SPE

International

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 98796
A SIMPLE APPROACH TO MODELLING GAS WELL DELIVERABILITY
Vincent O. Eme, SPE; Chevron Nigeria Limited

Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 29th Annual SPE International
Technical Conference and Exhibition in Abuja, Nigeria, August 1 -3, 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum
Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as
presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject
to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for
commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract
of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must
contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836,
U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
The Petroleum industry has recognized the value of
monetizing gas resources. The Nigerian Government
has stated its desire to grow the gas business.
Numerous gas projects are either being planned or in
the execution phase. The objective of this paper is to
present a simple screening tool for evaluating gas well
performance.
Numerical simulation is expensive and time consuming.
Analytical approach to predicting gas performance is
needed as a screening tool. The three components to
performance prediction are: Initial rate estimate,
prediction of rate decline as reservoir pressure
depletes, and prediction of reservoir pressure decline
due to production.
This paper shows that the decline in gas rate for
various tubing sizes (3 , 4 , 5-1/2, and 7) on a
dimensionless or normalized scale is similar. The
resulting relationship combined with the material
balance equation for depletion drive reservoirs gives a
method of predicting performance of gas wells. This

method is adequate for most gas reservoirs except for

those under strong water drives.
The proposed paper will present details of how to
develop a deliverability model for gas wells from very
basic data. The forecast from this model will be
compared with a 3-D numerical simulation result. The
results from this method are close to those obtained
from 3-D numerical simulation.

Introduction
Demand for natural gas is expected to grow faster than
any other fuel. Numerous LNG projects are being
planned to meet the ever rising energy needs.
Developing a reservoir depletion plan is the first step in
any gas development project.
Gas reservoirs, with the exception of low permeability
reservoirs, deplete in a volumetric manner because the
gas voidage is much higher than the water influx.
Arthur et al1 and Corbett2 presented methods for
forecasting gas well performance. These methods
require more data than is usually available to the
Reservoir Engineer. During the appraisal stage of a
reservoir, the available data is usually limited to basic
petrophysical properties obtained from wireline logs.
The objective of this paper is to present a method of
forecasting gas well deliverability from readily
available data. The method presented assumes
volumetric depletion and negligible water production.
This work will show how to develop generalized tubing
performance relationships from nodal analysis. In
combination with the material balance equation, a
method for forecasting gas well performance will be
presented. In addition, a method for forecasting
condensate production will also be presented.

A Simple Approach to Modelling Gas Well Deliverability

Forecasting Procedure
The following steps outline the procedure for making a
production forecast:
STEP 1.
Estimate permeability from a correlation.
The Coates and Denoo3 equation can be used:

K 1 / 2 = 100e 2 [(1 S wi ) S wi ]

(1)

STEP 2
Estimate initial gas rate from nodal analysis derived
relationship.
STEP 3
Estimate gas rate as a function of reservoir pressure
from relationship between normalized gas rate and
reservoir pressure.
STEP 4
Take successive pressure decrements and calculate
cumulative gas produced from

Gp = Gi [ 1 - (Zi/Pi)/(Z/Pr)]

Tubing Size

Initial Gas rate Correlation

Q = 40 *[1 - Exp(-0.0428 * Perm)]

Q = 80 *[1 - Exp(-0.025 * Perm)]

Q = 130 *[1 - Exp(-0.025 * Perm)]

Q = 250 *[1 - Exp(-0.0128 * Perm)]

Initial Gas Rate Versus Formation Permeability for 3 1/2" TBG
50

40

30

20
Q = 40 *[1 - Exp(-0.0428 * Perm)]
10

(2)

0
0
Figure 1

STEP 5
Calculate incremental production time, t from
t = Gp/(Average gas rate)

Estimate condensate yield at current reservoir pressure

from a relationship between relative yield and relative
pressure derived from Constant Volume Depletion
experimental data.
Condensate rate = Condensate Yield * Gas rate

Estimation of Initial Gas Rate

The initial gas rate estimate can be done via any Nodal
analysis program. The first step is to define a type well
with properties that cover a good range in the reservoirs
of interest. The type well should be adequate to model
wells with depths within 2000 ft TVD. Two to three
type wells might be required in some fields to cover the
entire productive intervals.
For this exercise a type well with the following
properties was used:
Depth of Well: 8000 FT TVD, Net Pay =50 ft
Initial Pressure = 3600 psig
Initial Temperature = 214oF
Condensate Yield =50 STB/MMSCF

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Formation Permeability (MD)

Initial Gas Rate Versus Formation Permeability for 4 1/2" TBG

Gas rate (MMSC

80

60

40
Q = 80 *[1 - Exp(-0.025 * Perm)]
20

0
0
Figure 2

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Formation Permeability (MD)

Initial Gas Rate Versus Formation Permeability for 5 1/2" TBG

150

120

Gas rate (MMSC

STEP 6
Estimate initial condensate yield from a correlation.

50

100

90

60
Q = 130 *[1 - Exp(-0.025 * Perm)]
30

0
0
Figure 3

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Formation Permeability (MD)

Initial Gas Rate Versus Formation Permeability for 7" TBG

300

250

Gas rate (MMSCF

Total Production time = t

SPE 98796

Figures 1 -4 show a plot of initial gas rate versus

formation permeability for 3 , 4 , 5 and 7
tubing sizes. The following relationship between Initial
gas rate (MMSCF/D) and formation permeability (mD)
was derived for the four tubing sizes:
Table 1: Initial Gas Rate Correlation

Gas rate (MMSC

200

150

100
Q = 250 *[1 - Exp(-0.0128 * Perm)]
50

0
0
Figure 4

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Formation Permeability (MD)

800

900

1000

A Simple Approach to Modelling Gas Well Deliverability

Gas Rate as a function of reservoir pressure

Table 2: Normalized Gas rate versus reservoir pressure

Wellhead
Pressure (Psig)

Normalized Gas rate versus

Reservoir pressure Correlation
(Q/Qi) = 1.20 (Pr/Pi) - 0.20

750

(Q/Qi) = 1.28 (Pr/Pi) - 0.28

1000

(Q/Qi) = 1.46 (Pr/Pi) - 0.46

Gas Rate Versus reservoir Pressure

(Well Head Pressure =500 psig)
250
3 -1/2" TBG

4 1/2" TBG

5 1/2" TBG

7" TBG

Gas rate (MMSCFD)

200

150

Normalized Gas Rate Versus Normalized Reservoir Pressure

Well at 8000 ft TVD with 50 - 500 MD Permeability
(500 psig Well Head Pressure Constraint)

0.80
3 1/2" TBG

4 1/2" TBG

5 1/2" TBG

7" TBG

0.60

0.40
(Q/Qi) = 1.20 (P/Pi) - 0.20
0.20

0.00
0.00
Figure 6

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Dimensionless Reservoir Pressure (P/Pi)

Normalized Gas Rate Versus Normalized Reservoir Pressure

Well at 8000 ft TVD with 50 - 500 MD Permeability
(750 psig Well Head Pressure Constraint)
1.00

0.80

0.60

3 1/2" TBG

4 1/2" TBG

5 1/2" TBG

7" TBG

0.40

(Q/Qi) = 1.28 (P/Pi) - 0.28

0.20

0.00
0.00
Figure 7

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Dimensionless Reservoir Pressure (P/Pi)

Normalized Gas Rate Versus Normalized Reservoir Pressure

Well at 8000 ft TVD with 50 - 500 MD Permeability
(1000 psig Well Head Pressure Constraint)
1.00

Dimensionless Gas rate (Q/Qi)

500

Dimensionless Gas rate (Q/Qi)

A plot of normalized gas rate (rate/initial rate) versus

normalized reservoir pressure (pressure/initial pressure)
for all tubing sizes is on Figures 6 8. These plots
show that the normalized gas rate is independent of
tubing size and formation permeability. The only factor
that affects the normalized gas rate is the back pressure
imposed on the system. The importance of this finding
is that one relationship is adequate to model the gas rate
decline for various tubing sizes and formation
permeabilities. The derived relationship is shown on
the following table.

1.00

Dimensionless Gas rate (Q/Qi)

The gas rate declines as reservoir pressure depletes.

The effect of reservoir pressure decline on gas rate of
the type well was modeled with a nodal analysis
program. Figure 5 is a plot of gas rate versus reservoir
pressure for the four tubing sizes. The gas rate decline
is linear with reservoir pressure.

SPE 98796

3 1/1" TBG

4 1/2" TBG

5 1/2" TBG

7" TBG

0.80

0.60

0.40
(Q/Qi) = 1.46 (P/Pi) - 0.46
0.20

0.00
0.00

0.20

Figure 8

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Dimensionless Reservoir Pressure (P/Pi)

100

Production Time

50

0
500
Figure 5

1000

1500

2000

2500

Reservoir Pressure (psig)

3000

3500

4000

The incremental time (t) to produce an incremental

gas volume ( Gp) is given by:
Incr. time, t =

Incr. prod . gas, Gp

Average gas rate over period

Total Production time = t

The cumulative produced gas (Gp) is obtained from
equation 2.

A Simple Approach to Modelling Gas Well Deliverability

Condensate rate forecast

SPE 98796

Relative Condensate Yield Versus Relative Pressure for typical

Gas Condensate Reservoirs

The initial condensate yield can be obtained from a drill

stem test or a production test. An initial yield versus
reservoir temperature or initial pressure correlation can
be made if there is sufficient data. The following yield
correlation based on the data from Susan Jemmont et
al4 can be used in the absence of any data (see Figure
9).
Initial Cond. Yield = 0.0067*Pr - 14.49

(3)

The change in condensate yield during depletion can be

obtained from a constant volume depletion study of the
reservoir fluid sample. The relationship between
Relative Yield (yield/initial yield) and Relative
Pressure (pressure/dew point pressure) obtained from
the data forms the basis for estimating condensate yield
at any reservoir pressure. The following relationship
derived from lab measurements (see Figure 10) can be
used to estimate condensate yield profile during
depletion:
Relative
Yield

=0.5667(Pr/Pd)2-0.0494(Pr/Pd)+0.4784

(4)

Relative
Yield

=0.2857(Pr/Pd)2+0.7109(Pr/Pd)-0.0003

(5)

Condensate rate = Condensate Yield * Gas rate

(STB/Day)
(STB/MMSCF)
(MMSCF/D)

Initial Yield (STB/MMSCF)

60

Initial Condensate Yield Correlation based onTrinidad Gas Reservoirs

(SPE 81011)

50

Relative Condensate Yield

(Relative to initial Condensate Yield)

0.8
2

y = 0.5669x - 0.0494x + 0.4784

0.6

0.4

0.2

Initial Yield =55 BBL/MMSCFD

2

y = 0.2857x + 0.7109x - 0.0003

Initial Yield =130 bbl/MMSCF

0
Figure 10

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Relative Pressure (Relative to Dew Point Pressure)

Sample Problem
The procedure outlined will be used to forecast gas and
condensate production profile (unconstrained) for a
reservoir with the following properties:
Original Gas in place = 400 BSCF
Porosity =0.25, Water Saturation = 0.25
Depth =10,000 FT TVDSS, Net Sand = 60 ft
Initial Pressure =4500 psig,
Dew Point Pressure =4500 psig
Reservoir Temperature =255oF
Tubing size = 4 , Well Head Pressure = 500 psig
Step 1
Estimate Permeability from equation (1)
Permeability = 352 mD
Step 2
Estimate initial gas rate from equation in Table 1 for
4 tubing:
Initial gas rate = 80 MMSCF/D

40

Estimate initial Condensate Yield from equation (3)

30

Initial Condensate Yield = 15.6 STB/MMSCF/D

Initial Cond. Rate = 80 *15.6 = 1247 BCPD

20
10
Initial Yield = 0.0067*Pressure - 14.488
0
2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Inital Reservoir Pressure (Psig)

Figure 9

Cassia

Teak

Immortelle

Flamboyant

Amherstia

Mohogamy

8000

Step 3
Utilize 200 psi pressure decrements.
Calculate gas rate and condensate yield for 4300 psig
Calculate gas rate from equation in Table 2 for 500
psig Wellhead pressure: gas rate = 75.7 MMSCF/D
Step 4
Calculate cumulative gas produced from equation (2)
Cumulative gas produced, Gp = 11.66 BSCF
Step 5
Calculate average gas rate over period Qavg
Qavg = 0.5*(80+75.7) = 77.8 MMSCF/D

A Simple Approach to Modelling Gas Well Deliverability

Calculate incremental production time t

t = 11.66 *1000/77.8 = 149.8 days

Case 1
Sand A with the following properties:

Calculate total production time t = 149.8 days

Step 6
Calculate Condensate Yield from equation (4)
Condensate Yield = 14.86 STB/MMSCF/D
Condensate rate = 14.86 * 75.7 = 1125 BCPD
Repeat Steps 3 to 6 for a new pressure until well
reaches economic limit.
Tables 3 to 6 contain the complete solution for onewell and two-well development scenarios for the
sample problem. Figure 11 shows the impact of back
pressure on the gas rate and recovery. A comparison
of two-well development for an unconstrained and
constrained production scenario is shown on Figure
12.

Original Gas in place = 243 BSCF

Porosity =0.24, Water Saturation = 0.25
Depth =7,500 FT TVDSS, Net Sand = 60 ft
Initial Pressure =3700 psig,
Dew Point Pressure =3700 psig
Reservoir Temperature =210 oF
Permeability = 800 mD
Initial Condensate Yield = 45 STB/MMSCF
Tubing size = 4 , =Wellhead Pressure = 500 psig
Figures 13 and 14 compare model forecast with 3-D
simulation prediction for a one well development
scenario constrained to a 50 MMSCF/D offtake gas
rate. The model prediction is close to the 3-D
simulation forecast.
Comparison of model Gas prediction and 3-D Numerical Simulation
forecast for Sand A

Model Forecast for 1 well Development Scheme

Impact of Well Head Pressure

60

240

50

200

40

160

30

120

20

80

RF=64%

60

240.00

40

160.00
Well Head Press =1000 psig
Well Head Press = 500 psig

20

80.00

0
0
Figure 11

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

10

0.00
16,000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

400

160

320

120

240

80

160

80

40

0
Figure 12

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Cumulative Gas Produced (BSCF)

Gas rate (MMSCFD)

200

2 Well Dev. (Constrained to 80 MMSCFD)

1500

4500
Simple Model
3D Simulation

1000

3000

500

1500

0
0
Figure 14

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Days

Case 2
Sand B with the following properties:

Comparison with 3-D Numerical Simulation

The results from this model were compared with those
obtained from a 3-D compositional simulation model
for two reservoirs.

7500

6000

0
8,000

Time (Days)

2 Wells dev. (no Constraint)

Condensate Rate (STBD)

2000

Model Forecast for 2 well Development

0
6000

DAYS

Comparison of model Condensate prediction and 3-D Numerical

Simulation forecast for Sand A

2500

Time (Days)

40

Simple Model
3D Simulation

0
0
Figure 13

Gas Cum. (BSCF)

320.00

Original Gas in place = 351 BSCF

Porosity =0.17, Water Saturation = 0.34
Depth =11,000 FT TVDSS, Net Sand = 90 ft
Initial Pressure =6630 psig,
Dew Point Pressure =5250 psig

0
6000

Cumulative Condensate (MSTB)

RF=79%

80

Gas rate (MMSCFD)

400.00

Cumulative Gas Produced (BSCF)

100

Gas rate (MMSCFD)

SPE 98796

A Simple Approach to Modelling Gas Well Deliverability

Reservoir Temperature =290 oF

Permeability = 90 mD
Initial Condensate Yield = 140 STB/MMSCF
Tubing size = 3 , Well Head Pressure = 500 psig

SPE 98796

3) The results from the method presented

compares well with those obtained from 3-D
numerical simulation.
4) The use of normalized tubing performance
curves makes evaluation of various depletion
schemes easy and less time consuming.
5) The method presented has the added
advantage of providing gas and condensate
production profiles.

Figures 15 and 16 show a comparison of this model

with the simulation model for a three-well development
scenario constrained to a 75 MMSCF/D total offtake
gas rate. The model result compares well with those of
the 3-D simulation.

Nomenclature
80

240

60

180

40

120

Simple Model
3D Simulation

20

K = Permeability, mD
e =Effective Porosity, fraction
Swi= Irreducible Water Saturation, fraction
Gi= Original Gas in place, BSCF
Gp= Cumulative gas produced, BSCF
Pr= Reservoir Pressure, psig
Pd= Dew point Pressure, psig
Qi = Initial Gas rate, MMSCF/D
Q = Gas rate, MMSCF/D

Gas Cum. (BSCF)

Gas rate (MSCFD)

Comparison of model Gas Prediction and 3-D Numerical Simulation forecast For
Sand B

60

0
0
Figure 15

1000

2000

3000

4000

0
6000

5000

Acknowledgments

Time (Days)

The author wishes to thank the management of

Chevron Nigeria Limited for the support and
permission to publish this work. Special thanks to my
co-workers for their critical review of the material
presented herein.

24000

10000

20000

8000

16000

6000

Simple Model
3D Simulation

12000

4000

8000

2000

4000

0
0
Figure 16

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Cumulative Condensate (MSTB)

Condensate Rate (STBD)

Comparison of model Condensate prediction and 3-D Numerical

Simulation forecast For Sand B
12000

0
6000

References
1.

2.

Time (Days)

Conclusions
1) Normalized gas rate is independent of tubing
size and formation permeability.
2) The method presented can be used to develop
a production forecast for gas and gas
condensate reservoirs.

3.
4.

Arthur J.E, et. al., Material Balance Modelling and

performance Prediction of a Composite Gas
Reservoir, SPE 26194 presented at the SPE Gas
Technology Symposium, Calgary, Canada in June
1993.
Corbett T.G, et al, An Analysis of and correction
Method for Gas Deliverability Curves, SPE 14208
presented at SPE conference, Las Vegas, U.S in
1985.
Coates G.R et al, Permeability Estimation: The
Various Sources and Their Interrelationships, JPT
May 1991.
Susan Jemmont et al, Condensate Performance
trends in Trinidad Gas Reservoirs, SPE 81011
presented at the SPE Conference, Port-of-Spain,
Trinidad in April 2003.

A Simple Approach to Modelling Gas Well Deliverability

SPE 98796

Table 3: One Well Development Scenario for sample problem

(500 psig Wellhead Pressure Constraint)
Reservoir
Pressure
(psia)
4500
4300
4100
3900
3700
3500
3300
3100
2900
2700
2500
2300
2100
1900
1700
1500
1300
1100
900

Max Gas
Rate/Well

Condensate
Yield

No of
Wells

(MMSCF/D) (bbl/MMSCF)
80.0
75.7
71.5
67.2
62.9
58.7
54.4
50.1
45.9
41.6
37.3
33.1
28.8
24.5
20.3
16.0
11.7
7.5
3.2

Target
rate/Well

Total gas
Rate

(MMSCF/D) (MMSCF/D)

15.6
14.86
14.2
13.5
12.9
12.3
11.7
11.2
10.7
10.2
9.8
9.4
9.1
8.7
8.5
8.2
8.0
7.8
7.7

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80

80
76
71
67
63
59
54
50
46
42
37
33
29
25
20
16
12
7
3

0.9650
0.9498
0.9362
0.9242
0.9138
0.9050
0.8978
0.8922
0.8882
0.8858
0.8850
0.8858
0.8882
0.8922
0.8978
0.9050
0.9138
0.9242
0.9362

Cum Prod Incremental

Gas
Prod. Time

Total
Prod.
Time

Total
Cond. rate

(BSCF)

(Days)

(Days)

(BCPD)

0.0
11.7
24.3
38.0
52.7
68.3
84.7
102.0
119.9
138.5
157.7
177.3
197.2
217.3
237.6
257.8
278.0
297.9
317.5

0
150
172
197
225
256
291
330
374
426
485
557
644
755
904
1117
1453
2077
3682

0
150
322
520
745
1,001
1,292
1,622
1,997
2,422
2,907
3,464
4,108
4,863
5,767
6,884
8,337
10,414
14,096

1,247
1,125
1,011
906
809
719
636
560
490
425
366
311
261
215
172
131
94
58
25

Cum Prod
Gas

Incremental
Prod. Time

(BSCF)
0.00
11.66
24.34
38.03
52.68
68.26
84.71
101.96
119.93
138.54
157.69
177.28
197.19
217.33
237.58
257.83

(Days)
0
151
176
204
237
275
320
373
438
519
624
768
981
1333
2041
4283

Table 4: One Well Development Scenario for sample problem

(1000 psig Wellhead Pressure Constraint)
Reservoir
Pressure
(psia)
4500
4300
4100
3900
3700
3500
3300
3100
2900
2700
2500
2300
2100
1900
1700
1500

Max Gas
Rate/Well

Condensate
Yield

(MMSCF/D) (bbl/MMSCF)
80.0
15.6
74.8
14.86
69.6
14.2
64.4
13.5
59.2
12.9
54.0
12.3
48.8
11.7
43.7
11.2
38.5
10.7
33.3
10.2
28.1
9.8
22.9
9.4
17.7
9.1
12.5
8.7
7.3
8.5
2.1
8.2

No of
Wells

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Target
rate/Well

Total gas Rate

(MMSCF/D) (MMSCF/D)
80
80
80
75
80
70
80
64
80
59
80
54
80
49
80
44
80
38
80
33
80
28
80
23
80
18
80
13
80
7
80
2

0.9650
0.9498
0.9362
0.9242
0.9138
0.9050
0.8978
0.8922
0.8882
0.8858
0.8850
0.8858
0.8882
0.8922
0.8978
0.9050

Total
Total Cond.
Prod.
rate
Time
(Days)
(BCPD)
0
1,247
151
1,111
326
985
531
869
768
761
1,043
663
1,362
571
1,735
488
2,173
411
2,692
340
3,316
275
4,084
216
5,066
160
6,398
109
8,440
62
12,722
18

A Simple Approach to Modelling Gas Well Deliverability

SPE 98796

Table 5: Two Wells Development Scenario for sample problem

(500 psig Wellhead Pressure Constraint)
Reservoir
Pressure
(psia)
4500
4300
4100
3900
3700
3500
3300
3100
2900
2700
2500
2300
2100
1900
1700
1500
1300
1100
900

Max Gas
Rate/Well

Condensate
Yield

No of
Wells

(MMSCF/D) (bbl/MMSCF)
80.0
15.6
75.7
14.86
71.5
14.2
67.2
13.5
62.9
12.9
58.7
12.3
54.4
11.7
50.1
11.2
45.9
10.7
41.6
10.2
37.3
9.8
33.1
9.4
28.8
9.1
24.5
8.7
20.3
8.5
16.0
8.2
11.7
8.0
7.5
7.8
3.2
7.7

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

Target
rate/Well

Total gas
Rate

Cum
Incremental
Prod Gas Prod. Time

(MMSCF/D) (MMSCF/D)
80
160
80
151
80
143
80
134
80
126
80
117
80
109
80
100
80
92
80
83
80
75
80
66
80
58
80
49
80
41
80
32
80
23
80
15
80
6

0.9650
0.9498
0.9362
0.9242
0.9138
0.9050
0.8978
0.8922
0.8882
0.8858
0.8850
0.8858
0.8882
0.8922
0.8978
0.9050
0.9138
0.9242
0.9362

(BSCF)
0.0
11.7
24.3
38.0
52.7
68.3
84.7
102.0
119.9
138.5
157.7
177.3
197.2
217.3
237.6
257.8
278.0
297.9
317.5

(Days)
0
75
86
99
113
128
145
165
187
213
243
278
322
378
452
558
726
1038
1841

Total
Total
Prod.
Cond. rate
Time
(Days) (BCPD)
0
2,495
75
2,250
161
2,023
260
1,813
372
1,618
501
1,438
646
1,273
811
1,120
998
980
1,211
850
1,454
732
1,732
623
2,054
522
2,432
429
2,884
343
3,442
263
4,168
188
5,207
117
7,048
49

Table 6: Two Wells Development Scenario constrained to 80 MMSCF/D for sample problem
(500 psig Wellhead Pressure Constraint)
Reservoir
Pressure
(psia)
4500
4300
4100
3900
3700
3500
3300
3100
2900
2700
2500
2300
2100
1900
1700
1500
1300
1100
900

Max Gas
Rate/Well

Condensate
Yield

(MMSCF/D) (bbl/MMSCF)
80.0
15.6
75.7
14.86
71.5
14.2
67.2
13.5
62.9
12.9
58.7
12.3
54.4
11.7
50.1
11.2
45.9
10.7
41.6
10.2
37.3
9.8
33.1
9.4
28.8
9.1
24.5
8.7
20.3
8.5
16.0
8.2
11.7
8.0
7.5
7.8
3.2
7.7

No of
Wells

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

Target
rate/Well

Total gas Rate

(MMSCF/D) (MMSCF/D)
40
80
40
80
40
80
40
80
40
80
40
80
40
80
40
80
40
80
40
80
40
75
40
66
40
58
40
49
40
41
40
32
40
23
40
15
40
6

0.9650
0.9498
0.9362
0.9242
0.9138
0.9050
0.8978
0.8922
0.8882
0.8858
0.8850
0.8858
0.8882
0.8922
0.8978
0.9050
0.9138
0.9242
0.9362

Cum Prod
Gas
(BSCF)
0.0
11.7
24.3
38.0
52.7
68.3
84.7
102.0
119.9
138.5
157.7
177.3
197.2
217.3
237.6
257.8
278.0
297.9
317.5

Incremental Total Prod. Total

Prod. Time
Time
Cond. rate
(Days)
0
146
159
171
183
195
206
216
225
233
248
278
322
378
452
558
726
1038
1841

(Days)
0
146
304
475
659
853
1,059
1,275
1,499
1,732
1,979
2,258
2,580
2,957
3,409
3,968
4,694
5,733
7,574

(BCPD)
1,248
1,189
1,133
1,079
1,029
981
936
894
854
818
732
623
522
429
343
263
188
117
49