T. P.

8081

Calculation of the Stabilized Performance Coefficient of

Low Permeability Natural Gas Wells
FRED H. POETTMANN
ROBERT E. SCHILSON
MEMBERS AIME

ABSTRACT
The direct determination oj the stabilized perjormance behavior oj low capacity, slowly stabilizing gas
wells is extremely time-consuming and wastejul oj gas.
From both field experience and theoretical considerations, a test procedure has been evolved by which the
stabilized back pressure behavior oj such gas wells can
be predicted without having to revert to long time flow
tests.
The method consists oj using the isochronal test procedure to establish the slope oj the back pressure curve,
"n", and the short time variation oj the perjormance
coefficient, "C", with time.
From this short time transient flow data and theoretical considerations, the value oj C at large times can
he established. By assuming the radius oj drainage oj
a well to be halj the distance between wells, one can
calculate the stabilization time jor various well spacing
patterns. Once the stabilization time jor a given spacing
has been determined, the value oj C can be calculated
and the stabilized back-pressure curve can be established.
The calculated perjormance coefficient as a junction
oj time was compared to the experimentally measured
values jor a number oj gas wells. The deviation oj the
calculated jrom the experimental results vary depending
on the set oj short time experimental points used to
evaluate the parameters oj the equation. The longer the
time jor the flow test data used in the calculations, the
better was the agreement with the experimental results.
The time necessary to obtain this data jrom well tests
varies considerably, depending on the physical nature
of the reservoir under consideration.

INTRODUCTION
For many years, the U. S. Bureau of Mines Monograph 7" has served as a guide for testing and evaluating
the performance of gas wells by means of the back-pressure method. The back-pressure performance of a gas
well is expressed by the following equation:
Q = C(P/ - Ps')" .
(1)
where the characteristics of the back-pressure equation
are determined by C, the performance coefficient, and
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers
office Feb. 16. 1959. Revised manuscript received June 13. 1959.
Paper presented at Fifth Annual Meeting of Rocky Mountain Pe,troleum Sections in Casper. Wyo . April 2-3. 1959.
"References given at end of paper.
PETROLEUM TRANSACTIONS, AIME

SPE 1216-G

THE OHIO OIL CO.

LITTLETON, COLO.

n, the exponent which corresponds to the slope of the

straight line when Q and (P/ - Ps') are plotted on
logarithmic paper. Q is gas flow rate at standard oonditions, and Pi and P B are equalized and flowing bottomhole pressures, respectively.
Prior to the development of the back-pressure test,
the "open flow" capacity method of testing a well was
common. By this method, the wells were flowed wide
open to the air and the flow rate measured. Such procedure was wasteful of gas and did not provide information on the deliverability of the gas to the pipe line.
MONOGRAPH 7 PROCEDURE

The back-pressure method of testing wells was developed to overcome these shortcomings. Although
much has been learned regarding the laws of the flow
of gas through porous formations, the original development of the back-pressure relationship was based entirely on empirical methods. The back-pressure behavior provides the engineer with information essential
in predicting the future development of a field. It permits him to calculate the deliver ability of gas into a
pipe line at predetermined line pressures, to design and
analyze gas gathering lines, to determine the spacing
and number of wells to be drilled during the developme'nt of a field to meet gas purchasers' requirements,
and to solve many other technical and economic problems.
As described in Monograph 7, the flow-after-flow
method of back-pressure testing, when applied to fast
stabilizing and usually high capacity wells, correctly
characterized the behavior of the well. However, as
the value of the gas at the wellhead increased, small
capacity gas wells having slow rates of stabilization became economically operable. The flow-after-flow method
of testing could not be used to describe the behavior of
these slowly stabilizing wells.
The procedure of Rawlins and Shellhardt" for establishing the back-pressure behavior of a gas well was
based on the requirement that the data be obtained under stabilized flow conditions; that is, that C is constant
and does not vary with time. C depends on the physical
properties of the reservoir, the location, extent and geometry of the drainage radius, and the properties of
the flowing fluid. In a highly permeable formation, only
a very short period of time is required for the well to
reach a stabilized condition, and, consequently, the requirements for the test procedure described in Monograph 7 are met. For a given well, n is also constant
240

and will have values ranging between the limits of 0.5

and 1.0.
In the case of low permeability reservoirs, the direct
determination of stabilized performance behavior of
gas wells becomes extremely time-consuming and wasteful of gas. For example, some of the Mesa Verde wells
in the San Juan gas field' take weeks and months to
reach stabilized flow conditions.
Thus, it is desirable to have a procedure which will
predict the stabilized back-pressure behavior and eliminate the necessity for using the long flow tests outlined
in Monograph 7. Such a test procedure has been evolved
from both field experience and theoretical considerations""'.

CALCULATION PROCEDURE
As stated in the introduction, the results of tests over
a period of years established the fact that the gas flow
rate for a single-phase gas well was related empirically
to the formation shut-in pressure and the bottom-hole
pressure by the equation:
Q = C(P,' - p,')n .
(1)
In 1953, Houpeurt' derived from theoretical studies
an equation relating the gas production rate and the
over-all pressure drop between the reservoir boundary
and the well bore radius. This equation was converted
for use with English units by Tek, Grove and Poettmann', with the following results.
Q

2.49

(~659)ny (7T.hk

CULLENDER METHOD

In 1955, Cullender' published a paper in which he

described the isochronal (constant time) performance
method of determining the flow characteristics of a gas
well. Cullender found from experience that the steadystate flow conditions are not ne.cessary to establish n
for the back-pressure curve. However, as long as transient conditions exist, C will vary with time. When C
becomes constant, the flow will have stabilized. This
behavior is illustrated by the shifting of the back-pressure curves to the left, at increasing time, with the slope
remaining constant. The theory on which isochronal
performance is based assumes that the flow at a given
time, starting from a shut-in condition, is from the same
radius of drainage, regardless of the pressure level of
the reservoir or the flow rate. This means that the radius of drainage moving away from the well bore is dependent only on the formation and gas properties. Once
the radius of drainage has reached the boundaries of
the reservoir or the point of interference with an offset well, the performance coefficient becomes constant
and the back-pressure curve becomes stabilized.
The slope of the isochronal back-pressure curves is
the same as that of the stabilized curve. In fact, the
stabilized curve represents the limiting value of the
isochronal curves. The method employed to obtain the
isochronal performance curves of a gas well is to open
the well from a closed-in condition and obtain rate of
flow and pressures at fixed time intervals without disturbing the flow rate. The well is then shut in and allowed to return to a pressure comparable to that existing at the time the well was first opened to flow. The
well is reopened at a different rate of flow and data obtained at the same time intervals as before. The procedure is repeated as often as desired.
A plot of Q vs (P/ - P,') on logarithmic paper at
constant time establishes n.
From the transient tests establishing the isochronal
curves and theoretical considerations,"'" procedures
have been evolved by which the stabilized back-pressure
behavior of low permeability gas wells can be calculated.
In addition, the buildup curves permit the calculation
of the interwell permeability of the formation. This interwell permeability is used in the calculation of the
stabilized performance curve of a well for various
spacing patterns.
The purpose of this report is to describe a procedure
for calculating the variation of C with time from the
short term isochronal tests. This curve, along with other
reservoir data, is used to obtain the stabilized back-pressure performance curves of a well for various spacing
patterns. Calculated results are compared with actual
performance data.
241

fl

b )" (P/ _ P,')"

R
Ina
(2)

where
7Thk

= the

Test-Index which is obtained from

pressure build-up analysis; k is the permeability, darcies;

h is the formation thickness, cm; JL is the viscosity of
the gas, centipoises.
Comparing Eqs. 1 and 2, it may be seen that:
2.49 (4.659)"Y(!"hk _~)"
(3)
G
/L InR
a
The radius of drainage, R, for an unstabilized gas
C

well, is shown by Tek, Grove and Poettmann' to be:

R = 0.0704

(~)'
~,flf3

(4)

From the time a gas well begins flowing from an

equalized shut-in condition, the radius of drainage R
changes according to Eq. 4 until either the reservoir
boundary or the point of interference with an off-set
well is reached, at which time the well is stabilized.
From Eqs. 3 and 4, it can be seen that C is a function
of time, decreasing in magnitude until the well is
stabilized. When this condition is attained, C becomes
the stabilized performance coefficient, and the stabilized
performance of the well is as described in Eq. 1.

K - Permeability, Darcies
4> ~ FractH.Jn~! PorDSity
J.' - VIscosity Ccntipoi~e<
fJ - Compressibility
(Vol.l/(Vol.j(Atm)

WEll SPACING. ACRES

FIG. l-STA~ILIZATlON TIME OF GAS WELLS.

IVOL. 216, 1.959

The isochronal performance method of determining

the flow characteristics of gas wells has been shown
to be the proper method of testing gas wells. This
method is particularly applicable to low permeability
formations'" . From such a series of short term flow
tests, n is determined. The variation of C is determined
experimentally as a function of time from these flow
tests. Using the experimental data of the variation of C
with time, a procedure has been developed for predicting C for long time periods, utilizing Eqs. 3 and 4.
For a particular gas well, all terms of Eq. 3 can be
considered constant with the exception of R. Taking
the ratio of Eq. 3 for fixed values of C, the following
expression results:

1 R,)n

~: ( n ~,
Ina

(5)

Now, by defining the parameter, a:

a

= 0.0704 (~)'

(6)
cpp.f3
.
Eq. 4 may be written as:
R = at' .
(7)
Theoretically, a is a constant for a particular reservoir. Hence, R is a function of time only and is independent of the rate of flow.
Making use of Eq. 7 in Eq. 5:

C,
C,

sures. The pseudo-critical temperature and pressure of

a natural gas is the molal average value for the mixture
and can be calculated from a knowledge of the composition of the gas. The pseudo-critical temperature and
pressure of natural gases have been correlated as a
function of the gas gravity' and may be utilized if a gas
analysis is not available. Fig. 7 shows this correlation.
Once the stabilization time for a given spacing has
been determined, the stabilized performance coefficient
can be obtained from Eq. 10 and the stabilized backpressure curve established.
COMPARISON OF CALCULATED VS
EXPERIMENTAL PERFORMANCE
COEFFICIENTS
Using the procedure developed herein, the performance coefficient for a number of gas wells was determined and the results compared to the experimentally
measured values. The data on four of the wells are
reported in the literature; the fifth has not been published heretofore.

--

t?)n

In a
a
In

a;"

1111

(8)

Solving for ala,

Ciln
]
t, [2( C,'ln _ Ciln)
a

C '/n

t, [ 2 (C,'!'

(9)

I"SEUDOREDUeD

Therefore, ala may be evaluated from any two C

values and the corresponding times, t, as determined
from short-term flow tests. Once this is done, C may
be expressed as a function of time by the following
equation:

(In aatl)"

f----,,-. -- -- - f----f-- --

1.0

-,-

0,0

(10)

The final objective of the above analysis is the prediction of the stabilized back-pressure curve for the well
for various spacing patterns. By assuming the radius of
drainage as half the distance between wells, the stabilization times for various spacing patterns can be calculated by the use of Eq. 4, as shown graphically on
Fig. 1. The effective interwell permeability k used in
Eq. 4 is obtained from the pressure-buildup curves
taken during the course of the isochronal testing of the
well. The fractional porosity is the weighted average
value taken over the net effective sand thickness from
core analysis data. The viscosity of the gas is obtained
from the correlation of Carr, Kobayashi, and Burrows',
Figs. 2, 3 and 4. The compressibility of the gas at the
reservoir pressure and temperature is obtained from the
correlation of Trube', Figs. 5 and 6.
Both the correlations for viscosity and compressibility
of natural gas are based on the "law of corresponding
states," using pseudo-reduced temperatures and presPETROLEUM TRANSACTIONS, AI ME

1ATUM! Til

f---f--

_c,(ln~r
C -

Tf..,.

FIG. 2-VISCOSITY RATIO VS PSEUDO-REDUCED TEMPERATURE:

Ciln)

fJ .tfH-I-t-IH-t 1

4.0

.
!! 1.11

~ao

- ~-

WI'

;:

z,
,

1,5

:;~==_~'

ID.I

11 -

.2.3.4'.5.8.7.8.910

II'

~~~,:~~

r2

. I' pSEUDO-REDUCED

"

~-

~~.-~'
~
-, -

..

5671'00

ZQO

PRESSURE. '"

FIG. 3-VISCOSITY RATIO VS PSEUDO-REDUCED PRESSURE.'

.!lAS

GRAVITY

~IR.

LOOOl

25

~O

.oIS

.,

ga;
.014

<C

U.DOI

\)

",

..

z0 0'.

;:

w
rn

~W

.. .000

.012

8:'

011;

;t~~
, '.;

, .,

rio ;,

'0

t:-

2
o

Ul

.0015

. ,

--'-+- g",

r.-+-

a::o

!=tt 8'"

'

H:.

: :.,;
,
C;

, ,,

.,

I,!!

.
~~
.. ,"

':::

"

I ; ,

, :;

.00sR
.004

~\~~,.

I I

~z

1+7- 2g

..:..l~
., '~~
--..................
..... ~ ..."-.,..-.:.J-;..~

'I!:

I!: 1;;
. 6H+ ~ .0005

:; 00

c~

"

Cg.o

10

',

"

.ro71:::-" I.DOIO

5
MOl.

~J

."

if

.008:::::

I .

01Z" ,

~-++~
" ..('N
"
.....009 ~ 1 1 '1
---+j' ~ ',,'"
,
!:;
:::i:j.hl:fJ.!:_j:j- )~.i.t..:..t.~ . ~..r
.....
-.
H S
-tl"i'- ~.

:E

t:;:

~:-- ~~ .. rs:~

.010

;. I

11<0

8~

. ~-

~,'

0>

.013

'

;,

'I

.' 10

15

,,

, ,

Hi; I "1 I . I 1 . ; .,MtO;T;-n~s,

10

'

,
20

30

40

FIG. 4---VISCOSITY OF PARAFFIN HYDROCARBON GASES AT

The performance coefficient for gas wells Nos. 1, 2

and 3 are reported by Cullender'. Both the experimental and the theoretical results are shown for these
three wells in Figs. 8, 9 and 10.
Fig. 11 presents the results for the 28-6 Mesa, 1-14
San Juan gas well'. The experimental data and a
theoretical approximation utilizing pressure build-up and
core analysis data are reported by Tek, Grove, and
Poettmann'. In addition to their results, the theoretical
prediction of C is presented using three different sets
of experimental points to evaluate the parameters in
Eq.lO.
Fig. 12 presents the experimental results and the
theoretical prediction of C as a function of time for
Well A.
In all of these figures, the precision with which the
theoretical equation correlates the experimental data
depends on the manner in which the parameters in
Eq. 10 are evaluated. In all cases, the agreement is
improved if the data points used to evaluate the parameters are those taken a relatively long time after
flow of the well commences. In fact, if at least one of
these points is well into the "bend" of the curve of
performance coefficient vs time, the agreement is very
good, as an examination of Figs. 8 through 12 shows,
In order to illustrate the application of the above
procedure, the calculation of C as a function of time
for Well A is presented, using the O.5-hour and 3-hour
isochronal flow test data to evaluate the parameters in
Eq. 9. Thus, the experimental data utilized are
n = 0.887
t, = 0.5 hour
C, = 1.754
t, = 3.0 hours
C, = 1.015
(Note: The times in Eq. 9 are in seconds.)
Thus,
ctn = 1.884
c,'/n = 1.017

90

80

50
60
70
MOLECULAR WEIGHT

100

ATMOSPHERE".

By Eq. 9:
3.0'86
1
0.5'586 X 60 = 0.0674

C, as a function of time, is now determined by Eq. 10,

where:
C, = 1.015
I, = 3.0 hours
0,10

PSEUOo-REDUCED
TEMPERATURE

009

r,

0,08

cit

0.07

<it

0.06

0.05

I
~

,0.!L=
1.8-

"V5

,\

~\.

,\\'\

1\

0,04

12 i,~ 1.4

1,051.1

hl\

0.03

1\1\

1\

\\

~\

LI,I

It:

.\ 1\

0.02

i\i\

1\

\\\\ \
I\"~

1\\\

1\\\
\~

~\\

0,01

5
6
7 8 9 10
PSEUDO-REDUCED PRESSURE. Pr

III

FIG. 5-PSEUDO-REOUCED COMPRESSIBILITY VS PSEUDOREDUCED PRESSURE'.

,vOL. 216, 1959

6ftmWffi~~lE

I.0
O.9

.!!

o. 8

cit

0.7

<Q.

0.6

,:
I::;

O.G

e.

0.4

0.3

GAS WELL Ni I (z,)

1.2- ' 1.3

1.4

~/
\
\

iii

0:

\ 1\

-r-J.5
/1.6
1.7

Ilc

\~

\\

0.2

- - - - CAL.!:. al ANO 2:4 HOUR POINTS

\\ \ \\ ~

...
"...
o
o
o

'f

CALC. 0.1 AHO 3.0 HOUR POINT'S

~ ~.

I.

::E

n -0.867
EXPERIMENTAL DATA

PSEUDO-REDUCED
TEMPERATURE
Tr

..."

..

1\
\

\ \

\ \
1.0~,1.\

2D

\1\

(I)

o. 1

\'\~

1\ ~~V

\ \

1.8

.\~

1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4

I.~ t~ \X

FIG. H-VARIA1"W:\ OF PERFOH~lANcr; COEFFICIENT WITH TIME.

~J

Mcf/D
[Thousand (psia) ']"'"

2
345678910
PSEUDO - REDUCED PRESSURE. Pr

FIG. 6-PSEUDO-REDUCED COMPRESSIBILITY VS PSEUDOREDUCED PRESSURE'.

DiSCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The usual stabilized flow tests ' are time-consuming
and wasteful of gas when determining the back-pressure behavior of low permeability gas wells. A procedure is described in this study by which the stabilized
back-pressure behavior of such gas wells can be determined, using short term transient flow tests.
The isochronal performance method developed by
Cullender' is the proper procedure to use to determine
n in Eq. 1. However, the variation of C as a function
of time is determined only for short flow periods from
these tests. A long term flow test would normally be
necessary to determine C for large values of time. Eqs.
9 and 10 are theoretical relationships of C as a function
of time, which make possible the prediction of C with

Thus,

c=

1.015 [log,o(0.0674 X 60 X 1.732)]'"

[loglO(0.0674 X 60) + 1/2 log,ot]"'"

or

c=

0.8744
(11)
(0.6068 + V2 10g,ot)0.,,,
C is plotted as a function of time in Fig. 12. This
graph presents both the experimental values and the
calculated results as predicted by the above equation,
using the 0.5- and 3-hour experimental points to
determine a/a. C, as shown in the above expression
and Fig. 12, has the dimensions of

..,.

-o.S -L

.
. .,.;--++-

Il.

a.

I%:

5
MOL

10
~

MtS

'"...-

,,

~o:t:
....
~

,,

~';'~R ; GAS~ +-i--++--I.-+'...' -f-.c....,--;-+--+-f-'-+-f-t-+,--':-.,-;.1"":9-t-+-f-t-+-f-t-+--+--t-+-f-t-+-f-t-+.-+-;--i

I'

I
j
I

I'

.~.

'"

CONOENSATE WELL FWIO I

I"

~,

J;'f

I'

i I

,,

I!

, I

! ,

ffi-

! ,
,

! I

, 1

I'
I

'!

i'

L
.Yo
I

.I i

i'

, .Yo

Q7

Q8

LO

LI

1.2

l4

LT

1.9

2D

GAS GRAVITY
FIG. 7-PREDICTION OF PSEUDO-CRITICAL PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE FROM GAS GRAVITY'.

PETROLEUM TRANSACTIONS, AIME

244

reasonable precIsiOn from short term transient flow

tests. Thus, properly conducted short term flow tests
and the use of Eqs. 9 and 10 permit determination of
the stabilized back-pressure behavior of low permeability
gas wells, without the time consumption and gas waste
necessitated by long term flow tests.
The application of Eqs. 9 and 10 is demonstrated
by the example problem. The degree of precision possible is illustrated by comparing the theoretically calculated performance coefficient with the experimental
results for five gas wells. The deviations of the calculated from the experimental results vary, depending on
the set of experimental points used to evaluate the parameters in Eqs. 9 and 10. The agreement between calculated and experimental performance coefficients is considerably improved if one of the points taken to evaluate the parameters is on, or well into, the bend of the
performance coefficient curve. The time necessary to
obtain this data from well tests will vary considerably,
depending on the physical nature of the reservoir under
consideration. Once the variation of the performance
coefficient as a function of time is determined, the
stabilized back-pressure curves for a gas well for different well spacing patterns can be determined from
Eq.4.
Pressure-buildup curves following each isochronal
flow test are used to obtain the interwell permeability.
The effective formation thickness and the porosity are
determined from core analysis data. In a given reservoir, the value of n in Eq. 1 will usually prove to be
essentially the same for all wells in the reservoir. Consequently, once the value of n for a given reservoir is
established, the back-pressure behavior of all subsequent
GAS WELL N$l2

wells can be determined from a single flow test of relatively short duration.
NOMENCLATURE
C = Performance coefficient (the units depend
on the units in which Q, Pi' and P, are
expressed). In the example problem, for
instance, the pressures are expressed in
thousands of psia' and Q in Mcf/D.
Therefore, the units of C are in Mcf/D
/(1,000 psia')n.
G = Gas gravity (air = 1)
P = Pressure, psia
P, = Pseudo-critical pressure, psia
P, = Formation shut-in pressure, psia
PR = Pseudo-reduced pressure, PIP,
P, = Flowing sand face pressure, psia
Q = Gas flow rate, Mcf/D, at 60F and 14.65
psia
R = Radius of drainage, feet
T = Temperature, OR
T c = Pseudo-critical temperature, R
T, = Formation temperature, OR
T R = Pseudo-reduced temperature, T /T,
a = Well bore radius, feet
b = Ratio of density of gas to bottom-hole
pressure b = 29G
ZR'T,
where R' = 45.59 atm/cc/gm-mol- OR
h = Effective formation thickness, centimeters

12wmffiHi~--~

(51

2&--6 MESA 1-14 SAN JUAN(2 )

n_O.774
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
TEte, GROVE. POfTTMANN {2 I
CALC. 3 AND 6 HOUR POINTS
CALC.!5 AND 22 HOUR POINTS
CALC. 22 AND 118.7 HOUR POINTS

10

n.0.839
100

EXPERIMENTAL DATA
CALC. 1.0 AND :!O HOUR POM"S
CALC. 3.0 AND 24D HOUR POINTS

160

o
60

100

200

"'"

400

000

600

100

800

TIME. HOURS

FIG. ll-VARIATION OF PERFORMANCE COEFFICIENT WITH TI,\!E.

""
10

20

30

40

50

60

10

eo

90

XX)

nO

lID

1.8

nME-HOURS

FIG. 9-VARIATION OF PERFORMANCE COEFFClENT WITH TIME.

WELL-A

1.6

n 00.887
GAS WELL NI. 3 (5)

24

1.4

n0.94.
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
CALC. 0.15 AND 3.0 HOUR POINTS
CALC. 1.0 Af) 23.5 HOUR POINTS

P
~

.2

180
140

:rm

1\

EXPERIMENTAL

-g~t'l.;"li:E:~

180

"

1'-..

120

.8

r--..

r- Io-

100

60
40
20
00

o.2
20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

10

20

30

40

TIME, HOURS

FIG. lO-VARIATION OF PERFORMANCE COEFFICIENT WITH TIME.

245

FIG.

12-VARIATION

OF PERFOR:\IANCE COEFFICIENT WITH TIME.

,VOL. 216.1959

k = Permeability, darcies
In = The natural logarithm
n = Reciprocal of the slope of the back-pressure curve where Q is plotted vs (P/ P:) on the logarithmic graph paper and
Q is the abscissa
t = Flowing time, seconds
a

= A parameter defined as 0.0704 (~)

2.

3.
.t.

cf>,p..f3

f3 = Pseudo-compressibility of the gas, vol/vol!

atm
,IL = Viscosity of gas, centipoises
y = A parameter defined in Eq. 2; it is a function of nand Q
cf> = Fractional porosity
REFERENCES
1. Rawlins, E. L. and Schellhardt, M. A.: "Back-Pressure
Data on Natural-Gas Wells and Their Application to Pro-

PETROLEUM TRANSACTIONS,AIME

5.
6.
7.
S.

duction Practices," U. S. Bureau of Mines Monograph 7

(1939) .
Tek, M. R., Grove, M. L. and Poettmann, F. H.: "Method
for Predicting the Back-Pr,essure Behavior of Low Per_
meability Natural Gas Wells," Trans. AI ME (1957) 210,
302.
Cullender, M. H.: "Isochronal Performance Method of Determining the Flow Characteristics of Gas Wells," Trans.
AIME (1955) 204, 137.
Houpeurt, A.: "Etude Analogique de I'Ecoulement Radial
Circulaire Transitoire des Gaz dans les Milieux Poreux,"
Revue de l']nstitut Francais du Petrole (1953) 8, 129,
193, 248.
Katz, Donald L., Vary, John A. and Elenbaas, J. R.: "Design of Gas Storage Fields," Trans. AIME (1959) 216, 44.
Carr, Norman L., Kobayashi, Riki and Burrows, David B.:
"Viscosity of Hydrocarbon Gases Under Pr,essure," Trans.
AIME (1954) 201, 264.
Trube, Albert S.: "Compressibility of Natural Gases,"
Trans. AIME (1957) 210,355.
Katz, D. L.: "High Pressure Gas Measurement; Part 2: A
Suggested Standard Method for Calculation of High Pressure Gas Measurement," Refiner and Nat. Gasoline Mlgr.
(June, 1942) 21, 64.

***

1246