Chapter 1

InfIow and OutfIow Performance

MichaeI L. Wiggins, U. of Oklahoma
1.1 The Production System
Understanding the principles oI Iluid Ilow through the production system is important in esti-
mating the perIormance oI individual wells and optimizing well and reservoir productivity. In
the most general sense, the production system is the system that transports reservoir Iluids
Irom the subsurIace reservoir to the surIace, processes and treats the Iluids, and prepares the
Iluids Ior storage and transIer to a purchaser. Fig. 1.1 depicts the production system Ior a sin-
gle well system. The basic elements oI the production system include the reservoir; wellbore;
tubular goods and associated equipment; surIace wellhead, Ilowlines, and processing equip-
ment; and artiIicial liIt equipment.
The reservoir is the source oI Iluids Ior the production system. It is the porous, permeable
media in which the reservoir Iluids are stored and through which the Iluids will Ilow to the
wellbore. It also Iurnishes the primary energy Ior the production system. The wellbore serves
as the conduit Ior access to the reservoir Irom the surIace. It is composed oI the drilled well-
bore, which normally has been cemented and cased. The cased wellbore houses the tubing and
associated subsurIace production equipment, such as packers. The tubing serves as the primary
conduit Ior Iluid Ilow Irom the reservoir to the surIace, although Iluids also may be transported
through the tubing-casing annulus.
The wellhead, Ilowlines, and processing equipment represent the surIace mechanical equip-
ment required to control and process reservoir Iluids at the surIace and prepare them Ior
transIer to a purchaser. SurIace mechanical equipment includes the wellhead equipment and
associated valving, chokes, maniIolds, Ilowlines, separators, treatment equipment, metering de-
vices, and storage vessels.
In many cases, the reservoir is unable to Iurnish suIIicient energy to produce Iluids to the
surIace at economic rates throughout the liIe oI the reservoir. When this occurs, artiIicial liIt
equipment is used to enhance production rates by adding energy to the production system. This
component oI the system is composed oI both surIace and subsurIace elements. This additional
energy can be Iurnished directly to the Iluid through subsurIace pumps, by reducing the back-
pressure at the reservoir with surIace compression equipment to lower wellhead pressure, or by
injecting gas into the production string to reduce the Ilowing gradient oI the Iluid.
Recognizing the various components oI the production system and understanding their inter-
action generally leads to improved well productivity through analysis oI the entire system. As
the Iluid Ilows Irom the reservoir into and through the production system, it experiences a con-
tinuous pressure drop (as Fig. 1.1 shows). The pressure begins at the average reservoir pressure
and ends either at the pressure oI the transIer line or near atmospheric pressure in the stock
tank. In either case, a large pressure drop is experienced as the reservoir Iluids are produced to
the surIace. It is the petroleum engineer`s responsibility to use this pressure reduction in an
optimal manner. The pressure reduction depends on the production rate and, at the same time,
the production rate depends on the pressure change. Understanding the relationship between
pressure and production rate is important to predicting the perIormance oI individual oil and
gas wells.
To design a well completion or predict the production rate properly, a systematic approach
is required to integrate the production system components. Systems analysis, which allows the
petroleum engineer to both analyze production systems and design well completions, accom-
plishes this. This chapter Iocuses on the Ilow oI reservoir Iluids through the production system,
particularly inIlow perIormance, which is the reservoir pressure-rate behavior oI the individual
well, and outIlow perIormance, which is the Ilow oI reservoir Iluids through the piping system.
1.2 Reservoir InfIow Performance
Mathematical models describing the Ilow oI Iluids through porous and permeable media can be
developed by combining physical relationships Ior the conservation oI mass with an equation
oI motion and an equation oI state. This leads to the diIIusivity equations, which are used in
the petroleum industry to describe the Ilow oI Iluids through porous media.
The diIIusivity equation can be written Ior any geometry, but radial Ilow geometry is the
one oI most interest to the petroleum engineer dealing with single well issues. The radial diIIu-
sivity equation Ior a slightly compressible liquid with a constant viscosity (an undersaturated
oil or water) is
Fig. 1.1-Production system and associated pressure Iosses.
1
V-2 Petroleum Engineering HandbookVol. V
1
r
c
c r
(
r
c p
c r
)

I c
t
k
(
c p
ct
)
. ................................................... (1.1)
The solution Ior a real gas is oIten presented in two Iorms: traditional pressure-squared
Iorm and general pseudopressure Iorm. The pressure-squared Iorm is
1
r
c
c r
(
r
c p
2
c r
)

I c
t
k
(
c p
2
ct
)
, .................................................. (1.2)
and the pseudopressure Iorm is
1
r
c
c r
r
c p
p
( p)
c r

I c
t
k
c p
p
( p)
ct
, ............................................ (1.3)
where the real gas pseudopressure is deIined by Al-Hussainy, Ramey, and CrawIord
2
as
p
p
( p) 2
}
p
:
d p . .......................................................... (1.4)
The pseudopressure relationship is suitable Ior all pressure ranges, but the pressure-squared
relationship has a limited range oI applicability because oI the compressible nature oI the Iluid.
Strictly speaking, the only time the pressure-squared Iormulation is correct is when the : prod-
uct is constant as a Iunction oI pressure. This usually occurs only at low pressures (less than
approximately 2,000 psia). As a result, it generally is recommended that the pseudopressure
solutions be used in the analysis oI gas well perIormance.
1.2.1 Single-Phase Analytical Solutions. Radial diIIusivity equations can be solved Ior numer-
ous initial and boundary conditions to describe the rate-pressure behavior Ior single-phase Ilow.
Eqs. 1.1 through 1.3 have similar Iorms, which lends themselves to similar solutions in terms
oI pressure, pressure-squared, and pseudopressure. OI primary interest to the petroleum engi-
neer is the constant terminal-rate solution Ior which the initial condition is an equilibrium
reservoir pressure at some Iixed time while the well is produced at a constant rate. The steady-
state and semisteady-state Ilow conditions are the most common, though not exclusive, condi-
tions Ior which solutions are desired in describing well perIormance.
The steady-state condition is Ior a well in which the outer boundary pressure remains con-
stant. This implies an open outer boundary such that Iluid entry will balance Iluid withdrawals
exactly. This condition may be appropriate when the pressure is being maintained because oI
active natural water inIlux or under active injection oI Iluid into the reservoir. The steady-state
solution Ior single-phase liquid Ilow in terms oI the average reservoir pressure can be written as
q
k h( p
R
p
wf
)
141.2B
(
ln
r
e
r
w

1
2
s
)
. ................................................ (1.5)
The semisteady-state condition is Ior a well that has produced long enough that the outer
boundary has been Ielt. The well is considered to be producing with closed boundaries; there-
Chapter 1nflow and Outflow Performance V-3
Iore, there is no Ilow across the outer boundaries. In this manner, the reservoir pressure will
decline with production and, at a constant production rate, pressure decline will be constant Ior
all radii and times. This solution Ior single-phase liquid Ilow in terms oI the average reservoir
pressure is
q
k h( p
R
p
wf
)
141.2B
(
ln
r
e
r
w

3
4
s
)
. ................................................ (1.6)
The stabilized Ilow equations also can be developed Ior a real gas and are presented in
pressure-squared and pseudopressure Iorms. For steady state, the solutions are
q
k h( p
R
2
p
wf
2
)
1422:T
(
ln
r
e
r
w

1
2
s
)
.................................................. (1.7)
and q
k h p
p
( p
R
) p
p
( p
wf
)
1422T
(
ln
r
e
r
w

1
2
s
)
. .............................................. (1.8)
The semisteady-state solutions Ior gas are
q
k h( p
R
2
p
wf
2
)
1422:T
(
ln
r
e
r
w

3
4
s
)
.................................................. (1.9)
and q
k h p
p
( p
R
) p
p
( p
wf
)
1422T
(
ln
r
e
r
w

3
4
s
)
. ............................................. (1.10)
Steady-state or semisteady-state conditions may never be achieved in actual operations. How-
ever, these stabilized conditions are oIten approximated in the reservoir and yield an acceptable
estimate oI well perIormance Ior single-phase Ilow. In addition, these solutions provide a
means to compare production rates Ior various estimates oI rock and Iluid properties and well
completion options. These relationships are useIul as they allow the petroleum engineer the
opportunity to estimate production rates beIore any well completion operations or testing.
Little diIIerence is obtained in estimates oI production rates or pressure drops when using
the steady-state or semisteady-state solutions and, in practice, many engineers use the semisteady-
state solutions. While each solution represents a distinctly diIIerent physical system, the
numerical diIIerence is minor when compared with the quality oI the estimates used Ior rock
and Iluid properties, drainage area, and skin Iactor, as well as accounting Ior the heterogeneous
nature oI a reservoir. Dake,
3
CraIt, Hawkins, and Terry,
4
and Lee and Wattenbarger
5
provide
V-4 Petroleum Engineering HandbookVol. V
complete details regarding the development oI the diIIusivity equations and the associated stabi-
lized-Ilow solutions.
1.2.2 Gas Well Performance. Early estimates oI gas well perIormance were conducted by
opening the well to the atmosphere and then measuring the Ilow rate. Such 'open Ilow prac-
tices were wasteIul oI gas, sometimes dangerous to personnel and equipment, and possibly
damaging to the reservoir. They also provided limited inIormation to estimate productive capac-
ity under varying Ilow conditions. The idea, however, did leave the industry with the concept
oI absolute open Ilow (AOF). AOF is a common indicator oI well productivity and reIers to
the maximum rate at which a well could Ilow against a theoretical atmospheric backpressure at
the reservoir.
The productivity oI a gas well is determined with deliverability testing. Deliverability tests
provide inIormation that is used to develop reservoir rate-pressure behavior Ior the well and
generate an inIlow perIormance curve or gas-backpressure curve. There are two basic relations
currently in use to analyze deliverability test data. An empirical relationship was proposed by
Rawlins and Schellhardt
6
in 1935 and is still Irequently used today. Houpeurt
7
presented a theo-
retical deliverability relationship derived Irom the generalized radial diIIusivity equation account-
ing Ior non-Darcy Ilow eIIects.
Rawlins and Schellhardt
6
developed the empirical backpressure method oI testing gas wells
based on the analysis oI tests on more than 500 wells. They noted that when the diIIerence
between the squares oI the average reservoir pressure and Ilowing bottomhole pressures were
plotted against the corresponding Ilow rates on logarithmic coordinates, they obtained a straight
line. This led them to propose the backpressure equation:
q
g
C( p
R
2
p
wf
2
)
n
, ........................................................ (1.11)
where C is the Ilow coeIIicient and n is the deliverability exponent. The deliverability expo-
nent is the inverse oI the slope oI the curve. Once n is determined, C can be obtained by
substituting pressure and rate data read directly Irom the straight-line plot into Eq. 1.11 and
solving the resulting relation.
As discussed previously, solutions Ior gas well perIormance in terms oI pressure-squared
are appropriate only at low reservoir pressures. As a result, Rawlins and Schellhardt`s deliver-
ability equation can be rewritten in terms oI pseudopressure as
q
g
C p
p
( p
R
) p
p
( p
wf
)
n
, ................................................. (1.12)
where C and n are determined in the same manner as Ior Eq. 1.11. The values oI n range Irom
0.5 to 1.0, depending on Ilow characteristics. Flow characterized by Darcy`s equation will have
a Ilow exponent oI 1.0, while Ilow that exhibits non-Darcy Ilow behavior will have a Ilow
exponent ranging Irom 0.5 to 1.0. While the Rawlins and Schellhardt deliverability equation is
not rigorous, it is still widely used in deliverability analysis and has provided reasonable results
Ior high-permeability gas wells over the years.
Eqs. 1.11 and 1.12 can be rewritten to Iacilitate the development oI the inIlow perIormance
curve. In terms oI pressure-squared, the relationship is
q
g
q
g, max
1
(
p
wf
p
R
)
2 n
, ................................................... (1.13)
Chapter 1nflow and Outflow Performance V-5
and
q
g
q
g, max
1
p
p
( p
wf
)
p
p
( p
R
)
n
............................................... (1.14)
in terms oI pseudopressure. Once the deliverability exponent is determined Irom a multirate
test and the AOF estimated, Eqs. 1.13 and 1.14 can be applied readily to estimate the rate Ior
a given Ilowing bottomhole pressure.
Houpeurt developed a theoretical deliverability relationship Ior stabilized Ilow with a Forch-
heimer
8
velocity term to account Ior non-Darcy Ilow eIIects in high-velocity gas production.
The resulting relationship can be written in terms oI pressure-squared or pseudopressure as
q
g

k h( p
R
2
p
wf
2
)
1422:T
(
ln
r
e
r
w

3
4
s Dq
g)
........................................... (1.15)
or q
g

k h p
p
( p
R
) p
p
( p
wf
)
1422T
(
ln
r
e
r
w

3
4
s Dq
g)
. ........................................ (1.16)
Eqs. 1.15 and 1.16 are quadratic in terms oI the Ilow rate, and the solutions can be written Ior
convenience as shown in Eqs. 1.17 and 1.18.
p
R
2
p
wf
2
aq
g
bq
g
2
. ..................................................... (1.17)
p
p
( p
R
) p
p
( p
wf
) aq
g
bq
g
2
. .............................................. (1.18)
Jones, Blount, and Glaze
9
suggested Houpeurt`s relationship be rewritten as shown in Eqs.
1.19 and 1.20 to allow the analysis oI well-test data to predict deliverability.
p
R
2
p
wf
2
q
g
a bq
g
. ...................................................... (1.19)
p
p
( p
R
) p
p
( p
wf
)
q
g
a bq
g
. ............................................... (1.20)
A plot oI the diIIerence in pressures squared divided by the Ilow rate or the diIIerence in pseu-
dopressure divided by the Ilow rate vs. the Ilow rate yields a straight line on a coordinate
graph. The intercept oI the plot is the laminar Ilow coeIIicient a, while turbulence coeIIicient b
is obtained Irom the slope oI the curve. Once these two coeIIicients have been determined,
deliverability can be estimated Irom the Iollowing relationships in terms oI pressure-squared or
pseudopressure.
V-6 Petroleum Engineering HandbookVol. V
q
g

a a
2
4b( p
R
2
p
wf
2
)
2b
................................................ (1.21)
and q
g

a a
2
4b p
p
( p
R
) p
p
( p
wf
)
2b
. .................................. (1.22)
AIter the coeIIicients oI the deliverability equations have been determined, the relationships
can be used to estimate production rates Ior various bottomhole Ilowing pressures. This deter-
mination oI rate vs. pressure is oIten reIerred to as the reservoir inIlow perIormance, which is
a measure oI the ability oI the reservoir to produce gas to the wellbore. The inIlow perIor-
mance curve is a plot oI bottomhole pressure vs. production rate Ior a particular well deter-
mined Irom the gas well deliverability equations. Fig. 1.2 depicts a typical gas well inIlow
perIormance curve. This curve allows one to estimate the production rate Ior diIIerent Ilowing
bottomhole pressures readily.
'HOLYHUDELOLW\7HVW0HWKRGV Several diIIerent deliverability test methods have been devel-
oped to collect the data Ior use with the basic deliverability models. These tests can be
grouped into three basic categories: tests that use all stabilized data, tests that use a combina-
tion oI stabilized and transient data, and tests that use all transient data. The basic deliverabili-
ty test method that uses all stabilized data is the Ilow-aIter-Ilow test. Deliverability test
methods that use both transient and stabilized test data include the isochronal and modiIied
isochronal tests. The multiple modiIied isochronal test consists oI all transient test data and
eliminates the need Ior stabilized Ilow or pressure data.
Flow-After-Flow Tests. Rawlins and Schellhardt
6
presented the basic deliverability test
method that uses all stabilized data. The test consists oI a series oI Ilow rates. The test is oIten
reIerred to as a Iour-point test because many tests are composed oI Iour rates, as required by
various regulatory bodies. This test is perIormed by producing the well at a series oI stabilized
Fig. 1.2-TypicaI gas weII infIow performance curve.
Chapter 1nflow and Outflow Performance V-7
Ilow rates and obtaining the corresponding stabilized Ilowing bottomhole pressures. In addition,
a stabilized shut-in bottomhole pressure is required Ior the analysis. A major limitation oI this
test method is the length oI time required to obtain stabilized data Ior low-permeability gas
reservoirs.
Example 1.1 Table 1.1 provides example Ilow-aIter-Ilow test data, which are analyzed
with the Rawlins and Schellhardt and Houpeurt deliverability equations. The traditional Rawl-
ins and Schellhardt analysis requires that the diIIerence in the pressures squared be plotted vs.
the Ilow rate on logarithmic graph paper and a best-Iit straight line constructed through the
data points. The data should provide a straight-line plot, which serves as the deliverability
curve. From this plot, the deliverability exponent, n, is the inverse oI the slope oI the construct-
ed straight line. Once the deliverability exponent is determined, the Ilow coeIIicient, C, can be
determined Irom Eq. 1.11 with a point taken Irom the straight-line plot. The same approach is
used when pseudopressures are used to analyze the data, except that the diIIerences in the pseu-
dopressures are plotted vs. the Ilow rate and Eq. 1.12 is used to determine C.
Table 1.2 shows the data to be plotted Ior the Rawlins and Schellhardt analysis, while
Figs. 1.3 and 1.4 show the logarithmic plots Ior the pressure-squared and the pseudopressure
analyses, respectively.
V-8 Petroleum Engineering HandbookVol. V
Solution. Working with the traditional pressure-squared data, draw a straight line through
the Iour data points to yield a slope oI 1.54. The deliverability exponent, n, is the inverse oI
the slope, or 0.651. The Ilow coeIIicient, C, can be determined Irom a point on the straight
line. Since the third test point lies on the line, it can be used to determine C using Eq. 1.23 to
yield 0.2874 MscI/D/psia
2n
.
C
q
g
( p
R
2
p
wf
2
)
n

3,832
(2,169,200)
0.651
0.2874. .................................. (1.23)
Once n and C are determined, the deliverability equation can be written and used to deter-
mine the AOF and the production rate Ior any given Ilowing bottomhole pressure. Eq. 1.24 is
the deliverability equation Ior this particular example well.
q
g
0.2874( p
R
2
p
wf
2
)
0.651
. ................................................. (1.24)
The AOF is determined by allowing the Ilowing bottomhole pressure to be equal to the atmo-
spheric pressure Ior the current average reservoir pressure oI 3,360 psia. In this example, when
the atmospheric pressure is assumed to be 14.65 psia, the AOF is 11,200 MscI/D.
The same approach is used to analyze the data when pseudopressures are used in the analy-
sis. Using Fig. 1.4, the slope oI the straight line through the data points is 1.57, yielding an n
oI 0.637. The Ilow coeIIicient, C, is determined to be 0.0269 MscI/D/(psia
2
/cp)
n
Irom Eq. 1.25
using the third test point.
Fig. 1.3-RawIins and ScheIIhardt anaIysis of fIow-after-fIow test data with the pressure-squared
approach.
Chapter 1nflow and Outflow Performance V-9
C
q
g
p
p
( p
R
) p
p
( p
wf
)
n

3,832
(123,050,000)
0.637
0.0269 . ........................ (1.25)
The resulting deliverability equation is
q
g
0.0269 p
p
( p
R
) p
p
( p
wf
)
0.637
, .......................................... (1.26)
and the AOF is calculated to be 12,200 MscI/D using the appropriate pseudopressure values at
the current reservoir pressure oI 3,360 psia and atmospheric pressure oI 14.65 psia.
The diIIerence in the calculated AOF using the pressure-squared approach and the pseudo-
pressure method is noticeable. This variation results Irom the inclusion oI the pressure depen-
dence oI the gas viscosity and gas deviation Iactor in the pseudopressure term. As noted
earlier, the pressure-squared approach is only suitable at low pressures, while the pseudopres-
sure method is good Ior all pressure ranges. Also, the Rawlins and Schellhardt method is not
theoretically rigorous, although it is widely used.
The test data can also be analyzed with the Houpeurt approach using both the pressure-
squared and pseudopressure approaches. Table 1.3 provides the data to be plotted in the
Houpeurt analysis. Fig. 1.5 presents the Houpeurt plot oI the pressure squared data, while Fig.
1.6 shows the pseuodpressure data. From Fig. 1.5, one can construct a best-Iit line through the
data points and determine the slope and the intercept oI the line. The slope, b, is 0.0936 psia
2
/
(MscI/D)
2
, while the intercept, a, is determined to be 200 psia
2
/MscI/D. These deliverability
coeIIicients can be use to develop a deliverability equation aIter the Iorm oI Eq. 1.21 as shown
in Eq. 1.27:
Fig. 1.4-RawIins and ScheIIhardt anaIysis of fIow-after-fIow test data with the pseudopressure
approach.
V-10 Petroleum Engineering HandbookVol. V
q
g

200 200
2
4(0.0936)
( p
R
2
p
wf
2
)
2(0.0936)
. .................................... (1.27)
The AOF can be estimated Ior the reservoir pressure oI 3,360 psia to be 9,970 MscI/D.
A similar analysis can be undertaken Ior the pseudopressure data shown in Fig. 1.6. From
this plot, the intercept oI the constructed best-Iit line is determined to be 10,252 psia
2
/cp/MscI/
D, while the slope is 5.69 psia
2
/cp/(MscI/D)
2
. These coeIIicients are used to write the deliver-
ability equation as
q
g

10,252 10,252
2
4(5.69) p
p
( p
R
) p
p
( p
wf
)
2(5.69)
. .......................... (1.28)
From this equation Ior the current reservoir pressure, the AOF is estimated to be 10,700
MscI/D. As with the Rawlins and Schellhardt analysis, the AOFs determined by the pressure-
Fig. 1.5-Houpeurt anaIysis of fIow-after-fIow test data with the pressure-squared approach.
Chapter 1nflow and Outflow Performance V-11