SPE 75526

Gas Well Decline Analysis Under Constant-Pressure Conditions, Wellbore Storage,

Damage, and Non-Darcy Flow Effects
by Ibrahim Sami Nashawi, SPE, Fuad H. Qasem, SPE, Ridha Gharbi, SPE, and Mohammad I. Mir, Kuwait University
Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium held in
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 April2 May 2002.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
This paper presents a simple and accurate method to
determine all the reservoir parameters for transient constantpressure drawdown data of gas wells influenced by wellbore
storage, formation damage, and high-velocity flow effects.
The working equations are written in such a way that allows a
graphical analysis of the measured variable rate with time that
is very much similar to the analysis of constant-rate
production case. No iterative procedure, multi-rate test, nor
non-linear regression is necessitated to determine the
formation damage and the non-Darcy flow effects. The well
test data analysis requires two plots to directly obtain all the
parameters of interest. The formation permeability and the
non-Darcy flow coefficient are obtained from the first plot,
whereas the skin factor is obtained from the second
analysis plot.
This work systematically illustrates the applicability of the
derived equations using several simulated examples. The final
working equations are written in various forms, which allows
the well test analyst to select the form that is most convenient
for his application. The advantages of the proposed method
are clearly shown when the analysis procedure and results are
compared to other analysis techniques.
Introduction
The vast majority of gas well tests are conducted assuming
constant-rate production conditions, even though constantpressure production have many applications, such as
production into constant-pressure separator or pipeline and
open flow to atmosphere, furthermore, well tests and field

practices have shown that the flow in low-permeability

reservoirs (k<1 md) approaches constant-pressure behavior.1
As early as 1949, van Everdingen and Hurst2 presented
analytical solutions for radial flow of a well producing under
constant-pressure conditions. In 1952, Jacob and Lohman3
derived an analytical solution in terms of dimensionless flow
rate for a well that produces under constant-pressure
conditions. Samaniego and Cinco-Ley4 investigated constantpressure production in pressure sensitive formations. EhligEconomics and Ramey5,6 and Uraiet and Raghavan7,8
presented drawdown and buildup tests for wells producing
under constant-pressure conditions.
Rate-decline analyses of gas wells producing from lowpermeability reservoirs have been also discussed in the
literature.9-13 In general, the main feature that makes the
interpretation of gas well tests more difficult to analyze than
their counterpart of oil wells is the presence of non-Darcy
effects due to high-velocity flow around the wellbore.14,15 If
not properly recognized, these effects may mask the presence
of a fracture in the vicinity of the wellbore. Non-Darcy effects
have been commonly treated as an additional
rate-dependent skin.
Several authors presented different techniques for ratedecline analysis of gas wells under the influence of highvelocity flow effects. These techniques were based on either
simulated results11 or analytical methods.12,13,16 Most of the
presented papers, however, estimated the non-Darcy flow
coefficient using Lee et al.17 correlation. Type-curve matching
is also used to analyze rate-decline of gas wells9,18-21 despite of
the non-uniqueness problem associated with this technique.
The determination of the non-Darcy flow coefficient
presents the most challenging task that the well test analysts
face in gas well testing. Numerous theoretical models22-24 and
empirical17,25-32 correlations are presented in the literature for
this purpose. The objective of these correlations is to simplify
the job of the reservoir engineer, however, the diversity of the
correlations and sometimes contradicting results make the
selection of the appropriate one a cumbersome task. A
literature survey conducted by Li and Engler33 included most
of the available correlations.
The main objective of this work is to present a systematic
analytical technique of transient pressure analysis of gas wells
under constant-bottomhole pressure conditions. Non-Darcy

I. NASHAWI, F. QASEM, R. GHARBI, AND M. MIR

flow effect is incorporated in the equation to simulate actual

gas test under high-velocity flow conditions. Simulated cases
are used to illustrate the applicability of the proposed method.
Numerical Gas Flow Model
Gassim3B simulator34 was used to generate the data required
for the analysis. This is a single-phase numerical simulator
that simulates liquid and real gas flow. Gassim3B is a twodimensional model that would be used with either x-y or r-z
geometries. It is assumed that the reservoir is composed of a
horizontal porous medium that has a uniform and isotropic
rock properties and constant pay zone thickness and the well is
assumed to penetrate the entire pay zone.
Mathematical Model
The equation most commonly used to analyze transient ratedecline of gas wells that produce under constant-rate
conditions is that presented by Wattenbarger and Ramey35 as:
p pD (1, t D ) = 0.5[ln(t D ) + 0.80907 ]+ s + Dqsc

(1)

For constant-bottomhole pressure production the inner

boundary condition at the wellbore is:
p p (rw , t ) = p p ( p wf )

(2)

Berumen et al.12 have demonstrated that for constantpressure production conditions, Eq. (1) can be written as:
1
= 0.5[ln(t D ) + 0.80907] + s + Dqsc
qD

(3)

where the dimensionless time, t D , dimensionless rate, qD ,

and dimensionless pseudo-pressure, p pD , are defined,
respectively, by the following equations:
tD =

qD =

0.0002637kt
i ct i rw2
5.03332 x10 4 q sc p scT
khTsc [ p p ( pi ) p p ( p wf )]

p pD =

p p ( pi ) p p (r , t )
p p ( pi ) p p ( pwf )

(4)

(5)

pp = 2

p0

kt

7.43163 + s + Dq

=
0
.
5
ln
sc
5.03332x104 qsc pscT
i ct i rw2

(8)
Eq. (8) can be expressed in base 10 logarithm as:
[ p p ( pi ) p p ( pwf )]khTsc

k
3.23 + 0.869s + 0.869Dq
= M log(t ) + log
sc
2
c r
q sc

i ti w
(9)
where p p is the pseudo-pressure drop defined as:
p p

p p = p p ( pi ) p p ( p wf )

(10)

and M is defined as:

M =

1637T
kh

(11)

Berumen et al.12 have proved, using simulated data, that a

semilog plot of 1 / qsc versus t results in accurate estimates of
formation permeability and skin factor when the non-Darcy
effects are negligible. However, when high-velocity flow
affects the constant-pressure performance, the estimation error
of the formation permeability is less than 13%.
The objective of this work is to show that Eq. (9) can be
used to accurately estimate all the reservoir parameters
including the non-Darcy flow coefficient D .
Eq. (9) involves three unknown variables that need to be
calculated. Thus, one unknown has to be eliminated from the
equation in order to determine the other two. This is done by
differentiating Eq. (9) with respect to log(t) as follows:

p p dqsc
dqsc

= M + 0.869MD
2
d
t
log(
)
qsc
d log(t )

(12)

dividing Eq. (12) by dqsc / d log(t ) yields:

(6)

p p
2
qsc

1
+ 0.869MD
= M
dqsc / d log(t )

(13)

let:

pseudo-pressure defined by Al-Hussainy et al.36 as:

p
dp
( p) z ( p)

Substituting Eqs. (4) and (5) into Eq. (3) yields:

p p in Eqs. (1), (2), (5) and (6) is the real-gas potential or

SPE 75526

b = 0.869MD
thus, Eq. (13) can be written as:

(7)

(14)

SPE 75526

p p
2
qsc

GAS WELL DECLINE ANALYSIS UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE

CONDITIONS, WELLBORE STORAGE, DAMAGE, AND NON-DARCY FLOW EFFECTS

1
+ b
= M
/
log(
)
dq
d
t
sc

2
versus
A Cartesian plot of p p / qsc

(15)

[dqsc / d log(t )]1

should result in a straight line having a slope M and intercept

b . Once these two parameters are known, the formation
permeability, k , and non-Darcy flow coefficient, D , can be
easily calculated from the following equations:
k=

1637T
Mh

D=

b
0.869M

(16)

(17)

The second step in the analysis technique involves

estimating the mechanical skin factor, s . To do that, Eq. (9)
is rearranged as follows:
p p

+ 3.23 0.869Dq = 1.151log(t ) + s

1.151
log
sc
2

Mqsc

i ct i rw
(18)
Let the left-hand-side of Eq. (18) be denoted by Y 2 ; thus,
p p

+ 3.23 0.869Dqsc
log
Y 2 = 1.151
2
c r
Mqsc

i ti w

(19)

A Cartesian plot of Y 2 versus log(t) should yield a straight

line with the mechanical skin factor, s , as the intercept.
It is worthy to note that a semilog plot can be used instead of
the Cartesian plot to determine the mechanical skin factor. In
this case, s is obtained from the semilog straight line for t=1
hour. However, the Cartesian plot has an added advantage
over the semilog plot in the sense that the intercept of the line
equals the mechanical skin factor, moreover, the slope of the
line gives an instantaneous feeling on how far it is from the
exact slope of 1.151.
The mechanical skin factor can be also obtained in the
conventional manner. This is done by writing Eq. (9)
as follows:

k
3.23 + 0.869s
0.869MDqsc = M log(t ) + log
c r 2
qsc

i ti w
(20)
A semilog plot of p p / qsc 0.869MDqsc versus t should

p p

result in a straight line from which the mechanical skin factor

can be calculated using the following equation:

1 p p

k
+ 3.23
s = 1.151
0.869MDqsc log
2
c r

M q sc
1hr
i ti w
(21)
the term in bracket in Eq. (21) is determined from the semilog
straight line or its extrapolation for t=1 hour.
Applications
Two simulated cases are used to illustrate the applicability of
the proposed technique. The gas and reservoir properties
employed in the Gassim3B simulator are reported in Table 1.
The formation permeability for the simulated wells are 0.1,
and 1 md.
Simulated Case No. 1.
This case simulates a lowpermeability reservoir. The initial production rate is 2.367
MMSCF/D. The initial reservoir pressure and the constantbottomhole pressure are 5000 psi and 500 psi, respectively,
with a pressure ratio (pwf/pi) of 0.1. The input formation
permeability, mechanical skin factor, and non-Darcy flow
coefficient have values of 0.1 md, 5, and 6.069x10-5
(MSCF/D)-1, respectively. The well test is conducted for 172
days at which time the boundary starts to affect the test data.
Fig. 1 displays the first test plot. The straight line shown in
the figure has a slope M of 110,782 and intercept b of 7.8279.
The formation permeability k and the non-Darcy flow
coefficient D are calculated from Eqs. (16) and (17) to be 0.1
md and 8.133x10-5 (MSCF/D)-1, respectively.
Once the slope and the intercept of the first graph are
determined, the data required for the second test plot are
calculated using Eq. (19). This plot is illustrated in Fig. 2.
This figure shows that all the plotted points fall on a straight
line having a slope of 1.1604 and intercept of 4.8885.
According to Eq. (18), the mechanical skin factor corresponds
to the intercept of the resulting straight line; thus, s=4.8885.
The mechanical skin factor can also be determined in the
conventional way using a semilog plot. The data required for
this figure is prepared using Eq. (20). Fig. 3 illustrates the
semilog graph. The value of the plotting y-axis corresponding
to 1 hour of production is determined from the straight line to
be 854,964. Eq. (21) is employed to calculate the mechanical
skin factor that is found to be 4.8885 which is equal to the
value obtained from the Cartesian plot (Fig. 2).
The results obtained from this case are presented in Table 2.
A thorough inspection of this table reveals that all the
calculated parameters are in excellent agreement with the
simulator input values.
For instance, the formation
permeability is almost exactly the same as the input
permeability. The mechanical skin factor and the non-Darcy
flow coefficient have absolute errors of 0.11 and 2.064x10-5,
respectively, of the values employed in the simulator. It is
also worthy to mention that the slope of the second test plot
(Fig. 2) falls within 0.78% of the exact slope of 1.151.

I. NASHAWI, F. QASEM, R. GHARBI, AND M. MIR

Simulated Case No. 2.

The reservoir rock and fluid properties of this synthetic case
are the same as those employed to generate the data of the first
simulated example (Table 1). The initial reservoir pressure
and flowing bottomhole pressure are also equal to those used
in the first case. The input formation permeability is 1 md,
which is 10 folds the value of the previous example. The well
flow rate at the beginning of the test was 20.97 MMSCF/D.
The reservoir boundaries started to affect the test data after 22
days of production as opposed to 172 days for case one, which
is quite reasonable taking into consideration the higher value
of formation permeability and the large reservoir
pressure drawdown.
The first test plot is illustrated in Fig. 4. The straight line
drawn through the plotted data points has a slope M of
10,824and intercept b of 0.2782. The formation permeability
is calculated from Eq. (16) to be 1.0284 md. This value of k is
within 2.84% of the input value, which implies that, for all
practical engineering purposes, the calculated permeability is
in excellent agreement with the actual value of 1 md. The
non-Darcy flow coefficient D is determined from Eq. (17) to
be 2.95832x10-5 (MSCF/D)-1.
Fig. 5 displays the Cartesian second test plot. A linear
regression analysis performed on the plotted data shows that
the all the points fall on an almost perfect straight line
(R2=0.9997) having a slope of 1.217 and an intercept s of
5.0077. The mechanical skin factor is within less than 0.16%
of the actual input value used in the simulator. The slope of
the line is less than 6% of the exact slope of 1.151.
Fig. 6 illustrates the semilog second test plot. As it was the
case of the Cartesian plot, Fig. 6 also displays a perfect
straight line with R2=0.9995. Y 2 has a value of 95,722 that
corresponds to 1 hour of testing time. The mechanical skin
factor is calculated from Eq. (21) to be 5.0219. This value is
within less than 0.5% of the actual value of 5.
A comparison of the calculated values obtained from this
simulated example to the input parameters is illustrated in
Table 3.
Conclusions
The major objective of this paper was to present a systematic
technique for the analysis of transient rate-decline gas well test
under constant-bottomhole flowing pressure conditions,
formation damage, and high-velocity flow effects. The
presented analysis method is similar to the constant-rate
solutions. Two simulated examples are presented to illustrate
the methodology of the proposed technique.
Based on the work developed in this paper the following
conclusions are pertinent:
1. The formation permeability, skin factor, and non-Darcy
flow coefficient are all estimated from a single test.
2. Two analysis plots are required to determine all the
parameters of interest.
3. The formation permeability and non-Darcy flow
coefficient are, respectively, obtained from the slope and
intercept of the first plot.

SPE 75526

4. The mechanical sin factor can be estimated in two

different ways: (i) it is equal to the intercept of the
Cartesian plot given by Eq. (18) or (ii) it can be
calculated using a semilog plot in a manner that is similar
to the conventional constant-rate test.
5. The results of the analyzed simulated cases show that the
proposed method can provide accurate estimates of
formation permeability, skin factor, and non-Darcy
flow coefficient.
6. The main advantage of this technique over other
available methods is that it is straightforward. It does not
require the use of iterative procedure, trial-and-error,
non-linear regression, or any type of correlations as other
methods require.
Acknowledgments
We thank Prof. Robert A. Wattenbarger of Texas A&M
University for providing us the computer codes for
Gassim3B simulator.
Nomenclature
b
intercept of the first test plot, Eq. (14)
cgi initial gas compressibility, psi-1
cti initial total system compressibility, psi-1
D turbulent or non-Darcy flow coefficient, (MSCF/D)-1
h
net pay zone thickness, ft.
k
formation permeability, md
M slope of the first test plot, Eq. (11)
pp real-gas potential or pseudo-pressure, Eq. (7)
ppD dimensionless pressure, Eq. (6)
ppi pseudo-initial reservoir pressure, psi2/cp
ppwf pseudo-wellbore flowing pressure, psi2/cp
qD dimensionless rate, Eq. (5)
qsc well flow rate, MSCF/D
rw wellbore radius, ft.
s
mechanical skin factor
t
production time, hours
tD dimensionless time, Eq. (4)
T
formation temperature, R
z
real-gas deviation factor
Greek Symbols
pp pseudo-pressure drop, Eq. (10), psi2/cp
i initial gas viscosity, cp
formation porosity, fraction

Subscripts
D dimensionless
i
initial
p
pseudosc standard condition
t
total
w well
wf well flowing

SPE 75526

GAS WELL DECLINE ANALYSIS UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE

CONDITIONS, WELLBORE STORAGE, DAMAGE, AND NON-DARCY FLOW EFFECTS

References
1.

Baker, O.: Gas Resources in Low Permeability Formations

and the Effect of Price and Technology, paper SPE/DOE 9897
presented at the 1981 SPE/DOE Low Permeability Symp.,
Denver, CO., U.S.A., May 27-29.

2.

van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: The Application of

Laplace Transform to Flow Problems in Reservoirs, Trans.,
AIME (1949) 186, 305-324.
Jacob, C.E. and Lohman, S.W.: Nonsteady Flow to a Well of
Constant Drawdown in an Extensive Aquifer, Trans., AGU
(Aug. 1952) 559-569.

3.

4.

Samaniego, V.F. and Cinco-Ley, H.: Production Rate Decline

in Pressure Sensitive Reservoirs, J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (JulySept., 1980) 75-86.

5.

Ehlig-Economides, C.A. and Ramey, H.J., Jr.: Transient Rate

Decline Analysis for Wells Produced at Constant Pressure,
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Feb. 1981) 98-104.

15.

Firoozabadi, A. and Katz, D.L.: An Analysis of HighVelocity Gas Flow Through Porous Media, J. Pet. Tech. (Feb.
1979) 211-216.

16.

Asheim, H.: Analytical Solution of the Gas Well Profile,

paper SPE 17651, Richardson, TX., U.S.A.

17.

Lee, R.L., Logan, R.W., and Tek, M.R.: Effect of Turbulence

on Transient Flow of Real Gas Through Porous Media, SPE
Form. Eval. (March 1987) 108-120.

18.

Fetkovitch, M.J.:
Decline-Curve Analysis Using Type
Curves, J. Pet. Tech. (June 1980) 1065-1077.

19.

Fetkovitch, M.J., Vienot, M.E., Bradley, M.D., and Kiesow,

U.G.: Decline-Curve Analysis Using Type Curves Case
Histories, SPE Form. Eval. (Dec. 1987) 637-656; Trans.,
AIME 283.

20.

Aminian, K., Ameri, S., and Hyman, M.D.: Production

Decline Type Curves for Gas Wells Producing Under PseudoSteady State Conditions, paper SPE 15933 presented at the
1986 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.,
Nov. 12-14.

21.

Harrington, A.G., Lee, B.Y.Q., and Taylor, P.S.: Application

of Type-Curve Technique to Decline Analysis and Forecasting
of Gas Wells, paper SPE 16936 presented at the 1987 Annual
Tech. Conf. Exhib., Dallas, TX., U.S.A., Sept. 27-30.

6.

Ehlig-Economides, C.A. and Ramey, H.J., Jr.: Pressure

Buildup for Wells Produced at Constant Pressure, Soc. Pet.
Eng. J. (Feb. 1981) 104-114.

7.

Uraiet, A.A. and Raghavan, R.: Unsteady Flow to a Well

Producing at a Constant Pressure, J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1980)
1803-1812.

8.

Uraiet, A.A. and Raghavan, R.: Pressure Buildup Analysis for

a Well Produced at a Constant Bottomhole Pressure, J. Pet.
Tech. (Oct. 1980) 1813-1824.

22.

Whitaker, S.: The Forchheimer Equation: A Theoretical

Development, Transport in Porous Media, Vol. 25 (1996)
27-61.

9.

Carter, R.D.: Type-Curve for Finite Radial and Linear GasFlow Systems: Constant-Terminal-Pressure Case, Soc. Pet.
Eng. J. (Oct. 1985) 719-728.

23.

Irmay, S.: On the Theoretical Derivation of Darcy and

Forchheimer Formulas, Trans., Am. Geoph. Union, Vol. 39,
No. 4, (1958) 702-707.

10.

Camacho-V, R.G.: Constant Pressure Production in Solution

Gas Drive Reservoirs: Transient Flow, SPE Form. Eval.
(June 1991).

24.

Ergun, S. and Orning, A.A.: Fluid Flow Through Randomly

Packed Columns and Fluidized Beds, Ind. and Eng. Chem.,
Vol. 41, No. 6 (1949) 1179-1184.

11.

Vega, P.J., Samaniego, V.F., and Berumen, S.C.: A Method

for Gas Well Decline Analysis Under Constant Pressure
Conditions and High-Velocity Flow, paper SPE 22926
presented at the 1991 Annual Tech. Conf. Exhib., Dallas, TX.,
U.S.A., Oct. 6-9.

25.

Ergun, S.: Fluid Flow Through Packed Column, Chem. Eng.

Progress, Vol. 48, No. 2 (1952) 89-94.

26.

Liu, X., Civan, F., and Evans, R.D.: Correlation of the NonDarcy Flow Coefficient, J. Cdn. Pet. Tech., Vol. 34, No. 10
(Dec. 1995) 50-54.

27.

Coles, M.E. and Hartman, K.J.: Non-Darcy Measurements in

Dry Core and the Effect of Immobile Liquid, paper SPE 39977
presented at the 1998 SPE Gas Tech. Symp., Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, March 15-18.

28.

Thauvin, F. and Mohanty, K.K.: Network Modeling of NonDarcy Flow Through Porous Media, Transport in Porous
Media, Vol. 31 (1998) 19-37.

29.

Jones, S.C.: Using the Inertial Coefficient, , to Characterize

Heterogeneity in Reservoir Rock, paper SPE 16949 presented

12.

Berumen, S.C., Samaniego, V.F., and Cinco-Ley, H.:

Transient Pressure Analysis and Performance of Gas Wells
Producing Under Constant Pressure Conditions, paper SPE
19098 presented at the 1989 Gas Tech. Symp., Dallas, TX.,
U.S.A., June 7-9.

13.

Rangel-German, E. and Samaniego, V.F.:

On the
Determination of the Skin Factor and the Turbulence Term
Coefficient Through a Single Constant Gas Pressure Test, J.
Pet. Sc. and Eng., Vol. 26 (2000) 121-131.

14.

Ramey, Jr., H.J.: Non-Darcy Flow and Wellbore Storage

Effects in Pressure Build-Up and Drawdown of Gas Wells, J.
Pet. Tech., Vol. 17 (Feb. 1965) 223-233; Trans., AIME 234.

I. NASHAWI, F. QASEM, R. GHARBI, AND M. MIR

at the 1987 Annual Tech. Conf. Exhib., New Orleans, LA.,

U.S.A., Oct. 5-8.
30.

Fligelman, H. et al.: Pressure-Drawdown Test Analysis of a

Gas Well Application of New Correlations, SPE Form. Eval.
(Sept. 1989) 406-412.

31.

Kutasov, I.M.:
Equation Predicts Non-Darcy
Coefficient, Oil & Gas J. (March 15, 1993) 66-67.

32.

Civan, F. and Evans, R.D.: Determination of Non-Darcy Flow

Parameters Using a Differential Formulation of the
Forchheimer Equation, paper SPE 35621 presented at the 1996
SPE Gas Tech. Conf., Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
April 28-May 1.

33.

Li, D. and Engler, T.: Literature Review on Correlations of

the Non-Darcy Coefficient, paper SPE 70015 presented at the
2001 Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conf., Midland,
TX., U.S.A., May 15-16.

34.

Lee, J. and Wattenbarger, R.A., Gas Reservoir Engineering,

SPE Textbook Series, Vol. 5, Richardson, TX., U.S.A. (1996).

35.

Wattenbarger, R.A. and Ramey, H.J., Jr.: Gas Well Testing

with Turbulence, Damage and Wellbore Storage, J. Pet. Tech.,
Vol. 20 (Aug. 1968) 877-887; Trans., AIME 243.

36.

Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J., Jr., and Crawford, P.B.: The

Flow of Real Gases Through Porous Media, J. Pet. Tech., Vol.
18 (May 1966) 624-636; Trans., AIME 237.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

ft.
x
3.048
E01
x
2.831 685
E02
ft3
SCF x
2.863 640
E02
md
x
9.869 233
E+04
cp
x
1.0
E+00
psi
x
6.894 757
E+00
1.450 377
E01
psi-1 x

=
=
=
=
=
=
=

m
m3
STD m3
m2
mPa.s
kPa
kPa-1

Flow

SPE 75526

SPE 75526

GAS WELL DECLINE ANALYSIS UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE

CONDITIONS, WELLBORE STORAGE, DAMAGE, AND NON-DARCY FLOW EFFECTS

TABLE 1
Gas and Reservoir PropertiesSimulated Cases
Gas properties
=
0.02332
Initial viscosity, i, cp
1.3828x10-4
Initial gas compressibility, cgi, psia-1 =
Gas gravity, g
=
0.6
Well/reservoir properties
Productive thickness, h, ft
Wellbore radius, rw, ft
Hydrocarbon porosity, , %
Reservoir temperature, T, R
Reservoir pressure, pi, psi

TABLE 2
Results of Simulated Case No. 1
Permeability
(md)
Simulator values
This study

0.1
0.1

TABLE 3
Results of Simulated Case No. 2
Permeability
(md)
Simulator values
This study

1.00
1.03

=
=
=
=
=

100
0.25
0.1
680
5,000

Mechanical
skin factor
5.00
4.89

Mechanical
skin factor
5.00
5.01

Non-Darcy flow
coefficient
(MSCF/D)-1
6.069x10-5
8.133x10-5

Non-Darcy flow
coefficient
(MSCF/D)-1
2.056x10-5
2.958x10-5

I. NASHAWI, F. QASEM, R. GHARBI, AND M. MIR

SPE 75526

1400

M = 110,782
b = 7.8279

1200

pp/q sc

1000
800
600
400
200
0
-0.012

-0.01

-0.008

-0.006

[dqsc/dlog(t)]

-0.004

-0.002

-1

Fig. 1: First test plot - simulated case no. 1

10

s = 4.8885
slope = 1.1604

Y2

0
-3

-2

-1

log(t)

Fig. 2: Second test plot -simulated case no. 1

GAS WELL DECLINE ANALYSIS UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE

CONDITIONS, WELLBORE STORAGE, DAMAGE, AND NON-DARCY FLOW EFFECTS

1400000

pp/qsc -0.869MDqsc

1200000

(pp /qsc-0.869MDqsc)1hr=854,964

1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
0
0.001

0.01

0.1

10

100

1000 10000

t, hours

Fig. 3: Second test plot, semilog- simulated case no. 1

14

M = 10824
b = 0.2782

12

8
6

sc

10

pp/q

SPE 75526

4
2
0
-0.0015

-0.001
[dqsc /dlog(t)]

-0.0005
-1

Fig. 4: First test plot - simulated case no. 2

10

I. NASHAWI, F. QASEM, R. GHARBI, AND M. MIR

SPE 75526

10

s = 5.01
slope = 1.217

Y2

4
2

0
-3

-2

-1

log(t)

Fig. 5: Second test plot, simulated case no. 2

140000

pp/qsc -0.869MDqsc

120000

(pp /qsc-0.869MDqsc)1hr=95,722

100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
0.0001 0.001

0.01

0.1

10

100

1000

t, hours

Fig. 6: Second test plot, semilog- simulated case no. 2