Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 21

# Appendix A Calculations and Procedures

Procedures

## Analytical Solution Technique

This analytical model has been developed to forecast recoverable reserves for the
transient and post-transient decline periods for a well in a bounded reservoir 13. The
model predicts future performance of both new and existing wells. JTI.Horizontal can be
used to optimize well length, drainage area and other important parameters by developing
expected production rate versus time performance or production decline curves.

Transient Calculations
After a well starts production, time is needed for the flow rate to stabilize. The period
before the rate stabilizes is known as transient period, when drainage boundaries do not
affect production. Depending on reservoir properties, the transient period may last from a
few days to several months. In low permeability reservoirs, the transient time may last
for years.

The transient flow solution is expressed in terms of dimensionless quantities. During the
transient stage, iterative calculations provide an exact mathematical solution of the
Laplace transform of the constant production rate equation (Eq. 6). The objective is to
calculate dimensionless pressure, pD, and dimensionless rate, qD, for different values of
dimensionless time, tD. Dimensionless numbers are easy to apply and provide simple,
general equations for any set of reservoir properties. These dimensionless numbers are
easily adapted to mathematical manipulation and superposition.

For any dimensionless time, tD, the dimensionless rate is calculated by solving for the
time to reach pseudo-steady state, tpss, (Eq. 8). The dimensionless rate and the
dimensionless time are then converted to the corresponding real rates and times (see Eqs.
2 through 5).

## JTI.Horizontal Users Guide 1

Appendix A Calculations and Procedures

1. Horizontal Wells

Two key issues in determining horizontal well performance and ultimate recoverable
reserves are well length (L) and spacing. These issues are especially important in
reservoirs where pressure decreases with time. In a vertical well, the wellbore contacts
only the reservoir height. But depending on the length drilled, horizontal wells can have
much greater exposure to the reservoir.

Over an equal time interval, a long horizontal well can drain a significantly larger
reservoir volume than a vertical well. But closely spaced horizontal wells may interfere
with each other very rapidly, resulting in lower ultimate reserves per well. Thus,
optimizing well length and well spacing is important.

Several authors1-3 have presented analytic solutions for a horizontal well produced at a
constant rate in a closed rectangular reservoir. The basic procedure for generating well
response of a horizontal well producing at a constant bottomhole pressure in a closed (no-
flow boundary), rectangular reservoir is outlined here.

Given the constant rate solution, pwDL, for a horizontal well, one can generate the
dimensionless rate response, qD, by using Duhamel's principal. In real-time form, this
calculation would involve recursive integration procedures. Hence, the Laplace space
equivalent was used to derive the dimensionless rate, qD, as

## qD = 1/(s2 pwDL) (1)

where the 's' denotes the Laplace variable and the overline denotes the Laplace space
solution. And pwDL represents the Laplace space solution for a horizontal well produced
at a constant rate.

Note that Eq. (1) is the well-known superposition result of van Everdingen and Hurst.4
This equation tells us that given the Laplace space solution (i.e., pwDL), one can easily
generate the dimensionless rate solution for the constant-pressure production problem.

It is important to note that in order to obtain the real time solution for the dimensionless
rate, qD, a numerical inversion algorithm must be used. The Stehfest algorithm is used
for this purpose.

Next, the Laplace space solution for a horizontal well produced at a constant rate in a
closed rectangular reservoir is derived. Several researchers have presented the constant
rate solution in a closed rectangle. 1-3

It should be noted that the program assumes that the horizontal well is located centrally in
the drainage area. The following figure shows a schematic of the well placement in the
drainage area.

## JTI.Horizontal Users Guide 2

Appendix A Calculations and Procedures

d2
d1 2ye
ky L
kx
2xe

## where kh = & ky > kx

For horizontal wells, the production rates and recoverable reserves depend on:

Drainage volume (well spacing), and the ratio of drainage area dimensions (2xe)/(2ye),
where 2xe is the well spacing distance parallel to the well, and 2ye is the well spacing
distance perpendicular to the well.

Well penetration ratio, L/2xe. This ratio accounts for the distance to be drained
beyond the well tips.

Dimensionless well length, LD, accounts for the changes in well productivity due to
reservoir anisotropy (kv kh). It also accounts for the influence of reservoir height on
well productivity.

## 2. Fractured Vertical Wells

For fractured vertical wells, the dimensionless pressure drop due to a planar fracture
located in a closed rectangle at a point xw, yw, was derived from the method of sources
and sinks discussed in Reference 5.

## JTI.Horizontal Users Guide 3

Appendix A Calculations and Procedures

3. Equations

The following Figure illustrates the Physical Model for a bounded reservoir.

## Geometry of A Horizontal Well

In A Bounded Reservoir

yw 2ye

xw

2xe

zw

2xe

## JTI.Horizontal Users Guide 4

Appendix A Calculations and Procedures

## The following equations summarize the analytical solution. The Nomenclature is

given after Equation (6).

Dimensionless Pressure

kh( pi pwf )
pD (2)
141.3qB

Dimensionless Rate

141.3Bq 1
qD (3)
kh( pi pwf ) ) pD

Dimensionless Time

0.001055kt
tD (4)
ct L2

## Dimensionless Time (Based on Drainage Area)

.000264 kt
tD (5)
ct A
(where t is in hours)

## Dimensionless Pressure Solution for a Horizontal

Well in a Closed Rectangle

x y ywD

tD
y
pD 2
0
1 2
0
exp n 2 2 eD cos n wD cos n D
yeD yeD yeD

2 xeD
y x xwD

1 x
1 exp n 2 2 eD sin n cos n wD cos n D
0
xeD xeD xeD xeD

1
1 2 0 exp n 2 2 h 2 cos nz D cos nz wD d (6)
D

where: = tD
JTI.Horizontal Users Guide 5
Appendix A Calculations and Procedures

## xeD = 4 xe/L xwD = 2 xw/L

yeD = 4 ye/L ywD = 2 yw/L
zD = z/h zwD = zw/h
xD = 2 x/L yD = 2 y/L
hD = h/(L/2) LD = (L/(2h)(kv/kh)0.5
tD = dimensionless time, defined in Eq. (4)

NOMENCLATURE

## A = Well drainage area, acres

B = Oil formation volume factor, RB/STB
b = Decline exponent, dimensionless
ct = Total compressibility, psi-1
Di = Decline coefficient, days-1
h = Reservoir height, ft
k = Permeability, md
kv = Vertical permeability, md
kh = Horizontal permeability, md
kx = Permeability parallel to well bore, md
ky = Permeability perpendicular to well bore, md
L = Horizontal well length, L
LD = Dimensionless well length
pD = Dimensionless pressure
pi = Initial reservoir pressure, psi
pwf = Well flowing pressure, psi
q = Oil production rate, STB/day
qD = Dimensionless oil production rate
qi = Flow rate at the beginning of the depletion stage, STB/day
re = Well drainage radius, ft
rw = Well bore radius, ft
rwD = Dimensionless well bore radius
t = time, hrs
tD = Dimensionless time
tDA = Dimensionless time based on drainage area
xe,ye = Half the drainage area dimensions in x and y direction, ft
xw,yw,zw = Distance of horizontal well center from drainage area boundaries,
ft
f = Reservoir porosity, fraction
m = Oil viscosity, cp

## Time to Reach Pseudo Steady-State Calculations

JTI.Horizontal Users Guide 6
Appendix A Calculations and Procedures

The time to reach pseudo-steady state is defined, as the time required for the pressure
transient to reach all the drainage boundaries of the reservoir. For fractured vertical wells
and horizontal wells, the time to reach pseudo-steady state flow (tpss) is somewhat
arbitrary and no standard industry definition exists. JTI.Horizontal calculates the time to
reach pseudo-steady state (tpss) as follows. (See Nomenclature following Eq. (6).)

0.00634 kt pss
t DA 0.1 (7)
ct A

A
where t pss 15.77ct
k
(8)

## (and tpss is time in days.)

For isotropic reservoirs, the well drainage area and the horizontal permeability can be
used in the above equations to calculate the time to reach pseudo steady state.

However, if the reservoir is anisotropic, then the well will drain different distances in the
x, y, and z directions. In such situations, the time to reach to pseudo-steady state is
calculated separately in each of the x, y, and z directions, and the maximum value is
chosen.

Ax
t pss ( x ) 15.77ct (9)
kx
Ay
and t pss ( y ) 15.77ct (10)
ky

In equations (7) and (8), two of the parameters which will vary due to anisotropy are the

## JTI.Horizontal Users Guide 7

Appendix A Calculations and Procedures

drainage area and the permeabilities in the x and y directions. The calculated values can
then be substituted in Eq. (9) and (10). The steps involved in these calculations are
summarized below. (Refer to Figure on page 44.)

1. Calculation of Ax and Ay

d1 = xe - L/2 (11)

d2 = ye (12)

Ax = 4d12 (13)

Ay = 4d22 (14)

2. Calculation of kx and ky

## The kx and ky permeability values depend on distances d1 and d2.

2
kx d 1
(15)
ky d 2

Also, kh kx k y (16)

and kx and ky are determined by solving equations (15) and (16) simultaneously.

d1
If 0.5 2, (17)
d2

## the program assumes kx = ky = kh.

Depletion Calculations

## JTI.Horizontal Users Guide 8

Appendix A Calculations and Procedures

## Beyond the time to reach pseudo-steady state, JTI.Horizontal switches to depletion

calculations. Conventional analytical methods calculate horizontal well productivities
primarily for stabilized flow.10 Steady state equations are for reservoirs with good
pressure support in which pressure remains essentially constant. Pseudo-steady state
equations are for reservoirs with pressure decreasing over time. In general, the stabilized
productivity calculations based on either steady state or pseudo-steady state methods give
lower production rates than observed in the transient flow period. The user can choose
either a constant percentage decline or use Arps and Fetkovich decline equations.

## 1. Constant Percentage Decline

This option can be used if the annual percent decline is known from surrounding well
field production histories. This option is recommended only for larger transient times
(i.e., if tpss is > 100 days).

2. Arps' Decline

In 1945, Arps made a detailed study of field production data and postulated that all
conventional depletion declines can be expressed by the following equation.

qi
q ( 1/ b ) (18)
[1 bDi t ]

## where qi = Initial rate, BOPD or MCFD

q = Rate at time t, BOPD or MCFD
Di = Decline constant, 1/time
b = Decline exponent
t = time (days) from end of transient state

## Fetkovich7 first provided a physical reasoning to Arps' equations by expressing the

equations in terms of reservoir variables.

Calculation of Di

The following equation can be used to calculate Di, which represents the initial decline
rate at the beginning of the depletion state. As the area drained by a well increases, re/rw
becomes large and the Di is reduced (Eq. 19). This indicates that, for a given economic
cutoff rate, the well having greater spacing will show a slower decline rate, and hence
higher cumulative oil recovery.

0.00634 k / ( ct rw 2 )
Di (19)
0.5[(re / rw ) 1][ln(re / rwe ) 0.5]
2

## where Di = Decline coefficient, 1/days

k = Reservoir permeability, md

## JTI.Horizontal Users Guide 9

Appendix A Calculations and Procedures

## f = Reservoir porosity, fraction

m = Fluid viscosity, cp
ct = Total compressibility, 1/psi
rwe = Effective wellbore radius, ft

And the following equations are used to calculate the effective wellbore radius.

Horizontal Well8

0.5reh L / a

rwe

1 1 ( 0.5L / a [ln( rr / rwe ) 0.5]

(20)

where

0.5
a = 0.5 L 0.5 0.25 (2reh / L) 4 (21)

## L = length of horizontal well, ft

= kh / k v

kh = horizontal permeability, md

kv = vertical permeability, md

Calculation of b

## JTI.Horizontal Users Guide 10

Appendix A Calculations and Procedures

## Depending on the value of b, which is determined by the reservoir producing mechanism,

Arps6 classified three types of decline as listed in the following table.

## DECLINE PARAMETER 'b'

Exponential b=0 Most conservative
Hyperbolic 0<b<1 Solution Gas Drive: b @ 0.3 to
0.67
Gas Cap: b @ 0.5
Strong Water Drive: b @ 0.5
Gravity Drainage: b @ 0.5
Undersaturated: b @ 0.0
Harmonic b=1 Most optimistic

The analytical solution in the depletion period represents an exponential decline of well
flow rates. This is simply because the analytical solution in a closely bounded drainage
volume assumes that the total compressibility of the rock and fluids is the only
mechanism that provides pressure support to the reservoir.

In practice, during the decline phase, in addition to pressure support from total
compressibility of the system, the reservoir may get additional pressure support that
depends upon the reservoir mechanism. For example, in a solution-gas drive reservoir,
the gas released from the oil could provide extra pressure support. Similarly, a large gas
cap or aquifer can also provide pressure support.

Thus, during the depletion phase, the extra pressure support will slow a well's production
rate decline over time (i.e., producing more than the exponential decline predictions).

The following table shows factors for converting Annual Percentage Decline and 'b'
factor to Decline Index, Di, for use in JTI.Horizontal.

## Di, Initial Decline Rate, 1/days

Annual
% b Factor
Decline 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
10 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003
20 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007
30 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0012
40 0.0014 0.0014 0.0015 0.0015 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0017 0.0017 0.0018
50 0.0019 0.0020 0.0020 0.0021 0.0022 0.0023 0.0024 0.0024 0.0025 0.0026
60 0.0025 0.0026 0.0028 0.0029 0.0030 0.0032 0.0033 0.0035 0.0037 0.0039
70 0.0033 0.0035 0.0037 0.0040 0.0042 0.0045 0.0048 0.0052 0.0055 0.0060
80 0.0044 0.0048 0.0052 0.0057 0.0062 0.0068 0.0074 0.0082 0.0090 0.0099
90 0.0062 0.0071 0.0080 0.0091 0.0104 0.0118 0.0136 0.0157 0.0182 0.0211

SUMMARY OF EQUATIONS

## JTI.Horizontal Users Guide 11

Appendix A Calculations and Procedures

i. for b = 0

## q/qi = exp (-Di t) = 1 - CPD (25)

Di = -[ ln ( 1 - CPD )] / 365
(26)

ii. 0<b<1

q/qi = 1 / [ ( 1 + b Di t)(1/b) ]

= 1 - CPD (27)

## (Substitute t = 365 days)

The depletion calculations are highly sensitive to the value of Di. JTI.Horizontal
provides the user with the option of inputting the value of Di, or entering '0'. If '0' is
entered, the program uses Eqs. 19 through 23 to calculate Di.

The most accurate way to determine Di is by type curve matching any available
production history of the well, or a nearby well, on a Fetkovich Decline Type Curve.
From the type curve match, a Di value can be determined directly.

In the calculation of Di, two variables which are the most difficult to estimate are rwe and
re. If the skin factor, s, is known from a well test, then the following equation can be used
to calculate rwe.

## JTI.Horizontal Users Guide 12

Appendix A Calculations and Procedures

## Effects of Back Pressure Changes

JTI.Horizontal provides the option to change the bottomhole pressure up to two (2) times
during the life of the well. The calculation for changes in back pressure involves the
principle of superposition7 to predict rates. The superposition principle implies that the
rate decline is expressed as an algebraic sum of two decline trends. The equation
describing the principle of superposition is summarized below.
qo (t ) qo ,1 ( t ) qo ,2 ( t )

## kh( pi pwf ,1 ) kh( pwf ,1 pw ,2 )

qo (t ) q Dt D q D ( t D t D1 )
141.2 o Bo 141.2 o Bo

## kh( pi pwf ,1 ) pwf ,1 pw ,2

qo (t ) q D ( t D ) q D ( t D t D1 )
141.2 o Bo pi pwf ,1
(30)

## JTI.Horizontal Users Guide 13

Appendix A Calculations and Procedures

The following figure illustrates the principle of superposition applied to constant pressure
production experiencing a change in back pressure.

## Wellbore flowing pressure, pwf

pwf1
pwf2

t1 time

Oil Rate, qo

qo = qo1 + qo2
qo1 due to pi - pwf1
qo2 due to
pwf1 - pwf2

t1 time

## Vertical Well Skin Factor

For vertical wells, JTI.Horizontal converts the skin factor input by the user into an
equivalent fracture length, and then applies the fractured well solution to obtain a
forecast. The following equations are used in the calculations.

## For an infinite conductivity fracture,

rwe = xf / 2 (32)

where xf = 2 rw exp(-s)

## JTI.Horizontal Users Guide 14

Appendix A Calculations and Procedures

xf = half fracture length, ft
rwe = effective wellbore radius, ft

Based on the equation for xf , infinite conductivity fracture lengths can be calculated for
different skin factors and rw values. It can be seen that for skin factors less than -6 and
typical wellbore radii of 2.5 to 4 inches, the equivalent fracture lengths are greater than
300 ft. (Skin factors less than -6.5 are unrealistic.) The user should ensure that the
calculated equivalent fracture length is not greater than the drainage area dimensions.

## Horizontal Well Mechanical Skin

Factor
Analogous to vertical wells, the dimensionless pressure drop of a horizontal well with
wellbore damage is defined12 as
s
p D pD (33)
s 0 2 LD

For the constant pressure case, the dimensionless wellbore pressure drop, pD, is analogous
to the reciprocal dimensionless rate, 1/qD. Therefore, if we substitute qD = 1/pD, then

1 1 s
(34)
qD qD 2 LD
s 0

## where s = skin factor

LD = dimensionless horizontal well length
= L/(2h) kv / kh

A moderately damaged well, for example, s = 4 to 5, would reduce the horizontal well

## Gas Well Production Forecasting

The following equations summarize the calculation procedure for gas well production
forecasting. (See p. 57 for Nomenclature.)

## a. Constant Pressure Solution

(Rate-time forecast for a constant bottomhole pressure)

## JTI.Horizontal Users Guide 15

Appendix A Calculations and Procedures

1,418T
qD qg

kh m( pi ) m( pwf ) (35)

## b. Constant Rate Solution

(Pressure-time forecast for a constant production rate)

pD

kh m( pi ) m( pwf ) (36)
1,418Tqg

p
p
m( p) 2
p wf z
dp (37)

## where qg = gas production rate, MCFD

1,418T
A pD (38.1)
kh
1,418T
B D
kh
(38.2)
Constant Rate Solution

Rearranging equation (38) gives the following equation to forecast pressure, pwf, versus
time for a constant gas flow rate, qg.

## Constant Pressure Solution

For this case, pD is replaced by (1/qD) in Eq. (38.1) and equations (38), (38.1), and (38.2)
are rearranged as shown below.

kh m( pi ) m( pwf )
1
q Dqg2 (40)
1,418T qD g

## A'qg2+B'qg+C'=0, and solved for the gas flow rate, qg.

JTI.Horizontal Users Guide 16
Appendix A Calculations and Procedures

qg
2 A'
(41)

## where A' = D (41.1)

B' = 1 / qD (41.2)
C =

kh m( pi ) m( pwf )
(41.3)
1,418T

Equation (41) and Equations (41.1), (41.2), and (41.3) can be used to calculate the gas
flow rate in the presence of turbulence.

Turbulence Coefficient, D

D (42)
p rwhp2
wf

## where, ' 2.73 1010 ka1.1045

(42.1)

NOMENCLATURE

hp = perforated interval, ft
(for horizontal wells, hp = well length, ft)
ka = permeability in the near wellbore region, md
k = permeability, md
h = reservoir height, ft
pi = initial reservoir pressure, psia
p = average reservoir pressure, psia
pwf = well flowing pressure, psia
m(p) = pseudo pressure, psia2/cp
qg = gas rate, MCFD
T = reservoir temperature, oR
m = gas viscosity evaluated at some average pressure between p and pwf, cp
mpwf = gas viscosity at well flowing conditions, cp
z = gas compressibility factor evaluated at some average pressure between p
and pwf
b' = high velocity flow coefficient, 1/ft
gg = gas gravity, dimensionless

## JTI.Horizontal Users Guide 17

Appendix A Calculations and Procedures

## Two Phase Flow

For two-phase flow calculations, the reservoir permeability used should be the
permeability to oil, ko.

ko = kro * k

## Otherwise, the program may provide an optimistic forecast.

For forecasting production of both phases, e.g., oil and water, two separate runs should be
made. One run should be made with an absolute permeability. The second run should be
made using permeability to oil, ko. The difference in the rates, in reservoir barrels, from
the two forecasts gives the water production rates as a function of time.

Often, initial rates predicted by the program are higher than those obtained in actual
practice. This is usually due to the following optimistic assumptions:

## (a) Absolute k is used rather than kr.

(b) Effective well length is not equal to drilled length.
(c) No formation damage was assumed.
(d) No facility limits were assumed.

The user has the option to input a mechanical skin factor for horizontal wells and also an
option to set a maximum well allowable.

## JTI.Horizontal Users Guide 18

Appendix A Calculations and Procedures

Total Compressibility
A. Oil Wells

## Assume cw = 3.1 X 10-6 1/psi (44)

Sg = 0 So = (1 - Sw) (45)

## Then, ct = co (1-Sw) + (3.1x 10-6)Sw + cf (46)

B. Gas Wells

Assume cg >> co or cf

NOMENCLATURE

## ct = Total compressibility, psi-1

co = Oil compressibility, psi-1
cw = Water compressibility, psi-1
cg = Gas compressibility, psi-1
cf = Formation compressibility, psi-1
So = Oil saturation, fraction
Sw = Water saturation, fraction
Sg = Gas saturation, fraction

## JTI.Horizontal Users Guide 19

Appendix A Calculations and Procedures

Units Nomenclature
BO = Barrels of oil
BOPD = Barrels of oil per day
BW = Barrels of water
BWPD = Barrels of water per day
CF = Cubic feet
CF/D [CFPD] = Cubic feet per day
cp = Centipose
o
o
F = Degrees Fahrenheit
ft = Feet
ft2 = Square feet
kPa = Kilo Pascals
M = Thousand (1e3)
MM = Million (1e6)
m = Meters
m2 = Square meters
m3 = Cubic meters
md = Milli - darcys
Psia = Pounds per square inch absolute
Psig = Pounds per square inch gauge
RB = Reservoir barrels
Res. m3/Std. m3 = Cubic meters at reservoir conditions per cubic meter
at standard conditions
STB = Stock tank barrels

## JTI.Horizontal Users Guide 20

Appendix A Calculations and Procedures

REFERENCES

1. Kuchuk, F.J., Goode, P.A., Brice, B.W., Sherrard, D.W., and Thambynayagam, R.K.M., Pressure
Transient Analysis and Inflow Performance for Horizontal Wells, paper 18300, presented at the 63 rd
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE, Houston, TX, October 2-5, 1988.

2. Babu, D.K., and Odeh,A.S., Productivity of a Horizontal Well, SPE Reservoir Engineering, pp.
417-421, Nov. 1989.

3. Mutalik, P.N., Godbole, S.P., and Joshi, S.D., Effect of Drainage Area Shapes on the Productivity of
Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 18301, presented at the 63 rd Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, TX, October 2-5, 1988.

4. van Everdingen, A.F., and Hurst, W., The Application of the Laplace Transformation to Flow
Problems in Reservoirs, Transaction, AIME, vol. 186, pp. 305-324, 1949.

5. Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, Jr., H.J., and Raghavan, R. Unsteady-State Pressure Distribution Created
by a Well with a Single Infinite-conductivity Vertical Fracture, Journal of Petroleum Technology,
pp. 347-360, August 1974.

6. Arps, J.J., Analysis of Decline Curves, Transaction, AIME, vol. 160, pp. 228-247, 1945.

7. Fetkovich, M.J., Decline Curve analysis Using Type Curves, Journal of Petroleum Technology,
pp.1065-1077, June, 1980.

8. Joshi, S.D., A Review of Horizontal Well and Drainhole Technology, paper SPE 16868, presented
at the 1987 Annual Technical Conference, Dallas, TX. A revised version was presented at the SPE
Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper, WY, May, 1988.

9. Joshi, S.D., Production Forecasting Methods for Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 17580, presented at
the SPE Intl. Meeting, Tianjin, China. Nov. 1-4, 1988.

10. Joshi, S.D., Horizontal Well Technology, PennWell Publishing Co., Tulsa, OK, 1991.

## 11. Earlougher, R.C., SPE Monograph No. 5.

12. Daviau, F., Mouronval, G., and Bourdarot, G., Pressure Analysis for Horizontal Wells, SPE 14251,
paper presented at the 60th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV, September
22-25, 1985.

13. Mutalik, P.N., and Joshi, S.D., Decline curve analysis predicts oil recovery from horizontal wells,
Oil and Gas Journal, September 7, 1992, pp. 42-48.