A Simplified Method for Determining

Gas-Well Deliverability
Robert W. Chase, SPE, Marietta C.
Ted M. Anthony, SPE, Marathon Oil Co.

Summary. This paper presents a simplified method for predicting the performance of a gas well. A method for determining the
deliverability of an unfractured gas well by use of a single-point flow test and a dimensionless Vogel-type inflow performance
curve was proposed by Mishra and Caudle. Their procedure necessitates the calculation of real-gas pseudopressures for shut-in and
flowing bottomhole pressures (BHP) obtained from pressure-buildup and stabilized-flow tests, respectively. This paper offers a
simplification of this technique in which a range of pressure values is defined over which pressure-squared terms can be substituted
for pseudopressures. A comparison is made between results obtained from analysis of well-test data on several gas wells made with
conventional multipoint test methods, with the Mishra-Caudle technique, and with the simplified method presented in this paper.
The simplified method offers the engineer who might not have access to a pseudopressure computer program or pseudopressure
tables a method for estimating gas-well deliverabilities. The method of Mishra and Caudle and the simplified method were both
observed to yield slightly conservative estimates of gas-well deliverabilities compared with the deliverabilities calculated from
multipoint flow-test analyses. The simplified technique was found to be useful for predicting the performance of fractured gas wells
as well as unfractured wells.
Introduction
Predicting the performance of gas wells is a process that has relied
almost exclusively on some form of multipoint well-testing procedure. The conventional backpressure or flow-after-flow, 1 the
isochronal, 2 and the modified isochronal tests 3 have been used to
predict the short- and long-term stabilized deliverability of gas wells.
In a typical multipoint deliverability test, a well is produced at
a minimum offour different flow rates with shut-in periods ofvarious lengths separating flow periods. Pressure is monitored during
both the flow and shut-in periods throughout the test. Analysis of
the BHP vs. flow rate yields results that, when plotted on log-log
paper as shown in Fig. 1, produce a straight line that reflects the
stabilized deliverability behavior of a gas well.
The empirically derived relationship given by Eq. 1 represents
the equation of a stabilized deliverability curve such as the one
shown in Fig. 1.
q=C(p1-plt)n

(1)

The constant C reflects the position of the stabilized deliverability curve on the log-log plot. The value of the exponent, n, is equal
to the reciprocal of the slope of the stabilized deliverability curve
and normally has a value between 0.5 and 1.0.
The stabilized deliverability curve or its equation may be used
to predict the ability of a well to produce against a given sandface
backpressure. The absolute open flow (AOF) of the well is also
frequently calculated. The AOF is the theoretical maximum flow
rate a well can maintain against a zero surface backpressure. The
AOF is used mainly in comparing wells and by regulatory bodies
in establishing production allowables.
Multipoint backpressure tests yield very reliable deliverability
projections when correctly conducted in the field. Frequently, however, these tests require a commitment of manpower, equipment,
and time that may render the tests cost-prohibitive. This is particularly true in the case oflow-permeability reservoirs, where testing
times may be very long. The problem is further compounded in
terms of lost revenues if gas must be flared throughout the test.
Alternative methods for forecasting gas-well deliverability have
been proposed by several authors. 4- 6 A replot of the stabilized
deliverability curve shown in Fig. Ion Cartesian coordinate graph
paper (Fig. 2) produces an inflow performance, or IPR, curve similar to those observed in the testing of oil and gas producing wells.
Russell et al. 4 showed that IPR curves constructed with Eq. 1 gave
predicted gas-production rates lower than those observed in the field.
Copyright 1988 Society of Petroleum Engineers

1090

Russell et al. proposed an equation that depicted gas-inflow performance more accurately:
Tsckh(p1-p;y.)
q=

(2)

re
3 )
50.34PscTp.(p)z(p) ( In- - - +s
rw 4
Greene 5 documented that Neely6 rewrote Eq. 2 by collecting the
parameters that were constant for a given well in a constant, C1,
yielding the gas-well inflow performance equation:
q=

c1(p1-p;y.)

(3)

p.(p )z(p)
The constant C1 in Eq. 3 may be determined from a single flow
test if the shut-in BHP is known. The constant Cl will not vary
with flow rate; however, it may change over the life of the well
because of changes in the producing condition of the wellbore or
formation.
Greene noted that a valid IPR curve could be constructed for a
well from a single C1-factor determination and a known shut-in
BHP. This could be done by assuming values of Pwf' calculating
corresponding p.g and z values, and substituting in Eq. 3 to find
corresponding values of q. BHP could then be plotted vs. flow rate
to obtain the IPR curve.
VogeJ7 extensively studied the inflow performance of solutiongas-drive reservoirs. He suggested that the dimensionless IPR curve
shown in Fig. 3 could be used to generate actual IPR curves for
wells in which oil and gas were flowing. With Vogel's method,
only a value for shut-in BHP and a single flow-test point are necessary to generate an IPR curve for a well completed in a solutiongas-drive reservoir. Brown 8 reported that field experience has
shown that Vogel's dimensionless IPR curve also yields good approximations of flow behavior when the method is applied to wells
producing oil, gas, and water. Vogel suggested that dimensionless
IPR curves could be constructed for wells producing only liquids
or only gas, as shown in Fig. 3. However, he did not propose an
actual dimensionless IPR curve that could be used to predict gaswell performance.
Mishra and Caudle 9 presented a method for predicting the
deliverability of a gas well in an unfractured reservoir. The analytic solution to the gas diffusivity equation for flow of a real gas
SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1988

10000

~-;;:::---------------------.
i=-;;-;

..

~ -379 )(lOJ p1io

Stabili d
O.li,ability

,;,a
2
N

1000

1- - -t-- T

.~

Go

I
I

........?-.:,-- Two-phase Gas Oil Flow

- I--

.....V/

or

.... =

lC

Go

<I

or

!
I
I
r-i
-

/
/

t....

rrrli

fron'ient

'
--i+-+,+-I-H-+H
I I

t-~o~.;tl~PiCf/ID

l00~,~-'--'--'-..J-'--'---'--'---J'--'--'"710':--'--J.-'--L..J.-'-'--J'-'-...J....~100

o
~L-...

q". MMscflD

.......

-'-

0.0

wE

Fig. 1-Stabllized dellverabllity curve for modified Isochronal

test (after Ref. 11).

-J.

-L.

(p

p)

1.0

Fig. 3-Dimenslonless IPR curves (after VogeI 7 ).

2.00
1.90
1.80

1.70

0.'

1.60

1.50

--------- --------

0.'

1.40

1..30

--------

0.7

1.20

1.10
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70

0 .

"J

0.5

0.4

0.60

0.50

"-

O.J

0.40

0 ..30

0.2

0.20
0.10

0.1

0.00
0.00

4.00

2.00

6.00

8,00

10,00

12.00

FLOW RATE (MMet/D)

0.2

0.4

0 .

--

'" \

0.'

qlq",..

Fig. 2-IPR curve generated from stabilized deliverablllty

curve.

Fig. 4-Dlmenslonless IPR curve for current conditions (after Mishra and Caudle 9 ).

in a porous medium under stabilized or pseudo-steady-state flow

conditions and a broad range of rock and fluid properties were used
to generate dimensionless flow rate and pseudopressure data and
to derive the following empirical relationship:

Eq. 6 is the empirical relationship representing the dimensionless

IPR curve shown in Fig. 5.
Note that the average reservoir pressure, fiR, was used in the
development of the dimensionless IPR curves. In most testing procedures, a well is shut in and BHP is allowed to build up until it approaches some level of stabilization. The value for the static BHP
is normally used in lieu of the true average reservoir pressure, which
can be determined only by transient-pressure analysis techniques.
The approximation of true average reservoir pressure with static
BHP will introduce some inaccuracy in the prediction of flow rates,
probably on the conservative side.
The dimensionless IPR curves developed by Mishra and Caudle
eliminate the need for multipoint testing and provide a new and
simpler technique for estimating gas-well deliverability. The method
simplifies the process of deliverability testing by reducing the
amount of well-test data required for analysis to a single shut-in
BHP value and a single stabilized flow-test point. The analysis of
the data acquired from a field test requires the calculation of realgas pseudopressures, and unfortunately, not all gas producers have
the capability of making pseudopressure calculations.
The purpose of this research is two-fold. First, a simplification
of the Mishra-Caudle method is sought in which a range of pressures is defined over which pseudopressure ratios can be approximated by pressure or pressure-squared terms. This simplification

--=-[1-5(pp><!P pR)-I],

.....................

(4)

qrnax

where
pp=2r !-dp

(5)

o p,z
Eq. 4 is the empirical relationship representing the dimensionless IPR curve shown in Fig. 4. This curve can be used to determine an actual IPR curve for calculating the current deliverability
of an unfractured gas well.
Mishra and Caudle proposed a second empirical equation and
dimensionless IPR curve for calculating the future deliverability
of an unfractured gas well:
qrnaxf

--=-[1-0.4
qrnaxi
3

(_

~_

PpRjPpRi] .

...................

SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1988

(6)

1091

1
0.9

+--I--+-+--I--+---f--~-+--+"L....j/

O.B

t--t--t--j----,f--j--+--+--f---".L.J----1

0.7

+--I--+--+---I--f--+--I---,..j::V:...-...-I----l

0.
0.7

+--+--+--+--+-+--1--JL/=---f..--l---l
~I t---t--t--t--l-----jf---j.L--+--+---+---l
/

III

c='t
co_
coili-

O.B

0.5

0.4

a:~.'"

+--IC--+--f--I--::;j.-.:::...../+-f--+--J.-----1

O.J

+---+--+---1/----;;>-!L/-+--+-+---+---Il--...l
t--+--+--;7"f--f----1--+--+--l---I--~

)/

.lll.!l

-t----f::;,.L-+--t--l--f---l--+----+---+--/
0.2

0.4
q-rlci......

0.6

0.6
0.'

9~ 0

0.2

0.'

0.9

0.3
O.Z

O.B

0.1
0

Fig. 5-Dlmenslonless IPR curve for future conditions (after

Mishra and Caudle').

PRESSURE-SQUARED
Ix 10' p....)

10

Fig. 7-Curve of pseudopressure VS. pressure squared for a

O.6-gravlty gas.

1.'
1
1.3
1.Z
1.1
1
III

c- 0.9
='t
co_
o.
collic- 0.7

~.'"
~~

0.6

...

0.'

III ..

co-

0
0.3
O.Z
0.1
0
0

PRESSURE
(x 10' P".)

Fig. &-Curve of pseudopressure VS. pressure for a O.6-gravlty

gas.

would permit an engineer who may not have access to pseudopressure tables or a pseudopressure computer program to estimate gaswell deliverabilities.
Secondly, the Mishra-Caudle dimensionless IPR curves were developed for real-gas flow in an unfractured reservoir. It was desired
to determine whether the method would yield accurate results when
applied to the testing of wells that had been hydraulically fractured.

Pudoprur. Approximation
It has been shown that gas flow behavior can be most accurately
described using the pseudopressure function, Pp, which takes into
account the deviation of gas viscosity and the gas deviation factor
with pressure. The pseudopressure function is given by the integral
expression shown in Eq. 5.
.
At low pressures, the product of viscosity and compressibility
remains essentially constant, and the pseudopressure function can
be approximated by

where the combination of terms in parentheses also remains essentially constant.

As a general guideline, Wattenbarger and RameylO suggested
that for pressures <2,000 psia [< 13.8 MPa], pressure squared
serves as an accurate approximation for pseudopressure. Likewise,
they asserted that for pressures > 3,000 psia [> 20.7 MPa], pressure will accurately approximate pseudopressure. These guidelines
were developed for application with the diffusivity equation in
transient-pressure analysis.
In the context of the modification to the Mishra-Caudle method
sought in this work, the relationship between pseudopressure and
pressure or pressure squared was also examined. A computer program was used to generate a table of data comprising corresponding values of pressure, pressure squared, and pseudopressure.
Graphs of pressure squared vs. pseudopressure and pressure vs.
pseudopressure were plotted for 0.60-, 0.65-, 0.70-, and
0.75-gravity gases. Differences between the curves for differentgravity gases were noted, but all basically followed similar trends.
For this reason, only the results obtained for a O.60-gravity gas
are reproduced in Figs. 6 and 7.
The portions of the curves shown in Figs. 6 and 7 that are linear
are of particular interest in this research. The curve of pseudopressure vs. pressure in Fig. 6 was viewed to be nearly linear above
about 2,900 psi [20 MPa]. This was confirmed by an incremental
computation of slopes along the line at 50-psi [345-kPa] intervals.
The curve of pseudopressure vs. pressure squared in Fig. 7 was
also viewed to be nearly linear from 0 to about 2,000 psi [0 to 13.8
MPa]. This trend was confirmed by calculating slope values at points
50 psi [345 kPa] apart along the curve. Over this pressure range,
the change in slope between any two pressures was less than 1 %.
The linear portion of the curve of pseudopressure vs. pressure
squared is of great significance in terms of simplifying deliverability testing procedures for wells with shut-in BHP's less than about
2,000 psi [13.8 MPa]. Because the curve shown in Fig. 7 passes
through the origin, the equation describing the linear portion of the
curve can be written as the equation of a straight line having a y
intercept of zero:

pp=mp2
Pp = (_2_)p 2. .

Substituting this equation for Pp values as they are used in Fig.

4 and Eq. 4 yields the following relationship:

#LiZi

Likewise, at high pressures, the pseudopressure function can be

approximated by

Pi
pp=(2 )p2,
#LiZi

1092

(9)

(7)

Ppwf

mpJi.!

PpR

mpR

-=--=2'

(10)

(8)

A similar relationship can be obtained for Fig. 5 and Eq. 6.

SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1988

TABLE 1-MODIFIED ISOCHRONAL TEST DATA (from Ref. 9)

Initial Shut-in
Flow 1
Shut-in
Flow 2
Shut-in
Flow 3
Shut-in
Flow 4
Extended flow
Final Shut-in

Duration
(hours)
20
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
81
120

Pressure
Squared
(psia 2 )
3.80x 10 6
3.18x 10 6
3.71 x 10 6
2.82x10 6
3.65x10 6
2.39x10 6
3.56x 10 6
1.84x 10 6
1.52x 10 6
3.80 x 10 6

Sandface
Pressure
(psia)
1,948
1,784
1,927
1,680
1,911
1,546
1,887
1,355
1,233
1,948

Because the slope along the curve from 0 to 2,000 psi [0 to 13.8
MPa] is essentially constant, it can readily be seen that the slope
terms in Eq. 10 cancel, leaving a ratio of pressure-squared terms
equal to a ratio of pseudopressure terms. This key simplification
permits the substitution of pressure-squared values for pseudopressures in the dimensionless IPR curves of Figs. 4 and 5 and in Eqs.
4 and 6, for wells with average reservoir pressures or static BHP's
less than about 2,000 psia [13.8 MPa].
Turning to the curve of pseudopressure vs. pressure in Fig. 7,
the linear portion ofthis curve begins at about 2,900 psi [20 MPa].
This linear trend, however, does not have the origin as an intercept, thus prohibiting the substitution of pressure values for pseudopressures in the dimensionless IPR expressions. Therefore, it can
be concluded that above about 2,000 psi [13.8 MPa], pseudopressure values should be used in working with the dimensionless IPR
expressions proposed by Mishra and Caudle.

Discussion of Results
Field-test data were obtained on several gas wells with shut-in average reservoir pressures <2,000 psi [< 13.8 MPa]. The tests were
analyzed by conventional multipoint test methods, the MishraCaudle technique, and the simplified method proposed in this paper.
The IPR curves determined with each method have essentially the
same shape but different endpoints on the x axis-Le., their AOF's.
For this reason, it was determined that only the AOF's needed to
be calculated to compare the methods.
Complete deliverability test data 11 from one gas well are presented in Table 1. These data are analyzed completely in the Appendix. Note also that these data correspond to the stabilized
deliverability curve shown in Fig. 1.
Results from the comparative analysis are shown in Table 2. The
AOF's found with the Mishra-Caud1e method and the simplified
technique differ from each other by <6%. Again, differences in
the results obtained from the two methods may be attributed to the
Mishra-Caudle method using accurate real-gas pseudopressure
values, while the modified method depends on the assumption that
the slope of the curve of pressure squared vs. pseudopressures is
constant. The smaller the difference between Pwf and ji R, the more
closely the pressure-squared ratio will approximate the pseudopressure ratio.
Note that the AOF's calculated with multipoint test methods are
generally higher than the AOF's found with the Mishra-Caudle or
modified method. This difference can probably be attributed to the

Gas Flow
Rate
(McflD)
0
4,500
0
5,600
0
6,850
0
8,250
8,000
0

dimensionless IPR curve used in the last two techniques being empirically derived on the basis of curve-fitting a data trend. Multipoint well-test analysis depends on the use of actual test data to
determine a unique stabilized deliverability curve and should therefore still be viewed as the most accurate method for calculating
deliverability. Clearly, a large-scale evaluation of test data is needed
to substantiate the use of single-point testing methods as a replacement for multipoint test methods.
The first three AOF's reported in Table 2 pertain to hydraulically stimulated wells completed in low-permeability reservoirs. It can
be seen that the AOF's computed with the Mishra-Caudle method
and the simplified method compare favorably with the AOF's found
with conventional methods for the three fractured wells. Additional comparisons are needed, however, to confirm the validity of using
unfractured well dimensionless IPR curves for fractured wells. Further research has been conducted by Chase and Williams 12 and by
Chase 13 to develop dimensionless IPR curves specifically for predicting the performance of fractured gas wells.

Predicting GasWe.. DellverabUlty With

Dimensionless IPR Curves
The well-test data appearing in Table 1 were used in conjunction
with the dimensionless IPR curve shown in Fig. 4 to construct the
current deliverability IPR curve shown in Fig. 8. The procedure
for constructing the IPR curve by the simplified pressure-squared
method is detailed in the Appendix.
The IPR curve is used to estimate the ability of a porous medium
to flow gas into the wellbore when a given backpressure is maintained at the sandface. Because deliverability at the wellhead is normally desired, either an outflow performance curve or a tubing
performance curve must be constructed. This performanceprediction process is commonly called "nodal analysis."
Greene 5 gives several examples of the use of tubing-pressure
curves in conjunction with IPR curves to analyze gas-well performance. The tubing-head pressure or outflow performance curve is

P . . . 19ol8 ....

2.00

-y----------"'-----"'------------,

1.90
1.80
1.70

1.60
1.50
1.40

~
_

TABLE 2-COMPARISON OF AOF'S FROM MULTIPOINT

AND SINGLEPOINT TESTS

Pseudopressure
(psi 2 /cp)
3.15x10 8
2.67x10 8
3.08x 10 8
2.39 x 10 8
3.04x10 8
2.04 x 10 8
2.97 x 10 8
1.58x 10 8
1.32 x 10 8
3.15x 10 8

I
cr

1.30

Outflow Perfonaane.. Curve

1.20
1.10
1.00

0.90
0.80
0.70

0.60

Multipoint Test
AOF
(MscflD)
167
547
696
9,000
9,500
10,988

Mishra-Caudle
AOF
(MscflD)
149
492
692
8,700
9,080
10,526

SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1988

Pressure-Squared
AOF
(MscflD)
148
491
692
8,400
8,940
10,341

0.50
0.40

0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00 +---.---,--r---r-,-------r---,------,--r..-~___,___1
0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

FLOW RATE (MMclID)

Fig. 8-Production performance curves constructed for a gas

weil at current conditions with the dimensionless IPR curve.
1093

a plot oftubing-head pressure vs. flow rate, and represents the ability
of the gas and liquid, if present, to flow up the tubing.
If multiple phases are flowing up the tubing, multiphase flow
correlations are necessary to generate outflow performance curves.
These outflow performance curves normally exhibit a humpbacked
shape. The apex of such a curve is designated as the flow point
and represents the maximum flowing tubing-head pressure and the
minimum sustainable flow rate possible for the well.
Any flowing BHP algorithm may be used to generate the outflow performance curve for a dry gas well. A dry gas well will
have no flow point or apex on its outflow performance curve.
Outflow performance curves are valid only for the current static
BHP and IPR curve of a well. To predict future deliverability, future IPR curves must be constructed using Fig. 5 or Eq. 6. Corresponding outflow performance curves must then be calculated for
each future IPR curve.
A second type of curve, called the tubing performance curve or
constant tubinghead pressure curve, can also be constructed with
either multiphase flow correlations when multiple phases are flowing
or single-phase flow correlations for dry gas flow. The tubing performance curve is a plot of the flowing BHP required to produce
a well at various gas flow rates through a given-size tubing string
at a constant flowing tubinghead pressure. This type of curve is
also shown in Fig. 8. The intersection of the constant tubinghead
pressure curve with the IPR curve yields the stabilized flow rate
that the well can maintain against the specified constant tubinghead
pressure.
As static BHP falls, it is necessary to construct future IPR curves
corresponding to the new static BHP's. The constant tubinghead
pressure curve, however, applies throughout the flowing life of the
well and need not be recalculated unless tubing size is changed.

Conclusions
A simplification of a method developed by Mishra and Caudle for
predicting gas-well performance was proposed in this research. The
procedure requires a value for the shut-in BHP and the flowing BHP
and associated flow rate from a single stabilized flow test for a gas
well. These data are used to construct IPR curves for the gas well
by use of the dimensionless IPR curves developed by Mishra and
Caudle.
1. Pressure-squared values can be substituted for pseudopressutes
in the dimensionless IPR graphs and equations developed by Mishra and Caudle if the average reservoir pressure or static BHP for
a gas well is less than about 2,000 psi [13.8 MPa].
2. Above average reservoir pressures of about 2,000 psi [13.8
MPa], pseudopressures must be used in the process of constructing IPR curves from the dimensionless plots of Mishra and Caudle.
3. The simplified method and the Mishra-Caudle technique both
yield reasonable, conservative estimates of gas-well deliverabilities compared with values obtained with conventional multipoint
test methods.
4. The simplified method and the Mishra-Caudle technique were
used successfully to predict the deliverabilities of several fractured
gas wells completed in low-permeability reservoirs, even though
the dimensionless IPR curves were developed for unfractured wells.
5. A large-scale study of well-test data is needed to determine
whether single-point testing methods can be used as an effective
replacement for conventional deliverability test methods.
6. Further research on the development of dimensionless IPR
curves for fractured wells is warranted and ongoing.

Nomenclature
C == constant of stabilized deliverability equation
C 1 = constant of gas inflow performance equation
h = reservoir thickness, ft [m]
k = permeability, md
m = slope
n = exponent of stabilized gas deliverability equation
P = average pressure, [(PR+PMf)/2], psia [kPa]
Pp = real gas pseudopressure evaluated at pressure p,
psia2 /cp [kPa 2 /rnPa's]
PR = average reservoir pressure, psia [kPa]
1094

Psc =
Pth =
PMf =
Pws =

q
re
rw
s

=
=
=
=

T=
Tsc =

z=
IJ.g =

pressure at standard conditions, psia [kPa]

tubinghead pressure, psi [kPa]
flowing BHP, psia [kPa]
static BHP, psia [kPa]
stabilized gas flow rate, Mcf/D [m 3 /d]
radius of external boundary, ft [m]
radius of wellbore, ft [m]
skin factor
reservoir temperature, OR [K]
temperature at standard conditions, OR [K]
gas deviation factor
gas viscosity, cp [mPa' s]

Subscripts
f = future conditions
i = initial conditions
P = pseudo

Acknowledgements
We thank Paul Hyde (Columbia Natural Resources Inc.), Will Tank
(Marathon Oil Co.), and Jim Murtha (Marietta C.) for their input
during the course of this research.

References
1. Rawlins, E.K. and Schellhardt, M.A.: "Back-Pressure Data on Natural
Gas Wells and their Application to Production Practices, " Monograph
7, U.S. Bur. Mines (1936).
2. Cullender, M.H.: "The Isochronal Perfonnance Method ofDetennining
Flow Characteristics of Gas Wells," Trans., AIME (1955) 204, 137-42.
3. Katz, D.L. et al.: Handbook ofNatural Gas Engineering, McGraw Hill
Book Co. Inc., New York City (1959) 448.
4. Russell, D.G. et aI.: "M~thods for Predicti1JB Gas Well Perfonnance,"
lPT (Jan. 1966) 99-108, Trans., AIME, 237.
5. Greene, W.R.: "Analyzing the Performance of Gas Wells," lPT(July
1983) 1378-84.
6. Neely, A.B.: "The Effect of Compressor InstaIlation On Gas Well Perfonnance," HAP Report 65-1, Shell Oil Co., Houston (Jan. 1965) 1-13.
7. Vogel, J.L.: "Inflow Perfonnanc Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive
Wells," lPT (Jan. 1968) 83-92; Trans., AIME, 243.
8. Brown, K.E.: The Technology ofArtificial Lift Methods, PPC Books,
Tulsa (1977)' 13-14.
9. Mishra, S. and Caudle, B.H.: "A Simplified Procedure for Gas Deliverability Calculations Using Dimensionless IPR Curves," paper SPE
13231 presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Sept. 16-19.
10. Wattenbarger, R.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Gas Well Testing With Turbulence, Damage and Wellbore Storage," lPT (Aug. 1968) 877-87;
Trans., AIME, 243.
i 1. Theory and Practice of the Testing of Gas Wells, Energy Resources
Conservation Board, Calgary (1975) 3-25.
12. Chase, R.W. and Williams, M.A.T.: "Dimensionless IPR Curves for
Predicting the Perfonnance of Fractured Gas Wells," paper SPE 15936
presented at the 1986 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Columbus, Nov.
12-14.
13. Chase, R.W.: "Dimensionless IPR Curves for Predicting Gas Well Performance," paper SPE 17062 presented at the 1987 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Pittsburgh, Oct. 21-23.

Appendix-Comparison of Performance
Prediction Methods
The modified isochronal well-test data given in Table 1 were used
in conjunction with the dimensionless IPR curve shown in Fig. 4
to construct the current deliverability IPR curve shown in Fig. 8.
Specifically, the static BHP of 1,948 psia [13.4 MPa] and the flowing BHP of 1,233 psia [8.5 MPa] associated with the extended or
stabilized flow rate of 8,000 Mcf/D [227 x 10 3 m 3 /d] were used.
Because the static BHP in this well was less than 2,000 psia [13.8
MPa], pressure-squared values were substituted for pseudopressures
in the analysis.
Eq. 4 was used to construct the IPR curve shown in Fig. 8. Substituting 8,000 Mcf/D [227 x 103 m 3 /d] for q, and the squares of
PMfequal to 1,233 psia [8.5 MPa] andPR equal to 1,948psia [13.4
MPa] for their respective pseudopressures, a value of qmax =
10,341 Mcf/D [293 x 10 3 mJ/d] was obtained. This compares with
SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1988

TABLE A-1-DATA USED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF

IPR, OUTFLOW PERFORMANCE, AND CONSTANT
TUBINGHEAD PRESSURE CURVES

2.00 - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - ,
1.90

Flowing
BHP
(psia)
1,948
1,900
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
900
850
840
800
600
400
200

Calculated
Current Gas
Flow Rate
(Mcf/D)

Constant
Pttr =1,500 psig
Curve Data
(psia)

Outflow
Performance
Curve Data
(psia)

1.60
1.50

1.40
1.30

J'utu're TPIl. CUl"Yl!'

1.20

1,679
1,581
1,364
1,128
869
556
334
136
27

973
2,709
5,269
6,989
8,164
8,975
9,281
9,414
9,439
9,535
9,914
10,159
10,297
10,341

::: J:::=....."r---+------O:ConIw>I~1h.'500J*g

1,725
1,739
1,781
1,823
1,858
1,884

1.10
1.00
0.90

0.80
0.70

0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10

0.00

+--,---,---,--,--,----.--,----.-----r--&--,-------r--i
0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00
FLOW RATE

8.00

10.00

12.00

(MMcI'fD)

Fig. A1-Production performance curves constructed for a

gas well at future conditions with the dimensionless IPR
curve.

a value of 10,988 McflD [311 x 10 3 m 3 /d) obtained for the AOF

of the well from the modified isochronal test analysis and an AOF
of 10,526 McflD [298 x 10 3 m 3 /d) found with pseudopressures.
Additional data calculated for constructing the IPR curve are shown
in Table A-I.
The second step in predicting the performance of a gas well requires a knowledge of flow behavior in the tubing. From Fig. 8,
corresponding values of flow rate and flowing BHP were read from
the IPR curve. Tubingheadpressure values were then computed
for each flow rate and BHP for a 0.605-gravity gas producing
through 5,000 ft [1525 m) of 2%-in. [6-cm) tubing. These data appear in Table A-I and are plotted in Fig. 8 as the outflow performance or tubinghead pressure curve. Note that this curve, like the
IPR curve, is valid only at the current static BHP conditions.
It is now desired to estimate the current deliverability of this well
when producing against a backpressure of 1,500 psig [10.3 MPa)
at the wellhead. Entering Fig. 8 at a tubinghead pressure of 1,514.7
psia [10.4 MPa), proceeding horizontally to intersect the outflow
performance curve and then vertically downward to the x axis, a
stabilized deliverability of about 3,600 McflD [102 x 10 3 m 3 /d) is
determined. The expected flowing BHP for this well at these producing conditions can be determined by proceeding vertically upward
to intersect the IPR curve, and horizontally across to the y axis to
read a flowing BHP of 1,750 psia [12.1 MPa).
An alternative method for determining deliverability of this well
at a constant tubinghead pressure involves selecting flow rates ar-

bitrarily and calculating BHP for a constant tubinghead pressure

of 1,500 psig [10.3 MPa). This procedure was used, and the resultant data also appear in Table A-I. The corresponding constant
tubinghead pressure curve is plotted in Fig. 8. The intersection of
this curve with the IPR curve yields a stabilized deliverability of
3,600 Mcf/D [102 x 10 3 m 3 /d) at a flowing BHP of approximately 1,750 psia [12.1 MPa).
Unlike the outflow performance curve, the constant tubinghead
pressure curve is valid for future IPR curves constructed for declining static average reservoir pressures as long as the flow-string configuration in the well remains the same. For example, if the static
reservoir pressure in the well of Table 1 declines to 1,800 psia [12.4
MPa), a new IPR curve must be found. Substituting values for the
squares of 1,800 and 1,948 psia [12.4 and 13.4 MPa], respectively, in (PyRflppRi), and 10,341 Mcf/D [293 x 10 3 m 3 /d) for qmaxi
in Eq. 6 or Fig. 5, a value for the new AOF or qmaxf=9,353
McflD [265 x 10 3 m 3 /d) is found. The value for qmaxf and the new
static reservoir pressure of 1,800 psia [12.4 MPa) are used in conjunction with Fig. 4 or Eq. 4 to construct the new IPR curve shown
in Fig. A-I. Data for this curve appear in Table A-2.
It can be seen from Fig. A-I that if a 1,5OO-psig [1O.3-MPa)
tubinghead pressure is maintained on this well, the stabilized deliverability of the well will fall from 3,600 to 1,600 McflD [102 to
45 x 10 3 m 3 / d) as static reservoir pressure falls from 1,948 to
1,800 psia [13.4 to 12.4 MPa).

TABLE A-2-DATA USED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF

FUTURE PERFORMANCE CURVES

TABLE A-a-DATA FOR CONSTRUCTION OF

PERFORMANCE CURVES FROM MODiFIED ISOCHRONAL
TEST DATA

Initial static reservoir pressure, psia

Future static reservoir pressure, psia
Initial j\OF rate, McflD
Future AOF rate, Mcf/D
Flowing
BHP
(psia)
1,800
1,700
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200

Gas
Production
Rate
(Mcf/D)

o
1,866
3,351
5,501
6,910
7,849
8,478
8,895
9,159
9,306
9,353

SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1988

1,948
1,800
10,341
9,353
Constant

Pttr = 1,500 psig

Curve Data
(psia)
1,723
1,730
1,747
1,785
1,821

Gas
Flow Rate
(McflD)
10,988
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
500

P ws = 1,948 psia P ws = 1,800 psia

Constant
P th = 1,500 psig
Flowing
Flowing
BHP
BHP
Curve Data
(psia)
(psia)
(psia)

743
1,036
1,249
1,416
1,553
1,665
1,758
1,833
1,890
1,930
1,942
1,948

0
721
1,002
1,204
1,362
1,489
1,592
1,675
1,737
1,780
1,794
1,800

1,823
1,797
1,775
1,756
1,742
1,732
1,725
1,724

1095

Eq. A-I was used to compute the data in Table A-3 and construct the IPR curves in Fig. A-2 for static reservoir pressures of
1,948 and 1,800 psia [13.4 and 12.4 MPa]. Plotting the 1,500-psig
[10.3-MPa] constant tubinghead pressure curve yields expected
stabilized deliverabilities of 4,000 and 2,000 Mcf/D [113 and
57 x 103 m 3 /d] for the respective PR values.
It can be seen that the values for deliverabilities obtained with
the modified isochronal test analysis were somewhat higher than
the values obtained with the dimensionless IPR curves. One reason for the differences may be that pressure-squared values were
used instead of pseudopressures in calculating flow rates from the
dimensionless IPR curves.

2.00
1.10
1.80
1.70

1.60
1.50
1.40
1.30
1,20
~

1.10

1:00

5~::

0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

+---,--,--,....---,--...,.---,--.--r---,--+----.---l
0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

FLOW RATE (MWctIOt

Fig. A-2-Productlon performance curves constructed for a

gas well at current and future conditions with the stabilized
dellverablllty curve.

For comparative purposes, the equation for the stabilized deliverability curve resulting from the analysis of the modified isochronal
test data in Table 1 was determined to be

q=0.00124(pR 2 -PMf2)O.60. .

1096

(A-I)

51 "etrlc Conve..slon Factors

cp x 1.0*
E-03
ft3 x 2.831 685
E-02
psi x 6.894 757
E+OO

'Converslon factor Is exact.

Pa's
m3
kPa

SPERE

Original SPE manuscript received for review Nov. 6, 1985. Paper accepted for publication
March 16, 1987. Revised manuscript received Feb. 11, 1988. Paper (SPE 14507) first
presented at the 1985 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held In Morgantown, WV, Nov. 6-8.

SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1988