CHAPTER 1

GAS DELIVERABILITY

Prof. Dr. Ariffin Samsuri

1
 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

2
 Introduction

• ‘Deliverability’ of a gas well

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

3
Pressure Losses for A Gas Well

4
 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 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 Pwf =
0 psig (0 psig = 14.7 psia)
– Common indicator of well productivity

5
 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

6
 Analytical Method

• General solution to pseudosteady state flow in a radial-

flow gas reservoir is expressed as (Economides 1994)

• Very difficult to evaluate without computer

program due to difficulty and costly to obtain
values of all parameters in equations

7
 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
q  C ( p  pwf
2 n
)

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

pressures) – pseudo-pressure approach

 
n
q C pp (p)  pp (p)
8
 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
9
 History of the ‘Deliverability’ Equation

 Original well deliverability relationship was completely

empirical (derived from observations), and is given as:

2
q  C( p  2 n
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).

10
 General Equation of Deliverability

qsc  C ( P  P ) e
2 2 n
wf
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

11
 Deliverability Equation - Theory

where

BHPsi : Shut-in bottom-hole pressure

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

12
 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

13
 Multipoint Well Testing Plot – Empirical Analysis

Log – log plot of P2 – Pwf2 vs qsc2

14
 Multipoint Well Testing Plot – Empirical Analysis

Plot log of flow rate vs log of bottom hole pressure differences squared
 yield straight line of reciprocal slope n

Intersection of straight line with square of shut-in bottom-hole pressure

 yield theoretical flow from the reservoir (AOF) (if 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.

15
 Multipoint Well Testing Plot – Empirical Analysis

• AOF is calculated from the following equation:

substituting surface pressures for bottom-hole

pressures:

16
 Rawlins – Schellhardt Method
Pressure-squared term:
Deliverability eq: qg =C(Ps2 – Pwf2)n

Where; qg = gas flow rate, MSCFD

C = Flow coefficient, MSCFD/psia2n
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 / qg,max = [ 1 – (Pp @Pwf/Pp @Ps )] n

17
 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 coefficient = slope (dpp /qg vs qg plot), psia2/cp/MSCFD

18
19
20
21
 Types of gas deliverability test

Multipoint testing: Basically 3 type of tests can be done, Flow after flow test-
conventional (for highly permeable reservoir), isochronal test (tight res.) too
long to stabilize, modified isochronal: shorter

1. Conventional test
2. Isochronal test
3. Modified isochronal test

22
 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 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 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 square of shut-in bottom-hole pressure (psi)

– These differences are plotted against the flow rates on a log-log scale as shown in the previous graph

23
 Conventional Test (Flow-after-flow)
- 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)

24
 Conventional Test (Flow-after-flow)
- 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 alculate AOF

25
Conventional Test

26
 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, well head pressure is allowed to return to initial
shut-in pressure (psi)
– Last flow in 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, 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

27
 Isochronal test operational procedure

General operational concept:

• 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)

28
 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

29
Isochronal Test

 Slope of each line should be

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

30
Isochronal Test

31
 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 build-up pressure
before each flow rate is used when calculating (Psi2 - Pwf2) for each flow
• Plot is constructed and AOF determined in the same manner as described
for 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.

33
 Modified Isochronal test operational procedure

General operational concept:

• 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 ?

34
Modified Isochronal Test

35
 Deliverability Well Testing - Comparison

Isochronal Test

Conventional Test

Modified
Isochronal Test

36
Well Testing Analysis

37
 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

38
 Factors Affecting 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

39
THANK YOU

40