case demonstrates the application of this method to fractured wells.

Introduction
Production-systems analysis has been used for many years to de-
sign completion configurations on the basis of an expected reser-
voir capacity. Often called nodal-systems analysis, this approach
has been applied to the analysis of electrical circuits and pipeline
systems. GilbertI was one of the first to propose the application
of the systems-analysis approach to well producing systems.
A typical producing system includes many components where
there is a potential for pressure drops to occur. As the well config-
uration becomes more complex, the potential for large total pres-
sure drops within the system increases. Fig. 1 presents a schematic
of a producing configuration and possible pressure drops through
the system.
It is the objective of production-systems analysis to optimize the
well configuration for maximum production capacity. This is ac-
complished by dividing the system at some point or node and cal-
culating pressure drops within each component. System components
upstream of the node are commonly referred to as the inflow; those
downstream of the node are referred to as the outflow. Relation-
ships between pressure drop and flow rate must exist for each com-
ponent. Pressure drops for various flow rates are calculated for both
inflow and outflow sections. Two conditions are necessary for pro-
duction systems analysis: (1) flow into the node must equal flow
out of the node and (2) only a single pressure can exist at the node
for a given flow rate.
With these two conditions satisfied, flow capacity of the entire
system can be determined. This is commonly achieved by plotting
node pressure vs. flow rate for both inflow and outflow; the inter-
section of inflow and outflow curves is the system flow capacity.
This is illustrated in Fig. 2. The effect of a change in any of the
components can be investigated by recalculating either the inflow
or outflow curve, depending on the location of the component to
be changed. For example, if the component is located in the out-
flow section, the outflow curve is recalculated; however, the in-
flow curve remains unchanged. Thus, the production-systems-
analysis approach can be used to evaluate existing producing sys-
tems and to aid in the design of future well configurations. Many
examples illustrating the application of the production-systems-
analysis technique exist in the literature. 2-6
To apply the systems-analysis approach to a certain well config-
uration, relationships or models must be available for determining
the pressure drop as a function of flow rate for each component
considered. For calculation purposes, the well configuration can
Copyright t 988 Society of Petroleum Engineers
be separated into several sections or modules, each containing sever-
al components. For example, the producing system shown in Fig.
1 can be separated into three general sections: flowline, well, and
reservoir. Each of these sections may be composed of one or more
components. For example, the well module may consist of a tub-
ing string composed of several different sizes, a restriction within
the tubing near the bottom of the hole, and possibly a safety valve
that also introduces a flow restriction. Models that relate pressure
drop to flow rate within a component are used to calculate the total
pressure drop at a given flow rate for each section.
Correlations for multiphase flow through pipelines are available
in the literature and are useful in determining pressure drops through
tubing and flowline components of the well system. Correlations
commonly used for calculating pressure drop through a horizontal
pipeline include Refs. 7 through 10. Various pressure-drop corre-
lations are available for flow through the vertical tubing of a
well. 7,11-14 Pressure-drop relationships for flowline and tubing sec-
tions have been in use for many years and are generally the accept-
ed models for flow through pipes. Selection of one correlation over
another depends on specific well conditions.
The reservoir is one of the most important components of the
total system because it determines what will flow into the bottom
of the well and is the most complex component of those studied
in a well system. Consequently, the reservoir must be accurately
described by an appropriate model. Various reservoir models, com-
monly called IPR's, have been described in the literature; most deal
with steady-state radial flow. For oil wells, these include Vogel's 15
equation, Standing'sl6 modification of the Vogel equation,
Fetkovich'sl7 equation, and the familiar radial form of Darcy's
equation. For gas wells, the common IPR's are the backpressure
equation and Darcy's radial-flow equation. These IPR's are ade-
quate in most cases for determining pressure drops through the reser-
voir. For hydraulically fractured wells, however, especially long
fractures and tight formations, the steady-state radial-flow IPR's
are not adequate because of the unsteady-state nature of fractured-
well flow.
Several methods of dealing with stimulated wells have been sug-
gested. One method involves a modification of the existing steady-
state radial-flow IPR equation by changing the flow efficiency to
represent the stimulated condition. 16 This approach is limited in
that flow efficiency, a steady-state concept, does not account for
the unsteady-state response of fractured wells. A second method
involves the use of published production-increase curves, such as
those described by McGuire and Sikora 18 and Soliman. 19 This sec-

608 SPE Production Engineering, November 1988

 C==~=---~
GAS SALES
LINE

SEPARATOR

LIQUID

~P1 = PR - Pwf. • LOSS IN POROUS MEDIUM

~P2 = Pwf. - Pwf • LOSS ACROSS COMPLETION
Pwf-pwh ~P3 = PUR - POR RESTRICTION
~P4 = PUSV - POSY • SAFETY VALVE
BOTTOM HOLE
RESTRICTION t ~P5 = pwh - posc • SURFACE CHOKE
~P3= _POR'
(PUR-POR) It ~P6

~P7
= Posc - Psep •
= Pwf - Pwh
IN FLOWLINE
• TOTAL LOSS IN TUBING
T-PUR
• FLOWLINE

Fig. l-Producing-configuration schematic and possible pressure drops through the system.

10'

10'

Flow Rate
Dimensionless Time

Fig. 2-Systems-analysis plot showing reservoir-inflow and

tubing-outflow curves. Fig. 3-Fractured-well type curve for e tD = 0.2.

ond approach is also limited because the production-increase curves
do not take time-dependence into account. A more involved ap-
proach, presented by Meng et al.,20 uses a fractured-well model
to develop the IPR curve for the stimulated well. Several fractured-
well models have been presented in the literature. 21-23
4. Fluid flow in both the fracture and the formation is described
by Darcy's law.
Solutions to the problem just described are presented as type
curves. The following definitions are used in the development of
type curves:

qBp.
Description of Fractured·Well Model qD= , ................................. (1)
The fractured-well model used in this work was presented by Soli- kh(Pi-Pwj)
man et al. 23 The model consists of a well intercepting a finite-
conductivity vertical fracture producing at a constant flowing pres- kt
sure under unsteady-state conditions. The fracture extends an equal tLjD=--2' ................................... (2)
distance on either side of the wellbore and fully penetrates the for- cf>p.ctLf
mation in height. The well is located in a limited reservoir consist-
ing of a square drainage area with no-flow outer boundaries. and
Additional assumptions include the following.
1. Homogeneous and isotropic formation is of constant height. Cf
2. Gravity effects are negligible. C j D = - ' ...................................... (3)
3. The reservoir fluid is single-phase and compressible. 1rkLf

SPE Production Engineering, November 1988 609

 TABLE 1-WELL AND RESERVOIR PARAMETERS FOR
FIGS. 4 THROUGH 6, 8, AND 9
Formation permeability, md
Formation thickness, ft [m)
Porosity
Initial reservoir pressure, psi [MPa) 2,394 [16.51)
Wellbore radius, in. [mm)
Drainage radius, ft [m) 2,640 [805)
Reservoir temperature, of [0C)
Gas specific gravity
o
~:~~-.-.. ---...-...-...-.. --..-.----~I.'=.'~'~~;'~~~~~'~~;:~':'i~'
~g ",
i- .......
i:'\\\
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Flow Rote (mel/d)
FIg. 4-IPR curves generated wIth Darcy equation.
Type curves are presented as plots of dimensionless flow rate vs.
dimensionless time with the ratio of the fracture half-length to reser-
voir extent as a parameter. Each type curve represents a specific
value of dimensionless fracture conductivity. An example type curve
for a CjD value of 0.2 is presented in Fig. 3. These plots are use-
ful in predicting flow rate decline over time for a fractured well.
Use of type curves for predicting fractured-well performance has
been demonstrated. 21 •23
Because of the number of type curves and the number of param-
eters that describe the type curves, it becomes much easier to use
a computer program to calculate the fractured-well performance
than to perform the necessary calculations by hand. To facilitate
ease of use, type curves are stored in the computer as continuous
functions. An appropriate interpolation scheme is used to interpo-
late between curves. The resultant type-curve simulator is able to
calculate fractured-well performance with less computation time
than would be necessary with a numerical simulator.
Fractured-Well Inflow
As mentioned previously, many common IPR's describe steady-
state radial flow. An example of this type of IPR equation is the
radial form of Darcy's law, which can be used to generate an IPR
curve for an unstimulated well. A hydraulically fractured well can
be accounted for by use of the radial Darcy's-law IPR equation and
by calculating an equivalent skin based on fracture half-length with
the following equation 24 :
Lf =2rw e- s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
For the well described in Table I and a fracture half-length of 400
ft [122 m], the equivalent skin, s, is -6.4. The resultant value of
skin factor may be substituted into the Darcy's-law IPR to yield
the reservoir inflow performance curve for the stimulated case. Ap-
plying the Darcy equation IPR to a gas well described by the pa-
rameters listed in Table 1 for both unstimulated and stimulated cases
yields the inflow performance curves presented in Fig. 4. Com-
parison of the two curves shows that the inflow performance curve
generated for the hydraulically fractured case yields higher flow
rates at the same drawdown, as would be expected for a stimulated
well.
610
0.10
32 [9.8)
0.107
4 [102)
260 [127)
0.65
- --
~ --- - ~ (mel/d)
Flow Rote ~
Fig. 5-IPR curves generated with steady-state productlon-
Increase model.
400 4!iO 500
250 500 750 1000
Flow Rot.
1250
(mel/d)
1500 1750 2000
Fig. 6-Tlme-dependent IPR curves generated with fractured-
well simulator.
Application of the steady-state production-increase curves 19 to
the example gas well (Table 1) results in Fig. 5. The unstimulated
IPR curve was generated with the Darcy equation, and the
production-increase curves were used to determine the folds of in-
crease in production for the case of a 400-ft [i22-m] fracture half-
length and a CjD value of to. The IPR curve resulting from the
production increase calculation is presented as the stimulated case
in Fig. 5.
A comparison of Figs. 4 and 5 shows that the stimulated cases
yield similar results. The IPR's used to generate Figs. 4 and 5, how-
ever, are based on steady-state equations; the effect of flow-rate
decline over time, as observed in the field and predicted by the-
ory, is not taken into account. Thus, the common IPR's that describe
fractured-well response in relatively simple terms do not adequately
describe observed fractured-well performance over the life of the
well.
Applying the described type-curve simulator to the fractured gas
well presented in Table 1 produces the IPR presented in Fig. 6,
based on a 400-ft [122-m] fracture half-length and a CjD value of
to. Several curves are presented for different times in the life of
the fractured well. As time increases, the calculated flow rate at
a given drawdown decreases, as expected. This gives rise to the
expected flow-rate decline over time for a well produced at con-
stant bottomhole flowing pressure (BHFP). In addition, the
fractured-well model predicts much higher flow rates than that pre-
dicted with the radial form of Darcy's law with a negative skin factor
and steady-state production-increase curves. This is expected be-
cause of the unsteady-state nature of fractured-well flow.
SPE Production Engineering, November 1988
 Production x months after frac:
Reservoir Type: x =1
x = 30
Uquld Flow x = 6Q
Two Pha •• now
Ga. flow co
ci
co
ci

'"ci
~-;
Q.
•
ci

N
ci

O~------'--------r-------.-------'------~
O~-------r-------r-------.-------'------~ o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 q/qMAX
q/qMAX
Fig. 9-Gas-well IPR reference curve: Includes effect of reser-
Fig. 7-IPR reference curve proposed by Vogel. 15 voir boundaries.

TABLE 2-WELL AND RESERVOIR PARAMETERS FOR

Production x months after frac: FIGS. 10 AND 11
)( = 1
x = 30
x.60 Formation permeability, md 0.5
co Formation thickness, ft [m) 35 [10.7)
ci Porosity 0.30
Initial reservoir pressure, psi [MPa) 5,000 [34.47)
Wellbore radius, in. [mm) 3.48 [88.4)
Drainage radius, ft [m) 1,320 [402)
'"ci Reservoir temperature, OF [0C) 200 [93)
Gas specific gravity 0.65
Oil gravity, °API [g/cm 3) 40 [0.825)
GOR, scf/STB [std m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ) 1,000 [180.1)

this proposed straight-line relationship, the time-dependent IPR

O~-------r-------r-------.-------.------~
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
q/qMAX
Fig. 8-Gas-well IPR reference curve: without effect of reser-
voir boundaries.
Generation of IPR Curve.
For solution-gas-drive wells, Vogel 15 presents a correlation for ob-
taining IPR curves. A plot of Pwflji R vs. qlqrnax was proposed as
a reference curve to generate IPR's. Fig. 7 shows a plot of the refer-
ence curve for different reservoir types. From this plot, it is evi-
dent that a straight-line relationship exists only for single-phase
liquid flow.
Extending the concept of the straight-line reference curve to gas
wells, it has been proposed that a reference curve similar to that
of Vogel could be obtained from which the IPR could be generat-
ed. Meng et ai. 20 proposed that use of real-gas pseudopressures 25
to plot PpwtfPjJR vs. q(t)lqmax(t) obtains a straight-line relationship
that holds throughout the entire producing life of the gas well. From
curves can be generated.
The type-curve simulator described earlier was used to generate
a normalized reference curve for the fractured gas well described
by the properties listed in Table I without the effect of reservoir
boundaries; all pressures were converted to pseudopressures. The
resultant plot, presented in Fig. 8, shows that a relatively straight-
line relationship results when pseudopressures are used and the ef-
fect of boundaries is not considered; the reference curve also ex-
hibits no significant time-dependence. When the effects of the
reservoir boundaries are considered, however, the reference curve
becomes time-dependent, as shown in Fig. 9. A significant devia-
tion from the straight-line relationship exists, which increases with
time. Thus, boundaries have a pronounced effect on the proposed
reference curve. Consequently, when the effect of a closed drainage
region on fractured-well performance is considered, the time-
dependent IPR curves should be generated directly using the type-
curve simulator to calculate flow-rate decline over time at various
BHFP's. From the resultant output, flow rates at the various pres-
sures are then plotted as a graph of BHFP vs. flow rate with time
as a parameter. The resultant plot presents time-dependent IPR
curves for the fractured well.
Effect of Stimulation and Tubing Size
Production-systems analysis is useful in designing completion con-
figurations for new wells. Table 2 presents well and reservoir pa-
rameters for a proposed oil well. A systems-analysis plot for two
different tubing sizes is shown in Fig. 10. The Darcy equation was

SPE Production Engineering, November 1988 611

 ~fo~.~~[~u.~".~n.~,~=o~--------------------r.=~~~~~
TABLE 3-WELL AND RESERVOIR PARAMETERS FOR
FIGS. 12 THROUGH 15

Formation permeability, md 0.030

Formation thickness, ft [m) 12 [3.7)
Porosity 0.18
Initial reservoir pressure, psi [MPa) 3,950 [14.89)
Wellbore radius, in. [mm) 3.94 (100)
Drainage radius, ft [m) 2,640 (805)
Reservoir temperature, OF [0C) 180 (82)
Gas specific gravity 0.73

o
o
o

o l,=800ft
~~------------------r=~~~
o-!,----.---.---,---,----,---r---.---,-~._--~ \,
o 10 20 30 ~o 50 60 70 BO 90 100
I \'
Flow Rale (sIb/d)
o
iI \\,\ ,
~~ i \.\
Fig. 10-Systems-analysls plot showing effect of tubing size: -
a. '
I
\ . "-,
Darcy-equatlon IPR. e i \ \.
~! \ \
fo"O! \\,
i- -\.._._._._.-.:.\_._\_._._._._._._._._._._._.-
---------
Q." I \ "
~ i \ \
~----~-~----------
TI",.·',"o
__ ._._. ._.-
~g !
TI",.·',"o
Tlm.·18mo
. \. ...
~.~~el.~a~~!~~:,'
2.U2LD.Tublnl
G S! -r--------------\-------:------------------------------ ---
I \ "
i
\
250 500 750 1000 1250 1500
Flow Rate (mcf/d)

Fig. 12-Systems-analysls plot showing effect of wellhead

pressure.

100 200 300 .. 00 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Flow Ral. (stb/d) \ \'
o
~ ! \\
Fig. 11-Systems-analysls plot showing effect of tubing size: I \ "
fractured-well-simulator IPR's. ° \ \ '.
~~ \ \\
..e- I \ ...
3~'
g ! \ \ ... "
used to generate the reservoir inflow and the Hagedorn and 5 i N \. \.
.to i \ "
Brown 13 correlation was used to generate the tubing outflow -g~ I \ . \ '
curves. For the particular conditions presented in Table 2, the ~! \ \,
system-flow capaci7, for the smaller-diameter tubing is 72 STBID ~g ! \ \
I \ "
[11.4 stock-tank mId] but 63 STBID [10.0 stock tank m 3 /d] for i \ ...
~ i \ '.
the larger-diameter tubing. To maximize production on the basis
i i\ ' "...
of information presented in Fig. 10, this well would most likely o i
be completed with the smaller-diameter tubing. The type-curve ~+-----,-----,-----.-----,-----.-----.-----
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 ' ..DO
simulator was used to generate the IPR curves presented in Fig. Flow Rat. (mel/d)
11 to investigate the effect that a 4OO-ft [122-m] fracture half-length
would have on the system flow capacity. From this plot, it is ap- Fig. 13-Systems-flow capacity as a function of wellhead
parent that early in the life of the well, a larger-diameter tubing pressure and time.
would be needed to obtain maximum production capacity. The
difference in flow rates between the two tubing sizes at 1 month
after fracturing is about 100 STBID [15.9 stock-tank m 3 /d], a sig-
nificant difference. Later, however, it would be necessary to change [244-m] hydraulic fracture is needed to produce this well econom-
to the smaller-size tubing to maintain maximum production capac- ically. It is desired to determine the productive capacity of this well
ity. In this case, through the use of a fractured-well simulator to at various wellhead pressures for 1.995-in. [50.67-mm] -ID tubing.
calculate time-dependent IPR curves, the time at which the tubing Constructing IPR curves for the fractured case with the fractured-
should be changed to a smaller diameter could be estimated for the well type-curve simulator yields the time-dependent inflow curves
stimulated condition. This type of analysis is not possible when a presented in Fig. 12. The radial-inflow curve was calculated for
steady-state inflow equation is used to calculate the reservoir per- the unstimulated case with the radial form of Darcy's law and is
formance. presented for comparison. Outflow curves were generated for var-
ious wellhead pressures with the Cullender and Smith 14 correla-
Effect of Wellhead Pressure and tion for gas flow. For simplicity, the flowline section was not
Fracture Half-Length considered.
The production-systems-analysis approach has been applied to a Fig. 13 was constructed by plotting the intersections of the out-
south Texas gas well described by the well and reservoir parame- flow and inflow curves from Fig. 12 (production capacity at each
ters presented in Table 3. This well is typical of many of the gas wellhead pressure and time) as wellhead pressure vs. flow rate.
wells drilled in that area. It is anticipated that at least an 800-ft The resultant plot presents system-flow capacity as a function of
612 SPE Production Engineering, November 1988
 ~ P""" = 900 psi
o It = 800 ft. P",,,, = 900 ptl
!l o
o
~

0
0 o
0 o

"
0
~o

~CQ
<.>
.s 0
.!~
0
Q:
~
0 0
G:~

0
1l

• . • " 16 2.
Time (mo.)
U 2. 32 3.
12 16 20
Time (mo.)
u 2.

Fig. 15-Flow-rate profile showing effect of fracture length

Fig. 14-Flow-rate profile for constant wellhead pressure. at constant wellhead pressure.

wellhead pressure and time. From Fig. 13, the effect of producing P DSV = pressure downstream of safety valve, psi
at constant wellhead pressure can be determined by plotting flow [kPa]
rate vs. time at constant wellhead pressure. Fig. 14 plots predicted Pe = reservoir pressure at X e , psi [kPa]
flow rate vs. time at constant wellhead pressure (900 psi [6200 kPaD Pi = initial reservoir pressure, psi [kPa]
for a fracture half-length of 800 ft [244 m]. This type of plot can PPR = real-gas pseudopressure, average reservoir,
be constructed for various constant wellhead pressures to determine
106 psi 2 /cp [kPa 2 /Pa' s]
the flow-rate-vs.-time profile for the fractured well.
Ppwf = real-gas pseudopressure, wellbore flowing,
This procedure can also be used to compare the effect of frac-
ture half-length on producing at constant wellhead pressure. Fig. 106 psi 2 /cp [kPa 2 /Pa's]
15 presents the predicted flow-rate-vs.-time profiles at a constant jiR = average reservoir pressure, psi [kPa]
wellhead pressure of 900 psi [6200 kPa] for fracture half-lengths Psep = separator pressure, psi [kPa]
of 800 and 1,200 ft [244 and 366 m]. The effect of several differ- PUR = pressure upstream of flow restriction, psi
ent fracture half-lengths can be investigated in this manner. Thus, [kPa]
by use of the production-systems-analysis approach coupled with PUSV = pressure upstream of safety valve, psi [kPa]
a fractured-well simulator, production can be maximized for a given Pwf = BHFP, psi [kPa]
set of conditions for fractured wells producing under unsteady-state Pwfs = BHFP at sandface, psi [kPa]
conditions.
Pwh = wellhead pressure, psi [kPa]

Conclusions L!..pl' . ·llPs = component pressure drop, psi [kPa]

q = flow rate, STB/D [stock-tank m3 /d] or
1. The production-systems-analysis approach is useful in evalu-
MscflD [std m 3 /d]
ating existing producing systems and in the design of new well con-
qD = dimensionless flow rate
figurations.
2. IPR's generated with steady-state radial-flow models or pub- qmax = flow rate at BHFP=O, STB/D [stock-tank
lished production-increase curves do not adequately model fractured- m 3 /d] or MscflD [std m 3 /d]
well performance. Because of the time-dependent nature of rw = wellbore radius, ft [m]
fractured-well response, production-systems analysis is accom- s = equivalent skin
plished more effectively with a fractured-well simulator used to t = time, hours
generate the IPR curves. tLjD = dimensionless time (fractured system)
3. A fractured-well model that considers finite-conductivity ver- Xe = drainage distance, ft [m]
tical fractures and reservoir boundaries is useful in constructing Jl. = fluid viscosity, cp [Pa' s]
time-dependent IPR curves for fractured wells.
¢ = porosity, fraction
4. The influence of reservoir boundaries on fractured-well per-
formance causes the reference IPR curve proposed in the literature
to be time-dependent. Acknowledgment
5. The effect of a change in producing conditions on fractured- I thank the management of Halliburton Services for permission to
well response can readily be investigated through the application prepare and publish this paper.
of production-systems analysis.
References
Nomenclature
I. Gilbert, W.E.: "Flowing and Gas-Lift Well Performance," Drill. &
B = FVF, RBISTB [res m 3 /stock-tank m 3] Prod. Prac., API, Dallas (1954) 126-57.
Ct = total compressibility, psi - 1 [kPa -I ] 2. Brown, K.E. and Lea, J.F.: "Nodal Systems Analysis of Oil and Gas
Cf = fracture conductivity, md-ft [md' m] Wells," JPT(Oct. 1985) 1751-63.
3. Cheng, M.C.A.: "Perforating Damage and Shot Density Analyzed,"
CjD = dimensionless fracture conductivity
Oil & Gas J. (March 4, 185) 112-15.
h = formation thickness, ft [m] 4. Myers, B.W., Clinton, L., and Carlson, N.R.: "Productivity Analy-
k = formation permeability, md sis Tells Where, How Much to Perforate," World Oil (July 1985) 71-75.
Lf = fracture half-length, ft [m] 5. Mach, J., Proano, E.A., and Brown, K.E.: "Application of Produc-
PDR = pressure downstream of flow restriction, psi tion Systems Analysis to Determine Completion Sensitivity on Gas Well
Production," paper 81-Pet-13 presented at the 1981 ASME Energy-
[kPa] Sources Technology Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Jan. 18-22.
PDSC = pressure downstream of surface choke, psi 6. Eickmeier, J .R.: "How to Accurately Predict Future Well Productivi-
[kPa] ties," World Oil (May 1968) 99-106.

SPE Production Engineering, November 1988 613

 7. Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P.: "A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined
Pipes," JPT(May 1973) 607-14; Trans., AIME, 255.
8. Dukler, A.E. et al.: "Gas-Liquid Flow in Pipelines, I. Research Re-
sults," AGA-API Project NX-28, U. of Houston, Houston, TX (May
1969).
9. Flanigan, 0.: "Effect of Uphill Flow on Pressure Drop in Design of
Two-Phase Gathering Systems," Oil & Gas J. (March 10, 1958).
10. Eaton, B.A. et al.: "The Prediction of Flow Pattern, Liquid Holdup
and Pressure Losses Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow
in Horizontal Pipelines," JPT(June 1%7) 815-28; Trans., AIME, 240.
11. Duns, H. Jr. and Ros, N.C.J.: "Vertical Flow of Gas and Liquid Mix-
tures in Wells," Proc., Sixth World Pet. Cong., Frankfurt-on-Main
(1963) 451.
12. Orkiszewski, J.: "Predicting Two-Phase Pressure Drops in Vertical
Pipes," JPT (June 1967) 829-38; Trans., AIME, 240.
13. Hagedorn, A.R. and Brown, K.E.: "Experimental Study of Pressure
Gradients Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Small-
Diameter Vertical Conduits," JPT (April 1%5) 475-84; Trans., AIME,
234.
14. Cullender, M.H. and Smith, R.V.: "Practical Solution of' Gas-Flow
Equations for Wells and Pipelines with Large Temperature Gradients,"
JPT (Dec. 1956) 281-87; Trans., AIME, 207.
15. Vogel, J.V.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive
Wells," JPT (Jan. 1968) 83-92; Trans., AIME, 243.
16. Standing, M.B.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for Damaged Wells
Producing by Solution-Gas Drive," JPT (Nov. 1970) 1399-1400.
17. Fetkovich, M.J.: "The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells," paper SPE
4529 presented at the 1973 SPE Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Sept.
30-Oct.3.
18. McGuire, W.J. and Sikora, V.J.: "The Effect of Vertical Fractures
on Well Productivity," JPT(Oct. 1960) 72-74; Trans., AIME, 219.
19. Soliman, M.Y.: "Modifications to Production Increase Calculations
for a Hydraulically Fractured Well," JPT (Jan. 1983) 170-72.
614
20. Meng, H. et aI.: "Production Systems Analysis of Vertically Fractured
Wells," paper SPE 10842 presented at the 1982 SPEIDOE Unconven-
tional Gas Recovery Symposium, Pittsburgh, May 16-18.
21. Agarwal, R.G, Carter, R.D., and Pollock, C.B.: "Evaluation and Pre-
diction of Performance of Low-Permeability Gas Wells StiplUlated by
Massive Hydraulic Fracturing," JPT(March 1979) 362-72; Trans.,
AIME,267.
22. Cinco-L., H., Samaniego-V., F., and Dominquez-A., N.: "Transient
Pressure Behavior for a Well With a Finite-Conductivity Vertical Frac-
ture," SPEJ (Aug. 1978) 253-64.
23. Soliman, M.Y., Venditto, J.J., and Slusher, G.L.: "Evaluating Frac-
tured Well Performance Using Type Curves," paper SPE 12598 present-
ed at the 1984 SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference,
Midland, March 8-9.
24. Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Raghavan, R.: "Applied Pres-
sure Analysis for Fractured Wells," JPT(July 1975) 887-92; Trans.,
AIME,259.
25. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Crawford, P.B.: "The Flow
of Real Gases Through Porous Media," JPT (May 1966) 624-36;
Trans., AIME, 237.
51 Metric Conversion Factors
bbl x 1.589873 E-Ol
ft x 3.048* E-01
ft3 x 2.831 685 E-02
psi x 6.894757 E+OO
'Conversion factor is exact. SPEPE
Original SPE manuscript received for review Sept. 30, 1986. Paper accepted for publics-
tion Dec. 10, 1987. Revised manuscript received Feb. 9, 1988. Paper (SPE 15931) first
presented at the 1986 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in Columbus, OH, Nov. 12-14.
SPE Production Engineering, November 1988