Horizontal Well IPR Calculations

L.K. Thomas, SPE, B.J. Todd, C.E. Evans, and R.G. Pierson, SPE, Phillips Petroleum Co.

Summary

This paper presents the calculation of near-wellbore skin and

non-Darcy flow coefficient for horizontal wells based on whether
the well is drilled in an underbalanced or overbalanced condition,
whether the well is completed openhole, with a slotted liner, or
cased, and on the number of shots per foot and phasing for cased
wells. The inclusion of mechanical skin and the non-Darcy flow
coefficient in previously published horizontal well equations is
presented and a comparison between these equations is given. In
addition, both analytical and numerical solutions for horizontal
wells with skin and non-Darcy flow are presented for comparison.
Introduction

Since the start of this decade, there has been a large increase in the
number of horizontal wells drilled worldwide. In the United States
and Canada alone more than 10,000 horizontal wells have been
drilled since 1990.1 Advantages of horizontal wells over vertical
wells for specific reservoirs include increased productivity, improved sweep efficiency, reduced coning of water and gas, and
increased drainage areas.2 This latter advantage is of particular
importance in fractured reservoirs such as the Austin chalk, where
horizontal wells are drilled perpendicular to the predominate fracture trend.
As a result of the success of improved and accelerated recovery
with horizontal wells, there is a continual effort in the industry
today to minimize the cost of drilling and completing horizontal
wells. Drilling technology has steadily advanced in terms of geosteering to the point where most objectives can be met.3 For long
wells in which steering may be a problem, opposing dual laterals
are being used.1 Stacked laterals are being used in formations with
extremely low vertical permeability between major pay zones.
Coiled tubing is routinely being used to drill multilaterals from
existing wells in mature reservoirs.
Considerable effort is currently being expended to lower the cost
of horizontal wells by developing technology and methods to
minimize near-wellbore damage during drilling and completion
operations. This is extremely important because of the increased
difficulties in the cleanup of openhole horizontal wells with or
without prepacked screens and the increased expense of stimulating
cased hole wells. Both overbalanced and underbalanced drilling
and completion techniques are being used, and improved results are
being reported in both areas.4-6
During the past decade, several analytical solutions have been
developed for predicting the pressure and rate performance of
horizontal wells. Both transient and pseudosteady-state solutions
have been presented, and well test procedures for determining
reservoir properties, anisotropy, and near wellbore skin have been
described.7-22 Some authors have developed solutions assuming the
horizontal well is analogous to a vertical well with a vertical
fracture, whereas other authors have developed solutions from first
principles for a well drilled in the horizontal direction. All of these
solutions have assumed that skin is known or can be measured from
well test data.
This paper presents the calculation of near-wellbore skin and
non-Darcy flow coefficient for horizontal wells based on assumed
values of near-wellbore damage depending on how wells are drilled
and completed. In particular, the effects of drilling overbalanced vs.
underbalanced and completing openhole with or without a slotted
liner or cased hole on near-wellbore skin are discussed. The
Copyright 1998 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 51396) was revised for publication from paper SPE 36753, first
presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
Colorado, 69 October. Original manuscript received for review 24 October 1996.
Revised manuscript received 23 October 1997. Paper peer approved 7 July 1998.

392

inclusion of mechanical skin and the non-Darcy flow coefficient in

previously published horizontal well equations is presented and a
comparison of these equations is given. Both analytical and numerical solutions for horizontal wells with skin and non-Darcy flow
are presented for comparison. Special attention is required for field
simulations to assure accurate solutions.
Near-Wellbore Effects in Horizontal Wells

Wellbore skin results from a zone of reduced permeability near the

wellbore caused by drilling and completion fluid invasion. Traditional formulations of wellbore skin assume radial flow into a vertical
wellbore, and must be transformed to apply to horizontal wells.
In this development, horizontal well equations are based on the
reservoir geometry shown in Fig. 1. The horizontal wellbore is
oriented with the x axis, and is of length L. Formation permeability
is described by the permeability components k x , k y , and k z . The
average permeability, k, is taken to be the geometric mean of the
two permeability components that are perpendicular to the direction
of the well.
Mechanical Skin Factor. Laminar skin for a horizontal well can
be expressed as the sum of perforation geometry skin, the skin
caused by the damaged zone, and skin caused by the crushed zone
surrounding the perforations.23, 24
s 5 sp 1 sd 1 sdp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
Equivalent skin caused by partial penetration, location within the
drainage volume, and deviation from the horizontal plane are all
included in the semianalytical solution.
Perforation geometry skin is usually small. Values for this skin
have been tabulated as a function of perforation frequency, diameter, length, and phase angle.25
Skin resulting from drilling mud invasion, Fig. 2, can be calculated as a function of the radius and permeability of the damaged
zone.26
sd 5

k
rd
2 1.0 ln .
kd
rw

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

Permeability of the damaged zone may be as small as 10% of the

reservoir permeability when drilling substantially over pressured
and may extend as much as 2 or 3 ft into the formation.23
Skin for the crushed and compacted zone is calculated from the
following equation.
sdp 5

S DS

L
rdp
ln
Lp np
rp

k
k
2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
kdp kd

The compacted zone around each perforation in a well consolidated

formation has a thickness of about 0.5 in.27, 28 The permeability of
this zone varies from 10 to 25% of the permeability in the radial
damaged zone surrounding the well. Use of a dirty perforating fluid
can reduce this factor even further.
Non-Darcy Flow. Non-Darcy pressure losses occur primarily in
the region near the wellbore where fluid velocities are high. The
non-Darcy flow coefficient for a horizontal well is composed of
three components accounting for flow through the compacted zone,
damaged zone, and near-well reservoir rock.24
D 5 2.22~10215 !
1

F S D
D S DG

kLgg bdp 1
1
2
m n2p L2p rp rdp

b 1 1
bd 1
1
2
1 2
2
L2 rw rd
L rd re

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

SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, October 1998

Fig. 1Geometry of horizontal well examples.

Fig. 3Openhole completion, skin vs. rd 2 rw.

the difference between the damaged zone radius, r d , and wellbore

radius, r w . Note that positive skin values as high as 15 to 25 can be
expected even for openhole completions when overbalanced drilling results in a damaged zone permeability equal to 10% of the
formation permeability. Extreme overbalanced drilling can result in
even larger positive skin values.
For a cased hole completion, the thickness of the damaged zone,
the perforation crushed zone permeability, and perforation length
are the primary parameters that effect near-wellbore skin. Figs. 4
through 6 present values of skin vs. effective perforation length
with the number of shots per foot (SPF) as a parameter for damaged
zone thicknesses of 6, 12, and 18 in., respectively. These results
illustrate the high skins that can be expected when perforation
length is less than or equal to the damaged zone thickness. Conversely, note the marked drop in calculated skin values in Figs. 4
and 5 when perforation length is extended beyond the damage zone
thickness of 6 and 12 in., respectively.

Fig. 2Perforation geometry.

Underbalanced Drilling. Mechanical skin for a horizontal well

drilled underbalanced and completed openhole or with a slotted
liner should be near zero. Flow through a slotted liner will add a
small positive skin.30

The turbulence factor, b, is calculated as a function of permeability

with the equation developed by Firoozabadi and Katz,29

b 5 2.6~1010 !/k1.2 .

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

For multiphase flow, D is calculated for each phase as a function

of k r p k with the corresponding phase effective permeability in
Eq. 5.
Example Skin Calculations

The effects of various drilling and completion parameters on

near-wellbore skin and non-Darcy flow coefficient in a horizontal
well are illustrated next. In each example, the wellbore radius, r w ,
is assumed to be 0.25 ft. The damaged zone permeability for wells
drilled in an overbalanced condition is assumed to be 10% of the
permeability perpendicular to the well, and the crushed zone
permeability for perforated wells is assumed to be 10% of the
damaged zone permeability.
Overbalanced Drilling. Near-wellbore skin for a horizontal well
completed openhole or with a slotted liner is a function of the radius
of the damaged zone and the reduced permeability in this region.
Fig. 3 shows skin vs. damaged zone thickness, which is defined as
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, October 1998

Fig. 4 Overbalancedskin vs. Lp, rd 2 rw 5 6.

393

Fig. 5Overbalancedskin vs. Lp, rd 2 rw 5 12.

Fig. 7Underbalancedskin vs. Lp, rd 2 rw 5 0.

state flow from a horizontal well.

q5

2pkhDP
.
Bm~ln~r9e /rw ! 2 0.738 1 sf 1 sCA,h 2 c9!

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

This equation was developed from the solution for a fully penetrating infinite conductivity vertical fracture. Consequently, the
permeability in the numerator is the horizontal permeability, [i.e.,
(k x k y ) 1/ 2 ]. We want to add a simple mechanical skin term and a
non-Darcy flow term to the denominator of this equation to model
near-wellbore damage and turbulent flow effects. The equation for
pressure drop caused by laminar mechanical skin can be written
as31
DPs 5

Fig. 6 Overbalancedskin vs. Lp, rd 2 rw 5 18.

For a cased hole well drilled and completed at underbalanced

conditions, skin will primarily be a function of perforation length
and the SPF. Fig. 7 presents skin calculations for this case as a
function of perforated length and SPF. Note that positive skins as
high as 25 can result when short perforation lengths (6 in.) and one
SPF are used.
Inclusion of Mechanical Skin in Horizontal Well
Models

The equations for skin and non-Darcy flow coefficient developed

in the previous section of this paper are general and apply to the well
length, L, where near-wellbore effects occur. Implementation of
these terms into different wellbore models results in different
multiplying factors on the skin and non-Darcy flow terms depending upon how a particular well model was derived. This approach
is different from the treatment for vertical wells24 in which the
effect of partial penetration on near-wellbore skin is included within
the s and D terms.
Mutalik-Godbole-Joshi Horizontal Well Equation. Mutalik et
al.9 and Joshi18 presented the following equation for pseudosteady394

qmB
s,
2pkL

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

where L 5 the length of the completed interval and s 5 the

mechanical skin. This equation may be modified to include the
rate-dependent component of skin by adding the non-Darcy flow
component Dq:
DPs 5

qmB
~s 1 Dq!.
2pkL

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

Rearranging Eq. 6 in terms of pressure drop and expressing the

permeability in terms of the x and y components gives
DPno skin 5

qBm@ln~r9e /rw ! 2 0.738 1 sf 1 sCA,h 2 c9#

2p kx ky h

. . . . . (9)

Adding the pressure drops in Eqs. 8 and 9 to get the total pressure
drop gives
DPtotal 5
1

qBm@ln~r9e /rw ! 2 0.738 1 sf 1 sCA,h 2 c9#

2p kx ky h

qmB
~s 1 Dq!.
2pkL

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

Because the permeability in the skin multiplier is the permeability in the direction perpendicular to the well, the term (k y k z ) 1/ 2
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, October 1998

can be substituted for k. Rearranging and factoring like terms gives

DPtotal 5
1

qBm @ln~r9e /rw ! 2 0.738 1 sf 1 sCA,h 2 c9#

2p
2p kx ky h
1

kykzL

1/ 2
x

Multiplying the skin term by (hk )/(hk ) and factoring out the
permeability terms yields
DPtotal 5

qBm

ln

2p kx ky h

2 c9 1

r9e
2 0.738 1 sf 1 sCA,h
rw

kxh
~s 1 Dq!
kzL

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

Rearranging Eq. 12 then gives

q5

2p kx ky hDP
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)
Bm@ln~r9e /rw ! 2 0.738 1 sf 1 sCA,h
2c9 1 ~ kx h/ kz L!~s 1 Dq!#

Babu-Odeh Horizontal Well Equation. Following a similar analysis, a laminar/turbulent skin term may be added to the Babu and
Odeh10, 13 horizontal well equation, which was developed by turning the classical vertical well solution on its side and accounting for
the resulting geometry. Babu and Odeh present the following
equation for horizontal well productivity.
q5

2pxe ky kz DP

Bm@ln~ A1 /rw ! 1 ln~CH ! 2 0.75 1 sR #

2pxe ky kz DP

q5

~s 1 Dq! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
1/ 2
x

Rearranging Eq. 19 gives

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

Bm@ln~ A1 /rw ! 1 ln~CH !

20.75 1 sR 1 ~xe /L!~s 1 Dq!#

DPno skin 5

2pxe ky kz

Economides-Brand-Frick Horizontal Well Equation. Economides et al.20 developed their solution for flow into a horizontal
well by using a semianalytical method. An instantaneous point
source analytical solution is integrated numerically in time and
space to give constant flux solutions for a horizontal well located
anywhere in the drainage volume of a uniformly heterogeneous
reservoir with permeability anisotropy k x , k y , and k z in the x, y, and
z directions. These solutions are then used to numerically calculate
constant pressure solutions. Their solution for flow rate as a
function of dimensionless pressure, p d , is general and can be used
for both early time transient and pseudosteady-state calculations.
q5

k2xe ~p# 2 pwf !

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (21)
877.22Bm~pd 1 ~xe /pL!~s 1 Dq!!

At pseudosteady-state, p d can be calculated from a horizontal

shape factor, C h , and a vertical skin effect, s x after Kuchuk,15, 21
pD 5

. . . . . (15)

Adding the pressure drops from Eqs. 8 and 15 gives

DPtotal 5

qBm@ln~ A1 /rw ! 1 ln~CH ! 2 0.75 1 sR #

2pxe ky kz

qmB
1
~s 1 Dq!.
2pkL

DPtotal 5

1
1 ~s 1 Dq! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17)
kL
Because the permeability in the skin multiplier is the perm in the
direction perpendicular to the well, the term (k y k z ) 1/ 2 can be
substituted for k. This gives the expression
DPtotal 5

qBm

2p ky kz

@ln~ A1 /rw ! 1 ln~CH ! 2 0.75 1 sR #

xe

1
1 ~s 1 Dq! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)
L
Multiplying the skin term by x e /x e and rearranging gives
DPtotal 5

qBm

2p ky kz xe

ln

A1
rw

S D

1 ln~CH !

xe
20.75 1 sR 1 ~s 1 Dq! .
L

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19)

SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, October 1998

h
h
2 1 se .
2prw
6L

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (23)

The term, s e , accounts for eccentricity in the vertical direction,

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

qBm @ln~ A1 /rw ! 1 ln~CH ! 2 0.75 1 sR #

2p
xe ky kz

xe Ch
xe
1
s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (22)
4ph 2pL x

and sx 5 ln

se 5

Combining like terms and rearranging gives

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (20)

Note that the skin term multiplier in Eq. 20 is x e /L, which goes
to 1.0 for a well that fully penetrates the reservoir in the x
dimension. This makes the skin multiplier analogous to a partial
penetration skin. However, the skin multiplier in Eq. 13 (Ref. 9) is
2
1/ 2
(k 1/
x h)/(k z L), which is usually less than 1.0 for practical applications. The difference in the terms results because the Babu-Odeh
equation is essentially a radial flow equation turned on its side,
whereas the Mutalik equation is analogous to an infinite conductivity vertical fracture equation.

Expressed in terms of pressure drop, the equation becomes

qBm@ln~ A1 /rw ! 1 ln~CH ! 2 0.75 1 sR #

S D G F S DG

h 2zw 1 2zw
2
L h
2 h

pzw
1
2 ln sin
2
h

. . . . . . . . . (24)

Transformations introduced by Besson14 are applied to space

dimensions in the previous equations to account for anisotropy.
Values of C h vs. x e /y e and L/x e for common configurations are
given in the appendix of Ref. 20.
Comparison of Horizontal Well Models

A comparison of the three horizontal well models presented here

was made for a 2,000-ft-long horizontal well located in the center
of a 4,000 3 4,000 3 50-ft drainage volume (Fig. 1). The skin for
the well was assumed to be a constant value equal to 50. The ratio
of vertical to horizontal permeability was equal to 0.1, and k x was
assumed to be equal to k y . Table 1 gives other data for this example.
Fig. 8 presents the production forecasts for each model assuming
an initial oil rate of 2,500 STB/D and a minimum bottomhole
pressure of 1,800 psig. Results from a fine grid model are also
included for comparison. The productivity indices for well completion cells in the fine grid model were calculated from the
following equation for well block radius, r 0 , by Peaceman.32
Jo 5

2pkh
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (25)
Bo mo @ln~r0 /rw ! 1 s 1 Dq#

where
r0 5

0.28@~kz /ky !1/ 2 Dy2 1 ~ky /kz !1/ 2 Dz2 #1/ 2

.
~kz /ky !1/4 1 ~ky /kz !1/4

. . . . . . . . . . . . (26)
395

TABLE 1OIL PRODUCTION FORECAST EXAMPLE

Reservoir pressure, psia
Bubble point, psia
Bottomhole pressure, psia
Permeability, md
kr/kh
Irreducible water saturation
Formation height, ft
Drainage dimensions, Xe, Ye, ft
Well length, ft
Oil formation volume factor at pb
Oil viscosity at pb
Slope of 1/Bo above pb
Slope of mo above pb
Formation compressibility
Water compressibility

8,000
1,786
1,815
10
0.1
0.2
50
4000
2000
1.290
0.631
0.0000092
0.0000559
0.0000035
0.0000035

TABLE 2GAS PRODUCTION FORECAST EXAMPLE

Reservoir pressure, psia
Bottomhole pressure, psia
Permeability, md
kr/kh
Irreducible water saturation
Formation height, ft
Drainage dimensions, Xe, Ye, ft
Well length, ft
gg
Formation compressibility
Water compressibility
Reservoir temperature, F

8,000
1,115
1
0.1
0.2
50
4,000
2,000
0.635
0.0000030
0.0000035
245

TABLE 3PRODUCTION FORECAST EXAMPLES

Non-Darcy Flow Coefficient
Shots per
Foot

Skin

Oil (STB/D)

Gas (Mcf/D)

1
2
4

113
61
36

0.000709
0.000179
0.000047

0.00620
0.00157
0.00041

Fig. 8 Companson of fine grid and single cell simulations.

Essentially identical results were obtained between each of the

analytical models and the fine grid model.
Production Forecasting

A series of oil and gas production forecasts were made by using fine
grid simulation to show the effect of near-wellbore damage and
mechanical skin on production rate vs. time. SPF were varied while
holding perforation length and damaged zone thickness constant at
12 in. Tables 1, 2, and 3 present data for these runs.
Oil Forecasts. Fig. 9 presents results for oil production forecasts
assuming 1, 2, and 4 SPF, as well as those for a horizontal and
vertical well drilled and completed underbalanced and openhole,
s 5 0. A constant oil rate of 2,500 STB/D is maintained for the
openhole horizontal well for 1.75 years compared to progressively
smaller times for 4 and 2 SPF whereas the case with 1 SPF is
initially on decline and has a rate less than the openhole vertical
well.
Two additional oil cases were run to illustrate the effect of partial
cleanup or completion along the well. The first run was made
assuming 50% completion with alternating 200-ft sections completed along the wellbore with zero skin. The second run assumed
that only 20% of the well was effectively completed at the heel of
396

Fig. 9 Oil forecast example.

the well. Results for these two runs are compared with the openhole
horizontal well run in Fig. 10. Little difference is observed between
the 50% and totally completed well. The case with the 20%
completion, however, goes on decline much earlier, as expected,
and has a production profile similar to the damaged well described
previously with 2 SPF.
Gas Forecasts. Fig. 11 presents gas production forecasts. Here,
the constant rate period for the zero skin or openhole completion
case is approximately three times as long as that for the cased hole
well with 4 SPF. Skin and non-Darcy flow coefficient for the 4-SPF
case were 36 and 0.00041, respectively. The rate dependent skin,
Dq g , during the constant rate period is equal to 8, which gives
an apparent skin of 44. The initial apparent skin for the 2-SPF
case was 92.
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, October 1998

Fig. 10 Partial completion oil forecast example.

Fig. 12Extended reach multifrac oil forecast.

Discussion

Fig. 11Gas forecast example.

The 2-SPF case with near-wellbore damage gives a production

profile essentially the same as a fully penetrating vertical well with
zero skin, whereas the 1-SPF case has an initial rate approximately
half that of the vertical well.
Multifrac Forecast. An extended reach, multifrac horizontal oil
well case was run to illustrate expected results from this type of
stimulation and to provide a comparison with an equivalent length
horizontal well with either a zero skin or a skin equal to 50. Here,
a 5,000-ft-long well in the center of a 10,000 3 5,000 3 50-ft
drainage volume was used. Initial flow rate was set equal to 3,500
STB/D. All other data are the same as presented in Table 1.
Hydraulic fractures were located at 200-ft intervals along the
well. Each hydraulic fracture was assumed to penetrate the total
formation pay and have a total length of 100-ft symmetrically
located around the well.
Fig. 12 shows the results for these three runs. The constant rate
period for the multifrac case is approximately 3.7 years compared
to 3.5 years for the horizontal well with zero skin. The horizontal
well with a skin of 50, however, goes on decline in less than one
year of production and produces considerably less oil during the
first 5 years of production compared with the other two runs.
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, October 1998

Both semianalytical material balance forecasts and fine grid simulation runs were presented in this paper to illustrate inflow
performance for horizontal wells. Semianalytical forecasts are
useful in making initial screening calculations. Reservoir simulation is used for final design calculations and for more complex
reservoir and multiphase flow (coning) problems.
All of the fine grid simulation runs presented in this paper were
run both with and without pressure drops calculated in the horizontal section of the well. No noticeable difference was observed
in these results as is the case for many horizontal well forecasts.33
The effect of wellbore pressure drop is important, however, in
certain cases such as water/oil and gas/oil coning cases where the
drawdown into the well is an important variable in determining
water or gas breakthrough and rate vs. time.34
The non-Darcy flow coefficient, D, is a function of reciprocal
well length. So, different values of D should be used when running
a semianalytical model such as Babu-Odeh than when running a
reservoir simulation model. For example, if a 2,000-ft-long horizontal well is divided into ten 200-ft-long sections for reservoir
simulation, then the D value for each grid block used in simulation
should be 10 times larger than the value used in the semianalytical
model.
Conclusions

This paper presents equations to calculate near-wellbore skin and

non-Darcy flow coefficients for horizontal wells completed openhole, with a slotted liner or cased. The inclusion of mechanical skin
and non-Darcy flow in previously published analytical solutions is
given, and a comparison of results between these analytical models
and reservoir simulation models is presented.
1. Ideally, the skin for an openhole well drilled and completed in
an underbalanced condition is near zero. Skins for an openhole well
drilled in an overbalanced condition can be as high as 15 to 25 when
the damaged zone permeability is 10% of the formation permeability.
2. For a cased hole completion, skin and the non-Darcy flow
coefficient can be substantially higher than values for an openhole
completion because of converging flow through the perforations
and the lower permeability in the crushed zone surrounding the
perforations.
3. Mechanical and rate dependent skin can be substantially
reduced by perforating past the damage zone in a cased well.
4. The difference in productivity of a 50% completed horizontal
well uniformly distributed in alternating sections along the well and
a totally completed well is small.
397

5. The non-Darcy flow coefficient, D, is a function of reciprocal

well length. This should be kept in mind when applying well test
data in fine grid simulations and semianalytical material balance
calculations.
Nomenclature

A 1 5 horizontal well drainage area in the Babu-Odeh

model
B 5 formation volume factor, RB/STB
C h 5 horizontal shape factor in the Economides model
C H 5 horizontal shape factor in the Babu-Odeh model
c9 5 horizontal shape factor in the Mutalik model
D 5 non-Darcy flow coefficient, D/Mcf
h 5 reservoir thickness, ft
k 5 absolute permeability, md
L 5 well length, ft
L p 5 effective perforation length (see Fig. 2)
n 5 number of shots
p 5 pressure, psia
p# 5 average pressure, psia
q o 5 oil production rate, STB/D
r 5 radius, ft
r9e 5 effective drainage radius, ft
s 5 skin
s f 5 skin factor of a fully penetrating, infinite conductivity vertical fracture in the Mutalik model
s CA,h 5 shape factor skin in the Mutalik model
s e 5 term to account for vertical eccentricity in the Economides model
s R 5 partial penetration skin in the Babu-Odeh model
s x 5 vertical skin effect in the Economides model
x e 5 extent of drainage area in x-direction, ft
y e 5 extent of drainage area in y-direction, ft
z w 5 distance of well from middle of reservoir, ft
b 5 turbulence factor, 1/ft
g 5 gravity (air 5 1)
m 5 viscosity, cp
Subscripts
D 5 dimensionless
d 5 damaged zone
dp 5 compacted zone
e 5 external
g 5 gas
o 5 oil
p 5 perforation
r 5 relative
s 5 skin
w 5 wellbore
x 5 x direction
y 5 y direction
z 5 z direction
Acknowledgments

We thank Phillips Petroleum Co. for permission to publish this

paper.
References
1. Meehan, D.N.: Technology Vital for Horizontal Well Success, Oil &
Gas J. (December 1995) 39.
2. Gilman, J.R. and Jargon, J.R.: Evaluating Horizontal vs. Vertical Well
Performance, World Oil (April 1992) 67.
3. Koen, A.D.: Horizontal Technology Helps Spark Louisianas Austin
Chalk Trend, Oil & Gas J. (April 1996) 15.
4. Browne, S.V., et al.: Simple Approach to the Clean-Up of Horizontal
Wells with Pre-Packed Screen Completions, paper SPE 30116 presented at 1995 SPE European Formation Damage Conference at The
Hague, The Netherlands, 1516 May.
5. Adam, J. and Berry, M.: Underbalanced Coiled Tubing Sidetrack
Successful, Oil & Gas J. (December 1995) 91.
398

6. Wodka, P., et al.: Underbalanced Coiled-Tubing-Drilled Horizontal

Well in the North Sea, JPT (May 1996) 406.
7. Giger, F.M., Reiss, L.H., and Jourdan, A.P.: Reservoir Engineering
Aspects of Horizontal Drilling, paper SPE 13024 presented at the 1984
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 1619
September.
8. Clonts, M.D. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: Pressure Transient Analysis for
Wells with Horizontal Drainholes, paper SPE 15116 presented at the
1986 SPE California Regional Meeting, Oakland, California, 24 April.
9. Mutalik, P.N., Godbole, S.P., and Joshi, S.D.: Effect of Drainage Area
Shapes of the Productivity of Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 18301
presented at the 1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 25 October.
10. Babu, D.K. and Odeh, A.S.: Productivity of a Horizontal Well,
SPERE (November 1989) 417.
11. Rosa, A.J. and Carvalho, R.S.: A Mathematical Model for Pressure
Evaluation in an Infinite-Conductivity Horizontal Well, SPEFE (December 1989) 559.
12. Ozkan, E., Raghavan, R., and Joshi, S.D.: Horizontal Well Pressure
Analysis, SPEFE (December 1989) 567; Trans., AIME, 287.
13. Odeh, A.S. and Babu, D.K.: Transient Flow Behavior of Horizontal
Wells: Pressure Drawdown and Buildup Analysis, SPEFE (March
1990) 7; Trans., AIME, 289.
14. Besson, J.: Performance of Slanted and Horizontal Wells on an
Anisotropic Medium, paper SPE 20965 presented at 1990 SPE Europec
90 at The Hague, The Netherlands, 2224 October.
15. Kuchuk, F.J. et al.: Pressure-Transient Behavior of Horizontal Wells
With and Without Gas Cap or Aquifer, SPEFE (March 1991) 86;
Trans., AIME, 291.
16. Aguilera, R. and Ng, M.C.: Transient Pressure Analysis of Horizontal
Wells in Anisotropic Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, SPEFE (March
1991) 95.
17. Goode, P.A. and Wilkinson, D.J.: Inflow Performance of Partially
Open Horizontal Wells, JPT (August 1991) 983.
18. Joshi, S.D.: Horizontal Well Technology, PennWell Publishing Co.,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1991.
19. Goode, P.A. and Kuchuk, F.J.: Inflow Performance of Horizontal
Wells, SPERE (August 1991) 319.
20. Economides, M.J., Brand, C.W., and Frick, T.P.: Well Configurations
in Anisotropic Reservoirs, paper SPE 27980 presented at the 1994
University of Tulsa Centennial Petroleum Engineering Symposium,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 2931 August.
21. Kuchuk, F.J.: Well Testing and Interpretation for Horizontal Wells,
JPT (January 1995) 36; Trans., AIME, 299.
22. Jelmert, T.A. and Vik, S.A.: Bilinear Flow May Occur in Horizontal
Wells, Oil & Gas J. (December 1995) 57.
23. McLeod, H.D. Jr.: The Effect of Perforating Conditions on Well
Performance, JPT (January 1983) 31; Trans., AIME, 275.
24. Thomas, L.K., et al.: Well Performance Model, JPT (February 1992)
220; Trans., AIME, 293.
25. Locke, S.: An Advanced Method for Predicting the Productivity Ratio
of a Perforated Well, JPT (December 1981) 2481.
26. Hawkins, M.F. Jr.: A Note on the Skin Effect, Trans., AIME (1956)
207, 356.
27. Klotz, J.A., Krueger, R.F., and Pye, D.S.: Effect of Perforation Damage
on Well Productivity, JPT (November 1974) 1303; Trans., AIME 257.
28. Saucier, R.J. and Lands, J.F. Jr.: A Laboratory Study of Perforations
in Stress Formation Rocks, JPT (September 1978) 1347; Trans.,
AIME, 265.
29. Firoozabadi, A. and Katz, D.L.: An Analysis of High Velocity Gas
Flow Through Porous Media, JPT (February 79) 211.
30. Penberthy, W.L., Jr. and Shaughnessy, C.M.: Sand Control, SPE
Series on Special Topics Volume 1, Richardson, Texas, 1992.
31. Earlougher, R.C.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, SPE Monograph
Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas (1997).
32. Peaceman, D.W.: Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numerical
Reservoir Simulation with Nonsquare Grid Blocks and Anisotropic
Permeability, SPEJ (June 1983) 531; Trans., AIME, 275.
33. Novy, R.A.: Pressure Drops in Horizontal Wells: When Can They be
Ignored?, SPERE (February 1995) 29; Trans., AIME, 299.
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, October 1998

34. Brekke, K. and Lien, S.C.: New, Simple Completion Methods for
Horizontal Wells Improve Production Performance in High-Permeability Thin Oil Zones, SPEDC (September 1994) 205.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

ft 3 3.048*
ft2 3 9.290 304*
in. 3 2.54*
psi 3 6.894 757

E201
E202
E100
E100

5
5
5
5

m
m2
cm
kPa

*Conversion factors are exact.

SPEREE

L. Kent Thomas is Manager of Engineering Sciences in the

Research and Services Div. of Phillips Petroleum Co. in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. He holds a BS degree from the U. of Oklahoma
and MS and PhD degrees from the U. of Michigan, all in chemical engineering. He served as Program Chairman for the 1997

SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, October 1998

SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation and is currently a member of the 1999 Program Committee. He was the recipient of
the 1993 Reservoir Engineering Award and has served as a
Distinguished Lecturer. Thomas was elected an SPE Distinguished Member in 1995. Burt J. Todd is a senior research analyst
in the Research and Sciences Div. of Phillips Petroleum Co. He
holds BS and MS degrees in petroleum engineering from Montana Tech, and a PhD in chemical and petroleum engineering
from the U. of Kansas. His areas of expertise include numerical
modeling of enhanced oil recovery and well stimulation operations. Clayton E. Evans is a principal reservoir engineer in the
Research and Sciences Div. of Phillips Petroleum Co., where he
has developed and applied petroleum engineering software
since 1979. He holds a BS degree in physics from the U. of Rhode
Island, an MS degree in physics from the U. of Missouri, and an
MS degree in petroleum engineering from the U. of Tulsa. Ray
G. Pierson is a senior research computing specialist in the
Research and Services Div. of Phillips Petroleum Co. He holds a
BS degree in mathematics from Southwestern Oklahoma State U.

399