Deliverability Testing of Gas Wells

a. Type and Purposes of Deliverability Tests

Deliverability testing refers to the testing of a gas well to measure its

production capabilities under specific conditions of reservoir and bottomhole
flowing pressure (BHFPs). A common productivity indicator obtained from these
tests is the absolute open-flow (AOF) petential. The AOF is the maximum rate at
which a well could flow against a theoretical atmospheric backpressure at the
sandface. Although in practice the well cannot produce at this rate, regulatory
agencies often use the AOF to establish field proration schedules or to set
maximum allowable production rates for individual wells.

Another, and possibly more important, application of deliverability testing

is to generate a reservoir inflow performance relationship (IPR) or gas
backpressure curve. The IPR curve describes the relationship between surface
production rate and BHFP for a specific value of reservoir pressure (i.e., either the
original pressure or the current average value). The IPR curve can be used to
evaluate gas-well current deliverability potential under a variety of surface
conditions, such as production against a fixed backpressure. In addition, the IPR
can be used to forecast future production at any stage in the reservoirs life.

Several deliverability testing methods have been developed for gas wells.
Flow-after-flow tests are conducted by producing the well at a series of different
stabilized flow rates and measuring the stabilized bottomhole pressure (BHP).
Each flow rate is established in succession without an intermediate shut-in period.
A single-point test is conducted by flowing the well at a single rate until the BHFP
is stabilized. This type of test was developed to overcome the limitation of long
testing times required to reach stabilization in the flow-after-flow test.

The isochronal and modified isochronal tests also were developed to

shorten test times for wells that need long periods to estabilize. An isochronal test
consists of a series of single-point tests usually conducted by alternately
producing at a stabilized (or slowly declining) sandface rate and then shutting in
and allowing the well to build to the average reservoir pressure before the next
flow period. The modified isochronal test is conducted similary, except the flow
periods are of equal duration and the shut-in periods are of equal duration (but not
necessarily the same as the flow periods).

b. Theori of Deliverability Test Analysis

This section summarizes the theoretical and empirical gas-flow equations

used to analyze deliverability tests. The theoritical equations, developed by
Houpeurt, exact solutions to the generalized radial-flow diffusivity equation,
while the Rawlins and Schellhardt equation is derived empirically. All basic
equations presented here were developed with radial flow in a homogeneous,
isotropic reservoir assumed and therefore are not applicable to the analysis of
deliverability tests from reservoir with heterogeneities, such as natural fractures or
layered pay zones. These equations also cannot be used to analyze tests from
hydraulically fractured wells, especially during the initial, fracture-dominated,
linear flow period. Finally, these equations assume the wellbore-storage effects
have ceased. Unfortunately, wellbore-storage distortion may effect the entire test
period in short tests, especially those conducted in low-permeability reservoirs.

Theoritical Deliverability Equations.

The generalized diffusivity equation for radial flow of a real gas through a
homogeneous, isotropic porous medium is

1 p p 1 c p p
(
r
) = t
r r g z r 0.0002637 k g z t

Because of the pressure dependence of the gas properties, equation 1 is a

nonlinear partial-differential equation; however, equation 1 can be linearized
partially with several limiting assumptions. If we assume that the quantity p/gz is
constant with respect to pressure and that c can be evaluated at p and treated
g t

as constant, equation 1 can be solved in terms of pressure. With these

assumptions, equation 1 becomes

1 p g ct p
r( )
r r r
=
0.0002637 k g t

which is the same linear differential equation that we solve for slightly
compressible liquid flow. The solution is the familiar exponential integral (Ei)
solution.

The assumptions made to obtain equation 2 generally are valid only for
very high pressures and temperatures. Figures, 1 through 3, which show the
relationship between pressure and p/gz is essentially constant with pressure at
pressures exceeding 3000 psia for 100oF, 5000 psia for 200oF and 6500 psia for
300oF. Note that p/gz varies with pressure more at high gas gravity. Figures 1
through 3 imply that the solutions to the real-gas diffusivity equation in terms of
pressure should be used only for gases at very high pressure.
 As an alternative solution, we can rawrite equation 1 in terms of pressure-
squared variables using the following relationship :

p 1 p2
p =
r 2 r

p 1 p2
and p = 4
t 2 t

Subtituting equations 3 and 4 into equation 1 yields the resulting equation :

1 r p2 ct p2
(
r r g z r
= )
0.0002637 k g z t

If we assume that gz is constant with pressure and that gcg can be

evaluated at p and treated as constant, equation 5 becomes

2
g c t 2
1
r r
r ( )
p
r
=
p
0.0002637 k g t

which is a linear differential equation in the variable p2 and thus has the familiar
Ei-function solution. The assumption of constant gz is valid only for very low
pressures and gas gravities at high temperatures. Figures 4 through 6 illustrate the
variation of the product gz with pressure for different gas gravities at 100, 200
and 300oF, respectively. Note that gz is essentially constant with pressure at
pressures < 1200 psia for 100oF, < 1750 psia for 200oF and < 2200 psia for 300oF.
The gz product varies with pressure more at higher gas gravities. Therefore,
solutions to the real-gas diffusivity equation should be used in terms of pressure
squared only at very low pressures and gas gravities at high temperatures.

A more rigorous method of linearizing equation 1 is with the real-gas

pseudopressure transformation introduced by Al-Hussainy et al.,
p
p
p p=2 dp 7
po g z
 With the pseudopressure transformation, equation 1 can be solved without
the limiting assumption that certain gas properties are constant with pressure.
Equation 1 can be written in terms of the pseudopressure function as

pp g ( p ) c t ( p ) p p
1
r r
r (r
= )
0.0002637 k g t

Equation 8 is not completely linear because g(p)ct(p) depends on pressure

and pseudopressure. An acceptable aproximation is the assumption that gct is
g c t
constant and can be evaluated at some p . We denote this product .
Thus, familiar solutions, such as the Ei-function solution, are reasonably accurate
for gas wells when we use the pseudopressure transformation.

The early-time or transient solution to equation 8 for constant-rate

production from a well in a reservoir with closed outer boundaries is

1.422 106 qT
p p ( p s ) p p ( p wf ) =
kgh

[
1.151 log
(
k gt
1,688 g c t r 2w )
+ s+ Dq
] 9

where ps = the stabilized shut-in BHP measured before the deliverability test. In
new reservoirs with little or no pressure depletion, this shut-in pressure equals the
initial reservoir pressure (ps = pi), while in developed reservoirs, ps<pi.

The late-time or pseudosteady-state solution to equation 8 is

1.422 106 qT
p p ( p s ) p p ( p wf ) =
kgh

[
1.151 log
( 10.06 A 3
2
CA rw )
+ s+ Dq
4 ]
10
where p = current drainage area pressure. Gas wells cannot reach true

pseudosteady state because g(p)ct(p) changes as p decreases. Note that, unlike

p (which decreases during a pseudosteady-state flow test), p remains constant.

s

Equations 9 and 10 are quadratic in terms of the gas flow rate, q. For
convenience, Houpeurt wrote the trensient flow equation as

p p= p p ( p s ) p p ( pwf )=at q+ bq2 11

and the pseudosteady state flow equation as

p p= p p ( p ) p p ( p wf ) =aq+ bq2 12

where
at =
1.42210 6 T
kg h [
1.151 log
kg t
(
1.688 g c t r 2w )
+s
] 13

a=
1.422 106 T
kgh [
1.151 log
10.06 A 3
C A r 2w( +s
4 ) ]
14

1.422 106 TD
and b= kgh

15

The coefficients of q(at for transient flow and a for pseudosteady state
flow) include the Darcy flow and skin effects and are measured in (psia 2-cp)/
(MMscf-D) when q is in MMscf/D. The coefficient of the q2 term represents the
inertial and turbulent flow effects and is measured in (psia 2-cp)/(MMscf-D)2 when
q is in MMscf/D. Commonly called non-Darcy effects, the inertial and turbulent
flow effects result from high gas velocities near the wellbore and consequently
cannot be modeled with Darcys law. The non-Darcy flow coefficient, D, is
defined in terms of a turbulence factor, , which has been correlated with rock
properties, permeability, and porosity,
12
2.715 10 k g M p sc
D=
h g ( pwf ) r w T sc

16
 10 1.47 0.53
and =1.88 10 k 17

where g is evaluated at pwf. Note that, because g is not constant with respect to
pressure, D and the coefficient b are not strictly constant at different BHFPs;
however, the assumption of a constant D is adequate for most practical
applications.

The Houpeurt equations also can be written in terms of pressure squared

and are derived directly from the solutions to the gas diffusivity equation,
assuming that gz is constant over the pressure range considered. For transient
flow,

p2= p2s p 2wf =at q+bq 2 18

and for pseudosteady-state-flow,

p2= p2 p 2wf =aq+ bq2 19

The flow coefficients are

[ ]
6
1.42210 g z T kgt
at =
kgh
1.151 log
( )
1688 g c t r 2w
+s

20

1.422 106 g z T
a=
k gh [
1.151 log
10.06 A 3
C A r 2w (
+s
4 ) ]
21

1.422 106 g z TD
and b= kgh

22

When the Houpeurt equation is presented in terms of pressures squared,

the coefficients of q are measured in psia2/(MMscf-D) when q is in MMscf/D,
while the coefficient of q2 is measured in units of psia2/(MMscf-D)2 when q is in
MMscf/D. The units of the flow coefficients given by equations 11 through 13 and
18 through 20 vary depending on the units of flow rate and whether the
pseudopressure or pressure-squared formulation is used. For consistency, all
equations and example problems in this chapter are presented with q measured in
MMscf/D.
 Recall from previous discussions that, because of the nonlinear behavior
of the gas properties at high pressures, the pressure-squared from of the equation
should be used only for gas reservoirs at low pressures and high temperatures. To
eliminate doubt about which equation to choose, we recommend using the
pseudopressure equations, which are applicable at all pressures and temperatures.
Consequently, all the analysis procedures in this chapter are presented in terms of
pseudopressure. The same procedures and example problems, however, are
presented in Appendix H in terms of pressure squared.

An advantage of the pseudopressure form of the theoritical deliverability

equation is that the flow coefficients are independent of the average reservoir
pressure and therefore do not change as p decreases during a flow test
conducted under pseudosteady-state flow unless s, k, or A changes. Because of the
dependency of the non-Darcy flow coefficient on g(pwf), only the coefficient b
will change slightly if the BHFP is changed. Conversely, because of the pressure
dependency of the gas properties on average reservoir pressure, the flow
coefficients for the pressure-squared form of the deliverability equation must be
recalculated for every new p value. When s, k, or A changes with time, the
only way to update the deliverability curve is to retest the well.

Empirical Deliverability Equations.

In 1935, Rawlins and Schellhardt presented an empirical relationship that

is used frequently in deliverability test analysis. The original form of their relation
given by equation 23 in terms of pressure squared, is applicable only at low
pressures :
n
q=C ( p 2p 2wf ) 23

In terms of pseudopressure, equation 23 becomes

n
q=C [ p p ( p ) p p ( pwf ) ] 24

which is applicable over all pressure ranges. In equations 23 and 24, C =

stabilized performance coefficient and n = inverse slope of the line on a log-log
plot of the change in pressure squared or pseudopressure vs gas flow rate.
Depending on the flowing conditions, the theoritical value of n ranges from 0.5,
indicating turbulent or non-Darcy flow, to 1.0, indicating flow behavior described
by Darcys equation. Note that the value of C changes depending on the units of
flow rate and whether equation 23 or 24 is used. Again, all equations and example
problems in this chapter are presented with q measured in MMscf/D.
 Houpeurt proved that neither equation 23 nor 24 can be derived from the
generalized diffusivity equation for radial flow of real gas through porous media.
Although the Rawlins and Schellhardt equation is not theoritically rigorous, it is
still used widely in deliverability analysis and has worked well over the years,
especially when the test rates approach the AOF potential of the well and the
extrapolation is minimal.

c. Stabilization Time

Unlike pressure-transient tests, the analysis techniques for conventional

flow-after-flow and single-point tests require data obtained under stabilized
flowing conditions. Although isochronal and modified isochronal tests were
developed to circumvent the requirement of stabilized flow, they still may require
a single, stabilized flow period at the end of the test. Consequently, we must
understand the meaning of stabilization time and have a method to estimate its
value.

Stabilization time is defined as the time when the flowing pressure is no

longer changing or in no longer changing significantly. Physically, stabilized flow
can be interpreted as the time when the pressure transient is affected by a no-flow
boundary, either a natural reservoir boundary or an artificial boundary created by
active wells surrounding the tested well. Consider a graph of pressure as a
function of radius for constant-rate flow at various times since the beginning of
flow. As figure 7 shows, the pressure in the wellbore continues to decrease as flow
time increases. Simultaneously, the area from which fluid is drained increases, and
the pressure transient moves further out into the reservoir.

The radius of investigation, the point in the formation beyond which the
pressure drawdown is negligible, is a measure of how far a transient has moved
into a formation following any rate change in a well. The approximate position of
the radius of investigation at any time is estimated by

r i=
kg t s
948 g c t 25

Stabilized flowing conditions occur when the radius of investigation

equals or exceeds the distance to the no-flow boundary of the well, i.e., ri re.
Substituting re and rearranging equation 25, we can develop an equation for
estimating the stabilization time, ts, for a well centered in a circular drainage area :
2
948 g c t r e
t s= 26
kg
 As long as the radius of investigation is less than the distance to the no-
flow boundary, stabilization has not been attained and the pressure behavior is
transient. To illustrate the importance of stabilization times in deliverability
testing, we calculated stabilization times as a function of permeability and
drainage area for a well producing a gas with a specific gravity of 0.6 from a

formation at 210oF and an average pressure of 3500 psia ( g = 0.02 cp and
c t
= 2.468 X 10-4 psia-1), with a porosity of 10%. Table 1 shows that, for wells
completed in low-permeability reservoirs, several days, if not years, are required
to reach stabilized flow, while wells completed in high-permeability reserovirs
stabilize in a short time.

A more general equation for calculating stabilization time is

g ct At DA
t s= 27
0.0002637 k g

where tDA = dimensionless time for the beginning of pseudosteady-state flow.

Values for tDA are given in Appendix C for various reservoir shapes and well
locations. The time required for the pseudosteady-state equation to be exact is
found from the entry in the column Exact for tDA >.

We should emphasize that the Rawlins-Schellhardt and Houpeurt

deliverability equations assume radial flow. If psoudoradial flow has been
achieved, however, these analysis techniques can be used for hydraulically
fractured wells. The time to reach the pseudoradial flow regime, tprf, occurs at tLfD
= 3 and is estimated with

11400 g c t L2f
t prf =
kg

28

To illustrate the importance of achieving pseudoradial flow during a

deliverability test, we calculated values of tprf for a hydraulically fractured well
g c
completed in a reservoir with = 0.15, = 0.03 cp, and t = 1 X 10-4 psia-
1
and with the range of permeabilities and hydraulic fracture half-lengths in table 2
the results illustrate that a well with a long fracture in a low-permeability
formation will take far too long to stabilize for conventional deliverability testing.

d. Analysis of Deliverability Tests

 This section discusses the implementation and analysis of the flow-after-
flow, single-point, isochronal, and modified isochronal tests. We present both the
Rawlins and Schellhardt and Houpeurt analysis techniques in terms of
pseudopressures. The same analysis techniques are presented in Appendix H in
terms of pressure squared.

Flow-After-Flow Tests

Flow-after-flow tests, sometimes called gas backpressure or four-point tests, are

conducted by producing the well at a series of different stabilized flow rates and
measuring the stabilized BHFP at the sandface. Each different flow rate is
established in succession either with or without a very short intermediate shut-in
period. Conventional flow-after-flow tests often are conducted with a sequence of
increasing flow rates; however, if stabilized flow rates are attained, the rate
sequence does not affect the test. The requirement that the shut-in and flowing
periods be continued until stabilization is a major limitation of the flow-after-flow
test, especially in low-permeability formations that take long times to reach
stabilized flowing conditions. Figure 8 illustrates a flow-after-flow test.

Rawlins-Schellhardt Analysis Technique.

Recall the empirical equation introduced by Rawlins and Schellhardt:

n
q=C [ p p ( p ) p p ( pwf ) ] 24

Taking the logarithm of both sides of equation 24, we obtain the equation
that forms the basis for the Rawlins-Schellhardt analysis technique:

log ( q )=log ( C ) +n {log [ p p ( p ) p p ( pwf ) ] } 29

The form of equation 29 suggests that, if we plot log (q) vs log (pp), we
will obtain a straight line with a a slope n and an intercept of log (C). The
conventional graphical method for analyzing flow-after-flow test data, however, is
to plot log (pp) vs log (q), giving a straight line of slope 1/n and an intercept of {-
1/n[log(C)]}. The AOF potential is estimated from the extrapolation of the straight
line to pp evaluated at a pwf equal to atmospheric pressure (sometimes called base
pressure), pb.

Analysis Procedure

p p= p p ( p ) p p ( p pwf )
1. Plot vs q on log-log graph paper. Construct the
best-fit line through the data points. Some of the data points at the lower
 rates may not fit on the same straight line as the later points. In this case,
the points at the lower rates should be ignored for all subsequent
calculation.
2. Determine the deliverability exponent, n, by simply calculating the slope
of the best-fit straight line through the data points or with least-squares
regression analysis. For a regression analysis, use
N N N
N ( logq log p p ) j log q j ( log p p ) j
j=1 j=1 j=1
n= 2

[ ( ]
N N
2
N ( log p ) p j log p p ) j
j=1 j=1

30
Alternatively, 1/n is the slope of the graph of log pp vs q. If (q1, pp1) and
(q2, pp2) are two points on the perceived best straight line fitting the test
data, then
1 log ( p p 2 )log ( p p 1)
=
n log ( q 2 )log ( q 1 )

or the reciprocal of the slope is

log ( q 2 )log ( q 1 ) log ( q 2/q 1 )
n= =
log ( p p 2) log ( p p 1 ) log ( p p 2 / p p 1 )

31
The value of n should be between 0.5 and 1.0. A value of 0.5 indicates
turbulent flow throughout the entire drainage area (improbable), while a
value of 1.0 indicates completely laminar flow.
If n does not lie in this range, we recommend conducting the test again at
flow rates higher than the highest rate achieved in the first test. If
absolutely necessary, the original test can be analyzed with approximate
techniques outlined in step 4.
3. If 0.5 n 1.0, calculate the AOF using either step 3A or 3B.
A. Estimate the stabilized AOF potential of the well from the
extrapolated straight line on the deliverability plot to the flow rate
p p= p p ( p ) p p ( p b )
that corresponds to , where pp (pb) is the
pseudopressure evaluated at pb.
B. Alternatively, determine the stabilized performance coefficient, C:
C = 10 32
where is determined from least-squares regression analysis of the
points on the best-fit straight line.
 N N N N

log q j ( log p ) ( log p p ) j ( log q log p p ) j

2
p j
= j=1 j=1 j=1 j=1
2

[ ( ]
N N
2
N ( log p ) p j log p p ) j
j=1 j=1

33
Alternatively (and less accurately), we can determine C from a
perceived best straight line using the value of n determined in
step 2, one point (q1, pp1) on the straight line, and
C = q1/(pp1)n 34
When can then calculate the AOF potential with
n
q AOF =C [ p p ( p ) p p ( pb ) ] 35
where pp(pb) = pseudopressure evaluated at pb.
4. If n < 0.5, set n = 0.5 and construct a line with a slope of 2.0 through the
data point corresponding to the highest flow rate. Similarly