SPE 69431
Drainage Area for Horizontal Wells With Pressure Drop in the Horizontal Section
N. F. Saavedra, Ecopetrol; and D. A. Reyes, DTH LTDA.
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 25–28 March 2001.
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
In general, a horizontal well is more productive than a vertical
well, due to the fact that there is a larger area of contact with
the reservoir and that there is less pressure drop per unit of
length in the production section.
The two main factors to obtain more reserves in a reservoir are
the increase in drainage area or an increase of the recovery
factor using some enhanced recovery method.
The productivity as well as the drainage area of a horizontal
well may be limited by the pressure drop within the wellbore,
especially when the pressure drop is comparable to the
drawdown from the reservoir to the wellbore. Over the past
few years, horizontal well technology has acquired quite
significant importance and thousands of wells are drilled
around the world every year, which is why there is a need for
more information on the factors that affect pressure drop
within the well.
Total pressure drop in horizontal wells has been analyzed in
terms of four separate effects: wall friction, flow acceleration,
perforation roughness, and fluid mixing.1 Thus, the pressure
drop in horizontal wells is made up of a gravity term, a
frictional term and another due to flow acceleration.2
The literature available about calculating drainage areas of
horizontal wells only covers geometric methods, which
assume that the horizontal well drains an elliptic area or a
combined area made up of a central rectangle and two semi-
circles on the ends. 2,3
This paper proposes an expression to calculate the drainage
area of horizontal oil wells that produce at high reservoir flow
rates, exhibiting a frictional pressure drop throughout the
wellbore between 15 to 60% of the reservoir drawdown at the
heel of the well.
Introduction
One of the advantages of horizontal wells over vertical wells
is the increase in the area of contact with the reservoir, where
less pressure drawdowns are required to produce at the same
rate as a vertical well,4 thus reducing the possibility of
problems such as coning (cresting), the precipitation of scales
and the production of sands, among others.
One of the variables required in the production forecast of a
horizontal well is drainage area.
The methods proposed by Joshi and Borisov , for wells with
horizontal sections open to the flow, are based on areas of
symmetric geometry 3 and do not consider the effect of
pressure losses along the production section.
Being aware of the effects of pressure drops on horizontal
wells is crucial to calculate the drainage area including friction
effects and therefore, for the optimization of its
production behavior.
In the case of long wells or high flow rates, the pressure drop
through the well may be comparable to the reservoir
drawdown at the producing end of the well. A Portion of the
well downhole would then be unproductive because the local
drawdown there is small or even zero9. Researchers have tried
to identify the situations where loss of drawdown along a
horizontal well reduces productivity and to quantify the effects
of friction in a horizontal wellbore.
Dikken4 proposed a model in which a steady state turbulent
flow is considered in a single phase. The traditional friction
factor for flow in tubes links the pressure gradient within the
well and the local flow velocity. Dikken describes flow in the
reservoir with a specific Productivity Index, which must be
independent of position along the well. A Volume balance
across the well boundary then leads to a differential equation
that can be solved for the profile of flow rate along the
wellbore.
Novy9 , proposed a study in which he reports the guidelines
that indicate the cases where friction should be considered in a
particular reservoir/well system.
This article discusses an expression to calculate the drainage
area of a horizontal well considering the effects of the pressure
drop profile due to friction along the production section of the
well. It is proposed that the drainage area for horizontal wells
with a frictional pressure drop throughout the wellbore
between 15 to 60 % of the reservoir drawdown at the heel of
the well be evaluated, assuming that the well affects an area
composed of the sum of three different surfaces.
2 N. F. SAAVEDRA, D. A. REYES SPE 69431

Drainage area of a horizontal well Pressure drop through a horizontal well

The drainage area is one of the variables required in the Assuming that a horizontal wellbore can be represented as a
production forecast of horizontal wells. horizontal pipe, the equation to calculate the pressure drop in a
The drainage area can be calculated by using either of the pipe using the laws of conservation for mass, momentum and
methodologies proposed by Joshi or those similar.2,3 These energy can be written as:2
two methods consider only the geometry of the drained
surface, and not other factors such as reductions in dp  dp   dp   dp 
productivity that trigger pressure loss through the productive =  +  +  ......( 5 )
dL  dL  gravity .  dL  friction .  dL  accelerati on .
section. This method is illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1a
represents Method 1. It is assumed that the area is composed
of a rectangle with base L and height 2rev and two semi-circles Where, dp, represents pressure drop and dL represents
with a radius of rev. The area is calculated with the incremental length. Also assuming that the terms of gravity
following equation: and acceleration are negligible in a section of horizontal pipe
and that the flow is fully developed, the equation would
A hw = Π r eV
2
+ 2 Lr eV .......................................................(1) reduce to:
dp  dp  f ρv 2
Where L is the length of the horizontal well, rev , the drainage =  =− m ............................................(6)
dL  dL  friction. 2g c d
radius of a vertical well in the same area, and Ahw is the area
drained by the horizontal well.
Figure 1b represents Method 2. or:
The second method assumes the area is an ellipse, obtained fm ρ v2 L
∆p w = −
with the following equation: (2 gcd )..........................................................(7)

A hw = Π ab .........................................................................(2) where fm is the adimensional friction factor, ρ, is the flux

density in lbm/ft3, v, the flow rate in ft/seg, gc the gravitational
constant equivalent to 32.2 lbm-ft/(seg2-lbf), d is the diameter
where a is half the major axis of the ellipse, and b is half the of pipe in ft., ∆pw the pressure drop in lbf/ft2, and L is the well
minor axis. length in ft.
Equation 7 represents the calculation of pressure drop for
L
a = + re V .........................................................................(3) single phase flow through a pipe. For single-phase flow of oil
2 through a horizontal wellbore, Equation 7 can be rewritten in
b = reV .................................................................................(4) field units such as:

Effects of high pressure drops through the wellbore

A high pressure drop along the horizontal well length is ∆p w =
(1.14644 * 10 ) f −5
m ρq2L .......... .......... ...(8)
possible in the case of high viscosity fluids such as heavy oils.
d5
High pressure drop is also possible for light oils if flow rates where fm is the Moody's friction factor, dimensionless; ρ is the
are greater than several thousand barrels per day (for instance, flux density in gm/cc; q is flow rate at reservoir conditions,
flow rates of around 10000 RB / day or more). Such high rates RB/day; L is horizontal length in ft; d is the internal pipe
are possible only in high-permeability reservoirs where diameter in inches (Appendix A lists external casing diameters
permeability is on the order of 1000 md or more. In these for different weights and their corresponding internal
reservoirs, pressure drawdown from the reservoir to the diameters) and ∆pw is pressure drop due to friction through the
wellbore can be very small, and can be comparable to pressure wellbore in psia.
drop through the horizontal wellbore. In such cases, the Besides liner or pipe diameter, a second significant parameter
drilling of a long horizontal well beyond a certain length in Equation 8 is the dimensionless friction factor fm.
would not yield any additional production.4 The dimensionless friction factors for circular pipes depend on
In reservoirs with water and gas coning problems, an flow regime, that is, whether flow is laminar or turbulent. The
excessive pressure drop through the wellbore may enhance the friction factor for turbulent flow depends strongly on the
tendency of water and gas to cone rapidly at a point of roughness of the pipe, ε/d. For flow through a circular pipe,
minimum pressure in the horizontal well, i. e., at the laminar flow occurs when the Reynolds number is less than
producing end of the wellbore. 2300 as follows:
As indicated above, a great pressure drop along the horizontal
section would occur mainly in high-permeability reservoirs. For laminar flow: Re<2300;
The flow rates in these reservoirs are not restricted by well For turbulent flow: Re>4000;
productivity, but rather by flow-string pressure For transition region: 2300<Re<4000.
drop limitations.2
SPE 69431 DRAINAGE AREA FOR HORIZONTAL WELLS WITH PRESSURE DROP IN THE HORIZONTAL SECTION 3

where Re is the Reynolds number and is defined as: where aH,max is half the horizontal axis of the ellipse of the
damaged cone (Figure 3).
Re = ρ dv .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ...( 9 ) Figure 4 shows the undamaged zone as well as the one
µ
affected by damage with its respective permeabilities for the
case of a horizontal well with length L.
The Reynolds number is a dimensionless number that In general, it can be said that longer horizontal wells are
represents a ratio of inertial and viscous forces. In U.S. field affected less by the damage factor thanks to increase in the
units, Equation 9 is rewritten as: area of flow.

ρ Significant friction
Re = 92 . 23 q
(µ d ).......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..(10 ) In short wells, friction is negligible and the well acts as
uniform-pressure sink. Production rate q, thus rises rapidly
where ρ, is the fluid density in gm/cc, q is flow rate in with well length, L.
RB/day, µ is viscosity in cp and d is internal pipe diameter However, friction in long wells depletes the drawdown that
in inches. exists at the producing end of the well, which is why the
The friction factor, fm, can be read from charts2, or calculated production rate, q, becomes independent from horizontal well
using the following equations for rough pipes as well as length, L . (i.e.,adding a foot to L gives no marginal
smooth ones: production). All wells are located within these two extremes.
Of interest is L at which friction begins to reduce q
For laminar flow: significantly. The point of "significant frictional losses" is
defined as q1 /q0 =0.99, where q1 is the production rate of the
f m = 64 .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .........( 11) well with significant friction, and q0 is the production rate of
Re
the well without friction.
For turbulent flow: 4000<Re<108, 10-8≤ ε/d ≤0.1 A well in which friction reduces production rate by 10% has a
length, Lsfl. q of a well with that length (with friction) is qsfl,.
f m = [1 . 14 − 2 log [(ε / d ) + 21 . 25 Re − 0 .9
] ]− 2 ...( 12 )
Methodology Proposed to Calculate Drainage Area
Equation 12 is suggested by Jain and shows less than 3.1%9 of Horizontal Oil Wells With Significant
error with the classical turbulent-flow equation suggested by Pressure Drop
Prandtl, Karman and Nikuradse. Figure 2 shows the outline of According to the guidelines indicated in the section of basic
a typical profile of pressure drop through a concepts, and the results observed in the literature available in
horizontal wellbore. this area,2,4,9 the methodology mentioned here is directed to
horizontal oil wells that produce at high reservoir rates, thus
Horizontal well damage showing a turbulent flow regime along the horizontal
Hawkins defined the effect of formation damage as a zone production section and a significant reduction in productivity.
concentric to the well with altered permeability (Figure 3a). This also applies for open hole completion horizontal wells or
The equation that represents the damage is: those that have a screen liner, because they are methods that
expose totally horizontal length of the well for production.
 k  r  The methodology to calculate the drainage area of horizontal
S= − 1 ln  S  ..........................................................(13) oil wells with significant frictional losses is based on a
 kS   rw  conservative empirical criterion according to which the ratio
Where k is the permeability in the unaltered zone, kS is the between the pressure drop along the horizontal well, ∆pw, and
permeability in the damaged zone, and rS is the radius of drawdown at the production end of the well, ∆P(0), is greater
invasion or penetration of damage. S is negative in zones than 15%. Therefore, friction in the well may reduce
where stimulated permeability is greater than in the productivity by over 10%,9 a percentage for a well that
virgin zone. produces rates of about 10000 RB/day or more, that becomes a
In horizontal wells, the damaged zone is not as simple as in significant reduction in productivity. Based on the above, it is
vertical wells due to the fact that the horizontal section near assumed in this study that horizontal oil wells with frictional
the vertical section has greater contact with the mud filtrate pressure drop throughout the wellbore between 15 to 60% of
and therefore will be more invaded and more damaged in the reservoir drawdown at the heel of the well drain an area
comparison with the tip end, which will have minimum composed of the sum of three different surfaces (Figure 5).
damage (Figure 3b). The damage factor is represented by The first area is generated by the end of the well nearest the
the equation, vertical section and corresponds to half the area of a circle
with a radius equal to rev (A1). In the same way the well tip will
 k   1 4  a 2 H ,m ax a H ,m ax   ......(14) drain an area A3 and corresponds to half the area of a circle
S eq =  − 1 ln   + + 1 
 kS   I ani + 1 3  rw 2
rw   with a radius equal to rev[∆P(L)/ ∆P(0)]. This is a commonly
4 N. F. SAAVEDRA, D. A. REYES SPE 69431

accepted concept for drainage of a vertical well. The second A3 is given as:
area (A2) is generated by the horizontal section of the well and
is affected by frictional pressure drop along its length. This 2
area is obtained by multiplying the area generated by  ∆P ( L) 
A3 = π / 2 rev  ..........................................( 23)
integrating the radii drained at any point (x) along the  ∆P (0) 
horizontal section between 0 and L by two. We assume that By replacing Equations (16), (22) and (23) in Equation (15)
the radii drained at any point along the horizontal section (x) is we get the drainage area in acres of a horizontal well with
affected by frictional pressure drop and is given as rev[∆P(x)/ significant frictional losses:
∆P(0)].
The area obtained this way indicates that a well with
r  2∆p w ( L)  ∆P( L) 
2

significant pressure losses drains different radii at each point AHW = ev π rev + 4 L − L + π rev   ..(24)
along its length. 87120  ∆P(0)  ∆P(0)  
According to the above, we have:
where:
AHW, is the drainage area of a horizontal well with significant
AHW = A1 + A2 + A3 .............................................(15) frictional losses, acres.
A1, is the area drained by the end of the well nearest the
A1 is given as: vertical section in acres.
A2, is the area drained along the horizontal length of the well
π rev in acres.
A1 = .........................................................(16) ∆P(x), is the drawdown at any point along the horizontal
2
section in psia.
A2 is given as: ∆P(0), is the drawdown at theproducing end of the well
in psia.
∆pw(x), is the pressure drop due to friction at any point along
 L  ∆P( x)   the horizontal length in psia.
A2 = 2 ∫ rev  dx........................................(17)
0  ∆P ( 0)   Pwf(x), is bottom-hole pressure at any point along the
horizontal length of the well in psia.
Pwf(0), is bottom-hole pressure at the heel of the well in psia.
Where: A3, is the area drained by the well tip in acres.
The methodology proposed here assumes that wells with
∆P( x) = Pe − Pwf ( x)............................................(18) significant frictional pressure drop (between 15 and 60% of
the reservoir drawdown at the heel of the well) along the
horizontal section drain variable radious at each point,
Pwf ( x ) = Pwf (0) + ∆p w ( x )...................................(19) between 0 and L, according to the pressure profile along the
production section (Figure 2). The pressure drop due to
By evaluating Equation (8) at any point (x) along the friction losses is minimum at the heel of the horizontal section
horizontal section we get the equation for ∆pw(x): and as the horizontal length of the well increases, it becomes
greater, reaching its maximum value at the toe of the well.

∆p w ( x ) =
(1 .14644 * 10 ) f −5
m ρq2x .......... ....( 20 ) The following is the methodology to calculate the drainage
d5
The reservoir drawdown at heel, ∆P(0), is given as: area of horizontal oil wells with frictional pressure drop in
wellbore between 15 and 60% of the reservoir drawdown at
the heel of the well:
∆P(0) = Pe − Pwf (0)...........................................(21)
1. Calculate Reynolds Number with Equation 10. (If the
By replacing Equations (18), (19), (20) and (21) in Equation well is completed with screen liner, determine the internal
(17) and solving the integral proposed we get: diameter of the well using Appendix).
2. If Re is greater than 4000, calculate fm from Equation 12.
3. Calculate the frictional pressure drop along the horizontal
  ∆p ( L )   length, ∆pw, by using Equation 8.
A2 = 2rev L 1 −  w  ..................................( 22) 4. Calculate ∆P(0) by using Equation 22.
  2 ∆ P ( 0 )  5. If 15%≤ ∆pw / ∆P(0) ≤60%, then calculate the drainage
area of the horizontal oil well with significant frictional
losses from the Equation 24.
SPE 69431 DRAINAGE AREA FOR HORIZONTAL WELLS WITH PRESSURE DROP IN THE HORIZONTAL SECTION
Limitation
For reservoirs with pressure near to the flowing pressure
wellbore and very high reservoir rates, there are two opposite
effects; the frictional pressure drop in the wellbore becomes
equal or greater than the reservoir drawdown at the heel of the
well, reducing the effective length and thus the drainage area.
On the other hand, one would expect a higher drainage area at
very high reservoir rates.
This complexity reduce the application of the expression
developed in this article.
According to the above, the expression to calculate horizontal
well drainage area with significant frictional pressure drop
proposed in this article doesn’t apply for very high reservoir
rates which produce frictional pressure drops higher than the
60% of the reservoir drawdown at the heel of the well.
Conclusions
1. Long horizontal wells with high flow rates of light crude
or those that produce highly viscous crude, most certainly
exhibit a high pressure drop due to friction throughout the
production section, which greatly reduce the effective
area of the reservoir to be drained by the well.
2. Horizontal wells with a pressure drop throughout the
production section comparable to the drawdown at the
production end experience the maximum reduction in
productivity at effective length (Leff).
3. A key criterion to establish whether a well has significant
pressure loss due to friction in the horizontal section is the
ratio of pressure drop throughout the well, ∆pw and the
reservoir drawdown at the heel of the well, ∆P(0). If the
ratio is greater than 15%, friction in the well may reduce
productivity by a factor greater than or equal to 10%. Oil
wells that produce over 10000 RB/day are susceptible to
this order of losses.
4. The drainage area of horizontal oil wells with frictional
pressure drop throughout the wellbore between 15 and
60% of the reservoir drawdown at the heel, can be
calculated assuming that they drain an area composed of
the sum of three different surfaces, (Figure 5) which are
affected by the frictional pressure losses along
the wellbore.
5. Wells with significant pressure losses along the horizontal
section drain variable radii at each point generating a
curve area when it is integrated between 0 and L. In the
well tips we assume that the well drains a half of the area
of a circle with a radius equal to the radius of a vertical
well multiplied by the ratio of reservoir drawdown at
corresponding well tip and the reservoir drawdown at the
heel of the well.
6. For reservoirs with pressure near to the flowing pressure
wellbore and very high reservoir rates, there are two
opposite effects; the frictional pressure drop in the
wellbore becomes equal or greater than the reservoir
drawdown at the heel of the well, reducing the effective
length and thus the drainage area. On the other hand, one
would expect a higher drainage area at very high reservoir
5
rates. In this case, we will continue researching in order to
determine what is the more realistic way for calculating
horizontal well drainage area.
7. The development proposed in this paper is very useful
when calculating the area drained by horizontal oil wells
in reservoirs with permeabilities greater than 1000 md
producing at high flow rates with considerable
pressure loss.
8. The estimation of pressure drop along the well is not only
necessary to make a more real calculation of the drainage
area of the horizontal well, but also affects the design of
the method for well completion.
Nomenclature
A hw= drainage area of a horizontal well without
significant frictional losses, L2, acres.
A HW = drainage area of a horizontal well with significant
frictional losses, L2, acres.
A1 = area drained by the end of a horizontal well nearest
the vertical section, L2, acres.
A2 = area drained along the horizontal length of the well,
L2, acres.
A3 = area drained by the well tip, L2,acres.
b = minor base of a trapezio, L, ft
B = major base of a trapezio, L, ft
d = internal pipe diameter, L, in.
dL = incremental length, L, ft
fm= friction factor, dimensionless
gc = gravitational constant, L/t2, 32.2 lbm-ft/(sec2-lbf)
k = absolute permeability, L2, md
ks = permeability of damaged zone, L2, md
P = pressure, m/Lt2, psia
Pe= reservoir pressure, m/Lt2, psia
Pwf = flowing wellbore pressure, m/Lt2, psia
q = production rate, L3/t, RB/D
q0= production rate without friction, L3/t, STB/D
q1= production rate with friction, L3/t, STB/D
L = horizontal length, L, ft
Re = Reynolds number, dimensionless
rev = drainage radius for vertical well, L, ft
rs= radius of damaged zone, L, ft
rw = well radius, L, ft
v = flow velocity, L/t, ft/s
∆P = drawdown, m/Lt2, psia
ε = height of roughness of wellbore, L, ft
µ = viscosity, m/L3, cp
Subscripts
e = external
HW = Horizontal Well
s = skin
sfl = significant frictional losses
v = vertical
w = wellbore
6 N. F. SAAVEDRA, D. A. REYES SPE 69431

Acknowledgments Appendix - Casing Dimensions2.

We thank Sada Joshi of Joshi Technologies Intl. for his helpful
contributions to this work. Support of Ecopetrol ICP and DTH O.D. (in) Weight (lbm/ft) I.D. (in)
LTDA. is also appreciated. 4 5.65 3.607
4 9.50 3.500
References 4 11.60 3.428
1. Su, Z., Gudmundsson, J.S.: “Perforation Inflow Reduces
Frictional Pressure Loss in Horizontal Wellbores,” Journal of 4.5 6.75 4.216
Petroleum Science and Engineering 19 (1998) 223-232. 4.5 9.50 4.090
2. Joshi, S.D.: Horizontal Well Technology, Pennwell Publishing 4.5 10.50 4.052
Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma (1991) 379-420. 4.5 11.00 4.026
3. Joshi, S. D.: “Methods Calculate Area Drained by Horizontal 4.5 11.60 4.000
Wells,” Oil & Gas Journal. (Sept. 17, 1990) 77-81.
4.5 12.60 3.958
4. Dikken, B.J.: “Pressure Drop in Horizontal Wells and Its Effect
on Their Production Performance,” SPE 19824, presented at the 4.5 13.50 3.920
64th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, 4.5 15.10 3.826
1989. 4.5 16.60 3.754
5. Folefac, A.N., Archer, J.S., Issa, R.I., and Arshad, A.M.: “Effect 4.5 18.80 3.640
of Pressure Drop Along Horizontal Wellbores on Well 4.75 9.50 4.364
Performance,” SPE 23094, presented at the Offshore Europe
Conference, Aberdeen, 1991. 4.75 16.00 4.082
6. Ozkan, E., Sarica, C., Haciislamoglu, N., and Raghavan, R.: 4.75 18.00 4.000
“The Influence of Pressure Drop Along the Wellbore on 5 8.00 4.696
Horizontal Well Productivity,” SPE 25502, presented at the 5 11.50 4.560
Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma, 1993. 5 13.00 4.494
7. Ihara, M., and Shimizu, N.: “Effect of Accelerational Pressure
Drop in a Horizontal Wellbore,” SPE 26519, presented at the
5 15.00 4.408
68th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 5 18.00 4.276
1993. 5 20.30 4.184
8. Marett, B.P., and Landman, M.J.: “Optimal Perforation Design 5 20.80 4.156
for Horizontal Wells in Reservoirs With Boundaries,” SPE 5 21.00 4.154
25366, presented at the Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and
5 23.20 4.044
Exhibition, Singapore, 1993.
9. Novy, R.A.: “Pressure Drops in Horizontal Wells: When Can 5 24.20 4.000
They Be Ignored?,” SPE Reservoir Engineering (Feb. 1995) 29- 5.125 8.50 4.944
35. 5.125 10.00 4.886
10. Brice, B.W., and Miranda J.R.: “Production Impacts cn ∆P 5.125 13.00 4.768
Friction in Horizontal Production Wells,” SPE 23666, presented 5.125 16.00 4.648
at the 2nd Latin American Petroleum Engineering Conference,
5.5 9.00 5.192
Caracas, 1992.
11. Seines, K., Aavatsmark, I., Lien S.C., Rushworth, P.: 5.5 13.00 5.044
“Considering Wellbore Friction Effects in Planning Horizontal 5.5 14.00 5.012
Wells,” JPT, Oct., 1993, 994-1000. 5.5 15.00 4.974
12. Gomez, L.E., Shoham, O., and Schmidt, Z. : “A Unified 5.5 15.50 4.950
Mechanistic Model for Steady-State Two-Phase Flow in 5.5 17.00 4.892
Wellbores and Pipelines, ” SPE 56520, presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 1999. 5.5 20.00 4.778
13. Ding, Y. : “ Transient Pressure Solution in the Presence of 5.5 23.00 4.670
Pressure Drop in the Wellbore, ” SPE 56614, presented at the 5.5 25.00 4.580
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 5.5 26.00 4.548
1999. 5.75 14.00 5.290
14. Penmatcha, V.R., Arbabi, S., Aziz K. : “Effects of Pressure
5.75 17.00 5.190
Drop in Horizontal Wells and Optimum Well Length, ” SPE
Journal, Vol. 4, No. 3, September 1999. 5.75 19.50 5.090
15. Thomas, G.B., Finney, R.L., Cálculo con Geometría Analítica, 5.75 20.00 5.090
Addison-Wesley Iberoamericana, S.A., Wilmington, Delaware, 5.75 22.50 4.990
1987. 5.75 25.20 4.890
SPE 69431 DRAINAGE AREA FOR HORIZONTAL WELLS WITH PRESSURE DROP IN THE HORIZONTAL SECTION 7

Appendix - (Continued) Appendix -(Continued)

O.D. (in) Weight (lbm/ft) I.D. (in) O.D. (in) Weight (lbm/ft) I.D. (in)
6 10.50 5.672 8.125 28.00 7.485
6 12.00 5.620 8.125 32.00 7.385
6 15.00 5.524 8.125 35.50 7.285
6 16.00 5.500 8.125 39.50 7.185
6 17.00 5.450 8.125 42.00 7.125
6 18.00 5.424 8.125 20.00 8.191
6 20.00 5.352 8.125 24.00 8.097
6 23.00 5.000 8.125 28.00 8.017
6 26.00 5.140 8.125 32.00 7.921
6.625 12.00 6.287 8.125 36.00 7.825
6.625 13.00 6.255 8.125 38.00 7.775
6.625 17.00 6.135 8.125 40.00 7.725
6.625 20.00 6.049 8.125 43.00 7.651
6.625 22.00 5.989 8.125 44.00 7.625
6.625 24.00 5.921 8.125 48.00 7.537
6.625 26.00 5.855 8.125 49.00 7.511
6.625 28.00 5.791 9 34.00 8.290
6.625 29.00 5.761 9 38.00 8.196
6.625 32.00 5.675 9 40.00 8.150
6.625 34.00 5.595 9 45.00 8.032
7 13.00 6.520 9 50.20 7.910
7 17.00 6.538 9 55.00 7.812
7 20.00 6.456 9.625 29.30 9.063
7 22.00 6.398 9.625 32.30 9.001
7 23.00 6.366 9.625 36.00 8..921
7 24.00 6.336 9.625 40.00 8.835
7 26.00 6.276 9.625 43.60 3.775
7 28.00 6.214 9.625 47.00 8.681
7 29.00 6.184 9.625 53.50 8.535
7 30.00 6.154 9.625 58.40 8.435
7 32.00 6.094 9.625 61.10 8.375
7 33.70 6.048 9.625 71.80 8.125
7 35.00 6.004 10 33.00 9.384
7 38.00 5.920 10 41.50 9.200
7 40.00 5.836 10 45.50 9.120
7.625 14.75 7.263 10 50.50 9.016
7.625 20.00 7.125 10 55.50 8.908
7.625 24.00 7.025 10 61.20 8.690
7.625 26.40 6.969 10.75 32.75 10.192
7.625 29.70 6.875 10.75 35.75 10.136
7.625 33.70 6.765 10.75 40.50 10.050
7.625 39.00 6.625 10.75 45.50 9.950
7.625 45.00 6.445 10.75 51.00 9.850
7.625 45.30 6.435 10.75 54.00 9.784
8 16.00 7.628 10.75 55.00 9.760
8 20.00 7.528 10.75 60.70 9.660
8 26.00 7.386 10.75 65.70 9.560
8 N. F. SAAVEDRA, D. A. REYES SPE 69431

Appendix - (Continued) Pwf, Psi.

O.D. (in) Peso (lbm/ft) I.D. (in)

Realistic Pressure Profile
10.75 71.10 9.450
11 26.75 10.552
∆p
11.75 38.00 11.150
11.75 42.00 11.084
11.75 47.00 11.000 Constant Pressure Wellbore
11.75 54.00 10.880
11.75 60.00 10.772 x=0 ∆x x=L
Pwf
11.75 65.00 10.682
12 31.50 11.514
12 40.00 11.384 L
12.75 43.00 12.130
12.75 53.00 11.970 Producing End Well Tip
13 36.50 12.482
13 40.00 12.438 Figure 2: A Schematic diagram of Pressure Loss along the
Well Length.
13 45.00 12.360
13 50.00 12.282
13 54.00 12.220
13.375 48.00 12.715
13.375 54.50 12.615
13.375 61.00 12.515

aH,max

reV
L
(a) (b)

Figure 3.Typical Formation Damage Shapes (a) Vertical

(a) Well; (b) Horizontal Well.

reV

reV + L/2 L

(b)
Zone with Skin
Figure 1. Common Methods to Calculate Area Drained by Zone without Skin
Horizontal Wells L

ks
k

Figure 4. Damage Distribution in Horizontal Wells

SPE 69431 DRAINAGE AREA FOR HORIZONTAL WELLS WITH PRESSURE DROP IN THE HORIZONTAL SECTION 9

rev ∆P(x)) / (∆
rev (∆ ∆P(0))

∆P(L)) / (∆
rev (∆ ∆P(0))

A1 A2 A3 x

0 x L

Figure 5. Method to Calculate Drainage Area for

Horizontal Wells With Significant Pressure Drop in the
Horizontal Section.