SPE 38866

Analysis of Commingled Gas Reservoirs With Variable Bottom-Hole Flowing Pressure

and Non-Darcy Flow
Ahmed H. El-Banbi and Robert A. Wattenbarger, SPE, Texas A&M University

Copyright 1997, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 58 October 1997.
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 an extension of the Layered Stabilized
Flow Model (LSFM) previously presented by the authors for
commingled gas wells1. The LSFM gives a method for
reserve estimation and production forecasts. The extension in
this paper takes into account bottom-hole flowing pressure
(pwf) variations and non-Darcy flow. Simulator verifications
and field examples are given.
The LSFM couples a material balance equation and the
stabilized gas flow equation, including non-Darcy flow, for
each layer of the commingled well. The method is simple and
lends itself to spread-sheet applications. Only the flow rate
and the pwf (or at least the surface pressure) history need to be
known, along with the initial reservoir pressure and gas
properties. The LSFM parameters are determined by historymatching the wells production rate over a selected
calibration period.
The method shows excellent results for moderate to high
permeability reservoirs, even with long shut-ins and
considerable variation in pwf. (The model accounts for backflow between layers during shut-in periods.) The results of
several simulated and field cases are reported.
The results of the LSFM provide estimates of OGIP and
the two flow equation parameters for each layer. These values
can then be used for forecasting.
Introduction
Decline curve analysis is sometimes a very practical tool
for reserve estimation and performance prediction. It started
as a rate forecasting technique by extrapolating the

production trend as early as the beginning of the century2.

Later, Arps2 presented empirical equations that express the
rate performance as a function of time. Fetkovitch3 combined
some analytical solutions for transient flow with Arps2
empirical equations on a log-log graph and developed a typecurve matching technique for production data. Carter4
developed other type curves specific for gas wells to take into
account the variation of gas properties with pressure. Fraim
and Wattenbarger5 developed a pseudo-time function to force
the production data of gas wells to match the liquid solution
(b=0) for constant pwf production. This work was followed by
other pseudo-time approaches6,7 that account for variation in
pwf. Different approaches of combining M.B equation with the
gas flow equation for single-layer reservoirs were also
presented8-10 by different authors. Similar techniques were
used by others11,12 to solve the single-layer gas reservoir
problems for production at variable pwf. Fetkovich et al.13
used type-curve matching to analyze commingled gas
reservoirs. El-Banbi and Wattenbarger1 used the approach of
combining the gas M.B equation with the stabilized flow
equation to analyze commingled gas reservoirs producing at
constant pwf.
The current paper extends the method used in Ref. 1 to
include the variation in pwf and non-Darcy flow. This method
can be used in analyzing production data and gives estimates
of OGIP and flow coefficients for each layer in commingled
reservoirs.
The Layered Stabilized Flow Model (LSFM)
Background. Traditionally for oil wells, engineers estimate
the productivity index of a well, J, from long shut-in tests.
This productivity index (assumed constant with time) gives
the relationship between the production rate and the drawdown, ( p - pwf), of the well:

q = J p p wf ....................................................... (1)
The equivalent relationship for a gas well is

( )] ...................................... (2)

q g = J g m( p ) m p wf

AHMED H. EL-BANBI, ROBERT A. WATTENBARGER

where m(p) is the real gas pseudo-pressure14 defined by

p

m( p) = 2
p

p
dp . ................................................ (3)
z

Eqs. 1 and 2 give production rate as a function of average

reservoir pressure. The material balance equation is used to
relate average reservoir pressure to time and thus relating
production rate to time.
In the following, we present a method that is based on the
same idea (coupling the productivity index equation with the
material balance equation) for commingled gas wells. The
method does not require shutting the well in. Alternatively, it
estimates the productivity index from production rate-time
data.
Single-Layer Reservoirs. Two main equations are used to
describe the flow behavior in volumetric gas reservoirs. The
first equation is the M.B. equation given by

p p Gp
= 1
. ........................................... (4)
z zi
G
This equation can be replaced with the form suggested by
Ramagost and Farshad15 for high pressured reservoirs.
The second equation is the stabilized flow equation for
gas16 reservoirs. Since Jg in Eq. 2 depends on rate (non-Darcy
flow), a more convenient form is the following:

( )

m ( p ) m p wf = aq g + bq g2 ........................... (5)
The stabilized flow equation has two parameters (a and b) to
account for Darcy and non-Darcy (inertial effects) flow,
respectively. The equations that relate these parameters to
reservoir and gas properties are shown in the appendix.
In addition to these two equations, the relation between
the gas flow rate and cumulative gas production is given by
t

G p = q g (t ) dt ...................................................... (6)
0

Eqs. 4, 5, and 6 can be solved simultaneously if the OGIP and

the two flow coefficients (a and b) are known for the layer.
Multi-Layer Commingled Reservoirs. Commingled
reservoirs are reservoirs connected only through the wellbore.
Each layer can be characterized by its OGIP and two flow
coefficients (a and b). The same approach presented in Ref. 1
is used to combine the individual layers performance and
compute the commingled reservoir performance. After
solving each layers model for production rate at each time
step, the total rate production of the commingled reservoir
can be calculated by summing the rate of each layer at the
corresponding time steps using the following equation.

qT (t ) =

SPE 38866

nlayer

q (t ) .................................................... (7)
gi

i =1

This requires that OGIP and the two flow coefficients (a

and b) be known for each layer in the commingled system. It
also requires that the bottom-hole flowing pressure, pwf, be
known at each time step.
History Matching Commingled Reservoirs. For trial values
of OGIP, a, and b for each layer, the rate history can be
calculated for the commingled well. These calculated model
rates are compared with the actual rates for a specified
calibration period. An optimization routine then finds the best
values of OGIP, a, and b for each layer. The best values are
determined when either of the following objective functions
(Eqs. 8 or 9) is minimized.

e1 =

1
N

1
e2 =
N

j =1

Data Model
.................................... (8)
Data

Data Model
Data ........................... (9)
j =1
N

where N is the number of total data points in the calibration

period. It should be noted that the time sequence of these data
points does not have to be contiguous. That is, the calibration
period may have gaps in data which may be desirable to
exclude bad data points or data points during transient
periods, for example.
LSFM Data Requirements. The LSFM requires initial
reservoir pressure and gas properties (z factor and g versus
p) data. These properties can be calculated from readily
available correlations17-19 if reservoir temperature, T, and gas
specific gravity, g, are known. We then choose a calibration
period from the production data to calibrate the model.
Production rate and pwf must be input through the calibration
period. If pwf is not known, it can be calculated from surface
pressure with correlations20.
Effect of Variable pwf
This section illustrates the effect of variation in pwf on the
model parameters. First, we used a gas numerical reservoir
simulator16 to model a single layer reservoir whose properties
are given in Table 1 (Simulation Case 1). The well was
produced at different conditions of rate and pwf according to
Table 2. We used the simulation results to calculate the
[m(p)-m(pwf)]/qg ratio. This is equal to a in Eq. 5 if we ignore
the non-Darcy term (b=0) and have stabilized flow. This ratio
is plotted against time in Fig. 1. The figure clearly shows that
this ratio goes through a transient period each time pwf is
changed. When the transient effects die out, the ratio becomes
constant at the value determined by Eq. A-1. The transient

SPE 38866ANALYSIS OF COMMINGLED GAS RESERVOIRS WITH VARIABLE BOTTOM-HOLE FLOWING PRESSURE AND NON-DARCY FLOW

effects appear to die very quickly if the change in pwf is not

very large and the reservoir permeability is not very low. Fig.
1 clearly shows that the effect of pwf changes are not
significant on the overall value of the ratio. This will probably
be true for moderately to high permeability reservoirs (above
0.1 md).
Verification of the LSFM
We verified the LSFM against numerical reservoir
simulation. In the following, we show cases from the
literature11 as well as other simulated cases to show how well
the LSFM is capable of reproducing the results of the
numerical simulator.
Single-Layer Reservoir. Garb et al.11 presented data for
simulated single-layer gas wells producing at variable pwf.
Table 3 is a reproduction of their case 1 data. The data has 8
points where each point represents the average production
rate for 1 year. The pressure points in the data are measured
at the end of the time step (end of the year). We adapted our
model to calculate the pressure at the end of the time step
from a known rate history. Our goal was to use just few points
of Garb et al.11 data (3 points) to calculate the OGIP and to
match their pressure performance.
Using just 3 data points, we obtained an OGIP value of
4.809 Bscf. The average error in pwf calculated from the
model was less than 0.25 psi per point. It is believed that the
little difference between the value of the OGIP obtained in
our analysis and that of Garb et al.11 is due to the different
correlations used for calculating the gas properties.
Multi-Layer Commingled Reservoir. We used numerical
reservoir simulation results of a two-layer gas reservoir to
verify the LSFM ( Simulation Case 3). The two layers had the
same properties except for permeability. One layer had a
permeability of 1 md and the other had a permeability of 0.1
md. Other data used for simulation are given in Table 4. The
well was produced at constant production rate of 500 Mscf/D
for 10 years followed by constant pressure production at pwf of
500 psi for another 10 years.
We used the rate and pressure data for the 2nd and 3rd year
as our calibration period, i.e. we used the pwf history in this
period as input to the LSFM and by fitting the production rate
over this calibration period we obtained the OGIP and the
flow coefficients per layer. We did not include the 1st year
data in the calibration period to avoid the effects of transient
data1. We then used the LSFM to forecast the total rate of the
well. Fig. 2 shows a comparison between the actual and the
LSFM forecast. The figure shows excellent agreement. Table
5 shows the OGIP obtained from the LSFM for each layer.
The percent error in the calculated value of the OGIP is less
than 4%.
Back-Flow. We used the same data for the two-layer

reservoir and constructed another case (Simulation Case 4) by

producing the reservoir at different production constraints of
different rate and pwf. The production constraints we used are
listed in Table 6. We then used the rate and pressure data
during the 2nd year as our calibration period. The
comparison between the actual and the model forecast is
shown in Fig. 3. It is clear from the figure that the LSFM
forecast matches the actual performance very well. The OGIP
values predicted by the LSFM are shown in Table 5.
We chose this case to illustrate the back-flow
phenomenon. Back-flow occurs in layered reservoirs when
the well is closed at the surface and there is differential
pressure between the layers. It may also occur when there is
severe reduction in wells production rate. The difference in
pressure between the layers very often results in producing
the gas from the high pressure layer into the low pressure
layer. This case (Simulation Case 4) shows back-flow during
the 3rd year (shut-in period). Back-flow occurred from the low
permeability layer to the high permeability layer. This is
because the high permeability layer was depleted more than
the low permeability layer during the first two years of
production. The LSFM could capture the back-flow
phenomenon during the well shut-in period (3rd year). The
comparison between the actual and the model rates for
individual layers is illustrated in Fig. 4. The figure shows that
the calculated rate was negative for one layer and positive for
the other during the shut-in period. It also shows good match
between the actual and calculated rates.
Field Applications
In this section, we show applications of the LSFM in
analyzing and forecasting actual field data. We selected some
wells from different regions and producing different
reservoirs. The first four cases were matched with single layer
models and the fifth case was matched with a two-layer
model. Producing pwf was assumed to be known for the entire
history of the well and used in the model calculations. In all
of the cases selected we used part of the history for calibration
and the rest of the known production history for checking the
LSFM forecast. In general, a good agreement between the
model forecast and the actual performance was obtained.
Field Case 1. This well was producing a high permeability
limited gas reservoir. Down-hole pressure and surface rate
measurements were available on daily basis. Production rate
was almost constant around 900 Mscf/D but the producing
pressure, pwf, was declining very fast. The well started
producing at pwf of 2,500 psia and the pressure dropped to less
than 300 psia in 140 days.
We used the first 70 days of production and pressure data
to calibrate the LSFM. We then used only the rest of the pwf
values with the model parameters calculated from the
calibration period to calculate the forecast of the production
rate. The comparison between the model forecast and the

AHMED H. EL-BANBI, ROBERT A. WATTENBARGER

actual performance of the well is shown in Fig. 5. The

parameters calculated by the model (OGIP, a, and b) are
given in Table 7.
Field Case 2. This well produces a moderate permeability
reservoir in the Western Desert of Egypt. Data of eight years
of production history were available. Periodic surface pressure
measurements were available. We used Cullender and
Smith20 procedure for dry gas to calculate pwf. The
fluctuations in both rate and pwf are shown in Fig. 6.
We used part of the data (years 2,3,4, and 5) to calibrate
the LSFM. We did not use the first year data in the
calibration period to avoid the effect of transient data. We
then used the model to forecast the wells production rate for
the following 3 years. The comparison between the model
forecast and the actual performance of the well is shown in
Fig. 6. The parameters calculated by the model (OGIP, a, and
b) are given in Table 7.
Field Case 3. Production and surface pressure data were
available for more than 7 years for this well. The rate and
pressure measurements were sparse and some points were
several months apart. We calculated the corresponding pwf
from the surface pressure measurements using Cullender and
Smith20 procedure.
We used the first 2 years of production and pressure data
to calibrate the LSFM. The model was used to forecast the
production rate for the well after the model parameters were
obtained from the calibration period. The comparison
between the model forecast and the actual performance of the
well is shown in Fig. 7 and the parameters calculated by the
model are given in Table 7.
Field Case 4. This well is a high rate well producing a large
reservoir. Production and surface pressure data were available
for almost 8 years. The pwf values were calculated using
Cullender and Smith20 procedure. Unfortunately, the
production data were not accurate in the first 2 years.
However, we could use the third and fourth year data to
calibrate the LSFM and obtain a fair match in this period.
The comparison between the model forecast and the actual
performance of the well is shown in Fig. 8 and the parameters
calculated by the model are given in Table 7.
Field Case 5. We chose a well from the field analyzed in
Refs. 1 and 13 (well E) to illustrate the application of the
LSFM on commingled reservoirs. A detailed description of
the filed was given in Ref. 13. The well was analyzed
assuming constant pwf previously1,13 because the changes in
pwf were not significant over the life of the well (more than 30
years). In this work, however, we assumed that pwf changes
according to the reported data at few points over time (almost
one point per year for the first twenty years of production).
The maximum reported pwf was 392 and the minimum was 30

SPE 38866

psia.
We used the monthly production rate for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year
as the calibration period and used the rest of the production
history for comparison. Fig. 9 shows the comparison between
the actual and model forecast. Fig. 10 shows the individual
layers production rate as calculated form the known pwf
history. The individual layers parameters (OGIP, a, and b)
are given in Table 7.
Discussion
The need for analyzing production data for gas wells
producing at variable pwf arises from the fact that many gas
wells are placed on constant rate production until they reach
some minimum pwf after which they produce at almost
constant pwf. Using conventional decline curve analysis
methods would not allow analyzing the constant rate
production part of the data because the rate is simply not
declining. Also, many modern gas wells are monitored
electronically and we can have accurate production rate and
pressure data. The model proposed in this work allows us to
make use of these data and to better analyze and forecast the
reserves and production of these wells.
Compared to the empirical decline curve equations, this
model is based on a more fundamental basis. It accounts for
real gas properties, non-Darcy flow, and the variations in pwf.
The proposed model was programmed as an Excel
Spread-Sheet program. This way, we made use of the
graphics capabilities of Excel as well as its optimization
routine. It was also programmed in a way to allow selection of
non-contiguous calibration periods. This feature allows to
ignore the inaccurate data points and periods of the
production data dominated by transient effects (e.g. after long
shut-ins).
As this work shows, the LSFM gives very reliable answers
for commingled systems if stabilized flow prevails in all the
layers. Therefore, the model is recommended to analyze
moderate to high permeability reservoirs (above 0.1 md). If
the model is used to analyze production data in extremely
tight reservoirs (maybe less than 0.01 md), the results may
not be reliable because the production data may be dominated
by transient effects.
The LSFM gives the OGIP and forecasts the production
by layer. This information may be important to characterize
the individual layers and to evaluate the relative importance
of the layers to production. It can be also used to report
production by layer. The parameters a and b can be used to
solve for any parameter that appears in Eqs A-1 or A-2 of the
appendix (e.g. reservoir permeability and skin factor) if other
parameters are known. This derived information can be used
to plan stimulation treatments for instance.
The engineer should also use information from well logs
and geological studies to help checking the model answers.
Production Logging (PLT) may also aid in calibrating and/or
checking the model results.

SPE 38866ANALYSIS OF COMMINGLED GAS RESERVOIRS WITH VARIABLE BOTTOM-HOLE FLOWING PRESSURE AND NON-DARCY FLOW

One limitation of the LSFM may be the optimization

routine. The optimization routine may converge to a wrong
answer (local minimum) especially if the rate and/or pressure
data used in the analysis are not accurate enough. It is also
expected that if the commingled system consists of many
layers, the answers may not be unique. Therefore, the
engineer has to always check the LSFM results against his
knowledge of the geology of the reservoir and the well log
responses.
Another limitation may be seen in the analysis of the gas
reservoirs which produce predominantly under transient flow
conditions. In these situations, we recommend to use other
methods to analyze the transient data.
From the many field cases we have analyzed, we found
that single-layer characterization of many gas wells is not a
bad assumption. This may be because of low viscosity and
high compressibility of gas compared to either oil or water
(gas moves easier than either oil or water). Therefore, in
many instances, there may be pressure communication
between the layers that appear isolated in well logs and hence
the adequate description as being single-layer reservoir (one
pressure system).
We have found that the non-Darcy parameter, b, can be
ignored for most of the field cases we analyzed. It is expected
that this parameter would be significant for high permeability
reservoir which produce very high rates. It may also be
important for fractured gas wells21.
Conclusions
The work presented in this paper is based on matching
production data for stabilized gas flow. It considers wells
producing at either constant or variable pwf and takes into
account non-Darcy flow. The following conclusions can be
drawn from this paper:
1. The LSFM applies to commingled gas wells if
stabilized flow dominates.
2. OGIP for each layer and the a and b coefficients for
each layer are determined by history-matching. The
calibration period used for history-matching does not have to
be contiguous.
3. The rates of individual layers are calculated for past
history as well as for forecasts.
4. The LSFM can tolerate numerous transient periods
caused by variations in producing conditions.
5. The LSFM is suitable for moderate to high
permeability reservoirs (above 0.1 md).
6. Cases may occur where solutions corresponding to
local minima are found by the optimization routine. Caution
should be used in these cases.
Nomenclature
a = stabilized deliverability coefficient, (psia2cp)/(Mscf/D)
A = reservoir drainage area, L2, ft2

b = Arps decline exponent

b = stabilized deliverability coefficient, (psia2cp)/(Mscf/D)2
CA = shape factor
D = non-darcy flow coefficient, t/L3, (Mscf/D)-1
e1 = normalized error measure given by Eq. 8
e2 = normalized error measure given by Eq. 9
G = original gas in place, L3, MMscf
Gp = cumulative gas produced, L3, MMscf
h = formation thickness, L, ft
J = oil well productivity index, bbl/D/psi
Jg = real gas flow coefficient, L4t2/m, Mscf.cp/D/psi2
k = permeability, L2, md
LSFM = Layered Stabilized Flow Model
m(p) = real gas pseudo-pressure at average reservoir
pressure, m/Lt3, psi2/cp
m(pwf) = pseudo-pressure at bottom hole flowing pressure,
m/Lt3, psi2/cp
nlayer = number of layers in a commingled system
N = number of rate data points used in calibration
OGIP = original gas in place, L3, Bscf
p = pressure, m/Lt2, psia
pi = initial reservoir pressure, m/Lt2, psia
po = base pressure, m/Lt2, psia
psc = pressure at standard conditions, m/Lt2, psia
pwf = bottom hole flowing pressure, m/Lt2, psia
p = material-balance average reservoir pressure, m/Lt2,
psia
q = oil production rate, L3/t, bbl/D
qg = gas production rate, L3/t, Mscf/D
qT = total flow rate in a commingled system, L3/t,
Mscf/D
rw = wellbore radius, L, ft
s = skin factor
t = time, t, days
T = reservoir temperature, T, oR
Tsc = temperature at standard conditions, T, oR
z = real gas compressibility factor
= non-darcy flow parameter given by Eq. A-4
= porosity
g = specific gravity of gas
g = gas viscosity, m/Lt, cp
Subscripts
i = layer index
j = time period index
Acknowledgment
This work was done in the Reservoir Modeling Consortium of
Texas A&M University. We thank the following persons and
companies for sharing field data: Thomas Blasingame of
Texas A&M, Mike Fetkovich of Phillips Petroleum Company,
and Gulf of Suez Petroleum Company (GUPCO) of Egypt.
We also like to thank Bryan Maggard of Texas A&M for his

AHMED H. EL-BANBI, ROBERT A. WATTENBARGER

help in Visual Basic programming and James Keating of

Chevron for his suggestions especially in the beginning of
this project.
References
1. El-Banbi, Ahmed H. and Wattenbarger, Robert A.: Analysis of
Commingled Tight Gas Reservoirs, paper SPE 36736
presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, CO. 6-9 Oct., 1996.
2. Arps, J. J.: "Analysis of Decline Curves," Trans., AIME (1945)
160, 228-47.
3. Fetkovich, M. J.: "Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves,"
JPT (June 1980) 1065-77.
4. Carter, R.D.: Type Curves for Finite Radial and Linear GasFlow Systems: Constant-Terminal-Pressure Case, SPEJ (Oct.
1985) 719-28.
5. Fraim, M. L. and Wattenbarger, R. A.: "Gas Reservoir DeclineCurve Analysis Using Type Curves With Real Gas
Pseudopressures and Normalized Time," SPEFE (Dec. 1987)
671-82; Trans, AIME, 290.
6. Blasingame, T.A., McCray, T.L., and Lee, W.J.: Decline
Curve Analysis for Variable Pressure Drop/Variable Flowrate
Systems, paper SPE 21513 presented at the SPE Gas
Technology Symposium, Houston, TX., Jan. 23-24, 1991.
7. Palacio, J. C. and Blasingame, T. A.: "Decline-Curve Analysis
Using Type Curves--Analysis of Gas Well Production Data,"
paper SPE 25909 presented at the 1993 Joint Rocky Mountain
Regional and Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium,
Denver, CO., April 26-28, 1993.
8. Guardia, M. A. and Hackney, R. M.: "A Practical Approach to
Original Gas-In-Place Estimation: Development of the South
Wilbuton Field," paper SPE 22925 presented at the 66th
Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
Texas, (Oct. 6-9,1991).
9. Keating, J. F., Chen, H. Y., Wattenbarger, R. A.: "Original Gas
in Place and Decline Curves From Early Stabilized Rate-Time
Data," paper SPE 27666 (March 1994).
10. West, S. L., and Cochrane, P. J. R. : "Reserves Determination
Using Type Curve Matching and Extended Material Balance
Methods in the Medicine Hat Shallow Gas Field," paper SPE
28609 presented at the 69th. Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in New
Orleans, LA, Sep. 25-28 (1994).
11. Garb, F.A., Rodgers, J.S, and Prasad, R.K.: Fing Gas In-Place
from Shut-In or Flowing Pressures, Oil & Gas J. (July 1973)
58-64.
12. Rodgers, J.S., Boykin, R.S., and Coble, L.E.: Nonstatic
Pressure History Analyses for Gas Reservoirs, SPEJ (April
1983) 209-18.
13. Fetkovich, M. J., Bradley, M. D., Works, A. M., and Thrasher,
T. S.: "Depletion Performance of Layered Reservoirs Without
Crossflow," paper SPE 18266 (1988).
14. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H. J., and Crawford, P. B. : "The
Flow of Real Gas Through Porous Media," JPT (May 1966)
624-36.
15. Ramagost, B.P. and Farshad, F.F.: P/Z Abnormally Pressured
Gas Reservoirs, paper SPE 10125 presented at the 56th
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
TX. Oct. 5-7 (1981).
16. Lee, W. J., and Wattenbarger, R. A.:
Gas Reservoir

SPE 38866

Engineering, SPE Textbook Series, Vol. 5, (1996).

17. Sutton, R.P.: Compressibility Factors for High-MolecularWeight Reservoir Gases, paper SPE 14265 presented at the
1985 SPE Annual Technical Meeting and Exhibition, Las
Vegas, Sept. 22-25.
18. Dranchuk, P.M. and Abou-Kassem, J.H.: Calculation of Z
Factors for Natural Gases Using Equations of State, J. Cdn.
Pet. Tech. (July-Sept. 1975) 34-36.
19. Lee, A.L., Gonzalez, M.H., and Eakin, B.E.: The Viscosity of
Natural Gases. JPT (Aug. 1966) 997-1000; Trans., AIME,
237.
20. Cullender, M.H. and Smith, R.V.: Practical Solution of GasFlow Equations or Wells and Pipelines with Large
Temperature Gradients, Trans., AIME, (1956) 207.
21. Holditch, S.A. and Morse, R.A. : The Effects of Non-Darcy
Flow on the Behavior Of Hydraulically Fractured Gas Wells,
JPT (Oct. 1976) 1169-79.

Appendix
The parameters a and b can be solved for any two reservoir
properties such as effective permeability and skin factor if
other reservoir parameters are known and if the reservoir
layers can be approximated by regular shapes with known
shape factor, CA. Although this is often difficult to achieve,
we present the equations for the sake of completeness16.

a=

10.06 A 3
1,422T
.
log
+ s
1151
kgh
C A rw2 4

................................................................................ (A-1)

b=

1,422T D
....................................................... (A-2)
kg h

where, the coefficient D is given by

D=

2.715 10 15 k M p sc

( )

h g p wf rw Tsc

............................ (A-3)

and can be empirically estimated16 from

= 188
. 1010 k 1.47 0.53 . .............................. (A-4)

SPE 38866ANALYSIS OF COMMINGLED GAS RESERVOIRS WITH VARIABLE BOTTOM-HOLE FLOWING PRESSURE AND NON-DARCY FLOW

Table 1: Reservoir and Fluid Data for Simulation Case 1

area, acres
thickness, ft.
porosity, fraction
initial pressure, psia
o
temperature, F
gas gravity, fraction
-1
formation compressibility, psi
permeability, md
number of gridblocks
OGIP, Bscf

40
30
0.18
3000
150
0.7
5.E-06
0.25
23
1.942

Table 2: Production Constraints for Simulation Case 1

Time
(Days)

Production Constraint
(Qg OR pwf)
Qg
Qg
pwf
Qg
pwf
pwf
pwf

0 - 10
10 - 30
30 - 50
50 - 500
500 - 650
650 - 900
900 - 1000

Qg
(Mscf/D)

pwf
(psia)

500
200
-300
----

--2000
-1000
1500
1000

Table 3: Data for Simulation Case 2 (Garb et al.11)

gas specific gravity
o
reservoir temperature, F
initial reservoir pressure, psi
OGIP, Bscf
Date
01/01/73
01/01/74
01/01/75
01/01/76
01/01/77
01/01/78
01/01/79
01/01/80

0.7
176
2500
4.855
Average Rate, Mscf/D
1000
1000
800
800
600
600
400
400

pwf, psia
1604
1361
1352
1153
1216
1071
1197
1107

Table 4: Reservoir and Fluid Data for Simulation Cases 3 and 4

area, acres
thickness, ft.
porosity, fraction
initial pressure, psia
o
temperature, F
gas gravity, fraction
-1
formation compressibility, psi
number of gridblocks
OGIP, Bscf

80
50
0.1
2500
150
0.7
3.E-06
20 x 2
6.089

Table 5: Comparison Between Actual and Model Calculation of OGIP for Two-Layer
Simulation Cases 3 and 4 (Bscf)
Layer 1
Layer 2

Actual

Case 2

Case 3

3.045
3.045

3.070
2.932

3.204
2.976

AHMED H. EL-BANBI, ROBERT A. WATTENBARGER

SPE 38866

Table 6: Production Constraints for Simulation Case 4

Time
(Days)

Production Constraint
(Qg OR pwf)

Qg
(Mscf/D)

pwf
(psia)

Qg
Qg
Qg
Qg
pwf
pwf

1000
0
100
200
---

----1000
500

0 - 730
730 - 1095
1095 - 1460
1460 - 1825
1825 - 3650
3650 - 7300

Table 7: Model Results for Field Cases

Field
Case
Field Case 1
Field Case 2
Field Case 3
Field Case 4
Field Case 5
Layer 1
Layer 2

OGIP
(Bscf)
1.351
99.623
3.631
396.673

a
2
(psi /cp/Mscf/D)
1,270,081
49,474
274,500
11,430

b
2
2
(psi /cp/(Mscf/D) )
0
0
0
0

0.619
0.140

46,669
227,729

0
0

1,000
950
900

[m (p )-m (p wf )]/q g

850
800
750
700
650
600
550
500
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

Time (Days)
Fig. 1 - Variation of the a coefficient with time for Simulation Case 1 showing the effect of variable pwf on the value
of a (Single-Layer Case).

SPE 38866ANALYSIS OF COMMINGLED GAS RESERVOIRS WITH VARIABLE BOTTOM-HOLE FLOWING PRESSURE AND NON-DARCY FLOW

1,600

2,500
Actual Rates
Model Rates
Calibration Period
BHP

1,400

2,000

1,000

1,500

800
1,000

history forecast

600

p wf (psia)

q g (Mscf/D)

1,200

Calibration Period

400

500
200

0
0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

0
8,000

Time (Days)
Fig. 2 - Comparison between model forecast and actual performance for Simulation Case 3 (Two-Layer Case).
2,000

2,500
Actual Rates
Model Rates
Calibration Period
BHP

1,800
1,600

2,000

1,500
history

1,000
Calibration Period

(psia)

1,200

q (Mscf/D)

1,400

800

1,000

600
400

500

200
0
0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

0
8,000

Time (Days)
Fig. 3 - Comparison between model forecast and actual performance for Simulation Case 4 showing a shut-in
rd
period during the 3 year (Two-Layer Case).

10

AHMED H. EL-BANBI, ROBERT A. WATTENBARGER

SPE 38866

1,800
Actual (Layer 1)
1,600

Actual (Layer 2)
Model (Layer 1)

1,400

Model (Layer 2)

q g (Mscf/D)

1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
-200
0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Time (Days)

3rd year (Two-Layer Case).

1,400

3,000
Actual Rates
Model Rates

1,200

Calibration Period

2,500

BHP
1,000
2,000

800
1,500

Calibration Period

600

p wf (psia)

q g (Mscf/D)

history forecast

1,000
400

500

200

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0
140

Time (Days)
Fig. 5 - Comparison between model forecast and actual performance for Field Case 1 (Single-Layer Case).

SPE 38866

11

25,000

3,000
Actual Rates
Model Rates
Calibration Period
BHP

20,000

2,500

15,000

2,000

10,000

1,500

p wf (psia)

q g (Mscf/D)

history forecast

Calibration Period

5,000

1,000

0
0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

500
3,000

Time (Days)

1,200

1,200
Actual Rates
Model Rates
Calibration Period

1,000

1,000

BHP

800

800

600

600

Calibration Period

400

p wf (psia)

q g (Mscf/D)

history forecast

400

200

200

0
0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

0
3,000

Time (Days)
Fig. 7 - Comparison between model forecast and actual performance for Field Case 3 (Single-Layer Case).

12

AHMED H. EL-BANBI, ROBERT A. WATTENBARGER

SPE 38866

100,000

4,500
Actual Rates
Model Rates
Calibration Period
BHP

90,000
80,000

history forecast

60,000

3,500

50,000
40,000

p wf (psia)

q g (Mscf/D)

70,000

4,000

3,000

Calibration Period

30,000
20,000

2,500

10,000
0
0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,000
3,000

2,500

Time (Days)
Fig. 8 - Comparison between model forecast and actual performance for Field Case 4 (Single-Layer Case).
350

350
Actual Rates
Model Rates
Calibration Period

300

300

BHP
250

history forecast
200

200

150

150

100

p wf (psia)

q g (Mscf/D)

250

100
Calibration Period

50

50

0
0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

0
14,000

Time (Days)
Fig. 9 - Comparison between model forecast and actual performance for Field Case 5 (Two-Layer Case).

SPE 38866ANALYSIS OF COMMINGLED GAS RESERVOIRS WITH VARIABLE BOTTOM-HOLE FLOWING PRESSURE AND NON-DARCY FLOW 13

250
Layer 1 (OGIP=0.62 Bscf)
Layer 2 (OGIP=0.15 Bscf)

q g (Mscf/D)

200

150

100

50

0
0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

Time (Days)
Fig. 10 - Model forecast for the two layers of Field Case 5 (Two-Layer Case).

12,000

14,000