Chapter-1 (Gas Deliveribility)

CHAPTER 1
GAS DELIVERABILITY
FACULTY OF PETROLEUM & RENEWABLE ENERGY ENGINEERING

(FPREE) 1
Innovative. Entrepreneurial . Global
Gas Deliverability
• The application of gas Well deliverability
TOPIC • Derivation of Gas Well Deliverability Equation
• Types of Deliverability Test
• Deliverability Tests Calculation
Expected Outcomes
Students should be able to
• Explain the application of gas well deliverability
and the relationships between the gas production
with respect to time
• Derive gas well deliverability equation
• Explain different types of gas well deliverability
tests
• Choose the suitable test to be applied for different
types of reservoir characteristics
• Plot and calculate the deliverability tests
data/parameters

(FPREE) 2
Introduction
‘Deliverability’ of a gas well
– well's capacity to produce against the restrictions of the well bore
and the system into which the well must flow
Restrictions
– barriers that must be overcome by energy in reservoir
– reducing the size of the well bore or increasing unnecessarily the
pressure drop of the system through which the well must
produce, increases the resistance to flow and therefore reduces
the ‘deliverability’ of the well
Deliverability test :
– Provide information used to develop reservoir rate-pressure
behaviour for a gas well and generate IPR (Inflow Performance
Relationship) or gas-back-pressure curve
– Allows prediction of q for different production system/lines and
reservoir pressures
– Used to determine a gas well productivity
(FPREE) 3
Pressure Losses for Gas Well

(FPREE) 4
 Steady-state Flow
 There is no substance accumulated in the flow system, or
the mass flow rate into the reservoir equal to the mass flow
rate out from the reservoir (flow condition do not change
with time) (pressure at any point in the reservoir remain
constant over time).
 Usually found in:
 strong water drive reservoir
 large gas cap drive reservoir
 secondary recovery
 Unsteady-state Flow
 The flow rate and/or pressure change with time.
 Pseudosteady-state Flow
 A special case of unsteady-state flow or steady state from
boundary-dominated reservoir.
 When the pressure at any point in the reservoir declines at
the same constant rate over time.
 Pseudosteady-state Reservoir
 No fluid flow occurs across the outer boundary. So the
production of fluids must be compensated for by the
expansion of residual fluids in the reservoir. In such a
situation, production will cause a reduction in pressure
throughout the reservoir unit. Reservoirs in this situation are
described as pseudosteady-state or semi steady-state.
 In terms of average drainage area pressure (Pavg or Pr):
Liquid surface after the pump started
Liquid level profiles during pseudo-steady state flow

8
Pseudopressure
The pseudopressure is considered to be a pseudoproperty of gas

because it depends on gas viscosity and compressibility factor, which
are properties of the gas.
The pseudopressure is widely used for mathematical modeling of IPR

of gas wells.
Determination of the pseudopressure at a given pressure requires

knowledge of gas viscosity and z-factor as functions of pressure and
temperature
As these functions are complicated and explicit, a numerical

integration technique is frequently used
𝑃 2 2
2 𝑃𝑑𝑥 𝑃 − 𝑃𝑏
𝑚 ( 𝑝 )=∫ 𝑑𝑃 =
𝑃𝑏 𝜇𝑍 𝜇𝑍
(FPREE) 9
Wells Drainage Pattern
• Rarely do wells drain regular-shaped drainage areas. Even if

the are assigned regular geographic drainage areas, these as
distorted after production commences, either because of the
presence of natural boundaries or because of lopsided
production rates in adjoining wells
• The drainage area is then shaped by the assigned production
duties of a particular well
• To account for irregular drainage shapes or asymmetrical
positioning of a well within its drainage area, a series of shape
factors was developed.
Wells Drainage Pattern
Absolute, gage, and vacuum
pressures
• Actual pressure at a give point is called the
absolute pressure.
• Most pressure-measuring devices are
calibrated to read zero in the atmosphere,
and therefore indicate gage pressure,
Pgage=Pabs - Patm.
• Pressure below atmospheric pressure are

called vacuum pressure, Pvac=Patm - Pabs.
Gauge = 10 psi
Gauge Pressure
Absolute pressure = 10 + 14.73

= 24.73 psia
(14.73 psi)
0 gauge pressure Atmospheric Pressure
Absolute pressure
Vacuum
pressure
0 pressure (datum)
Measurement of Pressure:
Absolute and Gage
 Absolute pressure: measured with respect to vacuum.
 Gage pressure: measured with respect to atmospheric
pressure.
p g ag e  p ab s o l u t e  p at mo s p h e re
Absolute, gage, and vacuum
pressures
Capillary Pressure
 Capillary pressure is the pressure difference existing across

the interface separating two immiscible fluids.
 It is defined as the difference between the pressures in the
non-wetting and wetting phases. That is:
Pc = Pnw - Pw
 For an oil-water system (water wet): Pc = Po - Pw

 For a gas-oil system (oil-wet): Pc = Pg - Po
16
• Pressure in a fluid at rest is independent of the
shape of the container.
• Pressure is the same at all points on a horizontal
plane in a given fluid.
 Oil-water system (water wet).
Po2  Pw 2
Pw 2  Pw1  hw g
Po2  Po1  ho g
Since, Pw 2  Po2
Then, Pw1  hw g  Po1  ho g
Therefore, Po1  Pw1  w  0  hg
That is, Pc  w  o  hg
18
Gas Well Performance
 Gas well productivity determined with deliverability testing
 Two basic relationship in used:
• Rawlins & Schellhardt (empirical backpressure method)
• Houpeurt (theoretical )
 Deliverability test method:
• Flow-after-flow test (four-point test)
• Isochronal test
• Modified isochronal test
Definitions
Deliverability test
– Also called ‘back-pressure testing’, ‘4-point testing’ , ‘open
flow potential testing’ or ‘AOF testing’
– Measurement of gas production rate when reservoir
pressure declines
Purpose
– To predict the manner in which the flow rate will decline
with reservoir depletion
Application
– Predict production potential from a well
– Evaluation of natural gas FDP
AOF (absolute open flow)
– Maximum production rate at which the well would
produce against a zero sandface back pressure or P wf = 0
psig (0 psig = 14.7 psia)
– Common indicator of well productivity

(FPREE) 20
Deliverability Test & Analysis
Deliverability test : 3 basic categories:

1. Tests that use all stabilized data
 Flow-after-flow test or conventional test or multipoint test
2. Tests that use a combination of stabilized & transient data
 Isochronal test
 Modified isochronal test
3. Tests that use all transient data & eliminate need for stabilized flow or
pressure data
 Multiple modified isochronal test
Analysis methods - Two basic relation use to analyze deliverability test data:
1. Rawlin & Schellhardt (1935) :  empirical methods
• empirical based on 500 wells data
2. Houpeurt :  analytical methods
• theoritical derived from generalized radial diffusivity equation
accounting for non-Darcy flow effect

(FPREE) 21
Analytical Method
General solution to pseudosteady state flow in a radial-

flow gas reservoir is expressed as (Economides 1994)
(a)
• Very difficult to evaluate without a computer

program due to difficulty and costly to obtain
values of all parameters in equations
(FPREE) 22
q = Gas production rate, MScfd
k = Effective permeability, md
h = Thickness of pay zone, ft
m(p) = Real gas pseudopressure, psi2/cp at reservoir pressure in psi
m(Pwf) = Real gas pseudopressure, psi2/cp at flowing bottom hole
pressure,
T = Reservoir temperature, R
re = Radius of drainage area, ft
rw = Wellbore radius, ft
S = Skin factor
D = Non-Darcy coefficient
(Skin factor dan non darcy coefficient can be estimated on the basis
of pressure transient analysis)
𝑃 2 2
2 𝑃𝑑𝑥 𝑃 − 𝑃𝑏
𝑚 ( 𝑝 )=∫ 𝑑𝑃 =
𝑃𝑏 𝜇𝑍 𝜇𝑍
(FPREE) 23
6
703 𝑥 10 𝑘h
𝑆= ∆ 𝑚 ( 𝑃 )𝑠
𝑞𝑠𝑐 𝑇
−15 𝛽 𝛾 𝑔 𝑘h
𝐷 =2.226 𝑥 10 2
h 𝑝 𝜇𝑔 𝑟 𝑤
𝑤𝑓
10
2.33 𝑥 10
𝛽= 1.201
𝑘
24
25
An analytical by Lee at al.
𝜇 𝑔= 𝐾 . 10− 4 exp ( 𝑥 𝜌 𝑦𝑔 )
𝐾 =[ 0.807 𝑇 0.618
𝑟 − 0.357 𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( − 0.449 𝑇 𝑟 ) +0.340 𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( − 4.058 𝑇 𝑟 ) +0.018 ] ()
1
ℵ
( )
1 /6
𝑇 𝑝𝑐
ℵ =0.949 3 4
𝑀 𝑃 𝑝𝑐
1588
𝑥=3.47 + + 0.0009 𝑀
𝑇
𝑦 =1.66378 − 0.04679 𝑥
𝑃 𝛾𝑔
𝜌 𝑔 =0.0433
𝑍𝑇
Correlation by Carr et al.
26
 Darcy law is adequate in describing the flow behavior in the
majority of reservoirs. But at high fluid velocities, Darcy law may
break down.
 Darcy law assumes that the pressure drop varies linearly with
velocity. At high velocities, experimental observations indicate that
the pressure drop increases more rapidly with velocity than what a
simpler linear relationship would suggest
 To account for this non-linear effect, we have to include an

additional term in our conventional equation and this effect called a
non-darcy effect
 Typically, non-darcy flow occur when the Reynold number in the

reservoir exceeds 10. This Reynolds number is defined slightly
differently than the conventional Reynolds number defined for
pipes, and it based upon the particle diameter in the porous
medium
 There are two ways by which the velocity of the reservoir fluid increases
1. As the fluid approaches the well bore, the cross sectional area
decreases (radial flow region – 2prh)
2. As the reservoir fluid approaches the well bore, its pressure decreases
and the reservoir fluid expands. The expansion causes an increase the
volumetric flow rate and hence increases the velocity
 The steady state relationship developed form Darcy law for an
incompressible fluid (oil)
 A similar relationship can be derived for natural gas well by
converting the flow rate from STB/d to MSCF/d and using the
real gas law to describe the PVT behavior of the gas and adding
the skin factor gives the steady state gas inflow equation
𝑘h ( 𝑃 2 2
𝑒 − 𝑃 𝑤𝑓 )
𝑞=
1424 𝜇 𝑍 𝑇
( 𝑙𝑛
𝑟𝑒
𝑟𝑤
+ 𝑆 + 𝐷𝑞
) (b)
 The above equation suggests that a gas well production rate is

approximately proportional to the pressure square difference.
The m and Z are average properties evaluated at at pressure
between Pe and Pwf.
 A similar approximation can be developed for pseudosteady
state. It has the form
 At pressure higher than 3000 psia, highly compressed gas
behave like liquids. The ecomodes can be approximated using
pressure approach as
𝑘h ( 𝑃 − 𝑃 𝑤𝑓 )
𝑞=
141.2 𝐵𝑔 𝜇 𝑙𝑛
( ( 0.472 𝑟 𝑒
𝑟𝑤 )
+ 𝑆+ 𝐷𝑞
)
Bg = average gas formation volume factor, rb/scf
 The above equation are not only approximations in terms of
properties but also because the assume Darcy flow in the
reservoir (small gas flowrates)
 A common presentation of the above equation is

𝑞 =𝐶 (𝑃2 − 𝑃2
𝑤𝑓 )
 For larger rates, where non Darcy flow in the reservoir
𝑛
𝑞=𝐶 ( 𝑃 )
2 2
−𝑃 𝑤𝑓
(c )
where 0.5 < n < 1.0
 Based on the above equations (a, b and c) we can write an equation for
maximum rate where maximum rate corresponds to well flowing pressure
equal to zero. By rearranging them we obtain
𝑞 𝑚 ( 𝑃 𝑤𝑓 )
=1 −
𝑞𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑚 ( 𝑃𝑟 )
 The above equation provides us with a way of generating infow
performance if a single rate test and corresponding well flowing pressure
is available
Example 1
Given data:
Pr = 5100 psia K = 150 md
re = 2100 ft rw = 0.45 ft
h = 30 ft g = 0.7
T = 200 oF S=0
Calculate the inflow performance relationship
curves using pressure square and pseudo real
pressure methods
34
Solution
• Pressure Square Method

𝑘h ( 𝑃 2 2
𝑒 − 𝑃 𝑤𝑓 )
𝑞=
1424 𝜇 𝑍 𝑇
( 𝑙𝑛
𝑟𝑒
𝑟𝑤
+ 𝑆 + 𝐷𝑞
)
The use this equation, we need to know the value of mZ at average
pressure P. For a linear relationship this value can be defined at any
pressure. For convenience, if we define average P = Pr, then we calculate, m
= 0.02739 cp and Z = 0.9961.
𝑞=2.281 𝑥 10− 3 ( 51002 − 𝑃 2𝑤𝑓 )
For Pwf = 3000 psia
= 3.88 x
35
Gas rates at other well flowing pressure as shown in table below
Pwf (Psia) q (Pressure Square

Method)
MSCFD
5100 0
4000 22844
3000 38819
2000 50229
1000 57075
0 59357
36
• m(p) Method (Pseudo real Pressure Method)
Knowing the gas gravity and reservoir temperature, the pseudo real pressure
is calculated as a function of pressure. The plot of pseudo real pressure is
shown in figure below.
37
𝑞=6.2241 𝑥10 ( 1.414 𝑥10 − 𝑚 ( 𝑃 𝑤𝑓 ) )
−5 9
The gas rate can be calculated at different Pwf. For example at 3000 psia, m(p)
= 6.328 x 108 psi2/cp
Gas rates at other well flowing pressures using m(p) method are shownin
table below Pwf (Psia) q (Pseudo Real Gas
Pressure)
MSCFD
5100 0
4000 25931
3000 48652
2000 68738
1000 82903
0 88035 38
By comparing the two methods, one can be see a noticeable difference
between the rates at different well flowing pressures
At lower Pwf, the difference between two methods increases substantially.

This is a result of underlying assumption in applying the pressure squared
method. Based on an assumption of linear relationship between P/mZ and P
39
This relationship is valid for pressure up to 3000 psia. In this
example, the reservoir pressure is 5100 psia, high above the
3000 psia.
Therefore, the assumption of linear relationship is no longer

valid, resulting in differences in the pressure squared and m(p)
methods.
Obviously, m(p) method is more accurate than the pressure

squared method
40
Example 2
Use all the information given in example 1. Given

data:
Pr = 5100 psia K = 150 md
re = 2100 ft rw = 0.45 ft
h = 30 ft g = 0.7
T = 200 oF S=0
Calculate the inflow performance relationship
curves using pressure square and pseudo real
pressure methods. Assume non-darcy flow
equations
41
Empirical Deliverability Equations
Empirical models are more attractive and widely
employed in field applications
An early empirical deliverability equation was
introduced by Rawlins and Schellhardt (1935)
Original forms was in the form of pressure squared (low
pressure applications) – pressure squared approach
2
2 n
q  C ( p  pwf )
Later form was in terms of pseudo-pressure (for all

pressures) – pseudo-pressure approach
 
n
q C pp (p)  pp (p)
(FPREE) 42
 Rawlins & Schellhardt’s deliverability eq:
qg = C (Ps2 – Pwf2)n
where: C = flow coefficient

n = deliverability exponent
non-Darcy: n = 0.5 – 1.0
Darcy flow: n = 1.0
 A plot of (Ps2 – Pwf2) vs qg on log-log paper results in a straight

line with slope 1/n.
 This equation often referred to as the backpressure equation
 IPR can be plotted by:
qg/qg max = [ 1 – (Pwf/Ps)2]n
Deliverability Testing
In empirical equations
– C is termed stabilized performance coefficient
– n is termed turbulence factor where value ranges from 0.5 indicating purely non-
Darcy flow to 1.0 indicating purely Darcy flow
– In all equations, q is in MMSCF/D
Empirical equations cannot be derived from general diffusivity equation and hence are
not theoretically rigorous
Empirical equations are still widely used in deliverability test analysis
Two analysis approaches:

– Pressure-squared : dp2
– Pseudo-pressure : dpp
Two analysis methods:

– Rawlin-Schellhardt :
• Pressure-squared : log-log dp2 vs q
• Pseudo-pressure : log-log dpp vs q
– Houpuert :
• Pressure-squared : dp2 /q vs q
• Pseudo-presure : dpp/q vs q
(FPREE) 44
History of the ‘Deliverability’ Equation
 The original well deliverability relationship

was completely empirical (derived from
observations), and is given as:
2 2 n
q  C( p  pwf )
 This relationship is rigorous (i.e., it can be

derived) for low pressure gas reservoirs (n
= 1 for laminar flow).
 From: Back-Pressure Data on Natural-

Gas Wells and Their Application to
Production Practices — Rawlins and
Schellhardt (USBM Monograph, 1935).
(FPREE) 45
46
General Equation of Deliverability
qsc  C ( P  P ) e
2 2
wf
n
Where:
qsc = Flow rate, Mscfd
C = Flow coefficient
n = Approaches 0.5 for turbulence and 1.0 for laminar.
If n < 0.5  liquid accumulation and
n > 1.0  fluid removal during testing.
 n outside 0.5 – 1.0  error in testing due to insufficient cleanup or
liquid loading in a gas well

(FPREE) 47
(FPREE) 48
(FPREE) 49
(FPREE) 50
(FPREE) 51
For situations where multipoint tests cannot be run due to economic
or other reasons, single-point data can be used to generate the IPR curve
provided that a shut-in bottomhole pressure is known.
Mishra and Caudle proposed a simple method for generating a gas IPR curve
from just a single-point test data. They developed a dimensionless IPR curve to
be used as a reference curve (the best-fit curve)

(FPREE) 52
Chase and Anthony offered a simpler method that is a modification
to the Mishra-Caudle method. The method proposed involves substitution
of real pressure P or P2 for the real gas pseudopressure function m(P). The
squared pressure P2 is used for pressures less than approximately 2100 psia,
and the relevant equation is
The real pressures P is suggested for pressures greater than approximately

2900 psia. By having the average reservoir pressure Pr, and a single-point test
data Pwf and q, it is possible to determine the AOFP and to generate
the inflow performance curve:
For pressures ranging for 2100 to 2900 psia, the original Mishra-Caudle’s
technique is recommended.

(FPREE) 53
Deliverability Equation - Theory
where
BHPsi : Shut-in bottom-hole pressure

BHPwf : Flowing bottom hole pressure at flow rate, Q.
Coefficient C : Constant that includes the drainage radius, radius

of the well bore, reservoir permeability, formation thickness,
gas compressibility and viscosity, and reservoir
temperature.
Exponent n : Accounts for non-ideal gas behavior and unsteady
state flow. Under ideal conditions, n equals 1.

(FPREE) 54
Deliverability Plot @ Multipoint Well Testing
The gas flow equation can be rewritten by taking the log of the equation
Plot show a
results from
multipoint well
testing sequence
of a gas well

(FPREE) 55
Multipoint Well Testing Plot – Empirical Analysis
Log – log plot of P2 – Pwf2 vs qsc2

(FPREE) 56
Plot log of the flow rate vs log of the bottom hole pressure differences
squared
 yield straight line of reciprocal slope n
Intersection of straight line with square of the shut-in bottom-hole
pressure
 yield theoretical flow from the reservoir (AOF) (if the sandface
pressure is reduced to zero)
Generally C and n are often considered as constants. However, for wells
with low permeability, C decreases as flow time increases.
 necessary to use Isochronal or Modified Isochronal Deliverability
Tests
n normally falls between 0.5 and 1.0. Values outside this range are
invalid.
n =1 indicates steady-state viscous flow.
n = 0.5 indicates steady-state turbulent flow.

(FPREE) 57
• AOF is calculated from the following

equation:
substituting surface pressures for bottom-hole

pressures:

(FPREE) 58
Rawlins – Schellhardt Method
Pressure-squared term:
Deliverability eq: qg =C(Ps2 – Pwf2)n
Where; qg = gas flow rate, MSCFD

C = Flow coefficient, MSCFD/psia2
Ps2 = Reservoir pressure, psia
Pwf2 = Bottomhole flowing pressure, psia
n = deliverability exponent = 1/slope (log-log dp2 vs qg plot)
Inflow performance relationship:

qg / qg,max = [ 1 – (Pwf/Ps)2] n
Pseudo-pressure term:
Deliverability eq: qg =C(Pp @Ps – Pp @Pwf)n
Where; Pp = pseudo pressure for Ps or Pwf

n = deliverability exponent = 1/slope (log-log dpp vs qg plot)
C = Flow coefficient, MSCFD/(psia2/cp)n
Inflow performance relationship:

qg /FACULTY
qg,max = [OF
1– (Pp @Pwf/P&p RENEWABLE
PETROLEUM @Ps )] n ENERGY ENGINEERING
(FPREE) 59
Houpeurt Method
Pressure-squared term:
Ps2 – Pwf2 = aqg + bqg 2
(Ps2 – Pwf2)/ qg= a + bqg
qg = [-a + {a2 +4b(Ps2 – Pwf2)}0.5]/2b
Where; a = laminar flow coefficient = intercept (dp2 /qg vs qg plot), psia2/MSCFD

b = turbulence coefficient = slope (dp2 /qg vs qg plot), psia2/MSCFD
Pseudo-pressure term:
Pp @Ps – Pp @Pwf = aqg + bqg 2
(Pp @Ps – Pp @Pwf)/ qg = a + bqg
qg = [-a + {a2 +4b(Pp @Ps – Pp @Pwf)}0.5]/2b
Where; a = laminar flow coefficient = intercept (dpp /qg vs qg plot), psia2/cp/MSCFD

b = turbulence
FACULTY OFcoefficient
PETROLEUM= slope (dpp /qg vs qg plot),
& RENEWABLE ENERGY psia2ENGINEERING
/cp/MSCFD
(FPREE) 60
Gas Well Performance (ctd)
 Houpeurt relationship:
Deliverability eq:
Ps2 – Pwf2 = aqg + bqg2
where;
a = laminar flow coefficient
b = turbulence coefficient
From plot of (Ps2 – Pwf2 ) / qg vs qg (straight line)

a = intercept with y axis
b = slope
Rearranging the above equation, we can write

− 𝑎 + √ 𝑎 +4 𝑏 ∆ 𝑃
2 2
𝑞= ∆ 𝑃 2 = ( 𝑃 2𝑟 − 𝑃 2𝑤𝑓 )
2𝑏
− 𝑎 + √ 𝑎 2 +4 𝑏 ∆ 𝑚 ( 𝑃 )
𝑞=
2𝑏
∆ 𝑚 ( 𝑃 ) =( 𝑚 ( 𝑃 𝑟 ) ) − 𝑚 ( 𝑃 𝑤𝑓 )
𝑎=
𝑇 ( 𝜇 𝑍 )𝑝
−6
703 𝑥 10 𝑘h
𝑙𝑛
𝑟𝑒
𝑟𝑤
−
3
4 [
+𝑆
]
𝑇 ( 𝜇 𝑍 )𝑝
𝑏= −6
𝐷
703 𝑥 10 𝑘h
62
Types of gas deliverability test
Multipoint testing:
Basically 3 type of tests can be done
1. Flow after flow test - Conventional test (highly permeable reservoir

2. Isochronal test (tight reservoir – to long to stabilize)
3. Modified isochronal test (tight reservoir – shorter to stabilize)

(FPREE) 63
Conventional Test (Flow-after-flow)
Use all stabilized data

Suitable for highly productive/permeability well
Consists of a series of flow rate
Often referred as a four-points test due to many tests are composed of four rates (as
required by various regulatory bodies)
Rates should be high enough to create drawdowns of 5, 10, 15, and 20%, of the shut-
in wellhead pressure and sufficiently high to continuously unload produced fluids
Flow rate and flowing wellhead temperature should be accurately recorded at the
end of each flow period
Flow periods must be sufficient duration to achieve stabilized flow which is defined as
pressure changes of less than 0.1% of the shut-in wellhead pressure over 15 minutes
Limitation: length of time required to obtain stabilized data for low permeability gas
reservoir
(Pwfi) at the end of each flow rate(Q1-Q4) are converted to bottom-hole pressures and
squared
– Squared pressures are then subtracted from the square of the shut-in
bottom-hole pressure (psi)

(FPREE) 64
- Operational Procedures
General operational concept:

• producing well at a series of stabilized flow rate & obtaining corresponding
stabilized flowing bottomhole pressure together with stabilized shut-in
bottomhole pressure required for analysis.
• Flow data is plotted according to Rawlins & Schellhardt or Houpeurt
methods
• Determine deliverability curve slope, estimate flow coefficient, C (Rawlins
& Schellhardt method) or intercept, a (Houpert method)

(FPREE) 65
- Operational Procedures
Step by step procedures:
1. Produce a well @ sufficient period at flow rate large enough to clear
wellbore from liquids accumulated prior to shut-in period.
2. Shut-in a well until pressure stabilized (0.1 psi @ 15 minutes or 1% @ 30
minutes)
3. Flow a well at minimum 4 flow rates (stabilized) and pressure
corresponding to each rate recorded. Flow rate normally in increasing
sequence or decreasing sequence for high GLR or unusual T condition,
liquid holdup problem.
4. Calculate shut-in pressure (average reservoir pressure) and flowing
bottomhole pressure at each flow rate
5. Calculate square difference between shut-in pressure and flowing
bottomhole pressure for each flow rate.
6. Plot pressure square difference vs flow rate in log-log paper.
7. Draw best straight line  stabilized deliverability curve.
8. Determine the straight line slope
9. Calculate exponent n = 1/slope
10. Determine coefficient C by extrapolating straight line until pressure square
difference equal to 1.0
11. Determine the deliverability equation and calculate AOF q sc  C ( Pe 
2
Pwf2 ) n
(FPREE) 66
Conventional Test

(FPREE) 67
Flow After Flow Test - Example
Flow after flow test data:

Average reservoir pressure = 3360 psia
Reservoir temperature = 210 deg.F
SG gas = 0.734
Pseudo-pressure @ 14.65 psia = 14066 psia 2/cp
Calculate AOF by Rawlin & Schellhardt, and Houpeurt methods (pressure-squared & pseudo-
pressure approaches)
Flow Period Flow rate Pressure Pseudo

(MSCF/D) (psia) pressure
(103psia2/cp)
Shut-in 0 3360 759,800
1 1012 3317 744,010
2 2248 3215 706.790
3 3832 3020 636,750
4 5480 2714 533,730
68
Isochronal Test
To overcome need to obtain a series of stabilized flow rates required for flow after flow
test for slow to stabilize well.
Based on principle that radius of investigation is a function of flow period & not the flow
rate.
Care is taken that
– Flow periods are of equal duration
– At the end of each flow period, the well head pressure is allowed to return to the
initial shut-in pressure (psi)
– Last flow in the sequence is of extended duration in order to achieve stabilized
flow
Four sets of flow rate/WHP values should be taken during each flow period
– For the sake of clarity, the four data sets are only shown for flow period Q2
– After converting wellhead pressures to BHP values, the plot shown below and to
the right is constructed

(FPREE) 69
Isochronal test operational procedure

• Producing a well at several different flow rates with equal
duration flowing period
• Each flow period separated by a shut-in period @ shut-in

bottomhole pressure allowed to stabilize at essentially
average reservoir pressure
• Flow data is plotted according to Rawlins & Schellhardt or

Houpeurt methods  to determine deliverability curve slope,
estimate flow coefficient, C (Rawlins & Schellhardt method)
or intercept, a (Houpert method)

(FPREE) 70
Isochronal test operational procedure
Step by step operational procedures:
1. Shut in well until stabilized static reservoir pressure is obtained
2. Open or flow the well at 1st. Flow rate for certain period (ex. 6 hours)
3. Shut-in a well again until same static pressure as step 1 obtained
4. Repeat steps 2 & 3 for two or three additional times at different flow rates
5. After last flow period, one flow test conducted for extended time period to
attain stabilized flow conditions.
6. Plot three or four isochronal point (pressure square difference vs q) on log-
log paper.
7. Draw best fit straight line
8. Determine the line slope & calculate n = 1/slope
9. Plot point of extended flow rate & corresponding pressure square difference
at stabilized flowing bottomhole pressure at this rate
10. Draw a straight line through step 9 point (stabilized deliverability curve)
parallel to the best-fit straight line plotted in step 7.
11. From stabilized deliverability curve, determine AOF

(FPREE) 71
Isochronal Test
 Slope of each line should be

similar
 Flowing wellhead pressure at
the end of the extended flow
period is converted to
bottomhole pressure and
used to locate the Stable
Flow point on the previous
plot
 A line of the same slope is
drawn through the Stable
Flow point to obtain the AOF

(FPREE) 72
Isochronal Test

(FPREE) 73
Modified Isochronal Test
Differs from the isochronal test in that the flow periods and shut-in periods
are equal duration or longer than flow periods
Also requires extended stabilized flow point & stabilized shut-in bottomhole
pressure
Well is not allowed to build back to its pretest shut in pressure
When plotting the data, care should be taken that the build-up pressure
before each flow rate is used when calculating (Psi2 - Pwf2) for each flow
Plot is constructed and the AOF determined in the same manner as
described for the isochronal deliverability plot
Less accurate than isochronal because shut-in pressure is not allowed to
return to average reservoir pressure.
In analysis, measured bottomhole pressure obtained just before beginning of
flow period is used in equations instead of average reservoir pressure.
Use for extremely low permeability gas formation.

(FPREE) 75
Modified Isochronal test operational procedure
• Same as isochronal test
• Producing a well at several different flow rates with equal duration flowing
period and shut-in period.
• Measured bottomhole pressure obtained just before beginning of flow period
& use in the equations.
• Analysis data just like isochronal test data
• Rawlins & Schellhardt:
• transient flow point used to construct best fit straight line
• Slope inverse  deliverability exponent (n)
• With n & data of stabilized flow point  estimate flow coefficient (C)
• Houpeurt:
• Best-fit straight line constructed through transient flow point  slope (b) ?
• Used b with stabilized flow point and equations  intercept (a) ?
 Deliverability equation ?  AOF ?

(FPREE) 76
Modified Isochronal Test

(FPREE) 77
Deliverability Well Testing - Comparison
Isochronal Test
Conventional Test
Modified
Isochronal Test

(FPREE) 78
Well Testing Analysis

(FPREE) 79
Well Testing - Example

(FPREE) 80
Example - Solution
Solution 1
1. Calculate PR2 – Pwf2

(FPREE) 81
Example - Solution
2. Plot on log-log scale q vs (PR2 – Pwf2 )

(FPREE) 82
Example - Solution

(FPREE) 83
Transient Test Method (Multiple modified isochronal test)
• Consists all transient test data & eliminate need for stabilized flow or
pressure data
• Analysis data requires estimates of drainage area and shape along with
additional reservoir & fluid property data
• Analysis data more complex than flow-after-flow, isochronal or modified
isochronal test data
• Provides means to estimate deliverability of slow-in-stabilizing wells

(FPREE) 84
Factors Affecting Constant C & n
• Generally C dependent upon pressure and flow rate.
• Effect of variation in gas viscosity, gas compressibility factor with time and
non-Darcy term with rate will effect C.
• These factor must be considered for accurate long-range predictions of q,
especially in low permeability reservoirs where variation of non-Darcy term
with flow rate may be large.
• For high permeability gas well (stabilized relatively quickly), C will not
change significantly with time  initial deliverability curve can be used for
AOF calculation @ well life within reasonable accuracy.
• In low permeability gas reservoir, C decreases with time during short flow
periods  deliverability curves in low permeability gas reservoir should be
used with caution.
• For low permeability gas well shows n closer to 1.0
• For high permeability gas well, n closer to 0.5
• Under near steady state conditions:
• n = 0.5  turbulent &
• n = 1.0  laminar flow & little or no wellbore or skin damage
• as n decreases towards n = 0.5  wellbore & skin damage increases

(FPREE) 85
Isochronal Test – Assignment 1 Question 1
From the following isochronal test data, determine deliverability equation and
absolute open flow capacity by using Rawlin-Schellhardt and Houpeurt
methods.
Test Mode Time (hrs) Pressure Flow rate Pseudo
Period (psia) (MSCF/D) pressure
(103psia2/
cp)
Initial Shut-in 24.00 1798 284,360

1 Flow 1.00 1768 1800 275,660
Shut-in 1.00 1798 284,360
2 Flow 1.00 1747 3000 269,630
Shut-in 1.50 1798 284,360
3 Flow 1.0 1682 6200 251,270
Stabilize Flow 10.0 1600 6300 228,830
Final Shut-in 14.00 1798 284,360

(FPREE) 86
Multi-rate Test _Assignment 1 Question 2
Test Flow rate Pressure Pseudo-
(MSCF/D) (psia) pressure (108
psia2/cp)
1 4900 4750 12.2
2 11250 4125 9.91
3 14040 3747 8.52
4 16600 3328 7.02
If:
Reservoir pressure = 5000 psia (Pseudo pressure = 1.36X10 9 psia2/cp)
Reservoir temperature = 220 deg.F
Gas viscosity = 0.7
Generate IPR curve using Houpeurt pseudo pressure approach.

(FPREE) 87
THANK YOU

(FPREE) 88

Chapter-1 (Gas Deliveribility)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter-1 (Gas Deliveribility)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 1

FACULTY OF PETROLEUM & RENEWABLE ENERGY ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF PETROLEUM & RENEWABLE ENERGY ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF PETROLEUM & RENEWABLE ENERGY ENGINEERING

Liquid level profiles during pseudo-steady state flow

The pseudopressure is considered to be a pseudoproperty of gas

The pseudopressure is widely used for mathematical modeling of IPR

Determination of the pseudopressure at a given pressure requires

As these functions are complicated and explicit, a numerical

• Rarely do wells drain regular-shaped drainage areas. Even if

• Pressure below atmospheric pressure are

Absolute pressure = 10 + 14.73

 Capillary pressure is the pressure difference existing across

 For an oil-water system (water wet): Pc = Po - Pw

FACULTY OF PETROLEUM & RENEWABLE ENERGY ENGINEERING

Deliverability test : 3 basic categories:

FACULTY OF PETROLEUM & RENEWABLE ENERGY ENGINEERING

General solution to pseudosteady state flow in a radial-

• Very difficult to evaluate without a computer

Correlation by Carr et al.

 To account for this non-linear effect, we have to include an

 Typically, non-darcy flow occur when the Reynold number in the

 The above equation suggests that a gas well production rate is

 A common presentation of the above equation is

where 0.5 < n < 1.0

• Pressure Square Method

𝑞=2.281 𝑥 10− 3 ( 51002 − 𝑃 2𝑤𝑓 )

For Pwf = 3000 psia

Pwf (Psia) q (Pressure Square

At lower Pwf, the difference between two methods increases substantially.

Therefore, the assumption of linear relationship is no longer

Obviously, m(p) method is more accurate than the pressure

Use all the information given in example 1. Given

Later form was in terms of pseudo-pressure (for all

where: C = flow coefficient

 A plot of (Ps2 – Pwf2) vs qg on log-log paper results in a straight

Empirical equations are still widely used in deliverability test analysis

Two analysis approaches:

Two analysis methods:

 The original well deliverability relationship

 This relationship is rigorous (i.e., it can be

 From: Back-Pressure Data on Natural-

FACULTY OF PETROLEUM & RENEWABLE ENERGY ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF PETROLEUM & RENEWABLE ENERGY ENGINEERING

The real pressures P is suggested for pressures greater than approximately

FACULTY OF PETROLEUM & RENEWABLE ENERGY ENGINEERING

BHPsi : Shut-in bottom-hole pressure

Coefficient C : Constant that includes the drainage radius, radius

FACULTY OF PETROLEUM & RENEWABLE ENERGY ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF PETROLEUM & RENEWABLE ENERGY ENGINEERING

Log – log plot of P2 – Pwf2 vs qsc2

FACULTY OF PETROLEUM & RENEWABLE ENERGY ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF PETROLEUM & RENEWABLE ENERGY ENGINEERING

• AOF is calculated from the following

substituting surface pressures for bottom-hole

FACULTY OF PETROLEUM & RENEWABLE ENERGY ENGINEERING

Where; qg = gas flow rate, MSCFD

Inflow performance relationship:

Where; Pp = pseudo pressure for Ps or Pwf

Inflow performance relationship:

(Ps2 – Pwf2)/ qg= a + bqg

qg = [-a + {a2 +4b(Ps2 – Pwf2)}0.5]/2b

Where; a = laminar flow coefficient = intercept (dp2 /qg vs qg plot), psia2/MSCFD

(Pp @Ps – Pp @Pwf)/ qg = a + bqg