Analisis de Pozo - Thesis PDF

MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR DARCY FORCHHEIMER FLOW WITH
APPLICATIONS TO WELL PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
By
ABIODUN MATTHEW AMAO, B.Sc.
A THESIS
IN
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
Approved
Akif Ibragimov
Chairperson of the Committee
Shameem Siddiqui
Co-Chair of the Committee
Eugenio Aulisa
Lloyd Heinze
Accepted
John Borrelli
Dean of the Graduate School
August, 2007
Texas Tech University, Abiodun Matthew Amao, August 2007
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was conducted at Texas Tech University under the supervision of
Dr. Akif Ibragimov and Dr. Shameem Siddiqui. I like to express my sincere thanks to Dr.
Akif Ibragimov and Dr. Eugene Aulisa who introduced this concept to me and supported
me with the mathematical framework for the thesis. Dr. Shameem Siddiqui and Mr.
Joseph McInerney were very helpful with the laboratory and experimental aspect of the
thesis. My sincere gratitude goes to the Chair of the Petroleum Engineering Department,
Dr Lloyd Heinze for his leadership and administrative prowess.
I am indebted to all members of staff and colleagues who contributed in one way
or the other to the success of my academic pursuit at Texas Tech University.
I deeply appreciate the moral support of my family back in Nigeria, my uncle
John Oyedeji, Nengi Harry and all loved ones and friends back home.
I appreciate the friendship and support of friends and members of my church in
Lubbock, International Christian Fellowship.
Finally and most reverently, I thank the Lord for His mercy, grace and blessings
which are too numerous for words.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
ABSTRACT vi
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xii
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1
1.1 Background 3
1.2 Porous Media and Equations of Flow 6
1.3 Darcy’s Law: Assumptions and Limitations 7
1.4 Non-Darcy Flow; Darcy-Forchheimer Flow Equation 9
1.5 Flow Regimes in Porous Media 12
1.6 Significance of Thesis and Organization 14
II LITERATURE REVIEW 17
2.1 Non-Darcy Flow in the Reservoir 19
2.2 Flow in Fractures 23
2.3 Completions, Gravel Packs and Perforations 25
2.4 Beta Factor β, its Measurement and Correlations 26
2.5 Non-Darcy Flow Modeling 30
iii
III PROBLEM STATEMENT 34
3.1 Importance of Accurate Reservoir Pressure Prediction 35
3.2 Limitations of Current Techniques 36
3.3 Laboratory Experiments on Non-Darcy flow in Cores 37
3.4. Problem Statement 42
IV SOLUTION STATEMENT 44
4.1 Proposed Solution 44
4.2 Derivation of the Mathematical Model 44
4.3 Description of the Simulator 47
4.4 Numerical Computation and Algorithm 48
4.5 Laboratory Measurement of Beta Factor 50
V. RESULTS OF NUMERICAL COMPUTATIONS 55
5.1 Horizontal Well in a Rectangular Reservoir 55
5.2 Centered Circular Well in a Rectangular Reservoir 69
5.3 Off-centered Circular Well in a Rectangular Reservoir 72
5.4 Centered Circular Well in a Square Reservoir 75
5.5 Off-centered Circular well in a Square Reservoir 78
5.6 Concentric Well in a Circular Reservoir 81
iv
VI ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 84
6.1 Analysis and Discussion of Experimental Results 84
6.2 Analysis and Discussion of Computational Results 96
VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 106
7.1 Conclusions 106
7.2 Recommendations 107
REFERENCES 108
APPENDICES 115
A. RESULTS OF LABORATORY MEASUREMENTS OF ABSOLUTE
PERMEABILITY 115
B. ALGORITHM FOR SELECTION OF THE RIGHT BETA FACTOR
CORRELATION 136
C. EXPERIMENTAL SET UP AND EQUIPMENT USED IN THE
LABORATORY 138
D. VITA 141
v
ABSTRACT
Well performance and productivity evaluation is a fundamental role of petroleum
engineers and this is done at different phases of petroleum production; from the reservoir
to the well bore through the tubulars and ultimately to the stock tank. This task requires
physical and mathematical models that adequately characterize oil and gas flow at these
different phases of petroleum production.
This thesis reviews different scenarios where the effects of non-linearity in flow
are apparent in petroleum and gas reservoirs and cannot be neglected any more.
Laboratory experiments were carried out on core samples to show non-linearity in flow,
which confirms deviation from the traditional Darcy law, used in reservoir flow
modeling.
Historically non-Darcy flow has only been reckoned with in high flow rate gas
wells, in which it has been treated as a ‘rate dependent’ skin factor and has been assumed
to act only in the vicinity of the well-bore, while neglecting the reservoir. This work
seeks to show the inherent errors due to the negligence of this phenomenon, which is
fundamental to the calculation of the productivity index of the well. Using the modified
non-linear Darcy law as the equation of motion to model filtration in porous media, this
new model is compared to the conventional Darcy law. The proposed method delivers
robust framework to model non-linear flow in the reservoir.
The result of this project will equip reservoir engineers with a robust technique to
analyze well performance; this approach will provide better evaluation tool for selecting
wells for remedial operations such as work-over or stimulation.
vi
LIST OF TABLES
3.1 Result of non-Darcy flow experiment on core #13 37
4.1 Porosity, physical properties and Lithology of core samples used 52
4.2 Porosity ranking and cores used for permeability measurements 53
4.3 Porosity and permeability of cores samples used in beta factor experiment 54
5.1 Productivity index at different drain hole lengths 57
5.2 Productivity index @ L=5000cm at different rates and beta values 59
5.3 Productivity index @ L=10,000cm at different rates and beta values 61
5.7 Productivity index at different rates and beta values for Geometry 5.2 70
6.1: Beta factor correlations used for analysis 84
6.2: Calculated beta values using the nine correlations 85
A.1: Experimental results of permeability measurement on core #1 115
vii
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 Flow regimes in porous media after Basak (1977) 14
3.1 Experimental result of non-linearity in flow through core #13 38
3.2 Experimental result of non-linearity in flow through core #9 40
3.3 Experimental result of non-linearity in flow though core #26 42
4.1 Flow chart of numerical computation 49
4.2 Experimental setup for permeability and beta factor experiments 50
4.3 Procedure for laboratory measurement of beta factor 51
5.1 Geometry of the horizontal drain in a rectangular reservoir 56
5.2 Plot of productivity index at different drain hole lengths 58
5.3 Productivity index vs. rate @ L=5000 cm 60
5.8 Circular well in a rectangular reservoir (Geometry 5.2) 69
5.9 Productivity index plot for Geometry 5.2 71
5.10 Off-centered circular well in a rectangular reservoir (Geometry 5.3) 72
5.12 Circular well in a square shaped reservoir (Geometry 5.4) 75
5.14 Off-centered circular well in a square reservoir (Geometry 5.5) 78
ix
5.16 Circular well in a circular reservoir (Geometry 5.6) 81
6.1: Calculated beta factors for core #10, using the correlations 86
6.11: Productivity Index versus length for different rates at β =0 97
6.12: Productivity Index versus length for different rates at β =2.4 98
6.15: Comparison of Productivity Index for all Geometries used at β = 0 102
6.16: Comparison of Productivity Index for all Geometries used at β = 2.4 103
A.1: Darcy’s law plot for core #1 116
A.2: Klinkenberg correction plot for core #1 117
x
B.1: Beta Factor Correlation Selection Chart 137
C.1: Gas Permeameter, Hassler core holder and bubble flow tube 138
C.2: Helium Porosimeter 139
C.3: The core samples used for the experiments 140
xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Symbol Definition
A Cross-sectional Area
Bo Oil formation volume factor
Bg Gas formation volume factor
d Average grain diameter
D Non-Darcy flow coefficient
F Flux
FND Non-Darcy Flux
h height of fluid head
h Reservoir thickness
J Productivity index
K Permeability
L Length of Core/ Sand bed
M Gas Molecular weight
P Pressure
PR Average reservoir pressure
Pwf Well flowing pressure
q Production rate
N RE Reynolds number
rd Reservoir drainage radius
re External boundary radius
rw Well bore radius

xii
S Skin factor
St Total Skin
t Time
T Temperature
v Flow velocity
x, y, z Rectangular coordinates
Z Gas compressibility factor
Greek Letter
ρ Fluid density
α Alpha
β Inertial factor
μ Viscosity
Φ Porosity
τ Tortuosity
xiii
Subscript
o Oil
g Gas
w Water
sc Standard conditions
f Fracture
xiv
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The analysis and prediction of reservoir and well performance requires diverse
information which a reservoir or a production engineer must have before he/she can
adequately analyze reservoir performance or predict future production under various
production mechanisms, the key to which is a consistent and representative mathematical
model of the physical parameters governing flow in the reservoir.
Several techniques by which reservoir parameters can be acquired have been
devised. These include core analysis, well logging and pressure transient testing/analysis;
of these techniques, pressure transient analysis gives the most representative information
on the reservoir at a scale consistent with the size of the reservoir.
Pressure transient testing is simply generating and measuring pressure variation
with time in wells after a characteristic “disturbance” has been generated in the well;
analysis of the generated data leads to an estimation of rock, fluid, well and reservoir
properties which are required in well performance engineering.
Information obtained from transient testing include well-bore volume, skin,
damage/improvement, reservoir pressure, permeability, porosity, reserves, reservoir and
fluid discontinuities which are key input in reservoir performance analysis, well
improvement schemes, economic analysis and production forecast.
Historically, in oil field practice the productive capacity of producing wells is
generally evaluated using the productivity index (PI), defined as the rate of production
per unit pressure drop. It has the symbol J, and it is expressed mathematically as:
q
J= (1.1)
PR − Pwf
Where q = Production rate
PR = Average reservoir pressure
Pwf = Well flowing pressure
And based on Darcy law, the productivity index is given by;
q k av h
J= = (1.2)
PR − Pwf ⎛r ⎞ 3
141.2 Bμ ln⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ − + S
⎝ rw ⎠ 4
Where,
kav = Average permeability
S = Skin factor
The productivity index J for different reservoir geometry, based on the shape
factor is given as;
q 0.0078k av h
J= = (1.3)
P − Pwf ⎡ 1 ⎛ 10.06 A ⎞ 3 ⎤
Bμ ⎢ ln⎜⎜ ⎟ − + S⎥
2 ⎟
⎢⎣ 2 ⎝ C A rw ⎠ 4 ⎥⎦
Where,
CA = Shape factor
A = Drainage area
The productivity index has been traditionally calculated based on the fundamental
assumption of the validity of Darcy’s law in porous media.
2
However, Darcy’s law breaks down under conditions of high velocity flow which
is proven to exist in gas wells, high permeability reservoirs, fractured reservoirs
(naturally and hydraulically fractured) and in perforations, especially near the well bore.
This work seeks to review the dynamics of non-Darcy flow and how it affects the
productivity index calculation and well performance prediction in different reservoir
geometry and scenarios.
1.1 Background
The physics of fluid flow in different media and conduits is a well researched area
in engineering with groundbreaking works by pioneer workers in this field of
engineering. Equations describing flows in media such as cylindrical pipes, rectangular
conduits, and other forms and shapes of conduits have been developed analytically over
the years.
The three fundamental principles governing flow in any media and upon which
the development of these flow equations are based are:
(a) Law of conservation of mass or the continuity equation
(b) Equation of state of the fluid
(c) Law governing the dynamics of fluid flow or Newton’s law
3
Mathematical expression and statement of these laws are given below:
(a) Law of conservation of mass or the continuity equation
This law states that ‘the net excess of mass flux, per unit time into or out of any
infinitesimal volume element in the fluid system is exactly equal to the change per unit
time of the fluid density in that element multiplied by the free volume of the element’,
stated mathematically as:
d ( ρv x ) d ( ρv y ) d ( ρv z ) − φ∂ρ
∇.( ρv ) = + + = (1.4)
dx dy dz dt
(b) Equation of State
This is the equation that describes the fluid and its thermodynamic flow properties
as it relates to pressure, temperature and density. It is stated simply as;
f ( P , ρ ,T ) = 0 (1.5)
(c) Law governing the dynamics of fluid flow (Newton’s Law)
This law imposes on the velocity distribution in every flow system the
requirement of a dynamical equilibrium between the inertial forces and the viscous forces
and those due to external body forces and the internal distribution of fluid pressures. This
law takes into account all the forces acting on the fluid as it flows in the medium, the
forces acting on an elemental fluid particle and their equations are;
4
(i) Pressure gradients in the coordinates of flow
dp dp dp
, ,
dx dy dz
(ii) External body forces, such as gravity in the direction of flow
Fx , Fy , Fz
(iii) Forces opposing motion or viscous forces, due to internal resistance of the
fluid to flow. An expression for viscous flow is given by:
1 dθ 1 dθ 1 dθ
μ∇ 2vx + μ , μ∇ 2v y + μ , μ∇ 2vz + μ
3 dx 3 dy 3 dz
where,
d2 d2 d2
∇2 ≡ + + and
dx 2 dy 2 dz 2
dvx dv y dvz
θ = ∇.v = + + (from the continuity equation)
dx dy dz
The flow equation is obtained by equating the sum of these three forces stated
above to the product of mass and acceleration of the volume element of the fluid,
therefore for an elemental fluid particle, the acceleration is given by the total time
derivative of the velocity given by,
D d dx d dy d dz d d d d d
≡ + + + = + vx + vy + vz
Dt dt dt dx dt dy dt dz dt dx dy dz
Combining these parameters gives the Navier Stokes equation in three dimensions
Dvx dp 1 dθ
ρ = − + Fx + μ∇2vx + μ (1.6a)
Dt dx 3 dx
5
Dvy dp 1 dθ
ρ =− + Fy + μ∇ 2 v y + μ (1.6b)
Dt dy 3 dy
Dvz dp 1 dθ
ρ = − + Fz + μ∇ 2 v z + μ (1.6c)
Dt dz 3 dz
The three laws and equations stated above are mathematically and scientifically
sufficient to predict all the parameters of the flow of a viscous fluid flowing through a
medium of any shape, size or geometry.
The particular solution of the partial differential equations stated above for a
given medium is only possible when the boundaries of such a medium are clearly
defined. That is, the fluid system and the detailed physical conditions that serve as the
initial conditions of the system must be known before a solution can be obtained for any
flow medium or geometry.
1.2 Porous Media and Equations of Flow
A porous medium can be defined as a solid body which contains void spaces or
pores that are distributed randomly; without any conceivable pattern throughout the
structure of the solid body. Extremely small voids are called molecular interstices and
very large ones are called caverns or vugs. Pores (intergranular and intercrystalline) are
intermediate between caverns and molecular interstices.
Fluid flow can only take place in the inter-connected pore space of the porous
media; this is called the effective pore space.
6
Petroleum reservoirs are porous media and the storage and flow of hydrocarbons
takes place in these pore spaces which serve as conduit to the flow of oil, gas and water
during production or the depletion of a reservoir. Some peculiarities of the porous
media encountered in petroleum reservoirs are:
(a) There is no geometry or geometrical quantity that can characterize or describe
the system of pores in any porous body.
(b) The pore walls are always irregularly converging or diverging and are highly
irregular in any cross-section.
(c) Visualizing pores as cylindrical tubes is not consistent with any pore system
known in nature.
These inherent and attendant characteristics of a porous medium makes it grossly
impossible to solve the system of partial differential equations (1.4 ), (1.5) and (1.6)
describing the general fluid flow phenomena stated earlier.
Literature is replete with several simplifying assumptions made by earlier
researchers to relate the pores in porous media to known shapes or geometry for which
analytical or numerical solution has been gotten, but none of these rightly solves the
porous media problem.
1.3 Darcy’s Law: Assumptions and Limitations
Henri Darcy, a French civil engineer, in his 1856 publication laid the real
foundation of the quantitative theory of the flow of homogenous fluids through porous
7
media. As a civil engineer, he was interested in the flow characteristics of sand filters
used to filter public water in the city of Dijon in France.
The result of his classic experiments, globally known as Darcy’s law, is thus
stated: “The rate of flow Q of water through the filter bed is directly proportional to the
area A of the sand and to the difference Δh in the height between the fluid heads at the
inlet and outlet of the bed, and inversely proportional to the thickness L of the bed”.
This can be stated mathematically as:
CAΔh
Q= (1.7)
L
where C is a property characteristic of the sand or porous media.
Darcy’s law represents a linear relationship between the flow rate Q and the head
Δh
(pressure gradient) .
L
The constant of proportionality C in the original Darcy equation has been
k
expressed as , where μ is the viscosity of the fluid and k is called the permeability
μ
of the porous medium. Permeability is a property of the structure of the porous media
and it is entirely independent of the nature of the fluid. It uniquely sums up the
geometric properties of the porous media such as porosity, shape of the grains, size of
the grains and the degree of cementation. The permeability k is considered to
completely and uniquely characterize the dynamic properties of a porous media with
respect to flow of fluids though it.
Hence, Darcy’s law is stated as:
8
k dp
v= (1.8)
μ dl
And more generally as:
kA dp
q= (1.9)
μ dx
Darcy’s empirical equation is a statistical average of classical hydrodynamic
equation over the minute and detailed variation occurring in the individual pores; it
gives a simplified macroscopic representation.
Inherent in the development of the Darcy flow model are the following assumptions;
a) Darcy’s law assumes laminar or viscous flow (creep velocity); it does not
involve the inertia term (the fluid density). This implies that the inertia or
acceleration forces in the fluid are being neglected when compared to the
classical Navier-Stokes equations.
b) Darcy’s law assumes that in a porous medium a large surface area is exposed
to fluid flow, hence the viscous resistance will greatly exceed acceleration
forces in the fluid unless turbulence sets in.
1.4 Non-Darcy Flow; Darcy-Forchheimer Flow Equation
Darcy’s empirical flow model represents a simple linear relationship between
flow rate and pressure drop in a porous media; any deviation from the Darcy flow
scenario is termed non-Darcy flow.
Physical causes for these deviations are grouped under the following headings31;
9
a) High velocity flow effects.
b) Molecular effects.
c) Ionic effects.
d) Non-Newtonian fluids phenomena.
However, in petroleum engineering, the most common phenomenon is the high
flow rate effect. High flow rate beyond the assumed laminar flow regime can occur in the
following scenarios in petroleum reservoirs.
a) Near the well bore (Perforations)
b) Hydraulically fractured wells
c) Gas reservoirs
d) Condensates reservoirs (Low viscosity crude reservoirs)
e) High flow potential wells
f) Naturally fractured reservoirs
g) Gravel packs
It is therefore imperative for reservoir engineers to develop a better flow model
that is adequately representative and uniquely characterizes the physical parameters and
variables in these flow scenarios.
In 1901, Philippe Forchheimer, a Dutch man, while flowing gas thorough coal
beds discovered that the relationship between flow rate and potential gradient is non-
linear at sufficiently high velocity, and that this non-linearity increases with flow rate. He
initially attributed this non-linear increase to turbulence in the fluid flow (it is now known
that this non-linearity is due to inertial effects in the porous media), which he determined
10
to be proportional to av 2 , with a being a constant of proportionality. Cornel and Katz6
gave a value of ‘βρ’ to ‘a’, where β (beta) is called the inertial factor and ρ is the density
of the fluid flowing through the medium.
The additional pressure drop due to inertial losses is primarily due to the
acceleration and deceleration effects of the fluid as it travels through the tortuous flow
path of the porous media. The total pressure drop is thus given by Forchheimer empirical
flow model stated traditionally as;
dp μ
= v + βρv 2 (1.11)
dx k
This can also be written in vector notation as:

r rr
αv + βρ v v = −∇P (1.12)
μ
Where α = ,
k
The Forchheimer equation assumes that Darcy’s law is still valid, but that an
additional term must be added to account for the increased pressure drop. Hence this
equation will be called the Darcy-Forchheimer flow model in this thesis.
Equation (1.11) is based on fitting an empirical equation through experimental data.
However, Forchheimer based on these data set later propose a third order equation
given by:
dp
= av + bv 2 + cv 3 (1.13)
dx
where a, b and c are constants as in equations (1.11) and (1.13) above.
11
Another flow model that has been proposed for flow in porous media is the power
law model, given by:
dp
= av n (1.15)
dx
where n has a value between 1 and 2
In vector notation, it is stated as:
n −1 r
Cn v v = −∇P (1.16)
However, of these three models the most widely used is given by equation (1.11)
and it will form the basis of analysis in this project to characterize high velocity non-
Darcy flows in porous media.
1.5 Flow Regimes in Porous Media
Analogous to flow in pipes and conduits, several researchers have also tried to
define a flow regime in porous media to distinguish flow regimes and to predict the onset
of one or the termination of another. Typically for flow in pipes and conduits, the
Reynolds number is used to delineate flow regimes. A Reynolds number less than 2100
implies laminar flow, while a greater number implies turbulent flow. In porous media
however, there is no clear limit or a magic number that defines this transition. The non-
linearity experienced in non-Darcy flow is not a result of turbulence but inertia effects as
stated earlier, hence non-Darcy flow is known to occur in porous media at a much more
12
lower Reynolds number, and it is not initiated by a change in flow regime. The Reynolds
number in porous media is given by;
ρvd
N Re = (1.17)
μ
where d is average grain diameter of the grains in the porous media. However for a media
with non-Darcy flow (e.g. a fracture) the Reynolds number is given by;
ρvβk
N Re = (1.18)
μ
This is just another Reynolds number with the characteristic length defined by βk.
In the literature, depending on the flow velocity and the nature of the porous
media different flow patterns have been observed. However four major regimes were
proposed by Dybbs and Edwards (using laser anemometry and visualization technique).
These four regimes are;
a) Darcy or laminar flow where the flow is dominated by viscous forces, here the
pressure gradient varies strictly linearly with the flow velocity. The Reynolds
number at this point is less than 1.
b) At increasing Reynolds number, a transition zone is observed leading to flow
dominated by inertia effects. This begins in the range Re=1~10. This laminar
inertia flow dominated region persists up to and Re of ~150.
c) An unsteady laminar flow regime for Re =150 ~ 300 is characterized by
occurrence of wake oscillations and development of vortices in the flow profile.
d) A highly unsteady and chaotic flow regime for Re > 300, it resembles turbulent
flow in pipes and is dominated by eddies and high head losses.
13
However there is large variation in the limiting Reynolds number for these
transition zones as published in the literature, therefore one cannot be too categorical
about limits and transition zones as it relates to the Reynolds number in porous media.
Figure 1.1 below is a diagrammatic representation of the flow regimes in a porous
media as proposed by Basak49.
Pre-Darcy Zone Darcy Zone Post-Darcy Zone
Laminar
Turbulent
Forchheimer
Pre-Laminar
No Flow
Figure 1.1: Flow Regimes in Porous Media after Basak (1977)
1.6 Significance of Thesis and Organization
The results and knowledge gained from this thesis will be useful in adequately
evaluating production performance of wells and aid reservoir engineers in modeling
reservoir flow with more robust equations. Selection of candidate wells for well
14
engineering routines will be more objective and representative of actual scenario in the
reservoir. The findings from this thesis will further illuminate known discrepancies in
well test analysis and help to ratify a fundamental source of uncertainty in well test
models.
This thesis is organized into seven chapters; the contents of each chapter are
summarized.
Introduction and background; this chapter contains a brief introduction to the
fundamental principles of fluid flow in porous media, with a review of governing
equations of flow in porous media as it relates to Darcy and non-Darcy flows.
Literature review; this is an assessment of current industry practice and
methodology used to handle non-Darcy flow in different scenarios in the petroleum
industry with a review of non-Darcy flow modeling in the literature.
Problem statement; a categorical expression of the problem this thesis seeks to
solve, with the motivation and importance of this solution to the petroleum industry.
Solution statement; this is a procedural statement of the development of a
proposed solution to the stated problem and why this approach is significantly different
from previous approaches. It also gives a statement of the results expected using this
procedure.
Results; a catalogue of results obtained during laboratory experiment on core
samples and numerical simulations of various reservoirs and well geometries.
Discussion and analysis of results; the results obtained are compared with current
industry practices and discussed.
15
Conclusions; the final chapter summarizes the thesis and presents the conclusions
drawn.
16
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
In the early days of the petroleum industry it was noted that the pressure drop
measured in the vicinity of the wellbore was greater than the pressure drop computed
using industry-wide modeling equations36. This excessive pressure drop was explained by
assuming a decrease in permeability (formation alteration) due to formation damage in
the vicinity of the wellbore. The capacity of a well to produce is generally accepted to be
directly proportional to the pressure drop in the reservoir. Hurst and Van Everdingen36 in
the 1950s introduced a dimensionless term called the skin factor which was used to
explain this phenomenon36. The skin factor (S) was originally designed to give a
numerical value to the additional resistance assumed to be concentrated around the
wellbore resulting from drilling and completion techniques employed or the production
practices used. This ultimately leads to an additional pressure drop, this pressure drop is
called the skin effect. The magnitude of the skin effect determines the productive
capacity of a well. This has also been used in well performance evaluation and remedial
operations.
Over the years, the skin factor has been broken down into several components. An
expression for the total skin (S) is given below:
S = Sc + Sp + Sd + SG + SA+ So (2.1)
Where,
S= skin
Sc= completion skin due to partial penetration
17
Sp= perforation skin
Sd= skin due to damage around the well bore
SG= gravel-pack skin
SA= outer boundary geometry skin
So= slanted well skin
The additional pressure drop due to high velocity flow is also expressed as an
equivalent skin, Dq; where q is the flow rate and D is a composite of the following high
velocity flow terms;
D = DR + Dd + Ddp + DG (2.2)
Where
DR= reservoir high velocity flow term beyond the well bore area
Dd= damaged zone high velocity flow term
Ddp= high velocity flow term in the region surrounding the perforations
DG= high velocity flow term in a gravel packed perforation
q = flow rate
Assuming all the other skin sources are summed up in S, therefore, for the case of high
velocity flows, the total skin factor will be given by;
St = S + Dq (2.3)
Where;
St = Total skin
Dq = rate dependent skin factor
D = Non-Darcy flow coefficient
18
It is obvious that the value of the rate dependent skin (Dq) will not be a constant,
in comparison to the mechanical skin, as it will depend on the flow rate, in a direct
proportionality. This will subsequently vary the value of the total skin St.
As can be seen from the sources of skin enumerated above, the petroleum industry
has known the inadequacy of Darcy’s law to adequately predict the pressure loss at high
flow rate; however, this skin factor has been assumed to be concentrated in the vicinity of
the wellbore i.e. at the sandface or across the completion, the effect of non-Darcy flow in
the reservoir has been neglected and assumed to be negligible.
The treatments of non-Darcy flows will be reviewed under the scenario where
these effects come into play in reservoir engineering.
2.1 Non-Darcy Flow in the Reservoir
Non-Darcy flow occurs in petroleum reservoirs that have high conductivity to
flow. Initially it was assumed that this phenomenon was only relevant to gas wells, but
field observations and analysis show that it relevant to oil wells as well. This was proven
by Fetkovitch during a comprehensive field study of 40 oil wells10.
As narrated above, non-Darcy flow has been treated as a rate dependent skin
factor by the inclusion of the term “Dq” as an additional source of pressure loss in the
vicinity of the wellbore. The various techniques for evaluating this parameter are
reviewed below.
19
2.1.1 Multi-rate Tests
Multi-rate tests are traditionally used to evaluate the deliverability of a gas or oil
well, the additional pressure drop due to non-Darcy effect is calculated from the
Houpeurt (back-pressure) analytical equation and from the empirical equation proposed
by Rawlins and Schellhardt in 1936. These tests are listed below;
(i) Flow after flow test
(ii) Isochronal test
(iii) Modified isochronal test
2.1.1.1 Flow-After-Flow Tests
This is also called the gas back pressure of four point test, it is conducted by
producing the well at a series of different stabilized (pseudo-steady state) flow rates and
measuring the stabilized bottom hole flowing pressure at the sand face. Each flow rate is
established in succession, often conducted with a sequence of increasing flow rates. A
major limitation of the test procedure is that the well must reach a stabilization period,
especially in low-permeability formations that take longer to reach stabilization.
Schellhardt and Rawlins of the USBM developed an empirical equation for analyzing
back-pressure data based on field data analysis. They proposed a relationship which
applicable only at low pressures is given by
2 2
q = C ( Pf − Ps ) n (2.4)
Where,
C= Stabilized performance coefficient
20
2 2
n = inverse slope of log-log plot of ( Pf − Ps ) versus q
The theoretical value of n ranges from 0.5, which indicates non-Darcy flow regime, to 1.0
indicating a flow regime governed by Darcy’s law
A much more consistent analytical equation developed from the gas diffusivity
equation was proposed by Houpeurt which is stated as;
2 2 2
PR − Pwf = Aq g + Bq g (Gas wells) (2.5)
2 2 2
PR − Pwf = Aq o + Bqo (Oil wells) (2.6)
Where,
⎡ ⎛r ⎞ ⎤ μ 0 Bo
A = ⎢ln⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ − 0.75 + S t ⎥ −3
⎣ ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎦ 7.08 x10 K o h
μ o Bo
B= D
7.08 x10 −3 k o h
μ g zT ⎡ ⎛ re ⎞ ⎤
A= ⎢ln⎜ ⎟⎟ − 0.75 + S t ⎥
7.03x10 − 4 k g h ⎣ ⎜⎝ rw ⎠ ⎦
μ g zT
B= D
7.03x10 − 4 k g h
2 2
PR − Pwf
A Cartesian plot of ( ) against q gives a plot with intercept A and slope B,
q
from which the value of D, can be calculated knowing all other variables.
21
2.1.1.2 Isochronal Tests
This technique was proposed by Jones, Blount and Glaze19. This test was
designed to shorten the stabilization time required for the flow after a flow test. This long
time is usually impractical in some cases, especially in low-permeability reservoirs. It is
conducted by alternating producing the well, then shutting the well in and allowing it to
buildup to the average reservoir pressure before the beginning of the next flow period.
Pressures are measured at several time increments during each flow period. The
time period in which the pressures are monitored is the same relative to the stating time
of each flow period. The same method of analysis is used to analyze the data to obtain
values for D.
2.1.1.3 Modified Isochronal Tests
This technique was proposed in a paper by Brar and Aziz. It is a modification of
the isochronal test aimed at shortening the test times required for the well to build up to
the average reservoir pressure in the drainage area of the well. It is conducted like an
isochronal test, except that the shut in periods are of equal duration and the flow periods
are of equal duration. The length of the shut-in period usually equals or exceeds the flow
periods.
It is known to be less accurate than the isochronal test, due to this short time
periods allowed for pressure build up. The data analysis is the same as the previous test
types.
22
2.1.2 Single Well Test Techniques
The use of a single well test to estimate the non-Darcy skin factor has been
proposed by several researchers. These include Camacho et al, Warren, Spivey et al34,
Kim and Kang21. They proposed new methods for using single well tests to obtain the
rate dependent skin factor, based on the algorithms they developed.
2.1.3 Correlations
Ramey proposed an equation for calculating the non-Darcy flow coefficient if
multi-test data are not available. The expression was obtained by integrating the
Forchheimer equation for the drainage radius rd to the well bore rw. However, he
confirmed that the result may be in error of about 100%, based on a comparison with
multi-rate tests. The expression is given as;
2.715 x10 − 15βMp sc k

D= (2.7)
μTsc hrw
where the variables have the usual notations.
2.2 Flow in Fractures
The occurrence of non-Darcy flow phenomenon in fractures is well documented
in the literature. Early workers have come to understand the importance of this
phenomenon as it affects the productivity of fractures. Fractures can either be natural or
induced e.g. hydraulic fractures. The two distinct flow regimes observed during well tests
in fractured reservoirs point to the fact that the flow regime in the matrix is different from
23
the flow regime in the fracture, although this has been thought to affect only the high rate
wells.
Hydraulic fracturing is a widely used completion method in the tight gas
formations all over the world. Several hydraulic fracturing jobs are implemented
annually. However, the performances of these fractures are highly dependent on non-
Darcy flow effects in the fracture. Several ongoing studies are looking into how to
maximize fracture design and mitigate the non-Darcy effect in fractures.
2.2.1 Hydraulic Fractures
In hydraulic fracture stimulation of wells, the well’s productive capability and
overall reserve recovery is impacted by non-Darcy flow as it causes a reduction in the
propped half length to a lower effective half length. Fracture design engineers have
historically neglected this phenomenon assuming that it only impacts high velocity wells.
According to Vincent et al.37, ignoring the non-Darcy effects while designing
fractures will lead to inaccurate production forecasts, suboptimal fracture design and
selection of inappropriate proppant type. They opined that fluid velocities in real fracture
are approximately 1000 times greater than laboratory measurements; hence laboratory-
measured proppant permeability values are not really suitable when designing fractures.
Miskimins et al.26 in their investigation of flow rates at which non-Darcy flow
influences retained fracture permeability discovered that its effect is significant across a
wide spectrum of flow rates from as low as 50-100 MCFD, and these decrease can range
from 5% at a flow rate of 50 MCFD to 30% at 400 MCFD under a given set of
24
conditions. Presently in fracture design non-Darcy flow is integrated by accurate
selection of a proppant type based on laboratory tests and field observation with
particular emphasis on the beta factor of the proppant to be used.
To optimize fracture design, Lopez-Hernandez et al.24 proposed a beta factor
method to calculate the effective fracture permeability k f −eff . This parameter is given by;
kf
k f −eff = (2.8)
βk f ρ g v
1+
μg
This expression was derived by combining the Darcy and non-Darcy flow equations in a
fracture and solving for k f −eff , which determines the actual pressure drop in the fracture.
Another fracture design criterion is to minimize the pressure loss due to the inertia
losses by minimizing the βρ v 2 term in the traditional Darcy-Forchheimer equation. This
can be achieved by selecting a proppant with an optimal beta factor.
The beta factor may be more important than the reference permeability when
selecting proppant for a fracturing job. Hence it is imperative to know the beta factor of
the proppant to be used in the design, as they are not usually reported in the industry.
2.3 Completions, Gravel Packs and Perforations
Several workers have investigated non-Darcy flows in completions and
perforations. It was observed that large pressure drops in perforated completions occur
mostly in the convergence zones and the in perforation tunnel, especially in high rate oil
and gas wells. Nguyen29 experimentally studied non-Darcy flow in perforations. He
25
discovered that non-Darcy flow in perforations is a function of perforation geometry, and
permeability of the gravel. In his experiments, he used water and air as the flowing fluid
and came to the conclusion that the relationship between pressure drop and flow rate is
non-linear. Therefore, a simplistic analysis of the flow using Darcy’s law will over
predict the productivity and cases have been found where the productivity has been over-
predicted by as much as 100%.
In well performance engineering of gravel packed completions, it is important to
delineate the pressure drop due to mechanical skin or rate dependent skin (non-Darcy
flow) so that the right remedial action can be taken to improve the productivity of the
well.
2.4 Beta Factor β, its Measurement and Correlations
The beta factor β, which is a constant of proportionality in the traditional Darcy-
Forchheimer equation, was first proposed by Cornel and Katz6. It is known by several
names which include; non-Darcy flow coefficient, inertial flow coefficient and the
turbulence factor. However, in these thesis we will adopt the non-Darcy flow coefficient.
It is widely agreed that β is a property of the porous media; it is a strong function of the
tortuosity of the flow path and it is usually determined from laboratory measurements and
multi-rate well tests.
The derived expression for the beta factor falls under two broad categories;
empirical and theoretical models. The theoretical models are further divided into parallel
and serial models.
26
In the parallel model, the porous medium is assumed to be made up of straight
capillary bundles of uniform diameter. According to Li and Engler22, based on the work
of Ergun et al., and Polubarinova-kochina, an expression for the Beta factor for a parallel
model is given by;
c
β= (2.9)
K φ 1.5
0.5
Where c is a constant
In the serial type model, the pore space is serially lined up; capillaries of different
pore types are aligned in series. Li et al.22 also proposed an expression for the Beta factor
for a series model based on the work of Scheidegger, the beta factor is given as;
c' 'τ
β= (2.10)
Kφ
Where c' ' is a constant related to pore size distribution
There are several empirical correlations in the literature used to predict the beta
factor. These expressions differ due to the varied experimental procedure, porous media
and fluids used for the experiments. However, it is consistently shown that permeability,
porosity and tortuosity are the main parameters on which the beta factor depends. Also,
some correlations have been developed for multiphase flows, hence these correlations are
function of saturation as well.
2.4.1. Permeability Defined Beta Factors
Jones19 conducted experiments on 355 sandstone and 29 limestone cores (vuggy,
crystalline, fine grained sandstone) and came up with a correlation given by
27
6.15 x1010
β= (2.11)
K 1.55
Where K is in md and β in 1/ft
Pascal et al, based on mathematical analysis of data from Multirate wells in
hydraulically fractured reservoirs, proposed a correlation given by,
4.8 x1012
β= (2.12)
K 1.176
Where K is in md and β is in 1/m.
Cooke based on his experiments in using brines, reservoir oils and gases in
propped fractures, predicted the non-Darcy coefficient as,
β = bK − a (2.13)
Where a and b are constants determined by experiments based on proppant type.
2.4.2. Correlations Based on Permeability and Porosity
Egun’s empirical equation based on data found in the literature and experiments,
proposed the correlation given as,
β = ab −1 / 2 (10 −8 K ) −1 / 2 φ −3 / 2 (2.14)
Where a=1.75, b=150, K in Darcy and β in 1/cm.
Janicek and Katz, for natural porous media proposed to use the following
equations:
β = 1.82 x10 8 K −5 / 4φ −3 / 4 (2.15)
Where K is in md and β is in 1/cm.
28
Geertsma based on his experiments on consolidated and unconsolidated
sandstones, dolomites and limestone and a review of other works, he proposed an
empirical correlation given by:
0.005
β= (2.16)
K 0.5φ 5.5
where K is in cm2 and β in cm-1
2.4.3. Correlations Based on Permeability, Porosity and Tortuosity
Liu et al further worked on the data used by Geertsma, Cornell and Katz, Evans
and Evans and Whitey, and by considering the effect of tortuosity they got a better
correlation given as,
8.91x10 8 τ
β= (2.17)
Kφ
Where β is in ft-1 and K in md
Others include, Thauvin et al., they proposed a correlation given by,
1.55 x10 4 τ 3.35

β= (2.18)
K 0.98φ 0.29
Where β is in cm-1 and K in Darcy
This is not an exhaustive listing, there are several other correlations proposed in
the literature. In choosing a correlation to use in predicting the non-Darcy coefficient, Li
et al.22 proposed the following guidelines.(see Appendix B)
(a) Determine the lithology of the formation (e.g. from well logs)
29
(b) Determine what parameters are known or can be found, use the correlation
that has as many known parameters as possible.
(c) Determine the pore geometry of the formation and the relativity of flow
direction to pore channels.
2.5 Non-Darcy Flow Modeling
Fluid flow in porous media in the petroleum industry has been modeled by the
Darcy flow equation. The diffusivity equation has been widely used in well test models,
reservoir simulation models and all other petroleum engineering models to simulate fluid
flow in the reservoir. One important use of these models is to predict reservoir pressure
and other reservoir parameters that are required for well performance evaluation and
prediction. Muskat27 was the first to utilize Darcy’s law in deriving fluid flow equations
in oil and gas reservoirs for different flow patterns and reservoir geometries. This has
served the petroleum industry for a long while. However recent research and further
insight into non-Darcy flow phenomenon in the reservoir and scenario where it occurs is
necessitating a new look into this historical trend.
Numerical modeling of non-Darcy flows began in the 1960s; some of the pioneer
workers include Smith, Swift et al., who investigated the effects of gas flow on well
testing. Researchers in recent times are looking at newer and better ways of modeling
fluid flow in porous media while integrating the Forchheimer equation for non-Darcy
flow. Thus they are developing a new diffusivity equation that can be used in reservoir
30
simulators and other numerical models so that more accurate and better predictive models
can be obtained.
Belhaj et al.5 developed a new diffusivity equation that was used to model non-
Darcy flow in the reservoir. They used a finite difference modeling scheme, based on the
Crank-Nicholson and Barakat-Clark numerical modeling methods, while comparing both
Darcy and non-Darcy flows. They derived a new expression for the diffusivity equation
based on the Darcy-Forchheimer equation in two dimensions stated as;
∂2P ∂2P ⎛μ ⎞⎛ ∂P ⎡ ∂P ∂P ⎤ ⎞
+ 2 = c⎜ + 2 βρv ⎟⎜⎜ φ + v⎢ + ⎥ ⎟⎟
∂x ∂y ⎠⎝ ∂t ⎣ ∂x ∂y ⎦ ⎠
2
⎝K
Based on the results of their numerical simulations, they opined that the Forchheimer
model gave more realistic result for all ranges of pressure gradients, flow rates,
permeabilities, porosities, viscosity and fluid density.
Su33 of Saudi Aramco, in his publication detailed how non-Darcy flow modeling
can be integrated into a reservoir simulator, especially for multiphase flow modeling. He
modeled both the rate dependent skin factor in the reservoir and also at the well bore
treating the two differently. He took the non-Darcy consideration into account, both in
the cell to cell flux and in the vicinity of the well bore. His model also proposed the
Darcy-Forchheimer equation for each phase flowing in the reservoir; his phase based
non-Darcy flow equation is given as
2
dp μ j q j ⎛ qj ⎞
− = + βρ j ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (2.19)
dx kK rj A ⎝ A⎠
31
Where j denotes the phase, Kr is the relative permeability. He used a cell-to-cell non-
Darcy flow resistance flux factor, FND to multiply the Darcy flow flux term, stated as
Flux non-Darcy = FND * Flux Darcy (2.20)
He gave an approximate expression for the rate dependent skin factor by the expression,
βρ j kK r , j
Dj = (2.21)
2πhμ j rw
Su35 applied his model to both oil and gas well, based on the result of his
numerical simulations he opined that Darcy-Forchheimer can be applied to a multiphase
system, that non-Darcy flow in occurring in the entire reservoir can be handled in a
simulator and that this model can be easily integrated with a full blown numerical
simulator.
Jamiolahmady et al.17, when modeling flow in a crushed perforated rock, they
developed a mathematical model based on the Darcy-Forchheimer flow. From the
equation in vector form they developed the following expressions
μ
∇P = V + βρ V V (2.22)
k
Where ∇ the gradient operator V is the absolute value of the velocity,
From which they obtained an expression for V given as
⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
k⎜ ∇P ⎟
V = (2.23)
μ ⎜ 1 + βρk V ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ μ ⎠
The continuity equation for radial cylindrical coordinate system given as,
32
∇.V =
1 ∂
(rVr ) + ∂V z = 0 (2.24)
r ∂r ∂z
Is solved to obtain an expression for V given as,
2
⎛k⎞
− 1 + 1 + 4βρ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ∇P
⎝μ⎠
V = (2.25)
⎛ βρk ⎞
2⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ μ ⎠
The negative root is discarded, while the expression (2.25) is substituted in equation
(2.24). This gives
⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎛k⎞ 2πr∇P ⎟
∇.⎜ 2⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎟=0 (2.26)
⎜ ⎝μ⎠ ⎛k⎞
2 ⎟
⎜ 1 + 1 + 4 βρ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ∇P ⎟
⎜ ⎝μ⎠ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
The above expression was solved based on the finite element method using the
Femlab (COMSOL Multiphysics) mathematical modeling software. They opined that
their model shows the limitations of the current models used in well completion
engineering.
33
CHAPTER III
PROBLEM STATEMENT
The productivity index of a well is a powerful tool for well evaluation. It is the
production rate divided by the drawdown. The productivity index, as an evaluation tool is
only valid when the well is flowing in a pseudo-steady state (PSS) regime. Until the
pressure transient period during a well test is passed and a steady state pressure
distribution is assumed in the well, the productivity index will not approximate a constant
with any physical significance28.
The productivity index for an ideal well remains constant, even if the well
production rate and the reservoir pressure changes during the life of the well28. A change
in the productivity index of a well over its life is an indication of an anomaly, which may
suggest the presence of permeability barriers or impedance (e.g scales, asphaltenes, sand
production and any other skin effect) to fluid flow in the reservoir. The productivity of a
well is a direct function of the pressure drop in the reservoir. Hence it is imperative to
accurately delineate and evaluate the pressure drop and know the causes of such pressure
drop in a well. This is the key goal of well performance engineering; evaluating and
calculating the pressure drop, accurately knowing the cause of the pressure drop and
designing a remedial action or proffering a solution to mitigate or remove the cause of the
pressure drop thus increasing the productivity of the well.
Therefore, in evaluating performance or non performance and in rectifying any
well problem, the source of the problem must first be identified, and then the right
solution can be proffered to fix the problem. Based on the foregoing, it is obvious that a
34
blanket description of all well problems under the ‘Skin’ umbrella does not really suffice;
to adequately resolve any well problem, its source must be known. This is one of the
main challenges of this thesis; to show how poor fluid flow modeling can affect pressure
predictions and resultant effect on the calculated well productivity index.
3.1 Importance of Accurate Reservoir Pressure Prediction
The pressure profile in the reservoir is very important to reservoir and production
engineers. The production mechanism in petroleum reservoir are driven by pressure,
hence knowledge of the pressure profile is essentially an indication of the producibility of
the reservoir. Knowledge of the reservoir pressure is important for the following reasons;
a) It gives an indication of the production mechanism of the well
b) It shows the productive capacity of the well
c) Knowing the pressure will help determine what additional equipment is
required to lift the reservoir fluid to surface.
d) It is required for reservoir management and planning.
e) Pressure profile help in determining new well locations
f) Pressure profile is a source of information for reservoir properties and for
hydraulic connectivity.
Well tests and pressure surveys are usually conducted on wells to get one or some
of the above information based on the pressure data obtained from the well tests.
35
3.2 Limitations of Current Techniques
A review of current industry practices as it relates to high flow rate wells was
done in chapter 2 of this thesis. From the review it is obvious that using the historical
Darcy’s law to model fluid flow in high flow rate reservoir is not adequate. The non-
Darcy flow problem in petroleum engineering still requires further research, until more
robust equations and models can be developed to solve this problem.
Although the industry over the years has introduced a ‘fudge factor’ also called
the skin factor assumed to be applicable to a region of impaired permeability in the
vicinity of the well bore. This has not adequately help to narrow down the problem to its
root cause and has brought in lots of uncertainties. This may explain why some remedial
jobs or work-over operations have not been successful. This is simply because the
problem was never rightly diagnosed and hence, the solution applied is not applicable.
A great leap in well performance engineering will occur when well or reservoir
problems are rightly diagnosed using the right models and tools, so that the proffered or
recommended solution will adequately fix the well problem at hand. The ability to rightly
calculate the individual components of the composite skin factor will help in taking
corrective measures to reduce its detrimental effect and thereby enhance the wells
productivity. Until a problem is known, it may never have a solution or it can be rightly
said that ‘a problem known is half solved’.
36
3.3 Laboratory Experiments on Non-Darcy flow in Cores
The following results were obtained on core samples used in the Core Laboratory
(Corelab) of the Department of Petroleum Engineering Texas Tech University, to verify
the certainty of non-Darcy flows at high pressure/flow rate. The experiments were
conducted on core samples that represented different reservoir types- sandstones and
carbonates (limestone and dolomite). The experimental results for three core samples
(#13, #26 and #9) are presented in tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 respectively. Figures 3.1, 3.2
and 3.3 are the graphical plot showing non-linearity in flow.
Table 3.1: Result of non-Darcy flow experiment on Core #13

Core ID: #13
Length: 6.1 cm Ambient Pressure 680.07 mmHg = 13.15 psia
Diameter: 3.745 cm Temperature 74 F
Area: 11.015 cm 2 Viscosity of N 2 0.017584 cp
ΔP (psi) Pin (atm) Pout (atm) Q(cc/sec) K g md Q/A ΔP L

10 1.5765 0.8961 0.5204 7.4483 0.0472 0.1115
20 2.2569 0.8961 1.1403 8.1596 0.1035 0.2231
30 2.9373 0.8961 1.7032 8.1253 0.1546 0.3346
40 3.6177 0.8961 2.2286 7.9737 0.2023 0.4462
50 4.2981 0.8961 2.8517 8.1624 0.2589 0.5577
60 4.9785 0.8961 3.3649 8.0263 0.3055 0.6692
70 5.6589 0.8961 3.8949 7.9631 0.3536 0.7808
80 6.3393 0.8961 4.5368 8.1161 0.4119 0.8923
90 7.0197 0.8961 5.0092 7.9656 0.4548 1.0039
100 7.7001 0.8961 5.4225 7.7605 0.4923 1.1154
110 8.3805 0.8961 5.8194 7.5714 0.5283 1.2270
120 9.0609 0.8961 6.3269 7.5457 0.5744 1.3385
130 9.7413 0.8961 6.5053 7.1617 0.5906 1.4500
37
Core#13: Non-Darcy Plot
1.6
1.4
1.2
DP/L (atm/cm)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Q/A (cm/s)
Figure 3.1: Experimental result of non-linearity in flow through Core #13
38

Core ID: #9

10 1.5752 0.8948 0.8218 0.8097 6.984 0.0756
20 2.2556 0.8948 1.5436 0.6348 6.559 0.1420
30 2.9360 0.8948 2.3256 0.5221 6.588 0.2140
40 3.6164 0.8948 3.1546 0.4433 6.703 0.2903
50 4.2968 0.8948 3.9564 0.3852 6.725 0.3640
60 4.9772 0.8948 4.7323 0.3406 6.703 0.4354
70 5.6576 0.8948 5.3447 0.3052 6.489 0.4918
80 6.3380 0.8948 6.2402 0.2765 6.629 0.5741
90 7.0184 0.8948 6.8634 0.2527 6.481 0.6315
100 7.6988 0.8948 7.2812 0.2327 6.188 0.6699
39
2.5
2.0
DP/L (atm/cm)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Q/A (cm/s)
Figure 3.2: Experimental result of non-linearity in flow through Core #9
40

Core ID: #26

3 1.0989 0.8948 7.5020 244.19 0.6792 0.0492
4 1.1669 0.8948 9.6123 234.66 0.8703 0.0657
5 1.2350 0.8948 10.8631 212.16 0.9836 0.0821
6 1.3030 0.8948 13.0384 212.20 1.1805 0.0985
7 1.3711 0.8948 13.9540 194.66 1.2634 0.1149
8 1.4391 0.8948 15.0940 184.24 1.3666 0.1313
9 1.5071 0.8948 15.9370 172.92 1.4430 0.1477
10 1.5752 0.8948 16.9085 165.11 1.5309 0.1641
11 1.6432 0.8948 18.2907 162.37 1.6561 0.1806
12 1.7113 0.8948 19.3436 157.41 1.7514 0.1970
13 1.7793 0.8948 19.8288 148.95 1.7953 0.2134
14 1.8473 0.8948 20.9396 146.06 1.8959 0.2298
41
0.25
0.20
DP/L (atm/cm)
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Q/A (cm/s)
Figure 3.3: Plot of Experimental result of non-linearity in flow through Core #26
3.4 Problem Statement
The buildup of the thesis up till now as been to lay the foundation of flow in
porous media, describe the peculiarities of Darcy and non-Darcy flows, review current
industry practice and show there inadequacies. This has been a gradual crescendo to the
petroleum engineering problems this thesis seeks to investigate and proffer a solution to;
these problems are summarized in the following statements. The inadequacy of Darcy’s
law to model fluid flow in reservoirs with high velocity flow profiles and the resultant
error it propagates in well performance analysis.
42
The traditional use of the rate-dependent skin factor to account for the additional
pressure loss due to high velocity flows, neglects pressure losses in the reservoir, since it
only assumes that the losses are important in the vicinity of the well bore, research has
shown that this is not the case especially in fractured reservoirs.
There is no proven method of knowing flow regimes in the reservoir; thus
obfuscating the judgment of a well analyst in flow modeling.
43
CHAPTER IV
SOLUTION STATEMENT
4.1 Proposed Solution
The previous chapters has adequately shown the importance and gravity of the
non-Darcy flow phenomena, and highlighted the scenario where this phenomenon occurs
in the prospect of oil and gas. The obvious limitations of the Darcy’s law as a flow
modeling equation for these scenario is evident.
The proposed solution is to integrate the Darcy-Forchheimer equation into the
flow modeling equation for non-linear (high velocity flows), and use the developed
equation to model fluid flow in the reservoir, especially for non-linear flows. The
productivity index of the well is then calculated using this model, with the objective that
a more representative well productivity will be obtained in these scenarios.
4.2 Derivation of the Mathematical Model
In chapter 1, the three fundamental equations required to model fluid flow in any
media were stated as:
a) Continuity equation (Law of conservation of mass)
b) Equation of state
c) Equation of motion/dynamics (Flow Equation)
The derivation of the non-linear mathematical flow equation is given below:
The continuity equation, assuming constant porosity is given by,
44
∂ρ r
φ + div ( ρ v ) = 0 (4.1)
∂t
∂ρ r
φ = −div( ρv )
∂t
∂ρ r r
φ = − ρdiv(v ) − ρ 1v (4.2)
∂t
From product rule,
∂ρ ∂ρ ∂P
= ×
∂t ∂P ∂t
∂ρ ∂ρ ∂P
= ×
∂x ∂P ∂x
Substituting these expressions in equation (4.2) above,
∂ρ ∂P r ∂ρ ∂P r
φ ⋅ = − ρdiv (v ) − ⋅ ⋅v
∂P ∂t ∂P ∂x
Simplifyin g ,
∂P r r
φρ 1 = − ρdiv(v ) − ρ 1v • ∇P (4.3)
∂t
Equation (3) above is the final form of the continuity equation used.
The equation of flow is the Darcy-Forchheimer equation given by:
dp μ
= v + βρv 2
dx k
μ
And in vector form as, let α = , then the expression becomes
k
r rr
αv + βρ v v = −∇P
r rr
∇P + αv + βρ v v = 0 (4.4)
The equation of state is given by the expression;
45
ρ ' = γ −1 ρ (4.5)
−1
Where ρ = ρ 0 e γ ( P − P0 )
( γ −1 is the compressibility)
Equations (3), (4) and (5) are the three governing equations to be used in the derivation of
the mathematical framework for the model.

r
The vector velocity v ( x, t ) cannot be uniquely represented as a function of the pressure
gradient ∇P , we assume an approximation given by;

r r
v = v β = (v1 , v 2 , v3 ) = f β ( ∇P )∇P
Correspondingly,
v β = f β ( ∇P ) ∇P
Substituting these in the Darcy-Forchheimer equation, equation (4) above,
∇P + α ( f β ( ∇P )∇P ) + βf β ( ∇P )∇P. f β ( ∇P )∇P = 0
∇P(1 + α ( f β ( ∇P ) + β ( f β ( ∇P )) 2 ∇P) = 0
This is a form of a quadratic equation, therefore solving for f β ( ∇P ) , and taking only the
positive root as the valid solution to the equation, this results in
− α + α 2 + 4βρ ∇P
f β ( ∇P ) =
2βρ ∇P
(
Multiplying the numerator and the denominator by α + α 2 + 4βρ ∇P , results in )
2
f β ( ∇P ) = (4.6)
α + α + 4βρ ∇P
2
46
r
Equation (6) above is a solution of the velocity vector v β of the Darcy-Forchheimer
equation.
The continuity equation for slightly compressible fluid from equation (4.3), is given by
∂P r
φρ ' = − ρdiv(v ) (4.7)
∂t
r
For slightly compressible fluids, the term ( − ρ 1v • ∇P ) is negligible,
Substituting Darcy-Forchheimer parameters into equation (4.7), results in
∂P γ
= div( f β ( ∇P )∇P) (4.8)
∂t φ
This is the form of the partial differential equation (PDE) that is used to model the non-
linear Darcy-Forchheimer flow in porous media.
In developing this model, the following assumptions have been made:
a. Pressure independent rock and fluid properties
b. Homogenous and isotropic porous medium with uniform thickness
c. Negligible gravity forces
4.3 Description of the Simulator
The software used in solving the PDE above is called COMSOL Multiphysics. It
a commercial package used in solving systems of partial differential equations (PDE),
typically seen in scientific and engineering problems. The solution of the PDE is based
on the finite element method (FEM) scheme for solving PDEs. The software runs the
finite element analysis with adaptive meshing and error control using a variety of
numerical solvers.
47
In COMSOL Multiphysics, PDEs can be described in three ways;
a) Coefficient form: Suitable for linear or nearly linear models
b) General form: Suitable for nonlinear models
c) Weak form: For PDEs on boundaries, edges or points or for models with
mixed space and time derivatives.
The coefficient form of PDE model was used for solving the Darcy-Forchheimer
nonlinear model, in this thesis.
4.4 Numerical Computation and Algorithm
The Darcy-Forchheimer model was applied to different reservoir geometry to
evaluate the productivity indexes of these reservoirs. A comparison is made between the
cases when Darcy’s law is used versus when the Darcy-Forchheimer model was used to
model flow in the reservoir. The reservoir geometry used were obtained from reservoir
geometries for which shape factors have been obtained for pseudo-steady state
productivity index calculation as stated in chapter. The flow chart in figure 4.1 is a
diagrammatic representation of the steps used in solving the model, using COMSOL
Multiphysics.
48
COMSOL
Multiphysics
Initialize
Define form of PDE
Draw Reservoir and

Well Geometry
Define Boundary Enter Modeling

Conditions and Initial Equation and
Values of Parameters Reservoir Domain
Input Values of Constants

and Parameters
Input Solve Parameters

Select Solver Type
Define Grid Size

(Initialize or Refine Grid
Mesh Size)
Read off Output Data

Pressure
Productivity Index (PI)
NO Is Output:
same?
YES
Generate Plot of Output

Data in EXCEL
End of
Routine
Figure 4.1: Flow Chart of Numerical Computation

49
4.5 Laboratory Measurement of Beta Factor
The Laboratory measurement of the Beta factor was done by first measuring the
absolute permeability of the core samples used in the experiments then increasing the
pressure drop across the cores at an ever increasing pressure differential while measuring
the flow rate. The experimental set up is shown diagrammatically in figure 4.2 below.
A linear version of the Forchheimer equation was then used to calculate the
coefficient of inertial resistance, beta. (This procedure is described by Dake8 in his book,
Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, page 259).
Figure 4.2: Experimental setup for permeability and β factor measurements
The experimental procedure used is presented diagrammatically flow in figure 4.3 below.
50
Start
Prepare core samples for

measurement
Measure porosity of core samples

using helium porosimeter
Are porosities in No Sort cores into

same range? groups according
to porosities
Yes
Measure gas permeability (Kg) using

nitrogen gas at low pressures (flow rate)
Use Klinkenberg correction to obtain

absolute permeability (KL)
Apply increasing pressure differentials across core

sample and record flow rate
Obtain beta factor from 1 ⎛ dP μ ⎞

Darcy-Forchheimer equation β= ⎜ + v⎟
ρv 2 ⎝ dx k ⎠
Plot beta as a function of

absolute K on a Log-Log graph
Express beta as a function of C

absolute permeability K β=
kα
End
51 Measurement of β Factor
Figure 4.3: Procedure for Laboratory
The absolute permeability of the cores was obtained by first measuring gas
permeability using nitrogen gas, and then applying the Klinkenberg correction to obtain
the absolute permeability of the core samples.
Initially 26 core samples were sampled for the experiments, but after measuring
the core porosities, it was decided to carry out permeability measurement only on ten
core samples sorted based on their porosities and initial permeability tests. Table 4.1
below is the spreadsheet used for the porosity calculations. Porosity was measured using
the Helium porosimeter.
Table 4.1: Porosity, physical properties and Lithology of core samples used
Core ID Diameter Length Bulk Volume
Lithology # (cm) (cm) (cc) Porosity
Sandstone 1 3.720 3.4650 37.660 0.1829
Sandstone 2 3.720 3.6500 39.671 0.0909
Sandstone 3 3.700 3.6100 38.815 0.1730
Sandstone 4 3.740 3.9650 43.559 0.1420
Sandstone 5 3.720 3.4400 37.388 0.1699
Sandstone 6 3.720 3.3000 35.867 0.1812
Sandstone 7 3.720 3.4000 36.953 0.1247
Sandstone 8 3.720 3.9450 42.877 0.1246
Sandstone 9 3.720 3.5500 38.584 0.1838
Sandstone 10 3.725 3.2800 35.745 0.1850
Sandstone 11 3.700 5.0800 54.621 0.1017
Sandstone 12 3.700 5.5950 60.158 0.0756
Sandstone 13 3.745 6.1000 67.193 0.1377
Sandstone 14 3.740 5.1500 56.577 0.1323
Sandstone 15 3.745 3.9400 43.400 0.1030
Sandstone 16 3.745 5.6400 62.126 0.1050
Sandstone 17 3.745 6.2700 69.065 0.0812
Carbonate 18 3.755 6.2000 68.660 0.0629
Carbonate 19 3.740 5.1000 56.028 0.1402
Carbonate 20 3.745 3.2300 35.579 0.0166
Carbonate 21 3.800 5.7700 65.438 0.1114
Carbonate 22 3.750 4.9400 54.561 0.1340
Carbonate 23 3.780 5.4400 61.048 0.1368
Carbonate 24 3.750 5.0000 55.223 0.0819
Carbonate 25 3.770 4.4250 49.395 0.1457
Carbonate 26 3.750 4.1450 45.780 0.0992
52
The core samples were ranked based on their porosities and an initial permeability
measurement done on the core samples to select the cores that were used in the final
analysis. The core selection is given the table 4.2 below.
Table 4.2: Porosity ranking and cores used for permeability measurements
Lithology Core # Porosity Comments
Sandstone 10 0.1850
Sandstone 9 0.1838
Sandstone 1 0.1829
Sandstone 6 0.1812
Sandstone 3 0.1730
Sandstone 5 0.1699
Carbonate 25 0.1457
Sandstone 4 0.1420
Carbonate 19 0.1402
Sandstone 13 0.1377
Carbonate 23 0.1368
Carbonate 22 0.1340
Sandstone 14 0.1323
Sandstone 7 0.1247
Sandstone 8 0.1246
Carbonate 21 0.1114
Sandstone 16 0.1050
Sandstone 15 0.1030
Sandstone 11 0.1017
Carbonate 26 0.0992 Highly Fractured
Sandstone 2 0.0909
Carbonate 24 0.0819
Sandstone 17 0.0812
Sandstone 12 0.0756
Carbonate 18 0.0629
Carbonate 20 0.0166 Fractured
Core #26 was selected because it is highly fractured and it will serve as a good candidate
to investigate non-Darcy flow in fractured reservoir.
The absolute permeability of the core samples is given in table 4.3 below; the results and
analysis of the laboratory measurements are given in appendix A.
53
Table 4.3: Porosity and Permeability of Core samples used in β factor experiment
Core ID Porosity Permeability (md)
10 0.1850 5.3625
9 0.1838 6.1820
1 0.1829 5.0486
6 0.1812 1.7786
3 0.1730 3.8944
25 0.1457 2.1851
13 0.1377 7.5883
23 0.1368 3.2689
22 0.1340 0.8449
26 0.0992 160.39
54
CHAPTER V
RESULTS OF NUMERICAL COMPUTATIONS
The results of numerical computations using COMSOL Multiphysics, is presented
in this chapter. Different reservoir geometry and well configurations were used in the
computations. The dimensions of the reservoir and the well are given for each of the
geometry used in the computation.
5.1 Horizontal Well in a Rectangular Reservoir
The first geometry used in the numerical computation is a horizontal drain-hole in
a rectangular reservoir. Figure 5.1 shows the location of the horizontal drain-hole relative
to the boundaries of the reservoir, as shown it is located in the center of the reservoir. The
dimensions used for the computation are stated below.
Dimensions: Length = 800 meters
Width = 400 meters
Well radius = 15 cm (6 inches)
55
Figure 5.1: Geometry of the Horizontal Drain in a Rectangular reservoir (Geometry 5.1)
56
The results of the numerical computations of geometry 5.1 are given in table 5.1.
It is the result of the variation of the calculated productivity index of the reservoir
geometry as length of the horizontal drain-hole and β factor are varied for the geometry.
Table 5.1: Productivity Index at different drain-hole lengths

Productivity Index at Different Beta Values
Length Q β =0 β = 24 β = 240 β = 2400 β = 24000

5000 1000 0.23639 0.21403 0.11814 0.02169 0.00237
10000 2000 0.31863 0.28256 0.14406 0.02460 0.00265
15000 3000 0.40047 0.34989 0.16974 0.02786 0.00298
20000 4000 0.48950 0.42256 0.19768 0.03161 0.00336
25000 5000 0.59029 0.50444 0.22939 0.03599 0.00382
30000 6000 0.70670 0.59888 0.26623 0.04117 0.00436
35000 7000 0.84233 0.70906 0.30960 0.04734 0.00500
40000 8000 1.00012 0.83789 0.36082 0.05470 0.00577
45000 9000 1.18190 0.98746 0.42102 0.06341 0.00668
50000 10000 1.38673 1.15807 0.49071 0.07354 0.00774
55000 11000 1.60952 1.34669 0.56924 0.08502 0.00895
60000 12000 1.83912 1.54509 0.65409 0.09750 0.01026
65000 13000 2.05735 1.73806 0.73962 0.11023 0.01159
70000 14000 2.24032 1.90292 0.81515 0.12164 0.01279
57
Figure 5.2 is a graphical representation of the results of the numerical
computation; it shows the variation of the productivity index of the horizontal drain with
variation in length at different β factor values in the reservoir.
Productivity Index (P.I) vs Length of Horizontal Drainage

2.5
2.0 PI(Beta=0)
P.I (Productivity Index)
PI(Beta=24)
PI(Beta=240)
PI(Beta=2400)
PI(Beta=24000)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000 60000 65000 70000
Length (cm)
Figure 5.2: Plot of Productivity Index at different drain-hole lengths
58
Table 5.2 shows the productivity index of the horizontal drain-hole at a constant
length of 5000cm while varying flow rate and β factor values.
Table 5.2: Productivity index @ L = 5000cm at different rates and β values

L = 5000 cm Productivity Index at Different Beta Values
Q β =0 β = 2.4 β = 24 β = 240
1000 0.2364 0.2338 0.2140 0.1181
2000 0.2364 0.2314 0.1960 0.0790
3000 0.2364 0.2290 0.1810 0.0594
4000 0.2364 0.2267 0.1682 0.0476
5000 0.2364 0.2245 0.1570 0.0397
6000 0.2364 0.2223 0.1473 0.0340
7000 0.2364 0.2201 0.1387 0.0298
8000 0.2364 0.2180 0.1311 0.0265
9000 0.2364 0.2160 0.1243 0.0238
10000 0.2364 0.2140 0.1181 0.0217
59
Figure 5.3 is the graphical representation of the results in table 5.2; it shows the
trend of productivity index with flow rate at a constant drain-hole length of 5,000 cm.
Productivity Index vs Rate @ L=5000cm
0.25
0.20
Productivity Index
0.15 Beta = 0
Beta= 2.4
Beta = 24
Beta =240
0.10
0.05
0.00
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Rate (Q)
Figure 5.3: Productivity index versus rate @ L=5000 cm
60
length of 10,000cm while varying flow rate and β factor values.
Table 5.3: Productivity index @ L = 10,000cm at different rates and β values

L = 10,000 cm Productivity Index at Different Beta Values
Q β =0 β = 2.4 β = 24 β = 240
1000 0.3186 0.3165 0.2992 0.1975
2000 0.3186 0.3144 0.2825 0.1440
3000 0.3186 0.3124 0.2679 0.1134
4000 0.3186 0.3104 0.2548 0.0935
5000 0.3186 0.3084 0.2430 0.0796
6000 0.3186 0.3065 0.2322 0.0692
7000 0.3186 0.3046 0.2224 0.0613
8000 0.3186 0.3028 0.2135 0.0550
9000 0.3186 0.3009 0.2052 0.0498
10000 0.3186 0.2992 0.1975 0.0456
61
trend of productivity index with flow rate at varying beta factor values for a constant
drain-hole length of 10,000 cm.
Productivity Index vs Rate @ L=10000cm
0.35
0.30
0.25
Productivity Index
Beta=0
0.20
Beta=2.4
Beta=24
0.15 Beta=240
0.10
0.05
0.00
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Rate (Q)
Figure 5.4: Productivity index versus rate @ L = 10,000 cm
62

Q β =0 β = 2.4 β = 24 β = 240
1000 0.4895 0.4874 0.4700 0.3539
2000 0.4895 0.4854 0.4527 0.2797
3000 0.4895 0.4833 0.4370 0.2314
4000 0.4895 0.4814 0.4225 0.1977
5000 0.4895 0.4794 0.4091 0.1724
6000 0.4895 0.4775 0.3966 0.1529
7000 0.4895 0.4756 0.3849 0.1374
8000 0.4895 0.4737 0.3740 0.1247
9000 0.4895 0.4719 0.3637 0.1142
10000 0.4895 0.4700 0.3539 0.1053
63
trend of productivity index with flow rate at a constant drain-hole length of 20,000 cm.
Productivity Index vs Rate @ L=20000
0.6
0.5
Productivity Index
0.4
0.3
Beta = 0
0.2
Beta= 2.4
Beta = 24
Beta =240
0.1
0.0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Rate (Q)
64

Q β =0 β = 2.4 β = 24 β = 240
1000 0.7067 0.7044 0.6848 0.5463
2000 0.7067 0.7021 0.6650 0.4500
3000 0.7067 0.6998 0.6468 0.3834
4000 0.7067 0.6976 0.6298 0.3342
5000 0.7067 0.6954 0.6138 0.2963
6000 0.7067 0.6932 0.5988 0.2662
7000 0.7067 0.6911 0.5847 0.2417
8000 0.7067 0.6890 0.5712 0.2213
9000 0.7067 0.6869 0.5585 0.2041
10000 0.7067 0.6848 0.5463 0.1894
65
trend of productivity index with flow rate at varying beta factor for a constant drain-hole
length of 30,000 cm.
Porductivity Index vs Rate @ L=30000
0.80
0.70
0.60
Productivity Index
0.50
0.40
0.30
Beta = 0
0.20 Beta= 2.4
Beta = 24
Beta =240
0.10
0.00
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Rate (Q)
66

Q β =0 β = 2.4 β = 24 β = 240
1000 1.0001 0.9975 0.9748 0.8067
2000 1.0001 0.9948 0.9515 0.6829
3000 1.0001 0.9922 0.9298 0.5934
4000 1.0001 0.9897 0.9094 0.5253
5000 1.0001 0.9871 0.8901 0.4714
6000 1.0001 0.9846 0.8718 0.4276
7000 1.0001 0.9821 0.8544 0.3913
8000 1.0001 0.9796 0.8378 0.3608
9000 1.0001 0.9772 0.8219 0.3347
10000 1.0001 0.9748 0.8067 0.3121
67
trend of productivity index with flow rate at varying beta factor for a constant drain-hole
length of 40,000 cm.
Productivity Index vs Rate @ L=40000
1.20
1.00
Productivity Index
0.80
0.60
0.40 Beta = 0
Beta= 2.4
Beta = 24
0.20 Beta =240
0.00
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Rate (Q)
68
5.2 Centered Circular Well in a Rectangular Reservoir
Geometry 5.2, as shown in figure 5.8 is a centered circular well in a rectangular
reservoir. The dimensions of the well and the reservoir are stated below:
Width = 400 meters
Well radius = 15 cm
Figure 5.8: Circular well in a rectangular reservoir (Geometry 5.2)
69
geometry at different flow rates and β factor for the reservoir geometry.
Table 5.7: Productivity Index at various rate and β values for Geometry 5.2
Q β =0 β = 2.4 β = 24 β = 240 β = 2400
1000 0.08853 0.06520 0.01934 0.002407 2.47E-04
2000 0.08853 0.05160 0.01085 0.00122 1.24E-04
3000 0.08853 0.04269 0.007544 8.17E-04 8.24E-05
4000 0.08853 0.03641 0.005781 6.14E-04 6.18E-05
5000 0.08853 0.03174 0.004686 4.92E-04 4.95E-05
6000 0.08853 0.02813 0.00394 4.10E-04 4.12E-05
7000 0.08853 0.02526 0.003399 3.52E-04 3.53E-05
8000 0.08853 0.02292 0.002988 3.08E-04 3.09E-05
9000 0.08853 0.02098 0.002666 2.74E-04 2.75E-05
10000 0.08853 0.01934 0.002407 2.47E-04 2.47E-05
70
trend of productivity index with flow rate at varying beta factor for geometry 5.2
Productivity Index vs Rate For Geometry 5.2
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
Productivity Index
0.06
0.05 Beta=0
Beta=2.4
0.04 Beta=24
Beta=240
0.03 Beta=2400
0.02
0.01
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Rate (Q)
Figure 5.9: Productivity index plot for Geometry 5.2
71
5.3 Off-centered Circular Well in a Rectangular Reservoir
Geometry 5.3, as shown in figure 5.10, is an off-centered circular well in a
rectangular reservoir. The location of the well relative to the boundaries of the reservoir
is as shown in the figure 5.10. The dimensions of the well and the reservoir are stated
below:
Width = 400 meters
Well radius = 15 cm
Figure 5.10: Off-centered circular well in a rectangular reservoir (Geometry 5.3)
72
Table 5.8: Productivity index at various rate and β for Geometry 5.3
Q β =0 β = 2.4 β = 24 β = 240 β = 2400
1000 0.07595 0.05808 0.01863 0.002391 2.26E-04
2000 0.07595 0.04701 0.01062 0.001215 1.23E-04
3000 0.07595 0.03949 0.007424 8.14E-04 8.22E-05
4000 0.07595 0.03404 0.005707 6.12E-04 6.17E-05
5000 0.07595 0.02992 0.004636 4.91E-04 4.94E-05
6000 0.07595 0.02668 0.003903 4.09E-04 4.11E-05
7000 0.07595 0.02408 0.00337 3.51E-04 3.53E-05
8000 0.07595 0.02194 0.002965 3.07E-04 3.09E-05
9000 0.07595 0.02015 0.002647 2.73E-04 2.74E-05
10000 0.07595 0.01863 0.002391 2.46E-04 2.47E-05
73
trend of productivity index with flow rate at varying beta factor for geometry 5.3
0.08
0.07
0.06
Productivity Index
Beta=0
0.05 Beta=2.4
Beta=24
Beta=240
0.04 Beta=2400
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Rate (Q)
74
5.4 Centered Circular Well in a Square Reservoir
Geometry 5.4, as shown in figure 5.12 is a centered circular well in a square
shaped reservoir. The dimensions of the well and the reservoir are stated below:
Width = 565 meters
Well radius = 15 cm
Figure 5.12: Circular well in a square shaped reservoir (Geometry 5.4)
75
Table 5.9: Productivity Index at various rate and β for Geometry 5.4
Q β =0 β = 2.4 β = 24 β = 240 β = 2400
1000 0.090754 0.06638 0.01943 0.002406 2.46E-04
2000 0.090754 0.05233 0.01088 0.001219 1.23E-04
3000 0.090754 0.04318 0.007553 8.16E-04 8.23E-04
4000 0.090754 0.03676 0.005785 6.14E-04 6.17E-05
5000 0.090754 0.032 0.004688 6.14E-04 4.94E-05
6000 0.090754 0.02833 0.00394 4.10E-04 4.11E-05
7000 0.090754 0.02542 0.003399 3.52E-04 3.53E-05
8000 0.090754 0.02305 0.002988 3.08E-04 3.09E-05
9000 0.090754 0.02108 0.002666 2.74E-04 2.75E-05
10000 0.090754 0.01943 0.002406 2.46E-04 2.47E-05
76
trend of productivity index with flow rate at varying beta factor for geometry 5.4.
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
Productivity Index
0.06 Beta = 0
Beta=2.4
0.05 Beta = 24
Beta=240
Beta=2400
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Rate (Q)
77
5.5 Off-centered Circular well in a Square Reservoir
Geometry 5.5 is an off-centered well in a square shaped reservoir; figure 5.14
shows the position of the well relative to the boundaries of the reservoir. The dimensions
of the well and reservoir are given below.
Width = 565 meters
Well radius = 15 cm
Figure 5.14: Off-centered circular well in a square reservoir (Geometry 5.5)
78
Table 5.10: Productivity Index at various rate and β for Geometry 5.5
Q β =0 β = 2.4 β = 24 β = 240 β = 2400
1000 0.079696 0.060232 0.018835 0.002393 2.46E-04
2000 0.079696 0.048409 0.01068 0.001215 1.23E-04
3000 0.079696 0.040466 0.007453 8.14E-04 8.22E-05
4000 0.079696 0.034763 0.005724 6.12E-04 6.16E-05
5000 0.079696 0.030468 0.004646 4.09E-04 4.93E-05
6000 0.079696 0.027118 0.00391 4.09E-04 4.11E-05
7000 0.079696 0.024432 0.003375 3.51E-04 3.52E-05
8000 0.079696 0.02223 0.002969 3.07E-04 3.08E-05
9000 0.079696 0.020392 0.00265 2.73E-04 2.74E-05
10000 0.079696 0.018835 0.002393 2.46E-04 2.47E-05
79
0.09
0.08
0.07
Productivity Index
Beta = 0
0.06
Beta=2.4
Beta = 24
0.05
Beta=240
Beta=2400
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Rate (Q)
80
5.6 Concentric Well in a Circular Reservoir
Geometry 5.6 is a circular well in a circular shaped reservoir, the position of the
well relative to the reservoir boundaries is as shown in figure 5.16. The dimension of the
well and the reservoir is as given below.
Dimensions: Radius of Reservoir = 451.35 m
Well radius = 15 cm
Figure 5.16: Circular well in a circular reservoir (Geometry 5.6)
81
Table 5.11: Productivity Index at various rate and beta for Geometry 5.6
Q β =0 β = 2.4 β = 24 β = 240 β = 2400
1000 0.021646 0.012771 0.002724 3.07E-04 3.11E-05
2000 0.021646 0.009058 0.001453 1.55E-04 1.56E-05
3000 0.021646 0.007018 9.91E-04 1.03E-04 1.04E-05
4000 0.021646 0.005728 7.52E-04 7.76E-05 7.79E-06
5000 0.021646 0.004839 6.06E-04 6.21E-05 6.23E-06
6000 0.021646 0.004188 5.07E-04 5.18E-05 5.19E-06
7000 0.021646 0.003692 4.36E-04 4.44E-05 4.45E-06
8000 0.021646 0.003301 3.83E-04 3.89E-05 3.89E-06
9000 0.021646 0.002985 3.41E-04 3.46E-05 3.46E-06
10000 0.021646 0.002724 3.07E-04 3.11E-05 3.12E-06
82
0.025
0.020
Productivity Index
Beta = 0
0.015 Beta=2.4
Beta = 24
Beta=240
Beta=2400
0.010
0.005
0.000
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Rate (Q)
83
CHAPTER VI
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
6.1 Discussion and Analysis of Experimental Results
The literature review in chapter 2 stated a number of beta factor correlations
available for use in determining beta factor values. In comparing these correlations and to
verify their applicability, nine (9) of them have been used to calculate beta factor
coefficient for the core samples listed in table 4.3. The correlations used are stated in
table 6.1.
Table 6.1: β factor correlations used for analysis (From SPE 81037, Ref. 4)
No β Correlation How the Correlation was established
1 4.8 x1010 Multirate tests- Low permeability (Hydraulically Fractured
β=
K 1.176 medium)
2 Laboratory experiments on limestone and sandstone
3.51 x 1010 φ 0.449
β= samples
K 1.88
3 1.82 x108 Natural Porous Medium
β= 5 3
K 4φ 4
4 2.018 x 109 Experimental study of vuggy limestone, crystalline

β=
K 1.55 limestone & fine grained sandstone
5 8.17 x 109 φ 0.537 Laboratory experiments on limestone and sandstone
β=
K 1.79 samples
6 Flowing nitrogen through Berea sandstone samples at
1.15 × 10 7
β= various flow rates
Kφ
7 1.59 × 103 Consolidated and unconsolidated sandstone, limestone and
β=
K 0.5φ 5.5 dolomite samples
8 Different particle size and roughness
1 245 *108
β=
φ 12 K φ
84
Table 6.1 Continued

No β Correlation How the Correlation was established
9 1 1.8 *109 Experimental Tests

β=
φ Kφ
Table 6.2 gives the numerical values of the β factor calculated for the core
samples used for the analysis. β
Table 6.2: Calculated β values using the nine correlations

Core 10 Core 9 Core 1 Core 6 Core 3
Correlation β β β β β
Corr 1 6.66E+09 5.63E+09 7.15E+09 2.44E+10 9.70E+09
Corr 2 7.00E+08 5.34E+08 7.80E+08 5.52E+09 1.24E+09
Corr 3 7.91E+07 6.65E+07 8.60E+07 3.19E+08 1.24E+08
Corr 4 1.49E+08 1.20E+08 1.64E+08 8.27E+08 2.45E+08
Corr 5 1.63E+08 1.26E+08 1.81E+08 1.16E+09 2.79E+08
Corr 6 3.33E+08 3.87E+08 3.17E+08 1.13E+08 2.59E+08
Corr 7 7.37E+06 7.11E+06 8.08E+06 1.43E+07 1.25E+07
Corr 8 2.43E+05 2.62E+05 2.37E+05 1.42E+05 2.14E+05
Corr 9 4.26E+04 3.98E+04 4.42E+04 7.47E+04 5.17E+04
Core 25 Core 13 Core 23 Core 22 Core 26
Correlation β β β β β
Corr 1 1.91E+10 4.43E+09 1.19E+10 5.85E+10 1.22E+08
Corr 2 3.40E+09 3.19E+08 1.55E+09 1.95E+10 8.89E+05
Corr 3 2.90E+08 6.39E+07 1.84E+08 1.01E+09 1.80E+06
Corr 4 6.01E+08 8.72E+07 3.22E+08 2.62E+09 7.71E+05
Corr 5 7.17E+08 7.49E+07 3.37E+08 3.75E+09 2.67E+05
Corr 6 1.72E+08 6.34E+08 2.75E+08 7.25E+07 1.86E+10
Corr 7 4.29E+07 3.14E+07 4.96E+07 1.09E+08 4.15E+07
Corr 8 1.75E+05 3.35E+05 2.21E+05 1.13E+05 1.82E+06
Corr 9 7.52E+04 4.15E+04 6.34E+04 1.26E+05 1.06E+04
85
A comparative graphical analysis of the β factors calculated for the core samples
based on the correlations in table 6.1 was done. Figures 6.1 to 6.10 are the graphical
presentation of these results. Only β values from correlations 2-9 are compared due to
the very high numerical value of the prediction by correlation 1.
Core#10:Comparison of Beta Factor Correlations
7.0E+08
6.0E+08
5.0E+08
4.0E+08
Beta
3.0E+08
2.0E+08
1.0E+08
0.0E+00
Corr 2
Corr 3
Corr 4
Corr 5 S1
Corr 6
Corr 7
Correlations Corr 8
Corr 9
Figure 6.1: Calculated β factors for core #10, using the correlations
86
6.0E+08
5.0E+08
4.0E+08
Beta 3.0E+08
2.0E+08
1.0E+08
0.0E+00
Corr 2
Corr 3
Corr 4
Corr 5 S1
Corr 6
Corr 7
Correlations Corr 8
Corr 9
87
8.0E+08
7.0E+08
6.0E+08
5.0E+08
Beta 4.0E+08
3.0E+08
2.0E+08
1.0E+08
0.0E+00
Corr 2
Corr 3
Corr 4
Corr 5 S1
Corr 6
Corr 7
Correlations Corr 8
Corr 9
88
Core#6:Comparison of Beta Factor Correlation
6.0E+09
5.0E+09
4.0E+09
Beta 3.0E+09
2.0E+09
1.0E+09
0.0E+00
Corr 2
Corr 3
Corr 4
Corr 5 S1
Corr 6
Corr 7
Correlations Corr 8
Corr 9
89
1.4E+09
1.2E+09
1.0E+09
8.0E+08
Beta
6.0E+08
4.0E+08
2.0E+08
0.0E+00
Corr 2
Corr 3
Corr 4
Corr 5 S1
Corr 6
Corr 7
Correlations Corr 8
Corr 9
90
3.5E+09
3.0E+09
2.5E+09
2.0E+09
Beta
1.5E+09
1.0E+09
5.0E+08
0.0E+00
Corr 2
Corr 3
Corr 4
Corr 5 S1
Corr 6
Corr 7
Correlations Corr 8
Corr 9
91
7.0E+08
6.0E+08
5.0E+08
4.0E+08
Beta
3.0E+08
2.0E+08
1.0E+08
0.0E+00
Corr 2
Corr 3
Corr 4
Corr 5 S1
Corr 6
Corr 7
Correlations Corr 8
Corr 9
92
1.6E+09
1.4E+09
1.2E+09
1.0E+09
Beta 8.0E+08
6.0E+08
4.0E+08
2.0E+08
0.0E+00
Corr 2
Corr 3
Corr 4
Corr 5 S1
Corr 6
Corr 7
Correlations Corr 8
Corr 9
93
2.0E+10
1.8E+10
1.6E+10
1.4E+10
1.2E+10
Beta 1.0E+10
8.0E+09
6.0E+09
4.0E+09
2.0E+09
0.0E+00
Corr 2
Corr 3
Corr 4
Corr 5 S1
Corr 6
Corr 7
Correlations Corr 8
Corr 9
94
2.0E+10
1.8E+10
1.6E+10
1.4E+10
1.2E+10
Beta 1.0E+10
8.0E+09
6.0E+09
4.0E+09
2.0E+09
0.0E+00
Corr 2
Corr 3
Corr 4
Corr 5 S1
Corr 6
Corr 7
Correlations Corr 8
Corr 9
Figure 6.10: Calculated beta factors for core #26, using the correlations
As can be seen from figures 6.1 to 6.10, correlation 2 (Corr 2) constantly predicts
a high beta value for all the cores except for core #26. There is a huge difference in the
beta factor value calculated by all the different correlations available which suggests that
more research needs to be done in this area to come up with more consistent correlations.
Correlation 1 is based of the results of Multirate tests; this may explain the
strangely high beta factor prediction results.
However, correlations 7, 8 and 9 seem to be consistent in their prediction of beta
factor parameter for the core samples.
95
6.2 Analysis and Discussion of Numerical Computation Results
A comparative analysis was done on the results of the numerical computation of
the productivity index of the horizontal drain-hole, for different mix and combination of
flow rate and β factor in the reservoir. Figures 6.11 to 6.14 show the variation of the
productivity index of a horizontal drain-hole as β factor changes in the reservoir.
When Darcy law is assumed to govern flow in the reservoir, the productivity
index is not a function of the flow rate, as shown in figure 6.11; increase in productivity
is strictly due to an increase in the length of the horizontal drain-hole.
However, when non-Darcy flow (non-linear) flow is assumed to be present in the
reservoir as indicated by the increasing values of the β factor in figures 6.12 to 6.14,
there is an obvious variation in the productivity index calculated in the reservoir. The
productivity index then becomes a function of the flow rate and the beta factor. A
general trend is that as the flow rate increases, the productivity index decreases, this is
definitely due to the increased dissipation in energy and an increased pressure drop in the
reservoir. It is also seen that in these scenario, increasing the horizontal drain-hole length
does not necessarily imply an increase in the productivity index of the well.
This result suggests that there is an optimal rate at which a well must be produced
in case of non-Darcy flow to optimize the productivity of the well. This rate must be
determined by the engineer.
96
Productivity Index vs Length @ Beta = 0
1.2
1.0
Productivity Index
Q=1000
0.8
Q=2000
Q=3000
0.6 Q=4000
Q=5000
0.4 Q=6000
Q=7000
0.2 Q=8000
Q=9000
Q=10000
0.0
5000 10000 20000 30000 40000
Length (cm)
Figure 6.11: Productivity Index versus length for different rates at β =0
97
Productivity Index vs. Length @ Beta = 2.4
1.2
1.0
Productivity Index
0.8
Q=1000
Q=2000
0.6 Q=3000
Q=4000
Q=5000
0.4
Q=6000
Q=7000
0.2 Q=8000
Q=9000
Q=10000
0.0
5000 10000 20000 30000 40000
Length (cm)
Figure 6.12: Productivity Index versus length for different rates at β =2.4
98
Productivity Index vs. Length @ Beta = 24
1.2
1.0
Productivity Index
0.8
Q=1000
0.6 Q=2000
Q=3000
Q=4000
0.4 Q=5000
Q=6000
Q=7000
0.2 Q=8000
Q=9000
Q=10000
0.0
5000 10000 20000 30000 40000
Length (cm)
99
Productivity Index vs. Rate @ Beta = 240
1.2
1.0
Productivity Index
Q=1000
0.8
Q=2000
Q=3000
0.6
Q=4000
Q=5000
0.4 Q=6000
Q=7000
0.2 Q=8000
Q=9000
Q=10000
0.0
5000 10000 20000 30000 40000
Length (cm)
100
A comparative analysis of the calculated productivity index of all the geometries
used in the numerical computation was done and the results are displayed graphically in
figures 6.15 to 6.18. The highest productivity index for all the geometries was calculated
when the β factor was assumed to be zero, shown in figure 6.15, which is the case for
Darcy flow in the reservoir.
However, when non-Darcy (non-linear) flow is assumed in the reservoir, there is a
substantial drop in the productivity index for all the geometries, which increase as the β
factor increases for all the cases, as shown in figures 6.16 to 6.18. This productivity drop
is due to the increased pressure drop in the reservoir, due to the increased dissipation of
energy in the porous media as the β factor increases.
As expected, the horizontal drain hole has the highest calculated productivity
index for all the cases due to the increased exposure of the horizontal drain-hole to the
reservoir.
The location of a well in the reservoir is important to the productivity of the
reservoir, this is why adequate geological and reservoir evaluation are done before
determining the location and placement of a well the reservoir.
101
Comparison of Geometries @ Beta=0
1.2
1
Productivity Index
0.8
0.6
0.4 G_5.6
G_5.3
0.2 G_5.5
G_5.2
0
G_5.4
L=5000
1000
2000
3000
L=10000
4000
5000
6000
7000
L=20000
8000
9000
10000
L=30000
Rate (Q)
L=40000
Figure 6.15: Comparison of Productivity Index for all Geometries used at β = 0
102
Comparison of Geometries @ Beta=2.4
0.9
0.8
Productivity Index
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
G_5.6
0.3
G_5.3
0.2 G_5.5
G_5.2
0.1
G_5.4
0 L=5000
1000
L=10000
2000
3000
4000
5000
L=20000
6000
7000
8000
9000
L=30000
10000
Rate (Q) L=40000
Figure 6.16: Comparison of Productivity Index for all Geometries used at β = 2.4
103
0.9
0.8
Productivity Index
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
G_5.6
0.3
G_5.3
0.2 G_5.5
0.1 G_5.2
G_5.4
0
L=5000
1000
2000
L=10000
3000
4000
5000
L=20000
6000
7000
8000
L=30000
9000
10000
Rate (Q) L=40000
104

0.90
0.80
Productivity Index 0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
G_5.6
0.20 G_5.3
G_5.5
0.10 G_5.2
0.00 G_5.4
L=5000
1000
2000
3000
4000
L=10000
5000
6000
7000
L=20000
8000
9000
10000
L=30000
Rate (Q) L=40000
105
CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Several conclusions can be drawn from this research, based on the analysis and
diagnosis of the experimental results and literature review. The following conclusions
were drawn based on research and literature review.
7.1 Conclusions
1. Experimental results show that non-Darcy flow regime can exist in any porous
media as long as the pressure gradient is sufficient for high velocity flow.
2. The main determining property for non-linearity in flow is the permeability of the
porous media; this is evidence in core #26.
3. The beta factor is a flow rate phenomenon, directly influenced by the magnitude
of the flow rate in the medium.
4. Increasing the length of the horizontal drain-hole leads to increase in productivity
index and well productivity, provided the flow rate is kept at an optimal value.
5. Increasing the well production rate lowers the productivity index of a well; this is
due to the increased pressure drop in the reservoir.
6. There is an optimum rate at which wells should be produced to obtain maximum
production from the wells and efficiently utilize the natural reservoir energy.
7. Selection and usage of beta factor correlations may be misleading; experimental
determination of beta factor based on core analysis will be more accurate.
8. The higher the beta factor of the formation, the lower the productivity of the well.
106
7.2 Recommendations
My recommendations or further research and investigations are given summarily below.
1. Non-Darcy flow modeling is a new and growing area of research and several
research avenues can still be looked into to come up with more robust models and
equations for reservoir simulation studies.
2. The measurement of beta factor in the laboratory still has to be fine tuned and
improved on so that repeatable and consistent results will be gotten on core
experiments to calculate beta factor in the laboratory, a standardized measuring
process should be made available industry wide.
3. Further research should delve into the different effects that parameters like fluid
viscosity, density and saturation has on beta parameter values as well as the effect
of tortuosity.
4. A synergy between the department of mathematics and petroleum engineering at
Texas Tech in this research area if well groomed and funded may lead to the first
integrated non-linear flow numerical simulator that goes beyond the near well-
bore environment.
5. State of the art equipments are required in the laboratory to adequately measure
flow rate through core samples at high pressure gradients; the laboratory set up
should be configured to measure high flow rate through the core samples, during
non-linear flow experiments.
107
REFERENCES
1. Alvarez, C.H., Holditch, S.A., McVay, D.A. 2002. Effects of Non-Darcy Flow on
Pressure Transient Analysis of Hydraulically Fractured Gas Wells. Paper SPE
77468 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
San Antonio, Texas, 29 September – 2 October.
2. Aulisa, E., Ibragimov, A., Valko, P., Walton, J. Mathematical Frame-work of the
Well Productivity Index for Fast Forchheimer (non-Darcy) Flow in Porous Media.
(Unpublished paper)
3. Barree, R.D., Conway, M.W. 2004. Beyond Beta Factors: A Complete Model for
Darcy, Forchheimer and Trans-Forchheimer Flow in Porous Media. Paper SPE
89325 prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston Texas, 26-29 September.
4. Belhaj, H.A., Agha, K.R., Nouri, A.M., Butt, S.D., Islam, M.R. 2003. Numerical
and Experimental Modeling of Non-Darcy Flow in Porous Media. Paper SPE
81097 prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin America and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, West Indies,
27-30 April.
5. Belhaj, H.A., Agha, K.R., Nouri, A.M., Butt, S.D., Vaziri, H.H., Islam, M.R.
2003. Numerical Modeling of Forchheimer Equation to Describe Darcy and Non-
Darcy Flow in Porous Media. Paper SPE 80440 prepared for presentation at the
SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta,
Indonesia, 15-17 April.
6. Camacho, R.V., Vasquez, M.C., Roldan, J.C., Samaniego, F.V., Macias, L.C.
1993. New Results on Transient Well Tests Analysis Considering Non-laminar
Flow in the Reservoir. Paper SPE 26180, presented at the SPE Gas Technology
Symposium, Calgary 28-30 June.
7. Cornel, D., Katz, D.L. 1953. Flow of Gases through Consolidated Porous Media.
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 45 (10): 2145-2152.
108
8. Cooke, C.E. Jr. 1973. Conductivity of Fracture Proppants in Multiple Layers.

Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1101-1107.
9. User’s Guide, COMSOL Multiphysics, www.comsol.com. Downloaded 9 March

2007.
10. Cullender, M.H. 1955. The Isochronal Performance Method of Determining the
Flow Characteristics of Gas Wells. Transactions AIME, 204. SPE 330-G.
11. Dake, L.P. ed. 1978. Fundamental of Reservoir Engineering, Amsterdam, 259
Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.
12. Diyashev, I.R., Sibneft, Economides, M.J. 2005. A General Approach to Well
Evaluation. Paper SPE 94644, prepared for presentation at the SPE European
Formation Damage Conference held in Scheveningen, The Netherlands, 25-27
May.
13. Ergun, S., Orning, A.A. 1949. Fluid Flow through Randomly Packed Column and
Fluidized Beds. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 41, (6):1179-1184.
14. Fetkovitch, M.J. 1973. The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells. Paper SPE 4529
prepared for the 48th Annual Fall Meeting of the SPE of AIME held in Las Vegas,
Nevada, 30 September – 3 October.
15. Firoozabadi, A., Katz, D.L. 1979. An Analysis of High-Velocity Gas Flow
Through Porous Media. Paper SPE 6827 presented at the SPE-AIME 52nd Annual
Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, 9-12
October.
16. Torsten, F. and Hans-Dieter, V. 2006. Investigation of non-Darcy flow in tight-

gas reservoirs with fractured wells. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering, 54,(3-4):112-128.
17. Geerstma, J.1974. Estimating the Coefficient of Inertial Resistance in Fluid Flow
through Porous Media. Paper SPE 4706 available from SPE, Richardson, Texas.
109
18. Golan, M., Whitson, C.H. ed. 1991. Well Performance, PTR Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
19. Himmatramka, A.K. 1981. Analysis of Productivity Prediction Due to Non-Darcy

Flow and True Skin in Gravel Packed Wells. Paper SPE 10084 presented at the
56th Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE of AIME, held
in San Antonio, Texas, 5-7 October.
20. Huang, H., Ayoub, J. 2006. Applicability of the Forchheimer Equation for Non-
Darcy Flow in Porous Media. Paper SPE 102715, prepared for presentation at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition San Antonio, Texas, 24-27
September.
21. Jamiolahmady, M., Danesh, A., Sohrabi, M., Duncan, D.B. 2006. Flow around a
rock perforation surrounded by crushed zone: Experiments vs. Theory. Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, 50, (2):102-114.
22. Jones, L.G., Blount, E.M., Glaze, O.H. 1976. Use of Short Term Multiple Rate
Flow Tests to Predict Performance of Wells Having Turbulence. Paper SPE 6133
prepared for presentation for the 51st Annual Fall Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the SPE of AIME, held in New Orleans, 3-6 October.
23. Jones, S.C. 1987. Using the Inertial Coefficient β To Characterize Heterogeneity
on Reservoir Rock. Paper SPE 16949 prepared for presentation at the 62nd Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE held in Dallas, Texas, 27-30
September.
24. Kim, J., Kang, J.M. 1994. A Semi-analytical Approach in Determining Non-
Darcy Flow Coefficient From a Single Rate Gas Well Pressure Transient Test.
Paper SPE 28663 available from SPE, Richardson, Texas.
25. Lee, J. 1982. Well Testing, SPE Textbook Series, Volume 1.
26. Li, D., Engler, T.W. 2001. Literature Review on the Correlation of the Non-Darcy
Coefficient. Paper SPE 70015 prepared for presentation at the SPE Permian Basin
Oil and Gas Recovery Conference held in Midland, Texas, 15-16 May.
110
27. Li, D., Engler, T.W. 2002. Modeling and Simulation of Non-Darcy Flow in
Porous Media. Paper SPE 75216 prepared for presentation at the SPE/DOE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa Oklahoma, 13-17 April.
28. Liu, X., Civian, F. and Evans, R.D. 1995. Correlation of the Non-Darcy Flow
Coefficient. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 34, (10): 50-54.
29. Lopez-Hernandez, H.D., Valko, P.P., Pham, T.T. 2004. Optimum Fracture
Treatment Design Minimizes the Impact of Non-Darcy Flow Effects. Paper SPE
90195 prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston 26-29 September.
30. Ma, H., and Douglas, R. 1993. Physical Explanation of Non-Darcy Effects for
Fluid Flow in Porous Media. Paper SPE 26150 presented at the 1993 SPE Gas
Technology Symposium held in Calgary, 28-30 June.
31. Miskimins, J.L., Lopez-Hernandez, H.D., Barree, R.D. 2005. Non-Darcy Flow in
Hydraulic Fractures: Does It Really Matter? Paper SPE 96389 presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, October 2005.
32. Muskat, M. ed. 1937. The Flow of Homogenous Fluid through Porous Media,
International Series in Physics, Mcgraw Hill Book Company, Incorporated.
33. Muskat, M. ed. 1949. Physical Principles of Oil Production, International Series
in Physics, Mcgraw Hill Book Company, Incorporated.
34. Nguyen, T.V. 1986. Experimental Study of Non-Darcy Flow through

Perforations. Paper SPE 15473 prepared for presentation at the 61st Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE held in New Orleans, Louisiana,
5-8 October.
35. Pascal, H., Quillian, R.G., Kingston, J. 1980. Analysis of Vertical Fracture Length
and Non-Darcy Floe Coefficient Using Variable Rate Tests. Paper SPE 9438
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
September 21-24.
111
36. Rawlins, E.L., Schellhardt, M.A. 1936. Back-pressure Data on Natural Gas Wells
and their Application to Production Practices. Monograph 7, US Bureau of
Mines, Washington D.C.
37. Scheidegger, A.E. ed. 1974. The Physics of Flow through Porous Media,
University of Toronto Press.
38. Scheidegger, A.E. 1953. Theoretical Models of Porous Matter, Producers

Monthly, August, 17-23.
39. Skjetne, E., Kløv, T., Gudmundsson, J.S. 2001. Experiments and Modeling of
High-Velocity Pressure Loss in Sandstone Fractures. Paper SPE 69676 first
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston 3-6
October.
40. Spivey, J.P., Brown, K.G., Sawyer, W.K., Frantz, J.H. 2004. Estimating Non-
Darcy Flow Coefficient from Buildup-Test Data with Wellbore Storage. Paper
SPE 88939 first presented at the 2002 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held at San Antonio, Texas 29 September – 2 October.
41. Su, H. 2004. A Three-Phase Non-Darcy Flow Formulation in Reservoir

Simulation. Paper SPE 88536, prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific
Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Perth, Australia, 18-20 October.
42. Polubarinova-Kochina, P.Y. 1952. Theory of Ground Water Motion, Goss. Izdat.
Tekh.-Teoret. Lit., Moscow, 676.
43. Tavares, C.A.P., Kazemi, H., Ozkan, E. 2004. Combined Effect of Non-Darcy
Flow and Formation Damage on Gas-Well Performance of Dual Porosity and
Dual Permeability Reservoirs. Paper SPE 90623, presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 26-9 September.
44. Texas Tech University, Department of Petroleum Engineering Laboratory Work

Manual, Fall 2006.
112
45. Thauvin, F., Mohanty, K.K. 1998. Network Modeling of Non-Darcy Flow
through Porous Media, Transport in Porous Media 31, 19-37.
46. Van Everdingen, A.F. 1953. The Skin Effect and Its Influence on the Productive
Capacity of a Well. 171-176, Transactions AIME, 198, SPE 203-G.
47. Vincent, M.C., Pearson, C.M., Kullman, J. 1999. Non-Darcy and Multiphase
Flow in Propped Fractures: Case Studies Illustrate the Dramatic Effect on Well
Productivity. Paper SPE 54630, May.
48. Zheng, F., Zhao, G. 2006. Semi-analytical Model for Reservoirs with
Forchheimer Non-Darcy Flow. Paper SPE 100540 prepared for presentation at the
2006 SPE Gas Technology Symposium held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 15-17
May.
49. Basak, P. 1977. Non-Darcy Flow and Its Implications to Seepage Problems,
Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 103, 459.
113
APPENDIX A
RESULTS OF LABORATORY MEASUREMENT OF ABSOLUTE
PERMEABILITY
Table A.1: Experimental results of permeability measurement on core #1

Core ID: #1
Length: 3.465 cm Ambient Pressure: 680 mmHg = 13.1496 psia
Diameter: 3.72 cm Temperature: 74 F
Area: 10.86866 Viscosity of Nitrogen: 0.017656 cp
cm 2
ΔP Pin Pout Q 1 Kg Q/A ΔP L
P
(psi) (atm) (atm) (cc/sec) (md) (cm/s) (atm/c
(atm −1 )
m)
10 1.5725 0.8921 0.7716 0.8115 6.3831 0.0710 0.1964
20 2.2529 0.8921 1.4143 0.6359 5.8502 0.1301 0.3927
30 2.9333 0.8921 2.0950 0.5228 5.7773 0.1928 0.5891
40 3.6137 0.8921 2.7499 0.4439 5.6873 0.2530 0.7855
50 4.2941 0.8921 3.4794 0.3856 5.7570 0.3201 0.9818
114
Core#1:Darcy Plot
0.35
y = 0.3163x + 0.0071
2
R = 0.9995
0.30
0.25
0.20
Q/A
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
DP/L
Figure A.1: Darcy’s law plot for core #1
115
Core#1:Klinkenberg Plot
7.0
6.0
y = 1.5044x + 5.0486
5.0
Kg (mD)
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
1/Pavg (atm-1)
Figure A.2: Klinkenberg correction plot for core #1
116

Core ID: #3
Area: 10.7521 cm 2 Viscosity of Nitrogen: 0.017656 cp

P
(atm −1 )
m)
10 1.5725 0.8921 0.5047 0.8115 4.3972 0.0469 0.1885
20 2.2529 0.8921 0.9712 0.6359 4.2309 0.0903 0.3770
30 2.9333 0.8921 1.4604 0.5228 4.2412 0.1358 0.5654
40 3.6137 0.8921 1.9423 0.4439 4.2305 0.1806 0.7539
50 4.2941 0.8921 2.3364 0.3856 4.0711 0.2173 0.9424
Core#3:Darcy Plot
0.25
y = 0.2287x + 0.0049
R2 = 0.9986
0.20
0.15
Q/A
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
DP/L
117
Core #3: Klinkenberg Plot
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
y = 0.6068x + 3.8944
3.0
Kg (mD)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
1/Pavg
118

Core ID: #6

P
(atm −1 )
m)
10 1.5725 0.8921 0.2991 0.8115 2.3567 0.0275 0.2062
20 2.2529 0.8921 0.5492 0.6359 2.1635 0.0505 0.4124
30 2.9333 0.8921 0.8179 0.5228 2.1481 0.0753 0.6185
40 3.6137 0.8921 1.0584 0.4439 2.0848 0.0974 0.8247
50 4.2941 0.8921 1.3013 0.3856 2.0505 0.1197 1.0309
Core#6: Darcy Plot
0.14
y = 0.1122x + 0.0047
R2 = 0.9996
0.12
0.10
0.08
Q/A
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
DP/L
119
Core #6: Klinkenberg Plot
2.50
2.00
y = 0.6825x + 1.7786
1.50
Kg (mD)
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
1/Pavg (1/atm)
120

Core ID: #9

P
(atm −1 )
m)
10 1.5725 0.8921 0.7895 0.8115 6.6913 0.0726 0.1917
20 2.2529 0.8921 1.5003 0.6359 6.3583 0.1380 0.3833
30 2.9333 0.8921 2.3320 0.5228 6.5886 0.2146 0.5750
40 3.6137 0.8921 3.0055 0.4439 6.3686 0.2765 0.7666
50 4.2941 0.8921 3.7909 0.3856 6.4263 0.3488 0.9583
Core#9: Darcy Plot
0.40
0.35
y = 0.3604x + 0.0029
R2 = 0.9992
0.30
0.25
Q/A
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
DP/L
121
Core#9: Klinkenberg Plot
8.0
7.0
6.0
y = 0.5439x + 6.182
5.0
Kg (mD)
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
1/Pavg (1/atm)
122

Core ID: #10
ΔP Pin (atm) Pout Q 1 Kg Q/A ΔP L

P
(psi) (atm) (cc/sec) (md) (cm/s) (atm/c
(atm −1 )
m)
10 1.5725 0.8921 0.7327 0.8115 5.7227 0.0672 0.2074
20 2.2529 0.8921 1.4669 0.6359 5.7282 0.1346 0.4149
30 2.9333 0.8921 2.1419 0.5228 5.5763 0.1965 0.6223
40 3.6137 0.8921 2.7960 0.4439 5.4592 0.2566 0.8298
50 4.2941 0.8921 3.6024 0.3856 5.6270 0.3306 1.0372
Core#10: Darcy Plot
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
Q/A
y = 0.3127x + 0.0025
R2 = 0.9988
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
DP/L
123
7.0
6.0
5.0
y = 0.4647x + 5.3625
Kg (mD)
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
1/Pavg (1/atm)
124

Core ID: #13

P
(atm −1 )
m)
10 1.5712 0.8908 0.5657 0.8124 8.0957 0.0514 0.1115
20 2.2516 0.8908 1.0898 0.6365 7.7982 0.0989 0.2231
30 2.9320 0.8908 1.6615 0.5232 7.9261 0.1508 0.3346
40 3.6124 0.8908 2.1604 0.4441 7.7298 0.1961 0.4462
50 4.2928 0.8908 2.7578 0.3858 7.8939 0.2504 0.5577
Core #13: Darcy Plot
0.30
0.25
0.20
Q/A
0.15
y = 0.444x + 0.001
R2 = 0.9994
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
DP/L
125
9.0
8.0
7.0
y = 0.536x + 7.5883
6.0
Kg (mD)
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
1/Pavg (1/atm)
126

Core ID: #22

P
(psi) (atm) (atm) (cc/sec) (md) (cm/s) (atm/cm)
(atm −1 )
10 1.5712 0.8908 0.5670 0.8124 1.0295 0.0081 0.1377
20 2.2516 0.8908 0.3956 0.6365 0.9759 0.0153 0.2755
30 2.9320 0.8908 0.3038 0.5232 0.9688 0.0228 0.4132
40 3.6124 0.8908 0.2466 0.4441 0.9220 0.0289 0.5509
50 4.2928 0.8908 0.2075 0.3858 0.9459 0.0370 0.6887
Core#22: Darcy Plot
0.040
0.035
0.030
0.025
y = 0.052x + 0.0009
R2 = 0.9986
Q/A
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
DP/L
127
1.2
1.0
y = 0.2205x + 0.8449
0.8
Kg (mD)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
1/Pavg (1/atm)
128

Core ID: #23

P
(atm −1 )
10 1.5712 0.8908 0.2750 0.8124 3.4449 0.0245 0.1251
20 2.2516 0.8908 0.5597 0.6365 3.5062 0.0499 0.2501
30 2.9320 0.8908 0.8056 0.5232 3.3642 0.0718 0.3752
40 3.6124 0.8908 1.0736 0.4441 3.3625 0.0957 0.5003
50 4.2928 0.8908 1.3478 0.3858 3.3771 0.1201 0.6254
Core#23: Darcy Plot
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
Q/A
y = 0.1895x + 0.0013
R2 = 0.9996
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
DP/L
129
4.0
3.5
3.0
y = 0.2536x + 3.2689
2.5
Kg (mD)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
1/Pavg (1/atm)
130

Core ID: #25

P
(atm −1 )
10 1.5712 0.8908 0.2236 0.8124 2.2905 0.0200 0.1538
20 2.2516 0.8908 0.4360 0.6365 2.2333 0.0391 0.3075
30 2.9320 0.8908 0.6685 0.5232 2.2829 0.0599 0.4613
40 3.6124 0.8908 0.8700 0.4441 2.2282 0.0779 0.6151
50 4.2928 0.8908 1.0881 0.3858 2.2294 0.0975 0.7688
Core#25: Darcy Plot
0.12
0.1
0.08
Q/A
0.06
y = 0.126x + 0.0007
R2 = 0.9996
0.04
0.02
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
DP/L
131
2.5
2.0
y = 0.1209x + 2.1851
1.5
Kg (mD)
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
1/Pavg (1/atm)
132

Core ID: #26
Length: 4.145 cm Ambient Pressure: 680.03 mmHg = 13.1554 psia

P
(atm −1 )
3 1.0989 0.8948 7.5020 1.0032 244.1945 0.6792 0.0492
4 1.1669 0.8948 9.6123 0.9701 234.6647 0.8703 0.0657
5 1.2350 0.8948 10.8631 0.9391 212.1603 0.9836 0.0821
6 1.3030 0.8948 13.0384 0.9100 212.2039 1.1805 0.0985
7 1.3711 0.8948 13.9540 0.8827 194.6621 1.2634 0.1149
Core#26: Darcy Plot
0.12
0.10
0.08
y = 0.1005x - 0.0194
R2 = 0.9901
DP/L
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Q/A
133
300
250
y = 403.8x - 160.39
200
Kg (mD)
150
100
50
0
0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.02
1/Pavg (1/atm)
134
APPENDIX B
ALGORITHM FOR SELECTION OF THE RIGHT BETA FACTOR CORRELATION
Figure B.1: Beta Factor Correlation Selection Chart (SPE 70015)
135
APPENDIX C
EXPERIMENTAL SET UP AND EQUIPMENT USED IN THE LABORATORY
Figure C.1: Gas Permeameter, Hassler core holder and bubble flow tube.
136
Figure C.2: Helium Porosimeter
137
Figure C.3: The core samples used for the experiments
138
APPENDIX D
VITA
Abiodun Matthew Amao, known as “Matthew” at Texas Tech, came to Lubbock, Texas
in January 2006 for his graduate program in petroleum engineering. Before then he
worked for Baker Atlas (Baker Hughes) as a well logging engineer.
Prior to working for Baker Atlas, he had his undergraduate education at the University of
Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria where he graduated as a petroleum engineering student with
Second class upper division.
His motivation for coming to graduate school in the United States of America was to
retrain himself in current practice and knowledge of petroleum and reservoir engineering
for future career prospect in the petroleum industry.
While at Texas Tech University, he has worked with several of his professors in different
job descriptions as a research assistant and a teaching assistant. He was one of the
teaching assistants that coordinated the core laboratory classes of Fall 2006, under the
supervision of Dr. Shameem Siddiqui. He was also the teaching assistant for the reservoir
engineering class (Petr 3306). His experiences as a teaching assistant has been quiet
pleasant and rewarding.
On the family front; he is the first child of his parents Mr. and Mrs. S.O. Amao, and he
has four other siblings; one sister and three brothers.
He hopes to be a highly resourceful and knowledgeable reservoir engineer with a
rewarding career in a multinational petroleum company sometimes in the nearest future.
139
PERMISSION TO COPY
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s
degree at Texas Tech University or Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, I
agree that the Library and my major department shall make it freely available for research
purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the
Director of the Library or my major professor. It is understood that any copying or
publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my further
written permission and that any user may be liable for copyright infringement.
Agree (Permission is granted.)
ABIODUN MATTHEW AMAO 23RD July, 2007

Student Signature Date
Disagree (Permission is not granted.)
_______________________________________________ _________________
Student Signature Date

Analisis de Pozo - Thesis PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Analisis de Pozo - Thesis PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR DARCY FORCHHEIMER FLOW WITH

APPLICATIONS TO WELL PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

ABIODUN MATTHEW AMAO, B.Sc.

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

Dr Lloyd Heinze for his leadership and administrative prowess.

or the other to the success of my academic pursuit at Texas Tech University.

I deeply appreciate the moral support of my family back in Nigeria, my uncle

I appreciate the friendship and support of friends and members of my church in

Lubbock, International Christian Fellowship.

which are too numerous for words.

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xii

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1

1.2 Porous Media and Equations of Flow 6

1.3 Darcy’s Law: Assumptions and Limitations 7

1.4 Non-Darcy Flow; Darcy-Forchheimer Flow Equation 9

1.5 Flow Regimes in Porous Media 12

1.6 Significance of Thesis and Organization 14

2.1 Non-Darcy Flow in the Reservoir 19

2.2 Flow in Fractures 23

2.3 Completions, Gravel Packs and Perforations 25

2.4 Beta Factor β, its Measurement and Correlations 26

2.5 Non-Darcy Flow Modeling 30

III PROBLEM STATEMENT 34

3.1 Importance of Accurate Reservoir Pressure Prediction 35

3.2 Limitations of Current Techniques 36

3.3 Laboratory Experiments on Non-Darcy flow in Cores 37

3.4. Problem Statement 42

4.1 Proposed Solution 44

4.2 Derivation of the Mathematical Model 44

4.3 Description of the Simulator 47

4.4 Numerical Computation and Algorithm 48

4.5 Laboratory Measurement of Beta Factor 50

V. RESULTS OF NUMERICAL COMPUTATIONS 55

5.1 Horizontal Well in a Rectangular Reservoir 55

5.2 Centered Circular Well in a Rectangular Reservoir 69

5.3 Off-centered Circular Well in a Rectangular Reservoir 72

5.4 Centered Circular Well in a Square Reservoir 75

5.5 Off-centered Circular well in a Square Reservoir 78

5.6 Concentric Well in a Circular Reservoir 81

VI ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 84

6.1 Analysis and Discussion of Experimental Results 84

6.2 Analysis and Discussion of Computational Results 96

VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 106

7.1 Conclusions 106

7.2 Recommendations 107

A. RESULTS OF LABORATORY MEASUREMENTS OF ABSOLUTE

B. ALGORITHM FOR SELECTION OF THE RIGHT BETA FACTOR

C. EXPERIMENTAL SET UP AND EQUIPMENT USED IN THE

Well performance and productivity evaluation is a fundamental role of petroleum

different phases of petroleum production.

robust framework to model non-linear flow in the reservoir.

wells for remedial operations such as work-over or stimulation.

3.1 Result of non-Darcy flow experiment on core #13 37

3.2 Result of non-Darcy flow experiment on core #9 39

3.3 Result of non-Darcy flow experiment on core #26 41

4.1 Porosity, physical properties and Lithology of core samples used 52

4.2 Porosity ranking and cores used for permeability measurements 53

5.1 Productivity index at different drain hole lengths 57

5.2 Productivity index @ L=5000cm at different rates and beta values 59

5.3 Productivity index @ L=10,000cm at different rates and beta values 61

5.4 Productivity index @ L=20,000cm at different rates and beta values 63

5.5 Productivity index @ L=30,000cm at different rates and beta values 65