Production-Systems Analysis

for Fractured Wells

James L. Hunt, SPE, Halliburton Services

Summary. Production-systems analysis has been in use for many years to design completion configurations on the basis of an
expected reservoir capacity. The most common equations used for the reservoir calculations are for steady-state radial flow.
Most hydraulically fractured wells require the use of an unsteady-state production simulator to predict the higher flow rates
associated with the stimulated well. These high flow rates may present problems with excessive pressure drops through production
tubing designed for radial-flow production. Therefore, the unsteady-state nature of fractured-well production precludes the use of
steady-state radial-flow inflow performance relationships (IPR's) to calculate reservoir performance. An accurate prediction of
fractured-well production must be made to design the most economically efficient production configuration.
It has been suggested in the literature that a normalized reference curve can be used to generate the IPR' s necessary for
production-systems analysis. However, this work shows that the reference curve for fractured-well response becomes timedependent when reservoir boundaries are considered. A general approach for constructing IPR curves is presented, and the use of
an unsteady-state fractured-well-production simulator coupled with the production-systems-analysis approach is described. A field
case demonstrates the application of this method to fractured wells.
Introduction
Production-systems analysis has been used for many years to design completion configurations on the basis of an expected reservoir capacity. Often called nodal-systems analysis, this approach
has been applied to the analysis of electrical circuits and pipeline
systems. GilbertI was one of the first to propose the application
of the systems-analysis approach to well producing systems.
A typical producing system includes many components where
there is a potential for pressure drops to occur. As the well configuration becomes more complex, the potential for large total pressure drops within the system increases. Fig. 1 presents a schematic
of a producing configuration and possible pressure drops through
the system.
It is the objective of production-systems analysis to optimize the
well configuration for maximum production capacity. This is accomplished by dividing the system at some point or node and calculating pressure drops within each component. System components
upstream of the node are commonly referred to as the inflow; those
downstream of the node are referred to as the outflow. Relationships between pressure drop and flow rate must exist for each component. Pressure drops for various flow rates are calculated for both
inflow and outflow sections. Two conditions are necessary for production systems analysis: (1) flow into the node must equal flow
out of the node and (2) only a single pressure can exist at the node
for a given flow rate.
With these two conditions satisfied, flow capacity of the entire
system can be determined. This is commonly achieved by plotting
node pressure vs. flow rate for both inflow and outflow; the intersection of inflow and outflow curves is the system flow capacity.
This is illustrated in Fig. 2. The effect of a change in any of the
components can be investigated by recalculating either the inflow
or outflow curve, depending on the location of the component to
be changed. For example, if the component is located in the outflow section, the outflow curve is recalculated; however, the inflow curve remains unchanged. Thus, the production-systemsanalysis approach can be used to evaluate existing producing systems and to aid in the design of future well configurations. Many
examples illustrating the application of the production-systemsanalysis technique exist in the literature. 2-6
To apply the systems-analysis approach to a certain well configuration, relationships or models must be available for determining
the pressure drop as a function of flow rate for each component
considered. For calculation purposes, the well configuration can
Copyright t 988 Society of Petroleum Engineers

608

be separated into several sections or modules, each containing several components. For example, the producing system shown in Fig.
1 can be separated into three general sections: flowline, well, and
reservoir. Each of these sections may be composed of one or more
components. For example, the well module may consist of a tubing string composed of several different sizes, a restriction within
the tubing near the bottom of the hole, and possibly a safety valve
that also introduces a flow restriction. Models that relate pressure
drop to flow rate within a component are used to calculate the total
pressure drop at a given flow rate for each section.
Correlations for multiphase flow through pipelines are available
in the literature and are useful in determining pressure drops through
tubing and flowline components of the well system. Correlations
commonly used for calculating pressure drop through a horizontal
pipeline include Refs. 7 through 10. Various pressure-drop correlations are available for flow through the vertical tubing of a
well. 7,11-14 Pressure-drop relationships for flowline and tubing sections have been in use for many years and are generally the accepted models for flow through pipes. Selection of one correlation over
another depends on specific well conditions.
The reservoir is one of the most important components of the
total system because it determines what will flow into the bottom
of the well and is the most complex component of those studied
in a well system. Consequently, the reservoir must be accurately
described by an appropriate model. Various reservoir models, commonly called IPR's, have been described in the literature; most deal
with steady-state radial flow. For oil wells, these include Vogel's 15
equation, Standing'sl6 modification of the Vogel equation,
Fetkovich'sl7 equation, and the familiar radial form of Darcy's
equation. For gas wells, the common IPR's are the backpressure
equation and Darcy's radial-flow equation. These IPR's are adequate in most cases for determining pressure drops through the reservoir. For hydraulically fractured wells, however, especially long
fractures and tight formations, the steady-state radial-flow IPR's
are not adequate because of the unsteady-state nature of fracturedwell flow.
Several methods of dealing with stimulated wells have been suggested. One method involves a modification of the existing steadystate radial-flow IPR equation by changing the flow efficiency to
represent the stimulated condition. 16 This approach is limited in
that flow efficiency, a steady-state concept, does not account for
the unsteady-state response of fractured wells. A second method
involves the use of published production-increase curves, such as
those described by McGuire and Sikora 18 and Soliman. 19 This secSPE Production Engineering, November 1988

SALES
C==~=---~
GAS
LINE
SEPARATOR
LIQUID

~P1 = PR - Pwf.

Pwf-pwh

BOTTOM HOLE
RESTRICTION

~P3=
_POR'
(PUR-POR)

It

T-PUR

~P2

= Pwf. - Pwf

~P3

= PUR - POR

LOSS IN POROUS MEDIUM

~P4

LOSS ACROSS COMPLETION

RESTRICTION
= PUSV - POSY
SAFETY VALVE

~P5

= pwh - posc

~P6

= Posc - Psep

~P7

= Pwf - Pwh

SURFACE CHOKE
IN FLOWLINE

TOTAL LOSS IN TUBING

FLOWLINE

Fig. l-Producing-configuration schematic and possible pressure drops through the system.

10'
10'

Flow Rate

Dimensionless Time

Fig. 2-Systems-analysis plot showing reservoir-inflow and

tubing-outflow curves.

ond approach is also limited because the production-increase curves

do not take time-dependence into account. A more involved approach, presented by Meng et al.,20 uses a fractured-well model
to develop the IPR curve for the stimulated well. Several fracturedwell models have been presented in the literature. 21-23

Description of FracturedWell Model

The fractured-well model used in this work was presented by Soliman et al. 23 The model consists of a well intercepting a finiteconductivity vertical fracture producing at a constant flowing pressure under unsteady-state conditions. The fracture extends an equal
distance on either side of the wellbore and fully penetrates the formation in height. The well is located in a limited reservoir consisting of a square drainage area with no-flow outer boundaries.
Additional assumptions include the following.
1. Homogeneous and isotropic formation is of constant height.
2. Gravity effects are negligible.
3. The reservoir fluid is single-phase and compressible.
SPE Production Engineering, November 1988

Fig. 3-Fractured-well type curve for

e tD = 0.2.

4. Fluid flow in both the fracture and the formation is described

by Darcy's law.
Solutions to the problem just described are presented as type
curves. The following definitions are used in the development of
type curves:
qBp.
, ................................. (1)

qD=

kh(Pi-Pwj)
kt
tLjD=--2'

................................... (2)

cf>p.ctLf

and
Cf

C j D = - ' ...................................... (3)

1rkLf
609

TABLE 1-WELL AND RESERVOIR PARAMETERS FOR

FIGS. 4 THROUGH 6, 8, AND 9

0.10
32 [9.8)
0.107
2,394 [16.51)
4 [102)
2,640 [805)
260 [127)
0.65

Formation permeability, md
Formation thickness, ft [m)
Porosity
Initial reservoir pressure, psi [MPa)
Wellbore radius, in. [mm)
Drainage radius, ft [m)
Reservoir temperature, of [0C)
Gas specific gravity

~:~~-.-.. ---...-...-...-.. --..-.----~I.'=.'~'~~;'~~~~~'~~;:~':'i~'

",

~g

i-

--- -

~ (mel/d)

Flow Rote

- --

Fig. 5-IPR curves generated with steady-state productlonIncrease model.

.......

i:'\\\
50

100

150

200

250

Flow Rote

300

350

400

4!iO

500

(mel/d)

FIg. 4-IPR curves generated wIth Darcy equation.

Type curves are presented as plots of dimensionless flow rate vs.

dimensionless time with the ratio of the fracture half-length to reservoir extent as a parameter. Each type curve represents a specific
value of dimensionless fracture conductivity. An example type curve
for a CjD value of 0.2 is presented in Fig. 3. These plots are useful in predicting flow rate decline over time for a fractured well.
Use of type curves for predicting fractured-well performance has
been demonstrated. 21 23
Because of the number of type curves and the number of parameters that describe the type curves, it becomes much easier to use
a computer program to calculate the fractured-well performance
than to perform the necessary calculations by hand. To facilitate
ease of use, type curves are stored in the computer as continuous
functions. An appropriate interpolation scheme is used to interpolate between curves. The resultant type-curve simulator is able to
calculate fractured-well performance with less computation time
than would be necessary with a numerical simulator.

Fractured-Well Inflow
As mentioned previously, many common IPR's describe steadystate radial flow. An example of this type of IPR equation is the
radial form of Darcy's law, which can be used to generate an IPR
curve for an unstimulated well. A hydraulically fractured well can
be accounted for by use of the radial Darcy's-law IPR equation and
by calculating an equivalent skin based on fracture half-length with
the following equation 24 :

Lf =2rw e- s .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)

For the well described in Table I and a fracture half-length of 400

ft [122 m], the equivalent skin, s, is -6.4. The resultant value of
skin factor may be substituted into the Darcy's-law IPR to yield
the reservoir inflow performance curve for the stimulated case. Applying the Darcy equation IPR to a gas well described by the parameters listed in Table 1 for both unstimulated and stimulated cases
yields the inflow performance curves presented in Fig. 4. Comparison of the two curves shows that the inflow performance curve
generated for the hydraulically fractured case yields higher flow
rates at the same drawdown, as would be expected for a stimulated
well.
610

250

500

750

1000

Flow Rot.

1250

1500

1750

2000

(mel/d)

Fig. 6-Tlme-dependent IPR curves generated with fracturedwell simulator.

Application of the steady-state production-increase curves 19 to

the example gas well (Table 1) results in Fig. 5. The unstimulated
IPR curve was generated with the Darcy equation, and the
production-increase curves were used to determine the folds of increase in production for the case of a 400-ft [i22-m] fracture halflength and a CjD value of to. The IPR curve resulting from the
production increase calculation is presented as the stimulated case
in Fig. 5.
A comparison of Figs. 4 and 5 shows that the stimulated cases
yield similar results. The IPR's used to generate Figs. 4 and 5, however, are based on steady-state equations; the effect of flow-rate
decline over time, as observed in the field and predicted by theory, is not taken into account. Thus, the common IPR's that describe
fractured-well response in relatively simple terms do not adequately
describe observed fractured-well performance over the life of the
well.
Applying the described type-curve simulator to the fractured gas
well presented in Table 1 produces the IPR presented in Fig. 6,
based on a 400-ft [122-m] fracture half-length and a CjD value of
to. Several curves are presented for different times in the life of
the fractured well. As time increases, the calculated flow rate at
a given drawdown decreases, as expected. This gives rise to the
expected flow-rate decline over time for a well produced at constant bottomhole flowing pressure (BHFP). In addition, the
fractured-well model predicts much higher flow rates than that predicted with the radial form of Darcy's law with a negative skin factor
and steady-state production-increase curves. This is expected because of the unsteady-state nature of fractured-well flow.
SPE Production Engineering, November 1988

Production x months after frac:

x =1
x = 30

Reservoir Type:

x = 6Q

Uquld Flow

Two Pha now

Ga. flow

co
ci

co
ci

'"ci

~-;
Q.

ci

ci

O~------'--------r-------.-------'------~
O~-------r-------r-------.-------'------~

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

q/qMAX

q/qMAX
Fig. 7-IPR reference curve proposed by Vogel. 15

Production x months after frac:

Fig. 9-Gas-well IPR reference curve: Includes effect of reservoir boundaries.

TABLE 2-WELL AND RESERVOIR PARAMETERS FOR

FIGS. 10 AND 11

)( = 1

x = 30

Formation permeability, md
Formation thickness, ft [m)
Porosity
Initial reservoir pressure, psi [MPa)
Wellbore radius, in. [mm)
Drainage radius, ft [m)
Reservoir temperature, OF [0C)
Gas specific gravity
Oil gravity, API [g/cm 3)
GOR, scf/STB [std m 3 /stock-tank m 3 )

x.60

co
ci

'"ci

O~-------r-------r-------.-------.------~

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

q/qMAX
Fig. 8-Gas-well IPR reference curve: without effect of reservoir boundaries.

Generation of IPR Curve.

For solution-gas-drive wells, Vogel 15 presents a correlation for obtaining IPR curves. A plot of Pwflji R vs. qlqrnax was proposed as
a reference curve to generate IPR's. Fig. 7 shows a plot of the reference curve for different reservoir types. From this plot, it is evident that a straight-line relationship exists only for single-phase
liquid flow.
Extending the concept of the straight-line reference curve to gas
wells, it has been proposed that a reference curve similar to that
of Vogel could be obtained from which the IPR could be generated. Meng et ai. 20 proposed that use of real-gas pseudopressures 25
to plot PpwtfPjJR vs. q(t)lqmax(t) obtains a straight-line relationship
that holds throughout the entire producing life of the gas well. From
SPE Production Engineering, November 1988

0.5
35 [10.7)
0.30
5,000 [34.47)
3.48 [88.4)
1,320 [402)
200 [93)
0.65
40 [0.825)
1,000 [180.1)

this proposed straight-line relationship, the time-dependent IPR

curves can be generated.
The type-curve simulator described earlier was used to generate
a normalized reference curve for the fractured gas well described
by the properties listed in Table I without the effect of reservoir
boundaries; all pressures were converted to pseudopressures. The
resultant plot, presented in Fig. 8, shows that a relatively straightline relationship results when pseudopressures are used and the effect of boundaries is not considered; the reference curve also exhibits no significant time-dependence. When the effects of the
reservoir boundaries are considered, however, the reference curve
becomes time-dependent, as shown in Fig. 9. A significant deviation from the straight-line relationship exists, which increases with
time. Thus, boundaries have a pronounced effect on the proposed
reference curve. Consequently, when the effect of a closed drainage
region on fractured-well performance is considered, the timedependent IPR curves should be generated directly using the typecurve simulator to calculate flow-rate decline over time at various
BHFP's. From the resultant output, flow rates at the various pressures are then plotted as a graph of BHFP vs. flow rate with time
as a parameter. The resultant plot presents time-dependent IPR
curves for the fractured well.

Effect of Stimulation and Tubing Size

Production-systems analysis is useful in designing completion configurations for new wells. Table 2 presents well and reservoir parameters for a proposed oil well. A systems-analysis plot for two
different tubing sizes is shown in Fig. 10. The Darcy equation was
611

~fo~.~~[~u.~".~n.~,~=o~--------------------r.=~~~~~

TABLE 3-WELL AND RESERVOIR PARAMETERS FOR

FIGS. 12 THROUGH 15
Formation permeability, md
Formation thickness, ft [m)
Porosity
Initial reservoir pressure, psi [MPa)
Wellbore radius, in. [mm)
Drainage radius, ft [m)
Reservoir temperature, OF [0C)
Gas specific gravity

0.030
12 [3.7)
0.18
3,950 [14.89)
3.94 (100)
2,640 (805)
180 (82)
0.73

o
o
o

o l,=800ft

~~------------------r=~~~

o-!,----.---.---,---,----,---r---.---,-~._--~
o

10

20

50

~o

30

60

70

BO

90

\,

100

I \'

Flow Rale (sIb/d)

o

Fig. 10-Systems-analysls plot showing effect of tubing size:

Darcy-equatlon IPR.

iI \\,\ ,

~~ i

a.
-

\.\

'

~!

fo"O!

TI",.',"o

TI",.',"o
Tlm.18mo

2.U2LD.Tublnl

\ \.

\ \

\\,

i- -\.._._._._.-.:.\_._\_._._._._._._._._._._._.--------__
Q."

~.~~el.~a~~!~~:,'

\ . "-,

"

~----~-~----------

~g !
S!

\.

._.-

._._.

...

-r--------------\-------:------------------------------ ---

"
i

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

Flow Rate (mcf/d)

Fig. 12-Systems-analysls plot showing effect of wellhead

pressure.

100

200

300

.. 00

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

Flow Ral. (stb/d)

\ \'
~ ! \\
I \ "
\ \ '.
~~ \ \\
..e- I \ ...
3~'
g ! \ \ ...
o

Fig. 11-Systems-analysls plot showing effect of tubing size:

fractured-well-simulator IPR's.

used to generate the reservoir inflow and the Hagedorn and

Brown 13 correlation was used to generate the tubing outflow
curves. For the particular conditions presented in Table 2, the
system-flow capaci7, for the smaller-diameter tubing is 72 STBID
[11.4 stock-tank mId] but 63 STBID [10.0 stock tank m 3 /d] for
the larger-diameter tubing. To maximize production on the basis
of information presented in Fig. 10, this well would most likely
be completed with the smaller-diameter tubing. The type-curve
simulator was used to generate the IPR curves presented in Fig.
11 to investigate the effect that a 4OO-ft [122-m] fracture half-length
would have on the system flow capacity. From this plot, it is apparent that early in the life of the well, a larger-diameter tubing
would be needed to obtain maximum production capacity. The
difference in flow rates between the two tubing sizes at 1 month
after fracturing is about 100 STBID [15.9 stock-tank m 3 /d], a significant difference. Later, however, it would be necessary to change
to the smaller-size tubing to maintain maximum production capacity. In this case, through the use of a fractured-well simulator to
calculate time-dependent IPR curves, the time at which the tubing
should be changed to a smaller diameter could be estimated for the
stimulated condition. This type of analysis is not possible when a
steady-state inflow equation is used to calculate the reservoir performance.

Effect of Wellhead Pressure and

Fracture Half-Length
The production-systems-analysis approach has been applied to a
south Texas gas well described by the well and reservoir parameters presented in Table 3. This well is typical of many of the gas
wells drilled in that area. It is anticipated that at least an 800-ft
612

5 i
N

"

\. \.

.to i
\ "
-g~ I \ . \ '

~!

\ \,

~g !

~
o

i
i
i
i

\
"

...

'.

i\ ' "...

~+-----,-----,-----.-----,-----.-----.----200

400

600

800

1000

1200

' ..DO

Flow Rat. (mel/d)

Fig. 13-Systems-flow capacity as a function of wellhead

pressure and time.

[244-m] hydraulic fracture is needed to produce this well economically. It is desired to determine the productive capacity of this well
at various wellhead pressures for 1.995-in. [50.67-mm] -ID tubing.
Constructing IPR curves for the fractured case with the fracturedwell type-curve simulator yields the time-dependent inflow curves
presented in Fig. 12. The radial-inflow curve was calculated for
the unstimulated case with the radial form of Darcy's law and is
presented for comparison. Outflow curves were generated for various wellhead pressures with the Cullender and Smith 14 correlation for gas flow. For simplicity, the flowline section was not
considered.
Fig. 13 was constructed by plotting the intersections of the outflow and inflow curves from Fig. 12 (production capacity at each
wellhead pressure and time) as wellhead pressure vs. flow rate.
The resultant plot presents system-flow capacity as a function of
SPE Production Engineering, November 1988

~ P"""

o It

= 900 psi

= 800 ft. P",,,, = 900 ptl

!l

o
o

0
0
0

o
o

"
0

~o

~CQ
<.>

.s

.!~
0

Q:

~
0

G:~

1l

12

"

16

2.

2.

32

16

20

2.

Time (mo.)

3.

Time (mo.)

Fig. 14-Flow-rate profile for constant wellhead pressure.

wellhead pressure and time. From Fig. 13, the effect of producing
at constant wellhead pressure can be determined by plotting flow
rate vs. time at constant wellhead pressure. Fig. 14 plots predicted
flow rate vs. time at constant wellhead pressure (900 psi [6200 kPaD
for a fracture half-length of 800 ft [244 m]. This type of plot can
be constructed for various constant wellhead pressures to determine
the flow-rate-vs.-time profile for the fractured well.
This procedure can also be used to compare the effect of fracture half-length on producing at constant wellhead pressure. Fig.
15 presents the predicted flow-rate-vs.-time profiles at a constant
wellhead pressure of 900 psi [6200 kPa] for fracture half-lengths
of 800 and 1,200 ft [244 and 366 m]. The effect of several different fracture half-lengths can be investigated in this manner. Thus,
by use of the production-systems-analysis approach coupled with
a fractured-well simulator, production can be maximized for a given
set of conditions for fractured wells producing under unsteady-state
conditions.

Conclusions
1. The production-systems-analysis approach is useful in evaluating existing producing systems and in the design of new well configurations.
2. IPR's generated with steady-state radial-flow models or published production-increase curves do not adequately model fracturedwell performance. Because of the time-dependent nature of
fractured-well response, production-systems analysis is accomplished more effectively with a fractured-well simulator used to
generate the IPR curves.
3. A fractured-well model that considers finite-conductivity vertical fractures and reservoir boundaries is useful in constructing
time-dependent IPR curves for fractured wells.
4. The influence of reservoir boundaries on fractured-well performance causes the reference IPR curve proposed in the literature
to be time-dependent.
5. The effect of a change in producing conditions on fracturedwell response can readily be investigated through the application
of production-systems analysis.
Nomenclature
B = FVF, RBISTB [res m 3 /stock-tank m 3]
Ct = total compressibility, psi - 1 [kPa -I ]
Cf = fracture conductivity, md-ft [md' m]
CjD = dimensionless fracture conductivity
h = formation thickness, ft [m]
k = formation permeability, md
Lf = fracture half-length, ft [m]
PDR = pressure downstream of flow restriction, psi
[kPa]
PDSC = pressure downstream of surface choke, psi
[kPa]
SPE Production Engineering, November 1988

Fig. 15-Flow-rate profile showing effect of fracture length

at constant wellhead pressure.

P DSV

= pressure downstream of safety valve, psi

[kPa]
Pe = reservoir pressure at X e , psi [kPa]
Pi = initial reservoir pressure, psi [kPa]
PPR = real-gas pseudopressure, average reservoir,
106 psi 2 /cp [kPa 2 /Pa' s]
Ppwf = real-gas pseudopressure, wellbore flowing,
106 psi 2 /cp [kPa 2 /Pa's]
jiR = average reservoir pressure, psi [kPa]
Psep = separator pressure, psi [kPa]
PUR = pressure upstream of flow restriction, psi
[kPa]
PUSV = pressure upstream of safety valve, psi [kPa]
Pwf = BHFP, psi [kPa]
Pwfs = BHFP at sandface, psi [kPa]
Pwh = wellhead pressure, psi [kPa]
L!..pl' . llPs = component pressure drop, psi [kPa]
q = flow rate, STB/D [stock-tank m3 /d] or
MscflD [std m 3 /d]
qD = dimensionless flow rate
qmax = flow rate at BHFP=O, STB/D [stock-tank
m 3 /d] or MscflD [std m 3 /d]
rw = wellbore radius, ft [m]
s = equivalent skin
t = time, hours
tLjD = dimensionless time (fractured system)
Xe = drainage distance, ft [m]
Jl. = fluid viscosity, cp [Pa' s]
= porosity, fraction

Acknowledgment
I thank the management of Halliburton Services for permission to
prepare and publish this paper.
References
I. Gilbert, W.E.: "Flowing and Gas-Lift Well Performance," Drill. &

Prod. Prac., API, Dallas (1954) 126-57.

2. Brown, K.E. and Lea, J.F.: "Nodal Systems Analysis of Oil and Gas
Wells," JPT(Oct. 1985) 1751-63.
3. Cheng, M.C.A.: "Perforating Damage and Shot Density Analyzed,"
Oil & Gas J. (March 4, 185) 112-15.
4. Myers, B.W., Clinton, L., and Carlson, N.R.: "Productivity Analysis Tells Where, How Much to Perforate," World Oil (July 1985) 71-75.
5. Mach, J., Proano, E.A., and Brown, K.E.: "Application of Production Systems Analysis to Determine Completion Sensitivity on Gas Well
Production," paper 81-Pet-13 presented at the 1981 ASME EnergySources Technology Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Jan. 18-22.
6. Eickmeier, J .R.: "How to Accurately Predict Future Well Productivities," World Oil (May 1968) 99-106.
613

7. Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P.: "A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined
Pipes," JPT(May 1973) 607-14; Trans., AIME, 255.
8. Dukler, A.E. et al.: "Gas-Liquid Flow in Pipelines, I. Research Results," AGA-API Project NX-28, U. of Houston, Houston, TX (May
1969).
9. Flanigan, 0.: "Effect of Uphill Flow on Pressure Drop in Design of
Two-Phase Gathering Systems," Oil & Gas J. (March 10, 1958).
10. Eaton, B.A. et al.: "The Prediction of Flow Pattern, Liquid Holdup
and Pressure Losses Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow
in Horizontal Pipelines," JPT(June 1%7) 815-28; Trans., AIME, 240.
11. Duns, H. Jr. and Ros, N.C.J.: "Vertical Flow of Gas and Liquid Mixtures in Wells," Proc., Sixth World Pet. Cong., Frankfurt-on-Main
(1963) 451.
12. Orkiszewski, J.: "Predicting Two-Phase Pressure Drops in Vertical
Pipes," JPT (June 1967) 829-38; Trans., AIME, 240.
13. Hagedorn, A.R. and Brown, K.E.: "Experimental Study of Pressure
Gradients Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in SmallDiameter Vertical Conduits," JPT (April 1%5) 475-84; Trans., AIME,
234.
14. Cullender, M.H. and Smith, R.V.: "Practical Solution of' Gas-Flow
Equations for Wells and Pipelines with Large Temperature Gradients,"
JPT (Dec. 1956) 281-87; Trans., AIME, 207.
15. Vogel, J.V.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive
Wells," JPT (Jan. 1968) 83-92; Trans., AIME, 243.
16. Standing, M.B.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for Damaged Wells
Producing by Solution-Gas Drive," JPT (Nov. 1970) 1399-1400.
17. Fetkovich, M.J.: "The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells," paper SPE
4529 presented at the 1973 SPE Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Sept.
30-Oct.3.
18. McGuire, W.J. and Sikora, V.J.: "The Effect of Vertical Fractures
on Well Productivity," JPT(Oct. 1960) 72-74; Trans., AIME, 219.
19. Soliman, M.Y.: "Modifications to Production Increase Calculations
for a Hydraulically Fractured Well," JPT (Jan. 1983) 170-72.

614

20. Meng, H. et aI.: "Production Systems Analysis of Vertically Fractured

Wells," paper SPE 10842 presented at the 1982 SPEIDOE Unconventional Gas Recovery Symposium, Pittsburgh, May 16-18.
21. Agarwal, R.G, Carter, R.D., and Pollock, C.B.: "Evaluation and Prediction of Performance of Low-Permeability Gas Wells StiplUlated by
Massive Hydraulic Fracturing," JPT(March 1979) 362-72; Trans.,
AIME,267.
22. Cinco-L., H., Samaniego-V., F., and Dominquez-A., N.: "Transient
Pressure Behavior for a Well With a Finite-Conductivity Vertical Fracture," SPEJ (Aug. 1978) 253-64.
23. Soliman, M.Y., Venditto, J.J., and Slusher, G.L.: "Evaluating Fractured Well Performance Using Type Curves," paper SPE 12598 presented at the 1984 SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference,
Midland, March 8-9.
24. Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Raghavan, R.: "Applied Pressure Analysis for Fractured Wells," JPT(July 1975) 887-92; Trans.,
AIME,259.
25. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Crawford, P.B.: "The Flow
of Real Gases Through Porous Media," JPT (May 1966) 624-36;
Trans., AIME, 237.

51 Metric Conversion Factors

bbl x 1.589873
E-Ol
ft x 3.048*
E-01
ft3 x 2.831 685
E-02
psi x 6.894757
E+OO
'Conversion factor is exact.

SPEPE

Original SPE manuscript received for review Sept. 30, 1986. Paper accepted for publicstion Dec. 10, 1987. Revised manuscript received Feb. 9, 1988. Paper (SPE 15931) first
presented at the 1986 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in Columbus, OH, Nov. 12-14.

SPE Production Engineering, November 1988