6/6/22, 2:23 PM Deliverability testing of gas wells - PetroWiki

Deliverability testing of gas wells

This article summarizes the fundamental gas-flow equations, both theoretical and empirical, used to
analyze deliverability tests in terms of pseudopressure. The four most common types of gas-well
deliverability tests are discussed in separate articles: flow-after-flow, single-point, isochronal, and
modified isochronal tests.

Contents
Types and purposes of deliverability tests
Theory of deliverability test analysis
Theoretical deliverability equations
Empirical deliverability equations
Stabilization time
Nomenclature
References
Noteworthy papers in OnePetro
External links
See also
Category

Types and purposes of deliverability tests

Deliverability testing refers to the testing of a gas well to measure its production capabilities under
specific conditions of reservoir and bottomhole flowing pressures (BHFPs). A common productivity
indicator obtained from these tests is the absolute open flow (AOF) potential. The AOF is the
maximum rate at which a well could flow against a theoretical atmospheric backpressure at the
sandface. Although in practice the well cannot produce at this rate, regulatory agencies sometimes
use the AOF to allocate allowable production among wells or to set maximum production rates for
individual wells.

Another application of deliverability testing is to generate a reservoir inflow performance relationship

(IPR) or gas backpressure curve. The IPR curve describes the relationship between surface
production rate and BHFP for a specific value of reservoir pressure (that is, either the original
pressure or the current average value). The IPR curve can be used to evaluate gas-well current
deliverability potential under a variety of surface conditions, such as production against a fixed
backpressure. In addition, the IPR can be used to forecast future production at any stage in the
reservoir’s life.

Several deliverability testing methods have been developed for gas wells. Flow-after-flow tests are
conducted by producing the well at a series of different stabilized flow rates and measuring the
stabilized BHP. Each flow rate is established in succession without an intermediate shut-in period. A
single-point test is conducted by flowing the well at a single rate until the BHFP is stabilized. This
type of test was developed to overcome the limitation of long testing times required to reach
stabilization at each rate in the flow-after-flow test.

https://petrowiki.spe.org/Deliverability_testing_of_gas_wells 1/9
6/6/22, 2:23 PM Deliverability testing of gas wells - PetroWiki

Isochronal and modified isochronal tests were developed to shorten tests times for wells that need
long times to stabilize. An isochronal test consists of a series of single-point tests usually conducted
by alternately producing at a slowly declining sandface rate without pressure stabilization and then
shutting in and allowing the well to build to the average reservoir pressure before the next flow
period. The modified isochronal test is conducted similarly, except the flow periods are of equal
duration and the shut-in periods are of equal duration (but not necessarily the same as the flow
periods).

Theory of deliverability test analysis

The theoretical equations developed by Houpeurt[1] are exact solutions to the generalized radial-flow
diffusivity equation, while the Rawlins and Schellhardt[2] equation was developed empirically. All
basic equations presented here assume radial flow in a homogeneous, isotropic reservoir and
therefore may not be applicable to the analysis of deliverability tests from reservoirs with
heterogeneities, such as natural fractures or layered pay zones. These equations should not be used to
analyze tests from hydraulically fractured wells during the fracture-dominated linear or bilinear flow
periods. Finally, these equations assume that wellbore-storage effects have ceased. Unfortunately,
wellbore-storage distortion may affect the entire test period in short tests, especially those conducted
in low-permeability reservoirs.

Theoretical deliverability equations

The early-time transient solution to the diffusivity equation for gases for constant-rate production
from a well in a reservoir with closed outer boundaries, written in terms of pseudopressure, pp,[3] is

....................(1)

where ps is the stabilized shut-in BHP measured before the deliverability test. In new reservoirs with
little or no pressure depletion, this shut-in pressure equals the initial reservoir pressure, ps = pi, while
in developed reservoirs, ps < pi.

The late-time or pseudosteady-state solution is

....................(2)

where is current drainage-area pressure. Gas wells cannot reach true pseudosteady state because
μg(p)ct(p) changes as decreases. Note that, unlike , which decreases during pseudosteady-state
flow, ps is a constant.

Eqs. 1 and 2 are quadratic in terms of the gas flow rate, q. For convenience, Houpeurt[1] wrote the
transient flow equation as

....................(3)

and the pseudosteady-state flow equation as

https://petrowiki.spe.org/Deliverability_testing_of_gas_wells 2/9
6/6/22, 2:23 PM Deliverability testing of gas wells - PetroWiki

....................(4)

where

....................(5)

....................(6)

....................(7)

The coefficients of q (at for transient flow and a for pseudosteady-state flow) include the Darcy flow
and skin effects and are measured in (psia2/cp)/(MMscf/D) when q is in MMscf/D. The coefficient of
q2 represents the inertial and turbulent flow effects and is measured in (psia2/cp)/(MMscf/D)2 when
q is in MMscf/D.

The Houpeurt equations also can be written in terms of pressure squared and are derived directly
from the solutions to the gas-diffusivity equation, assuming that μgz is constant over the pressure
range considered. For transient flow,

....................(8)

and for pseudosteady-state flow,

....................(9)

The flow coefficients are

....................(10)

....................(11)

and ....................(12)

When the Houpeurt equation is presented in terms of pressure squared, the coefficients of q are
measured in psia2/(MMscf/D) when q is in MMscf/D, while the coefficient of q2 is measured in units
of psia2/(MMscf/D)2 when q is in MMscf/D. For convenience, all equations and examples in this
section are presented with q measured in MMScf/D.
https://petrowiki.spe.org/Deliverability_testing_of_gas_wells 3/9
6/6/22, 2:23 PM Deliverability testing of gas wells - PetroWiki

The pressure-squared form of the equation should be used only for gas reservoirs at low pressures
(less than 2,000 psia) and high temperatures. To eliminate doubt about which equations to choose,
use of the pseudopressure equations, which are applicable at all pressures and temperatures, is
recommended. Consequently, all the analysis procedures in this section are presented in terms of
pseudopressure.

An advantage of the pseudopressure form of the theoretical deliverability equation is that the flow
coefficients are independent of the average reservoir pressure and, therefore, do not change as
decreases during a flow test conducted under pseudosteady-state flow unless s, k, or A changes.
Because the non-Darcy flow coefficient is a function of μg(pwf ), the coefficient b will change slightly
if the BHFP is changed. In contrast, because of the pressure dependency of the gas properties on
average reservoir pressure, the flow coefficients for the pressure-squared form of the deliverability
equation must be recalculated for every new value. When s, k, or A changes with time, the only way
to update the deliverability curve is to retest the well.

Empirical deliverability equations

In 1935, Rawlins and Schellhardt[2] presented an empirical relationship that is used frequently in
deliverability test analysis. The original form of their relation, given by Eq. 13 in terms of pressure
squared, is applicable only at low pressures:

....................(13)

In terms of pseudopressure, Eq. 13 becomes

....................(14)

which is applicable over all pressure ranges. In Eqs. 13 and 14, C is the stabilized performance
coefficient and n is the inverse slope of the line on a log-log plot of the change in pressure squared or
pseudopressure vs. gas flow rate. Depending on the flowing conditions, the theoretical value of n
ranges from 0.5, indicating turbulent flow throughout a well’s drainage area, to 1.0, indicating
laminar flow behavior modeled by Darcy’s law. The value of C changes depending on the units of flow
rate and whether Eq. 13 or 14 is used. All equations and examples in this section are presented with
q measured in MMscf/D.

Houpeurt proved that neither Eq. 13 nor Eq. 14 can be derived from the generalized diffusivity
equation for radial flow of real gas through porous media. Although the Rawlins and Shellhardt
equation is not theoretically rigorous, it is still widely used in deliverability analysis and has worked
well over the years, especially when the test rates approach the AOF potential of the well and the
extrapolation from test rates to AOF is minimal.

Stabilization time
Unlike pressure-transient tests, the analysis techniques for conventional flow-after-flow and single-
point tests require data obtained under stabilized flowing conditions. Although isochronal and
modified isochronal tests were developed to circumvent the requirement of stabilized flow, they may
still require a single, stabilized flow period at the end of the test. Consequently, there is a need to
understand the meaning of stabilization time and have a method to estimate its value.

https://petrowiki.spe.org/Deliverability_testing_of_gas_wells 4/9
6/6/22, 2:23 PM Deliverability testing of gas wells - PetroWiki

Stabilization time is defined as the time when the flowing pressure is no longer changing or is no
longer changing significantly. Physically, stabilized flow can be interpreted as the time when the
pressure transient is affected by the no-flow boundaries, either natural reservoir boundaries or an
artificial boundaries created by active wells surrounding the tested well. Consider a graph of pressure
as a function of radius for constant-rate flow at various times since the beginning of flow. As Fig. 1
shows, the pressure in the wellbore continues to decrease as flow time increases. Simultaneously, the
area from which fluid is drained increases, and the pressure transient moves farther out into the
reservoir.

Fig. 1 – Pressure distributions at

increasing times.

The radius of investigation, the point in the formation beyond which the pressure drawdown is
negligible, is a measure of how far a transient has moved into a formation following any rate change
in a well. The approximate position of the radius of investigation at any time for a gas well is
estimated by Eq. 15[4]:

....................(15)

Stabilized flowing conditions occur when the calculated radius of investigation equals or exceeds the
distance to the drainage boundaries of the well (i.e., ri ≥ re). Substituting r e and rearranging Eq. 15,
yields an equation for estimating the stabilization time, ts, for a gas well centered in a circular
drainage area:

....................(16)

As long as the radius of investigation is less than the distance to the no-flow boundary, stabilization
has not been attained and the pressure behavior is transient. To illustrate the importance of
stabilization times in deliverability testing, stabilization times were calculated as a function of
permeability and drainage area for a well producing a gas with a specific gravity of 0.6 from a
formation at 210°F and an average pressure of 3,500 psia ,
with a porosity of 10%. Table 1 shows that, for wells completed in low-permeability reservoirs, several
days—or even years—are required to reach stabilized flow, while wells completed in high-
permeability reservoirs stabilize in a short time.

https://petrowiki.spe.org/Deliverability_testing_of_gas_wells 5/9
6/6/22, 2:23 PM Deliverability testing of gas wells - PetroWiki

Table 1

A more general equation for calculating stabilization time is

....................(17)

where tDA is dimensionless time for the beginning of pseudosteady-state flow. Values for tDA are
given in Table 2 for various reservoir shapes and well locations. [5] The time required for the
pseudosteady-state equation to be exact is found from the entry in the column "Exact for tDA >."

https://petrowiki.spe.org/Deliverability_testing_of_gas_wells 6/9
6/6/22, 2:23 PM Deliverability testing of gas wells - PetroWiki

Table 2 Table 2

Table 2

The Rawlins-Schellhardt and Houpeurt deliverability equations assume radial flow. If pseudoradial
flow has been achieved, however, these analysis techniques can be used for hydraulically fractured
wells. The time to reach the pseudoradial flow regime, tprf, occurs[6] at and is estimated with

....................(18)

To illustrate the importance of achieving pseudoradial flow during a deliverability test, values of tprf
were calculated for a hydraulically fractured well completed in a reservoir with ϕ = 0.15, = 0.03 cp,
and = 1 × 10−4 psia−1 and with the range of permeabilities and hydraulic fracture half-lengths in
Table 3. The results illustrate that a well with a long fracture in a low-permeability formation will
take far too long to stabilize for conventional deliverability testing.

https://petrowiki.spe.org/Deliverability_testing_of_gas_wells 7/9
6/6/22, 2:23 PM Deliverability testing of gas wells - PetroWiki

Table 3

Nomenclature

a = , stabilized deliverability coefficient, psia2-cp/MMscf-D

af = , depth of investigation along major axis in fractured well, ft

at = , transient deliverability coefficient, psia2-cp/MMscf-D

A = drainage area, sq ft
A = πafbf , area of investigation in fractured well, ft2

b = (gas flow equation)

bf = , depth of investigation of along minor axis in fractured well, ft

= total compressibility evaluated at average drainage area pressure, psi–1

D = non-Darcy flow constant, D/Mscf
h = net formation thickness, ft
kg = permeability to gas, md
Lf = fracture half length, ft
inverse slope of the line on a log-log plot of the change in pressure squared or
n =
pseudopressure vs. gas flow rate
p = pressure, psi
= volumetric average or static drainage-area pressure, psi
pp = pseudopressure, psia2/cp
pwf = flowing BHP, psi
q = flow rate at surface, STB/D
tprf = time required to reach the pseudoradial flow regime, hours
ts = time required for stabilization, hours
T = reservoir temperature, °R
Δp = pressure change since start of transient test, psi
= gas viscosity evaluated at average pressure, cp
ϕ = porosity, dimensionless
https://petrowiki.spe.org/Deliverability_testing_of_gas_wells 8/9
6/6/22, 2:23 PM Deliverability testing of gas wells - PetroWiki

References
1. Houpeurt, A. 1959. On the Flow of Gases in Porous Media. Revue de L’lnstitut Francais du
Petrole 14 (11): 1468.
2. Rawlins, E.L. and Schellhardt, M.A. 1935. Backpressure Data on Natural Gas Wells and Their
Application to Production Practices, Vol. 7. Monograph Series, USBM.
3. Al-Hussainy, R., Jr., H.J.R., and Crawford, P.B. 1966. The Flow of Real Gases Through Porous
Media. J Pet Technol 18 (5): 624-636. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/1243-A-PA.
4. Lee, W.J. 1977. Well Testing, Vol. 1. Richardson, Texas: Textbook Series, SPE.
5. Earlougher, R.C. Jr. 1977. Advances in Well Test Analysis, Vol. 5. Richardson, Texas: Monograph
Series, SPE.
6. Lee, W.J. 1989. Postfracture Formation Evaluation. In Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing,
J.L. Gidley, S.A. Holditch, D.E. Nierode, and R.W. Veatch Jr. eds., Vol. 12. Richardson, Texas:
Monograph Series, SPE.

Noteworthy papers in OnePetro

Use this section to list papers in OnePetro that a reader who wants to learn more should definitely
read

External links
Use this section to provide links to relevant material on websites other than PetroWiki and OnePetro

See also
Flow equations for gas and multiphase flow

Fluid flow through permeable media

PEH:Fluid_Flow_Through_Permeable_Media

Category

Retrieved from "https://petrowiki.spe.org/w/index.php?title=Deliverability_testing_of_gas_wells&oldid=48455"

This page was last edited on 2 July 2015, at 16:13.

Copyright 2012-2022, Society of Petroleum Engineers

https://petrowiki.spe.org/Deliverability_testing_of_gas_wells 9/9