Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE 26201
Use of Vogel's Inflow Performance Relation for Coal Wells
J.P. Seidle and D.J. Erickson, Amoco Production CO.
SPE Members
Copyright 1993, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 28-30 June 1993.
This paper was selected for pnssentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained In an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as pres~nted, have not been nsviewed by the Society of .Petroleum Engineers and are subject 10 correction by Ihe author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any poSItion of the SocIety of ~~oleum Engineers: Its offIcers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by EdHorlal Committees of the Society
of Petroleum EngIneers. PermIssIon to copy IS restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may nol be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledg-
ment of where and by whom the paper Is presented. WrHe Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A. Telex, 163245 SPEUT.
Introduction
Deliverability of coal wells, like conventional gas
wells, depends on bottomhole flowing pressure. Because
coal wells often produce both gas and water, lowering
bottomhole flowing pressure to increase gas rate also
increases water rate. Thus, optimization of coal well
profitabilit.y entails balancing gas revenues and water
disposal costs. The present study was undertaken to
determine if t.he relation between coal well bottomhole
flowing pressure and gas and water production rates
could be described by Vogel's Inflow Performance
Relation OPR). First, simulation studies were done to
test the applicability of Vogel's IPR to coal wells. Sec-
ondly, productivity of actual coal wells was compared
with Vogel's IPR curv~s.
Productivity of an oil well draining a solution-gas
drive reservoir was investigat.ed by VogeP using numer-
ical simulation. A total of 21 simulat.ions covering a
wide range of oil, PVT properties, and relative permea-
bilities were made. By using dimensionless pressures
and rates, Vogel found well productivity could be
described by
2
q = 1-0.2---0.8
-- Pwf ( -
Pwf
-)
qmax Paug Paug)
where q is oil production rate in bpd, qmax is maximum
oil production rate in bpd, Pu'f is bottom hole flowing
pressure in psia, and Prwlf. is average reservoir pressure
in psia. Eq. (1), called Vogel's Inflow Performance
Relation OPR), was found to describe simulated well
productivity with a typical accuracy of 10%. Errors as
high as 20% were noted for simulations of viscous crudes
and/or damaged wells with skin factors great than + 5.
Over the last quarter century, Vogel's IPR curve has
been extensively used to pl'edict oil well performance.
Because of this SIICCPSS, the qUf!stion arose as to whet.her
References and illustrations at end of paper.
Vogel's IPR could also describe gas and water pro-
duction from a coal well.
Pi more generalized Inflow Performance Relation
was developed by Richardson and Shaw.2 Their equation
q Pwf
qrnax = 1 - V P - (1 - V)
( Pwf
P
)2 (2)
alJg aug
includes a variable Vogel coefficient., denoted as V. The
Vogel coefficient corresponding to the classic Vogel IPR
is 0.2. Because of the unconventional nature of coal bed
methane, it was speculated that the generalized method
of Richardson and Shaw may describe coal well gas and
water production more accurately than the Vogel IPR.
Deliverability of a Warrior Basin coal well was
discussed by Reeves et al. 3 Backpressure of a Deerlick
Creek well was sequentially decreased then increased,
with t.he well being kept at each pressure for a week.
Data obtained from the increasing boUomhole pressure
steps fell substant.ially below that obtained from the
decreasing bottomhole pressure steps. Reeves et al.
attributed this behavior to the well not being stabilized.
As shown by Mavor and Robinson4, stabilization times
of coal wells can be much longer than conventional gas
(1) wells with similar permeabilities and pressures due to
sorption compressibility. In the present study, care was
taken in the field work to ensure wells were stabilized
at a given pressure before moving to the next point.
Simulation Studies
Due to the expense of field tests, simulation was
first used to investigate applicability of Vogel's IPR to
coal wells. This study used Amoco's fully implicit, con-
vent-ional reservoir simulator modified for coalbed met.h-
ane simulation as described by Seidle and Arri. 5 The
model assumed a flat, isot.ropic, constant thickness coal
641
 USE OF VOGEL'S INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATION FOR COAL
2 WELLS
seam drained by a single wellbore and used a logarith-
mically spaced radial grid_ Boundary conditions were a
specified flowing bottomhole pressure and a closed outer
boundary_ Initial simulations investigated gridblock and
time step effects. These runs indicated a simulation with
sixty radial gridblocks and a maximum time step of five
days was clear of numerical artifacts. Two sets of sim-
ulations were done for this study. The first set stimu-
lated a well draining a typical San Juan Basin coalbed.
Pertinent properties are given in Table 1. The second
set was an unstimulated well draining a typical Marylee
coal well in the Warrior Basin with properties given in
Table 2.
In each case, deliverability curves were constructed
by simulating 20 to 30 years of production at several
different flowing bottomhole pressures. Gas and water
production rates at selected gas recoveries were tabu-
lated as a function of bottomhole flowing pressure. For
example, shown in Table 3 are simulated Warrior Basin
coal well gas and water deliverabilities at 15% recovery
of OGIP. These results were then plotted to give the gas
and water deliverability curves shown in Figures 1 and
2.
The gas deliverability curve~ in Figure 1 behave
differently than those of a conventional gas well. At a
gas recovery of 2%, the curve is nearly vertical. At a
5% gas recovery, the bottom portion of the curve has
moved to the right and filled out while the top portion
nearly remains fixed. After the well has reached peak
gas production and st.arted to decline, at a gas recovery
of 10%, the deliverability curve has reached its maxi-
mum inflation and started to contract. As more gas is
drained from the coal, the deliverability curves continue
to shrink towards the origin, just as does conventional
gas well deliverability.
The water deliverability curves shown in Figure 2
exhibit a steady contraction toward the origin, just as
would be expected of a conventional oil or water well.
Each deliverability curve was extrapolated to
determine maximum flow rate. Average reservoir pres-
sure at each gas recovery was determined from simu-
lated cumulatives and a mass balance equation. 6
Maximum flow rate and average reservoir pressure were
then used to compute dimensionless flow rates and pres-
sures. The results for the Warrior Basin simulation are
plotted in Figures 3 and 4. Also shown in each figure
is Vogel's IPR curve, Eq. (1). All points in the dimen-
sionless gas deliverability plot, Figure 3, fall below
Vogel's curve, with the exception of those corresponding
to a gas recovery of 2% OGIP. All points in the dimen-
sionless water deliverability plot, Figure 4, fall below
Vogel's curve, with the greatest deviation occurring at
low gas recoveries. Vogel's simulated deliverabllities 1
also plotted below his IPR equation, especially those
corresponding to viscous oils and/or damaged wellbores.
His results plotted progressively farther below his IPR
equations as oil recovery increased, similar to the gas
results and opposite to the water results reported here.
Dimensionless gas and water deliverabilities from
both the San Juan and Warrior Basin simulations are
plotted in Figures 5 and 6, respectively. Also shown in
each figure is Vogel's IPR, Eq. (1). Overall, the agree-
ment belween simulated coal well deliverability and
642
SPE 26201
Vogel's Inflow Performance Relation is fairly good. As
with Vogel's original study, simulated deliverabilities fell
slightly below his equation. The next step was to com-
pare actual coal well performance with Vogel's IPR
curve.
Field Tests
Two San Juan Basin coal wells were selected for
this study. Both wells are located in the northern San
Juan Basin. At the time of testing, both wells were on
pump with water being lifted up the tubing and gas
flowing up the annulus. These wells were subjected to
a series of increasing then decreasing bottomhole pres-
sure steps to determine the relation between gas and
water production rat.es and flowing bottomhole pressure.
Bottomhole pressures were measured with downhole
gauges equipped for surface readout. Raw gauge pres-
sures were corrected using calibration curves provided
by t.he service company. Casing pressures were also
recorded and fluid levels shot, enabling bottomhole pres-
sures to be calculated and checked against pressures
from the downhole gauges.
Well A IPR Test
This well was completed in five coal zones and had
a net coal thickness of 85 ft over a 380 ft gross interval.
Pertinent coal and well properties are collect.ed in
Table 4. Pretest production is shown in Figure 7. A
total of eight test steps plus an additional point from a
mass balance calculation were done on this well and are
summarized in Table 5.
At each step, data were monitored until pressures
and flow rates had stabilized. Average stabilization time
for both wells was on the order of 10 days but varied
substantially. Average step length (stabilization
time + test time) for both wells was 20 days. Once the
well was stabilized, it was left undisturbed for at least
a week, preferably more, to obtain flow and pressure
data for the step. As the wells were automated, gas
production rate, and bottomhole and casing pressures
were reported approximately every 20 minutes. Water
production was reported on a daily basis and fluid levels
were shot anywhere from once to a dozen times pCI' step.
Thus, after stabilizat.ion, a typical st.ep might have
500 gas production rate and bottomhole and casing
pressure data points, 7 to 10 water production rate
points, and less t.han half-dozen fluid level shots. Gas
rate data typically showed variations on the order of
10%, that is, average gas production rate calculated over
the entire stabilized interval (not the entire step), over
the last week of stabilized production, and over the last
24 hours of the test all agreed within 10%. Wat.er pro
duction rates were typically wit.hin 20%, while pressures
were the steadiest of all variables with averages calcu
lated over various intervals usually agreeing within 2 to
3%. The gas-water ratio ranged from 2.64 to
2.78 MCF/STB throughout the test with an average
value of 2.70 MCF/STB.
Corrected boUomhole pressure. gas production rat.e.
water production rate, and casing pressure for step 4,
typical of data seen throughout these tests, :-Il"e pre-
sented in Figures 8 through -11, respectively. Both noise
and excursions are apparent in both flow rate and pl'es-
SPE 26201 1. P. SEIDLE AND D. 1. ERICKSON
sure data. The most frequent cause of excursions was
changing line pressures due to downstream compressor
problems.
Final data for the Well A test are collected in
Table 5. This test gave a total of nine points, eight
flowing points and one zero flow point from a mass bal-
ance calculation. Deliverability data were fitted to
Vogel's IPR using a nonlinear curve fit routine. When
applied to the gas data, the nonlinear fitting gave a
maximum gas flow rate was 576 mcfd and an average
reservoir pressure of 1,103 psia. Similarly, maximum
water flow rat.e was 213 bpd and average reservoir
pressure was 1,131 psia. Both are in good agreement
with the average pressure calculated from the mass bal-
ance equation, 1,121 psia. For calculation of dimension-
less pressure ratios, the average value of the two
reservoir pressures was utilized, 1,117 psia. Dimension-
less gas deliverability data are plotted in Figure 12
along with Vogel's lPR, Eq. (1). Although this test did
not yield as much mid-range data as desired, agreement
wit.h Vogel's curve is good. Dimensionless water deliv-
erability as well as Vogel's equation are plott.ed in
Figure 13. The mid-range data point seen in the gas
deliverability results, Figure 12, has no corresponding
water deliverability point as the pump was shut off to
obtain a high bottomhole pressure_ Consequently, no
mid-range water deliverability data were obtained for
this test. It was concluded that both gas and water
deliverability of this well were closely described by
Vogel's Inflow Performance Relation_
Well B IPR Test
Only two coal seams were present in t.his well and
net coal t.hickness was 47 ft over a 168 ft gross interval.
Pertinent coal and well properties are collected in
Table 6. Pretest production is shown in Figure 14.
Data from this well were generally of poorer quality
than those from Well A. Data t.races showed more noise
and more frequent ex~ursions, caused by operational
problems, than did dat.a from the previous well. In
addit.ion, indicat.ed downhole pressure was often lower
than casing pressure, clearly contradict.ing upward now
of the gas. In such cases, bottomhole flowing pressure
calculated from a correlation based on casing pressure
and product.ion data was used inst.ead of gauge data.
Post-t.est calibration of the gauge did not resolve the
problems with the downhole dat.a. The pump began to
fail on t.he second step, became progressively more inef-
ficient as the test continued, and finally ceased to func-
t.ion. The result was good mid-range gas deliverability
data but only a few water deliverability points.
This t.est yielded a tot.al of four test steps plus an
additional point from a mass balance calculation. All
five points are summarized in Table 7. Only two points
had nonzero wat.er rat.es and no meaningful comparison
with Vogel's IPR could be made. Gas data were fitted
to Vogel's curve with a nonlinear curve fit routine,
yielding a maximum gas rate of 715 mcfd and an average
reservoir pressure of 677 psia. This calculated value of
average reservoir pressure is in excellent agreement
with that. oet.ermined via t.he mass balance relat.ion,
677 psia. Dimensionless gas delivel"ability is plotted
along with Vogel's IPR curve in Figures 16_ This IPR
643
3
test yielded a good spread of data and, as seen in
Figure 15, coal well gas deliverability is well described
by Vogel's IPR. The two steps in this test which had
both gas and water production had an average gas-water
ratio of 4.1 MCF/STB.
Based on this study, Vogel's Inflow Performance
Relation describes coal well gas and water deliverabili-
ties. It was concluded that for many production engi-
neering calculations, Vogel's equation can be used.
Richardson & Shaw Generalized Deliverability
In addition to fitting measured gas and water deliv-
erabilities to the classic Vogel curve, at.tempts were
made to fit the data to the generalized deliverability
equation of Richardson and Shaw,2 Eq. (2), using a non-
linear curve fit rout.ine. Values of maximum production
rates and average pressures obt.ained from the fitting
routine did not vary significantly between the Vogel and
generalized IPR's and are summarized along with the
Vogel coefficients in Table 8. Calculated Vogel coeffi-
cients ranged from + 0.248 to 0.208 (recall the classic
Vogel IPR has a Vogel coefficient of 0.2). At this time,
the physical meaning of a negative Vogel coefficient is
not known. Residual errors from t.he Vogel and gener-
alized IPR curve fits were comparable. Based on this
work, it is concluded that a generalized IPR does not
describe coal well gas and water deliverabilities signif-
icantly better than does the classic Vogel curve.
Stabilization Time
Stabilization t.ime for gas well testing is discussed
by Govier.' An equat.ion commonly used for calculating
gas well stabilization time is
2
4>f.l r
15 :;:-;1000 - k - - (3)
il'avg
where 4> is the gasfilled porosity, as a decimal, f.l is gas
viscosity at Paug in cp, r. is the drainage radius in feet,
kg is effective gas viscosity in md, and Paug is average
reservoir pl'essure in psia.
No pressure transient testing of Well A had been
done, thus permeabilities of coals penet.rated by this well
are not known. A prefrac pressure falloff t.est was done
on Well B and relative permeabilities were available to
estimate effect.ive permeabilit.y t.o gas. Using Eq. (3),
No. 1 stabilization time for Well B was calculated to be
512 hrs, just over 21 days. As not.ed above, stabilization
time for both wells was on the order of 10 days. Given
the approximat.e nature of Eq. (3), it is concluded that
for deliverability test.ing, coal well stabilization time can
be calculated as for convent.ional gas wells. Based on
this study, stabilization time for coal well deliverability
testing is much less than t.he time to reach pseudo-steady
state flow. It is this second time, the time t.o reach
pseudo-steady state flow, which is important for many
reservoir engineel"ing calculations and which, for coals
wells, is much longer (on the order of two months) due
to sorption compressibility. Why sOl"ption compressibil-
ity did not lengthen stabilization time in thrse tests is
not known at t.he present time.
 USE OF VOGEL'S INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATION FOR COAL
4 WELLS
Example Field Application
Vogel's IPR can be used on coal wells to assess
additional gas and water potential and to size artificial
lift equipment. It can also be used to gauge the effi
ciency of workovers and restimulations by comparison
of IPR curves before and after the job. As an example
of this last application, consider a well which was
making 80 MCFD and 100 BPD at a flowing bottomhole
pressure of 400 psia. Average reservoir pressure is
1,300 psia. Additional potential was suspected and the
well was refraced. After t.he refrac, the well was making
105 MCFD and 113 BPD wit.h a bottomhole pressure of
650 psia. Clearly, the restimulat.ion helped t.his well, but
how much?
Answering this question is a two-step process.
First, maximum flow rates of the rest.imulat.ed well are
determined. Secondly, flow rates at the original bottom
hole pressure, 400 psi, are calculated and compared to
current rates.
Step 1:
Pressure ratio at current conditions is
SPE 26201
Qw2 = 161 BPD = 1.61
qwl 100BPD
That is, the restimulation increased well productivit.y by
61 %. Note that identical results were obtained from gas
and water calculations. In practice, it is necessary to
consider only one, gas or water, and thereby halve the
number of calculations done here.
Future Work
Future work should endeavor to shorten test time
as the three-week interval required for each pressure
step in this study is excessively long and too expensive
for many coal wells. Future work should also endeavor
to develop a deliverability equation for coal wells similar
to that which describes convent.ional gas wells.' Such
an equation would be of use by regulatory bodies in
determination of coal well allowablcs.
Acknowledgements
The help of Amoco's Durango Operations Center
throughout the field tests is gratefully acknowledged.

650psia References
1300 psia = 0.500
1. Vogel, J. V., "Inflow Performance Relationships
Vogel's IPR, Eq. (1) gives for SolutionGas Drive Wells," JPT, 20, 83 (1968).

-q-=0.700 2. Richardson, J. M. and Shaw, A. H., "Two-rate IPR

qrnax testing - a practical production tool," JCPT,
so maximum flow rates are March-April 1982, p. 57-61.

qgmax = 105 MCFD

0.700
= 150 MCFD 3. Reeves, S. R., Lambert, S. W., and Zuber, M. D.,
"A Field Derived Inflow Performance Relationship
for Coalbed Gas Wells in the Black Warrior
Basin," paper no. 8744, presented at the 1987
qwmax = 131 BPD = 187 BPD Coalbed Methane Symposium, Tuscaloosa, Ala
0.700
barna, November 16-19, 1987.
Step 2:
4. Mavor, M. J., and Robinson, J. R., "Analysis of
Pressure ratio at original bottomhole pressure Coal Gas Reservoir Interference and Cavity Well
Tests," SPE 25860, presented at the 1993 Joint
P wf 400psia
-
P
- = __ ~--:-- = 0.308
1300 psia
Rock Mountain Regional and Low Permeability
avg Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, CO, April 2628,
1993.
Vogel's IPR gives
5. Seidle, J. P. and Arri, L. E. "Use of Conventional
-q-=0.863 Reservoir Models for Coalbed Methane Simu-
qrnax
lation," paper no. CIM/-SPE 90- 118, presented at
Consequently, flow rates of restimulated well at 400 psia the CIM/SPE International Technical Meeting,
bottomhole pressure are June 10-13, 1990, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
qg2= 0.863 (150 MCFD) = 129 MCFD 6. Seidle, J. P., "Long-Term Gas Deliverability of a
Dewatered Coalbed," SPE 21488, presented at the
qw2 = 0.863 (187 BPD) = 161 BPD SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Houston, Texas,
Thus, gas deliverability has been increased by January 23-25, 1991.

qg2 = 129 MCFD = 161. 7. Govier, G. W., ed, "Theory and Pract.ice of the
qgl 80 MCFD Testing of Gas Wells," Alberta Energy Resources
Conservation Board, Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
Similarly for water deliverability 1975.

644
SPE 26201 1. P. SEIDLE AND D. 1. ERICKSON 5

Table 1: Coal and Well Properties Table 4: Coal and Well Properties
for San Juan Simulation for Well A
Area = 320 acres Area = 320 acres
thickness = 20 fi thickness = 85 fi
4> = 0.020 4> = 0.005
k = 10 md V moc = 927 SCF/ton
Vmvc = 968 SCF/ton b = 0.00276 psi-l
b = 0.00140 psi-1 PH = 1.605 gm/cc
=
PIJ 1.5 gm/cc Initial pressure = 1200 psi @ 2480 ft
Init.ial pressure = 1,600 psi Initial gas saturation = 0.0
Initial gas saturation = 0.0 Co = 290.091 mmcf
Jl w = 0.55 cp Wo = 179.500 mstb
Reservoir temperature = 125F = 585 R Reservoir temperatUl'e = H5F = 575 R
r", = 0.206 ft r", = 0.206 fi
skin = -2.68

Table 5: Well A IPR Test Results

Table 2: Coal and Well Properties Step
for l\Iarylee Simulation Step qg, qw, pwf, psi Length,
l\ICFD BPD
Area = 160 acres days
thickness = 11ft 1 572 207 108 9
tb = 0.020 2 554 199 166 10
k = 18 md 3 510 193 324 9
V moc = 733 SCF/ton 4 503 185 219 15
b = 0.00370 psi-l 5 499 186 265 20
PIJ = 1.5 gm/ec
6 497 185 424 23
Init.ial pressure = 530 psi 7 443 168 505 26
Initial gas saturation = 0.0 8 177 168 842 37
Jl w = 0.77 cp 9 0 0 1121 mbe*
Reservoir temperature = 90F = 550 R
* mbe mass balance equation
rw = 0.206 ft
skin = 0

Table 6: Coal and Well Properties

for Well B
Table 3: Typical Warrior Basin Area = 320 acres
Deliverability Results t.hickness = 47 ft
qg, l\ICFD qw,BPD pwf, psi 4> = 0.005
55.0 18.3 50 V moc = 979 SCF/ton
,
48.7 16.1 100 =
b 0.00237 psi-1
40.5 13.4 150
PH = 1.466 gm/cc
30.9 10.2 200 Initial pressure = 724 psi @ 1472 ft
8.4 2.8 300 Init.ial gas saturation = 0.0
CD = 285.708 mmcf

WD = 158.878 mstb
Reservoir temperature = 95F = 555 R
r", = 0.262 fi

645
 USE OF VOGEL'S INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATION FOR COAL
6 WELLS SPE 26201

Table 7: Well B IPR Test Results

qg, qw, Step
Step pwf, psi Length,
MCFD BPD days
1 638 161 166 14
2 605 140 215 9
3 431 0 429 30
4 283 0 500 27
5 0 0 675 mbe*

* mbe = mass balance equation

Table 8: Comparison of Vogel and Generalized IPR Results

Well A Well A-water Well B-gas f

l\'qiCab irpf) ~Fb

F
PaYIl
pSla V Pa'!ll
pSla V Pa'!ll
pSla
V
Vogel
IPR 576 1103 +0.200 213 1131 +0.200 715 677 +0.200
Gener-
alized
(PR 581 1105 +0.248 197 1122 -0.208 673 673 -0.040

500

Legend
400
o Gp = 2% ogip
t:. Gp= 5%~

300 + Gp= ~o~~

en

-c..
~
~

c.. 200-
x Gp= 15,!~

<> 9'p'_=:=_?_q~L~9!(>

~ ~ =.15 %-E.9P-
181 ~_::.l.Q.?o og!p

100
)E 2.e...=: 35~...2.9!e
~ =40% ogp
O;--------.--------r-------.--------.------~
o 20 40 60 80 100
qg. mcfd
Figure 1. Simulated gas deliverability for Warrior Basin coal well

646
 500
Legend
o Gp = 2% ogip
Legend
400 0.8 I). Gp = 5% ogip
'\ o ~ = 2% ogie
\ I). Ge = 5 % !!9!.e.
+ Gp = 10% ogip
x Gp = 15% ogip
+~~~'!~ CJ)
'iii
..:
0-

~
300

\'\
,\, \
><.. Ge= 15,!~

<> ~.P._=:_?_Q~L~9!P ~
>
0

.....
~
0.6 <> Gp = 20% ogip

" Gp = 25% ogip

81 Gp = 30% ogip
0-
200 ~q.\ '+ \ v ~ = .1.5%.29!e. Q.. 0.4
" Gp = 35% ogip
ff\\\' \
~ \
\ 81 2e.::~Q.?o og!~
Vogel IPR (Ref 1)
\
\
2.e....=:~r~!~
~t" \ ..
)E

~\\
tOO 0.2

\ \ Qp = 40% og!p

0 O+---...------r----r-----.------;
0 20 40 60 80 100 o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
qw.bpd qg/qg max
Figure 2. Simulated water deliverability for Warrior Basin coal well Figure 3. Dimensronless simulated gas deliverability. Warrior Basin coal well

Legend
o Gp = 2% ogip Legend
0.8 I). Gp = 5% ogip O.B o San Juan
+ Gp =10% ogip I). Warrior
x Gp =15% ogip Ilt. 1).
0
0 VogeilPR (Ref 1)
CJ) 0 CJ)
> 0.6 <> Gp = 20% ogip > 0.6 1).1).
0 0 00

~
v Gp =25% ogip ~
I).~
..... Gp = 30% ogip
..... 2e,
~ 0.4
81 ~ 0.4
Q.. Q.. Ii.
v Gp = 35% ogip
Vogel IPR (Ref 1)
0.2 0.2

0;------.----.,----.---,------; 0~---r-----r-----r-----.-------4
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
qw/qw max qg/qg max
Figure 4. Dimensionless simulated water deliver'ability. Warrior Basin coal well Figure 5. Dimensionless s""",lated gas deliverability
 .. 7:"
10000.,-.,.,~..,....,-:"~-:-=::-::-:~=:,~ .. ~...:7: .. ~
.. 7:" ..:7:.~=:':7:.:7:
...:7: .. -:-=::-:-:-:-~-:-:-:-:-:")

Legend
0.8 o San Juan
6 Warrior Basin
66 6 Vogel IPR (Ref 1) .. ...,......t-...,....,.~-:-:-rr:=~...,....,.::_:_T_:_:_:t::_:+.~=l
1000-11-1-+-----....,-
6 00
g> 0.6 lh o
Il..
o ~ ~
Llc. 6 m
........
~ Cf~
......
~
Q. 0.4
6 0
~O
oL....
U
::f
.

I
I \.,~ ....... , ' .......... - - - - - -

M
0 100-.hi.f:I~.:l-:.,.,.~ .. ~
..-:-:" .. :-:-:
...-:-:" .. ~.-,--:-:-~~::-:-:-:-:-:+b~b~:~::i:.~:..:-:-:..=:'~~
.....,.
6 &
~ ~.' ............. Legend
0.2 64]0 ....
-.1
~6i " ...
.'1
I
MCF'D
~~"pp __ --
o~------.------.-------.------.-----~ 10+---,----r---.---,---.---~--._--_.--~
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
qw/qw max TIME. DAYS
Figure 6. Dimensionless simulated water deliverability Figure 7. Well A pretest production

m
~
Q)

600 1000 o
o
o

500
800

o
400 o o
0 00
600
I/)
0..
0 0 0
.aa. 0 ....u
-0

ci 300 ~- WSw 1&8 mtfi E

..c. 0 0, o
.0 CT 400
200 o

200
100

0 o 0 0 Q 0 0 0 m I o 0 0 I
0 5 10 15 o 5 10 15
time. days time. days
Figure B. Well A IPR test/step 4--bottomhole pressure Figure 9. Well A IPR test/step 4--gos production rate
 400 400

o
o
o 0
300 'iii 300
0..

~
-0 :J
0.. III
III
-D 200 Q) 200
000 o 0 L-
i0" o 0 0 0
o .. 0..
o 0 o 0>
o .!:
III
o
U
100 100-

o~-----------.------------.-----------~ o+-----------.-------~~~----------~
o 5 10 15 o 5 10 15
time, days time, days
Figure 10. Well A IPR test/step 4--water production rate Figure 11. Well A IPR test/step 4--casing pressure

1.2

Legend
test do to
Vogel curve
0.8-
(J)
>
o 0.6
~
0.:
0.4

0.2

O-~----'------.-----.------r------+-----~
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.B t.2
qg/qg max
Figure 12. Well A gas deliverability vs Vogel IPR
 1.2 10000~--------------'------'---:-=--'-----'----:7:1

Legend
test data
Vogel curve
0.8 1000
0
0'1 CL.
> ~
o 0.6 CD

~ ci
..... ,
a.:: U
:::::E ,,
. ..

I
".,.~ .,"

"',
0.4 100
...... Legend
0.2 Mcm
BWPD
--------
04---~--~~--~--~---_+----~ 10+---,--1L--,-----"T-~1-L--r_-L.._--_r-__r-_j
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
qw/qw max TIME, DAYS
Figure 13. Well A water deliverability vs Vogel IPR Figure 14. Well B pretest production

1.2

Legend
test data
Vogel curve
0.8
0'1
>
0
0.6
~
a.::
0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2
qg/qg max
Figure 15. Well B gas deliverobility vs Vogel IPR