SPE 75719

Comparison of Dimensionless Inflow Performance Relationships for Gas Wells

Mona D. Trick, SPE, Neotechnology Consultants Ltd.; Frank J. Palmai, PanCanadian Energy Corp.; and Robert W. Chase,
SPE, Marietta College

Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

tures, gas gravities, permeabilities, wellbore radii, drainage areas
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium held in and shape factors) into those equations and calculated values for
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 April–2 May 2002.
the a and b coefficients.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to ψr & ψwf ' a Q % b Q 2 (1)
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE
meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial
purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited.
Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words;
illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where
and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 1495.6 T A 2.2458
75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. a' log % log % 0.87 s (2)
k h 2
rw CA
Abstract
Dimensionless inflow performance relationships (IPRs) provide
a method to model the sandface deliverability of gas wells when
only data from a single drawdown or buildup test are available. 1299.15 T D
This paper compares the predictions from 3 dimensionless IPRs b ' (3)
k h
(Mishra and Caudle1, Billiter and Lee2 and Chase and Alkan-
dari3) with measured inflow performance coefficients from 4
point modified isochronal tests from 31 Alberta wells. The
dimensionless IPRs from Mishra and Caudle1 and Chase and 0.00003004 G
Alkandari3 closely match the predictions from measured inflow D ' (4)
µ h r w k 0.333
performance coefficients. Assuming that the n equals 1.0
overpredicts flow rate on average by 19%. The advantages of
using the LIT equation (also known as laminar-inertial-turbulent,
Houpert or Forchheimer equation) rather than the Rawlins- For each set of input values, Mishra and Caudle
Schellhardt equation are discussed. computed the maximum possible flow rate (using a bottomhole
flowing pressure of 0.0) and labelled that as Qmax. For a given
Introduction reservoir pressure, they used Eq. (5) to solve for Q/Qmax. The plot
Although it is preferable to get the coefficients of the inflow of the calculated Q/Qmax as a function of ψwf/ψr yielded a
performance relationship measured directly using a four point dimensionless inflow performance relationship. For each set of
modified isochronal test, in some instances, this may not be derived a and b, they repeated this calculation and then deter-
feasible. Dimensionless inflow performance relationships mined the best fit for all sets of input parameters to be as shown
(Mishra and Caudle1, Billiter and Lee2, Chase and Alkandari3) in Eq. (6).
provide methods to estimate the inflow performance using the
Q &a % a 2 % 4 b ( ψr & ψwf )
results of a single buildup or drawdown test. These three ' (5)
methods are described below. Qmax &a % a 2 % 4 b ψr
Mishra and Caudle1 extended the dimensionless inflow
performance relationship for oil wells of Vogel4 to stabilized
flow in unfractured gas wells. They started from the definitions ψwf
( &1)
of the laminar (a) and inertial-turbulent (b) coefficients for the Q 5 ψr
' 1 & 5 (6)
LIT equation (using pseudopressure) (Eq. (1)), expressed in Qmax 4
terms of reservoir parameters (see Eq. (2), (3) and (4)). Then they
substituted various sets of input values (e.g. different tempera-
2 M.D. TRICK, F.J. PALMAI, R.W. CHASE SPE 75719

To predict the Qmax at future reservoir pressures, they much greater range of input data than Mishra and Caudle had
used Eq. (7) to calculate the relationship shown in Eq. (8) using used. A total of 8 flow rates were used per curve.
6 different pressure levels. Billiter and Lee found that of the different parameters
investigated, only permeability had a significant effect on the
Qmax,f &a % a 2 % 4 b ψr,f shape of the dimensionless inflow performance curve. They
' (7) proposed using the dimensionless inflow performance relation-
Qmax &a % a 2 % 4 b ψr ship shown in Eq. (9).
n1 n2
Q ψwf ψwf
ψr,f ' 1 & C1 & C2 (9)
Qmax,f 5
(
ψr
) Qmax ψr ψr
' 1 & 0.4 (8)
Qmax 3
where
C1 ' &0.00931363 ln ( k ) % 0.739838 (10)
To use these relationships, one must measure the
stabilized flow rate that corresponds to a given bottomhole
flowing pressure at a particular reservoir pressure. These 2
pressures must be converted to pseudopressure. Using Eq. (6),
n1 ' 0.0165169 ln ( k ) % 1.13383 (11)
the maximum flow rate, Qmax, can then be calculated. Then for
any desired flow rate, the corresponding bottomhole flowing
pseudopressure can be calculated or vise versa. To define future
C2 ' 0.00929474 ln ( k ) % 0.259288 (12)
conditions, for a given reservoir pressure (converted to
pseudopressure), the future maximum flow rate, Qmax,f can be
n2 ' 1.16945 ln ( k ) % 8.38895 (13)
calculated using Eq. (8). Then that future maximum flow rate and
the future reservoir pressure could be used in Eq. (6) to deter-
mine the pseudopressure corresponding to any flow rate. Equations (10) to (13) are based on a regression analysis
These equations apply only to unfractured wells. Chase using average permeabilities ranging from 0.05 to 100 md. Note
and Anthony5 showed that these equations could be used with that permeabilities are expressed in field units (md, not mD) in
pressure squared instead of pseudopressure for reservoir pres- Eq. (10) to (13).
sures less than 2000 psia (13,800 kPaa) with only a small loss in For the future inflow performance curve, Billiter and
accuracy. However, above pressures of 2000 psia (13,800 kPaa), Lee used the same sort of analysis to derive the dimensionless
pseudopressure must be used. inflow performance relationship shown in Eq. (14).
Billiter and Lee2 extended the Mishra and Caudle1 n3
analysis by using a finite difference one-dimensional reservoir Qmax,f ψr,f
' (14)
simulator (with 16x1x1 geometrically spaced radial grid) to Qmax ψr
predict bottomhole flowing pressure for a given pseudosteady-
state flow rate for unfractured wells. They defined
"pseudosteady-state flow" as occurring when the rate of change where
in pressure with time is approximately the same at all reservoir
radii and the rate of change of the change of pressure with time 0.7811 % 6.0268 k % 0.8035 k 2
n3 ' (15)
is approximately the same for all radii of the reservoir. Note that 1 % 10.2099 k % 1.5534 k 2
this definition of "pseudosteady-state flow" is different than the
normal definition, which defines "pseudosteady-state flow" as
happening as soon as the pressure wave reaches the reservoir Eq. (15) is based on permeability values between 0.05
boundary. They included the non-Darcy flow coefficient, but and 250 md.
assumed a skin factor of zero. They also used the LIT or Houp- One should follow the same basic procedure as defined
eurt equation (see Eq. (1)) which gave essentially the same by Mishra and Caudle1 to use the Billiter and Lee dimensionless
results as the reservoir simulator. Billiter and Lee based the inflow performance relationship. Measure the stabilized flow rate
computed deliverability coefficients (a and b) on the same that corresponds to a given bottomhole flowing pressure at a
equations as Mishra and Caudle used (Eq. (2), (3) and (4)). They particular reservoir pressure. Using Eq. (9), the maximum flow
used a tornado-type analysis (varying one parameter at a time) to rate, Qmax, can then be calculated. Then for any desired flow rate,
evaluate the effect on the shape of the dimensionless inflow the corresponding bottomhole flowing pseudopressure can be
performance curve of initial reservoir pressure (for values greater calculated or vise versa. To define future conditions, for a given
than 21000 kPaa), reservoir temperature, gas specific gravity, reservoir pressure (converted to pseudopressure), the future
wellbore radius, formation compressibility, shape of the drainage maximum flow rate, Qmax,f can be calculated using Eq. (14). Then
area, size of the drainage area and permeability. They used a that future maximum flow rate and the future reservoir pressure
SPE 75719 COMPARISON OF DIMENSIONLESS INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS FOR GAS WELLS 3

could be used in Eq. (9) to determine the pseudopressure

Xe
corresponding to any flow rate. log N ' 0.296498 & 0.0618 log
To extend this type of analysis to hydraulically frac- Xf
tured gas wells, Chase and Alkandari3 took a slightly different 2 3 (22)
Xe Xe
form of the LIT equation using pseudopressure (see Eq. (16), % 0.00874 log & 0.0004278 log
Xf Xf
(17) and (18)) and substituted various reasonable input parame-
ters, using Monte Carlo simulation tools, to compute sets of a
and b. Approximately one thousand combinations of input data
were used for each fracture length ratio (Xe/Xf). These computa-
tions were repeated (all 1000 sets) for fracture length ratios For ratios of Xe/Xf larger than 108, the paper by West
varying from 1 to 108. For fractured wells, they used Eq. (19) and Chase7 recommended using Eq. (23) and (24) to compute M
(Russell and Truitt6) to convert the fracture radius into an and N.
equivalent wellbore radius (rwa) which replaces the wellbore
Xe
radius (rw) only in the equation for a, the laminar coefficient. log M ' 0.057871 log % 0.311663 (23)
Xf
1.2996 T re
a ' ln & 0.75 % s (16)
k h rw
Xe
log N ' &0.002712 log % 0.159624 (24)
Xf
1.2996 T D
b ' (17)
k h

This method is labelled as Chase et al in this paper.

G h Chase et al's equations can also be used for non-fractured gas
D ' 1.237 x 10&10 (18)
2
µ rw h p wells or for wells for which the fracture length is not known if
the fracture length ratio (Xe/Xf) is computed using the apparent
skin factor (i.e. the skin factor that has not been adjusted for non-
rwa ' 0.37 Xf e s (19) Darcy effects) and Eq. (25).

Using the computed a and b, they computed Qmax@Xe/Xf=1, Xe es

)

' 0.37 Xe (25)

which is the flow rate when the fracture length ratio is 1 (i.e. Xf rw
Xe/Xf = 1) and the bottomhole flowing pressure is zero. The
calculated a and b were also used to compute the flow rate for
any given bottomhole flowing pressure (or vice versa) to
construct a curve of dimensionless pseudopressure (ψwf/ψr) A single buildup or drawdown test will yield the radius
versus dimensionless flow rate (Q/Qmax@Xe/Xf=1). of the fracture (Xf) or apparent skin which can then be used in
The results fitted into the relationship shown in Eq. (20) the above equations. Since any reservoir pressure can be used in
for M and N values defined in Eq. (21) and (22). these equations, a separate step to determine the future inflow
N
performance relationship (as used in Mishra and Caudle's
ψwf Q method) is not required.
' 1 & M (20)
ψr Qmax@Xe/Xf'1 Using the measured flow rate, reservoir static pressure
and bottomhole flowing pressure from a buildup or drawdown
test, the maximum flow rate, Qmax@Xe/Xf=1, is calculated using Eq.
(20). Then the dimensionless inflow performance relationship
Xe can be used directly or it could be used to solve for the coeffi-
log M ' 0.004865 % 0.14312 log
Xf cients of the Rawlins-Schellhardt equation (C and n) or the
2 3 (21) coefficients of the LIT equation (a and b). To solve for the
Xe Xe
&0.00989 log % 0.00039 log coefficients of these equations, a different flow rate is selected
Xf Xf and the dimensionless inflow performance relationship can then
be used to compute the corresponding bottomhole pressure.
Using the measured flow rate, the computed flow rate and their
4 M.D. TRICK, F.J. PALMAI, R.W. CHASE
corresponding bottomhole pressures, the coefficients of the LIT
or Rawlins-Schellhardt equations can be computed in the normal
way (e.g. plot ∆p/Q versus Q to determine a and b). No future
inflow performance relationship needs to be generated. The
computed sandface deliverability coefficients of the Rawlins-
Schellhardt equation (C and n) or the coefficients of the LIT
equation (a and b) allow the user to calculate the well
deliverability for any desired future reservoir pressure. This
avoids the extra step of trying to approximate the future inflow
performance.
Chase et al8 determined the mean error in the predicted
sandface AOF for 25 Canadian gas wells was 9.2% with a
standard deviation of 8.7% from using this method to compute
the C and n (of the Rawlins-Schellhardt equation) as compared
to using the measured C and n from the 4 point modified
isochronal tests for those wells. If the n was assumed to be 1.0
and the C computed from the single measured flow rate and
bottomhole flowing pressure (as is commonly done when only a
single flow rate is available), they computed the error in the
predicted AOF to be 30.5% with a standard deviation of 25.2%.
Chase et al8 concluded that using the Chase et al dimensionless
IPR is much superior to assuming that the n is 1.0. However,
using the measured deliverability coefficients from a 4 point
modified isochronal test is always preferred for greatest
accuracy.
An alternate way of using the results from a single
buildup or drawdown test is to assume an n of 1.0 and compute
the C for the Rawlins Schellhardt equation (Eq. (26)).
Q ' C ( ψr & ψwf ) n (26)
The Rawlins Schellhardt or "simplified" or
"conventional" deliverability equation was derived empirically
but it can be shown to be an approximation of the LIT equation
(see Eq. (27) and (28)) .
a % b Q̄
n ' (27)
a % 2 b Q̄
Q̄
C ' (28)
2 n
a Q̄ % b Q̄
The value of n reflects the ratio between laminar and
&. If all pressure loss is due to laminar flow then n =
inertial-turbulent flow pressure loss in the formation at the mean
flow rate Q
1.0. If all pressure loss is due to inertial-turbulent flow then n =
0.5.
Since inertial-turbulent pressure loss is flow rate
dependent and laminar pressure loss is not, fixing a ratio between
these elements introduces an error when inertial-turbulent effects
are present. When n is less than 1.0, the error resulting from this
& that was used to determine the C and n coefficients.
method increases as the flow rate Q varies from the mean flow
rate Q
SPE 75719
Methodology
Modified isochronal test data from 31 Alberta gas wells were
used to compare the results of these dimensionless inflow
performance relationships. Sandface deliverability coefficients
were calculated for each well as follows:
1. The a and b of the LIT equation using pseudopressure were
calculated directly from the modified isochronal test data. This
method was labelled as "4 point LIT" in this study. Negative
deliverability coefficients were predicted for six of the wells.
These wells were removed from the study.
2. The a and b of the LIT equation using pseudopressure were
calculated using two sets of flowing pressure and flow rate
points. A bottomhole flowing pressure which was 0.5 times the
reservoir pressure was chosen and the corresponding flow rate
was calculated using the Mishra and Caudle1 method using
pseudopressure. This created one set of bottomhole flowing
pressure and flow rate data. For the second point, the extended
rate and measured bottomhole flowing pressure from the AOF
test were used. These two sets of data were used to solve for a
and b of the LIT equation using pseudopressure. Note that
Mishra and Caudle1 future inflow performance relationship was
not used in this analysis.
3. Step 2 was repeated using Billiter and Lee's2 method to
calculate the second set of data required to calculate the a and b
of the LIT equation using pseudopressure. Note that the Billiter
and Lee2 future inflow performance relationship was not used in
this analysis.
4. Step 2 was repeated using the Chase et al method.
5. The C of the Rawlins Schellhardt equation using pseudo-
pressure was calculated assuming n=1.0 and using the extended
rate and measured bottomhole flowing pressure. This method
was labelled as "n=1" in this study.
6. The C and n of the Rawlins Schellhardt equation using
pseudopressure were calculated directly from the modified
isochronal test data. The method was labelled as "4 point C&n"
in this paper.
The results from using these 6 methods plus using the
3 dimensionless inflow performance relationships directly were
compared by calculating the flow rate at each of 3 bottomhole
pressures using the computed deliverability coefficients. Bottom-
hole flowing pressures of one-quarter, one-half and three-
quarters of the reservoir pressure were used. The flow rate
predicted by the 4 point LIT inflow performance relationship was
assumed to be the most accurate of the inflow performance
relationships and was used as the comparison flow rate. The error
at a particular bottomhole flowing pressure was computed by
subtracting the flow rate predicted by a given correlation from
the flow rate predicted by the 4 point LIT method and then the
result was divided by the 4 point LIT flow rate. Negative error
values indicated that the method predicted a smaller flow rate
than the 4 point LIT. The computed error for each bottomhole
flowing pressure (at one-quarter, one-half and three-quarters of
the reservoir static pressure) was averaged to yield the "average
error" shown in Table 1. The results of using the dimensionless
inflow performance relationship directly (labelled as "Use IPR"
in this table) are nearly the same as using the dimensionless
SPE 75719 COMPARISON OF DIMENSIONLESS INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS FOR GAS WELLS
inflow performance relationship to aid in calculating the
coefficients a and b for the LIT equation (labelled as "Use a&b"
in this table). A major advantage of calculating the coefficients
a and b for the LIT equation is that they can be used directly to
compute the deliverability of the well at any future reservoir
pressure. The extra step and approximation required to compute
the future inflow performance relationship by Mishra and
Caudle1 and Billiter and Lee2 is then not required.
Discussion of Results
Both the Mishra and Caudle1 and the Chase et al methods
predicted flow rates which were very close to those predicted by
using the a and b of the LIT equation calculated directly from the
modified isochronal test data. Since only one well was fractured,
this paper was unable to determine if the Chase et al method is
superior to the Mishra and Caudle1 method for fractured wells.
It is recommended that more comparisons be done for fractured
wells to determine which method is superior.
The Billiter and Lee2 method predicted unrealistic
negative a values for 5 of the 31 wells investigated. As this
method also tended to underpredict the flow rates substantially,
the Billiter and Lee2 method is not recommended.
Assuming the n value to be 1.0 overpredicted the flow
rates by an average of 19%.
Fig. 1 shows the predicted sandface inflow performance
relationship for each method for Well 8. Well 8 showed results
typical of most of the wells studied. Fig. 2 compares the error in
computed flow rate at each bottomhole flowing pressure. The
dimensionless inflow performance relationships generally
underpredicted the flow rate, while using the Rawlins Schellhardt
equation tended to overpredict the flow rate, especially when the
n value was assumed to be 1.0.
Fig. 3 compares the predicted sandface inflow
performance for each method for the fractured well (Well 4). Fig.
4 shows the error in computed flow rate at each bottomhole
flowing pressure. The results from all three dimensionless inflow
performance relationships are very similar. Assuming n = 1.0
overpredicted the flow rate, especially at the lower bottomhole
flowing pressures.
Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 show how using the Rawlins Schell-
hardt equation (whether using a 4 point C and n or assuming
n=1.0) for a well whose n is close to 1.0 tends to predict a higher
flow rate than using the 4 point LIT relationship. The dimension-
less inflow performance relationships tend to underpredict the
flow rate, especially at the lower bottomhole pressures.
Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 show that for a well with an n close to
0.5, the dimensionless inflow performance relationships predict
flow rates quite close to those from using the 4 point LIT
relationship. However, the error from assuming the n=1.0 is very
large, showing a drastic overprediction in the flow rate at lower
bottomhole flowing pressures.
Conclusions
1. It is recommended that the LIT equation be used instead of the
Rawlins Schellhardt equation to estimate well deliverability,
especially when the measured n is close to 1.0.
5
2. This paper illustrates the large overestimation in calculated
flow rate (19% error) when assuming an n value of 1.0, a
common oilfield practice.
3. Both the Mishra and Caudle1 and the Chase et al methods
predicted flow rates which were very close to those predicted by
using the a and b of the LIT equation calculated directly from the
modified isochronal test data. Since only one well was fractured,
this paper was unable to determine if the Chase et al method is
superior to the Mishra and Caudle1 method for fractured wells.
4. The Billiter and Lee2 method underpredicted the flow rate
substantially (-9.5%) and tended to predict unrealistic deliver-
ability coefficients (e.g. negative a values) and is not
recommended.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank PanCanadian Energy Corp. and
the Energy Utilities Board of Calgary, Alberta for supplying the
data needed for this study.
Nomenclature
a = laminar flow pressure loss coefficient (kPa2/(mPa.s
(std m3/d)))
A = drainage area (m2)
b= inertial-turbulent pressure loss coefficient
(kPa2/(mPa.s (std m3/d)2))
C = deliverability coefficient ((std m3/d)/(kPa2/mPa.s)
CA = shape factor
D = inertial-turbulent flow factor ((std m3/d)-1)
G = gas gravity
h = net formation thickness (m)
hp = perforated interval (m)
k = effective permeability (mD)
M = coefficient dependent on the ratio of reservoir
radius to fracture radius
n = laminar-turbulent ratio coefficient
N = coefficient dependent on the ratio of reservoir
radius to fracture radius
&
Q = flow rate at standard conditions (std m3/d)
Q = geometric mean flow rate (std m3/d)
Qmax = maximum flow rate (std m3/d)
Qmax@Xe/Xf=1 =maximum flow rate at Xe/Xf=1 (std m3/d)
Qmax,f = maximum flow rate for the future reservoir pressure
(std m3/d)
re = radius of external boundary (m)
rw = wellbore radius (m)
rwa = apparent wellbore radius equivalent to a uniform
flux fracture (m)
s = skin factor
s' = apparent skin factor (not adjusted for non-Darcy
effects)
T = reservoir temperature (K)
Xe = reservoir radius or radius of investigation, which-
ever is smaller (m)
Xf = radius of uniform flux fracture (m)
∆p = pressure difference (kPa)
µ = gas viscosity (mPa.s)
6 M.D. TRICK, F.J. PALMAI, R.W. CHASE SPE 75719

ψr = pseudopressure evaluated at the reservoir static Drive Wells", JPT (Jan. 1968) 83.
pressure (kPa2/mPa.s) 5. Chase, R.W. and Anthony, T.M.: "A Simplified Method for
ψr,f = pseudopressure evaluated at the future reservoir Determining Gas-Well Deliverability", SPE Reservoir
pressure (kPa2/mPa.s) Engineering (Aug. 1988) 1090.
6. Russell D.G. and Truitt, N.E.: "Transient Pressure Behavior in
ψwf = pseudopressure evaluated at the flowing bottomhole
Vertically Fractured Reservoirs", JPT (Oct. 1964) 1159.
pressure (kPa2/mPa.s) 7. West, W. and Chase, R.W.: Ohio Space Grant Consortium
Research Project (1998).
8. Chase, R.W., Alkandari, H., Billiter, T., West W. and Lambert,
References K.: "Improved Estimation of Gas Well Deliverability from
1. Mishra, S. and Caudle, B.H.: "A Simplified Procedure for Gas Single-Point Tests", paper SPE 72365 presented at the SPE
Deliverability Calculations Using Dimensionless IPR Curves", Eastern Regional Meeting in Canton Ohio, Oct. 17-19, 2001.
paper SPE 13231 presented at the SPE 59th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, Sept. 16-19,
1984.
2. Billiter, T. and Lee, J.: "A Permeability-Dependent Dimension- SI Metric Conversion Factors
less Inflow Performance Relationship Curve for Unfractured Gas cP x 1.0* E+00 = mPa.s
Wells", paper SPE 59759 presented at the 2000 SPE/CERI Gas ft x 3.048* E-01 = m
Technology Symposium held in Calgary, Alberta, April 3-5. md x 9.869233 E-01 = mD
3. Chase, R.W. and Alkandari, H.: "Prediction of Gas Well Deliver-
Mscf/d x 2.817399 E+01 = m3/d
ability from Just a Pressure Buildup or Draw-down", paper SPE
26915 presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting in psia x 6.894757 E+00 = kPa
o
Pittsburgh, PA, 1993. R x 5.555555 E-01 = K
4. Vogel, J.L.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas * Conversion factor is exact.

Table 1 Error in Computed Flow Rate Compared to Using 4 point LIT

IPR Type Method Average Standard Absolute Standard Deviation

Error Deviation Error in Absolute Error %
% in Average Error % %

Mishra & Use a&b -2.1 7.8 6.4 5.0

Caudle Use IPR -3.0 7.6 6.6 4.9

Chase Use a&b -2.1 8.1 6.0 5.8

et al Use IPR -1.8 8.3 6.2 5.8

Billiter & Use a&b -9.5 9.5 9.9 9.1

Lee Use IPR -9.5 9.8 10.0 9.2

n=1 Use C&n 19.0 17.5 19.2 17.4

4 point C & n Use C&n 2.2 5.8 4.4 4.4

SPE 75719 COMPARISON OF DIMENSIONLESS INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS FOR GAS WELLS 7

15000
Sandface Pressure - kPaa

4 point LIT
10000
Mishra & Caudle
Chase et al
Billiter & Lee
n=1.0
5000
4 point C & n

0
0.E+00 1.E+05 2.E+05 3.E+05 4.E+05
Flow Rate - std m3/d

Figure 1 Sandface Inflow Performance for Well 8

20

15

10 Mishra &
Caudle
5 Chase et al
Error (%)

0
Billiter & Lee
0.25 0.5 0.75
-5
n=1.0
-10
4 point C & n
-15

-20

-25
Bottom hole Flow ing
Pressure as a Fraction of
Reservoir Pressure

Figure 2 Error in Computed Flow Rate Compared to 4 Point LIT for Well 8
8 M.D. TRICK, F.J. PALMAI, R.W. CHASE SPE 75719

8000
Sandface Pressure - kPaa

6000 4 point LIT

Mishra & Caudle
Chase et al
4000
Billiter & Lee
n=1.0
2000 4 point C & n

0
0.E+00 4.E+04 8.E+04 1.E+05 2.E+05
Flow Rate - std m 3/d

Figure 3 Sandface Inflow Performance Relationship for Well 4 (Fractured)

20

15

10 M is hra &
Caudle

5 Chas e e t al
Error (%)

Billite r & Le e
0
0.25 0.5 0.75
n=1.0
-5

4 point C & n
-10

-15

-20
Bottom hole Flow ing
Pre s s ure as a Fraction of
Re s e rvoir Pre s s ure

Figure 4 Error in Computed Flow Rate Compared to 4 Point LIT for Well 4
(Fractured)
SPE 75719 COMPARISON OF DIMENSIONLESS INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS FOR GAS WELLS 9

3500

3000
Sandface Pressure - kPaa

2500 4 point LIT

Mishra & Caudle
2000 Chase et al

1500 Billiter & Lee

n=1.0
1000
4 point C & n

500

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Flow Rate - std m 3/d

Figure 5 Sandface Inflow Performance Relationship for Well 11 (n=0.9282)

40

30

20 M is hra &
Caudle

10 Chas e e t al
Error (%)

Billite r &
0
Le e
0.25 0.5 0.75
n=1.0
-10

4 point C & n
-20

-30

-40
Bottom hole Flow ing
Pre s s ure as a Fraction of
Re s e rvoir Pre s s ure

Figure 6 Error in Computed Flow Rate Compared to 4 Point LIT for Well 11
(n=0.9282)
10 M.D. TRICK, F.J. PALMAI, R.W. CHASE SPE 75719

25000

20000
Sandface Pressure - kPaa

4 point LIT
15000 Mishra & Caudle
Chase et al
Billiter & Lee
10000 n=1.0
4 point C & n

5000

0
0.E+00 2.E+05 4.E+05 6.E+05 8.E+05
Flow Rate - std m3/d

Figure 7 Sandface Inflow Performance Relationship for Well 38 (n=0.5853)

60

50

40 M is hra &
Caudle
30 Chas e e t al
Error (%)

Billite r &
20
Le e
n=1.0
10
4 point C & n
0
0.25 0.5 0.75
-10

-20
Bottom hole Flow ing
Pre s s ure as a Fraction of
Re s e rvoir Pre s s ure

Figure 8 Error in Computed Flow Rate Compared to 4 Point LIT for Well 38
(n=0.5853)