Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97104

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / p e t r o l

Research paper

A general approach for deliverability calculations of gas wells

Hazim Al-Attar , Sulaiman Al-Zuhair
Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering Department, UAE University, 17555 Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 2 September 2007
Accepted 14 May 2009
Keywords:
gas
deliverability
test
well
dimensionless IPR
performance

a b s t r a c t
This paper presents a general and a simplied method for deliverability calculations of gas wells, which among
other advantages, eliminates the need for conventional multipoint tests. The analytical solution to the diffusivity
equation for real gas ow under stabilized or pseudo-steady-state ow conditions and a wide range of rock and
uid properties are used to generate an empirical correlation for calculating gas well deliverability. The rock, uid
and system properties, used in developing previous correlations found in literature, were limited to reservoir
pressure, reservoir temperature, gas specic gravity, reservoir permeability, wellbore radius, well drainage area,
and shape factor. Additional key properties such as reservoir porosity, net formation thickness and skin factor are
included in this work to develop a more general dimensionless Inow Performance Relationship (IPR). It is found
that the general correlation, developed is this study, presents the observed eld data much closer than previous
ones found in the literature. In addition, based on the larger data set, an empirical relation to predict future
deliverability from current ow test data is also developed.
The two modied and general relations developed in this work provide a simple procedure for gas deliverability
calculations which greatly simplies the conventional deliverability testing methods. The required data can be
obtained from a buildup test, or a single-point ow test, instead of an elaborate multipoint ow test. Further, the
broad range of practically all rock and uid properties used in developing the modied dimensionless IPR curves
should cover the majority of the eld situations generally encountered. The use of the modied dimensionless IPR
curves, the pseudopressure formulation and the sensitivity analysis indicate a generality of the approach
presented in this paper, irrespective of the gas reservoir system under study.
2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Predicting the performance of a gas well is a process that has almost
exclusively relied on using some form of multipoint well-testing
procedure. The conventional back-pressure test or ow-after-ow test
(Rawlins and Schellhardt, 1936), the isochronal test (Cullender, 1955),
and the modied isochronal test (Katz et al., 1959) have been employed
to predict the short- and long-term stabilized deliverability of gas wells.
Typically, a well is produced at a minimum of four different ow rates,
and the pressure-ratetime response is recorded. Plotting the bottom
hole pressure versus ow rate data obtained from the test, on loglog
paper, produces a straight line that reects the stabilized deliverability of
the well. The stabilized deliverability of a well may be dened as its
ability to produce against a given back-pressure at a given stage of
reservoir depletion. The empirically derived relationship given by Eq. (1)
represents the equation of the stabilized deliverability curve.


n
2
2
q = C Pr Pwf

where, q is current gas ow rate, Pr and Pwf are current average

reservoir pressure and bottom hole owing pressure, respectively, and
Corresponding author. Tel.: +971 33040; fax: +971 37624262.
E-mail address: Hazim.Alattar@uaeu.ac.ae (H. Al-Attar).
0920-4105/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2009.05.003

C and n are constants. The constant C reects the position of the

stabilized deliverability curve on the loglog plot. The constant n
represents the reciprocal of the slope of the stabilized deliverability
curve and normally has a value between 0.5 and 1.0.
The time to stabilization, ts, given by Eq. (2), can become very large
when testing tight gas reservoirs.
ts =

948 u ct re2
k

where, is porosity, is gas viscosity, ct is total system compressibility, re is drainage area radius, and k is reservoir permeability. The
stabilized deliverability curve, or the correlation derived from it, may
be used to predict the inow performance relationship (IPR) of a gas
well and its absolute open ow potential (AOFP). The AOFP represents
the theoretical maximum ow rate the well can sustain against a zero
sandface back-pressure, Pwf and is used mainly in wells comparisons.
Properly conducted in the eld, multipoint back-pressure tests
yield very reliable deliverability projections. However, four-point tests
are usually highly time-consuming and expensive, particularly in the
case of low permeability reservoirs or where offshore rig time is
involved. Brar and Aziz (1978) proposed methods for analyzing
modied isochronal tests to predict the stabilized deliverability of gas
wells using unstabilized ow data. Their methods, however, still
require running a minimum of four ow tests on a well.

98

H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97104

Table 1
Rock, uid and system properties used in developing correlations.
Parameter and symbol

Values ranges

Units

Reservoir pressure (P)

Reservoir temperature (T)
Gas gravity ()
Reservoir permeability (k)
Wellbore radius(rw)
Drainage area (A)
Shape factor (CA)
Porosity ()
Net formation thickness (h)
Mechanical skin factor (s)

1000a8000
100300a
0.5a1.0
11000 (500a)
0.25a0.5
640a2640
5.37931.62a
0.10.3 (0.15a)
20500a
( 6.0)( 2.0a)

psia
F
Air = 1
md
ft
acres
dimensionless
fraction
ft
dimensionless

Base case for sensitivity analysis.

Mishra and Caudle (1984) developed a single dimensionless IPR

curve for predicting the IPR of an unfractuned gas well at current
conditions using a single-ow test. Their equation, given as a ratio of the
current gas ow rate, q, to the current AOFP, qmax, is shown in Eq. (3).
q
qmax

h
i!
 
mPwf
1
5
mPr
1 5
=
4

where m(p) is the real gas pseudopressure, give by 2(P/z)dP.

In addition, Mishra and Caudle (1984) proposed a second dimensionless curve to assist in the prediction of future performance. From this
curve a correlation Eq. (4) is derived to predict the AOFP of a well from
the future dimensionless IPR at some future average reservoir pressure.

ability of a fractured gas well using the average reservoir pressure, Pr, the
owing bottom hole pressure, Pwf, the stabilized ow rate, q, and either
the ratio of radiuses of external boundary, xe to uniform ux fracture, xf,
or the skin factor, s, obtained from the analysis of a pressure buildup or
drawdown test. They proposed the following general dimensionless IPR
to predict the inow performance of gas wells.
Y = 1 MX

where,
Pp Pwf
Pp Pr
q
X=
qmax; @xe = 1
xf
xe
s=r
= 0:37xe e w
xf

Y=

 
 2
x
x
logM = 0:004865 + 0:143121 log e 0:00989 log e
xf
xf
 3
x
+ 0:00039 log e
xf
 
 2
x
x
logN = 0:296498 + 0:106181 log e + 0:00874 log e
xf
xf
 3
xe
0:0004278 log
xf

6
7
8
9

10

where the subscripts f and i are future and initial conditions, respectively.
Chase and Anthony (1988) demonstrated that the curves presented by Mishra and Caudle (1984) and their respective equations
could also be used to predict the performance of some fractured gas
wells. They also showed that for average reservoir pressures less than
approximately 2000 psi (13.8 MPa), pressure-squared values could be
substituted for pseudopressures, whereas for pressures above
2000 psi (13.8 MPa), the pseudopressures must be used. Equations
(3) and (4), however, do not account for variation in skin factors, nor
do they account for the presence of a hydraulically induced fracture.
As opposed to using conventional four-point testing methods, Chase
and Alkandari (1993) developed a method for predicting the deliver-

In Eq. (6), Pp(p) represents the real gas pseudopressure, give by

2(P/z)dP, similar to m(p) in Eqs. (3) and (4). Chase and Alkandari
(1993) tested their dimensionless IPR against data from eight wells
presented in the work of Brar and Aziz (1978) and found that the
computed AOFP values compared favorably to those obtained from the
modied isochronal method, with a maximum error of 15%. In
addition, they reported that the skin factor, of either a fractured or
unfractured well, can be converted to an xe/xf ratio using the apparent
wellbore radius concept and that their new dimensionless IPR curve
correlation can be then used to predict the performance of the well.
Kamath (2007) outlined the ve steps to predict deliverability loss
caused by condensate banking. These steps are: (1) appropriate
laboratory measurements, (2) tting laboratory data to relative
permeability models, (3) use of spreadsheet tools, (4) single-well
models, and (5) full-eld models (FFMs). He concluded that continued
extensive testing of existing relative permeability models and more
measurements in the high gas to oil relative permeabilities, krg/kro, and
capillary-number region increases the condence in the predictions.
The present study expands upon the work of Mishra and Caudle
(1984) to develop more accurate dimensionless IPR curves for stabilized

Fig. 1. New dimensionless IPR for current conditions basic data.

Fig. 2. Sensitivity analysiseffect of pressure.

qmax;f
=
qmax;i

 


5
m P
=m P
1 0:4 r; f r;i 
3

H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97104

99

Fig. 3. Sensitivity analysiseffect of temperature.

Fig. 5. Sensitivity analysiseffect of permeability.

non-Darcy ow in unfactured gas reservoirs. The rock, uid and system

properties, used in developing the correlations of Mishra and Caudle
(1984), were limited to reservoir pressure, reservoir temperature, gas
specic gravity, reservoir permeability, wellbore radius, well drainage
area, and shape factor. Additional key properties such as reservoir
porosity, formation thickness and skin factor are included in this work to
develop a rather simple, accurate, and more general (IPR) that can be
used as an alternative to the elaborate multipoint testing methods.

Under these conditions, the equation describing gas ow in a

porous medium is given by Eq. (11).

2. Development of new dimensionless IPR curves

Pp Pr Pp Pwf = aq + bq
a=

1637T = kh


2
log A = rw
+ log2:2458 = CA + 0:87s

b = 1422

TD
kh

(i) A homogeneous, isotropic, unfractured reservoir with a closed

outer boundary.
(ii) A single, fully penetrating well.
(iii) Stabilized conditions prevail, i.e. pseudo-steady state equations
can be used to describe gas ow in the reservoir.
(iv) Turbulent ow effects are characterized by a constant turbulence factor, D, and a rate dependant skin Dq.

12
13

D = 2:715 10

15

kMPsc
h @Pwf

10 1:47

2.1. Basic assumptions

11

= 1:88 10 k

14

0:53

15

where, A is drainage area, T is reservoir temperature, CA is shape

factor, h is net formation thickness, M is molecular weight of gas, Psc is
standard pressure, @Pwf is gas viscosity measured at bottom hole
owing pressure (Pwf), rw is wellbore radius, and Tsc is temperature at
standard conditions.
2.2. Development of functional relationships for current and future well
deliverability
Solving Eq. (11) and taking the positive root to be q, yields:

q=

h


i0:5
a + a2 + 4b Pp Pr Pp Pwf
2b

16

and,

qmax = AOFP Pwf = 0 =

h
i0:5
2
a + a + 4bPp Pr
2b

17

Dividing Eq. (16) by Eq. (17) yields the following expression:

q
qmax

h


i0:5
a + a2 + 4b Pp Pr Pp Pwf
=
h
i0:5
a + a2 + 4bPp Pr

18

The left-hand side of Eq. (18) is dimensionless and similar to the

one derived by Vogel (1968) for gas drive reservoirs, but for s 0;
where,
Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysiseffect of gas gravity.

sV= s + Dq

19

100

H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97104

Eq. (18) can be rearranged to the following form:

q
qmax

=H

!
Pp Pwf
Pp Pr

20

where, H is some functional form (Mishra and Caudle, 1984).

The objective therefore would be to generate the dimensionless
groups (q/qmax) and (Pp(Pwf)/Pp(Pr)) from a variety of cases and
develop an empirical correlation in the form of Eq. (20). This will then
be the IPR for Current Deliverability.
Designating future and current conditions by the subscripts f and c,
respectively, Eq. (17) can be rewritten as,

qmax;f =

h

i0:5
2
a + a + 4bPp Pr;f
2b

21
Fig. 7. Sensitivity analysiseffect of drainage area.

Thus,
h

i0:5
a + a2 + 4bPp Pr;f
qmax;f
=
h

i0:5
qmax;c
a + a2 + 4bPp Pr;c

22

Similar to Eq. (20), Eq. (22) can be rearranged to the following form:
0
1
Pp Pr;f
qmax;f
= I @
A
qmax;c
P P
p

23

r;c

where I is some other functional form (Mishra and Caudle, 1984).

The objective here would be to generate the dimensionless groups
(qmax, f/qmax, c) and (Pp(Pr,f)/Pp(Pr,c)) and develop a second empirical
relation of the form of Eq. (23). This will then be the IPR for Future
Deliverability.

(ii) Generate a database of (q/qmax) and (Pp(Pwf)/Pp(Pr)) for a

broad range of rock and uid properties using MATLAB
program, as given in Table 1.
(iii) Evaluate the effects of changing rock and uid properties, over
the range given in Table 1, on a dimensionless IPR generated for
a base case. The properties of the base case are highlighted in
Table 1.
(iv) Using the same conditions as in Eq. (2) to generate a data base
of (qmax, f/qmax, c) and (Pp(Pr,f)/Pp(Pr,c)).
Correlations used in this program were: Lee et al. (1966) for gas
viscosity, Smith et al. (2001) for gas deviation factor, and Swift and
Kiel (1962) and Katz and Cornell (1955) for turbulence factor.
2.4. Development of general dimensionless IPRs and sensitivity analysis

2.3. Programming considerations

Excel spreadsheet was used and a computer program was written
in MATLAB software to perform four basic objectives.
(i) Generate a database of pseudopressures and pressure for a
broad range of temperatures and gas specic gravities using
Excel spreadsheet.

Fig. 6. Sensitivity analysiseffect of wellbore radius.

Employing the rock, uid and system properties listed in Table 1, a

set of 25,344 data points-pairs of (q/qmax) and (Pp(Pwf)/Pp(Pr)) was
generated for all combinations of the variables investigated. The
number of data points generated in this study is almost 2.5 times more
than the 10,206 data points generated by Mishra and Caudle (1984). A
strong trend of the data plot is observed as shown in Fig. 1. The data
points were best t by the sixth order polynomial given in Eq. (24)

Fig. 8. Sensitivity analysiseffect of porosity.

H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97104

101

Fig. 9. Sensitivity analysiseffect of net thickness.

Fig. 11. Sensitivity analysiseffect of shape factor.

using Excel with R2 value of 0.984, which indicates good presentation

of the experimental data.

to the correlation developed in this work, Eq. (24), over that

developed by Mishra and Caudle, especially when considering wide
range of skin effects.
Based on the seven pressure levels used in developing Eq. (24), a
data set comprising of 25,344 points of (qmax, f/qmax, c) and (Pp(Pr,f)/Pp
(Pr,c)) was generated and plotted as shown in Fig. 12. The data points
were best t by the sixth order polynomial given in Eq. (27) using
Excel with R2 value of 0.975, which also indicates good presentation of
the experimental data.

Y = 0:7193 X + 0:6221 X + 0:3037 X 0:6108 X

24

+ 0:0756 X 0:6712 X + 1:0006

where in Eq. (24),
25

Y = q = qmax
and,

Y = 10:436 X 31:143 X + 33:876 X 15:374 X

X = Pp Pwf = Pp Pr

27

+ 1:4779 X + 1:7044 X + 0:0234

26

Where in Eq. (27),

Eq. (24) represents a modied general dimensionless IPR which

can be used for calculating current gas deliverability.
To study the effect of the variables listed in Table 1 on Eq. (24), a
base case was selected for sensitivity analysis with respect to the
properties given in Table 1. Each of the variables was varied over a
range and the results are shown in Figs. 211. Among the ten variables
considered in this study, only reservoir pressure, permeability, and
skin factor were found to have signicant effect on the dimensionless
IPR. Similar observations were reported by Mishra and Caudle (1984),
however, the skin effect was not accounted for. This gives superiority

Eq. (27) represents a modied general dimensionless IPR which

can be used for calculating future gas deliverability. As previously

Fig. 10. Sensitivity analysiseffect of skin factor.

Fig. 12. New dimensionless IPR for future conditionsbasic data.

Y = qmax;f = qmax;c

28

and,
X = Pp Pr;f =Pp Pr;c

29

102

H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97104

Table 2
Comparison of AOFP values (MMScf/D) estimated from multipoint and single-point
tests.
Wells Modied
isochronal
model

Eq. (24) Eq. (24) Mishra and

using
using
Caudle [5]
Pp
P2
using Pp

Wells presented by Brar and Aziz [1978]

1
2.128
1.607
1.983
1.481
2
2.289
2.253
2.380
2.052
3
2.391
2.064
2.210
1.896
4
5.340
5.255
5.278
4.880
5
6.847
6.825
6.821
6.326
6
17.296
17.995
17.000
17.406
7
20.005
20.388
19.316
19.206
8
184.167
213.074 196.040 207.870
Wells presented by Chase and Anthony [1988]
9
10.988
11.410
11.168
10.526

Mishra and
Caudle [5]
using P2

Chase and
Alkandari [7]
using Pp

1.424
2.191
2.118
4.904
6.324
15.903
18.060
188.548

1.895
2.237
2.417
5.200
7.012
15.412
22.137
202.987

10.335

Unpublished data-fractured reservoir in the Middle East

10
135
137.94
128.978 129.316
11
130
126.64
117.269 124.70
12
40
38.38
37.175
35.198
13
50
47.88
45.938
44.183
14
22
18.99
18.220
17.513
15
50
48.02
46.200 43.950

121.040
115.435
34.225
42.392
16.805
42.460

Table 3
Associated error percent of AOFP values calculated by different models (Table 2).
Well

Eq. (24)
using Pp

Eq. (24)
using P2

Mishra and
Caudle [5]
using Pp

Mishra and
Caudle [5]
using Pp

Chase and
Alkandari [7]
using Pp

30.404
10.354
20.703
8.614
7.609
+ 0.636
3.994
+ 12.870

33.083
4.281
11.418
8.165
7.638
8.054
9.698
+ 2.379

10.95
2.27
+ 1.09
2.62
+ 2.41
10.89
+ 10.66
+ 10.22

Well presented by Chase and Anthony [6]

9
+ 3.84
+ 1.64
4.205

5.945

10.341
11.204
14.438
15.216
23.614
15.080

Wells presented by Brar and Aziz [4]

1
24.483
6.814
2
1.558
+3.976
3
13.676
7.570
4
1.592
1.161
5
0.321
0.380
6
+ 4.042
1.711
7
+ 1.915
3.444
8
+ 15.696
+ 6.447

mentioned, the corresponding correlation of Mishra and Caudle

(1984) in this case is Eq. (4).
3. Evaluation of the new dimensionless IPR equation for current
reservoir pressure
The following published and unpublished eld data are used to
evaluate the new general correlations, Eqs. (24) and (27), against the
previous correlations of Mishra and Caudle (1984) and Chase and
Alkandari (1993). In addition, the ratio of (Pp(Pwf)/Pp(Pr)) was
replaced with (P2wf/P2r ) to measure how close the squared-pressure
approximation could represent the real gas pseudopressure. A
comparison of the AOFP values calculated by the present technique
and the existing methods versus eld data is shown in Table 2 and
Fig. 13. The associated percentage errors of this comparison are shown
in Table 3.
(i) The paper by Brar and Aziz (1978) contains results of both
deliverability tests and pressure buildup or drawdown tests of

Unpublished data-fractured reservoir in the Middle East

10
+ 2.178
4.461
4.210
11
2.585
9.793
4.077
12
4.050
7.063
12.005
13
4.240
8.124
11.634
14
13.682
17.182
20.395
15
3.960
7.600
12.100

eight gas wells that cover a spectrum of different reservoir

conditions.
(ii) The paper by Chase and Anthony (1988) contains complete
deliverability test data from a single gas well.
(iii) Unpublished modied isochronal test data of six gas wells
completed in a fractured reservoir located in the Middle East.
4. Predicting the future performance of a gas well
Mishra and Caudle (1984) proposed a future dimensionless IPR curve
that can be used to nd qmax,f or the AOFP at some future Pr. However,
same as for their current conditions IPR curve, the curve AOFP developed
did not take into account skin factor, porosity and net formation
thickness. Nevertheless, their correlation was tested against twenty
back-pressure tests of dry gas reservoirs and the results compared
favorably with the eld data. In order to evaluate the new AOFP
correlation developed in this study, the calculations of future AOFP
values by Eq. (27) are compared to those predicted using Eq. (4) at two

Fig. 13. Broad comparison of new IPR model Eq. (24) with existing methods.

H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97104

Table 4
Comparison of future AOFP calculation by the new IPR (Eq. (27)) and the Mishra and
Caudle model [5] (Eq. (4)).
Future reservoir
pressure (psia)

Pseudopressure
ratio Pp(Pr,f)/Pp(Pr,c)

Estimated future
AOFP (MMScf/D)
using Eq. (4)

Estimated future
AOFP (MMScf/D)
using Eq. (27)

1600
1155

0.706
0.532

7.23
4.77

7.28
4.75

different future reservoir pressures, 1600 psia [11.04 MPa] and 1150 psia
[7.935 MPa], respectively, and the results are shown in Table 4.
5. Discussion of results
In this work, an attempt to extend the work of Mishra and Caudle
(1984) is done by accounting for additional key properties that
characterize individual wells. These properties include the skin factor,
porosity and net formation thickness. Including these variables
resulted in the derivation of two new dimensionless Vogel (1968)
type IPR models for current and future reservoir pressure conditions,
respectively. The new IPR curve shown in Fig. 1 and expressed in
Eq. (24) for current reservoir pressure seems to have signicantly
improved the computation of AOFP from a single-point test. Table 2
summarizes the data of the eight well tests presented in the paper of
Brar and Aziz (1978), a single-well test in the paper of Chase and
Anthony (1988), and six well tests from unpublished source in the
Middle East. Also shown in Table 2 is a comparison between the
AOFP values computed by the new model, Eq. (24), the new model
using P2-approximation, MishraCaudle model, Eq. (4), Mishra
Caudle model using P2-approximation, and ChaseAlkardani model,
respectively, versus eld modied isochronal tests.
Within the rst eight wells presented by Brar and Aziz (1978), and
assuming the modied isochronal method is correct, the predicted
values of AOFP by the ve models in Table 2 are mostly of acceptable
accuracy from a practical stand point. Nevertheless, the new IPR
model presented in this work, Eq. (24), more accurately predicted
AOFP values in six out of eight wells in comparison with Mishra
Caudle model (1984) and in ve out of eight wells in comparison to
ChaseAlkandari model (1993). This superiority is also reected on
the percentage errors shown in Table 3. Five out of eight wells have
percentage errors less than 5%, while the maximum error observed is
24.48% for well number 1. On the other hand, using Mishra and Caudle
(1984) model, the percentage errors of only two out of the eight wells
is less than 5% and the maximum error observed is 30.4% for well
number 1. Similarly, with the Chase and Alkandri (1993) model, the
percentage errors of four wells out of eight is less than 5% and the
maximum error observed was 10.95% for well number 1. The
divergence in predicted AOFP values for the wells of low permeability,
namely 1 and 8, is partly attributed to the fact that the back-pressure
data of these wells is probably from the transient ow period, whereas
the new model developed in this work, the MishraCaudle (1984)
model and the ChaseAlkandari (1993) model, all assume stabilized
ow. Another reason, which may have played a role in causing this
divergence in the predicted AOFP values, is relying on assumed values
of signicant information, such as the gas gravity and composition,
required in the calculations of the pseudopressures, due to the
absence of this information in Brar and Aziz (1978) paper. On the
other hand, Chase and Alkandari (1993) model shows a better
accuracy in predicting the AOFP of well number 3, which happens to
have a relatively high positive skin factor of + 7.8. This high value of
skin factor is outside the range considered in developing Eq. (24), and
that may explain the superiority of Chase and Alkandari (1993) model
for this case.
Chase and Anthony (1988) pointed out that pressure-squared
values can be substituted for pseudopressures in the dimensionless

103

IPR graphs and equations, such as those developed by Mishra and

Caudle (1984) and in the present work. However, this simplication is
limited to values of the average reservoir pressure, or static bottom
hole for a gas well, less than 2000 psi [13.8 MPa]. For average reservoir
pressures above 2000 psi, pseudopressure must be used in the process
of constructing IPR curves from the dimensionless plots. To further
evaluate Eq. (24), it was used with pressure-squared method to
predict current AOFP values. The percentage errors shown in Table 3
shows that ve out of eight wells has errors less than 5% with
maximum error observed for well number 3 of 7.57%. The predictions
of Mishra and Caudle model using the pressure-squared approximation was also used in the comparison. The results show that only two
out of eight wells have percentage errors less than 5% and maximum
error of 33.08% is observed in well number 1. The results of this part
are consistent with the Chase and Anthony's (1988) conclusion,
regarding the applicability of using the pressure-squared ratio to
replace the pseudopressures ratio, for reservoir pressures less than
2000 psi (wells 1 through 5 in Table 2).
For further validation of the new dimensionless IPR model,
Eq. (24), its prediction is compared to the test data of a single gas
well presented in the paper of Chase and Anthony (1988). Referring to
Tables 2 and 3, it is clearly seen that that the AOFP value predicted by
Eq. (24) is more accurate than that of Mishra and Caudle (1984). In
addition, the prediction of Eq. (24) using P2-approximation is just as
good as that found when using the pseudopressure method. The
Chase and Alkandari model (1993) was not included in this
comparison due to the lack of information regarding the skin factor
of this well.
The new model was also validated against unpublished test data of
six wells in a fractured gas reservoir located in the Middle East. Again
here, the superiority of Eq. (24) over the Mishra and Caudle model
(1984) is clearly seen in Tables 2 and 3, and Fig. 13 for predicting AOFP
values. In addition, the very good predictions of Eq. (24) prove its
applicability to the specic fractured reservoir attempted in this study.
Predicting the future performance of a gas well is also investigated
and a new dimensionless IPR model was developed as expressed in
Eq. (27). This model is validated using the example presented in the
paper of Mishra and Caudle. Table 4 shows the results of AOFP values
computed at two pressure levels, 1600 psia [11.04 MPa] and 1150 psia
[7.935 MPa], respectively, using Eq. (27) and MishraCaudle model.
These results are in excellent agreement indicating that the new
model can be also used to predict future gas well deliverability with
condence.
6. Conclusions
(1) A new dimensionless IPR model is developed for calculating the
performance of fractured and unfractured gas wells from a
single-point ow test data under current reservoir conditions.
The accuracy, simplicity, applicability and generality of the
proposed model make it more attractive over existing singlepoint ow test dimensionless IPR models and conventional
multipoint tests.
(2) For the eld data used in this work, the new IPR developed in
the present work is shown to have superiority when compared
with the existing methods.
(3) Another general dimensionless IPR is developed in this work for
predicting future deliverability from current single-ow test
data and is found to be as good as the existing correlation.
(4) The application of the pressure-squared approximation for
fractured and unfractured wells is found to be very accurate at
reservoir pressures below 2000 psi. This conclusion is consistent with published literature.
(5) Additional eld data are necessary to test the proposed relationships and further verify their implementation in practice.

104

H. Al-Attar, S. Al-Zuhair / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 67 (2009) 97104

References
Brar, G.S., Aziz, K., 1978. Analysis of modied isochronal tests to predict the stabilized
deliverability potential of gas wells without using stabilized ow data. Trans. AIME
265, 297304.
Chase, R.W., Alkandari, H., 1993. Prediction of gas well deliverability from just a pressure
buildup or drawdown test. Paper SPE 26915 presented at the Eastern Regional
Conference and Exhibition, Pittsburgh, Nov.24.
Chase, R.W., Anthony, T.M., 1988. A simplied method for determining gas-well
deliverability. SPE Reserv. Eng. 10901096 (Aug.).
Cullender, M.H., 1955. The isochronal performance method of determining ow
characteristics of gas well. Trans. AIME 204, 137142.
Kamath, J., 2007. Deliverability of gas-condensate reservoirseld experiences and
prediction techniques. JPT 94100 (April).
Katz, D.L., Cornell, D., 1955. Flow of natural gas from reservoirs. Notes on intensive
course. InUniversity of Michigan Publishing Services, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Katz, D.L., et al., 1959. Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering. McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc.,
New York City.
Lee, A.L., Gonzalez, M.H., Eakin, B.E., 1966. The viscosity of natural gasses. Trans. AIME
237, 9971000.
Mishra, S., Caudle, B.H., 1984. A simplied procedure for gas deliverability calculations
using dimensionless IPR curves. Paper SPE 13231 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Sept. 1619.
Rawlins, E.K., Schellhardt, M.A., 1936. Back-pressure data on natural gas wells and their
application to production practices. Monograph, vol. 7. U.S.Bur. Mines.
Smith, J.M., Van Ness, H.C., Abbott, M.M., 2001. Intorduction to Chemical Engineering
Thermodynamics, Sixth edition. McGraw Hill.
Swift, G.W., Kiel, O.G., 1962. The prediction of gas well performance including the effect
of non-Darcy ow. Trans. AIME 225, 791798.
Vogel, J.L. (1968). Inow Performance Relationship For Solution-Gas Drive Wells. JPT
(Jan.) 8392. Trans. AIME, 243.

CA: shape factor (dimensionless)

C: constant reects the position of the stabilized deliverability curve on the loglog
plot (MSCFD/psi2n)
D: turbulence factor (MSCFD 1)
h: net formation thickness (ft)
k: reservoir permeability (md)
m(p) or Pp: real gas pseudopressure (psi/cp)
n: reciprocal of the slope of the stabilized deliverability curve
P: pressure (psia)
Psc: standard pressure (14.7 psia)
Pr: current average reservoir pressure (psi)
Pwf: bottom hole owing pressure (psi)
q: current gas ow rate (MSCFD)
qmax: current AOFP (MSCFD)
rw: wellbore radius (ft)
re: drainage area radius (ft)
s: mechanical skin factor (dimensionless)
s: total skin factor (dimensionless)
ts: time to stabilization (h)
T: reservoir temperature (R)
Tsc: standard temperature (520 R)
X: pseudopressure ratio = Pp(Pwf)/Pp(Pr) (dimensionless)
xe: radius of external boundary (ft)
xf: radius of uniform ux fracture (ft)
Y: gas ow rate ratio = q/qmax (dimensionless)
z: gas deviation factor (dimensionless)
Greek symbols
:
:
:
:

coefcient of turbulence (ft 1)

porosity (dimensionless)
gas viscosity (cp)
gas specic gravity (Air = 1)

Glossary
Subscripts
a: deliverability coefcient (psi2/cp MSCFD)
A: drainage area (ft2)
AOFP: Absolute Open Flow Potential (MSCFD)
B: deliverability coefcient (psi2/cp MSCFD2)
ct: total system compressibility (psi 1)

c: current conditions
f: future conditions
i: initial conditions