Forecheimer Equation

----------------------- Page 1----------------------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
----------------------- Page 2----------------------Texas Tech University, Abiodun Matt
hew Amao, August 2007
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was conducted at Texas Tech University under the supervi
sion 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 suppo
rted
me with the mathematical framework for the thesis. Dr. Shameem Siddiqui and Mr.
Joseph McInerney were very helpful with the laboratory and experimental aspect o
f the
thesis. My sincere gratitude goes to the Chair of the Petroleum Engineering Depa
rtment,
Dr Lloyd Heinze for his leadership and administrative prowess.
I am indebted to all members of staff and colleagues who contributed i
n 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 c
hurch 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
----------------------- Page 3----------------------Texas Tech University, Abiodun Matth
ew Amao, August 2007
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
Darcys 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 , its Measurement and Correlations

26
2.5
Non-Darcy Flow Modeling

30
iii
----------------------- Page 4----------------------Texas Tech University, Abiodun Mat
thew Amao, August 2007
III
PROBLEM STATEMENT
34
3.1
ion
3.2
Importance of Accurate Reservoir Pressure Predict

35
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 Reser

72
5.4
Centered Circular Well in a Square Reservoir

75
voir
5.5
Off-centered Circular well in a Square Reservoir

78
5.6
Concentric Well in a Circular Reservoir

81
iv
----------------------- Page 5----------------------Texas Tech University, Abiodun Ma
tthew Amao, August 2007
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
----------------------- Page 6----------------------Texas Tech University, Abiodun Matthew A
mao, August 2007
ABSTRACT
Well performance and productivity evaluation is a fundamental role of p
etroleum
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 tas
k requires
physical and mathematical models that adequately characterize oil and gas flow a
t these
different phases of petroleum production.
This thesis reviews different scenarios where the effects of non-linear
ity 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 ra
te gas
wells, in which it has been treated as a rate dependent skin factor and has been a
ssumed
to act only in the vicinity of the well-bore, while neglecting the reservoir. Th
is work
seeks to show the inherent errors due to the negligence of this phenomenon, whic
h 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 med
ia, this
new model is compared to the conventional Darcy law. The proposed method deliver
s
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
----------------------- Page 7----------------------Texas Tech University, Abiodun Matthew
Amao, August 2007
LIST OF TABLES
3.1 Result of non-Darcy flow experiment on core #13
37
39
41
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
63
65
67
5.7 Productivity index at different rates and beta values for Geometry 5.2
70
73
76
79
80
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
118
120
vii
122
124
126
128
130
132
134
viii
Amao, August 2007
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
62
64
66

68
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
74
5.12 Circular well in a square shaped reservoir (Geometry 5.4)
75
77
5.14 Off-centered circular well in a square reservoir (Geometry 5.5)
78
80
ix
Amao, August 2007
5.16 Circular well in a circular reservoir (Geometry 5.6)
81
83
6.1: Calculated beta factors for core #10, using the correlations
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
6.11: Productivity Index versus length for different rates at =0
97
6.12: Productivity Index versus length for different rates at =2.4
98
99
100
6.15: Comparison of Productivity Index for all Geometries used at = 0
102
6.16: Comparison of Productivity Index for all Geometries used at = 2.4
103
104
105
A.1: Darcys law plot for core #1
116
A.2: Klinkenberg correction plot for core #1
117
x
118
119
120
121

122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
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
----------------------- Page 12----------------------Texas Tech University, Abiodun Matthe

w Amao, August 2007
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Symbol
Definition
A
nal Area
Cross-sectio
Bo
n volume factor
Oil formatio
B
n volume factor
g
Gas formatio
d
n diameter
Average grai
D
ow coefficient
Non-Darcy fl
Flux
FND
ux
Non-Darcy Fl
h
uid head
height of fl
h
ickness
Reservoir th
Productivity
index
Permeability
L
re/ Sand bed
Length of Co
M
r weight
Gas Molecula
Pressure
P
rvoir pressure
R
Average rese
Pwf
pressure
Well flowing
q
ate
Production r
N RE
ber
Reynolds num
rd
ainage radius
Reservoir dr
r
ndary radius
e
External bou
r
dius
w
Well bore ra
xii
----------------------- Page 13----------------------Texas Tech University, Abio
dun Matthew Amao, August 2007
S
Skin factor
S
Total Skin
t
t
Time
T
Temperature
v
Flow velocity
x, y, z
Rectangular coordinates
Z
Gas compressibility factor
Greek Letter
Fluid density
Alpha
Inertial factor
Viscosity
Porosity
Tortuosity
xiii
Subscript
o
Oil
Gas
Water
sc
ard conditions
Stand
f
ure
Fract
xiv
----------------------- Page 15----------------------CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The analysis and prediction of reservoir and well performance requires d
iverse
information which a reservoir or a production engineer must have before he/she c

an
adequately analyze reservoir performance or predict future production under vari
ous
production mechanisms, the key to which is a consistent and representative mathe
matical
model of the physical parameters governing flow in the reservoir.
Several techniques by which reservoir parameters can be acquired have be
en
devised. These include core analysis, well logging and pressure transient testin
g/analysis;
of these techniques, pressure transient analysis gives the most representative i
nformation
on the reservoir at a scale consistent with the size of the reservoir.
Pressure transient testing is simply generating and measuring pressure v
ariation
with time in wells after a characteristic disturbance has been generated in the we
ll;
analysis of the generated data leads to an estimation of rock, fluid, well and r
eservoir
properties which are required in well performance engineering.
Information obtained from transient testing include well-bore volume, sk
in,
damage/improvement, reservoir pressure, permeability, porosity, reserves, reserv
oir and
fluid discontinuities which are key input in reservoir performance analysis, wel
l
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 pr
oduction
per unit pressure drop. It has the symbol J , and it is expressed mathematically
as:
----------------------- Page 16----------------------Texas Tech University, Abiodun Matthew Ama
o, August 2007
q
J =
(1.1)
P
P
R
wf
Where q = Production rate

P = Average reservoir pressure
R
Pwf = Well flowing pressure
And based on Darcy law, the productivity index is given by;
q
k hav
J =
=
(1.2)
P
R
wf
141.2
ln

re

B + S

r
w

Where,
kav = Average permeability
S = Skin factor
The productivity index J for different reservoir geometry, based on the
shape
factor is given as;
k h
q
J =
P
0.0078
av
=
(1.3)
P wf

A
10.06 1
3
B ln
+ S
2
2 4
C
r
A
w
Where,
C = Shape factor
A
A = Drainage area
The productivity index has been traditionally calculated based on the f
undamental
assumption of the validity of Darcys law in porous media.
2
However, Darcys law breaks down under conditions of high velocity flow
which
is proven to exist in gas wells, high permeability reservoirs, fractured reservo
irs
(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 af
fects the
productivity index calculation and well performance prediction in different rese
rvoir
geometry and scenarios.
1.1 Background
The physics of fluid flow in different media and conduits is a well r
esearched area
in engineering with groundbreaking works by pioneer workers in this field of
engineering. Equations describing flows in media such as cylindrical pipes, rec
tangular
conduits, and other forms and shapes of conduits have been developed analyticall
y 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 Newtons law
3
----------------------- Page 18----------------------Texas Tech University, Abiodun Matthew Amao, August 2007
Mathematical expression and

statement of these laws are given below:
(a) Law of conservation of
mass or the continuity equation
This law states t
hat the net excess of mass flux, per unit time into or out of any
infinitesimal volume elemen
t in the fluid system is exactly equal to the change per unit
time of the fluid density i
n that element multiplied by the free volume of the element,
stated mathematically as:
d(
v )
(
(
d
d
v
=
y
(1.4)
)
+
.( =) v
z
dx
dydz
dt
(b) Equation of State

This is the equat
ion that describes the fluid and its thermodynamic flow properties
as it relates to pressure,
temperature and density. It is stated simply as;
(
f,
P,
=
(1.5)
(c) Law governing the dynam

ics of fluid flow (Newtons 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 b
ody 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 element
al fluid particle and their equations are;
4
(i)
Press
ure gradients in the coordinates of flow

dp
dp
dp
,
,
dx
dy
dz
(ii)
Exter
nal body forces, such as gravity in the direction of flow

F
,
,
x
z
(iii)
s opposing motion or viscous forces, due to internal resistance of the
Force
fluid
to flow. An expression for viscous flow is given by:

2
1
,
3
+ vy
dx
+ vx
+ vz
3
dy
dz
where,
2
d 2
d 2
d 2

+ +
and
dx2
dy2
dz2
dv
x
dv
dv
y
dx
= = + + .v
(from the continuity equation)
z
dy
dz
The flow e
quation is obtained by equating the sum of these three forces stated

above to the produc
t of mass and acceleration of the volume element of the fluid,
therefore for an el
emental fluid particle, the acceleration is given by the total time
derivative of the v
elocity given by,
D
dy d
dz d
+
d
+
d
= +
+
v
dt dy
dt dz
dt
x dx
dx d
dt
dt d
v
Dt
y dy
z dz
Combining these par
ameters gives the Navier Stokes equation in three dimensions

Dv
2
dp
d
x
= + + +
F
v
x
(1.6a)
x
Dt
3
dx
dx
5
----------------------- Page 20----------------------Texas Tech University, Ab
iodun Matthew Amao, August 2007

Dvy
dp
F
= + + +
(1.6b)
Dt
dy
Dvz
dp
dy
dz
= + + +
F
v z
Dt
(1.6c)
dz
The three laws and equations stated above are mathemat

ically and scientifically
sufficient to predict all the parameters of the flow of a visc
ous fluid flowing through a
medium of any shape, size or geometry.
The particular solution of the partial differential eq
uations stated above for a
given medium is only possible when the boundaries of such a me
dium are clearly
defined. That is, the fluid system and the detailed physical c
onditions that serve as the
initial conditions of the system must be known before a soluti
on 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 c
ontains void spaces or
pores that are distributed randomly; without any conceivable
pattern throughout the
structure of the solid body. Extremely small voids are calle
d molecular interstices and
very large ones are called caverns or vugs. Pores (intergran
ular 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
----------------------- Page 21----------------------Texas Tech University, Abiodun Matthew Am
ao, August 2007
Petroleum reservoirs are porous media and the storage and flow of hydroca
rbons
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 por
ous
media encountered in petroleum reservoirs are:
(a) There is no geometry or geometrical quantity that can characterize o
r 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 po
re 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) a
nd (1.6)
describing the general fluid flow phenomena stated earlier.
Literature is replete with several simplifying assumptions made by earlie
r
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 solv
es the
porous media problem.
1.3 Darcys Law: Assumptions and Limitations

Henri Darcy, a French civil engineer, in his 1856 publication laid the re
al
foundation of the quantitative theory of the flow of homogenous fluids through p
orous
7
----------------------- Page 22----------------------Texas Tech University, Abiodun Matthew Amao
, August 2007
media. As a civil engineer, he was interested in the flow characteristics of san
d filters
used to filter public water in the city of Dijon in France.
The result of his classic experiments, globally known as Darcys law, is th
us
stated: The rate of flow Q of water through the filter bed is directly proportion
al to the
area A of the sand and to the difference h in the height between the fluid head
s at the
inlet and outlet of the bed, and inversely proportional to the thickness L of th
e bed.
This can be stated mathematically as:
CA
Q =
(1.7)
L
where C is a property characteristic of the sand or porous media.
Darcys law represents a linear relationship between the flow rate Q and the head
h
(pressure gradient)
.
L
The constant of proportionality C in the original Darcy equation has been

k
expressed as
e permeability
, where is the viscosity of the fluid and k is called th
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 t
he
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 wi
th
respect to flow of fluids though it.
Hence, Darcys law is stated as:
8
Amao, August 2007
k dp
v =
(1.8)
dl
And more generally as:

kA dp
q =
(1.9)
dx
Darcys empirical equation is a statistical average of classical hydrody
namic
equation over the minute and detailed variation occurring in the individual po
res; it
gives a simplified macroscopic representation.
Inherent in the development of the Darcy flow model are the following assumpti
ons;
a)
Darcys law assumes laminar or viscous flow (creep velocity); it do
es not
involve the inertia term (the fluid density). This implies that th
e inertia or
acceleration forces in the fluid are being neglected when compared
to the
classical Navier-Stokes equations.
b) Darcys law assumes that in a porous medium a large surface area is
exposed
to fluid flow, hence the viscous resistance will greatly exceed ac
celeration
forces in the fluid unless turbulence sets in.
1.4 Non-Darcy Flow; Darcy-Forchheimer Flow Equation

Darcys empirical flow model represents a simple linear relationship bet
ween
flow rate and pressure drop in a porous media; any deviation from the Darcy flow
scenario is termed non-Darcy flow.
eadings
31
Physical causes for these deviations are grouped under the following h
;
9

Amao, August 2007
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 hi
gh
flow rate effect. High flow rate beyond the assumed laminar flow regime can occu
r 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 parame
ters 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 i
s nonlinear 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 (i
t is now known
that this non-linearity is due to inertial effects in the porous media), which h
e determined
10
----------------------- Page 25----------------------Texas Tech University, Abiodun
Matthew Amao, August 2007
2
6
to be proportional to av
lity. Cornel and Katz
, with a being a constant of proportiona
gave a value of to a, where (beta) is called the inertial factor and is t

density
of the fluid flowing through the medium.
The additional pressure drop due to inertial losses is primari
ly due to the
acceleration and deceleration effects of the fluid as it travels throug
h the tortuous flow
path of the porous media. The total pressure drop is thus given by Forch
heimer empirical
flow model stated traditionally as;
dp
= v + v
dx
(1.11)
This can also be written in vector notation as:

r
rr
(1.12)
v
+v v =P
Where = ,
k
The Forchheimer equation assumes that Darcys law is still valid
, but that an
additional term must be added to account for the increased pressure dro
p. 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 experi
mental data.
However, Forchheimer based on these data set later propose a t
hird order equation
given by:
dp
=av +bv
+cv
(1.13)
dx
where a, b and c are constants as in equations (1.11) and (1.13) above.
11
----------------------- Page 26----------------------Texas Tech University, Abiod
un Matthew Amao, August 2007
Another flow model that has been proposed for flow in porous
media is the power
law model, given by:
dp
n
=av
(1.15)
dx
where n has a value between 1 and 2
In vector notation, it is stated as:
C
P n
n1 r
=
(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 nonDarcy 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 c
onduits, the
Reynolds number is used to delineate flow regimes. A Reynolds number le
ss 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 tr
ansition. The nonlinearity experienced in non-Darcy flow is not a result of turbulence b
ut inertia effects as
stated earlier, hence non-Darcy flow is known to occur in porous media
at a much more
12
ao, August 2007
lower Reynolds number, and it is not initiated by a change in flow regime. The R
eynolds
number in porous media is given by;
vd
N Re =
(1.17)
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;
vk
N Re =
(1.18)
This is just another Reynolds number with the characteristic length defined by k.
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 wer
e
proposed by Dybbs and Edwards (using laser anemometry and visualization techniqu
e).
These four regimes are;
a)
ere the
Darcy or laminar flow where the flow is dominated by viscous forces, h

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 la
minar
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 tur
bulent
flow in pipes and is dominated by eddies and high head losses.
13
However there is large variation in the limiting Reynolds number for t
hese
transition zones as published in the literature, therefore one cannot be too cat
egorical
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
49
media as proposed by Basak
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 ad
equately
evaluating production performance of wells and aid reservoir engineers in modeli
ng
reservoir flow with more robust equations. Selection of candidate wells for well
14
mao, August 2007
engineering routines will be more objective and representative of actual scenari
o in the
reservoir. The findings from this thesis will further illuminate known discrepan
cies in
well test analysis and help to ratify a fundamental source of uncertainty in wel
l test
models.
This thesis is organized into seven chapters; the contents of each chap
ter 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 a
nd
methodology used to handle non-Darcy flow in different scenarios in the petroleu
m
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 indu
stry.
Solution statement; this is a procedural statement of the development o
f a
proposed solution to the stated problem and why this approach is significantly d
ifferent
from previous approaches. It also gives a statement of the results expected usin
g this
procedure.
Results; a catalogue of results obtained during laboratory experiment o
n core
samples and numerical simulations of various reservoirs and well geometries.
Discussion and analysis of results; the results obtained are compared w
ith current
industry practices and discussed.
15
Conclusions; the final chapter summarizes the thesis and presents th
e conclusions
drawn.
16
mao, August 2007
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
In the early days of the petroleum industry it was noted that the press
ure drop
measured in the vicinity of the wellbore was greater than the pressure drop comp
uted
using industry-wide modeling equations36. This excessive pressure drop was expla
ined by
assuming a decrease in permeability (formation alteration) due to formation dama
ge in
the vicinity of the wellbore. The capacity of a well to produce is generally acc
epted to be
directly proportional to the pressure drop in the reservoir. Hurst and Van Everd
ingen36 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 t
he
wellbore resulting from drilling and completion techniques employed or the produ
ction
practices used. This ultimately leads to an additional pressure drop, this press
ure drop is
called the skin effect. The magnitude of the skin effect determines the product
ive
capacity of a well. This has also been used in well performance evaluation and r
emedial
operations.
Over the years, the skin factor has been broken down into several compo
nents. An
expression for the total skin (S) is given below:
S = S + S + S
c
+ S
+ S + So
(2.1)
d
G
A
Where,
S= skin
Sc= completion skin due to partial penetration
17
mao, August 2007
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 expresse
d as an
equivalent skin, Dq; where q is the flow rate and D is a composite of the follow
ing high
velocity flow terms;
D = D
+ D + D
R
+ D
(2.2)
dp
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
w Amao, August 2007
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 d

irect
proportionality. This will subsequently vary the value of the total skin St .
As can be seen from the sources of skin enumerated above, the petroleu
m industry
has known the inadequacy of Darcys 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-Da
rcy 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 conductiv
ity to
flow. Initially it was assumed that this phenomenon was only relevant to gas wel
ls, but
field observations and analysis show that it relevant to oil wells as well. This
was proven
10
by Fetkovitch during a comprehensive field study of 40 oil wells
.
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 a
re
reviewed below.
19
----------------------- Page 34----------------------Texas Tech Universit

y, Abiodun Matthew Amao, August 2007
2.1.1 Multi-rat
e Tests
Multi-rate tests are traditionally used to evaluate th
e deliverability of a gas or oil
well, the additional pressure drop due to non-Darcy effect is ca
lculated from the
Houpeurt (back-pressure) analytical equation and from the empiri
cal 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 poin
t test, it is conducted by
producing the well at a series of different stabilized (pseudosteady state) flow rates and
measuring the stabilized bottom hole flowing pressure at the san
d face. Each flow rate is
established in succession, often conducted with a sequence of in
creasing flow rates. A
major limitation of the test
must reach a stabilization period,
procedure is that the well
especially in low-permeability formations that take longer to re

ach stabilization.
Schellhardt and Rawlins of the USBM developed an empirical equat
ion for analyzing
back-pressure data based on field data analysis. They proposed
a relationship which
applicable only at low pressures is given by
q
C =P(
2
P )
n
(2.4)
Where,
C= Stabilized performance coefficient
20
----------------------- Page 35----------------------Texas Tech
University, Abiodun Matthew Amao, August 2007
2
q
n = inverse slope of log-log plot of (
) versus
f
The theoretical value of n ranges from 0.5, which indi

cates non-Darcy flow regime, to 1.0
indicating a flow regime governed by Darcys law
A much more consistent analytical equation d
eveloped from the gas diffusivity
equation was proposed by Houpeurt which is stated as;
2
P
s)
Aq = Bq
(Gas well
(2.5)
wf
2
P
AqP
2
=B
2
+
(Oil well
s)
(2.6)
R
wf o
Where,
ln
= re
0.75
0 Bo
t
7.x08 10K h
r
w
o o B
B =
x
k h
3
7.08 10
3
o
D
o
=
A
zT
g
ln
4
r
e
0.75

S
t
x
k h
7.03 10
r
g
zT
B =
g
7.03 10
4
x
k h
D
g
2
P
A Cartesian plot of (
q gives a plot with intercept A and slope B,
wf
) against
q
from which the value of D, can be calculated knowing a
ll other variables.
21
w Amao, August 2007
2.1.1.2 Isochronal Tests
This technique was proposed by Jones, Blount and Glaze19. This test wa
s
designed to shorten the stabilization time required for the flow after a flow te
st. This long
time is usually impractical in some cases, especially in low-permeability reserv
oirs. It is
conducted by alternating producing the well, then shutting the well in and allow
ing 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 per
iod. The
time period in which the pressures are monitored is the same relative to the sta
ting 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 modif
ication 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 f
low periods
are of equal duration. The length of the shut-in period usually equals or exceed
s 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 prev
ious test
types.
22
Amao, August 2007
2.1.2 Single Well Test Techniques
The use of a single well test to estimate the non-Darcy skin factor ha
s been
34
proposed by several researchers. These include Camacho et al, Warren, Spivey et
al
,
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 coeffici

ent if
multi-test data are not available. The expression was obtained by integrating th
e
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 w
ith
multi-rate tests. The expression is given as;
2.715 10
15
x

Mp
sc
D =
(2.7)
Thr
sc w
where the variables have the usual notations.
2.2 Flow in Fractures

The occurrence of non-Darcy flow phenomenon in fractures is well docum
ented
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
Amao, August 2007
the flow regime in the fracture, although this has been thought to affect only t
he high rate
wells.
Hydraulic fracturing is a widely used completion method in the tight ga
s
formations all over the world. Several hydraulic fracturing jobs are implemented
annually. However, the performances of these fractures are highly dependent on n

onDarcy 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 wells productive capabil
ity 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 veloci
ty wells.
According to Vincent et al.37, ignoring the non-Darcy effects while des
igning
fractures will lead to inaccurate production forecasts, suboptimal fracture desi
gn and
selection of inappropriate proppant type. They opined that fluid velocities in r
eal fracture
are approximately 1000 times greater than laboratory measurements; hence laborat
orymeasured proppant permeability values are not really suitable when designing fra
ctures.
Miskimins et al.26 in their investigation of flow rates at which non-Da
rcy flow
influences retained fracture permeability discovered that its effect is signific
ant across a
wide spectrum of flow rates from as low as 50-100 MCFD, and these decrease can r
ange
from 5% at a flow rate of 50 MCFD to 30% at 400 MCFD under a given set of
24
w Amao, August 2007
conditions. Presently in fracture design non-Darcy flow is integrated by accurat

e
selection of a proppant type based on laboratory tests and field observation wit
h
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 permeabilityfkeff . This parameter is
given by;
k
f
fkeff =
(2.8)
k

1+f
v
g
g
This expression was derived by combining the Darcy and non-Darcy flow equations
in a
fracture and solving forfkeff , 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 v2 term in the traditional Darcy-Forchheimer equation. T
his
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 i
ndustry.
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 completion
s occur
mostly in the convergence zones and the in perforation tunnel, especially in hig
h rate oil
and gas wells. Nguyen29 experimentally studied non-Darcy flow in perforations. H
e
25
Amao, August 2007
discovered that non-Darcy flow in perforations is a function of perforation geom
etry, and
permeability of the gravel. In his experiments, he used water and air as the flo
wing 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 Darcys law will ov
er
predict the productivity and cases have been found where the productivity has be
en overpredicted
by as much as 100%.
In well performance engineering of gravel packed completions, it is imp
ortant to
delineate the pressure drop due to mechanical skin or rate dependent skin (non-D
arcy
flow) so that the right remedial action can be taken to improve the productivity
of the
well.
2.4 Beta Factor , its Measurement and Correlations

The beta factor , which is a constant of proportionality in the traditio
nal DarcyForchheimer equation, was first proposed by Cornel and Katz6. It is known by sev
eral
names which include; non-Darcy flow coefficient, inertial flow coefficient and t
he
turbulence factor. However, in these thesis we will adopt the non-Darcy flow coe
fficient.
It is widely agreed that is a property of the porous media; it is a strong funct
ion of the
tortuosity of the flow path and it is usually determined from laboratory measure
ments and
multi-rate well tests.
The derived expression for the beta factor falls under two broad catego
ries;
empirical and theoretical models. The theoretical models are further divided int
o parallel
and serial models.
26
w Amao, August 2007
In the parallel model, the porous medium is assumed to be made up of s
traight
capillary bundles of uniform diameter. According to Li and Engler22, based on th
e work
of Ergun et al., and Polubarinova-kochina, an expression for the Beta factor for
a parallel
model is given by;
c
=
(2.9)
0.5 1.5
K
Where c is a constant
In the serial type model, the pore space is serially lined up; capilla
ries of different
pore types are aligned in series. Li et al.22 also proposed an expression for th
e Beta factor
for a series model based on the work of Scheidegger, the beta factor is given as
;
=
c
(2.10)
K
Where c is a constant related to pore size distribution

There are several empirical correlations in the literature used to pre
dict the beta
factor. These expressions differ due to the varied experimental procedure, porou
s media
and fluids used for the experiments. However, it is consistently shown that perm
eability,
porosity and tortuosity are the main parameters on which the beta factor depends
. Also,
some correlations have been developed for multiphase flows, hence these correlat
ions are
function of saturation as well.
2.4.1. Permeability Defined Beta Factors

19
Jones
conducted experiments on 355 sandstone and 29 limestone core
s (vuggy,
crystalline, fine grained sandstone) and came up with a correlation given by
27
Amao, August 2007
6.15 10
x
= 1.55
10
(2.11)
K
Where K is in md and in 1/ft
Pascal et al, based on mathematical analysis of data from Multirate we
lls in
hydraulically fractured reservoirs, proposed a correlation given by,
4.8 10 x
= 1.176
12
(2.12)
K
Where K is in md and is in 1/m.
Cooke based on his experiments in using brines, reservoir oils and gas
es in
propped fractures, predicted the non-Darcy coefficient as,
=bK

(2.13)
Where a and b are constants determined by experiments based on proppant type.
2.4.2. Correlations Based on Permeability and Porosity
Eguns empirical equation based on data found in the literature and expe
riments,
proposed the correlation given as,
8 1/ 21/ 2 3/ 2
(2.14)
=ab
(10
K )
Where a=1.75, b=150, K in Darcy and in 1/cm.

Janicek and Katz, for natural porous media proposed to use the followi
ng
equations:
8
5 / 4 3 / 4
(2.15)
1.82=x10 K
Where K is in md and is in 1/cm.

28
Amao, August 2007
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
=
(2.16)
0.5 5.5
K
where K is in cm2 and in cm-1
2.4.3. Correlations Based on Permeability, Porosity and Tortuosit

y
Liu et al further worked on the data used by Geertsma, Cornell and Kat
z, Evans
and Evans and Whitey, and by considering the effect of tortuosity they got a be
tter
correlation given as,
8
x
8.91 10
=
(2.17)
K
Where is in ft-1 and K in md
Others include, Thauvin et al., they proposed a correlation given by,
1.55 10
4
x
=0.98 0.
K
3.35
29
(2.18)
Where 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 coe
fficient, Li
et al.22 proposed the following guidelines.(see Appendix B)
(a) Determine the lithology of the formation (e.g. from well logs)
29
Amao, August 2007
(b) Determine what parameters are known or can be found, use the correl
ation
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 b
y 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 simula
te 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 Darcys 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 furt
her
insight into non-Darcy flow phenomenon in the reservoir and scenario where it oc
curs is
necessitating a new look into this historical trend.
Numerical modeling of non-Darcy flows began in the 1960s; some of the p
ioneer
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 mod
eling
fluid flow in porous media while integrating the Forchheimer equation for non-Da
rcy
flow. Thus they are developing a new diffusivity equation that can be used in re
servoir
30
----------------------- Page 45----------------------Texas Tech University, A
biodun Matthew Amao, August 2007
simulators and other numerical models so that more accurate and b
etter predictive models
can be obtained.
Belhaj et al.5 developed a new diffusivity equation that
was used to model nonDarcy flow in the reservoir. They used a finite difference modelin
g scheme, based on the
Crank-Nicholson and Barakat-Clark numerical modeling methods, whil
e comparing both
Darcy and non-Darcy flows. They derived a new expression for the d
iffusivity equation
based on the Darcy-Forchheimer equation in two dimensions stated a

s;
2
+c
= v +
v 2 +
2
Based on the results of their numerical simulations, they opined t

hat the Forchheimer
model gave more realistic result for all ranges of pressure gradie
nts, flow rates,
permeabilities, porosities, viscosity and fluid density.
33
Su
of Saudi Aramco, in his publication detailed how n
on-Darcy flow modeling

can be integrated into a reservoir simulator, especially for multi
phase flow modeling. He
modeled both the rate dependent skin factor in the reservoir and a
lso 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 mo
del 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
=
j j q
qj

(2.19)
dxkK
A
rj

A

31

j denotes the phase, K is the relative permeability. He used a cel
l-to-cell nonWhere
Darcy flow resistance flux factor, FND to multiply the Darcy flow flux term, s
tated as
Flux non-Darcy = FND * Flux Darcy
(2.20)
He gave an approximate expression for the rate dependent skin factor by the e
xpression,
kK
r j
j
Dj =
,
(2.21)
2h r
j w
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 mul
tiphase
system, that non-Darcy flow in occurring in the entire reservoir can be handle
d in a
simulator and that this model can be easily integrated with a full blown numer
ical
simulator.
Jamiolahmady et al.17, when modeling flow in a crushed perforated ro
ck, they
developed a mathematical model based on the Darcy-Forchheimer flow. From the
equation in vector form they developed the following expressions
V=P
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 =1+k V
(2.23)
The continuity equation for radial cylindrical coordinate system given as,
32
Amao, August 2007
1
V
( )+ z
(2.24)
rV
r r
z
.
= V
r
=0
Is solved to obtain an expression for V given as,
+ +
1
2
k
P

V =
(2.25)

2k
The negative root is discarded, while the expression (2.25) is substituted in e

quation
(2.24). This gives

k
. 2
(2.26)

1
+1 4+
=0
2
r
P
2

k
P

The above expression was solved based on the finite element method usi
ng 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
mao, August 2007
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 evaluatio
n 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 pressu
re
distribution is assumed in the well, the productivity index will not approximate
a constant
28
with any physical significance
The productivity index for an ideal well remains constant, even if the
well
28
production rate and the reservoir pressure changes during the life of the well
. 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, asphalte
nes, sand
production and any other skin effect) to fluid flow in the reservoir. The produc
tivity of a
well is a direct function of the pressure drop in the reservoir. Hence it is imp
erative 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 c
ause of the
pressure drop thus increasing the productivity of the well.
Therefore, in evaluating performance or non performance and in rectifyi
ng any
well problem, the source of the problem must first be identified, and then the r
ight
solution can be proffered to fix the problem. Based on the foregoing, it is obvi
ous that a
34
blanket description of all well problems under the Skin umbrella does not really s
uffice;
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 Predicti

on
The pressure profile in the reservoir is very important to reservoir a
nd production
engineers. The production mechanism in petroleum reservoir are driven by pressur
e,
hence knowledge of the pressure profile is essentially an indication of the prod
ucibility of
the reservoir. Knowledge of the reservoir pressure is important for the followi
ng 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 equipmen
t is
required to lift the reservoir fluid to surface.
d) It is required for reservoir management and planning.
e)
f)
ies and for
Pressure profile help in determining new well locations

Pressure profile is a source of information for reservoir propert
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
w Amao, August 2007
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 h
istorical
Darcys law to model fluid flow in high flow rate reservoir is not adequate. The n
onDarcy flow problem in petroleum engineering still requires further research, unt
il 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 probl
em to its
root cause and has brought in lots of uncertainties. This may explain why some r
emedial
jobs or work-over operations have not been successful. This is simply because th
e
problem was never rightly diagnosed and hence, the solution applied is not appli
cable.
A great leap in well performance engineering will occur when well or r
eservoir
problems are rightly diagnosed using the right models and tools, so that the pro
ffered or
recommended solution will adequately fix the well problem at hand. The ability t
o rightly
calculate the individual components of the composite skin factor will help in ta
king
corrective measures to reduce its detrimental effect and thereby enhance the wel
ls
productivity. Until a problem is known, it may never have a solution or it can b
e rightly
said that a problem known is half solved.
36
Amao, August 2007
3.3 Laboratory Experiments on Non-Darcy flow in Co
res
The following results were obtained on core samples used in the Core La
boratory
(Corelab) of the Department of Petroleum Engineering Texas Tech University, to v
erify
the certainty of non-Darcy flows at high pressure/flow rate. The experiments wer
e
conducted on core samples that represented different reservoir types- sandstones
and
carbonates (limestone and dolomite). The experimental results for three core sam
ples
(#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
07 mmHg = 13.15 psia
Ambient Pressure
680.
Diameter: 3.745 cm
Temperature
74 F
Viscosity of N 2
0.01
2
Area: 11.015 cm
7584 cp
P (psi )
P
PL
(atm)
in
(atm)
Q(cc/sec)
out
md
Q/A
10
0472
1.5765
0.1115
0.8961
0.5204
7.4483
0.
20
1035
2.2569
0.2231
0.8961
1.1403
8.1596
0.
30
1546
2.9373
0.3346
0.8961
1.7032
8.1253
0.
40
2023
3.6177
0.4462
0.8961
2.2286
7.9737
0.
50
2589
4.2981
0.5577
0.8961
2.8517
8.1624
0.
60
3055
4.9785
0.6692
0.8961
3.3649
8.0263
0.
70
3536
5.6589
0.7808
0.8961
3.8949
7.9631
0.
80
4119
6.3393
0.8923
0.8961
4.5368
8.1161
0.
90
4548
7.0197
1.0039
0.8961
5.0092
7.9656
0.
100
4923
7.7001
1.1154
0.8961
5.4225
7.7605
0.
110
5283
8.3805
1.2270
0.8961
5.8194
7.5714
0.
120
5744
9.0609
1.3385
0.8961
6.3269
7.5457
0.
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
)
m
c
/
m
t
a
(
1.0
0.8
L
/
P
D
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.7
Q/A (cm/s)
Figure 3.1: Experimental result of non-linearity in flow through Core #13
38
Amao, August 2007
Core ID: #9
Length: 3.55 cm
3 mmHg = 13.15 psia
Ambient Pressure
680.0
Diameter: 3.72 cm
Temperature
76 F
Viscosity of N
0.01
7584 cp
Area: 10.869 cm
P (psi )
2
P
atm)
in (
PL
(atm)
Q(cc/sec)
out
md
Q/A
10
84
1.5752
0.0756
0.8948
0.8218
0.8097
6.9
20
59
2.2556
0.1420
0.8948
1.5436
0.6348
6.5
30
88
2.9360
0.2140
0.8948
2.3256
0.5221
6.5
40
03
3.6164
0.2903
0.8948
3.1546
0.4433
6.7
50
25
4.2968
0.3640
0.8948
3.9564
0.3852
6.7
60
03
4.9772
0.4354
0.8948
4.7323
0.3406
6.7
70
89
5.6576
0.4918
0.8948
5.3447
0.3052
6.4
80
29
6.3380
0.5741
0.8948
6.2402
0.2765
6.6
90
81
7.0184
0.6315
0.8948
6.8634
0.2527
6.4
100
88
7.6988
0.6699
0.8948
7.2812
0.2327
6.1
39
w Amao, August 2007
2.5
2.0
)
m
c
1.5
/
m
t
a
(
L
/
1.0
P
D
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.8
Q/A (cm/s)
Figure 3.2: Experimental result of non-linearity in flow through Core #9
0.5
40
mao, August 2007
Core ID: #26
Length: 4.145 cm
3 mmHg = 13.15 psia
Ambient Pressure
680.0
Diameter: 3.75 cm
Temperature
76 F
Viscosity of N
0.017
2
584 cp
Area: 11.04466 cm
P (psi )
(atm)
(atm)
Q(cc/sec)
md
Q/A
PL
in
out
3
792
1.0989
0.0492
0.8948
7.5020
244.19
0.6
4
703
1.1669
0.0657
0.8948
9.6123
234.66
0.8
5
836
1.2350
0.0821
0.8948
10.8631
212.16
0.9
6
805
1.3030
0.0985
0.8948
13.0384
212.20
1.1
7
634
1.3711
0.1149
0.8948
13.9540
194.66
1.2
8
666
1.4391
0.1313
0.8948
15.0940
184.24
1.3
9
430
1.5071
0.1477
0.8948
15.9370
172.92
1.4
10
309
1.5752
0.1641
0.8948
16.9085
165.11
1.5
11
561
1.6432
0.1806
0.8948
18.2907
162.37
1.6
12
514
1.7113
0.1970
0.8948
19.3436
157.41
1.7
13
953
1.7793
0.2134
0.8948
19.8288
148.95
1.7
14
959
1.8473
0.2298
0.8948
20.9396
146.06
1.8
41
, August 2007
0.25
0.20
)
m
c 0.15
/
m
t
a
(
L
/
P
D
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0
.6
1.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
2.0
Q/A (cm/s)
Figure 3.3: Plot of Experimental result of non-linearity in flow through Core #2

6
3.4 Problem Statement

The buildup of the thesis up till now as been to lay the foundation of f
low in
porous media, describe the peculiarities of Darcy and non-Darcy flows, review cu
rrent
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 so
lution to;
these problems are summarized in the following statements. The inadequacy of Dar
cys
law to model fluid flow in reservoirs with high velocity flow profiles and the r
esultant
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 reserv
oir, since it
only assumes that the losses are important in the vicinity of the well bore, res
earch 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
Amao, August 2007
CHAPTER IV
SOLUTION STATEMENT
4.1 Proposed Solution
The previous chapters has adequately shown the importance and gravity o
f the
non-Darcy flow phenomena, and highlighted the scenario where this phenomenon occ
urs
in the prospect of oil and gas. The obvious limitations of the Darcys law as a f
low
modeling equation for these scenario is evident.
The proposed solution is to integrate the Darcy-Forchheimer equation in
to the
flow modeling equation for non-linear (high velocity flows), and use the develop
ed
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 obj
ective 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 f
low 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
div(
r
+)v
0 =
(4.1)
=div (v
t
r
)
r
= div v v(
(4.2)
t
r
)
From product rule,

P

=
P

t
P

=
P
x
Substituting these expressions in equation (4.2) above,

P
r P
( )
div v
=
P
t
Simplifying
1 P r
= divv v P(
(4.3)
t
r
)
Equation (3) above is the final form of the continuity equation used.
The equation of flow is the Darcy-Forchheimer equation given
by:
dp
= v + v
dx
k
And in vector form as, let = , then the expression becomes

k
r
rr
+v v =P
+P
+v
rr
v=v
(4.4)
The equation of state is given by the expression;

45
(4.5)
=
1
( P )P 0
1
= e
Where
(
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.
The vector velocity r
v (x ,t )
cannot be uniquely represented as a function of the pressure
gradient P , we assume an appro
ximation given by;
v
v v
r r
( f , ,P=) P = (1 2 =) 3
Correspondingly,
v
f = P
( )
Substituting these in the Darc
y-Forchheimer equation, equation (4) above,

+
(
f
( )+ )
P
P
(1+P
( )
f
P
(f
.
P f
+) P (
(f
( =)
P
))P )=P 0
2
This is a form of a quadratic
equation, therefore solving for
f
( P ) , and taking only the

positive root as the valid sol
ution to the equation, this results in

+
4
P
( ) =
f
2P
the denominator by (
Multiplying the numerator and

)
+ +
, results in
P
( ) =
2
(4.6)
2
+ +
P
46
Amao, August 2007
r
Equation (6) above is a solution of the velocity vector v of the Darcy-Forchhei
mer
equation.
The continuity equation for slightly compressible fluid from equation (4.3), is
given by
P
=divv(
(4.7)
t
r
)
1r
v P
) is negligible,
For slightly compressible fluids, the term (

Substituting Darcy-Forchheimer parameters into equation (4.7), results in
P
( P= )P
div f(
t
)
(4.8)
This is the form of the partial differential equation (PDE) that is used to mode
l the nonlinear 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 Multiphysic
s. 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 i
s based
on the finite element method (FEM) scheme for solving PDEs. The software runs th
e
finite element analysis with adaptive meshing and error control using a variety
of
numerical solvers.
47
Amao, August 2007
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 w
ith
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 betw
een the
cases when Darcys law is used versus when the Darcy-Forchheimer model was used to
model flow in the reservoir. The reservoir geometry used were obtained from rese
rvoir
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
----------------------- Page 63----------------------Texas Tech University, Abiodun Matthew Amao, August
2007
COMSOL
Multiphysics
Initialize
Define form of PDE
Draw Reservoir and
Well Geometry
Define Boundary
Ente
r Modeling
Conditions and Initial
uation and
Values of Parameters
voir Domain
Eq
Reser
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
Amao, August 2007
4.5 Laboratory Measurement of Beta Factor
The Laboratory measurement of the Beta factor was done by first measur
ing the
absolute permeability of the core samples used in the experiments then increasin
g 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 b
elow.
A linear version of the Forchheimer equation was then used to calculat
e 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 factor measurements

The experimental procedure used is presented diagrammatically flow in figure 4.3
below.
50
----------------------- Page 65----------------------Texas Tech University, Abiodun Matthew Amao, Augu
st 2007
Start
Prepare core samples for
measurement
Measure porosity of core samples
using helium porosimeter
No
Sor
t cores into
Are porosities in
same range?
grou
ps according
t
o porosities
Yes
Measure gas permeability (K ) using
g
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

dP
=
v
Darcy-Forchheimer equation
+
dx2 k
v
Plot beta as a function of

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

C
=
absolute permeability K
k
End
Figure 4.3: Procedure for Laboratory Measurement of
51
Factor

mao, August 2007
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 m
easuring
the core porosities, it was decided to carry out permeability measurement only o
n ten
core samples sorted based on their porosities and initial permeability tests. Ta
ble 4.1
below is the spreadsheet used for the porosity calculations. Porosity was measur
ed using
the Helium porosimeter.
Table 4.1: Porosity, physical properties and Lithology of core samples used
Core ID
Diameter
Length
Bulk Volum
e
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
0.1838
Sandstone
10
0.1850
Sandstone
11
0.1017
Sandstone
12
0.0756
Sandstone
13
0.1377
Sandstone
14
0.1323
Sandstone
15
0.1030
Sandstone
16
0.1050
Sandstone
17
0.0812
Carbonate
18
0.0629
Carbonate
19
0.1402
Carbonate
20
0.0166
Carbonate
21
0.1114
Carbonate
22
0.1340
Carbonate
23
0.1368
Carbonate
24
0.0819
Carbonate
25
0.1457
Carbonate
26
0.0992
3.720
3.5500
38.584
3.725
3.2800
35.745
3.700
5.0800
54.621
3.700
5.5950
60.158
3.745
6.1000
67.193
3.740
5.1500
56.577
3.745
3.9400
43.400
3.745
5.6400
62.126
3.745
6.2700
69.065
3.755
6.2000
68.660
3.740
5.1000
56.028
3.745
3.2300
35.579
3.800
5.7700
65.438
3.750
4.9400
54.561
3.780
5.4400
61.048
3.750
5.0000
55.223
3.770
4.4250
49.395
3.750
4.1450
45.780
52
Amao, August 2007
The core samples were ranked based on their porosities and an initial p
ermeability
measurement done on the core samples to select the cores that were used in the f
inal
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
Sandstone
Carbonate
Sandstone
Carbonate
Sandstone
Carbonate
Carbonate
Sandstone
Sandstone
Sandstone
Carbonate
Sandstone
Sandstone
Sandstone
Carbonate
3
5
25
19
13
23
22
14
7
8
21
16
15
11
26
0.1730
0.1699
0.1457
0.1420
0.1402
0.1377
0.1368
0.1340
0.1323
0.1247
0.1246
0.1114
0.1050
0.1030
0.1017
0.0992
Highly Frac
2
24
17
12
18
20
0.0909
0.0819
0.0812
0.0756
0.0629
0.0166
Fractured
tured
Sandstone
Carbonate
Sandstone
Sandstone
Carbonate
Carbonate
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 r
esults and
analysis of the laboratory measurements are given in appendix A.
53
----------------------- Page 68----------------------Texas Tech University, Abiodu
n Matthew Amao, August 2007
Table 4.3: Porosity and Permeability of Core samples used in factor experiment
Core ID
Porosity
Permeabi
lity (md)
10
0.1850
5.36
0.1838
6.18
0.1829
5.04
0.1812
1.77
25
20
86
86
3
0.1730
3.89
25
0.1457
2.18
13
0.1377
7.58
23
0.1368
3.26
22
0.1340
0.84
26
0.0992
160.
44
51
83
89
49
39
54
Amao, August 2007
CHAPTER V
RESULTS OF NUMERICAL COMPUTATIONS
The results of numerical computations using COMSOL Multiphysics, is pre

sented
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 Reservo

ir
The first geometry used in the numerical computation is a horizontal dr
ain-hole in
a rectangular reservoir. Figure 5.1 shows the location of the horizontal drain-h
ole 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 (Geomet

ry 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 re
servoir
geometry as length of the horizontal drain-hole and factor are varied for the g
eometry.
Table 5.1: Productivity Index at different drain-hole lengths
Productivity Index at Different Beta Values
Length
=24000
5000
=0
=24
=240
1000
0.00237
0.23639
0.21403
0.11814
10000
2000
0.00265
0.31863
0.28256
0.14406
15000
3000
0.00298
0.40047
0.34989
0.16974
20000
4000
0.00336
0.48950
0.42256
0.19768
25000
5000
0.00382
0.59029
0.50444
0.22939
30000
6000
0.00436
0.70670
0.59888
0.26623
35000
7000
0.00500
0.84233
0.70906
0.30960
40000
8000
0.00577
1.00012
0.83789
0.36082
45000
9000
0.00668
1.18190
0.98746
0.42102
50000
10000
0.00774
1.38673
1.15807
0.49071
0.02169
0.02460
0.02786
0.03161
0.03599
0.04117
0.04734
0.05470
0.06341
0.07354
=2400
55000
11000
0.00895
1.60952
1.34669
0.56924
60000
12000
0.01026
1.83912
1.54509
0.65409
65000
13000
0.01159
2.05735
1.73806
0.73962
70000
14000
0.01279
2.24032
1.90292
0.81515
0.08502
0.09750
0.11023
0.12164
57
Figure 5.2 is a graphical representation of the results of the numeric
al
computation; it shows the variation of the productivity index of the horizontal
drain with
variation in length at different factor values in the reservoir.
Productivity Index (P.I) vs Length of Horizontal Drainag

e
2.5
2.0
PI(Beta=0)
PI(Beta=24)
)
x
e
d
n
I
y
t
PI(Beta=240)
PI(Beta=2400)
PI(Beta=24000)
1.5
i
v
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
P
(
1.0
I
.
P
0.5
50000
0.0
5000
10000 15000 20000
55000 60000 65000 70000
25000
30000 35000
40000
45000
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 a
t a constant
length of 5000cm while varying flow rate and factor values.
Table 5.2: Productivity index @ L = 5000cm at different rates and values
L = 5000 cm
Q
=0
=240
4
1000
0.2364
=2.4
0.2338
=2
0.2140
0.1181
2000
0.1960
0.2364
0.0790
0.2314
3000
0.1810
0.2364
0.0594
0.2290
4000
0.1682
0.2364
0.0476
0.2267
5000
0.1570
0.2364
0.0397
0.2245
6000
0.1473
0.2364
0.0340
0.2223
7000
0.1387
0.2364
0.0298
0.2201
8000
0.1311
0.2364
0.0265
0.2180
9000
0.1243
0.2364
0.0238
0.2160
10000
0.1181
0.2364
0.0217
0.2140
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
x
e
d
n
I
y
t
i
v
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
P
0.15
Beta = 0
Beta= 2.4
Beta = 24
Beta =240
0.10
0.05
0.00
1000
8000
2000
9000
3000
10000
4000
5000
6000
700
Rate (Q)
Figure 5.3: Productivity index versus rate @ L=5000 cm
60

t a constant
length of 10,000cm while varying flow rate and factor values.
Table 5.3: Productivity index @ L = 10,000cm at different rates and values

L = 10,000 cm
Q
=0
=240
=2.4
1000
0.2992
0.3186
0.1975
0.3165
2000
0.2825
0.3186
0.1440
0.3144
3000
0.2679
0.3186
0.1134
0.3124
4000
0.2548
0.3186
0.0935
0.3104
5000
0.2430
0.3186
0.0796
0.3084
6000
0.2322
0.3186
0.0692
0.3065
7000
0.2224
0.3186
0.0613
0.3046
8000
0.2135
0.3186
0.0550
0.3028
9000
0.2052
0.3186
0.0498
0.3009
10000
0.1975
0.3186
0.0456
0.2992
=2
61
w Amao, August 2007
; it shows the
trend of productivity index with flow rate at varying beta factor values for a c
onstant
drain-hole length of 10,000 cm.
Productivity Index vs Rate @ L=10000cm

0.35
0.30
x 0.25
e
d
n
I
y 0.20
t
i
v
i
t
c
0.15
u
d
o
r
P 0.10
Beta=0
Beta=2.4
Beta=24
Beta=240
0.05
0.00
1000
8000
9000
2000
3000
10000
4000
5000
Rate (Q)
6000
Figure 5.4: Productivity index versus rate @ L = 10,000 cm
7000
62
t a constant
L = 20,000 cm
Q
=0
=240
=2.4
1000
0.4700
0.4895
0.3539
0.4874
2000
0.4527
0.4895
0.2797
0.4854
3000
0.4370
0.4895
0.2314
0.4833
4000
0.4225
0.4895
0.1977
0.4814
5000
0.4091
0.4895
0.1724
0.4794
6000
0.3966
0.4895
0.1529
0.4775
7000
0.3849
0.4895
0.1374
0.4756
8000
0.3740
0.4895
0.1247
0.4737
9000
0.3637
0.4895
0.1142
0.4719
10000
0.3539
0.4895
0.1053
0.4700
=2
63
; it shows the
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
x
e 0.4
d
n
I
y
t
i
v 0.3
i
t
c
u
d
o
Beta = 0
r 0.2
P
Beta= 2.4
Beta = 24
Beta =240
0.1
0.0
1000
8000
2000
9000
3000
10000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Rate (Q)
64
t a constant
L = 30,000 cm
Q
=0
=2.4
=240
1000
0.6848
0.7067
0.5463
0.7044
2000
0.6650
0.7067
0.4500
0.7021
3000
0.6468
0.7067
0.3834
0.6998
4000
0.6298
0.7067
0.3342
0.6976
=24
5000
0.6138
0.7067
0.2963
0.6954
6000
0.5988
0.7067
0.2662
0.6932
7000
0.5847
0.7067
0.2417
0.6911
8000
0.5712
0.7067
0.2213
0.6890
9000
0.5585
0.7067
0.2041
0.6869
10000
0.5463
0.7067
0.1894
0.6848
65
Amao, August 2007
; it shows the
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
x
e
d
n 0.50
I
y
t
i
v 0.40
i
t
c
u
d
0.30
o
r
Beta = 0
P
0.20
Beta= 2.4
Beta = 24
Beta =240
0.10
0.00
8000
1000
9000
2000
10000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Rate (Q)
66
t a constant
L = 40,000 cm
=0
=2.4
=24
=240
1000
0.9748
1.0001
0.8067
0.9975
2000
0.9515
1.0001
0.6829
0.9948
3000
0.9298
1.0001
0.5934
0.9922
4000
0.9094
1.0001
0.5253
0.9897
5000
0.8901
1.0001
0.4714
0.9871
6000
0.8718
1.0001
0.4276
0.9846
7000
0.8544
1.0001
0.3913
0.9821
8000
0.8378
1.0001
0.3608
0.9796
9000
0.8219
1.0001
0.3347
0.9772
10000
0.8067
1.0001
0.3121
0.9748
67
w Amao, August 2007

; it shows the
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
x
e 0.80
d
n
I
y
t
i
v 0.60
i
t
c
u
d
o
r 0.40
Beta = 0
Beta= 2.4
Beta = 24
Beta =240
0.20
0.00
1000
8000
2000
9000
3000
4000
5000
6000
10000
Rate (Q)
7000
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
The results of the numerical computations of geometry 5.2 are given i
n table 5.7.
servoir
geometry at different flow rates and factor for the reservoir geometry.
Table 5.7: Productivity Index at various rate and values for Geometry 5.2
Q
=0
=2.4
=24
=240
=2400
1000
0.08853
2.47E-04
0.06520
0.01934
0.002407
0.08853
1.24E-04
0.05160
0.01085
0.00122
0.08853
0.04269
2000
3000
0.007544
8.17E-04
8.24E-05
0.08853
6.18E-05
0.03641
0.005781
6.14E-04
0.08853
4.95E-05
0.03174
0.004686
4.92E-04
0.08853
4.12E-05
0.02813
4.10E-04
0.08853
3.53E-05
0.02526
0.003399
3.52E-04
0.08853
3.09E-05
0.02292
0.002988
3.08E-04
0.08853
2.75E-05
0.02098
0.002666
2.74E-04
0.08853
2.47E-05
0.01934
0.002407
2.47E-04
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
0.00394
70
w Amao, August 2007
; it shows the
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
x
e
0.07
d
n
I
0.06
y
t
i
v
0.05
i
Beta=0
t
c
Beta=2.4
u
0.04
Beta=24
d
o
Beta=240
r
P
0.03
Beta=2400
0.02
0.01
0
1000
8000
2000
9000
3000
4000
5000
6000
10000
Rate (Q)
Figure 5.9: Productivity index plot for Geometry 5.2
7000
71
5.3 Off-centered Circular Well in a Rectangular R
eservoir
Geometry 5.3, as shown in figure 5.10, is an off-centered circular wel
l in a
rectangular reservoir. The location of the well relative to the boundaries of th
e 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
n table 5.8.
servoir
Table 5.8: Productivity index at various rate and for Geometry 5.3
Q
=0
=2.4
=24
=240
=2400
1000
0.002391
0.07595
2.26E-04
0.05808
0.01863
2000
0.07595
1.23E-04
0.04701
0.001215
0.07595
8.22E-05
0.03949
0.007424
8.14E-04
0.07595
6.17E-05
0.03404
0.005707
6.12E-04
0.07595
4.94E-05
0.02992
0.004636
4.91E-04
0.07595
4.11E-05
0.02668
0.003903
4.09E-04
0.07595
3.53E-05
0.02408
3.51E-04
0.07595
3.09E-05
0.02194
0.002965
3.07E-04
0.07595
2.74E-05
0.02015
0.002647
2.73E-04
0.07595
2.47E-05
0.01863
0.002391
2.46E-04
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
0.01062
0.00337
73
w Amao, August 2007
Figure 5.11 is the graphical representation of the results in table 5.
8; it shows the
.3

0.08
0.07
0.06
x
e
Beta=0
d
Beta=2.4
n 0.05
Beta=24
I
y
Beta=240
t
i
Beta=2400
v 0.04
i
t
c
u
d
0.03
o
r
P
0.02
0.01
0
1000
8000
2000
9000
3000
4000
5000
6000
10000
Rate (Q)
7000
74
5.4 Centered Circular Well in a Square Re
servoir
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
n table 5.9.
servoir
Table 5.9: Productivity Index at various rate and for Geometry 5.4
Q
=0
=2.4
=24
=240
=2400
1000
0.090754
2.46E-04
0.06638
0.01943
0.002406
0.090754
1.23E-04
0.05233
0.01088
0.001219
2000
3000
0.090754
8.23E-04
0.04318
0.007553
8.16E-04
0.090754
6.17E-05
0.03676
0.005785
6.14E-04
6.14E-04
0.090754
4.94E-05
0.090754
4.11E-05
0.02833
4.10E-04
0.090754
3.53E-05
0.02542
0.003399
3.52E-04
0.090754
3.09E-05
0.02305
0.002988
3.08E-04
0.090754
2.75E-05
0.02108
0.002666
2.74E-04
0.090754
2.47E-05
0.01943
0.002406
2.46E-04
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
0.032
0.004688
0.00394
76
9; it shows the
.4.

0.10
0.09
0.08
x
e
d
n
I
0.07
0.06
Beta = 0
y
Beta=2.4
t
i
v
0.05
Beta = 24
i
t
Beta=240
c
u
Beta=2400
d
o
r
P
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
1000
8000
2000
9000
3000
10000
4000
5000
Rate (Q)
6000
700
77
5.5 Off-centered Circular well in a Square
Reservoir
Geometry 5.5 is an off-centered well in a square shaped reservoir; fig
ure 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
----------------------- Page 93----------------------Texas Tech University, Abiodun M
atthew Amao, August 2007
n table 5.10.
servoir
Table 5.10: Productivity Index at various rate and for Geometry 5.5
Q
=0
=2.4
=24
=240
=2400
1000
0.002393
2000
0.079696
2.46E-04
0.060232
0.079696
0.048409
0.018835
0.01068
0.001215
3000
1.23E-04
0.079696
8.22E-05
0.040466
0.007453
8.14E-04
0.079696
6.16E-05
0.034763
0.005724
6.12E-04
0.079696
4.93E-05
0.030468
0.004646
4.09E-04
0.079696
4.11E-05
0.027118
4.09E-04
0.079696
3.52E-05
0.024432
3.51E-04
3.07E-04
0.079696
3.08E-05
0.079696
2.74E-05
0.020392
2.73E-04
0.079696
2.47E-05
0.018835
2.46E-04
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
0.00391
0.003375
0.02223
0.002969
0.00265
0.002393
79
10; it shows the
.5.

0.09
0.08
0.07
x
e
d
Beta = 0
0.06
Beta=2.4
n
I
Beta = 24
y 0.05
t
Beta=240
i
v
i
Beta=2400
t
c
0.04
u
d
o
r
0.03
P
0.02
0.01
000
0
1000
8000
2000
9000
3000
10000
4000
5000
Rate (Q)
6000
80
5.6 Concentric Well in a Circular R
eservoir
Geometry 5.6 is a circular well in a circular shaped reservoir, the p
osition of the
well relative to the reservoir boundaries is as shown in figure 5.16. The dimens
ion 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
n table 5.11.
servoir
Table 5.11: Productivity Index at various rate and beta for Geometry 5.6
Q
=0
=2.4
=24
=240
=2400
1000
0.021646
3.11E-05
0.012771
0.002724
3.07E-04
0.021646
1.56E-05
0.009058
0.001453
1.55E-04
2000
3000
0.021646
1.04E-05
0.007018
9.91E-04
1.03E-04
0.021646
7.79E-06
0.005728
7.52E-04
7.76E-05
0.021646
6.23E-06
0.004839
6.06E-04
6.21E-05
0.021646
5.19E-06
0.004188
5.07E-04
5.18E-05
0.021646
4.45E-06
0.003692
4.36E-04
0.021646
3.89E-06
0.003301
3.83E-04
3.89E-05
0.021646
3.46E-06
0.002985
3.41E-04
3.46E-05
0.021646
3.12E-06
0.002724
3.07E-04
3.11E-05
4000
5000
6000
7000
4.44E-05
8000
9000
10000
82
11; it shows the
.6.

0.025
0.020
x
e
d
Beta = 0
n
I
0.015
Beta=2.4
y
t
Beta = 24
i
v
i
Beta=240
t
c
u
d
o
r
P
Beta=2400
0.010
0.005
0.000
1000
00
8000
2000
9000
3000
4000
5000
6000
10000
Rate (Q)
70
83
, August 2007
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 correl
ations
available for use in determining beta factor values. In comparing these correlat
ions and to
verify their applicability, nine (9) of them have been used to calculate beta fa
ctor
coefficient for the core samples listed in table 4.3. The correlations used are
stated in
table 6.1.
Table 6.1: factor correlations used for analysis (From SPE 81037, Ref. 4)
No
Correlation
How the Correlation was established
1
4.8 10 x
y Fractured
= 1.176
K
2
e
10
Multirate tests- Low permeability (Hydraulicall

medium)
10 0.449
3.51 10
=
Laboratory experiments on limestone and sandston
1.88
K
1.82 10 x 8
= 5
3
K 4 4
4
ne
samples
Natural Porous Medium
x
2.018
10
=
5
e
8.17
10
=
Experimental study of vuggy limestone, crystalli
1.55
K
limestone & fine grained sandstone
9 0.537
Laboratory experiments on limestone and sandston
1.79
K
samples
Flowing nitrogen through Berea sandstone samples
at
1.15
10
=
various flow rates
K
7
tone and
1.59
10
=0.5 5.5
K
Consolidated and unconsolidated sandstone, limes
dolomite samples
8
Different particle size and roughness
245*10
=
12 K
84
ao, August 2007
Table 6.1 Continued
No
Correlation
9
How the Correlation was established

9
Experimental Tests
1.8*10
=
K
Table 6.2 gives the numerical values of the factor calculated for the
core
samples used for the analysis.
Table 6.2: Calculated values using the nine correlations
Core 10
Core 9
Core 1
Core 3
Core 6
Correlation
Corr 1
6.66E+09
5.63E+09
7.15E+09
2.44E+10
5.34E+08
7.80E+08
5.52E+09
6.65E+07
8.60E+07
3.19E+08
1.20E+08
1.64E+08
8.27E+08
1.26E+08
1.81E+08
1.16E+09
3.87E+08
3.17E+08
1.13E+08
9.70E+09
Corr 2
7.00E+08
1.24E+09
Corr 3
7.91E+07
1.24E+08
Corr 4
1.49E+08
2.45E+08
Corr 5
1.63E+08
2.79E+08
Corr 6
3.33E+08
2.59E+08
Corr 7
7.37E+06
7.11E+06
8.08E+06
1.43E+07
2.62E+05
2.37E+05
1.42E+05
3.98E+04
4.42E+04
7.47E+04
Core 25
Core 13
Core 23
Core 22
Correlation
Corr 1
1.91E+10
4.43E+09
1.19E+10
5.85E+10
3.19E+08
1.55E+09
1.95E+10
6.39E+07
1.84E+08
1.01E+09
8.72E+07
3.22E+08
2.62E+09
7.49E+07
3.37E+08
3.75E+09
6.34E+08
2.75E+08
7.25E+07
3.14E+07
4.96E+07
1.09E+08
3.35E+05
2.21E+05
1.13E+05
4.15E+04
6.34E+04
1.26E+05
1.25E+07
Corr 8
2.43E+05
2.14E+05
Corr 9
4.26E+04
5.17E+04
Core 26
1.22E+08
Corr 2
3.40E+09
8.89E+05
Corr 3
2.90E+08
1.80E+06
Corr 4
6.01E+08
7.71E+05
Corr 5
7.17E+08
2.67E+05
Corr 6
1.72E+08
1.86E+10
Corr 7
4.29E+07
4.15E+07
Corr 8
1.75E+05
1.82E+06
Corr 9
7.52E+04
1.06E+04
85
A comparative graphical analysis of the factors calculated for the cor
e samples
based on the correlations in table 6.1 was done. Figures 6.1 to 6.10 are the gra
phical
presentation of these results. Only values from correlations 2-9 are compared d
ue 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
a
t
e
B
3.0E+08
2.0E+08
1.0E+08
0.0E+00
Corr 2
Corr 3
Corr 4
Corr 5
Corr 6
S1
Cor
r 7
Correlations
Corr 8
Corr 9
Figure 6.1: Calculated 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
6
Corr
S1
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
Corr 6
S1
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
Corr 6
S1
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
Corr 6
S1
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 7
Correlations
Corr 8
Corr 9
91
----------------------- Page 106-----------------------
Corr 6
Texas Tech University, Abiodun

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 7
Correlations
Corr 8
Corr 9
92
----------------------- Page 107-----------------------
Corr 6
Texas Tech University, Abiodun

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 7
Correlations
Corr 8
Corr 9
Corr 6
93
----------------------- Page 108----------------------Texas Tech University, Abiodun M
atthew Amao, August 2007
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 7
Correlations
Corr 8
Corr 9
Corr 6
94
w Amao, August 2007
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
Corr 6
S1
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) consta
ntly predicts
a high beta value for all the cores except for core #26. There is a huge differe
nce in the
beta factor value calculated by all the different correlations available which s
uggests that
more research needs to be done in this area to come up with more consistent corr
elations.
Correlation 1 is based of the results of Multirate tests; this may exp
lain the
strangely high beta factor prediction results.
However, correlations 7, 8 and 9 seem to be consistent in their predic
tion of beta
factor parameter for the core samples.
95
w Amao, August 2007
6.2 Analysis and Discussion of Numerical Computation Results
A comparative analysis was done on the results of the numerical comput
ation of
the productivity index of the horizontal drain-hole, for different mix and combi
nation of
flow rate and factor in the reservoir. Figures 6. 11 to 6.14 show the variation
of the
productivity index of a horizontal drain-hole as factor changes in the reservoi
r.
When Darcy law is assumed to govern flow in the reservoir, the product
ivity
index is not a function of the flow rate, as shown in figure 6.11; increase in p
roductivity
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 presen
t in the
reservoir as indicated by the increasing values of the factor in figures 6.12 t
o 6.14,
there is an obvious variation in the productivity index calculated in the reserv
oir. 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 decreas
es, 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 dra
in-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 mus
t be produced
in case of non-Darcy flow to optimize the productivity of the well. This rate mu
st be
determined by the engineer.
96
Productivity Index vs Length @ Beta = 0
1.2
1.0
x
Q=1000
e
d
0.8
n
Q=2000
I
y
Q=3000
t
i
v 0.6
i
Q=4000
t
c
u
d
Q=5000
o
r 0.4
Q=6000
P
Q=7000
0.2
Q=8000
Q=9000
Q=10000
0.0
5000
0
10000
20000
3000
40000
Length (cm)
Figure 6.11: Productivity Index versus length for different rates at =0
97
Productivity Index vs. Length @ Beta = 2.4
1.2
1.0
x
e 0.8
d
Q=1000
n
I
y
Q=2000
t
i 0.6
Q=3000
v
i
t
c
Q=4000
u
d
Q=5000
o 0.4
r
P
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 =2.4
98
Productivity Index vs. Length @ Beta = 24
1.2
1.0
x
e
d
n
I
y
0.8
Q=1000
t
i
Q=2000
v
i
t
c
0.6
Q=3000
u
d
Q=4000
o
r
0.4
Q=5000
P
Q=6000
Q=7000
0.2
Q=8000
Q=9000
Q=10000
0.0
5000
10000
20000
40000
Length (cm)
30000
99
Productivity Index vs. Rate @ Beta = 240
1.2
1.0
x
Q=1000
e
d
n
0.8
Q=2000
I
y
Q=3000
t
i
v
i
0.6
Q=4000
t
c
u
d
Q=5000
o
r
0.4
Q=6000
P
Q=7000
0.2
Q=8000
Q=9000
Q=10000
0.0
5000
10000
00
20000
300
40000
Length (cm)
100
w Amao, August 2007
A comparative analysis of the calculated productivity index of all the
geometries
used in the numerical computation was done and the results are displayed graphic
ally in
figures 6.15 to 6.18. The highest productivity index for all the geometries was
calculated
when the 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 increas
e as the
factor increases for all the cases, as shown in figures 6.16 to 6.18. This produ
ctivity drop
is due to the increased pressure drop in the reservoir, due to the increased dis
sipation of
energy in the porous media as the factor increases.
As expected, the horizontal drain hole has the highest calculated prod
uctivity
index for all the cases due to the increased exposure of the horizontal drain-ho
le to the
reservoir.
The location of a well in the reservoir is important to the productivi
ty of the
reservoir, this is why adequate geological and reservoir evaluation are done bef
ore
determining the location and placement of a well the reservoir.
101
Amao, August 2007
Comparison of Geometries @ Beta=0
1.2
1
x
e
d
n
I
y
0.8
t
i
v
i
t
c
u
d
o
0.6
0.4
G_5.6
r
P
G_5.3
0.2
G_5.5
G_5.2
0
G_5.4
0
L=5000
0 0
0 0 0
1 0 0
L=10000
2 0
3
L=20000
0
0 0
0 0
4 0
0
0 0
0 0
6 0
7
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
L=30000
Rate (Q)
L=40000
1
Figure 6.15: Comparison of Productivity Index for all Geometries used at = 0
102
w Amao, August 2007
Comparison of Geometries @ Beta=2.4
1
0.9
0.8
x
e
0.7
d
n
I
0.6
y
t
i
v
0.5
i
t
c
u
0.4
d
o
G_5.6
r
0.3
P
G_5.3
0.2
G_5.5
G_5.2
0.1
G_5.4
0
L=5000
0
0
0 0
L=10000
0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
2 3 0
L=20000
4
0
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
L=30000
9
L=40000
Rate (Q)
0
0
1
Figure 6.16: Comparison of Productivity Index for all Geometries used at = 2.4
103
Amao, August 2007
1
0.9
0.8
x
e
d
n
I
0.7
0.6
y
t
i
v
i
t
c
u
0.5
0.4
d
G_5.6
o
r
0.3
G_5.3
P
0.2
G_5.5
0.1
G_5.2
G_5.4
0
L=5000
0
0 0
0 0 0
L=10000
1 0 0 0
2 0 0
3 0
L=20000
4
0
0 0
0 0
5 0
6
0
0
0
0
0 0
L=30000
7
Rate (Q)
L=40000
0 0
8 0
9
0
0
0
0
1
104
Amao, August 2007
0.90
0.80
0.70
x
e
d
n
I
y
t
i
v
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
G_5.6
P
0.20
G_5.3
G_5.5
0.10
G_5.2
0.00
G_5.4
0
L=5000
0 0
0 0
L=10000
1 0
2
0
0 0
0 0
3 0
4
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
5 6
0 0
7 0
0
0
0
9
L=20000
0
0
L=30000
Rate (Q)
L=40000
0
0
1
105
mao, August 2007
CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Several conclusions can be drawn from this research, based on the analy
sis and
diagnosis of the experimental results and literature review. The following concl
usions
were drawn based on research and literature review.
7.1 Conclusions
1.
porous
Experimental results show that non-Darcy flow regime can exist in any
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 permeab
ility 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 i
n productivity
index and well productivity, provided the flow rate is kept at an optim
al 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.
aximum
There is an optimum rate at which wells should be produced to obtain m

production from the wells and efficiently utilize the natural reservoir
energy.
7. Selection and usage of beta factor correlations may be misleading; exp
erimental
determination of beta factor based on core analysis will be more accura
te.
8. The higher the beta factor of the formation, the lower the productivit
y of the well.
106
Amao, August 2007
7.2 Recommendations
My recommendations or further research and investigations are given summarily be
low.
1.
Non-Darcy flow modeling is a new and growing area of research and seve
ral
research avenues can still be looked into to come up with more robust m
odels 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 o
n 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 paramete
rs like fluid
viscosity, density and saturation has on beta parameter values as well
as the effect
of tortuosity.
4.
ing at
A synergy between the department of mathematics and petroleum engineer
Texas Tech in this research area if well groomed and funded may lead t
o the first
integrated non-linear flow numerical simulator that goes beyond the ne
ar wellbore environment.
5. State of the art equipments are required in the laboratory to adequate
ly measure
flow rate through core samples at high pressure gradients; the laborat
ory set up
should be configured to measure high flow rate through the core sample
s, during
non-linear flow experiments.
107
Amao, August 2007
REFERENCES
1.
Flow on
Alvarez, C.H., Holditch, S.A., McVay, D.A. 2002. Effects of Non-Darcy

Pressure Transient Analysis of Hydraulically Fractured Gas Wells. Pape
r 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-wo
rk of the
Well Productivity Index for Fast Forchheimer (non-Darcy) Flow in Porou
s Media.
(Unpublished paper)
3.
for
Barree, R.D., Conway, M.W. 2004. Beyond Beta Factors: A Complete Model
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. N
umerical
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.
, M.R.
Belhaj, H.A., Agha, K.R., Nouri, A.M., Butt, S.D., Vaziri, H.H., Islam
2003. Numerical Modeling of Forchheimer Equation to Describe Darcy and
NonDarcy 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.
.C.
Camacho, R.V., Vasquez, M.C., Roldan, J.C., Samaniego, F.V., Macias, L

1993. New Results on Transient Well Tests Analysis Considering Non-lam
inar
Flow in the Reservoir. Paper SPE 26180, presented at the SPE Gas Techn
ology
Symposium, Calgary 28-30 June.
7.
Media.
Cornel, D., Katz, D.L. 1953. Flow of Gases through Consolidated Porous
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 45 (10): 2145-2152.
108
8.
ayers.
Cooke, C.E. Jr. 1973. Conductivity of Fracture Proppants in Multiple L

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

2007.
10.
the
Cullender, M.H. 1955. The Isochronal Performance Method of Determining

Flow Characteristics of Gas Wells. Transactions AIME, 204. SPE 330-G.
11.
259
Dake, L.P. ed. 1978. Fundamental of Reservoir Engineering, Amsterdam,

Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.
12.
Well
Diyashev, I.R., Sibneft, Economides, M.J. 2005. A General Approach to

Evaluation. Paper SPE 94644, prepared for presentation at the SPE Eur
opean
Formation Damage Conference held in Scheveningen, The Netherlands, 2527
May.
13.
n and
Ergun, S., Orning, A.A. 1949. Fluid Flow through Randomly Packed Colum
Fluidized Beds. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 41, (6):1179-118
4.
14.
4529
Fetkovitch, M.J. 1973. The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells. Paper SPE
prepared for the 48th Annual Fall Meeting of the SPE of AIME held in L
as Vegas,
Nevada, 30 September 3 October.
15.
w
Firoozabadi, A., Katz, D.L. 1979. An Analysis of High-Velocity Gas Flo

Through Porous Media. Paper SPE 6827 presented at the SPE-AIME 52nd An
nual
Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, 9-1
2
October.
16.
Torsten, F. and Hans-Dieter, V. 2006. Investigation of non-Darcy flow
in tightgas 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, T
exas.
109
w Amao, August 2007
18.
l,
Golan, M., Whitson, C.H. ed. 1991. Well Performance, PTR Prentice Hal
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
19.
-Darcy
Himmatramka, A.K. 1981. Analysis of Productivity Prediction Due to Non

Flow and True Skin in Gravel Packed Wells. Paper SPE 10084 presented a
t the
56th Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE of AIM
E, held
in San Antonio, Texas, 5-7 October.
20.
or Non-
Huang, H., Ayoub, J. 2006. Applicability of the Forchheimer Equation f

Darcy Flow in Porous Media. Paper SPE 102715, prepared for presentati
on at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition San Antonio, Texas, 2427
September.
21.
und a
Jamiolahmady, M., Danesh, A., Sohrabi, M., Duncan, D.B. 2006. Flow aro
rock perforation surrounded by crushed zone: Experiments vs. Theory. J
ournal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, 50, (2):102-114.
22.
e Rate
Jones, L.G., Blount, E.M., Glaze, O.H. 1976. Use of Short Term Multipl
Flow Tests to Predict Performance of Wells Having Turbulence. Paper SP
E 6133
prepared for presentation for the 51st Annual Fall Technical Conferenc
e and
Exhibition of the SPE of AIME, held in New Orleans, 3-6 October.
23.
Jones, S.C. 1987. Using the Inertial Coefficient To Characterize Heter
ogeneity
on Reservoir Rock. Paper SPE 16949 prepared for presentation at the 62
nd Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE held in Dallas, Texas,
27-30
September.
24.
n-
Kim, J., Kang, J.M. 1994. A Semi-analytical Approach in Determining No

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 Perm
ian 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 i
n
Porous Media. Paper SPE 75216 prepared for presentation at the SPE/DOE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa Oklahoma, 13-17 April.
28.
Flow
Liu, X., Civian, F. and Evans, R.D. 1995. Correlation of the Non-Darcy
Coefficient. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology , 34, (10): 50-5
4.
29.
Lopez-Hernandez, H.D., Valko, P.P., Pham, T.T. 2004. Optimum Fracture

Treatment Design Minimizes the Impact of Non-Darcy Flow Effects. Pape
r SPE
90195 prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and
Exhibition held in Houston 26-29 September.
30.
s for
Ma, H., and Douglas, R. 1993. Physical Explanation of Non-Darcy Effect

Fluid Flow in Porous Media. Paper SPE 26150 presented at the 1993 SPE
Gas
Technology Symposium held in Calgary, 28-30 June.
31.
low in
Miskimins, J.L., Lopez-Hernandez, H.D., Barree, R.D. 2005. Non-Darcy F

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, Incorporate
d.
33.
Muskat, M. ed. 1949. Physical Principles of Oil Production, Internatio
nal 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 An
nual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE held in New Orleans, Lo
uisiana,
5-8 October.
35.
Pascal, H., Quillian, R.G., Kingston, J. 1980. Analysis of Vertical Fr
acture Length
and Non-Darcy Floe Coefficient Using Variable Rate Tests. Paper SPE 94
38
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dalla
s,
September 21-24.
111
36.
Rawlins, E.L., Schellhardt, M.A. 1936. Back-pressure Data on Natural G
as 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.
of
Skjetne, E., Klv, T., Gudmundsson, J.S. 2001. Experiments and Modeling
High-Velocity Pressure Loss in Sandstone Fractures. Paper SPE 69676 fi
rst
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houst
on 3-6
October.
40.
Non-
Spivey, J.P., Brown, K.G., Sawyer, W.K., Frantz, J.H. 2004. Estimating
Darcy Flow Coefficient from Buildup-Test Data with Wellbore Storage. P
aper
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.
Izdat.
Polubarinova-Kochina, P.Y. 1952. Theory of Ground Water Motion, Goss.

Tekh.-Teoret. Lit., Moscow, 676.
43.
rcy
Tavares, C.A.P., Kazemi, H., Ozkan, E. 2004. Combined Effect of Non-Da

Flow and Formation Damage on Gas-Well Performance of Dual Porosity and
Dual Permeability Reservoirs. Paper SPE 90623, presented at the SPE A
nnual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 26-9 September.
44.
Work
Texas Tech University, Department of Petroleum Engineering Laboratory

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 P
roductive
Capacity of a Well. 171-176, Transactions AIME, 198, SPE 203-G.
47.
ase
Vincent, M.C., Pearson, C.M., Kullman, J. 1999. Non-Darcy and Multiph

Flow in Propped Fractures: Case Studies Illustrate the Dramatic Effec
t 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 presentatio
n at the
2006 SPE Gas Technology Symposium held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1
5-17
May.
49.
ms,
Basak, P. 1977. Non-Darcy Flow and Its Implications to Seepage Proble

Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, American Society of
Civil
Engineers, 103, 459.
113
ao, August 2007
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 psi
a
Diameter: 3.72 cm
Temperature: 74 F
Area: 10.86866
Viscosity of Nitrogen: 0.017656 cp
2
cm
P
/A
PL
in
out
g
P
psi )
(
cm/s)
(atm)
(atm/c
(atm)
(cc/sec)
(md)
)atm
m)
10
0.0710
1.5725
0.1964
0.8921
20
0.1301
2.2529
0.3927
0.8921
30
0.1928
2.9333
0.5891
0.8921
40
0.2530
3.6137
0.7855
50
0.3201
4.2941
0.9818
0.7716
0.8115
6.3831
0.6359
5.8502
2.0950
0.5228
5.7773
0.8921
2.7499
0.4439
5.6873
0.8921
3.4794
0.3856
5.7570
1.4143
114
mao, August 2007
Core#1:Darcy Plot
0.35
y = 0.31
63x + 0.0071
2
R =
0.9995
0.30
0.25
0.20
A
/
Q
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
0.1
0.8
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1
DP/L
Figure A.1: Darcys law plot for core #1

115
Core#1:Klinkenberg Plot
7.0
6.0
y = 1.5044x + 5.0486
5.0
) 4.0
D
m
(
g
K
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
0.6
0.7
0.1
0.8
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.4
1/Pavg (atm-1)
Figure A.2: Klinkenberg correction plot for core #1
0.5
116
Amao, August 2007
Core ID: #3
Length: 3.61 cm
psia
Ambient Pressure: 680 mmHg = 13.1496
Diameter: 3.7 cm
Temperature: 74 F
2
Area: 10.7521 cm
P
Q/A
PL
in
out
g
P
(psi )
(cm/s)
(atm)
(atm)
(cc/sec)
(md)
(atm/c
(
)atm
m)
10
1.5725
0.0469
20
2.2529
0.0903
30
2.9333
3.6137
4.3972
0.8921
0.9712
0.6359
4.2309
0.8921
1.4604
0.5228
4.2412
0.8921
1.9423
0.4439
4.2305
0.8921
2.3364
0.3856
4.0711
0.7539
4.2941
0.2173
0.8115
0.5654
0.1806
50
0.5047
0.3770
0.1358
40
0.8921
0.1885
0.9424
Core#3:Darcy Plot
0.25
y
= 0.2287x + 0.0049
2
R = 0.9986
0.20
0.15
A
/
Q
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0
0.8
.7
0.1
0.9
0.2
1.0
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
DP/L
117
Core #3: Klinkenberg Plot
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
y = 0.6068x + 3.8944
) 3.0
D
m
2.5
(
g
K
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.7
0.8
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.9
1/Pavg
118
Amao, August 2007
Core ID: #6
Length: 3.3 cm
psia
Diameter: 3.72 cm
Temperature: 74 F
2
Area: 10.8687 cm
P
Q/A
PL
in
out
g
P
(psi )
(cm/s)
(atm)
(atm)
(cc/sec)
(md)
(atm/c
(
)atm
m)
10
1.5725
0.8921
0.2991
0.8115
2.3567
0.0275
20
0.2062
2.2529
0.0505
30
2.9333
0.0753
40
0.5492
0.6359
2.1635
0.8921
0.8179
0.5228
2.1481
0.8921
1.0584
0.4439
2.0848
0.8921
1.3013
0.3856
2.0505
0.6185
3.6137
0.0974
50
0.8921
0.4124
0.8247
4.2941
0.1197
1.0309
Core#6: Darcy Plot

0.14
y = 0.11
22x + 0.0047
2
R =
0.9996
0.12
0.10
0.08
A
/
Q
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.0
1.0
0.2
1.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
DP/L

119
Core #6: Klinkenberg Plot
2.50
2.00
y = 0.6825x + 1.7786
) 1.50
D
m
(
g
K 1.00
0.50
0.00
0
0.6
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.8
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.9
1/Pavg (1/atm)
120
Amao, August 2007
Core ID: #9
Length: 3.55 cm
psia
Diameter: 3.72 cm
Temperature: 74 F
Area: 10.8687 cm
P
Q/A
PL
in
out
g
P
(psi )
(cm/s)
(atm)
(atm)
(cc/sec)
(md)
(atm/c
(
)atm
m)
10
1.5725
0.0726
0.8921
0.7895
0.8115
6.6913
20
0.8921
1.5003
0.6359
6.3583
0.8921
2.3320
0.5228
6.5886
0.8921
3.0055
0.4439
6.3686
0.8921
3.7909
0.3856
6.4263
0.1917
2.2529
0.1380
30
0.3833
2.9333
0.2146
40
0.5750
3.6137
0.2765
50
0.7666
4.2941
0.3488
0.9583
Core#9: Darcy Plot

0.40
0.35
y = 0.3604x + 0.0029
2
R = 0.9992
0.30
0.25
A
/
Q
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0
0.7
0.8
0.1
0.9
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
1.0
DP/L
0.6

121
Core#9: Klinkenberg Plot
8.0
7.0
6.0
y = 0.5439x + 6.182
5.0
)
D
m
(
4.0
g
K
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
0.6
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.8
0.3
0.4
0.9
1/Pavg (1/atm)
0.5
122
Amao, August 2007
Core ID: #10
Length: 3.28 cm
psia
Diameter: 3.725 cm
Temperature: 74 F
Area: 10.8979 cm2
(atm)
PL
Q/A
in
out
g
P
(psi )
(atm)
(cm/s)
(cc/sec)
(md)
(atm/c
(
)atm
m)
10
1.5725
0.0672
0.8921
0.7327
0.8115
5.7227
20
0.8921
1.4669
0.6359
5.7282
0.8921
2.1419
0.5228
5.5763
0.8921
2.7960
0.4439
5.4592
0.8921
3.6024
0.3856
5.6270
0.2074
2.2529
0.1346
30
0.4149
2.9333
0.1965
40
0.6223
3.6137
0.2566
50
0.8298
4.2941
0.3306
1.0372
Core#10: Darcy Plot

0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
A
y = 0.3127x + 0.0025
/
2
Q
R = 0.9988
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
0.2
1.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
DP/L

123
7.0
6.0
5.0
y = 0.4647x + 5.3625
)
D
m
(
4.0
g
K
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
0.6
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.8
0.3
0.4
0.9
1/Pavg (1/atm)
0.5
124
Amao, August 2007
Core ID: #13
Length: 6.1 cm
psia
Diameter: 3.745 cm
Temperature: 71 F
2
Area: 11.01523 cm
P
Q/A
PL
in
out
g
P
(psi )
(atm)
(atm)
(cm/s)
(cc/sec)
(md)
(atm/c
(
)atm
m)
10
1.5712
0.0514
20
2.2516
0.0989
0.5657
0.8124
8.0957
0.8908
1.0898
0.6365
7.7982
0.8908
1.6615
0.5232
7.9261
0.4441
7.7298
0.2231
30
2.9320
0.1508
40
0.8908
0.1115
0.3346
3.6124
0.8908
2.1604
0.1961
50
0.4462
4.2928
0.8908
0.2504
2.7578
0.3858
7.8939
0.5577
Core #13: Darcy Plot

0.30
0.25
0.20
A
/
Q
0.15
y = 0.444x + 0.001
2
R = 0.9994
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.4
DP/L

125
9.0
8.0
7.0
y = 0.536x + 7.5883
6.0
)
D
m
(
5.0
g 4.0
K
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
0.1
0.6
0.7
0.2
0.8
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.9
1/Pavg (1/atm)
126
Amao, August 2007
Core ID: #22
Length: 4.94 cm
psia
Diameter: 3.75 cm
Temperature: 71 F
2
Area: 11.0447 cm
P
P
Q/A
P
PL
in
out
g
P
(psi )
(atm)
(atm)
(cm/s)
(cc/sec)
(md)
(atm/cm)
(
10
1.5712
0.0081
20
0.8908
2.2516
0.8908
2.9320
1.0295
0.3956
0.6365
0.9759
0.8908
0.3038
0.5232
0.9688
0.2466
0.4441
0.9220
0.2075
0.3858
0.9459
0.4132
3.6124
0.0289
50
0.8124
0.2755
0.0228
40
0.5670
0.1377
0.0153
30
)atm
0.8908
0.5509
4.2928
0.0370
0.8908
0.6887
Core#22: Darcy Plot

0.040
0.035
0.030
0.025
y = 0.052x + 0.0009
2
A
R = 0.9986
0.020
/
Q
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
0
0.6
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.8
DP/L

127
0.5

1.2
1.0
y = 0.2205x + 0.8449
0.8
)
D
m 0.6
(
g
K
0.4
0.2
0.0
0
0.7
0.1
0.8
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.9
1/Pavg (1/atm)
128
0.6

Amao, August 2007
Core ID: #23
Length: 5.44 cm
psia
Diameter: 3.78 cm
Temperature: 71 F
2
Area: 11.2221 cm
P
Q/A
PL
in
out
g
P
(psi )
(atm)
(cm/s)
(atm)
(cc/sec)
(
10
1.5712
0.8908
0.0245
)atm
0.2750
0.8124
3.4449
0.5597
0.6365
3.5062
0.8056
0.5232
3.3642
1.0736
0.4441
3.3625
1.3478
0.3858
3.3771
0.1251
20
2.2516
0.8908
0.0499
0.2501
30
2.9320
0.8908
0.0718
0.3752
40
3.6124
0.8908
0.0957
0.5003
50
4.2928
0.8908
0.1201
0.6254
Core#23: Darcy Plot

0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
A
y = 0.1895x + 0.0013
/
2
Q
R = 0.9996
0.06
0.04
(md)
(atm/cm)
0.02
0.00
0
0.1
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.7
DP/L

129
4.0
3.5
3.0
y = 0.2536x + 3.2689
2.5
)
D
m
(
2.0
g
K
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
0.6
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.8
0.3
0.4
0.9
1/Pavg (1/atm)
0.5
130
Amao, August 2007
Core ID: #25
Length: 4.425 cm
psia
Diameter: 3.77 cm
Temperature: 71 F
2
Area: 11.1628 cm
P
Q/A
PL
in
out
g
P
(psi )
(cm/s)
(atm)
(atm)
(cc/sec)
(
10
1.5712
0.0200
20
2.2516
2.9320
3.6124
0.2236
0.8124
2.2905
0.8908
0.4360
0.6365
2.2333
0.8908
0.6685
0.5232
2.2829
0.8908
0.8700
0.4441
2.2282
0.8908
1.0881
0.3858
2.2294
0.6151
4.2928
0.0975
0.8908
0.4613
0.0779
50
)atm
0.3075
0.0599
40
(md)
0.1538
0.0391
30
(atm/cm)
0.7688
Core#25: Darcy Plot
0.12
0.1
0.08
A
/
Q
0.06
y = 0.126x + 0.0007
2
R = 0.9996
0.04
0.02
0
0
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.8
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.9
DP/L

131
2.5
2.0
y = 0.1209x + 2.1851
) 1.5
D
m
(
g
K
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
0.6
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.8
0.3
0.9
0.4
0.5
1/Pavg (1/atm)
132
Amao, August 2007
Core ID: #26
Length: 4.145 cm
554 psia
Ambient Pressure: 680.03 mmHg = 13.1
Diameter: 3.75 cm
Temperature: 76 F
2
Area: 11.0447 cm
P
Q/A
PL
in
out
g
P
(psi )
(cm/s)
(atm)
(atm)
(cc/sec)
(
3
5
0.6792
4
7
0.8703
(md)
(atm/cm)
1.0989
)atm
0.8948
7.5020
1.0032
244.194
0.8948
9.6123
0.9701
234.664
0.8948
10.8631
0.9391
212.160
0.0492
1.1669
0.0657
1.2350
0.9836
6
9
1.1805
7
1
1.2634
0.0821
1.3030
0.8948
13.0384
0.9100
212.203
0.8948
13.9540
0.8827
194.662
0.0985
1.3711
0.1149
Core#26: Darcy Plot

0.12
0.10
0.08
y = 0.1005x - 0.0194
2
R = 0.9901
L
/
P
D
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.0
1.2
1.0
0.2
1.4
0.4
0.6
0.8
Q/A

133
300
250
y = 403.8x - 160.39
200
)
D
m
(
150
g
K
100
50
0
6
0.86
0.98
0.88
1.00
0.90
1.02
0.92
0.94
0.9
1/Pavg (1/atm)
134
mao, August 2007
APPENDIX B
ALGORITHM FOR SELECTION OF THE RIGHT BETA FACTOR CORRELATION
Figure B.1: Beta Factor Correlation Selection Chart (SPE 70015)

135
----------------------- Page 150----------------------Texas Tech University, Abiod

un Matthew Amao, August 2007
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
Amao, August 2007
Figure C.3: The core samples used for the experiments
138
mao, August 2007
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 h
e
worked for Baker Atlas (Baker Hughes) as a well logging engineer.
Prior to working for Baker Atlas, he had his undergraduate education at the Univ
ersity of
Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria where he graduated as a petroleum engineering student wi
th
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 eng
ineering
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, u
nder 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 f
uture.
139
----------------------- Page 154----------------------Texas Tech University, Abiodu
n Matthew Amao, August 2007
PERMISSION TO COPY
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for a masters
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 fo
r 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 copyin
g or
publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my fu
rther
written permission and that any user may be liable for copyright infringement.
Agree (Permission is granted.)
RD
ABIODUN MATTHEW AMAO
23
July, 2007
Student Signature
Date
Disagree (Permission is not granted.)
_______________________________________________
Student Signature
Date
_________________

Forecheimer Equation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Forecheimer Equation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

----------------------- Page 1----------------------MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR DARCY FORCHHEIMER FLOW WITH

APPLICATIONS TO WELL PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Porous Media and Equations of Flow

Darcys Law: Assumptions and Limitations

Non-Darcy Flow; Darcy-Forchheimer Flow Equation

Flow Regimes in Porous Media

Significance of Thesis and Organization

Non-Darcy Flow in the Reservoir

Completions, Gravel Packs and Perforations

Beta Factor , its Measurement and Correlations

Non-Darcy Flow Modeling

Importance of Accurate Reservoir Pressure Predict

Laboratory Experiments on Non-Darcy flow in Cores

Derivation of the Mathematical Model

Description of the Simulator

Numerical Computation and Algorithm

Laboratory Measurement of Beta Factor

RESULTS OF NUMERICAL COMPUTATIONS

Horizontal Well in a Rectangular Reservoir

Centered Circular Well in a Rectangular Reservoir

Off-centered Circular Well in a Rectangular Reser

Centered Circular Well in a Square Reservoir

Off-centered Circular well in a Square Reservoir

Concentric Well in a Circular Reservoir

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Analysis and Discussion of Experimental Results

Analysis and Discussion of Computational Results

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

C. EXPERIMENTAL SET UP AND EQUIPMENT USED IN THE

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

5.7 Productivity index vs. rate @ L=40000 cm

A.7: Darcys law plot for core #9

----------------------- Page 12----------------------Texas Tech University, Abiodun Matthe

information which a reservoir or a production engineer must have before he/she c

Where q = Production rate

Mathematical expression and

(b) Equation of State

(c) Law governing the dynam

ure gradients in the coordinates of flow

nal body forces, such as gravity in the direction of flow

to flow. An expression for viscous flow is given by:

quation is obtained by equating the sum of these three forces stated

ameters gives the Navier Stokes equation in three dimensions

iodun Matthew Amao, August 2007

The three laws and equations stated above are mathemat

1.2 Porous Media and Equations of

media; this is called the effective pore space.

1.3 Darcys Law: Assumptions and Limitations

The constant of proportionality C in the original Darcy equation has been

, where is the viscosity of the fluid and k is called th

of the porous medium. Permeability is a property of the structure of the porous

And more generally as:

Darcys law assumes laminar or viscous flow (creep velocity); it do

1.4 Non-Darcy Flow; Darcy-Forchheimer Flow Equation

----------------------- Page 24----------------------Texas Tech University, Abiodun Matthew

High velocity flow effects.

d) Non-Newtonian fluids phenomena.

Near the well bore (Perforations)

b) Hydraulically fractured wells

Condensates reservoirs (Low viscosity crude reservoirs)

High flow potential wells

Naturally fractured reservoirs