Since the pseudo-pressure analysis is considered more accurate and
rigorous than the other three methods, the accuracy of each of the meth-
ods in predicting the IPR data is compared with that of the y-approach.
Figure 8-13 compares graphically the performance of each method with
that of y-approach. Results indicate that the pressure-squared equation
generated the IPR data with an absolute average error of 5.4% as com-
pared with 6% and 11% for the back-pressure equation and the pressure-
approximation method, respectively.
It should be noted that the pressure-approximation method is limited to
applications for pressures greater than 3000 psi.
Future Inflow Performance Relationships
Once a well has been tested and the appropriate deliverability or
inflow performance equation established, it is essential to predict the IPR
data as a function of average reservoir pressure. The gas viscosity m
g
and
gas compressibility z-factor are considered the parameters that are sub-
ject to the greatest change as reservoir pressure p
–
r
changes.
Assume that the current average reservoir pressure is p
–
r
, with gas vis-
cosity of m
g
and a compressibility factor of z
1
. At a selected future aver-
Gas Well Performance 559
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0
2500
2000 4000 6000 8000 1200010000
Flow Rate (Mscf/day)
Pressrue (psi)
Q
g
(Back-pressure)
Q
g
(Pressure-Squared)
Q
g
(Pressure)
Q
g
(Psuedopressure)
Figure 8-13. IPR for all methods.
Reservoir Eng Hndbk Ch 08 2001-10-24 11:13 Page 559