Pressure Transient Testing
John Lee
Texas A&M University
John B. Rollins
IBM Corporation
John P. Spivey
Phoenix Reservoir Engineering
SPE Textbook Series, Volume 9
Henry L. Doherty Memorial Fund of AIME
Society of Petroleum Engineers
Richardson, TX USA
Dedication
John Lee
To all the Aggie students and former students who have made my teaching career so much fun and so rewarding.
John Rollins
To my familyBecci, Christine, and Cathyand to my father, J.T. Rollins, a genuine Permian Basin petroleum pioneer.
John Spivey
To my many colleagues at SoftSearch, Dwights Energy Data, S.A. Holditch and Assocs., and Schlumberger Oilfield
Technologies who have taught me, challenged me, encouraged me, and inspired me throughout my career.
Disclaimer
This book was prepared by members of the Society of Petroleum Engineers and their wellqualified colleagues from
material published in the recognized technical literature and from their own individual experience and expertise.
While the material presented is believed to be based on sound technical knowledge, neither the Society of Petroleum
Engineers nor any of the authors or editors herein provide a warranty either expressed or implied in its application.
Correspondingly, the discussion of materials, methods, or techniques that may be covered by letters patents implies
no freedom to use such materials, methods, or techniques without permission through appropriate licensing.
Nothing described within this book should be construed to lessen the need to apply sound engineering judgment
nor to carefully apply accepted engineering practices in the design, implementation, or application of the techniques
described herein.
Copyright 2003 Society of Petroleum Engineers
All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, including electronic
storage and retrieval systems, except by explicit, prior written permission of the publisher except for brief passages
excerpted for review and critical purposes.
Manufactured in the United States of America.
ISBN 9781555630997
ISBN 9781613991411 (Digital)
Society of Petroleum Engineers
222 Palisades Creek Drive
Richardson, TX 750802040 USA
http://store.spe.org
service@spe.org
1.972.952.9393
SPE Textbook Series
The Textbook Series of the Society of Petroleum Engineers was established in 1972 by action of the SPE Board
of Directors. The Series is intended to ensure availability of highquality textbooks for use in undergraduate
courses in areas clearly identified as being within the petroleum engineering field. The work is directed by the
Societys Books Committee, one of more than 40 Societywide standing committees. Members of the Books
Committee provide technical evaluation of the book. Below is a listing of those who have been most closely
involved in the final preparation of this book.
Book Editors
Shah Kabir, ChevronTexaco Corp., Houston
Fikri Kuchuk, Schlumberger, Dubai, UAE
Books Committee (2003)
Waldo J. Borel, Devon Energy Production Co. LP, Youngsville, Louisiana, Chairman
Bernt S. Aadnoy, Stavanger U. College, Stavanger
Jamal J. Azar, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa
Ronald A. Behrens, ChevronTexaco Corp., San Ramon, California
Ali Ghalambor, U. of LouisianaLafayette, Lafayette, Louisiana
Jim Johnstone, Contek Solutions LLC, Plano, Texas
Gene E. Kouba, ChevronTexaco Corp., Houston
Bill Landrum, ConocoPhillips, Houston
Eric E. Maidla, Noble Engineering & Development Ltd., Sugar Land, Texas
Erik Skaugen, Stavanger U. College, Stavanger
Sally A. Thomas, ConocoPhillips, Houston
Introduction
Pressure transient test analysis is a mature technology in petroleum engineering; even so, it continues to evolve.
Because of the developments in this technology since the last SPE textbook devoted to transient testing was
published, we concluded that students could benefit from a textbook approach to the subject that includes a representative sampling of the more important fundamentals and applications. We deliberately distinguish between
a textbook approach, which stresses understanding through numerous examples and exercises dealing with selected fundamentals and applications, and a monograph approach, which attempts to summarize the stateoftheart in the technology.
Computational methods that transient test analysts use have gone through a revolution since most existing texts
on the subject were written. Most calculations are now done with commercial software or by spreadsheets or
proprietary software developed by users to meet personal needs and objectives. These advances in software
have greatly increased productivity in this technology, but they also have contributed to a black box approach
to test analysis. In this text, we attempt to explain whats in the box, and we do not include a number of the modern tools that enhance individual engineer productivity. We hope, instead, to provide understanding so that the
student can use the commercial software with greater appreciation and so that the student can read monographs
and papers on transient testing with greater appreciation for the context of the subject. Accordingly, this text is
but an introduction to the vast field of pressure transient test analysis.
Acknowledgments
The contributions of many people were crucial in the preparation of this book. We acknowledge with heartfelt
thanks the contributions to the preparation of the subject matter by Tom Blasingame, Jay Rushing, and Jennifer
Johnston Blasingame; the contributions to the presentation of the material by DarlaJean Weatherford; the technical audit by Shah Kabir and Fikri Kuchuk; and the SPE staff, most notably technical editors Valerie Dawe and
Jennifer Wegman. To each of youthanks!
Contents
1. Fundamentals of Fluid Flow in Porous Media
1.1 Overview
1.2 Derivation of the Diffusivity Equation
1.3 Initial and Boundary Conditions
1.4 Dimensionless Groups
1.5 Solutions to the Diffusivity Equation
1.6 Superposition in Space
1.7 Superposition in Time
1.8 Deconvolution
1.9 Chapter Summary
1.10 Discussion Questions
1
1
1
5
8
10
17
19
22
23
24
2. Introduction to Flow and BuildupTest Analysis: Slightly Compressible Fluids
2.1 Overview
2.2 Analysis of Flow Tests
2.3 Analysis of PressureBuildup Tests
2.4 Complications in Actual Tests
2.5 Analysis of LateTime Data in Flow and Buildup Tests
2.6 Analyzing Well Tests With Multiphase Flow
2.7 Chapter Summary
29
29
29
34
41
45
51
54
3. Introduction to Flow and BuildupTest Analysis: Compressible Fluids
3.1 Overview
3.2 Pseudopressure and Pseudotime Analysis
3.3 Pressure and PressureSquared Analysis
3.4 NonDarcy Flow
3.5 Analysis of GasWell Flow Tests
3.6 Analysis of GasWell Buildup Tests
3.7 Chapter Summary
62
62
62
63
63
65
69
73
4. WellTest Analysis by Use of Type Curves
4.1 Overview
4.2 Development of Type Curves
4.3 Application of Type CurvesHomogeneous Reservoir Model, Slightly Compressible
Liquid Solution
4.4 Application of Type CurvesHomogeneous Reservoir Model, Compressible Fluids
4.5 Correcting Initial Pressure in a Well Test
4.6 Reservoir Identification With Type Curves
4.7 Systematic Analysis Procedures for Flow and Buildup Tests
4.8 WellTestAnalysis Worksheets
4.9 Chapter Summary
77
77
77
77
91
93
94
95
96
96
5. Analysis of PressureBuildup Tests Distorted by Phase Redistribution
5.1 Overview
5.2 Description of Phase Redistribution
5.3 PhaseRedistribution Model
5.4 Analysis Procedure
5.5 Chapter Summary
98
98
98
98
101
111
6. WellTest Interpretation in Hydraulically Fractured Wells
6.1 Overview
6.2 Flow Patterns in Hydraulically Fractured Wells
114
114
114
6.3 Flow Geometry and Depth of Investigation of a Vertically Fractured Well
6.4 Specialized Methods for PostFracture WellTest Analysis
6.5 PostFracture WellTest Analysis With Type Curves
6.6 Effects of Fracture and Formation Damage
6.7 Chapter Summary
116
116
119
130
130
7. Interpretation of WellTest Data in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
7.1 Overview
7.2 Naturally Fractured Reservoir Models
7.3 PseudosteadyState Matrix Flow Model
7.4 Transient Matrix Flow Model
7.5 Chapter Summary
135
135
135
136
142
147
8. Drillstem Testing and Analysis
8.1 Overview
8.2 Conventional DST
8.3 Conventional DST Design
8.4 DSTMonitoring Procedures
8.5 DST Analysis Techniques
8.6 ClosedChamber DST
8.7 Impulse Testing
8.8 Chapter Summary
151
151
151
152
154
154
160
164
165
9. InjectionWell Testing
9.1 Overview
9.2 Injectivity Testing in a LiquidFilled Reservoir: UnitMobilityRatio Reservoir Conditions
9.3 Falloff Testing in a LiquidFilled Reservoir: UnitMobilityRatio Reservoir Conditions
9.4 Estimating Average DrainageArea Pressure
9.5 CompositeSystemTest Analysis for NonunitMobilityRatio Reservoir Conditions
9.6 StepRate Testing
9.7 Chapter Summary
168
168
168
171
174
174
182
186
10. Interference and Pulse Testing
10.1 Overview
10.2 Interference Tests
10.3 Pulse Tests
10.4 Recommendations for MultipleWell Testing
10.5 Chapter Summary
190
190
190
195
199
199
11. Design and Implementation of Well Tests
11.1 Overview
11.2 Types and Purposes of Well Tests
11.3 General TestDesign Considerations
11.4 Pressure Transient Test Design
11.5 DeliverabilityTest Design
11.6 Chapter Summary
202
202
202
203
206
217
220
12. Horizontal Well Analysis
12.1 Overview
12.2 Steps in Evaluating Horizontal WellTest Data
12.3 Horizontal Well Flow Regimes
12.4 Identifying Flow Regimes in Horizontal Wells
12.5 Summary of Analysis Procedures
12.6 Field Examples
12.7 Running Horizontal Well Tests
12.8 Estimating Horizontal Well Productivity
12.9 Comparison of Recent and Older Horizontal Well Models
12.10 Chapter Summary
223
223
223
223
225
237
237
239
240
244
244
Appendix ADimensionless Groups
ConstantRate ProductionNo Wellbore Storage
ConstantRate Production With Wellbore Storage
ConstantRate Production With Wellbore Storage and Skin
Linear Flow
246
246
247
248
248
Appendix BSolutions to the RadialFlow Diffusivity Equation
Introduction
Modified Bessel Equation and Its General Solution
Laplace Transformations and Their Use in Solving PartialDifferential Equations
Solutions to the Diffusivity Equation
250
250
250
250
251
Appendix CDerivations of the Diffusivity Equation Multiphase Flow
(Perrine and Martin) Linear Flow of Gas
Introduction
Multiphase Flow
Linear Flow of Gas
260
260
260
263
Appendix DShape Factors for Various SingleWell Drainage Areas
265
Appendix EValidation of Method of Images
Superposition for a NoFlow Boundary
Superposition for a ConstantPressure Boundary
267
267
268
Appendix FDetermining PressureData Derivatives
269
Appendix GReservoirIdentification Worksheets
270
Appendix HWellTestAnalysis Worksheets
278
Appendix IExample WellTest Analysis Using Worksheets, Example 4.5
287
Appendix JWorksheets for PostFracture WellTest Analysis
292
Appendix KWorksheets for WellTest Design
308
Appendix LReservoirFluid Properties
Introduction
Definitions
Correlations
313
313
313
317
Nomenclature
341
Author Index
349
Subject Index
351
Chapter 1
Fundamentals of Fluid Flow
in Porous Media
1.1 Overview
In this chapter, we develop the equations to describe the flow of
slightly compressible liquids and gases and the simultaneous flow
rate into the
control volume
dimensionless variables that enable us to simplify the resulting par
tialdifferential equations.We present solutions to those differential
equations subject to various inner and outerboundary conditions.
+
and Boltzmann's transformation.We consider radial and linear flow
and superposition in space and time.
Th
;
a
to the diffusivity equation. Appendix C presents the derivations of
the diffusivity equation for multiphase flow and for linear flow in
detail.Appendix D presents a proof of the validity of the method of
images to model boundaries in a reservoir.
This chapter focuses on the mathematical basis for pressure tran
sient test analysis.For those readers with little or no mathematical
inclination, we note that it is not necessary to master the material in
this chapter to understand the applications in the rest of the book.
However, we do think that virtually all readers will derive consider
able benefit from browsing through this chapter. The summary in
Sec. 1.9 may be especially helpful to browsers.
1.2 Derivation of the Diffusivity Equation
1.2.1 Fundamental Physical Principles. The basic equation to de
scribe the flow of fluid in porous media caused by a potential differ
ence is known as the diffusivity equation.The diffusivity equation
is derived from three fundamental physical principles:
(1) the prin
ciple of conservation of mass, (2) an equation of motion, and (3) an
equation of state (EOS).
We derive the diffusivity equation in the radial coordinate system
ate
rate out of
control volume
fl.t
1[
during time period
.
.
owmg to source or smk
Appendix A presents a detailed method for finding dimensionless
variables.Appendix B details derivations of the different solutions
fl.t
The mass flow
during time period
of oil, water, and gas in porous media.We then define appropriate
These solutions are obtained by use of both Laplace transformations
][
The mass flow
control volume
during time period
fl.t
The rate of mass
accumulation in
th
co trol vo ume
dunng time penod
fl.t
We now look at each part of the conservation equation, Eq. 1.1,
mathematically.The mass flow rate into the system = density
locity
crosssectional area of flow.
min =
pUrAx] ,
Principle of Conservation of Mass. The principle of conserva
tion of mass states that the net rate of creation or destruction of mat
ter is zero.If we consider the control volume, a fixed region in space
(illustrated in Fig.
1.1), we may write
FUNDAMENTALS OF FLUID FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
ve
.............................. (1.2)
Ax], is giv
h and the minus sign arises because the positive
where the crosssectional area of flow on the inflow side,
en by
Ax]
= La
flow direction in the control volume has been chosen in the negative
r direction.
For angle e, the arc length is given by arc length = radius
angle,
..............................
(1.3)
pur(r + fl.r)8h. . ..... ..... ..... ........
(1.4)
4t = (r +
M) e.
Therefore,
mill =
The mass flow rate out of the system is similarly given by
 [pUr  fl.(pur)]Ax2,
(1.5)
where the term fl.(pur) is the change in mass flux occurring inside
moUi =
the control volume, and the crosssectional area of flow on the out
flow side,
Ax"
is given by
(1.6)
voir takes place radially from the reservoir to the wellbore.We use
systems of units used in the remainder of the text.
..................... (1.1)
because flow in a simple, homogeneousacting, cylindrical reser
metric units (implicitly) in derivations; later, we generalize to other
Therefore
moUi =
 [pUr  fl.(pur)]reh .
.... ........
(l. 7)
We assume that there is neither a source nor a sink in the control vol
ume (i.e., mass is neither being generated nor consumed).Therefore,
net mass flow rate owing to source or sink
Ws= O .
= O.
(l. 8)
Taking limits of Eq. 1.15 as Dr, Dt0, we have
1 u ) ru r + * f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.16)
r
r
t
r
By the product rule,
ru + u r ) r u + u ) r u . . . . (1.17)
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
Therefore, 1r ru r + * f .
r
r
Fig. 1.1Control volume for deriving the massconservation
equation.
The mass in the control volume at any time is the product of the
pore volume (PV) and the density of the fluid: PV+arc
length width height porosity, or
Vp +rqDrhf. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.9)
Therefore m+rqDrhf .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.10)
The rate of mass accumulation, Wa , in the control volume is given
by the change in mass in the control volume from time t to t)Dt,
divided by the change in time, Dt.
Wa +
rqDrhf (t)Dt) * rqDrhf t
Dt
. . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.11)
u r (r ) Dr)qh * * u r r qh * Du rrqh
r qDrhf (t)Dt) * r qDrhf t
Dt
Dividing Eq. 1.13 by the bulk volume of the control volume,
hrqDr, we have
u r Du r
* r *
+ 1 f (t)Dt) * f t.
Dt
Dr
. . . . . . . . . (1.14)
Factoring out 1rDr on the left side and multiplying through by *1,
1 Dru ) rDu + * D f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.15a)
r
r
Dt
rDr
+*
where F +
dp ) gZ * Z , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0
(1.20)
pb
pb +pressure at a datum, and Z+Z 0 .
The potential, F, consists of two terms:
dp + flow work and
g(Z*Z0 )+potential head.
This form of Darcys law has two assumptions: (1) flow is in the
laminar flow regime (low Reynolds number), and (2) the porous
medium is isotropic. For singlephase flow of a slightly compressible liquid in a homogeneousacting reservoir, these assumptions
are generally valid.
We can now combine Eqs. 1.19 and 1.20 to express the velocity
in terms of pressure, rather than potential, gradient. From Eq. 1.20,
F + dp ) gZ * Z .
r
r
+ 1 rqDrhf (t)Dt) * rqDrhf t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.13)
Dt
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.21)
pb
* u r r qh * u r Dr qh ) u r r qh * Du rr qh
k
u r + * m F , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.19)
r
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.12)
Expanding Eq. 1.12 gives
Du r
or 1r u r ) r
Dr
Eq. 1.18 is known as the continuity equation, a mathematical expression of the principle of conservation of mass in radial coordinates.
To this point, the only assumptions we have made are that we have
radial flow and that no sources or sinks are in the control volume.
Equation of Motion. An equation of motion, or flux law, relates
velocity and pressure or potential gradients within the control volume. Because of the complexity of the flow paths within porous media, we must use empirical relationships for the equation of motion.
Liquid flow is generally governed by Darcys law, which states that
the velocity is proportional to the negative of the gradient of the potential. In radial coordinates, with flow in the radial direction only,
we write
pb
We can now express the conservation equation, Eq. 1.1, mathematically by combining Eqs. 1.4, 1.7, 1.8, and 1.11:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.18)
D f
. . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.15b)
Dt
If we assume gravity effects are negligible, g(Z*Z0)+0. Therefore,
F + 1 p.
r
r
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.22)
Substituting Eq. 1.22 into Eq. 1.19 gives
k p. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.23)
ur + * m
r
EOS. An EOS relates volume, or density, to the pressure and temperature of the system. We assume isothermal conditions when considering the flow of a slightly compressible liquid in a reservoir because the heat capacity of the fluid is generally negligible compared
with the heat capacity of the rock.
The definition of fluid compressibility is
c + * 1 V
V p
1
+
p
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.24)
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
Treating p as a total derivative, ddp, for an isothermal system and rearranging Eq. 1.24 gives
1 d. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.25)
cdp +
For a fluid of small and constant compressibility, we integrate Eq.
1.25 to obtain
dp + 1 d, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
where b +density at base pressure, pb . Integrating, we obtain
c p * p b + ln * ln b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.27a)
and c p * p b + ln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.27b)
b
we can define a total compressibility, ct , as
ct +c)cf , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.36)
p
p
r r r r ) c r
+f
mc t p
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.37)
k t
We know that 00; therefore, we can divide the equation
through by density.
1 r p ) c p
r r r
r
+f
mc t p
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.38)
k t
We now assume for radial flow of a fluid of small, constant com
Exponentiating both sides gives
+ b expc p * p b.
f
cf + 1
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.35)
f p
and write Eq. 1.31 as
(1.26)
pb
and defining a formation compressibility,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.28)
2
pressibility that cpr is negligible compared to r rpr
and pr, so the final partial differential equation is
This is the EOS that we use when we assume that the fluid is
slightly compressible and the compressibility is constant.
1 r p + f mc t p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.39)
r r r
k t
1.2.2 Diffusivity Equation for Radial, SinglePhase Flow of a
Liquid With Small, Constant Compressibility. To derive the diffusivity equation, we must combine the continuity equation,
Summary of Assumptions for Eq. 1.39.
1. Radial flow.
2. Laminar (or Darcy) flow.
3. Porous medium has constant permeability and compressibility.
4. Negligible gravity effects.
5. Isothermal conditions.
6. Fluid has small, constant compressibility.
1 ru + * f , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.18)
r
r r
r
the equation of motion,
k p , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.23)
ur + * m
r
2
7. Compressibility/pressuregradientsquared product, cpr ,
is negligible.
and the EOS for the appropriate fluid,
+ b expcp * p b.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.28)
Combining Eqs. 1.18 and Eq. 1.23, we obtain
1 r k p + f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.29)
r r
m r
r
If we assume constant permeability and viscosity, using the product
rule gives
1 r p + m f ) f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.30)
r r
r
t
t
k
p
m
p p
1 f p
1 p
r r r r ) r p r + k f p t ) f p t .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.31)
From Eq. 1.28,
+ c b expcp * p b, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.32)
p
where compressibility, c, is small and constant. Therefore,
+ c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.33)
p
By remembering the definition of compressibility,
1 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.34)
c+
p
FUNDAMENTALS OF FLUID FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
1 ru + * f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.18)
r
r r
t
Equation of Motion (Darcys Law).
k p. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.23)
ur + * m
r
EOS. The EOS used for slightly compressible liquids does not,
however, model gas behavior. The equation most commonly used
to model realgas pressure/volume/temperature (PVT) behavior is
the realgas law given by
We can now expand Eq. 1.30 by use of the chain rule:
p
m
p
f p
1 p
r r r r ) r r r r + k f p t ) p t
1.2.3 Diffusivity Equation for Radial, SinglePhase Flow of a
Gas. The continuity equation and equation of motion for radial
singlephase gas flow through porous media are the same as those
equations used for slightly compressible liquid flow.
Continuity Equation.
pM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.40)
zRT
We can now combine the continuity equation, Eq. 1.18, and the
equation of motion, Eq. 1.23, to obtain
k p
* 1r r m
+ * f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.41a)
r
r
t
k p
or 1r r m
+ f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.41b)
r
r
t
Now, substituting the realgas law, Eq. 1.40, into Eq. 1.41b, we obtain
1 r kpM p + f pM .
r r mzRT t
t
zRT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.42)
3
Because R, T, and M are constant and considering the special case
with k constant, we find that
1 r p p + 1 f p .
r r mz r
k t z
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.43)
We can expand the right side of Eq. 1.43 using the product rule as
follows:
1 r p p + 1 p f ) f p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.44)
r r mz r
t z
k z t
We can use the chain rule to obtain another expansion of the right
side of Eq. 1.44:
1 r p p + 1 p f p ) f p p
r r mz r
p z t
k z p t
. . . . . . . (1.45a)
pf p 1 f
p
p p
z
+
) p z . . . . . . . (1.45b)
or 1r r mz
r
r
p
zk t f p
The compressibility of gas is defined similarly to the compressibility of a liquid in terms of the density:
1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.46)
cg +
p
Substituting density from the realgas law, Eq. 1.40, into this definition gives
cg +
p
zRT pM
z
+p z .
p
pM p zRT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.47)
We define formation compressibility as
f
cf + 1 .
f p
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.48)
We can now substitute Eqs. 1.47 and 1.48 into Eq. 1.45b, which
gives
1 r p p + pf p c ) c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.49)
g
r r mz r
zk t f
If we define total compressibility for this case as
ct +cg )cf , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.50)
we have
1 r p p + pfc t p. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.51)
r r mz r
zk t
Eq. 1.51 is a nonlinear partialdifferential equation and cannot be
solved directly. We generally consider three limiting assumptions,
p/mz is constant, mct is constant, and the realgas pseudopressure
transformation.
Diffusivity Equation for Gas in Terms of Pressure. If we assume
that the term p/mz is constant with respect to pressure, and therefore
radius, Eq. 1.51 can be written as
1 p r p + pfc t p
r mz r r
zk t
5. Isothermal conditions.
6. Fluid obeys the realgas law.
7. The term p/mz is constant with respect to pressure.
Diffusivity Equation for Gas in Terms of Pressure Squared. We can
write Eq. 1.51 in terms of pressure squared, p 2, by use of the fact that
p
p 2
p
+1
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.54)
r
2 r
p 2
p
+1
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.55)
t
2 t
If we assume that the term mz is constant with respect to pressure
and therefore radius, Eq. 1.56 can be written as
1 1 r p 2 + fc t p 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.57)
r mz r
r
kz t
or, multiplying through by the term mz, as
1 r p 2 + fmc t p 2.
r r
r
k t
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.52)
pp + 2
mzp dp.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.59)
p0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.53)
Eq. 1.53 is the same as the diffusivity equation for slightly compressible liquids, Eq. 1.39, and can be solved similarly (when mct can be considered to be constant). Eq. 1.53 has the following assumptions.
Summary of Assumptions for Eq. 1.53.
1. Radial flow.
2. Laminar (or Darcy) flow.
3. Porous medium has constant permeability and compressibility.
4. Negligible gravity effects.
4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.58)
Eq. 1.58 is also similar to the diffusivity equation for slightly
compressible liquids, Eq. 1.39, but the dependent variable is pressure squared. Therefore, Eq. 1.58 has solutions similar to those of
Eq. 1.39 except these solutions are in terms of pressuresquared.
These equations also require that mct be constant. Eq. 1.58 has the
following assumptions.
Summary of Assumptions for Eq. 1.58.
1. Radial flow.
2. Laminar (or Darcy) flow.
3. Porous medium has constant permeability and compressibility.
4. Negligible gravity effects.
5. Isothermal conditions.
6. Fluid obeys the realgas law.
7. The term mz is constant with respect to pressure.
Diffusivity Equation for Gas in Terms of Pseudopressure. The
assumptions we have discussed so far to obtain the linear diffusivity
equation for gas are applicable only under certain conditions. Figs.
1.2 and 1.3 illustrate the range of applicability of Eqs. 1.53 and 1.58,
respectively. Fig. 1.2 shows for gases of different specific gravity
when the term p/mz is constant with pressure for a constant temperature. The figure shows that we could use Eq. 1.53 for very high pressures. Fig. 1.3 shows for gases of different specific gravity when the
term mz is constant with pressure for a constant temperature. This
figure shows that we could use Eq. 1.58 for very low pressures.
We prefer to have an accurate solution for all pressure ranges. A
more rigorous method of linearizing Eq. 1.51 (at least partially) is
by use of the realgas pseudopressure transformation introduced by
AlHussainy et al.1 The pseudopressure transformation allows the
general gas diffusivity equation, Eq. 1.51, to be solved without the
limiting assumptions that certain gas properties are constant with
pressure. We define a pseudopressure, pp , by
or, cancelling terms,
1 r p + fmc t p.
r r r
k t
r p 2 + fc t p 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.56)
and 1r mz
r
r
kz t
Using Liebnitzs Rule for differentiating an integral,2
h (x)
g (u)du +
f x
g [h(x)]
f x
h (x)
* g f x
,
x
x
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.60)
the derivative of pseudopressure is
p p
p p
+ 2 mz
r
r
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.61)
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
0.14 ,_
250000
0.12
200000
0.10
0.
150000
"
'"
=
e"
SG = 1.0
100000
Co
0.08
N
""
:::1. 0.06
0.04
50000
2000
4000
6000
8000
2000
10000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Pressure, psia
Pressure, psia
Fig. 1.3Range of applicability of pressuresquared methods
Fig. 1.2Range of applicability of pressure methods (200F).
(200F).
The total compressibility, Ct, for a system with pressuredependent
with respect to radius and
porosity is defined as
(1. 62)
with respect to time.
Rearranging Eqs.1.
61 and 1. 62,
ap / atinto Eq.1.52 to obtain
t:r [r:z (i; ?:) ]
ap/ar and
Eq.1.
Jtt a:t
.................
(1. 67)
equations imply that the solutions to the singlephase diffusivity
equation presented later in this chapter also apply to multiphase
flow as long as
.........
(1. 6 3)
......................
(1. 64)
or, simplifying,
t:r(ra::)
Soco + Swcw + SgCg + cJ'
The similarities between the multiphase flow and singlephase flow
we can substitute for
pt (i; a::)
C =
t
64 is not completely linear because the flCt term depends on
pressure and therefore on pseudopressure, but we can approximate
of
ko1flo.
Ct
is defined by Eq. 1.
67
and we use At instead
Summary of Assumptions for Eq. 1.65.
1. Radial flow.
2. Laminar (or Darcy) flow.
3. Uniform porous medium.
4. Negligible gravity effects.
5. Isothermal conditions.
6. Effective permeability varies with saturation, but not pressure.
7. Small pressure and saturationgradient terms.
8. Negligible capillary pressure.
this quantity as constant) and evaluate it at current drainage area
pressure,
Eq. 1.
p.
64
is also similar to the diffusivity equation for slightly
compressible liquids, Eq. 1.
Therefore, Eq.1.
39,
but in terms of pseudopressure.
64 has solutions similar to those ofEq.1. 39, except
64 has the fol
these solutions are in terms of pseudopressure.Eq.1.
lowing assumptions.
Summary of Assumptions for Eq. 1.64.
1. Radial flow.
2. Laminar (or Darcy) flow.
3. Porous medium has constant permeability and compressibility.
4. Negligible gravity effects.
5. Isothermal conditions.
6. Fluid obeys the realgas law.
1.3 Initial and Boundary Conditions
The general diffusivity equation for fluid flow in porous media is a
partialdifferential equation for pressure with respect to both space
(radius) and time.
t:r(r)
To solveEq.1.
(Ct) ?r
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1. 68)
68, we must know how the pressure behaves at spe
cific distances and time; that is, we must specify conditions to solve
the equation.Conditions specified at different extremes of distance
are known as boundary conditions , whereas the condition specified
at initial time, t= 0, is known as the initial condition.
We note that the partialdifferential equation is "second order"
1.2.4 Diffusivity Equation for Radial, Multipbase Flow. Martin3
with respect to space; in other words, we have taken the partial de
which looks very similar to the diffusivity equation for singlephase
left side of Eq.1.
developed a diffusivity equation for multiphase flow, Eq. 1.
flow, Eq.1.
39.
ap
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1. 65)
flC ap
= ,f, t
't'
at'
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1. 39)
a more general definition of the total compressibility, Ct. We define
the total mobility of a threephase system as the sum of the individu
al mobilities,
kg
ko
kw
'iJ + f"'lV
u + 'iJ
("" 0
rg
ary conditions. In radial flow, we usually specify a condition on
pressure at the wellbore (the innerboundary condition) and at the
,
= /1,0
tion).Similarly, a firstorder differential equation requires only one
condition; therefore, we need only a single condition for time (i.e.,
the initial condition).
Appendix C presents the derivation in detail.Note that the only dif
Likewise, the diffusivity equation is "first or
edge of the drainage area of the reservoir (the outerboundary condi
ference between these equations is the use of total mobility, At, and
/l,t =
68.
conditions to obtain a solution.Therefore, we must have two bound
rivative of pressure with respect to radius twice as indicated on the
der" with respect to time. A secondorder equation requires two
t:r(r) (i ) ?r
r ar ( r ar)
and
65,
,
,
+ /l,w + /l,g.
FUNDAMENTALS OF FLUID FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
In this section, we will discuss possible initial and boundary
conditions for different reservoir models and production schemes.
1.3.1 Initial Condition. We always assume that the reservoir is ini
tially at a uniform, constant pressure throughout the reservoir at a
time t=O.
(1. 6 6)
p(r,O)
= Pi
(1. 69)
5
Fig. 1.4Surface and sandface rates during wellbore storage.
1.3.2 OuterBoundary Conditions. We consider three cases for the
outer boundary of the reservoir. It may be infiniteacting (i.e., it is
so large that the outer boundary effects are never felt at points in the
reservoir at practical distances from the source or sink). The reservoir may be bounded by a noflow boundary (i.e., a volumetric reservoir). The reservoir could be bounded by a constantpressure
boundary, such as a reservoir/aquifer system.
InfiniteActing Reservoir. As the radius becomes very large, approaching infinity, the pressure approaches the initial pressure, pi ,
for all times.
p(r R, t) + p i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.70)
or Dp(r R, t) + p i * p(r R, t) + 0. . . . . . . . . . . . (1.71)
NoFlow Boundary. For a cylindrical reservoir with a noflow
boundary a distance re from the well the flow rate at r+re will be
q+0 for all times greater than zero.
p
Darcys law states that q T
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.72)
r
p
q + * C kA
m r , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.73)
where C+constant00, k+permeability00, A+area (crosssectional)00, and m+viscosity00. Therefore,
pr + 0.
re
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.74)
ConstantPressure Outer Boundary. For a cylindrical reservoir
with a constantpressure boundary at distance re from the well, the
pressure at the outer boundary will be equal to the initial pressure,
pi , for all times.
p(r + r e, t) + p i , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.75)
or Dp(r + r e, t) + 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.76)
1.3.3 InnerBoundary Conditions. A well may be produced at
constant rate or constant pressure and have wellbore storage effects.
ConstantRate Production. If a well is produced at a constant
sandface rate, this rate of flow from the formation into the wellbore
of radius rw may be described by Darcys law. At r+rw ,
p
qB + akAm
1 r
kh p
qB + 2p
a 1 m r w r
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.78)
(r+r w)
Rearranging Eq. 1.78, the constantrate inner boundary condition
becomes
r pr
+
(r+r w)
a 1qBm
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.79)
2pkh
ConstantPressure Production. This innerboundary condition
is valid when the reservoir is initially at uniform pressure throughout the reservoir and is produced by simply lowering the wellbore
pressure to a constant value, pwf , and producing at a variable sandface rate.
p(r w, t) + p wf + constant.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.80)
Wellbore Storage. Wellbore storage may occur if a well is set to
produce at constant surface rate after a shutin period. Initially, fluid
will unload from the wellbore with no flow from the formation to the
wellbore. As time passes, the sandface rate will equal the surface rate,
with the amount of liquid stored being constant; see Fig. 1.4.
We call the ability of the wellbore to store or unload fluids per unit
change in pressure the wellborestorage coefficient, C(bbl/psi). The
definition of the wellborestorage coefficient depends on the situation in the wellbore. We consider the following two cases: a liquid/
gas interface in the wellbore and a single, compressible fluid in
the wellbore.
Liquid/Gas Interface. For a pumping well or a well produced by
gas lift, the wellbore will have a column of liquid with a column of
gas at the top of the wellbore.
If we let the surface rate, q, be constant, a mass balance for the
wellbore shown in Fig. 1.5 would be
Rate of flow of
Rate of flow of
mass
into wellbore * mass out of wellbore
+
of accumulation
Rate
of mass in wellbore , which is
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.77)
(r+r w)
where a1+conversion constant [e.g., in field units a1+141.2
(2p), and A+crosssectional area+ 2 rw h (in square feet)].
If we substitute the definition of area into the innerboundary
condition, we have
6
Fig. 1.5Wellbore diagram for a well with a liquidgas interface.
q sf B sf * qB sc +
d 24 wbV wb , . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.81)
5.615
dt
where time is in hours and the volume of the wellbore,Vwb, is expressed in cubic feet.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
p
q + 2pkh r
a 1Bm r
(r+r w)
* 24C d (p w * p t).
B dt
. . . . . . . . (1.90)
This is the innerboundary condition for wellbore storage for a
well with a gasliquid interface. In some cases, we can assume that
dp t
[0, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.91)
dt
and the boundary condition becomes
p
q + 2pkh r
a 1Bm r
(r+r w)
dp
* 24C w .
B dt
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.92)
Single Phase in Wellbore. In this case, we consider a well that is
producing a singlephase fluid, either liquid or gas, at a constant surface rate, as illustrated in Fig. 1.6. The mass balance for this system
would be
Rate of mass flow
into wellbore at
sandface
Rate of mass flow
out of wellbore at
surface
of accumulation
Rate
of mass in wellbore
Fig. 1.6Wellbore diagram for a well producing a singlephase
fluid.
q sf B sf * qB sc sc + 24V wb
V wb + A wb Z. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.82)
If we assume a constant wellbore area and constant density
( sf + sc + wb ), we can write the mass balance as
q sf * q B +
24 A dZ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.83)
5.615 wb dt
The surface pressure, pt , is related to the bottomhole pressure, pw,
at any time by
Z
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.84)
144
where +density of liquid.
Differentiating with respect to time gives
pw + pt )
d (p * p ) + dZ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.85)
t
144 dt
dt w
Substituting for dZdt from the mass balance gives
d p * p 144 + 5.615 q * q B
t
sf
24A wb
dt w
q sf * q B + (24)(144) A wb d (p w * p t).
5.615
dt
144A wb bbl
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.87)
5.615 psi
where Awb is in square feet, the constant 144 in.2/ft2 converts square
feet to square inches, is in lbm/ft3, and the constant 5.615 ft3/bbl
converts barrels to cubic feet.
If we substitute C into the equation relating sandface and surface
rate, we obtain
q sf + q ) 24C d (p w * p t). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.88)
B dt
The sandface rate is given by Darcys law as
p
q sf + 2pkh r
a 1Bm r
because
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.89)
(r+r w)
where a1+141.2(2p) in field units, thus
FUNDAMENTALS OF FLUID FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
d wb
dt
d p wb
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.93)
dt
dp
d wb
+ wbc wb wb .
dt
dt
(1.94)
The density/volume factor product is constant and thus the same
at both surface and reservoir conditions. Thus, if we define C for the
singlephase case as
C + V wbc wb , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.95)
the mass balance becomes
dp w
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.96)
q sf + q ) 24C
B dt
The wellborestorage boundary condition is the same, despite the
different definition of C.
We now define a wellborestorage coefficient, C, as
C+
+ 24V wb wb c wb
p
q + 2pkh r
a 1Bm r
. . . . . . . . . . (1.86)
(r+r w)
dp
* 24C w. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.97)
B dt
Skin Factor. To account for the additional pressure drop near the
wellbore caused by reduction in permeability owing to adverse drilling and completion conditions, Hawkins4 developed the idea of a finite skin zone around the wellbore. This skin zone can cause the
measured pressure drop to be much greater than the pressure drop
calculated from solutions to the diffusivity equation. We assume
that the shaded zone in Fig. 1.7 has a constant permeability, ks , and
extends only a short distance, rs , from the center of the wellbore into
the reservoir. Fig. 1.8 shows the effect that this altered zone would
have on the pressure drop at the wellbore.
Dp1 represents the pressure drop from a radius rs to the wellbore
radius, rw, that would normally occur because of flow through the
altered zone. Dp2 represents the pressure drop from a radius rs to the
wellbore radius, rw, that would have occurred had there been no
change in permeability in the altered zone (i.e., if the permeability
in this zone remained the average formation permeability, k). The
additional pressure drop that results across the skin zone is therefore
equal to Dps , where
Dps +Dp1Dp2.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.98)
7
From Eqs. 1.10 1 and 1.102, the definition of skin factor becomes
=
2JrkMps
. .............................. (1.103)
a,qB,u
We note that Eq. 1.102 provides some insight into the physical
significance of the sign of the skin factor. If a well is damaged
(ks
r
s
k),
<
will be positive; and the greater the contrast between ks
and k and the deeper into the formation the damage extends, the larg
er the numerical value of 5. There is no upper limit for 5. Some newly
drilled wells will not flow at all before stimulation; for these wells,
ks
0 and
5> 00
If a well is stimulated (ks
>
k), 5 will be negative;
and the deeper the stimulation, the greater the numerical value of
5.
Rarely does a stimulated well have a skin factor less than 7 or 8,
and such skin factors arise only for wells with deeply penetrating,
highly conductive hydraulic fractures.We should note finally that,
if a well is neither damaged nor stimulated (ks
Fig. 1.7lIIustration of the zone of altered permeability around
the wellbore.
k), 5 = O.We caution
that Eq. 1.102 is best applied qualitatively; actual wells rarely can
be characterized exactly by such a simplified model.We also note
that an altered zone near a particular well affects only the pressure
near that well; i.e., the pressure in the unaltered formation away
from the well is not affected by the presence of the altered zone.
1.4 Dimensionless Groups
We use dimensionless groups to express our equations more simply.
Many welltestanalysis techniques use dimensionless variables to
depict general trends rather than working with specific parameters
(e.g., k and h). To define appropriate dimensionless variables, we
find logical groupings of variables that appear naturally in differen
tial equations and initial and boundary conditions.
In this section, we present dimensionless groups used for radial
flow of slightly compressible liquids that are being produced at ei
ther constant rate, with and without wellbore storage, and constant
bottomhole pressure.Appendix A provides a complete explanation
of how these dimensionless groups are derived.
r
r
s
1.4.1 Radial FlowConstantRate Production. For this case, we
Fig. 1.8The effect of the skin zone on the wellbore pressure
drop.
Because rs is small, we can assume steadystate flow in the altered
sure drops in this region.
and I.P2
inq:,
=
In
(;,:)
..... ..... ..... .... ........ (1.9 9)
a;::: (;,:)
In
a,qB,u
2Jrk ,.h
1n
()
rw
( ) ( k,.
alqB,uln rS
rw
2Jrh
a [qB,u
2nh
a,qB,u
2Jrkh
In
( )
rs
rw
....................... (1.100)
()
a,qB,u
1n
rw
2Jrkh
1
k
( klks )
( k, )
k
 1
 1
( )
rs
'
In
rw
(t )
 1
In
(;,:)
kh
1.2qB
Pi
 p) .
4
..................... (1.10 )
rD 
rlV
(1.105)
and reD
;:
. . ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... (1.106)
Dimensionless Time.
tD
:;
0.00026 7 kt
,uc/ rw
(1.107)
Dimensionless WellboreStorage Coefficient.
0.8 936C
c/h rv
. ............................. (1.108)
Skin Factor.
khl.ps
'
4
1.2qB,u
............................. (1.10 9)
The diffusivity equation and various initial and boundary condi
................. (LlOl)
zone.
CD
We define a skin factor, 5, on the basis of the properties of the altered
PD
Dimensionless Radius.
Combining Eqs. 1.98 through 1.100,
I.Ps
field units.
Dimensionless Pressure.
zone and write the steadystate radialflow equations for the pres
I.p,
define the following dimensionless variables and use conventional
tions can be rewritten in terms of these dimensionless variables.
PartialDifferential Equation.
( ) ?r:
rD
. ... ..... ..... ..... .....(1.1 10)
Initial Condition.
,
........................ (1.102)
PD(rD,tD
0)
O.
..........................(1.1 1 1)
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
Outer Boundary Condition. InfiniteActing Reservoir.
p D(r D R, t D) + 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.112)
NoFlow Boundary.
pr
+ 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.113)
r eD
ConstantPressure Boundary.
p Dr D + r eD,t D + 0.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.114)
InnerBoundary Condition. ConstantRate Production.
pr
Fig. 1.9Linear flow to a fractured well system.
r D+1
+ * 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.115)
Constant Rate Production With Wellbore Storage.
CD
dp wD
p
* rD D
r D
dt D
r D+1
+ 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.116)
Skin Factor.
p wD(t D) + p D(1, t D) ) s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.117)
1.4.2 Radial FlowConstantPressure Production. This case requires a different definition of dimensionless pressure. Dimensionless time and length are defined the same as for the constant rate
case. In addition, we must define dimensionless rate and cumulative
production.
Dimensionless Pressure.
p *p
p D + p i* p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.118)
i
wf
Dimensionless Rate.
qD +
qBm
0.00708khp i * p wf
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.119)
tD
q dt + 1.119fc hrB p * p Q .
D
2
w
. . . . . (1.120)
wf
The diffusivity equation and various initial and boundary conditions can be rewritten in terms of these dimensionless variables.
PartialDifferential Equation.
p D
p D
1
r D r D r D r D + t D .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.121)
p D(r D, t D + 0) + 0.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.127)
Dimensionless Length.
x D + x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.128)
A
Dimensionless Time.
t AD + 0.0002637kt .
fmc t A
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.129)
The diffusivity equation and various initial and boundary conditions can be rewritten in terms of these dimensionless variables.
PartialDifferential Equation.
Initial Condition.
p D(x D, t D + 0) + 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.131)
OuterBoundary Condition. InfiniteActing Reservoir.
p D(x D R, t D) + 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.132)
NoFlow Boundary.
px
D
+ 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.133)
ConstantPressure Boundary.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.122)
OuterBoundary Condition. InfiniteActing Reservoir.
p D(r D R, t D) + 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.123)
p Dx D + x eD,t D + 0.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.134)
InnerBoundary Condition for ConstantRate Production.
px
D
NoFlow Boundary.
D x
D+1
+ * 1.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.135)
+ 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.124)
k A
(p * p).
141.2qBm i
D x
eD
Initial Condition.
pr
pD +
p
2p D
+ D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.130)
t D
x 2D
Dimensionless Cumulative Production.
Q pD +
1.4.3 Linear FlowConstantRate ProductionGeneral Case.
For the general linearflow case, we define the following dimensionless variables on the basis of a crosssectional area. In Sec.
1.4.4, we will present the specialized case for hydraulically fractured wells. Note that the diffusivity equation that models linear
flow may be derived from a shell balance exactly as in the radialflow diffusivity equation, but with rectangular coordinates. Appendix C presents this derivation.
Dimensionless Pressure.
r eD
ConstantPressure Boundary.
p Dr D + r eD,t D + 0.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.125)
InnerBoundary Condition for ConstantPressure Production.
pD (rD +1,tD )+1.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.126)
FUNDAMENTALS OF FLUID FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
1.4.4 Linear FlowConstantRate ProductionHydraulically
Fractured Wells. Linear flow occurs in hydraulically fractured well
systems because the fracture behaves as a plane source with the
fluid flowing linearly to the fracture. Fig. 1.9 illustrates this system.
For this case, the crosssectional area denoted in the general case
represents a vertical fracture with two equallength wings of length
Lf and height h. Therefore, A+4hLf , with flow entering both sides
of each wing of the fracture.
9
The dimensionless pressure for fractured wells is defined
and all wells that are drilled have a certain wellbore radius. Howev
the same as in the radialflow constantrate cases, but dimension
er, the wellbore radius is small compared with the radius of the reser
less length and time are defined on the basis of the fracture half
voir, so a linesource assumption is not unreasonable. Also, at early
length,
producing times, the effects of the outer boundaries of the reservoir
4.
Dimensionless Pressure.
PD
kh
14 1.2qB,u
(Pi  p).
are not seen and the reservoir acts as if there were no boundaries
..................... (1.136)
(i.e., the reservoir is infiniteacting).
The partialdifferential equation for this case is given by
Dimensionless Length.
LD
....................... (1.1 10)
(1.137)
Lf
tL D
I
0.0002637kt
2
,uctLf
......................... (1.138)
tions can be rewritten in terms of these dimensionless variables.
PartialDifferential Equation.
(1.139)
0)
0)
(1.140)
O.
O.
........................ (1.14 1)
NoFlow Boundary.
(f:)
same as initial pressure and the dimensionless pressure function will
be zero. The outer boundary condition is therefore written as
PD(rD + oo,tD) = o. .......................... (1.1 12)
The reservoir is producing at constant sandface rate with no well
approaches zero). The innerboundary condition for this case is
Remember, the innerboundary condition is for a "linesource"
boundary condition for a finite wellbore.
= O. .............................. (1.142)
L,D
LeD/D
O. ........................ (1.143)
Using either Laplace transforms or the Boltzmann transforma
tion, as explained in Appendix B, we can derive the linesource
solution in dimensionless variables, given here by
PD
Ei
InnerBoundary Condition for ConstantRate Production.
(f:)
...................... (1.145)
 1.
well. This is a limiting condition as rw+O of the constantrate
Constant Pressure Boundary.
PD LD
.......................... (1.Ul)
radius tends toward infinity, the pressure at that radius will be the
OuterBoundary Condition. InfiniteActing Reservoir.
Po(Lo + 00, to)
O.
bore storage or skin from a linesource well (i.e., the wellbore radius
Initial Condition.
=
po( ro,to
The reservoir is infiniteacting; therefore, as the dimensionless
The diffusivity equation and various initial and boundary condi
PD(LD,tD
Initially, pressure in the reservoir is uniform throughout the reser
voir, so the initial condition is given by
Dimensionless Time.
(: )
t
. ........................ (1.146)
where Ei is the exponential integral defined as
=
 1. ........................... (1.144)
LDI
1.5 Solutions to the Diffusivity Equation
There are several different solutions to the diffusivity equation, de
pending on the initial and boundary conditions used to solve the
equation. In this chapter, we present the solutions for the following
00
Ei(  x) =
J;
e
Y dy.
...................... (1.147)
Substituting in the appropriate definitions for dimensionless vari
ables as given in Sec. 1.4, we can write the linesource (or Eifunc
tion) solution in terms of field variables
reservoir models.
.......... (1.148)
1. Transient radial flow, constantrate production from a line
source well, both without skin factor and with skin factor and well
bore storage.
2. Pseudosteadystate radial flow, constant rate production from
a cylindricalsource well in a closed reservoir.
3. Steadystate radial flow, constantrate production from a cylin
dricalsource well in a reservoir with constant pressure outer bound
aries.
4. Transient linear flow, constant rate production from a hydrauli
cally fractured well.
There are numerous possible reservoir models with different
The linesource solution is an approximation of the more general
cylindricalsource solution, so we must define limits of its applica
bility. It has been shown to be accurate for the range
(3.975 X 105),uctrv
k
<
<
948,uctr
k
........ (1.149)
At times less than the lower limit, the assumption of zero well size
limits the accuracy of the equation. At times greater than the upper
boundary conditions, but the solution techniques for all models are
limit (for a well centered in a circular drainage area), the reservoir
similar. Appendix B gives a full explanation of these solution tech
boundaries will affect the pressure distribution in the reservoir so
niques. We also give examples of how to implement these solutions
that the reservoir is no longer infiniteacting.
in solving flow problems in reservoirs.
1.5.1 Transient Radial Flow, ConstantRate Production From a
LineSource Well. In this case, we assume that the well can be rep
resented as a "line source;" in other words, the wellbore is infinitesi
mally small (rw+O). This well produces at a constant rate with no
wellbore storage or skin from an infinitely large reservoir. This does
not describe a real situation; all reservoirs have a finite areal extent,
10
W hen the argument of the Ei function, x , is greater than 0.0 1, we
use Table 1.1 to estimate the Eifunction value for a given x value.
We then use that value in Eq. 1.148 to calculate the pressure.
For values of x less than 0.0 1, this solution can be further simpli
fied by making an approximation to the exponential integral func
tion, Ei(  x). This approximation is given by Eq. 1.150.
Ei(  x)
In(1.78 1x).
(1.150)
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
TABLE 1.1VALUES OF THE EXPONENTIAL INTEGRAL, *Ei(*x)
*Ei(*x), 0.000 t x t 0.209, interval+0.001
x
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19
0.20
+
4.038
3.355
2.959
2.681
2.468
2.295
2.151
2.027
1.919
1.823
1.737
1.660
1.589
1.524
1.464
1.409
1.358
1.310
1.265
1.223
6.332
3.944
3.307
2.927
2.658
2.449
2.279
2.138
2.015
1.909
1.814
1.729
1.652
1.582
1.518
1.459
1.404
1.353
1.305
1.261
1.219
5.639
3.858
3.261
2.897
2.634
2.431
2.264
2.125
2.004
1.899
1.805
1.721
1.645
1.576
1.512
1.453
1.399
1.348
1.301
1.256
1.215
5.235
3.779
3.218
2.867
2.612
2.413
2.249
2.112
1.993
1.889
1.796
1.713
1.638
1.569
1.506
1.447
1.393
1.343
1.296
1.252
1.210
4.948
3.705
3.176
2.838
2.590
2.395
2.235
2.099
1.982
1.879
1.788
1.705
1.631
1.562
1.500
1.442
1.388
1.338
1.291
1.248
1.206
4.726
3.637
3.137
2.810
2.568
2.377
2.220
2.087
1.971
1.869
1.779
1.697
1.623
1.556
1.494
1.436
1.383
1.333
1.287
1.243
1.202
4.545
3.574
3.098
2.783
2.547
2.360
2.206
2.074
1.960
1.860
1.770
1.689
1.616
1.549
1.488
1.431
1.378
1.329
1.282
1.239
1.198
4.392
3.514
3.062
2.756
2.527
2.344
2.192
2.062
1.950
1.850
1.762
1.682
1.609
1.543
1.482
1.425
1.373
1.324
1.278
1.235
1.195
4.259
3.458
3.026
2.731
2.507
2.327
2.178
2.050
1.939
1.841
1.754
1.674
1.603
1.537
1.476
1.420
1.368
1.319
1.274
1.231
1.191
4.142
3.405
2.992
2.706
2.487
2.311
2.164
2.039
1.929
1.832
1.745
1.667
1.596
1.530
1.470
1.415
1.363
1.314
1.269
1.227
1.187
*Ei(*x), 0.00 t x t 2.09, interval+0.01
x
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
+
1.823
1.223
0.906
0.702
0.560
0.454
0.374
0.311
0.260
0.219
0.186
0.158
0.135
0.116
0.100
0.0863
0.0747
0.0647
0.0562
0.0489
4.038
1.737
1.183
0.882
0.686
0.548
0.445
0.367
0.305
0.256
0.216
0.183
0.156
0.133
0.114
0.0985
0.0851
0.0736
0.0638
0.0554
0.0482
3.335
1.660
1.145
0.858
0.670
0.536
0.437
0.360
0.300
0.251
0.212
0.180
0.153
0.131
0.113
0.0971
0.0838
0.0725
0.0629
0.0546
0.0476
2.959
1.589
1.110
0.836
0.655
0.525
0.428
0.353
0.295
0.247
0.209
0.177
0.151
0.129
0.111
0.0957
0.0826
0.0715
0.0620
0.0539
0.0469
2.681
1.524
1.076
0.815
0.640
0.514
0.420
0.347
0.289
0.243
0.205
0.174
0.149
0.127
0.109
0.0943
0.0814
0.0705
0.0612
0.0531
0.0463
2.468
1.464
1.044
0.794
0.625
0.503
0.412
0.340
0.284
0.239
0.202
0.172
0.146
0.125
0.108
0.0929
0.0802
0.0695
0.0603
0.0524
0.0456
2.295
1.409
1.014
0.774
0.611
0.493
0.404
0.334
0.279
0.235
0.198
0.169
0.144
0.124
0.106
0.0915
0.0791
0.0685
0.0595
0.0517
0.0450
2.151
1.358
0.985
0.755
0.598
0.483
0.396
0.328
0.274
0.231
0.195
0.166
0.142
0.122
0.105
0.0902
0.0780
0.0675
0.0586
0.0510
0.0444
2.027
1.309
0.957
0.737
0.585
0.473
0.388
0.322
0.269
0.227
0.192
0.164
0.140
0.120
0.103
0.0889
0.0768
0.0666
0.0578
0.0503
0.0438
1.919
1.265
0.931
0.719
0.572
0.464
0.381
0.316
0.265
0.223
0.189
0.161
0.138
0.118
0.102
0.0876
0.0757
0.0656
0.0570
0.0496
0.0432
*Ei(*x), 2.0 t x t 10.9, interval+0.1
x
0
1
2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
4.89102
1.30102
3.78103
1.15103
3.60104
1.15104
3.77105
1.24105
4.15106
4.26102
1.15102
3.35103
1.02103
3.21104
1.03104
3.37105
1.11105
3.73106
3.72102
1.01102
2.97103
9.08104
2.86104
9.22105
3.02105
9.99106
3.34106
3.25102
8.94103
2.64103
8.09104
2.55104
8.24105
2.70105
8.95106
3.00106
2.84102
7.89103
2.34103
7.19104
2.28104
7.36105
2.42105
8.02106
2.68106
2.49102
6.87103
2.07103
6.41104
2.03104
6.58105
2.16105
7.18106
2.41106
2.19102
6.16103
1.84103
5.71104
1.82104
5.89105
1.94105
6.44106
2.16106
1.92102
5.45103
1.64103
5.09104
1.62104
5.26105
1.73105
5.77106
1.94106
1.69102
4.82103
1.45103
4.53104
1.45104
4.71105
1.55105
5.17106
1.74106
1.48102
4.27103
1.29103
4.04104
1.29104
4.21105
1.39105
4.64106
1.56106
This approximation simplifies the linesource solution to
p + p i ) 70.6
1, 688 fmc t r 2
qBm
ln
kh
kt
. . . . . . . . (1.151)
FUNDAMENTALS OF FLUID FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
Example 1.1Calculation of Pressures Beyond the Wellbore
With the LineSource Solution. A well and reservoir have the following characteristics. The well is producing only oil at a constant
rate of 20 STB/D. The following data describe the well and formation.
q+ 20 STB/D
11
h+
B+
re +
pi +
f+
ct +
m+
rw +
k+
150 ft
1.475 RB/STB
3,000 ft
3,000 psia
0.23
1.5 105 psia1
0.72 cp
0.5 ft
0.1 md
This value is greater than 0.01; therefore, we use Eq. 1.148 to estimate the pressure at a radius of 10 ft and we must look up the value
of the Ei function from Table 1.1.
From Table 1.1, for x2+0.7849, we interpolate between x1+0.78
and x3+0.79.
*Ei(*0.78)+0.322 and *Ei(*0.79)+0.316; therefore,
*Ei(*0.789)+0.318.
We substitute this value into Eq 1.148.
Calculate the reservoir pressure at a radius of 1 ft after 3 hours of
production; then, calculate the pressure at radii of 10 and 100 ft after
3 hours of production.
Solution.
1. First, we determine whether we have conditions that lie in the
range of applicability of the line source solution. From Eq. 1.149,
we have the following acceptable range.
10 5) fmc
(3.975
2
t rw
948fmc t r 2e
ttt
.
k
k
We substitute the given well and reservoir conditions into the
equation.
10 5(0.23)(0.72)(1.5
0.1
3.975
ttt
948(0.23)(0.72)(1.5
0.1
10 *5)(0.5)
10 *5)(3, 000)
948fmc t r 2
948(0.23)(0.72)(1.5
+
(0.1)(3)
kt
+ 7.8494
1, 688 fmc t r 2
qBm
p + p i ) 70.6
ln
kh
kt
ln
. . . . . . . . (1.151)
+ 2, 968 psia.
4. To calculate the pressure in the reservoir at 3 hours at a radius
of 100 ft, we must again determine whether the log approximation
to the Ei function is valid. We then calculate the value of the argument of the Ei function, x.
2
948fmc t r 2
948(0.23)(0.72)(1.5 10 *5)(100)
+
(0.1)(3)
kt
This value is greater than 0.01, so we use Eq. 1.148 to estimate
the pressure at a radius of 10 ft, and we must look up the value of
the Ei function from Table 1.1.
From Table 1.1, for xu10, the value of *Ei(*x) approaches
zero. If we substitute this value into Eq. 1.148, we have no change
in pressure at a radius of 100 ft after 3 hours.
p + p i ) 70.6
948fmc t r 2
qBm
Ei *
. . . . . . . . . . . . (1.148)
kh
kt
+ 3, 000 * 70.6
(20)(1.475)(0.72)
(0)
(0.1)(150)
10 *5)(1)
+ 3, 000 psia.
Skin Factor. To include skin factor in our calculations, we recall
that the boundary condition we stated for including skin factor is
p wD + p D(1, t D) ) s.
This implies that we can add the skin factor to the dimensionless
solution, evaluated at rD +1, to obtain the pressure at the wellbore.
For the linesource well, the solution becomes
(20)(1.475)(0.72)
(0.1)(150)
1, 688(0.23)(0.72)(1.5
(0.1)(3)
+ 3, 000 * 99.97(0.318)
+ 3, 000 * 0
This value is less than 0.01; therefore, we use Eq. 1.151 to estimate
the pressure at a radius of 1 ft.
(20)(1.475)(0.72)
(0.318)
(0.1)(150)
10 *3
p + 3, 000 ) 70.6
+ 78.49.
10 *5)(1)
948fmc t r 2
qBm
Ei *
. . . . . . . . . . . . (1.148)
kh
kt
p + 3, 000 * 70.6
x+
which simplifies to 2.453 hoursttt211,935 hours. This implies
that at 3 hours, the line source solution is a valid solution to the
flow equation, and the reservoir is infiniteacting (until a time of
211,935 hours).
2. To calculate the pressure in the reservoir at 3 hours at a radius
of 1 ft, we must determine whether the log approximation to the Ei
function is valid; therefore we calculate the value of the argument
of the Ei function, x,
x+
p + p i ) 70.6
+ 3, 000 ) 99.97[ln(0.01398)]
+ 2, 573 psia.
3. To calculate the pressure in the reservoir at 3 hours at a radius
of 10 ft, we must determine whether the log approximation to the Ei
function is valid. Therefore, we calculate the value of the argument
of the Ei function, x.
p wD + * 1 Ei * 1 ) s.
2
4t D
We recall the definitions of the dimensionless variables:
p wD +
khp i * p wf
141.2qBm
t D + 0.0002637kt
fmc t r 2w
r D + rr + 1(at r + r w).
w
2
948fmc t r 2
948(0.23)(0.72)(1.5 10 *5)(10)
x+
+
(0.1)(3)
kt
+ 0.7849.
12
Substituting these definitions into
p wD + * 1 Ei * 1 ) s,
2
4t D
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
we obtain an equation to estimate pressures with the line source
solution when skin factor is not zero.
khp i * p wf
948fmc t r 2w
+ * 1 Ei *
)s
2
141.2qBm
kt
When the argument of the Ei function (x) is greater than 0.01, we
look up values of *Ei(*x) in Table 1.1. For values of x less than
0.01, the previous equation can be further simplified by making an
approximation to the exponential integral function, Ei(*x). This
approximation is given by
Ei(* x) [ ln(1.781x). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.150)
This approximation simplifies the linesource solution, including
skin factor, to
1, 688fmc t r 2w
qBm
p wf + p i ) 70.6
ln
* 2s .
kh
kt
p wf + p i ) 70.6
Example 1.2Using the LineSource Solution for Damaged or
Stimulated Wells. A well and reservoir have the following characteristics. The well is producing only oil at a constant rate of 20 STB/
D. The following data describe the well and formation.
20 STB/D
150 ft
1.475 RB/STB
3,000 ft
3,000 psia
0.23
1.5 105 psia1
0.72 cp
0.5 ft
0.1 md
1, 380 + 3, 000 ) 70.6
ln
(3.975
3.975
ttt
10 5(0.23)(0.72)(1.5
0.1
948(0.23)(0.72)(1.5
0.1
10 *5)(0.5)
10 *5)(3, 000)
* 2s
+ 3, 000 * 99.97(7.123 ) 2s)
* 1, 380
3, 00099.97
* 7.123
+ ) 4.54.
Part B. 1. We note that 5 hours falls in the acceptable time range
for the linesource solution, as given in the solution to Part A. This
means that we can use the line source solution to solve this problem.
2. We must determine whether the log approximation to the Ei
function is valid; therefore, we calculate the value of the argument
of the Ei function, x.
2
948fmc t r 2w
948(0.23)(0.72)(1.5 10 *5)(0.5)
+
(0.1)(5)
kt
10 *3.
This value is less than 0.01; therefore, we use
p wf + p i ) 70.6
1688fmc t r 2w
qBm
ln
* 2s .
kh
kt
2, 380 + 3, 000 ) 70.6
ln
We substitute the given well and reservoir conditions into the
equation
(20)(1.475)(0.72)
(0.1)(150)
1688(0.23)(0.72)(1.5 10 *5)(0.5)
(0.1)(13)
+ 1.177
10 5) fmc t r 2w
948fmc t r 2e
ttt
.
k
k
+ 3, 000 ) 99.97(* 7.123 * 2s)
x+
Part A. The wellbore pressure was measured to be 1,380 psia after
13 hours of production. Calculate the skin factor.
Part B. The well was then acidized to drop the skin factor to zero.
After clean up, the well was put back on production at a constant rate
of 20 STB/D and, after 5 hours, a wellbore pressure of 2,380 psia
was measured. Was the acidizing treatment successful?
Solution. Part A. 1. First, we determine whether we have conditions that lie in the range of applicability of the linesource solution.
From Eq. 1.149, we have the following acceptable range.
1688fmc t r 2w
qBm
ln
* 2s
kh
kt
to estimate the skin factor.
s+1
2
q+
h+
B+
re +
pi +
f+
ct +
m+
rw +
k+
10 *4.
This value is less than 0.01; therefore, we use
948fmc t r 2w
70.6qBm
Ei *
* 2s .
kh
kt
2
948fmc t r 2w
948(0.23)(0.72)(1.5 10 *5)(0.5)
+
(0.1)(13)
kt
+ 4.529
Rearranging this equation, we obtain
p i * p wf + *
x+
(20)(1.475)(0.72)
(0.1)(150)
1, 688(0.23)(0.72)(1.5
(0.1)(5)
10 *5)(0.5)
* 2s
+ 3, 000 ) 99.97(* 6.167 * 2s)
+ 3, 000 * 99.97(6.167 ) 2s)
which simplifies to 2.453 hoursttt211,935 hours. This implies
that, at 13 hours, the linesource solution is a valid solution to the
flow equation, and the reservoir is infiniteacting (until a time of
211,935 hours).
2. We must determine whether the log approximation to the Ei
function is valid; therefore, we calculate the value of the argument
of the Ei function, x, at the wellbore (r+rw ).
FUNDAMENTALS OF FLUID FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
s+1
2
* 2, 380
3, 00099.97
* 6.167
+ 0.02 [ 0.
Therefore, the acid treatment was successful.
Consideration of Wellbore Storage and Skin. Wellbore storage is
not an additive function like skin factor; therefore, we must solve
the flow equation subject to the innerboundary condition for wellbore storage.
13
from the formation. Recall the equation that describes the innerboundary condition for wellbore storage,
CD
dp wD
p
* rD D
r D
dt D
r D+1
+ 1.
The second term in this equation is defined here (from the inner
boundary condition for constantrate production),
r pr
r+r w
+ 141.2
q sf Bm
.
kh
On the basis of the definitions of dimensionless pressure and radius,
this term can be rewritten as follows:
Fig. 1.10The Ramey type curve (dimensionlesspressure solutions with wellbore storage and skin).
The partialdifferential equation is
p D
p D
1
r D r D r D r D + t D ,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.110)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.111)
The outerboundary condition for an infiniteacting reservoir is
p D(r D R, t D) + 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.112)
There are two inner boundary conditions. The first is for the constant
rate production with wellbore storage, and the second is for skin.
CD
dp wD
p
* rD D
r D
dt D
r D+1
+ 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.116)
r D+1
q sf
+* q .
Therefore, we rewrite the innerboundary condition for wellbore
storage as
dp wD q sf
) q + 1.
dt D
For qsf /q+0 (i.e., no sandface productionall production from
the wellbore), this equation becomes
CD
dp wD
+ 1, or C Ddp wD + dt D.
dt D
Integrating from tD +0 (where pwD +0) to tD and pwD , the result is
Taking logarithms of both sides of the equation gives
log CD )log pwD +log tD .
r D+1
The solution to these equations is given by Agarwal et al.,10
Thus, as long as qsf +0, theory leads us to expect that a graph of log
pwD vs. log tD will have a slope of unity; it also leads us to expect that
any point (pwD , tD ) on this unitslope line must satisfy the relation
C Dp wD
t D +1.
p wD(t D) + 42
p
This observation is of major value in welltest analysis.
*x 2t D
x 3xCDJ0(x) * 1 * CDsx2J1(x)
) xC DY 0(x) * 1 * C Dsx 2Y 1(x)
dx,
where J0 and J1 are Bessel functions of the first kind, zero and first
order, respectively, and Y0 and Y1 are Bessel functions of the second
kind, zero and first order, respectively. This solution was derived
with Laplace transformations, similar to the linesource solution,
and is given in detail in Appendix B.
This solution is difficult to use and led to the development of
type curves, or graphical depictions of analytical solutions. The
first such type curve was given by Ref. 10 and is given as Fig. 1.10.
From this figure, values of pwD (usually written as pD on the vertical axis) and thus pw can be determined for a well in a formation with
given values of tD , CD , and s. Because of the similar curve shapes,
this type curve does not provide unique analysis; other type curves
have been developed for this purpose and will be discussed thoroughly in later chapters. However, there is an important property of
this graphical solution that requires special mention at this point. At
early times, for each value of CD , a unit slope line (i.e., a line with
a 45 slope) is present on the graph. This line appears and remains
as long as all production comes from the wellbore and none comes
14
p D
r D
CD pwD +tD .
p
p wD + p D * s r D D
r D
1 * e
CD
with the initial condition
p D(r D, t D + 0) + 0.
1.5.2 PseudosteadyState Flow, ConstantRate Production
From a CylindricalSource Well in a Closed Reservoir. Pseudosteadystate flow occurs when all the boundaries are felt in a closed
reservoir system. The conditions we need for pseudosteady state to
occur are (1) closed (bounded) reservoir, (2) noflow boundaries,
and (3) constantrate production at the innerboundary (wellbore).
We first develop a general solution by use of Laplace transforms,
for these conditions (Appendix B gives details). We recall the partial
differential equation and the governing boundary conditions.
PartialDifferential Equation.
p D
p D
1
r D r D r D r D + t D .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.110)
Initial Condition.
p D(r D, t D + 0) + 0.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.111)
OuterBoundary Condition.
pr
+ 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.113)
r eD
InnerBoundary Condition.
pr
D
r D+1
+ * 1.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.115)
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
Substituting Eq. 1.158 into Eq. 1.155, we obtain the general pseudosteadystate solution,
The solution is
)p
n+1
r 2 ln r D
r 2D
2
) t D * eD
r 2eD * 1 4
r 2eD * 1
p D(r D, t D) +
p wDt AD + 2pt AD ) ln r eD * 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.159)
4
3r 4eD * 4r 4eD ln reD * 2r2eD * 1
4 r 2eD * 1
e *a 2ntDJ 21(a nr eD)J 1(a n)Y 0(a nr D) * Y 1(a n)J 0(a nr D)
a nJ 21(a nr eD) * J 21(a n)
In this case, we can see that the pressure change with respect to time
is independent of time (i.e., the derivative of Eq. 1.159 with respect
to tAD is a function of reD only).
This equation can be rewritten in terms of field variables to solve
flow problems.
p wf + p i * 141.2
qBm
r
0.000527 kt 2 ) lnr e * 3 .
w
4
kh
fmc t r e
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.160)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.152)
Again, J0 and J1 are Bessel functions of the first kind, zero and
first order, respectively, and Y0 and Y1 are Bessel functions of the second kind, zero and first order, respectively.
Pseudosteadystate flow occurs at large times (tu948fmct r 2e/k),
so we develop a longtime approximation of the general solution to
describe pseudosteadystate flow. As t R, the summation term
will drop out because it contains a negative exponential term, and
lim e *x + 0.
xR
Note that we find by differentiating Eq. 1.160,
p wf
0.0744qB
+*
t
fc t hr 2e
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.161)
during this time period. Because the liquidfilled PV of the reservoir, Vp (in cubic feet), is
V p + pr 2e hf, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.162a)
The solution then becomes
r 2 ln r D
r 2D
2
) t D * eD
r 2eD * 1 4
r 2eD * 1
p D(r D, t D) +
3r 4eD * 4r 4eD ln reD * 2r2eD * 1
4 r 2eD * 1
then
. . . . . (1.153)
At the wellbore, r D + r wr w + 1; therefore,
p wD(t D) +
r 2eD
2
1 ) t * r eD ln 1
2
D
2
4
r eD * 1
* 1
3r 4eD * 4r 4eD ln reD * 2r2eD * 1
4 r 2eD * 1
. . . . . . . . (1.154)
Because reD 1, this equation reduces to
3r4eD * 4r4eD ln r eD * 2r2eD * 1
p wD(t D) + 22 1 ) t D *
r eD 4
4r 4eD
2t
+ 22 ) 2D * 3 ) ln r eD ) 12 * 14 .
r eD r eD 4
2r eD 4r eD
^
2t D
) ln r eD * 3 .
4
r 2eD
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.155)
We can define a dimensionless time, tAD , on the basis of on area
instead of radius.
t AD +
a 2kt
a 2kt
+
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.156)
fmc t A
fmc t pr 2e
p wf
0.234qB
+*
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.162b)
t
ct Vp
Thus, during this time period, the rate of pressure decline is inversely proportional to the liquidfilled PV, Vp . This result leads to a form
of well testing sometimes called reservoirlimits testing, which
seeks to determine reservoir size from the rate of pressure decline
in a wellbore with time.
Another form of Eq. 1.160 is useful for some applications. It involves replacing original reservoir pressure, pi , with average pressure, p, within the drainage volume of the well. The volumetric average pressure within the drainage volume of the well can be found
from material balance. The pressure decrease (pi *p) results from
removal of qB RB/D of fluid for t hours [a total removed of 5.615
qB (t/24) ft3] is
5.615qB t24
0.0744qBt
+
.
p i * p + DV +
2
ct V
fc t hr 2e
c t pr e hf
Substituting in Eq. 1.160,
p wf + p )
t
or 2D + pt AD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.158)
r eD
FUNDAMENTALS OF FLUID FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.163b)
or p * p wf + 141.2
qBm
r
lnr e * 3 .
w
4
kh
. . . . . . . . . . . . (1.163c)
Eqs. 1.160 and 1.163c become more useful in practice if they include a skin factor to account for the fact that most wells are either
damaged or stimulated. For example, in Eq. 1.163c,
p * p wf + 141.2
qBm
r
lnr e * 3 ) (Dp) s ,
w
4
kh
p * p wf + 141.2
qBm
r
lnr e * 3 ) s ,
w
4
kh
and p i * p wf + 141.2
Therefore,
t D + pr 2eDt AD
qBm
0.0744qBt 0.0744qBt
r
*
* 141.2
lnr e * 3
w
4
kh
fc t hr 2e
fc t hr 2e
In terms of dimensionless time based on wellbore radius, tAD becomes
r2
t
t AD + t D w2 + D2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.157)
pr e
pr eD
. . . . (1.163a)
. . . . (1.163d)
. . . . . . . . . (1.163e)
qBm 0.000527kt
r
) lnr e * 3 ) s .
w
4
kh
fmc t r 2e
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.163f)
15
Further, we can define an average permeability, kJ , so that
p * p wf + 141.2
+ 141.2
qBm
r
lnr e * 3
w
4
k Jh
qBm
r
lnr e * 3 ) s , . . . . . . . . . (1.163g)
w
4
kh
from which
r
k J + k lnr e * 3
w
4
lnrr * 34 ) s.
e
w
. . . . . . . . . (1.163h)
This average permeability, kJ , proves to be useful in welltest
analysis, as we shall see later. Note that, for a damaged well, the average permeability kJ is lower than the true, bulk formation permeability k; in fact, these quantities are equal only when the skin factor,
s, is zero. Because we sometimes estimate the permeability of a well
from productivityindex (PI) measurements, and because the PI, J
(STB/Dpsi), of an oil well is defined as
q
J+p*p +
wf
kJ h
r
141.2Bm lnr we * 3
4
. . . . . . . . . . (1.163i)
1.5.3 SteadyState Flow, ConstantRate Production From a
CylindricalSource Well in a Reservoir with ConstantPressure Outer Boundaries. Steadystate flow occurs theoretically
at long times in a constantpressure outerboundary, constantrate
production case. We present a general solution for the following
set of equations. Similar to the pseudosteadystate case, steadystate flow is a longtime approximation to the general solution for
these equations.
PartialDifferential Equation.
p D
p D
1
r D r D r D r D + t D .
Initial Condition.
p D(r D, t D + 0) + 0.
Example 1.3Analysis of a Well From a PI Test. A well produces
100 STB/D oil at a measured flowing bottomhole pressure (BHP)
of 1,500 psi. A recent pressure survey showed that average reservoir
pressure is 2,000 psi. Logs indicate a net sand thickness of 10 ft. The
well drains an area with drainage radius, re , of 1,000 ft; the borehole
radius is 0.25 ft. Fluid samples indicate that, at current reservoir
pressure, oil viscosity is 0.5 cp and formation volume factor is
1.5 RB/STB.
1. Estimate the PI for the tested well.
2. Estimate formation permeability from these data.
3. Core data from the well indicate an effective permeability to oil
of 50 md. Does this imply that the well is either damaged or stimulated? What is the apparent skin factor?
Solution.
1. To estimate PI, we use Eq. 1.63i:
q
J+p*p +
wf
100
+ 0.2 STBpsiD.
(2, 000 * 1, 500)
2. We do not have sufficient information to estimate formation
permeability; we can calculate average permeability, kJ , only, which
is not necessarily a good approximation of formation permeability,
k. From Eq. 1.163i,
r
141.2JBm lnr we * 3
4
kJ +
h
* 0.75
1,000
0.25
(141.2)(0.2)(1.5)(0.5) ln
+
10
+ 16 md.
3. Core data sometimes provide a better estimate of formation
permeability than do permeabilities derived from the PI, particularly
for a well that is badly damaged. Because cores indicate a permeability of 50 md, we conclude that this well is damaged. Eq. 1.163i provides a method for estimating the skin factor, s.
s+
000
* 0.75
kk * 1 lnrr * 34 + 5016 * 1ln1,0.025
J
+ 16.
e
w
p Dr D + r eD,t D + 0.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.114)
InnerBoundary Condition.
pr
D
r D+1
+ * 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.115)
The dimensionlesspressure solution, derived with Laplace transformations, is
p D(r D, t D) +
*b 2t J 2b nr
e n Dn 0 eD
.
2 2
2
n+1 b nJ 1 b n * J 0 b nr eD
R
ln r eD * 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.164)
Using the same argument that we used in our previous derivation
of the pseudosteadystate flow equation, we derive a longtime
approximation of Eq. 1.164. At long times, the summation term
drops out, because lim e *x + 0. This leaves
xR
p D(r D, t D) + ln r eD , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.165)
which is the steadystate solution. We can see here that pressure is
independent of time for steadystate flow. In field variables, this
equation becomes
p wf + p i *
141.2qBm r e
lnr .
w
kh
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.166)
1.5.4 Transient Linear Flow, ConstantRate Production From a
Hydraulically Fractured Well. Theoretically, linear flow occurs
in reservoirs with long, highly conductive vertical fractures. This
situation is modeled by the following set of equations. We present
a general solution for this set of equations and extend the solution
to the hydraulic fracture case.
PartialDifferential Equation.
2p D
p
+ D.
t D
x 2D
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.130)
Initial Condition.
p D(x D, t D + 0) + 0.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.131)
OuterBoundary Condition.
p D(x D R, t D) + 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.132)
InnerBoundary Condition.
px
D
D x
D+1
16
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.111)
OuterBoundary Condition.
this method does not necessarily provide a good estimate of formation
permeability, k. Thus, there is a need for a more complete means of
characterizing a producing well than exclusive use of PI information.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.110)
+ * 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.135)
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
WellB
TABLE 1.2DIMENSIONLESSPRESSURE SOLUTIONS
Reservoir Model
Pressure Response
1. Radial flow
PD =
Infiniteacting reservoir
Constantrate production
Linesource well
2tD
2. Pseudosteadystate flow
P IVD
Cylindrical reservoir
Ei
Noflow boundaries
2reD
;t)
rb
Well A
4 + lnreD
Constantrate production
Cylindrical reservoir
PIVD =
ln rD
P IVD =
2 ..,jn
Constantpressure boundaries
Constantrate production
Cylindricalsource well
4. Transient linear flow
Hydraulically fractured well
Point X
It;
Fig. 1.11Multiplewell system.
TABLE 1.3PRESSURE SOLUTIONS IN FIELD
VARIABLES
Reservoir Model
1.6 Superposition in Space
Pressure Response
1. Radial flow
qBJi
70.67Jl
( kt )
14 1.kh2qBJi
[O.000527kt ( ) 1]
14 1.kh2qBJi ( )
4.064 qB V[i![..
Infinite acting reservoir
Constantrate production
El
Linesource well
2. Pseudosteadystate flow
Cylindrical reservoir
Pi +
948JiCtr2
:
PlVf = Pi
Noflow boundaries
Constantrate production
Jic,r
Cylindricalsource well
3. Steadystate radial flow
Cylindrical reservoir
Constantpressure boundaries
Constantrate production
Cylindricalsource well
4. Transient linear flow
Hydraulically fractured well
PlVf
Pi
PlVf
Pi
.+
Cylindricalsource well
3. Steadystate radial flow
:l
In
!j,
rw
In
hLf
The term superposition simply means a summation of all the indi
vidual parts that contribute to the total system. Petroleum engineers
use superposition to model complex situations as a sum of several
simpler parts. In Sec.
1.5,
we solved the diffusivity equation for sev
eral "singlewell" cases. Superposition allows us to use these solu
tions to model multiplewell problems.
We can use superposition to develop the method of images to
model single or multiple boundaries. Without superposition, we can
solve the diffusivity equation only for a completely closed system
(i.e., the pseudosteadystate solution). The multiple well problem
and the method of images are examples of superposition in space.
re
rw
We can also use superposition in time to solve variablerate produc
kifYct
from only a single well. A field usually contains several wells pro
tion problems.
1.6.1 Multiple Wells. It is rare to find a reservoir being produced
ducing from the same reservoir, and each well will have an effect on
the pressure at the other wells. In other words, if we have one well
We use the Laplace transform technique to develop the following
solution to these equations:
producing at a constant rate, the BHP in that well is a function of its
own production as well as the production from surrounding wells.
Consider the following system, illustrated by Fig. 1.11. A, B, and
C are wells that begin to produce at the same time from an infinite
acting reservoir at constant rates,
qA, qB, qc.
and
PointX is any point
in the reservoir and is a distance ra from Well A, "b from Well B, and
rc
where the complementary error function, erfc(x), is defined as
sure drop owing to Well B, and the pressure drop owing to Well C.
00
erfc(x)
kJ
2
 d';.
. ................ (1.168)
....
0
O t 2 ftc. . ........................ (1.169)
For the special case of XD
(i.e., for a hydraulically fractured well
at the fracture face), the solution becomes
PD(
D)
Pi
In mathematical form, we write
(Pi
+ (Pi
4.064 qB V[i![.. ................. (1.170)
hLf
kct .
p)c
1.5.5 Summary of DimensionlessPressure Solutions and Pres
solutions to the diffusivity equation in terms of dimensionless vari
ables. Table 1.3 presents these same solutions in field variables.
FUNDAMENTALS OF FLUID FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
p)
If we consider each well singly, we would have the problem of a
single well producing at a constant rate in
an
infiniteacting reservoir.
The solution to this singlewell problem is given in Sec.
(Pi
P)
_

El
( . _ [_ 70.6kqhABJi .( _
[ 70.6kqh8BJi (
P )x =
El
El
as
948JiCtr2
So, the pressure drop at Point X would be
P,
sure Solutions in Field Variables. Table 1.2 summarizes important
8
............................... (1.171)
1.5.6
70.k6hqBJi ( kt ) . ....... (1.172)
ph = (Pi  P)A + (Pi
This can be written in field variables as
PlVf
from Well C. Superposition states that the pressure drop at Point
X is equal to the sum of the pressure drop owing to Well A, the pres
948JiCtr
kt
948JiCtr
kt
)]
)]
17
Fig. 1.12Wellbore pressure in a multiwell system.
) *
70.6q CBm
948fmc t r 2c
Ei *
kh
kt
948fmc t r 2a
70.6q ABm
Ei *
or p X + p i )
kh
kt
, . . . (1.173)
948fmc t r 2b
70.6q BBm
Ei *
kh
kt
948fmc t r 2c
70.6q CBm
Ei *
kh
kt
. . . . . (1.174)
Now, consider the pressure drop at Well A, illustrated by Fig. 1.12.
Superposition states that the pressure drop at Well A is a sum of the
pressure drop owing to Well A, the pressure drop owing to Well B,
and the pressure drop owing to Well C. In equation form, this is
p i * p wf
+ (p i * p) A ) (p i * p) B
) (p i * p) C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.175)
In this case, the pressure drop owing to Well A would be (pi*pwf ),
which includes the skin factor, sA ; and because the radius in question
is the wellbore radius (which is small compared to the distances
from Wells B and C to Well A), the Ei function may be written as its
logarithmic approximation. So, the pressure drop owing to Well A
becomes
(p i * p) A + *
1688fmc t r 2w
70.6qBm
ln *
* 2s A ,
kh
kt
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.176)
and the total BHP at Well A is
p wf, A + p i )
1, 688fmc t r 2w
70.6qBm
ln *
* 2s A
kh
kt
948fmc t r 2ab
70.6q BBm
Ei *
kh
kt
948fmc t r 2ac
70.6q CBm
Ei *
kh
kt
. . . . . . . . . . (1.177)
1.6.2 Method of Images. In this section and in Appendix E, we
show how superposition is used to develop the method of images.
The method of images states that a fault or a single, noflow boundary can be represented by an imaginary well, producing at the same
18
Fig. 1.13Well mean a fault.
rate as the producing well, situated an equal distance on the other
side of the fault as the producing well. The fault is thus eliminated,
and we are left with a twowell system in an infiniteacting reservoir
that can easily be solved with superposition.
This method also can model a constantpressure boundary by use
of an image well also situated an equal distance on the other side of
the boundary as the producing well, but the image well in this case
is injecting fluid at the same rate as the producer is producing fluid.
We can extend the method of images to multiple boundary configurations by use of superposition.
In Appendix E, we prove the validity of the method of images;
i.e., we show that the twowell systems really do model the noflow
and constant pressure boundaries. We will illustrate application of
the method of images with an example.
Example 1.4Superposition in SpaceModeling a Well Near
a Fault. Suppose a well is 350 ft due west of a northsouth trending
fault. From pressure transient tests, the skin factor, s, of this well has
been found to be )5.0. This well has been flowing at a constant rate
of 350 STB/D for 8 days. The following data describe the well
and formation.
rw +
h+
B+
re +
k+
pi +
f+
ct +
m+
0.333 ft
50 ft
1.13 RB/STB
3,000 ft
25 md
3,000 psia
0.16
2 105 psia1
0.5 cp
Calculate the pressure at the flowing well.
Solution.
1. First, we set up the appropriate image well. Fig. 1.13 depicts
the well and fault configuration.
Note that, to model this fault on the basis of the method of images,
we must have the equivalent system of Fig. 1.14.
2. We can now consider this as a multiwell problem. From superposition,
(pi pwf )Wp +(pi p)Wp )(pi p)Wi
p i * p wfWp
+ * 70.6
q Wp Bm
kh
ln
1688fmc t r 2w
* 2s
kt
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
i
350 ft
350 ft
...
.. ..
Producing
Well
350 STBID
8 Days
ql
Image
Well
350 STBID
8 Days
q3
q4
Fig. 1.14lmage to model well mean a fault.
0
l,
, qn.1 ,
,
/'
Ir t n 2
l3
S
t n.
1
..
Fig. 1.15Example rate history.
Cl = 18 X 106 psii
0.44 cp
fl
(350)(1.13)(0.5)
 70.6
(25)(50)
{[
In
168 8(0.16)(0.5)(2
(25) (8 days)
x
x
105)(0.333)2
( 24 hr/D)]
] }
 2(5)
= 0.16
k= 25 md
W hat will the pressure drop be in a shutin well 500 ft from the flow
ing well when the flowing well has been shut in for 1 day following
a flow period of 5 days at 300 STBID?
Solution. We must superimpose (i.e., add) two drawdowns be
cause of the rate change. The rate term will be "new rateold" (with
(350)(1.13)(0.5)
 70.6
(25)(50)
Ei
 948(0.16)(0.5)(2
10 5)(2
(25) (8 days)
( 24 hr/O )]
(Pi  PIV!) IVp =
350)2
% = 0) , and the time term will be the total time for which a rate has
been in effect (starting at the time of the rate change and continuing
up to total time,
Pi P _
f).
70.6flB
kh
{(
q,
.[
 948flCtr2
k(f  0)
0 El
 11.17(  16.59  10)
 11.17 Ei(  0.155) .
We determine that Ei [0.155]
1.436 from Table 1.1; there
Now,
fore,
(Pi  P'f)wp =
 297 + 16 = 313 psi.
25 = 12.01.
And, finally,
(PIV!) Wp
3,000  313
2,68 7 psia.
Then,
(70.6)(0.44)(1.32)
Pi  P =
1.7 Superposition in Time
As we mentioned previously, superposition is not limited to spatial
coordinates; we can also superpose solutions in time. This is especial
ly helpful in variablerate problems, specifically for modeling build
up tests. In this section, we start with an example to illustrate the pro
cedure. We then generalize and illustrate the following concepts: (1)
modeling a variablerate history with the summation of simpler
constantrate solutions and(2) modeling pressurebuildup tests.
(25)(43)
{ ( (;) ]
(300)E
1
6)
{ ( (;) ]}
+ (0  300)E
1
1)
11.4[  Ei(  0.08 34) + Ei(  0.5) ]
11.44(1.98 9  0.560)
16.35 psi.
Example 1.5Use of Superposition in Time. A flowing well is
1.7.1 Modeling VariableRate History. Given the rate history
completed in a reservoir that has the following properties.
shown in Fig. 1.15, wellbore pressure may be modeled by use of the
2,500 psia
h= 43 ft
B = 1.32 RBISTB
Pi
FUNDAMENTALS OF FLUID FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
principle of superposition. We know from the concept of superposi
tion in space (Sec. 1.6) that production from two wells will give the
following pressure distribution at any point in the reservoir.
19
Therefore, Eq. 1.180 becomes
p D x D , y D , t D u t D
+* 1
2q 0
n*1
q 1Ei
* a 21D
* a 22D
) q 2 * q 1Ei
4t D
4t * t 1 D
) q 3 * q 2Ei
* a 23D
4t * t 2
) . . . ) q n * q n*1Ei
* a 2nD
4t * t n*1 D
. . . . . . . . . (1.181)
Because the wells are in the same position, a 1D + a 2D. . . + a nD
+rD , we can write
* r 2D
p D(r D, t D) + * 1 q 1Ei
2q 0
4t D
) q 2 * q 1Ei
* r 2D
4t * t 1 D
). . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.182)
If we write the right side of this equation in dimensionless form,
where
p D(r D, t D) + * 1 Ei
2
Fig. 1.16Wells modeling example rate history.
* a 21D
* a 22D
q
q
.
p D(x D, y D, t D) + * 1 q 1 Ei
* 1 q 2 Ei
2 0
2 0
4t D
4t D
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.178)
Both wells begin to produce at the same time with flow rates of
q1 and q2, respectively. The term q0 is a reference flow rate, and
a 1Dand a 2D are distances between the wells and the point (xD ,yD ).
Suppose Well 1 began production at time t0 and Well 2 began production at time t1 ( where t0 and t1 y 0 ), and we wish to find the
pressure distribution at t where tut0 and t1ut. If ttt1 , Well 2 will
not affect the pressure distribution. Therefore,
p D x D , y D , t D t t D t t D
0
+ * 2qq1 Ei
1
0
* a 21D
4t * t 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.179)
Extending this analogy for tut1, Well 2 will begin to produce and
its effect may be added to, or superimposed on, the effect of Well 1.
p D x D , y D , t D u t D
+ * 2qq1 Ei
1
0
* a 21D
4t * t 0
* a 22D
q2
.
Ei
2q 0
4t * t 1 D
. . . . . . . (1.180)
Looking at Fig.1.15, we can model the rate schedules as n different wells all in the same position. Fig. 1.16 shows this diagrammatically. Note that, for convenience, we set t0+0.
20
* r 2D
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.183)
4t D
* r 2D
, . . . . . . . . . . (1.184)
p Dr D, t * t 1 D + * 1 Ei
2
4t * t 1 D
* r 2D
, . . . . . . (1.185)
p Dr D, t * t n*1 D + * 1 Ei
2
4 t * t n*1 D
and so on, and define dimensionless rate as
q
q D + q , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.186)
0
we obtain
p D(r D, t D) + q 1D p D(r D, t D) ) q 2 * q 1 Dp Dr D, t * t 1 D )
. . . ) q n*1 * q n*2 Dp Dr D, t * t n*2 D
) q n * q n*1 Dp Dr D, t * t n*1 D .
. . . . . (1.187)
At the wellbore, rD +1. Also, at the wellbore, skin, s, must be added to each individual dimensionless pressure. We know from the
discussion of skin factor in Sec. 1.3 that
p wD(t D) + p D(1, t D) ) s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.188)
Eq. 1.187 becomes
p wD(t D) + q 1D[p D(t D) ) s] ) q 2 * q 1 D p Dt * t 1 D ) s
) q 3 * q 2 D p Dt * t 2 D ) s ) . . .
) q n*1 * q n*2 D p Dt * t n*2 D ) s
) q n * q n*1 D p Dt * t n*1 D ) s , . . . . . . (1.189)
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
If we let psD be the symbol for the constantrate solution, where
psD +pD (tD ))s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.195)
and let pwD be the symbol for the variablerate solution, we have
the following relationship between the variable and constantrate
dimensionless pressure.
tD
p wD(t D) +
dqdt(t) [p
D
sD(t D
* t)]dt. . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.196)
Eq. 1.196 is known as the convolution integral, and Eq. 1.191,
which contains the summation term, is the superposition equation.
The uses of convolution are numerous. Suppose we are trying to
model variablerate flow, and we know the solution psD for constant
flow rate (any reservoir type). Given the variation in q, and thus qD ,
with time, we may calculate the variablerate pressure solution from
Eq. 1.196 with approximations to evaluate the integral.
1.7.2 Modeling PressureBuildup Tests. A pressurebuildup test is
conducted by producing a well at constant rate for some time, shutting
the well in (usually at the surface), allowing the pressure to build up
in the wellbore, and recording the BHP as a function of time. In other
words, we can model buildup tests by use of superposition in time as
a tworate problem. This is illustrated in Fig. 1.17 as two wells, one
producing at flow rate q for time (tp )Dt) and the other producing at
a rate (0*q) for time (tp )Dt*tp ).
Using Eq. 1.191, we have
q * q
n
p wD(t D) +
p D, t * t i*1 ) s ,
D
i*1 D
. . . (1.197)
i+1
which becomes
p wD + (q * 0) D p D t p ) Dt * 0 D ) s
Fig. 1.17Example rate history for buildup test.
where p wD(t D) +
+ q D p D t p ) Dt D ) s * q D p D(Dt) D ) s
p i * p wf kh
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.190)
141.2qBm
Eq. 1.189 may be written as
q * q
n
p wD(t D) +
p Dt * t i*1 ) s .
D
i*1 D
. . . . (1.191)
i+1
If we multiply and divide Eq. 1.191 by t * t i*1 D + Dt i ,
qt ** tq
n
p wD(t D) +
p Dt * ti*1D ) s t * ti*1D
i*1 D
i+1
Dq
Dt
n
i*1 D
iD
i+1
p Dt * ti*1D ) s Dti.
Dq
Dt
n
Dt i0
iD
i+1
+ q Dp D t p ) Dt D * p D(Dt) D . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.198)
A buildup test is generally run for a short time, so transient flow is
expected. Therefore, we use the transientradialflow (linesource)
solution for the required constantrate solutions.
p D(t D) + * 1 Ei
2
Therefore (at the wellbore where rD +1),
. . . (1.193)
* t) ) s]dt.
We substitute Eqs. 1.199 and 1.200 into Eq. 1.198 to obtain
. . . . . . . . (1.194)
*1
p wD + q D * 1 Ei
* * 1 Ei * 1
2
2
4(Dt D)
4 t p ) Dt D
tD
. . . . . . . . . . . (1.199)
and p D(Dt D) + * 1 Ei * 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.200)
2
4(Dt D)
p Dt * t i*1D ) s Dti .
dqdt(t) [p (t
. . . . . . . (1.192)
In the limit, the summation becomes an integral, and the D terms
become differentials. Also, we let t be a dummy variable of integration, corresponding to the ti*1 term. Then we obtain
p wD(t D) +
* r 2D
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.146)
4t D
*1
p D t p ) Dt D + * 1 Ei
2
4 t p ) Dt D
Taking limits of Eq. 1.192 as Dt i 0,
p wD(t D) + lim
) (0 * q) D p Dt p ) Dt * t p D ) s
qD
2
Ei
* 1 * Ei
*1
4(Dt D)
4 t p ) Dt D
. . . . (1.201)
FUNDAMENTALS OF FLUID FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
21
70.6 q B
kh
D.p
J.l
[I (,1688
n
<I> J.l cr
Constant Rate Solution
r;) 2] /
kt
Constant Rate
Solution
log (D.p)
log (D.p)
Observed Variable Rate Pressure Data
(Distorted by Wellbore Storage)
Observed Variable Rate Pressure Data
(Distorted by Wellbore Storage)
log(t)
log(t)
Fig. 1.18Effect of wellbore storage (variable rate) on pressure
profile.
Recall the log approximation for the Ei function,
Ei(  x) In(1.781x). Substituting this into Eq. 1 .20 1 gives
=
We know that In(a)  In(b)
In(a/b); therefore, Eq. 1.20 2 becomes
Fig. 1.19Effect of deconvolution on variablerate pressure pro
file.
 Pi
1 6 2.6qB,u
log
kh
[ ]
( tl'
f').t )
f').t
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 1.209)
This equation models a pressurebuildup test and forms the basis
for some testanalysis techniques. An important characteristic of
this relation is that a plot of Pws (pressure recorded during the build
up test) vs. the logarithm of the function [() + f').t)/f').t] should be a
straight line with a slope inversely proportional to the formation
permeability. We discuss pressurebuildup analysis in more detail
in Chap. 2.
1.8 Deconvolution
We recall the definitions of the following dimensionless variables,
=
Pwo
where Pws
qo
kh (P i  Pws)
1 41.2qB,u '
=
because qO
f').f o =
shutin BHP, and
=
:0
( 1.204)
( 1.205)
flow rate just before shutin
0.000 2 63 71'1.t
2
,uctrw
q.
.
. . . . . . . . ( 1.20 6)
. . . . . . . . . . . ( 1.20 7)
Substitute Eqs. 1.204 through 1 .20 7 into Eq. 1 .203 to obtain
Pi
,uctrv
0.000 2 63 7kf').f
Pws 
Pws  Pi
)}
70.6qB,u
In
kh
70.6qB,u
kh
In
22
We can describe discrete
changes in rate with superposition in time; however, if the rate is
changing smoothly (as a function of time), we can use ratenormal
ization methods.1214 These methods group together the variables
dependent on time; for example, the constantrate, infiniteacting
reservoir solution is given by
1.8.1 RateNormalization Methods.
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
( fp
f').t )
f').t
( tp
f').t )
f').t
. . . . . . . . . . . . ( 1.208)
We know that In(x) = 2.303 log(x), therefore Eq. 1.208 becomes
Pws  Pi
With superposition (discussed in Sec. 1.7), we can calculate the vari
ablerate solution from a known constantrate solution. There are
times when we know the variablerate pressure response and wish to
calculate a constantrate pressure profile. This is especially useful
when wellbore storage distorts pressure data; wellbore storage causes
variable sandface rates, and thus a variablerate pressure profile. For
example, if wellbore storage distorts flow data from an infiniteacting
well, the pressures measured at the sandface would not match the infi
niteacting solution derived for constant rate. Fig. 1.18 shows this.
To analyze pressure data distorted by wellbore storage, we would
have to use solutions that incorporate wellborestorage effects.
There have been solutions developed with wellbore storage as an in
nerboundary condition for many reservoir models; however, we
must know what the reservoir model is to use these solutions. If we
could calculate a constantrate pressure profile from the wellbore
storage distorted data, we could eliminate the wellborestorage ef
fects and have a solution that would indicate the reservoir model,
rather than requiring a priori knowledge of the model.
Deconvolution is a technique that can be used to remove the ef
fects of wellbore storage from the measured pressure profile. In this
section, we discuss some simple methods of deconvolution in rate
normalization 1214 and Laplace transform deconvolution.1518 Fig.
1.19 illustrates the effects of deconvolution.
70.6( 2.303)qB,u
log
kh
( t"
f').t )
f').t
up(t)
70.6qB,u
kh
[(
[ .(
.
EI
 948,uCtrv
kt
2s . . . . . ( 1.210)
 2s . . . . (1 .211 )
For variable rates, this equation becomes
A ( )
upt
70.6q(t)B,u
kh
El
 948,uCtr
kt
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
Grouping together functions of time on the left side of the equation,
we have a ratenormalized pressure term that can be used in pressure
transient analysis (as described in Chap. 2).
I1p(t)
q(t)
70. 68#
kh
[(
.
EI
 94S1>Wlr
kt
 2
..... (1.21 2)
Kuchuk and Ayestaran15
presented the idea of deconvolution by use of Laplace transforma
tions to convert the convolution integral into a form that could be
solved algebraically for the constantrate pressure profile. To use this
method, they needed to express the sandface flow rate and/or vari
ablerate pressure profile as approximation functions. On the basis of
ideas of van Everdingenl6 and Hurst, 17 the authors developed an ex
ponential series model to fit the flow rate data. Use of this method is
limited when the rate profile is not represented accurately by the ex
ponential series model. The use of a numericalinversion routine is
another disadvantage because of inherent instability. Other authors,
including Blasingame et al., 18 have introduced more stable Laplace
transform methods by use of different approximations to fit the mea
sured data functions. These methods are again limited by the choice
of the functions that fit the measured pressure data and sandface rates.
In this section, we present a general development of Laplace
transform deconvolution 15 and show how to represent the rate func
tion so that a direct inversion from Laplace space exists.
In Sec. 1. 7.1 , we developed the convolution integral
1.8.2 Laplace Transform Deconvolution.
'0
f dqo(r)
cJT[Pso(to
(1.21 7)
Because flow rate is zero at initial time, we have
I1p,/U)
Ref. 1 4 gives a more complete discussion of this equation, includ
ing its limitations.
Pwo(to)
Therefore, taking Laplace transforms of Eq. 1.213 by use of Duha
mel's theorem gives
 r) + sldr. ........ (1.19 6)
11
Pif
I1p s /t  r)dr , ................ (1.213)
where I1pw= measured pressure drop during test, qO = reference
rate, q(r) = sandface flow rate, and I1psf = constantrate pressure be
havior of the reservoir at the sandface (i.e. , the pressure data that
would have been obtained from a constantrate flow test if wellbore
storage had not distorted the test data).
Looking at Eq. 1.21 3, we have a problem with direct calculation
of I1psf because it is "locked" inside the integral. We can use a tech
nique that we used to develop many of the solutions to the diffusivity
equation presented in this chapterLaplace transforms.
We need to use a theorem that will allow us to take Laplace trans
forms of Eg. 1.21 3. This is Duhamel's theorem,2 which states
{j
!(') g  ')<I'
ljt(t) jl,[g(t) ],
"
"
"
"
'
"
(1.21 4)
Our equation, however, is in the form
I
!'(r)g(t
 r)dr.
........................... (1.21 5)
We need to use the property of Laplace transforms, which relates the
transform of the derivative of a function, [f' (t)], to the transform
of the function,]l:u):
[f'(t)]
uj(u)
 f (t = 0)..................... (1.21 6)
FUNDAMENTALS OF FLUID FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
11
PIV
u{jo'
................................ (1.219)
(1.2 20)
Taking the Laplace transform of Eg. 1.2 20 gives
qo
= Ii 
(3
(3
u(u
(3f
................. (1.2 21 )
We can now substitute Eq. 1.2 21 into Eq. 1.219 and rearrange the
equation to obtain a Laplace transform relationship that has a direct
inversion.
_
f d)
..................... (1.21 S)
We can calculate I1Psf and then invert to "real space" to obtain
I1p sf' This can be done by use of a numericalinversion routine, such
as the Stehfesr7 algorithm, or by choosing functions for I1Psf, I1pw,
and/or qD so that direct inversion is possible. Many different meth
ods have been presented in the literature; we present a simple direct
inversion method in this chapter known as the beta deconvolu
tionlS17 method.
Beta Deconvolution. van Everdingen16 and Hurst17 suggest that
the sandface rate for wellborestoragedominated data may be
approximated by an exponential in the form
I1Pw(t)
u{jo(u)l1ps/u)'
which can be rearranged algebraically as follows to solve for I1ps/
I1ps
With variables with dimensions, Eq. 1.19 6 becomes
1 u(u + (3)
I1p,v
= Ii
(3
_
I1Pw
I1p
lV
'
........................ (1.2 2 2)
Inverting this equation gives
I1ps
1 d
{idi(l1pw)
I1pw . ..................... (1.223)
Eq. 1.2 23 implies that, if we have measured pressuredrop data,
I1pw, that are distorted by wellbore storage and if we can fit the f1ow
rate vs. time data with an exponential function to find (3, we can cal
culate the constantrate pressure drop, I1Psf by use of this relation
ship. Note that we need the derivative of the pressure drop in this
equation; this can be calculated numerically by use of finitediffer
ence methods.
1.9 Chapter Summary
In Sec. 1.2, we presented the partialdifferential equations describ
ing the flow of fluids in porous media for several systems of interest.
These systems include radial flow of a singlephase, slightly com
pressible liquid (Eq. 1.39), radial flow of a singlephase gas (Eq.
1.51 ), and multiphase flow (Eq. 1.65). We presented approximate
linearizations of the singlephase gasflow equation in terms of
pressure (Eq. 1.53), pressure squared (Eq. 1.5S), and pseudopres
sure (Eq. 1. 64). For each of these systems, we arrived at the ap
propriate partialdifferential equation by combining the continuity
equation, an equation of motion, and an EOS. Throughout the sec
tion, we made the following assumptions.
1. Flow is radial.
2. Darcy's law describes the relationship between flow velocity
and pressure gradient.
3. The porous medium is uniform and isotropic.
4. Gravity effects are negligible.
5. Conditions are isothermal.
23
6. Effective penneability is independent of pressure.
To develop Eq. 1.39 for slightly compressible liquids, we further
assumed Points 7 and 8.
7. The fluid has a small, constant compressibility; i.e., the EOS
is given by P = P exP [c(P  P )].
b
b
8. The compressibility/pressuregradient squared product,
2
c(ap/ar) , is negligible.
For gases, Eq. 1.51, we made Assumptions 1 through 6 and added
Assumption 9.
9. The density is given by the real gas law, P = pM/zRT.
Although Eq. 1.51 is rigorous, it is also nonlinear.To take advan
tage of the solution methods available for linear PDE's, we would
like to linearize Eq. 1.51, even at the expense of making more re
strictive assumptions.
10. The term p/fAz is constant with respect to pressure.
Using Assumption 10, we obtain Eq. 1.53, identical to the expres
sion that describes flow of a slightly compressible liquid (Eq. 1.39).
This equation is linear for gases, provided that Assumption 11 fol
lows.
11. The term fACt is constant with pressure.
If instead we assume the following, we obtain Eq. 1.58.
1 2. The term fAz is constant.
Eq. 1.58 has the same fonn as Eq. 1.39, with pressure replaced by
pressure squared. As with Eq. 1.39, this equation is linear provided
that Assumption 11 is true.
By defining the real gas pseudopressure, we obtain Eq. 1.64. This
equation depends on Assumptions 1 through 6 and 9, but not 10 or
1 2. It is linear if Assumption 11 holds.
Finally, for multiphase flow, Assumptions 1 through 6, along with
the following additional assumptions, result in Eq. 1.65.
13. Pressure and saturation gradients are small.
14. Capillary pressure is negligible.
In Sec. 1.3, we turned our attention to a description of the more
common initial and boundary conditions. A single initial condition,
that of uniform pressure at time t = 0, is used throughout this text.
The outerboundary conditions of interest include the following.
1. Infiniteacting reservoir, where the pressure approaches the
initial pressure at distances far from the wellbore for all times.
2. Noflow outer boundary, where the partial derivative of the
pressure with respect to r is zero for r= reo
3. Constantpressure outer boundary, where the pressure is
constant and equal to the initial pressure for all times at some dis
tance re from the well.
Inner boundary conditions of interest include (1) constant sand
face production rate, (2) constantpressure production, (3) wellbore
storage, and (4) skin factor.
In Sec. 1.4, we developed appropriate dimensionless variables for
constantrate production, radial flow. We stated expressions for di
mensionless pressure, dimensionless radius, dimensionless time, di
mensionless wellborestorage coefficient, and skin factor. Using
these dimensionless variables, we wrote the diffusivity equation and
the associated initial and boundary conditions in dimensionless fonn.
We also stated dimensionless variables for radial flow, production
at constant pressure. We stated expressions for dimensionless pres
sure, dimensionless rate, and dimensionless cumulative production.
As with the constantrate case, we wrote the diffusivity equation and
the associated initial and boundary conditions in dimensionless
form by use of these dimensionless variables.
Finally, we stated expressions for dimensionless pressure, dimen
sionless length, and dimensionless time for constantrate produc
tion from a linear system. We stated these expressions first for
the general case, then for a well with a vertical hydraulically in
duced fracture.
In Sec. 1.5, we presented solutions to the diffusivity equation for
several reservoir models, including models (1) with transient radial
flow and constantrate production from a linesource well, (2) with
out skin factor, (3) with both skin factor and wellbore storage, (4)
with pseudosteadystate radial flow and constantrate production
from a cylindricalsource well in a closed reservoir, (5) steadystate
radial flow and constantrate production from a cylindricalsource
well in a reservoir with a constantpressure outer boundary, and (6)
24
transient linear flow and constantrate production from a hydrauli
cally fractured well. We tied these solutions to field applications
through several examples.
In the next three sections, we explored three extremely useful
techniques arising from the linearity of the diffusivity equation: su
perposition in space in Sec. 1.6; superposition in time, or convolu
tion, in Sec. 1.7; and deconvolution in Sec. 1.8.
In Sec. 1.6, we discussed the use of superposition in space.Super
position in space may be used to detennine the pressure drop at any
given point in a multiwell reservoir as a function of time simply by
adding the pressure drops that would result from each well consid
ered independently. In many cases of interest, superposition in
space may be used to develop solutions for a single well in a reser
voir with one or more noflow or constantpressure boundaries by
use of the method of images.
Superposition in time, discussed in Sec. 1.7, may be used to calcu
late the pressure drop for a well where the production rate is a piece
wise constant function of time. By approximating an arbitrary rate
history as a sequence of constant rates and letting the width of each
rate interval go to zero, we obtained an expression for the convolu
tion integral (Eq. 1.196). The convolution integral allows us to cal
culate the pressure as a function of time for an arbitary rate history,
for any reservoir geometry, from the given rate history and the well
bore pressure solution for constantrate production from the same
reservoir geometry.Superposition in time may also be used to model
pressurebuildup tests by considering the test as a tworate problem.
Finally, in Sec. 1.8, we introduced deconvolution, the inverse
problem to that of convolution. In convolution, we use a known
variable rate and a known pressure response to constantrate pro
duction to calculate the (unknown) pressure response to the known
variable rate; in deconvolution, we use a known variable rate and a
known pressure response to that variable rate to infer the (unknown)
pressure response to constantrate production. If this deconvolution
can be perfonned without having to make any assumptions as to the
reservoir model, the resulting constantrate pressure response can
then be used to infer the reservoir model. It can also be analyzed by
use of any pressure transient test analysis methods developed for
constantrate production. This process can be especially useful for
analyzing tests distorted by wellbore storage if the sandface flow
rates can be measured or calculated.
The simplest deconvolution method we discussed was that of rate
normalization, where the pressure change as a function of time is di
vided by the rate, also as a function of time. This method is applica
ble whenever the rate is changing slowly and smoothly.
We also introduced a general class of convolution methods re
ferred to Laplace transfonn deconvolution, along with beta decon
volution, a special case of Laplace transform deconvolution.
1. 10 Discussion Questions
For each of the following variables, state the field units, define the
variable, and discuss how it might be measured or estimated. What
are likely sources of uncertainty in the measurement or estimate of
each quantity?
a. porosity, <p
b. viscosity, fA
c. fonnation net pay thickness, h
d. well radius, rw
e. water saturation, Sw
f. oil saturation, So
g. gas saturation, Sg
h. formation compressibility, q
i. oil compressibility, Co
j. gas compressibility, cg
k. flow rate, q
I. oil formation volume factor, Bo
m. gas formation volume factor, Bg
n. water formation volume factor, s'v
o. time, t
p. pressure, P
q. permeability, k
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
2. Explain Fig. 1.1. In which direction do we assume fluid flows?
What is the flow rate in the q and z directions?
3. On what assumptions is the continuity equation (Eq. 1.18)
based?
4. Why is the differential form of Darcys law (Eq. 1.19) written
in terms of potential F instead of pressure? What is the physical significance of F?
5. On what assumptions is the equation of state (Eq. 1.28) based?
6. What is the major assumption used in writing the diffusivity
equation for gas in terms of pressure (Eq. 1.53)? In what field situations is this assumption reasonable? In what situations is this assumption likely to be violated?
7. What is the major assumption used in writing the diffusivity
equation for gas in terms of pressuresquared (Eq. 1.58)? In what
field situations is this assumption reasonable? In what situations is
this assumption likely to be violated?
8. What is the major assumption used in writing the diffusivity
equation for gas in terms of pseudopressure (Eq. 1.64)? In what field
situations is this assumption reasonable? In what situations is this
assumption likely to be violated?
9. What is the physical significance of the total mobility for a
threephase system (Eq. 1.66)?
10. Explain the significance of each of the terms in the equation
for the total compressibility (Eq. 1.67).
11. Which term in the total compressibility equation (Eq. 1.67) is
most important for an oil reservoir just above the bubble point pressure of 1500 psi, with a water saturation of 15%? For an oil reservoir
just below the bubble point pressure of 1500 psi, with a gas saturation of 5% and a water saturation of 15%? For a low pressure gas
reservoir at 150 psi with a water saturation of 25%? For a geopressured gas reservoir at 12000 psi with a water saturation of 20% and
a formation compressibility of 30 106? Make any assumptions
about fluid properties as reasonable as possible.
12. What are the assumptions used in developing the diffusivity
equation for multiphase flow (Eq. 1.65)? In what field situations are
these assumptions reasonable? In what situations are these assumptions likely to be violated?
13. The diffusivity equation for radial fluid flow in porous media
(Eq. 1.68) is first order in time and second order in space. How many
boundary conditions must we specify in order to solve this equation?
14. We have assumed permeability is isotropic in this chapter.
How would the presence of an anisotropic permeability affect the
pressure response for a vertical well producing at constant rate?
15. Under what field conditions would the assumption of constant
pressure at the gasliquid interface (Eq. 1.91) be valid? Under what
conditions would it not be valid?
16. Under what field conditions would the wellbore storage coefficient for a singlephase fluid (Eq. 1.95) not be constant?
17. Does the presence of a zone of altered permeability affect the
pressure response in the reservoir at some distance from the wellbore for a fixed flow rate q? If the pressure response away from the
wellbore is not affected by the presence of a zone of altered permeability, why do we ever need to remove skin damage or stimulate
a well?
18. Which of the following values appear in the definition of dimensionless pressure for constant rate production (Eq.
1.104)permeability, porosity, net pay thickness, viscosity, formation volume factor, compressibility, flow rate, wellbore radius?
Which appear in the definition of dimensionless time (Eq. 1.107)?
19. The time range of applicability of the line source or Ei function solution is given in Eq. 1.149. What limits the applicability of
the line source solution at early times? How will the solution for a
finite wellbore differ from the line source solution at times before
the line source solution becomes valid? What limits the applicability
of the line source solution at late times? How will the solution for
a closed circular reservoir differ from the line source solution at
times after the line source solution becomes invalid?
20. At very early times, the pressure solution for constant rate production from a finite wellbore is proportional to the square root of
time, as is the solution for constant rate production from a linear system. Explain.
FUNDAMENTALS OF FLUID FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
21. Is wellbore storage the only phenomenon which can cause a
unit slope line on a loglog plot of dimensionless pressure vs. dimensionless time? If not, what other conditions could cause such a unit
slope line?
22. What fundamental property of the partial differential equation
given in Eq. 1.68 allows us to use superposition in space? Superposition in time?
23. Why are there no skin factor terms for Wells B and C in Eq.
1.177, describing the pressure response at Well A due to production
Wells A, B, and C?
24. What is convolution? What does it allow us to do? How is
it applied? Do we need to assume a reservoir model to apply it?
25. What is deconvolution? What does it allow us to do? How
is it applied? Do we need to assume a reservoir model to apply it?
Exercises
1. Write Darcys law in field units for the following conditions.
State any assumptions for each form of Darcys law.
a. General differential form, onedimensional flow. Express flow
rate as volume at standard conditions, q. Assume crosssectional
area A.
b. Slightly compressible liquids, linear flowq in STB/D.
c. Slightly compressible liquids, radial flowq in STB/D.
d. Real gases, linear flowq in Mscf/D.
e. Real gases, radial flowq in Mscf/D.
2. Develop an expression for the general diffusivity equation for
fluid flow in isotropic porous media in Cartesian coordinates in the
xy plane similar to that given in Eq. 1.68 for radial flow.
3. Generalize the expression obtained in the previous exercise to
allow permeability anisotropy, kx 0ky. Show that by using a transformed coordinate system, with x 5 x
kk , and y 5 y kk ,
where k 5 k xk y, the expression for an anisotropic system takes exactly the same form as that for an isotropic system.
4. Show that the units on the right hand side of the definition of
dimensionless pressure for radial flow, constant rate production
(Eq. 1.104) cancel, justifying the name dimensionless pressure.
5. Show that the units on the right hand side of the definition of
dimensionless time for radial flow, constant rate production (Eq.
1.107) cancel, justifying the name dimensionless time.
6. Using material balance for a slightly compressible liquid, find
an expression in field terms for the cumulative production for a
closed circular reservoir of radius re from an initial pressure pi to an
average reservoir pwf . Using the definition of dimensionless cumulative production (Eq. 1.120), convert your expression to dimensionless form in terms of the dimensionless radius rD . What is the
physical interpretation of your result?
7. Show that the reciprocal of the dimensionless rate (Eq. 1.119)
for constant pressure production can be written as
kh
1
q D + 141.2qBm p i * p wf . What is the difference between this expression and the definition of dimensionless pressure (Eq. 1.104)
for constant rate production?
8. Given a reservoir with the following properties:
q+ 250 STB/D
ct + 6.0 106 psi1
m+ 0.75 cp
re + 3000 ft
B+ 1.25 RB/STB
rw + 0.25 ft
k+ 25 md
s+ 5
h+ 60 ft
pi + 3500 psi
f+ 20%
a. Calculate the time at which the Ei function solution first becomes valid.
b. Calculate the time after which the Ei function solution is no
longer valid.
25
c. Calculate and plot the pressure as a function of position on
semilog graph paper at t+100 hours using the Ei function solution (or its logarithmic approximation) for r+0.25 ft, r+1 ft, r+2
ft, r+10 ft, r+20 ft, r+50 ft, r+100 ft, r+200 ft, r+500 ft,
r+1000 ft, r+2000 ft, r+3000 ft. Use the log approximation only
if it is valid.
d. Calculate the additional pressure drop due to the skin factor.
9. Given a reservoir with the following properties:
q+ 200 STB/D
ct + 10.0 106 psi1
m+ 0.75 cp
re + 1000 ft
B+ 1.25 RB/STB
rw + 0.25 ft
k+ 25 md
s+ 3
h+ 50 ft
pi + 3500 psi
f+ 20%
a) Calculate the time at which the Ei function solution first becomes valid.
b) Calculate the time after which the Ei function solution is no
longer valid.
c) Calculate and plot the pressure as a function of position on
semilog graph paper (pressure on linear axis, distance on log axis)
at t+5 hours using the Ei solution (or its logarithmic approximation) for r+0.25, 1, 2, 10, 20, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 400, 500,
750, 1000 ft. Use the log approximation only if it is valid.
d) Calculate the additional pressure drop due to the skin factor.
10. Given a reservoir with the following properties:
q+ 50 STB/D
ct + 10.0 106 psi1
m+ 0.15 cp
re + 1000 ft
B+ 1.25 RB/STB
rw + 0.25 ft
k+ 5 md
s+ 4.5
h+ 20 ft
pi + 2500 psi
f+ 20%
a) Calculate the time at which the Ei function solution first becomes valid.
b) Calculate the time after which the Ei function solution is no
longer valid.
c) Calculate and plot the pressure as a function of position on
semilog graph paper (pressure on linear axis, distance on log axis)
at t+5 hours using the Ei solution (or its log approximation) for
r+0.25, 1, 2, 5,10, 20, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 400, 500, 750,
1000 ft. Use the log approximation only if it is valid.
d) Calculate and plot the pressure as a function of time on semilog
graph paper (pressure on linear axis, time on log axis) at r+10 ft using the Ei solution (or its log approximation) for t+0.0001, 0.0003,
0.001, 0.002,0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.05,0.1, 0.3, 1, 3, 10, 30 hours. Use
the log approximation only if it is valid.
e) Calculate the additional pressure drop due to the skin factor.
11. Given a reservoir with the following properties:
q+ 225 STB/D
ct + 7.5 106 psi1
m+ 0.63 cp
A+ 640 acres
B+ 1.25 RB/STB
rw + 0.33 ft
k+ 20 md
s+ 4.5
h+ 63 ft
pi + 3330 psi
f+ 18%
Estimate 1) the time at which the Ei solution becomes invalid because of boundary effects; and 2) the time at which the pseudosteady
state solution becomes valid for each of the following cases.
26
a) square reservoir with well from nearest side;
b) right triangular reservoir with well at centroid;
c) 4 1 rectangle with well in the center.
For each case, assume that the Ei solution is valid until the radius
of investigation reaches the nearest boundary for the given shape,
and that the pseudosteady state solution becomes valid after the
radius of investigation has passed the farthest point from the well
for the given shape. In a later chapter, we will consider another,
more accurate method for estimating time at which boundary effects become important and the time required to reach pseudosteady
state flow.
12. Show that the dimensionless pressure for pseudosteady state
flow (Eq. 1.159) falls on a unit slope line when plotted vs. dimensionless time.
13. Calculate the time required to reach pseudosteady state for a
well in the center of a circular, 640 acre reservoir under each of the
following situations. Express your answers in hours, as well as in either days, months, or years, whichever is most appropriate. For each
case, take h+75 feet, rw +0.25 feet, and cf +3.0 106 psia1.
a. Undersaturated oil. p+4000 psia, T+200 _F, go +38 _API,
mo +0.46 cp, So +1, co +1.28 105 psia1, f+25%, k+350 md.
b. High pressure gas. p+12000 psia, T+350 _F, gg +0.67,
mg +0.03636 cp, Sg +1, cg +3.74 105 psia1, f+7%, k+0.01
md.
c. Low pressure gas. p+600 psia, T+110 _F, gg +0.72,
mg +0.01167 cp, Sg +1, cg +1.83 103 psia1, f+15%, k+10
md.
d. Saturated oil. p+2500 psia, T+225 _F, go +45 _API,
mo +0.36 cp, So +60%, co +1.8 104 psia1, Sg +25%,
cg +3.92 104 psia1, Sw +15%, cw +4 106 psia1, f+21%,
k+100 md. Calculate ct using the equation ct +cf )
So co )Sw cw )Sg cg . Assume that oil is the only mobile phase.
14. High Hopes Operating, Inc. has just completed the discovery
well in the Yellow Sandstone formation. There are three phases
present in the formation, but oil is the only mobile phase. The following formation, well, and fluid properties apply:
depth+ 4356 ft
pi + 950 psia
f+ 12%
go + 32.5 API
Sw + 18%
Sg + 16%
So + 66%
mo + 1.17 cp
Rso + 226 scf/STB
s+ 0
h+ 22 ft
rw + 9 in.
k+ 35.5 md
gg + 0.893 (air+1.0)
cw + 2.6 105 psi1
cg + 1.188 103 psi1
co + 4.23 104 psi1
cf + 5 106 psi1
Bo + 1.146 RB/STB
q+ 165 STB/D
Calculate:
A. The total compressibility ct.
B. The time at which the Ei function solution first becomes valid.
C. The pressure at the wellbore after the well has been producing
for 1 hour.
D. The pressure 10 ft from the center of the wellbore after 1 hour.
E. The pressure 100 ft from the center of the wellbore after 1 hour.
15. A well is located in the center of 640 acre circular drainage
area. The formation, fluid, and well properties are:
q+ 606 STB/D
ct + 18.0 106 psi1
m+ 0.306 cp
A+ 640 acres
B+ 1.593 RB/STB
rw + 0.25 ft
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
k+ 17.5 md
s+ 12
h+ 103 ft
pi + 4250 psi
f+ 12%
Tf + 275F
Calculate:
A. The additional pressure drop Dps due to the skin factor.
B. The pressure at the wellbore pwf when the average reservoir
pressure p is 4100 psia.
C. The flow rate q which would be obtained for a drawdown
p*pwf of 500 psia if an acid job were performed, changing the skin
factor s from 12 to *2.
16. There are two wells in a formation, Well A and Well B. We are
interested at the pressure at a third location in the formation, Point
C. Some additional information:
k+ 50 md
Bo + 1.345 RB/STB
f+ 0.18
mo + 0.256 cp
h+ 22 ft
cw + 21 106 psi1
qA + 1240 STB/D
tA + 4 hours
rAC + 660 ft
sA + 0
qB + 1240 STB/D
tB + 16 hours
rBC + 1320 ft
sB + 5
a. Calculate the pressure drop DpAC at Point C due to Well A, a
distance 660 feet away from Point C. Well A has been producing at
1240 STB/D for 4 hours.
b. Calculate the pressure drop DpBC at Point C due to Well B, a
distance 1320 feet away from Point C. Well B has been producing
at 1240 STB/D for 16 hours.
c. Calculate the pressure pC at Point C due to the combined influence of Wells A and B, if the initial reservoir pressure is 2776 psi.
17. Three exploration wells have been drilled into a newly discovered oil reservoir. Well B is 1400 ft from Well A, Well C is 2200 ft
from Well A, and Well C is 3000 ft from Well B.
Well A is an observation well (it has a pressure gauge in the hole
to measure the pressure response due to production from wells B
and C, but is not itself used for production). Well C begins producing
at 200 STB/D at time t+0. Well B begins producing at 100 STB/D
48 hours later.
Reservoir data:
mo + 0.27 cp
ct + 1.8 105 psi1
Bo + 1.23 RB/STB
pi + 2727 psi
k+ 42 md
f+ 22%
h+ 7.5 ft
Well data:
Well A
Well B
Well C
observation well
200 STB/D 200 STB/D
Rate, q
0.33 ft
0.25 ft
0.375 ft
Radius, rw
Skin factor, s
5.0
7.5
*1.5
FUNDAMENTALS OF FLUID FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
a) Calculate the pressure drop at Well A due to production from
Well B at time t+144 hrs.
b) Calculate the pressure drop at Well A due to production from
Well C at time t+144 hrs.
c) Calculate the pressure drop at Well A due to its own skin factor
at time t+144 hrs.
d) Calculate the pressure at Well A at time t+144 hrs.
18. Given a well in an infiniteacting reservoir, having the following properties:
m+ 0.72 cp
ct + 1.5 105 psi1
B+ 1.475 RB/STB
rw + 0.5 ft
k+ 10 md
s+ 5
h+ 150 ft
pi + 3500 psi
f+ 23%
q+ 1000 STB/D
The well produces for 1000 hours at 1000 STB/D. There is a linear, noflow boundary 75 feet away from the well. Calculate and
plot the pressure at the wellbore as a function of t on semilog graph
paper (put time on the logarithmic axis) using superposition in space
and the Ei solution (or its logarithmic approximation) for t+0.1,
0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, and 1000 hours.
19. Given a well in an infiniteacting reservoir, having the following properties:
m+ 0.6 cp
ct + 1.8 105 psi1
B+ 1.35 RB/STB
rw + 0.5 ft
k+ 12 md
s+ 5
h+ 150 ft
pi + 3750 psi
f+ 21%
q+ 800 STB/D
The well produces for 1000 hours at 800 STB/D. There is a linear,
noflow boundary 100 feet away from the well. Calculate and plot
the pressure at the wellbore as a function of t on semilog graph paper
(put time on the logarithmic axis) using superposition in space and
the Ei solution (or its logarithmic approximation) for t+0.1, 0.2,
0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, and 1000 hours.
20. Given a well in an infiniteacting reservoir, having the following properties:
m+ 0.7 cp
ct + 2 105 psi1
B+ 1.13 RB/STB
rw + 0.333 ft
k+ 7.5 md
s+ 3
h+ 25 ft
pi + 3000 psi
f+ 20%
q+ 100 STB/D
The well produces for 1000 hours at 100 STB/D. There is a linear,
noflow boundary 90 feet away from the well. Calculate and plot the
pressure at the wellbore as a function of t on semilog graph paper
(put time on the logarithmic axis) using superposition in space and
the Ei solution (or its logarithmic approximation) for t+0.1, 0.2,
0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 100, 200, 500, and 1000 hours.
21. Given a well in an infiniteacting reservoir, having the following properties:
m+ 0.72 cp
ct + 1.5 105 psi1
B+ 1.475 RB/STB
rw + 0.5 ft
k+ 10 md
s+ *3
h+ 150 ft
pi + 3500 psi
27
f+ 20%
q1+ 1000 STB/D
q2+ 0 STB/D
t1+ 1000 hours
t2+ 1010 hours
The well produces for 1000 hours at 1000 STB/D, and is then
shutin. Calculate and plot the pressure at t+1010 hours as a
function of r on semilog graph paper (put r on the logarithmic axis)
using superposition in time and the Ei solution (or its logarithmic
approximation) for r+0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000,
and 2000 feet.
22. Given a well in an infiniteacting reservoir, having the following properties:
m+ 0.6 cp
ct + 1.8 105 psi1
B+ 1.35 RB/STB
rw + 0.5 ft
k+ 12 md
s+ 5
h+ 150 ft
pi + 3750 psi
f+ 21%
q1+ 800 STB/D
q2+ 0 STB/D
t1+ 1000 hours
t2+ 1010 hours
The well produces for 1000 hours at 800 STB/D, and is then
shutin. Calculate and plot the pressure at t+1010 hours as a
function of r on semilog graph paper (put r on the logarithmic axis)
using superposition in time and the Ei solution (or its logarithmic
approximation) for r+0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000,
and 2000 feet.
23. Given a well in an infiniteacting reservoir, having the following properties:
m+ 0.7 cp
ct + 2 105 psi1
B+ 1.13 RB/STB
rw + 0.333 ft
k+ 7.5 md
s+ 3
h+ 25 ft
pi + 3000 psi
f+ 20%
q1+ 100 STB/D
q2+ 0 STB/D
t1+ 1000 hours
t2+ 1010 hours
The well produces for 1000 hours at 100 STB/D, and is then shutin. Calculate and plot the pressure at t+1010 hours as a function of
r on semilog graph paper (put r on the logarithmic axis) using
superposition in time and the Ei solution (or its logarithmic approxi
28
mation) for r+0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 2000, and
10000 feet.
24. Show that the equation for superposition in time (Eq. 1.189)
may be rewritten so that all of the terms involving skin cancel each
other except the one involving the last flow rate qn , giving
q * q
n
p wD(t D) +
i*1 Dp D
t * t i*1 ) q ns.
D
i+1
References
1. AlHussainy, R., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Crawford, P.B.: The Flow of
Real Gases Through Porous Media, JPT (May 1966) 637; Trans.,
AIME, 237.
2. ONeil, P.V.: Advanced Engineering Mathematics, second edition,
Wadsworth Publishing Co., Belmont, California (1987).
3. Martin, J.C.: The Simultaneous Equations of Flow in Gas Drive Reservoirs and the Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase Pressure Buildup
Analyses, Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 309.
4. Hawkins, M.F. Jr.: A Note on The Skin Effect, Trans., AIME (1956)
207, 356.
5. Lee, W.J. et al.: Fundamentals of Fluid Flow Through Porous Media,
Texas A&M U., College Station, Texas (1991), Chap. 1, Appendix.
6. Dake, L.P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., New York City, New York (1978).
7. Stehfest, H.: Numerical Inversion of Laplace Transforms, Communications ACM (January 1970) 13, No. 1, Algorithm 368.
8. Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I.E.: Handbook of Mathematical Functions, Dover Publications Inc., New York City, New York (1972).
9. Hurst, W.: Unsteady Flow of Fluids, Physics (January 1934).
10. Agarwal, R.G., AlHussainy, R., and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: An Investigation
of Wellbore Storage and Skin Effects in Unsteady Liquid Flow: I. Analytical Treatment, SPEJ (September 1970) 278.
11. Matthews, C.S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek, P.: A Method for the Determination of Average Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir, Trans., AIME,
201, 182.
12. Gladfelter, R.E., Tracy, G.W., and Wilsey, L.E.: Selecting Wells
Which Will Respond to ProductionStimulation Treatment, Drill. &
Prod. Prac. (1955) 117.
13. Kuchuk, F.J.: Gladfelter Deconvolution, SPEFE (September 1990)
285.
14. Winestock, A.G. and Colpitts, G.P.: Advances in Estimating Gas Well
Deliverability, JCPT (JulySeptember 1965) 111.
15. Kucuk, F. and Ayestaran, L.: Analysis of Simultaneously Measured
Pressure and Sandface Flow Rate in Transient Well Testing, JPT (February 1985) 323.
16. van Everdingen, A.F.: The Skin Effect and Its Influence on the Productive Capacity of a Well, JPT (June 1953) 171; Trans., AIME, 198.
17. Hurst, W.: Establishment of the Skin Effect and Its Impediment to
Fluid Flow into a Wellbore, Pet. Eng. (October 1953) B6.
18. Blasingame, T.A. et al.: The Analysis of Gas Well Test Data Distorted
by Wellbore Storage Using an Explicit Deconvolution Method, paper
SPE 19099 presented at the 1989 SPE Gas Technology Symposium,
Dallas, 79 June.
19. Carslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J.C.: Conduction of Heat in Solids, second
edition, Oxford U. Press, Oxford, U.K. (1959).
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
Chapter 2
Introduction to Flow and BuildupTest
Analysis: Slightly Compressible Fluids
.................... (2.2 )
2.1 Overview
This chapter presents the underlying theory and practical applications
of pressure transient testing of wells completed in reservoirs produc
ing slightly compressible fluids (i.e., liquids). Beginning with the
linesource (Eifunction) solution to the diffusivity equation, we de
velop analysis techniques for flow and buildup tests in homogeneous
acting reservoirs. We then discuss deviations from the ideal pressure
The following sections discuss analysis of flow or drawdown well
tests. We begin with an analysis technique for a constantrate flow
test. In practice, however, a strictly constant rate is impractical or even
impossible to maintain. A more common and probable testing scenar
io is variablerate production. Consequently, we also discuss continu
behavior predicted by the linesource solution. These deviations are
ously declining rate drawdown tests and multirate tests in infiniteact
caused by nearwellbore effects and heterogeneities in the drainage
ing reservoirs. Sec.
2.5 addresses
flow tests in finite reservoirs.
area of the tested well. Initially, we develop analysis techniques for
singlephaseflow conditions; then, we present a modification for
2.2.1 ConstantRate Flow Tests. Eq. 2.2 describes the pressure
multiphase flow. Application of all analysis techniques presented in
drop at the wellbore as a function of time when a well is produced
this chapter is limited to singlelayer formations.
at a constant rate. Comparing Eq.
line, y
mx
2.2
with the equation of a straight
+ b, suggests an analysis technique in which the follow
1
ing terms are analogous ,2:
2.2 Analysis of Flow Tests
A flow or pressuredrawdown test is conducted by producing a well
at a known rate or rates while measuring changes in bottomhole
Y  Pwf'
pressure (BHP ) as a function of time. Drawdown tests are designed
primarily to quantify the reservoirflow characteristics, including
log
(2.3a)
t, ................................... (2.3b)
permeability and skin factor. In addition, when the pressure tran
sient is affected by outer reservoir boundaries, drawdown tests can
be used to establish the outer limits of the reservoir and to estimate
m  (162.6qB,u/kh), ........................... (2.3c)
the hydrocarbon volume in the well's drainage area. These flow
tests are called reservoirlimit tests. W hen economic considerations
require a minimum loss of production time, pressuredrawdown
and b
tests also can be used to estimate the deliverability of a well and, if
 Pi
162.6qB,u
kh
[ ( )
k
.y,uc,rlV
log
 3.2 3 + O.869s
conducted and analyzed properly, are viable alternatives to deliver
ability tests.
.................... (2.3d)
The basis of flowtest analysis techniques is the linesource (Ei
1 (Eq. 1.151)
These analogies indicate that, if the pressure behavior of a reservoir
shows, the relationship between flowing BHP, Pwf, and the formation
can be modeled with the linesource solution, a plot of Pwf vs. log
function) solution to the diffusivity equation. As Chap.
and well characteristics for a well producing at a constant rate is
Pwf
Pi +
70'ZB,u [ (
In 1,
688</>,uc,rv!kt  2s
J.
.... (2.1)
If we change from natural logarithms to baselO logarithms and
2.1 in a more familiar form, 1,2
simplify, we can rewrite Eq.
Pwf
Pi  (i62.6qB,u/kh)
twill form a straight line from which the slope, m, allows us to esti
k, and skin factor, s. Fig. 2.1 is an ex
mate formation permeability,
ample semilog graph of constantrate flowtest data. The slope of
the line is the difference between two pressures, PWfl and PwJ2, one
log cycle apart, or
PwJ2 PWfl in psi/cycle. Note that the slope
is a negative number; however, in the working equation that follows,
we use the absolute value of
m for
convenience.
For singlephase flow, the effective permeability to the fluid flow
ing in the drainage area of the well is computed from
162.6qB,u/mh.
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW AND BUILDUP TEST ANALYSISSLIGHTLY COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
(2.4)
29
Flowing BHP, psia
TABLE 2.1PRESSUREDRAWDOWNTEST DATA FOR
EXAMPLE 2.1
Fig. 2.1Graphical analysis technique for constantrate flow
test data.
Combining Eqs. 2.2 and 2.4, we can also develop an expression for
the skin factor.
s + 1.151
p * p
i
wf
* logktfmc t r 2w ) 3.23
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.5)
For convenience, we set the flow time, t, equal to 1 hour and use the
symbol p1hr for the flowing BHP, pwf , at this time. Substituting these
into Eq. 2.5 yields
t
(hours)
pwf
(psia)
t
(hours)
pwf
(psia)
0
0.12
1.94
2.79
4.01
4.82
5.78
6.94
8.32
9.99
4,412
3,717
3,633
3,622
3,611
3,605
3,600
3,594
3,588
3,583
14.4
17.3
20.7
24.9
29.8
35.8
43.0
51.5
61.8
74.2
3,573
3,567
3,561
3,555
3,549
3,544
3,537
3,532
3,526
3,521
where, by convention, we use the absolute value of the slope.
2. Effective permeability to oil is estimated by use of Eq. 2.4 and
the absolute value of the slope, m, of the line,
k+
162.6qBm
(162.6)(250)(1.136)(0.8)
+
+ 7.6 md.
(70)(69)
mh
3. Noting in Fig. 2.2 that p1hr+3,652 psi, we calculate the skin
factor with Eq. 2.6,
s + 1.151 p i * p 1hrm * logkfmc t r 2w ) 3.23
+ 1.151
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.6)
Example 2.1Determining Permeability and Skin Factor
From a ConstantRate Flow Test. The data summarized here and
in Table 2.1 were recorded during a pressuredrawdown test from
an oil well. Estimate the effective permeability to oil and the skin
factor by use of the graphicalanalysis technique for a constantrate
flow test.
q+
h+
f+
B+
pi +
ct +
rw +
m+
250 STB/D
69 ft
0.039
1.136 RB/STB
4,412 psia
17 106 psi1
0.198 ft
0.8 cp
Solution.
1. Plot flowing BHP, pwf , as a function of time on semilog paper
(Fig. 2.2). The slope, m, of the resulting straight line is the difference
between values of pwf one log cycle apart, or
m+
p wf 2 * p wf 1
+ 70 psicycle,
30
logt 2 * logt 1
3, 582 psia * 3, 652 psia
log(10) * log(1)
* log
(4, 412 * 3, 652)70
7.6
) 3.23
2
(0.039)(0.8)(17 10 *6)(0.198)
+ 6.4.
As we discuss in Sec. 2.4, a positive value of skin factor indicates
a flow restriction (i.e., damage) around the wellbore.
2.2.2 VariableRate Testing With Smoothly Changing Rates.
The linesource solution given by Eq. 2.2 assumes that rate does not
vary with time; however, in many testing situations, a strictly
constant producing rate is impractical, or even impossible, to maintain. If rate varies during the flow test, results obtained by use of the
technique based on constant flow rate can lead to interpretations that
are seriously in error. Winestock and Colpitts3 show that, even when
Flowing BHP, Pwf (Psia)
Note that the pressure p1hr necessarily lies either on the semilog
straight line or its extrapolation.
In summary, we can estimate effective permeability, k, to the fluid
flowing in the drainage area of the well and the skin factor, s, from
the theoretical straight line on a semilog plot of drawdown test data.
This graphicalanalysis technique assumes, however, that the pressure behavior can be modeled accurately with the Eifunction solution for constantrate flow of a singlephase fluid. In subsequent
sections, we discuss phenomena that cause the pressure response to
deviate from a straight line.
s + 1.151 p i * p 1hrm * logkfmc t r 2w ) 3.23 .
Fig. 2.2Graphical analysis of time and pressure data from a
constantrate flow test, Example 2.1.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
both pwf and q vary with time, the following equation can be used
to model variablerate tests as long as the rate is changing slowly
and smoothly.
p i * p wf
162.6mB
kt
+
log
* 3.23 ) 0.869s .
q
kh
fmc t r 2w
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.7)
When compared with the equation of a straight line, y+mx)b, the
form of Eq. 2.6 suggests that we plot (pi *pwf )/q vs. t on semilog paper and calculate the slope, m, in psi/STBDcycle, of the straight
line. Gladfelter et al.4 and Ramey5 earlier suggested the same analysis technique, but for a different application. Effective permeability
is calculated by use of the slope of the line from the semilog plot,
k + 162.6Bmmh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.8)
An equation for the skin factor, s, is obtained by combining Eqs. 2.7
and 2.8,
s + 1.151
1 p i * p wf
q
m
* log
1hr
k
) 3.23 ,
fmc t r 2w
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.9)
where [(pi pwf )/q]1hr is the value of this quantity on the straight line
or its extrapolation at a flowing time of 1 hour.
Note that this analysis technique is applicable only if the producing rate is changing slowly and smoothly. Abrupt rate changes will
make the drawdowntest data impossible to interpret accurately
with either the constantrate method discussed earlier or the method
Winestock and Colpitts3 propose. In the next section, we develop an
analysis technique for flow tests with discrete rate changes.
Example 2.2Analysis of a Flow Test With Smoothly Varying
Rates. Analyze the drawdowntest data given in Table 2.2 with
those of Winestock and Colpitts3 variablerate method. Known
well and formation data are summarized here. Determine the formation permeability and skin factor.
m+
h+
pi +
B+
f+
ct +
rw +
t
(hours)
pwf
(psia)
q
(STB/D)
t
(hours)
pwf
(psia)
q
(STB/D)
8.32
9.99
14.4
20.7
29.8
43.0
61.8
3,927
3,928
3,931
3,934
3,937
3,941
3,944
147
145
143
140
137
134
132
74.2
89.1
107.0
128.0
154.0
185.9
3,946
3,948
3,950
3,952
3,954
3,956
130
129
127
126
125
123
TABLE 2.3PLOTTING FUNCTIONS FOR VARIABLERATE
DRAWDOWNTEST ANALYSIS, EXAMPLE 2.2
t
(hours)
(pi *pwf )/q
(psi/STBD)
t
(hours)
(pi *pwf )/q
(psi/STBD)
8.32
9.99
14.4
20.7
29.8
43.0
61.8
3.30
3.34
3.36
3.41
3.47
3.52
3.55
74.2
89.1
107.0
128.0
154.0
185.9
3.59
3.60
3.64
3.65
3.66
3.71
s + 1.151
+ 1.151
* log
1 p i * p wf
q
m
* log
1hr
k
) 3.23
fmc t r 2w
1 (3.0)
0.29
7.4
) 3.23
2
(0.039)(0.8)(17 10 *6)(0.198)
+ 5.8.
0.8 cp
69 ft
4,412 psia
1.136 RB/STB
0.039
17.0 106 psi1
0.198 ft
Again, a positive skin factor indicates a reduction in permeability
near the wellbore.
Solution.
1. Calculate the pressure plotting functions for each flowing time.
Table 2.3 summarizes these functions, and Fig. 2.3 shows their plots.
2. Calculate the slope of the line drawn through the data.
m +
TABLE 2.2VARIABLERATE DRAWDOWNTEST DATA,
EXAMPLE 2.2
2.2.3 Flow Tests With Discrete Rate Changes. Consider a well
with n rate changes during its production history (Fig. 2.4). Our objective is to determine the wellbore pressure of a well producing
with this schedule. We use superposition in time (see Sec. 1.7) of the
p * p q * p * p q
i
wf 2
wf 1
logt 2 * logt 1
3.62 psiSTBD * 3.33 psiSTBD
log(100) * log(10)
+ 0.29 psiSTBDcycle.
3. The permeability is calculated from the slope and with Eq. 2.8,
k+
162.6Bm
(162.6)(1.136)(0.8)
+
+ 7.4 md.
(0.29)(69)
mh
4. The skin factor is estimated by use of Eq. 2.9, where the pressure function evaluated at t+1 hour is 3.0 (Fig. 2.3).
Fig. 2.3Variablerate drawdown test analysis by use of the
Winestock and Colpitts3 method, Example 2.2.
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW AND BUILDUP TEST ANALYSISSLIGHTLY COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
31
Fig. 2.4Rate history for a multirate test.
logarithmic approximation to the Eifunction solution. To simplify
the algebra, we write the solution given by Eq. 2.2 in the form
p i * p wf + mq[log(t) ) s] , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.10a)
where m + 162.6Bmkh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.10b)
and s + logkfmc t r 2w * 3.23 ) 0.869s. . . . . . . . . . . . (2.10c)
With this nomenclature for n rates and for tutn*1, superposition in
time yields
Fig. 2.5Rate history for a tworate flow test.
If we rearrange and introduce a special nomenclature, t1+tp1 and
t*tp1+Dt, then Eq. 2.14 becomes
p wf + p i *
p i * p wf + mq 1[log(t) ) s] ) mq 2 * q 1logt * t 1 ) s
*
) mq 3 * q 2logt * t 2 ) s ) . . .
162.6q 2 Bm
k
log
* 3.23 ) 0.869s
kh
fmc tr 2w
p i * p wf
+ m
qn
j+1
q j * q j*1
qn
logt * t j*1
) ms,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.12a)
for q n 0 0,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.12b)
where we define qo +0 and to +0. In terms of more fundamental
quantities, Eq. 2.12 can be written as
p i * p wf
+ m
qn
j+1
q j * q j*1
qn
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.15)
. . . (2.13)
Eq. 2.13 can be used to model several special cases of practical importance. The form of Eq. 2.13 before dividing by qn can be used to
model pressurebuildup tests that we discuss in Sec. 2.3. We should
emphasize, however, that Eq. 2.13 was developed assuming an infiniteacting reservoir for the total time elapsed since the well began
producing. Consequently, Eq. 2.13 is not valid when reservoir
boundaries affect the pressure response at any time during the producing period.
TwoRate Flow Tests. For the production history shown in Fig. 2.5,
a tworate test can be modeled by6
162.6q 2Bm
kh
q1
q2 * q1
logt * t 1
q 2 log(t) )
q2
) logkfmc tr 2w * 3.23 ) 0.869s. . . . . . . (2.14)
32
The tworate test can be used when estimates of permeability, skin
factor, or reservoir pressure are needed and economic considerations preclude the well from being shut in (i.e., pressurebuildup
tests discussed in Sec. 2.3). Note that, for the tworate test to be valid, the second rate must be kept strictly constant or the test interpretation may be substantially in error. In addition, Eq. 2.15 is correct only when the reservoir is infiniteacting for the elapsed time
tp1)Dt.
We recommend the following method of analysis for tworate
flow tests.
1. Plot flowing BHP vs. the timeplotting function; i.e.,
q
p wf vs. log t p1 ) Dt Dt ) q 2 log(Dt) , . . . . . (2.16)
1
logt * t j*1
) mlogkfmc tr 2w * 3.23 ) 0.869s .
p i * p wf +
t p1 ) Dt
q
162.6q 1Bm
log
) q 2 log(Dt) .
1
kh
Dt
. . . ) mq n * q n*1logt * t n*1 ) s , . . . . . . . (2.11)
which can be written more conveniently as
on Cartesian coordinate paper.
2. Determine the slope, m, from the straight line on the plot and
use it to calculate permeability, k, from
k + 162.6q 1Bmmh.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.17)
3. Calculate the skin factor, s, from
s + 1.151
p 1hr * p wf1
q1
k
* log
) 3.23 ,
m
q 1 * q 2
fmc tr 2w
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.18)
where p1hr is the flowing pressure at Dt+1 hour on the straight line
or its extrapolation, and pwf1 is the flowing pressure at the time the
rate is changed (i.e., Dt+0). Eq. 2.18 was derived by simultaneous
solution of Eqs. 2.15, 2.17, and the drawdown equation for a single
rate applied at t+tp1, at which time pwf +pwf1.
4. The initial reservoir pressure, pi (or, more generally, p* in a reservoir with pressure depletion), is obtained by solving for pi (or p*)
from the drawdown equation written to model conditions at the time
of the rate change. (It is implied that s and m are known at this point.)
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
TABLE 2.4MULTIRATE FLOWTEST DATA, EXAMPLE 2.3
t
(hours)
pwf
(psia)
0
0.33
0.67
1.0
2.0
2.33
2.67
3.0
3,000
999
857
778.5
1,378.5
2,043
2,067.5
2,094
p i + p wf1 ) mlogkt p1fmc tr 2w * 3.23 ) 0.869s.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.19)
Fig. 2.6Graphical analysis of a multirate flow test, Example 2.3.
nRate Flow Tests. The method presented for analyzing tworate
drawdown tests can be extended to include n different rates. Beginning with Eq. 2.13, an nrate flow test is modeled by
p i * p wfq n + m q j * q j*1q n logt n * tj*1
adjacent producing wells affect the data during the test. Example 2.3
illustrates analysis of a multirate test with discrete rate changes.
j+1
) mlogkfmc tr 2w * 3.23 ) 0.869s .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.20)
The form of Eq. 2.20 suggests that we prepare a plot on Cartesian
coordinate paper of
p i * p wf
vs.
qn
q j * q j*1
qn
logt n * t j*1 ,
Example 2.3Analysis of a Multirate Flow Test. A 3hour drawdown test7 was conducted in which the rate during the first hour averaged 478.5 STB/D; during the second hour, 319 STB/D; and during the third hour, 159.5 STB/D. Table 2.4 gives the flowing BHPs
measured during the test. Estimate the permeability and skin factor
with the multirateflowtest analysis technique.
m+
h+
pi +
B+
f+
ct +
rw +
. . . . . . . . (2.21)
j+1
where permeability, k, is related to the slope, m, of a straight line
on the plot,
k + 162.6Bmmh.
0.6 cp
10 ft
3,000 psia
1.2 RB/STB
0.12
48 106 psi1
0.25 ft
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.22)
If we let b equal the value of (pi *pwf )/qn when the plotting function
is zero, then the skin factor is determined from
s + 1.151 bm * logkfmc tr 2w ) 3.23.
Solution.
1. Calculate the plotting functions suggested in the analysis procedure. For a multirate flow test, we calculate and plot
. . . . . (2.23)
Note that the use of Eq. 2.23 and the proposed plotting method require an estimate of pi from independent measurements. Odeh and
Jones7 discussed this analysis technique and indicated that it can be
applied to the analysis of multirate flow tests commonly run on both
gas and oil wells, but only when the reservoir is infiniteacting for
the total elapsed production period. Consequently, the method is not
applicable if either outer reservoir boundaries or interference from
p i * p wf
vs.
qn
q *q q
n
j*1
logt n * t j*1 .
j+1
Table 2.5 summarizes these functions, and Fig. 2.6 plots them.
As an example, for t+0.33 hours, the data used in plotting functions are qn +q1+478.5 STB/D and tn +0.333 hours. This gives
p i * p wfq n + (3, 000 * 999)478.5 + 4.18
TABLE 2.5PLOTTING FUNCTIONS FOR MULTIRATEFLOWTEST ANALYSIS,
EXAMPLE 2.3
t
(hours)
qn
(STB/D)
pwf
(psi)
(pi *pwf )/qn
(psi/STBD)
0
0.33
0.67
1.0
2.0
2.33
2.67
3.0
478.5
478.5
478.5
319.0
159.5
159.5
159.5
3,000
999
857
778.5
1,378.5
2,043
2,067.5
2,094
4.18
4.48
4.64
5.08
6.00
5.79
5.68
j+1
qj * qj*1
qn
logt n * t j*1
0.48
0.18
0.0
0.45
1.46
1.23
1.13
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW AND BUILDUP TEST ANALYSISSLIGHTLY COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
33
the region immediately adjacent to the wellbore.In this section,we
discuss analysis techniques for pressurebuildup tests.We begin with
analysis techniques for tests preceded by a constantrate production
period,but also discuss the more probable testing scenariopres
surebuildup testing with variablerate production before shutin.
2.3.1 Buildup Tests With ConstantRate Production Before
ShutIn. An equation modeling a pressure buildup test can be devel
..
oped by use of superposition in time.Fig. 2.7 shows the appropriate
rate history. At time
t 0,the well begins producing at a constant
q. Some time tp later,the well is shut in.This can be modeled
with two constantrate terms,one of rate q beginning at time t
0,
the second of rate  q beginning at time tp. The contribution to the
pressure change at time tp + I:1t owing to production at rate q begin
ning at time t
0 is given by
=
rate
Time
Fig. 2.7Modeling a pressurebuildup test in terms of variable
rate production.
(qj  qjI) log til  t _
(
j 1)
qll
L
j=1
and
log(0.3 3 3  0)
Similarly,for
(Pi  PW!)/ qn
478.5  0
478.5
I:1P2
(3,0 0 0 
2,0 94)/ 159.5
478.510g(3.0  0)
+
(3 19  478.5) log(3.0 (159.5  3 19) log(3.0 
1.0)
1.13.
162.6(  q) B,U
kh
{ ['Y,Uc,rlV
kl:1t ]
log
3.23
(162.6) (1.2 ) (0.6)
=
(0.94)(10)
1.151[(b'/m')  10g(k/ifJ,Uc,rv
12 .5 md.
1.151 4.63
0.9 4
=
10g
[ .12
(0
0.869s .
162.6qB,U
kh
{[
log
k(tp + I:1t)
'Y,Uc,rlV2  3.23
A.
0.869s
162.6(  q) B,U [(
2
log kl:1t/ifJ,Uc,rlV )  3.23 + 0.869s ],
kh
................... (2.2 6)
where Pws bottomhole shutin pressure, tp
duration of the
constantrate production period before shutin,and I:1t duration of
the shutin period.If we combine terms and simplify,Eq. 2.2 6 can
=
be rewritten as
(162.6qB,U/kh){log[(tp + I:1t)/l:1t] }. ..... (2.27)
Comparing Eq. 2.2 7 with the equation of a straight line,y
+ b,
y  PIVS' ... ..... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ..... .....(2.28a)
b  Pi' .. . ......................... ..... ... (2.28b)
m  162.6qB,U/kh , .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... (2.28c)
 log [ (tp + I:1t)/l:1t]. ...................... (2.28d)
PIVS
Pi 
b'
4.6 3 (Fig.
3.23 ]
mx
12.5
. 10
)(0. )(48 0
162.6B,U
m'h
+ 3.2 3}
4.The skin factor is estimated with Eq. 2.2 3,where
)]
2.6).
=
3.The permeability is calculated with the slope of the line.
A.
................... (2.2 5)
Thus,the BHP for the rate history shown in Fig. 2.7 is
5.68
2.0)
log
 0.48.
2. The slope of the line drawn through the data points in Fig. 2.6 is
m' (6.0  4.2 )/[1.46  ( 0.4 5)] 0.94.
k
162.6qB,U
kh
3.0 hours,
Pi  PIVS
{[
(tp + I:1t
k 'Y,Uc,rw  3.23 + 0.869s ,
................... (2.24)
while the contribution to the pressure change at time tp + I:1t owing
to production at rate  q beginning at time t tp is given by
I:1PI
.2 5)2
6)(0
0.4 5.
The small positive skin factor suggests very little,if any,reduction
in permeability in the formation adjacent to the wellbore.
This suggests that a plot of bottomhole shutin pressure,Pws, from
+
called the HomerS
a buildup test as a function of log
[(tp I:1t)/l:1t],
m,given by
 (162.6qB,U)/kh . ........................ (2.2 9 ).
time ratio,will exhibit a straight line with slope
The slope is the difference between two values of pressure,Pws 1 and
Pws2, one log cycle apart.To calculate effective permeability to the
fluid flowing in the drainage area of the well,we use the absolute
value of the slope,or
2.3 Analysis of PressureBuildup Tests
Pressurebuildup tests are conducted by first stabilizing a producing
well at some fixed rate,placing a BHP measuring device in the well,
and shutting in the well. Following shutin,the BHP builds up as a
function of time,and the rate of pressure buildup is used to estimate
well and formation properties,such as average drainage area pres
sure,permeability in the drainage area of the well,and skin factor in
34
162.6qB,U/mh. . ..........................
(2.3 0)
From the semilog graph,the original reservoir pressure,Pi, is esti
mated by extrapolating the straight line to infinite shutin time
where
(tp + I:1t)/l:1t 1 and log (tp + I:1t)/l:1t
=
O. Fig. 2.8 illustrates
calculation of the slope and original reservoir pressure.
We can also solve for the skin factor,
s,from a pressurebuildup
test.At the instant a well is shut in,the flowing BHP is
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
TABLE 2.6PRESSUREBUILDUPTEST DATA,
EXAMPLE 2.4
Fig. 2.8Graphical analysis technique for pressurebuilduptest data.
p wf + p i *
162.6q wBm
logkt pfmc tr 2w * 3.23 ) 0.869s .
kh
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.31)
If we combine Eqs. 2.27 and 2.31, we can derive an expression for
the skin factor.
s + 1.151
ws
* p wfm * logkDtfmc tr 2w ) 3.23
) log t p ) Dt t p, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.32)
ShutIn Time, Dt
(hours)
BHP, pws
(psia)
0
2
4
8
16
24
48
1,150
1,794
1,823
1,850
1,876
1,890
1,910
TABLE 2.7HORNER TIME PLOTTING FUNCTIONS,
EXAMPLE 2.4
BHP, pws
(psia)
Horner Time Ratio,
1,150
1,794
1,823
1,850
1,876
1,890
1,910
37.0
19.0
10.0
5.5
4.0
2.5
(tp )Dt)/Dt
p *p
m +
t )Dt
logt )Dt
* log
Dt
Dt
ws2
where m is the slope of the semilog straight line. Setting shutin
time, Dt, equal to 1 hour, introducing the symbol p1hr for pws at
Dt+1 hour on the semilog straight line, and neglecting the term log
[(tp + 1)/tp ], Eq. 2.32 becomes
s + 1.151 p
1hr * p wf m * log kfmc t r w ) 3.23 ,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.33)
where pwf +flowing BHP at the instant of shutin.
In summary, if we plot pws vs. log (tp )Dt)/Dt with information
obtained from a pressurebuildup test, we can estimate effective
permeability, k; original reservoir pressure, pi ; and the skin factor,
s. Example 2.4 illustrates the application of this analysis technique.
Example 2.4Determining Permeability and Reservoir Pressure From Buildup Tests. A pressurebuildup test (Table 2.6) was
conducted on a well early in the life of an oil reservoir having the
properties summarized next. The well was produced at a constant
rate of 500 STB/D for 3 days before being shut in. Determine the effective permeability to oil, the original reservoir pressure, and the
skin factor.
m+
h+
q+
ct +
f+
tp +
rw +
B+
pwf +
ws1
1, 850 * 1, 950
log(10)
* log(1)
+ 100 psicycle.
2. Calculate the effective permeability to oil using the slope of the
straight line.
k+
162.6qBm
(162.6)(500)(1.3)(1.0)
+
+ 48 md.
(100)(22)
mh
3. The original reservoir pressure is found by extrapolating the
semilog straight line in Fig. 2.9 to infinite shutin time; i.e.,
(tp )Dt)/Dt+1. The pressure at this point is pi +1,950 psia. At Dt+1
hour, the Horner time ratio is (tp )Dt)/Dt+(72)1)/1+73. From the
extrapolated semilog straight line, p1hr +1,764 psia at this value.
1.0 cp
22 ft
500 STB/D
20 106 psi1
0.20
3 days
0.30 ft
1.3 RB/STB
1,150 psia
Solution.
1. Construct a semilog plot of shutin pressure, pws , as a function
of the Horner time ratio, (tp )Dt)/Dt. Table 2.7 gives the calculated
Horner time ratios, while Fig. 2.9 shows the semilog plot. The absolute value of the slope of the semilog straight line in Fig. 2.9 is
Fig. 2.9Horner semilog plot, Example 2.4
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW AND BUILDUP TEST ANALYSISSLIGHTLY COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
35
Eq. 2.36 is valid when the producing rate is changed a short time before a buildup test begins, which allows insufficient time for Horners approximation to be valid. Under these conditions, we frequently can consider all production before time t1 to have been at rate q1
for time tp1 and production just before the test to have been a rate q2
for time tp2.
To analyze a pressurebuildup test following two different flow
rates, we plot
p ws vs.
Fig. 2.10Rate history for buildup test following two different
flow rates.
+ 1.151
* log
1hr
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.37)
on Cartesian coordinate paper. The slope, m, of the straight line on
this plot is related to effective permeability by
4. The skin factor is
s + 1.151
* p wfm * logkfmc t r 2w ) 3.23
(1, 764 * 1, 150)100
48
2
(0.20)(1.0)2.0 10 *6(0.30)
) 3.23
k + 162.6q 2Bmmh.
p i * p wf +
162.6q 2 Bm
kh
t p1 ) t p2
q1
) logt p2
q 2 log
t p2
p i * p wf
+ m
qn
j+1
q j * q j*1
qn
q * q
n
p i * p ws + m
j*1
p i * p ws +
162.6q 2Bm
kh
logt * tj*1,
q
p ws * p wf + m q 1 log
2
) log
where m + 162.6mBkh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.34b)
In terms of the rate history shown in Fig. 2.10, Eq. 2.34a becomes
t * t1
162.6q 2Bm q 1
t
q 2 log t * t 1 ) log t * t 2 .
kh
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.35b)
Let t*t2+Dt, t1+tp1, t2+tp1)tp2 , and t*t1+tp2)Dt. Then,
162.6q 2Bm
kh
t p1 ) t p2 ) Dt
q1
q 2 log
t p2 ) Dt
) log t p2 ) DtDt
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.40)
tp1 ) tp2 tp2 ) Dt
tp1 ) t p2 ) Dt tp2
tp2(Dt)
) s , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.41a)
t p2 ) Dt
where m + 162.6q 2Bmkh
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.41b)
and s + logkfmc tr 2w * 3.23 ) 0.869s. . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.41c)
Assuming tp1)tp2)Dt[tp1)tp2 and tp2)Dt[tp2 for small Dt
(e.g., Dt+1 hour), Eq. 2.41a becomes
p ws * p wf + m[log(Dt) ) s] .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.42)
If we choose Dt+1 hour, pws +p1hr (on the straight line or its extrapolation) and
s+
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.36)
Subtracting Eq. 2.40 from Eq. 2.39 yields
. . . . . . . . (2.34a)
pi *pws +m[q1log(t))(q2*q1)log(t*t1)*q2 log(t*t2)]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.35a)
t p1 ) t p2 ) Dt
q1
q 2 log
t p2 ) Dt
j+1
) log t p2 ) DtDt
we can derive an analysis technique for pressurebuildup tests preceded by two different flow rates. For the special case qn +0, Eq.
2.13 can be rewritten as
. . . . (2.39)
The equation of the straight line on the builduptest plot is
logt * t j*1
) mlogkfmc tr 2w * 3.23 ) 0.869s , . . . . (2.13)
36
) log kfmc tr 2w) * 3.23 ) 0.869s .
2.3.2 Buildup Tests Preceded by Two Different Flow Rates. Beginning with the logarithmic approximation to the Eifunction solution derived for multirate flow tests,
p i * p ws +
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.38)
Extrapolation of the plot to Dt+R gives pws +pi because the plotting function is zero at Dt+R. Note that semilog paper is not to be
used; instead, the sum of two logarithms is plotted on an ordinary
Cartesian coordinate paper.
To calculate skin factor, s, note that, at the end of the flow period
just before shutin,
+ 1.43
or p i * p ws +
t p1 ) t p2 ) Dt
t p2 ) Dt
q1
) log
q 2 log
t p2 ) Dt
Dt
p 1hr * p wf
k
+ log
* 3.23 ) 0.869s
m
fmc t r 2w
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.43a)
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
or s + 1.151
p 1hr * p wf
k
* log
) 3.23
m
fmc t r 2w
where the modified production time, t *p, and flow rate, q*, are defined as
n
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.43b)
for tp21.
162.6q n*1mB
p i * p ws +
kh
q1
n*1
q
log t *t t ) q 2
n*1
1
q
t*t
t*t
t*t
log t * t 1 ) q n*2 log t * t n*3 ) log t * t n*2
n*1
2
n*2
n*1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.44)
Although we introduce no special nomenclature for this situation,
note that t*tn*1+Dt (time elapsed since shutin) and that qn*1 is
the production rate just before shutin.
Applications of Eq. 2.44 in which more than three terms are needed are probably rare; sometimes, though, all significant rates are
considered to satisfy precise legal contracts (e.g., gasdeliverability
contracts). Improvement in accuracy with this approach is questionable; further, the fundamental assumption on which Eq. 2.44 is
based (that for t+tp1)tp2 + + tp,n*1)Dt, the reservoir is infiniteacting) rarely will be valid for large values of t. Nevertheless,
we recommend the following analysis procedure when Eq. 2.44 is
used to model a buildup test.
1. Calculate the plotting function.
q logt *t t
q1
n*1
t*t
) . . . ) log t * t n*2
n*1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.45)
2. Plot bottomhole shutin pressure, pws , vs. the plotting function,
X, on Cartesian coordinate graph paper.
3. Determine the absolute value of the slope, m, of the straight line
on the plot.
m+
2
j
t *p
p X ** pX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.46).
ws2
ws1
2
j*1
p 1hr * p wf
k
* log
) 3.23 .
m
fmc t r 2w
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(2.50)
q t * t j*1 .
and q *+ 1*
t p j+1 j j
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.51)
The OdehSelig method, approximate but accurate, is applicable
only for pressures at values of Dt greater than actual producing time.
This condition is likely to occur only in a drillstem test or short production test.
Horners Approximation. As we discussed in Chap. 1, Horner8 reported an approximation that can be used in many cases to avoid the
use of superposition in modeling the production history of a variablerate well. He defined a pseudoproducing time, tpH , as
Np
t pH + q .
last
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.52)
For example, for production from an oil well and for tpH in hours, the
cumulative production from the well is Np (in STB), and the most recent production rate is qlast (in STB/D). Eq. 2.52 then becomes
t pH + 24N pq last .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.53)
Horner proposed to model the effect of the entire rate history by use
of Eq. 2.31, where q is replaced with qlast and actual producing time,
t, is replaced by Horners pseudoproducing time, tpH .
p wf + p i *
kt pH
162.6q lastBm
log
* 3.23 ) 0.869s .
kh
fmc tr 2w
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.54)
An equation modeling a pressurebuildup test can be written by noting that pressure buildup is a special case of variablerate production. Assuming Horners8 approximation adequately models the
production history before shutin, the entire production history can
be modeled as production at rate qlast for time tpH . If the term Dt
denotes time elapsed since shutin, then superposition in time by
use of Eq. 2.2 yields the following equation describing BHP, pws , after shutin:
p ws + p i *
162.6q lastBm
kh
5. Calculate the skin factor, s,
s + 1.151
j*1
j+1
4. Calculate effective permeability with the slope from Step 3.
k + 162.6q n*1Bmmh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.47)
j+1
n
2.3.3 Buildup Tests Preceded by (n*1) Different Flow Rates.
Superposition Method. We can develop a similar analysis technique by use of superposition in time for (n*1) rates preceding the
pressurebuildup test. Beginning with Eq. 2.13 for the general case
where qn +0 and for (n*1) different rates before shutin, we have
X+
q t * t
+ 2t *
2 q t * t
log
k t pH )Dt
fmc tr 2w
* 3.23 ) 0.869s
162.6* q lastBm
log kDt 2 * 3.23 ) 0.869s .
kh
fmc tr w
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.55)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.48)
Although not shown, the derivation and assumptions implicit in
this equation closely parallel those used for a buildup test preceded
by two different flow rates.
6. The initial formation pressure, pi , is the value of pws on the
straight line extrapolated to the timeplotting function evaluated at
zero; i.e., X+0.
If we combine terms and simplify, Eq. 2.55 can be rewritten as
Odeh and Selig Method.9 As an alternative method to superposition, Odeh and Selig suggested that a buildup test following n different rates could be analyzed by a method similar to the Horner method. The shutin pressure response is given by
Similar to the analysis technique for pressurebuildup tests preceded by a constantrate production period, we simply plot bottomhole
shutin pressure, pws , as a function of the log of the Horner8 time ratio based on the pseudoproducing time, (tpH )Dt)/Dt. To calculate
permeability, we use the absolute value of the slope, m, of the semilog straight line,
p i * p ws +
t *p ) Dt
162.6q * Bm
log
, . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.49)
kh
Dt
p ws + p i *
162.6q lastBm
kh
k + 162.6q last Bmmh.
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW AND BUILDUP TEST ANALYSISSLIGHTLY COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
log
t pH ) Dt
Dt
. . . . (2.56)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.57)
37
TABLE 2.8RATE SCHEDULE, EXAMPLE 2.5
Rate
(STB/D)
Duration
(days)
200
0
100
125
1.5
0.5
2.0
6.0
TABLE 2.9PRESSUREBUILDUPTEST DATA,EXAMPLE 2.5
Shutin Time,
Dt (hours)
Bottomhole Pressure,
pws (psia)
0
2
3
4
5
8
10
12
19
24
36
1,384
1,530
1,535
1,538
1,540
1,546
1,549
1,551
1,556
1,559
1,563
TABLE 2.10HORNER TIME PLOTTING FUNCTIONS,
EXAMPLE 2.5
ShutIn Time, Dt
(hours)
BHP, pws
(psia)
Horner Time
Ratio
0
2
3
4
5
8
10
12
19
24
36
1384
1530
1535
1538
1540
1546
1549
1551
1556
1559
1563
121.0
81.0
61.0
49.0
31.0
25.0
21.0
13.6
11.0
7.67
From the semilog graph, the original reservoir pressure, pi , is estimated by extrapolating the straight line to infinite shutin time
where (tpH )Dt)/Dt+1 and log (tpH )Dt)/Dt+0.
The skin factor is estimated from
s + 1.151
p 1hr * p wf
m
k
* log
) 3.23 ,
fmc t r 2w
Fig. 2.11Horner semilog plot, Example 2.5
m+
h+
ct +
f+
rw +
B+
0.8 cp
15 ft
15 106 psi1
0.25
0.333 ft
1.25 RB/STB
Solution.
1. From Eq. 2.37, the Horner pseudoproducing time is
24N p
24[(200)(1.5) ) (0)(0.5) ) (100)(2) ) (125)(6)]
+
t pH + q
last
125
+ 240 hours.
Note that the relatively short halfday shutin period has no effect
on the productiontime calculation. The longer a shutin period,
however, the less accurate Horners approximation is.
2. To find permeability, original reservoir pressure, and skin factor, we must make a semilog plot of shutin pressure, pws , as a function of the Horner time ratio in terms of the pseudoproducing time,
(tpH )Dt)/Dt. Table 2.10 gives the calculated Horner time ratios,
and Fig. 2.11 shows the semilog plot. The absolute value of the slope
of the semilog straight line in Fig. 2.11 is
m +
logt
p ws2 * p ws1
pH)Dt 2
Dt 2
* logt
)Dt
Dt
pH
1, 560 * 1, 532
log(10)
* log(100)
+ 28 psicycle.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.58)
where m+slope of the semilog straight line, p1hr equals pws at
Dt+1 hour on the semilog straight line, and pwf +flowing BHP at
the instant of shutin.
3. The effective permeability to oil is computed (Eq. 2.57) with the
last flow rate (i.e., q+qlast+125 STB/D) before shutting in the well
and with the absolute value of the slope of the straight line.
k+
Example 2.5Determining Permeability and Reservoir Pressure From Buildup Tests. A pressurebuildup test was conducted
on a well early in the life of an oil reservoir having the rock and fluid
properties summarized next. Table 2.8 gives rate data, while Table
2.9 gives pressure/time data. The flowing BHP before shutin was
pwf +1,384 psia. By use of Horners approximation, determine the
producing time to be used in the Horner plot, the effective permeability to oil, the original reservoir pressure, and skin factor.
38
162.6q last Bm
(162.6)(125)(1.25)(0.8)
+
+ 48.4 md.
(28)(15)
mh
4. Original reservoir pressure is found by extrapolating the semilog straight line in Fig. 2.11 to infinite shutin time; i.e.,
(tpH )Dt)/Dt+1. The pressure at this point is
pi +1,588 psia.
5. At Dt+1 hour, the Horner time ratio is (tpH )Dt)/Dt+(240)1)
B1+241. From the extrapolated semilog straight line, p1hr+1,522
psia at this value, and the skin factor is computed with Eq. 2.58.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
TABLE 2.11VARIABLERATEPRODUCTION HISTORY
PRECEDING SHUTIN PERIOD, EXAMPLE 2.6
Time Interval
(hours)
Average Production Rate
(STB/D)
Production During
Interval (STB)
0 to 3
3 to 6
6 to 9
398.8
265.8
132.9
49.9
33.2
16.6
TABLE 2.12PRESSUREBUILDUPTEST DATA,
EXAMPLE 2.6
Dt
(hours)
pws
(psi)
2
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
2,812.5
2,838
2,872.5
2,895
2,910
2,919
2,929.5
2,935
2,942
TABLE 2.13PLOTTING FUNCTIONS FOR THE
SUPERPOSITION METHOD, EXAMPLE 2.6
Dt
(hours)
pws
(psi)
2
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
2,812.5
2,838
2,872.5
2,895
2,910
2,919
2,929.5
2,935
2,942
1.2110
1.0280
0.7949
0.6533
0.5563
0.4851
0.4305
0.3871
0.3517
p 1hr * p wf
s + 1.151
+ 1.151
* log
Fig. 2.12Superposition plot, Example 2.6.
h+
B+
f+
ct +
rw +
Solution. Superposition Method.
1. For the superposition method, we first calculate the plotting
function, X.
q
t*t
t*t
q
q
X + q 1 log t *t t ) q 2 log t * t 1 ) q 3 log t * t 2
n*1
n*1
n*1
1
2
3
q
t*t
t*t
)AAA ) q n*2 log t * t n*3 ) log t * t n*2
n*1
n*2
n*1
) log 9 ) Dt * 6
9 ) Dt * 9
+ 398.8 log 9 ) Dt
) 265.8 log 9 ) Dt * 3
132.9
132.9
9 ) Dt * 3
9 ) Dt * 6
* log kfmc t r 2w ) 3.23
1, 522 * 1, 384
28
10 ft
1.2 RB/STB
0.12
4.8 105 psi1
0.25 ft
+ 3.0 log 9 ) Dt ) 2.0 log 6 ) Dt ) log 3 ) Dt .
Dt
3 ) Dt
6 ) Dt
Table 2.13 gives values of X, while Fig. 2.12 shows a plot of the data
for each value of shutin time, Dt.
2. The slope of the bestfit line drawn through the data is
48.4
) 3.23
2
(0.25)(0.8)(15.0 10 *6)(0.333)
+ 0.0.
A skin factor of zero indicates that the formation near the wellbore
is neither damaged nor stimulated.
m+
p X ** pX + 2, 8391.0**2,0.5919.5 + 161.
ws2
ws1
3. The permeability is calculated with the absolute value of the
slope of the straight line,
k+
162.6q n*1mB
(162.6)(132.9)(0.6)(1.2)
+
+ 9.7 md.
(161)(10)
mh
4. The initial reservoir pressure is estimated from the extrapolation of the straight line to X+0. We find that
pi +3,000 psia.
Example 2.6Analysis of a PressureBuildup Test Following a
Multirate Production Period. The following buildup test preceded
by a variablerate production period is adapted from Odeh and Jones.7
Table 2.11 summarizes the oilproduction history, while Table 2.12
gives the pressurebuilduptest data. Known reservoir rock and fluid
properties follow. Determine effective permeability to oil and initial
reservoir pressure with (1) the superposition method, (2) the OdehSelig method, and (3) the Horner approximation method.
m+ 0.6 cp
OdehSelig Method.
1. For the OdehSelig method, we first calculate the production
time, t *p, defined by Eq. 2.50,
q t * t
+ 2t *
2 q t * t
2
j
t *p
2
j*1
j+1
n
j+1
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW AND BUILDUP TEST ANALYSISSLIGHTLY COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
j*1
39
TABLE 2.14PLOTTING FUNCTIONS FOR THE ODEHSELIG
METHOD, EXAMPLE 2.6
TABLE 2.15PLOTTING FUNCTIONS FOR THE HORNER
APPROXIMATION METHOD, EXAMPLE 2.6
Dt
(hours)
pws
(psi)
(tp *)Dt)/Dt
Dt
(hours)
pws
(psi)
(tp )Dt)/Dt
2
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
2,812.5
2,838
2,872.5
2,895
2,910
2,919
2,929.5
2,935
2,942
6.50
4.67
3.20
2.57
2.22
2.00
1.85
1.73
1.65
2
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
2,812.5
2,838
2,872.5
2,895
2,910
2,919
2,929.5
2,935
2,942
10.0
7.0
4.60
3.57
3.00
2.64
2.38
2.20
2.06
The summation in the numerator is
q t
n
2
j
* t 2j*1 + 398.83 2 * 0 2 ) 265.86 2 * 3 2
3. Fig. 2.13 shows a semilog plot of pws as a function of ( t *p)Dt)/
Dt, and Table 2.14 gives values of the time plotting function.
4. From the plot in Fig. 2.13, the slope of the straight line is
j+1
) 132.99 2 * 6 2
p *p
logt ) DtDt * logt ) DtDt
m+
ws2
*
p
+ 16, 746.
The summation in the denominator is
q t * t
n
j*1
+ 398.8(3 * 0) ) 265.8(6 * 3)
j+1
) 132.9(9 * 6)
+ 2, 393.
The OdehSelig producing time is
t *p + 2 9 *
16, 746
+ 11.0 hours.
2(2, 393)
2. The OdehSelig production rate defined by Eq. 2.51 is
q t * t j*1
q *+ 1*
t p j+1 j j
+ 1 [398.8(3 * 0) ) 265.8(6 * 3) ) 132.9(9 * 6)]
11.0
+ 217.5 STBD.
ws1
*
p
3, 000 * 2, 732
log(1)
* log(10)
+ 268 psicycle.
The OdehSelig method is applicable only when Dt is greater than
actual production time (9 hours). Thus, the semilog straight line is
drawn through those data points for which Dtu t *p+9 hours, which
includes the last four data points of the test.
5. The permeability is
162.6q * mB
(162.6)(217.5)(0.6)(1.2)
+
+ 9.5 md.
(268)(10)
mh
k+
6. Extrapolating the semilog straight line to infinite shutin time,
we estimate that the initial pressure is
pi +3,000 psia.
Horners Approximation.
1. For the Horner method, we calculate the pseudoproducing
time, tpH , defined by Eq. 2.53,
24N p
24(49.9 ) 33.2 ) 16.6)
t pH + q
+
+ 18 hours.
132.9
last
2. Fig. 2.13 shows a Horner plot of the buildup data. The Horner
time ratio (Table 2.15) is calculated with tp . From Fig. 2.13, the
slope of the straight line is
logt
) Dt Dt * logt ) Dt Dt
p ws2 * p ws1
m+
pH
pH
3, 005 * 2, 802
log(1)
* log(10)
+ 203 psicycle.
3. The permeability is estimated from the slope of the straight line,
k+
162.6qmB
(162.6)(132.9)(1.2)(0.6)
+
+ 7.7 md.
(203)(10)
mh
4. Extrapolating the semilog straight line to infinite shutin time,
(i.e., Horner time ratio of one), we find that the initial pressure is
Fig. 2.13Horner and OdehSelig analyses, Example 2.6.
40
pi +3,005 psia.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
TABLE 2.16COMPARISON OF RESULTS, EXAMPLE 2.6
Analysis
Method
0 hour
Pi
(md)
(psia)
7.7
3,005
9.5
3,000
9.7
3,000
Horner
OdehSelig
Superposition
5000
4900
<?
4800
!!
:::>
'"
4700
4600
Table 2.16 summarizes the results from the three methods.With val
ues of
4500
k and Pi with the two variablerate methods, the OdehSelig
0.1
10
method and superposition agree.The Homer method, which assumes
a single, constant rate, gives a less accurate permeability estimate.
100
1000
Radius (ft)
Fig. 2.14Radius of investigation as a function of flow time dur
ing a pressure drawdown test.
2.4 Complications in Actual Tests
The analysis techniques presented in the previous section were
5000
derived assuming a homogenous reservoir model and, therefore,
represent ideal conditions. In reality, reservoirs are not homoge
neous, and the actual pressure response during a flow or buildup test
deviates from the ideal behavior. These deviations are usually
caused by conditions in the wellbore and near the drainage radius
of the reservoir that are not considered in the simple model de
scribed by Eq.2.2.We use the concept of radius of investigation first
introduced in Chap. 1 to help us understand the causes of the non
4900
<?
4800
4700
!!
!!
"'
4600
ideal behavior.
4500
2.4.1 RadiusofInvestigation Concept. Consider a graph (Fig.
2.14) of pressure as a function of radius for constantrate flow at var
0.1
10
ious times from the beginning of flow.The pressure in the wellbore
continues to decrease as flow time increases. Simultaneously, the
size of the area from which fluid is drained increases and the pres
100
1000
Radius (ft)
Fig. 2.1SRadius of investigation as a function of shutin time
during a pressurebuildup test.
sure transient moves farther out into the reservoir.The radius of in
vestigation, which is defined as the point in the formation beyond
which the pressure drawdown is negligible, is a measure of how far
a transient has moved into a formation following any rate change in
Early
Times
a well and physically represents the depth to which formation prop
erties are being investigated at any time in a test.The approximate
position of the radius of investigation at any time is estimated with
Eq.2.59:
kt
948</>W,'
Q.
J:
m
Late
Times
tJ)
c:
............................ (2.59)
.
u:::
For a buildup test, pressure distributions following shutin have the
profiles illustrated in Fig.
2.1S. The radius to which the rate of pres
sure change becomes negligible by a particular shutin time moves
farther into the reservoir with time, and the radius reached by this
pressure level is given by
ri
jkt.t/948</>Jlc,.
10
0.1
100
1000
Flowing Time
......................... (2.60)
Fig. 2.16Characteristic curve shapes exhibited during a flow
test.
If the permeability encountered by the radius of investigation near
the wellbore at earliest times in a buildup or flow test is different
Early Times. The pressure transient is in a damaged or stimulated
from the permeability encountered later (away from the well), we
zone near the wellbore. Wellbore unloading or afterflow of fluid
should not be surprised that the slope of pressure vs.the appropriate
stored in the wellbore also distorts the test data during this period.
time function curve on a semilog graph is different at early and late
Middle Times. The pressure transient has moved into the undam
times.Similarly, because the Eifunction solution assumes an infi
aged formation.A straight line, whose slope is related to the effec
niteacting reservoir, we should expect the slope of a buildup or
tive permeability of the flowing phase, usually occurs during this
flowtest plot to change shapes at late times when the radius of in
period.Often, this flow period is referred to as the middletime re
vestigation reaches the drainage boundaries of a reservoir.
gion and the straight line is called the "correct semilog straight line."
2.4.2 T ime Regions on Test Plots.
aries, interference effects from other producing wells, or massive
Late Times. The pressure transient encounters reservoir bound
On an actual flow or buildup
test plot, the straight line predicted by ideal theory rarely occurs over
changes in reservoir properties.The flowtest curve deviates from
the entire range of test times.Instead, the curve is shaped more like
the straight line established during the middletime region.
those illustrated in Figs.
2.16 and 2.17. To assist in understanding
the causes of the nonlinear portions of the curve, we subdivide the
2.4.3
flowtest data into three time regions (early, middle, and late) based
quired for the radius of investigation to move through the altered
on the radiusofinvestigation concept.
zone near the wellbore of significant duration. In most cases, the
WellboreStorage Effects. Only in rare cases is the time re
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW AND BUILDUP TEST ANALYSISSLIGHTLY COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
41
Fig. 2.17Characteristic curve shapes exhibited during a pressurebuildup test.
duration of the earlytime region is determined by the duration of
wellborestorage distortion of test data. In flow tests, the specific
case of wellbore storage is called wellbore unloading, which occurs
because the initial fluid production measured at the surface originates from fluids stored in the wellbore rather than from the formation. Only after what may be a prolonged time does the bottomhole
flow rate approximately equal the surface rate (Fig. 2.18). Until
then, the assumption of constant bottomhole rate, on which the flow
equation and graphing technique are based, is not satisfied.
Wellbore storage also affects the early pressurebuildup reponse.
Following shutin at the surface, fluid continues to flow from the
reservoir into the wellbore, compressing the gas and liquid already
in the wellbore and also storing more fluid. This continued production, which is also a special case of wellbore storage, is called afterflow (Fig. 2.19). Until the rate of afterflow diminishes to less than
approximately 1% of the rate before shutin, the straight line predicted by ideal theory for a Horner graph of builduptest data does
not appear.
Following a mass balance in the wellbore, as illustrated in Sec.
1.3.3, we define a wellborestorage coefficient, C , in bbl/psi, as
C + DVDp , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.61)
where DV+change in wellbore fluid volume (in barrels) at wellbore
conditions and Dp+change in bottomhole pressure, psi. The form
of C depends on the fluid phases in the wellbore. For a well with a
liquid/gas interface that is either rising or falling, the wellborestorage coefficient is calculated from
C + 25.64A wb wb , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.62)
where Awb +area of the wellbore and wb+density of the liquid in
the wellbore.
If the wellbore contains only a singlephase fluid (either liquid or
gas), then
Fig. 2.19Bottomhole flow rate or afterflow following well shutin at the surface.
42
Fig. 2.18Surfaceproductionrate schedule during wellborestorage period.
C+Vwb cwb , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.63)
where Vwb +volume of the wellbore and cwb +compressibility of
the fluid evaluated at average temperature and pressure conditions
in the wellbore
2.4.4 Damage and Stimulation Analysis. Many wells either have
a zone of reduced permeability near the wellbore resulting from
drilling or completion operations or have been stimulated by acidization or hydraulic fracturing. Eq. 2.2 assumes, however, that the
formation properties are uniform throughout the drainage area of
the well, including the area immediately adjacent to the wellbore.
Historically, skin effects have been modeled as an infinitesimally
small zone of reduced permeability on the formation face.10
Another modeling technique considers the formation to be a tworegion reservoir1 (Fig. 2.20) in which the damaged or stimulated
zone is considered equivalent to an altered zone of uniform permeability, ks , extending out to a radius, rs , while outside of this zone of
altered permeability, the formation has permeability, k, unaffected
by drilling or completion operations. With this model, the skin factor, s, to quantify either formation damage or stimulation in terms
of the properties of the altered zone is
s+
kk * 1 lnrr .
s
s
w
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.64)
A positive skin factor indicates damage or a permeability reduction,
while a negative skin factor indicates an improvement in permeability, resulting from an acidization or hydraulicfracture treatment. If
the formation near the wellbore is neither damaged nor stimulated,
the skin factor is zero. If the radial depth of formation damage, rs ,
can be determined or assumed, then we can estimate the correspond
Fig. 2.20Tworegion reservoir model of altered zone near wellbore.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
ing value of permeability in the altered zone, ks , where from an arrangement of Eq. 2.64,
ks +
k
.
1 ) s lnr sr w
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.65)
Alternatively, if the permeabilityreduction ratio, ks /k, is available
from laboratory measurements, the depth of damage, rs , can be calculated directly with Eq. 2.64.
Another use of the skin factor is in terms of an effective wellbore
radius, rwa , which is defined as1,11
rwa +rw e s .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.66)
Note that, for positive skin factors (i.e., damaged zones), the effective (or apparent) wellbore radius used in flow equations to replace
the actual wellbore radius models a well with no damage but with
a smaller radius and a larger pressure drop at the well. Conversely,
for stimulated wells, the effective wellbore radius models the well
as unstimulated but with a very large wellbore. An application of the
effectivewellboreradius concept is based on the observation that,
for vertically fractured wells with infinitely conductive fractures
having two wings each of equal length Lf , the relationship between
rwa and Lf is
Lf +2rwa .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.67)
Thus, if the skin factor for a fractured well can be estimated from a
well test and if the fracture is assumed to be infinitely conductive,
then the fracture halflength, Lf , can be estimated.
We can also quantify the skin factor in terms of the additional
pressure drop associated with the damaged zone, or
Dp s + 141.2qBmkh s.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.68)
For example, if the total drawdown is 1,500 psi and Dps +1,000 psi,
then the skin factor has provided some useful information regarding
the incentive for well stimulation. Either the pressure drawdown can
be reduced by [ 1,000 psi and the same flow rate maintained, or the
same pressure drawdown can be maintained and the rate increased
by a factor of approximately three.
Yet another measure of an altered zone near the wellbore is in
terms of a flow efficiency, E, which is defined as
qp * p wf
p * p wf * Dp s
J
+
,
E + actual +
p * p wf
J ideal
qp * p wf * Dp s
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.69)
where the productivity index (PI), J, with field units of STB/psi, is
J + qp * p wf.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.70)
For a well with neither damage nor stimulation, flow efficiency is
unity. For a damaged well, E t1, while for a stimulated well, E u1.
For example, if a well has a flow efficiency of 0.1, then the well is
damaged and is producing only approximately 10% as much fluid
with the drawdown imposed as it would produce if the damage were
removed with a stimulation treatment.
Example 2.7Quantifying Formation Damage and Improvement. Analysis of a pressurebuildup test showed that an oil well
with a productivity problem had a skin factor of 6.37 and an effective permeability to oil of 7.65 md. Before shutting in the well, the
flowing BHP at the time of shutin was 3,534 psia, and the well produced oil at a constant rate of 250 STB/D. Estimate the following:
(1) alteredzone permeability, ks , for assumed alteredzone radii of
5 and 10 ft, (2) the effective wellbore radius, rwa , (3) the additional
pressure drop near the wellbore owing to formation damage, and (4)
the flow efficiency, E.
m+ 0.8 cp
h+ 69 ft
q+ 250 STB/D
B+
k+
pwf +
rw +
s+
p+
1.136 RB/STB
7.65 md
3,534 psia
0.198 ft
6.37
4,420 psia
Solution.
1. Calculate the alteredzone permeability with Eq. 2.65.
ks +
k
1 ) s lnr sr w
For rs +5 ft,
ks +
7.65
1 ) 6.37 ln50.198
+ 2.57 md
and for rs +10 ft,
ks +
7.65
1 ) 6.37 ln100.198
+ 2.92 md.
Note that even though the estimate of the depth of damage, rs , may
be quite uncertain, the alteredzone permeability is relatively insensitive to depth estimates.
2. From Eq. 2.66, the effective wellbore radius is given by
rwa +rw e s+0.198 e6.37+0.00034 ft.
The physical interpretation of this result is that the tested well is producing at 250 STB/D with the same drawdown as would a well with
a wellbore radius of 0.00034 ft and permeability unaltered up to the
sandface.
3. The additional pressure drop near the well caused by the alteredpermeability zone is given by Eq. 2.68,
Dp s +
141.2qBm
(141.2)(250)(1.136)(0.8)(6.37)
s+
(7.65)(69)
kh
+ 387 psi.
Thus, of the total drawdown of approximately 4,420*3,534
+886 psi, [387 psi is caused by damage. Much of this additional
drawdown could be avoided if the skin factor is in fact the result of
formation damage (rather some other reason, such as partial penetration of the productive zone) and if the well is to be stimulated.
4. Flow efficiency is estimated from Eq. 2.69,
E+
p * p wf * Dp s
4, 420 * 3, 534 * 387
+
+ 0.563.
p * p wf
4, 420 * 3, 534
This result indicates that the well is producing [56% as much fluid
with the drawdown imposed as an undamaged well in a completely
perforated interval would produce with the same pressure drawdown.
2.4.5 Effect of Incompletely Perforated Interval. The skin factor,
s, determined from a buildup or flow test is affected by at least two
factors: true formation damage and perforations in only a portion of
the total formation thickness. Both these factors cause an additional
pressure drop near the well, decreasing the flowing BHP, pwf , for a
given flow rate and increasing the value of s calculated from the test.
In theory, the effects of perforations and formation damage can be
isolated with the equation
s + h th p s d ) s p , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.71)
where sd +positive skin factor from formation damage, sp +skin factor from partial penetration of the formation, ht +total formation thickness (Fig. 2.21), and hp +height of the perforated interval (Fig. 2.21).
Eq. 2.71 is valid only for positive skin, sd , caused by formation damage. The skin factor caused by partial penetration, sp , is given by12
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW AND BUILDUP TEST ANALYSISSLIGHTLY COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
43
p
0.51 * 1 ln 2(0.000907)
0.5
8*1
) 1 ln
0.5
2 ) 0.5 2.67 * 1
+ 5.67.
3. Finally, estimate the skin effect resulting from formation damage by rearranging Eq. 2.71 to obtain
sd +
Fig. 2.21Partial penetration of formation by a well.
h pD
A*1
s p + 1 * 1 ln p ) 1 ln
2r D h pD
2 ) h pD B * 1
h pD
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.72a)
where r D + r wh tk vk h , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.72b)
h pD + h ph t, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.72c)
h 1D + h 1h t, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.72d)
A + 1 h 1D ) h pD4 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.72e)
and B + 1 h 1D ) 3h pD4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.72f)
In practice, kv /kh is rarely known, so quantitative calculation of sp
may be difficult. The effect of sp is so important, however, that the
best approximation possible with the data available should be made.
Values of sp of 5 to 10 are not uncommon.
Example 2.8Skin Effect Caused by Partial Penetration. A
pressurebuildup test analysis indicated that, for the tested well, the
skin factor is s+6.37. Only the upper half of the 69ft interval was
perforated. From core data, vertical permeability is estimated to be
1/ the horizontal permeability. The wellbore radius is 0.198 ft. Esti10
mate the skin effect caused by partial penetration and the skin effect
caused by formation damage.
Solution.
1. Calculate rD , hpD , hD , A, and B:
hp
s * s p + 0.5(69) (6.37 * 5.67) + 0.35,
69
ht
which suggests that the well is only slightly damaged. Therefore,
most of the skin effect is caused by the incompletely perforated interval (sp +5.67).
2.4.6 Effect of Deviated Hole. Cinco et al.13 showed that the skin
factor, s, determined from buildup or flowtest analysis, includes
both the skin factor, st , attributable to all causes other than hole deviation, and a pseudoskin factor, sq , caused by deviation of the wellbore from the vertical.
s+st )sq .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.73)
From correlations of numerical solutions to the governing flow
equations, Cinco et al.13 found that
sq + *
41q
2.06
56q
1.865
log
h
100
for 0x q wx75, where
q w + tan *1k vk h tan q w, degrees,
and where qw +angle of deviation from vertical defined (in degrees)
and hD is defined as
h D + hr w k hk v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.76)
Example 2.9Estimating the Skin Factor for a Deviated Well.
A pressurebuildup test indicates that the skin factor for a directionally drilled well is s+0.8, suggesting slight damage. The additional
pressure drop owing to the skin factor is Dps +87 psi. The average
angle of inclination is qw +45, the formation thickness is 100 ft, the
wellbore radius is 0.3 ft, and, from core analysis, the ratio of horizontaltovertical permeabilities, kh /kv, is 5.0. Determine the portion
of the skin factor caused by directional drilling.
q w + tan *1k vk h tan q w + tan *1
h pD + h ph t + 0.5,
2. From Eq. 2.74,
1
1
+
+ 8.0,
h 1D ) h pD4
0 ) 0.54
s q + * q w41
1
1
+
+ 2.67.
0 ) (3)(0.5)4
h 1D ) 3h pD4
h pD
A*1
s p + 1 * 1 ln p ) 1 ln
2r D h pD
2 ) h pD B * 1
h pD
44
2.06
+ * 24.141
2. Estimate the skin effect caused by partial penetration with Eq.
2.72a,
15 tan 45 + 24.1
h D + hr w k hk v + 100 5 + 745.
0.3
h 1D + h 1h t + 0,
and B +
. . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.75)
Solution.
1. From Eqs. 2.75 and 2.76,
r D + r wh tk vk h + 0.198 (0.1) + 0.000907,
69
A+
. . . . . . . . . . (2.74)
* q w56
2.06
1.865
* 24.156
log h D100
1.865
log745100
+ * 0.516.
3. Rearrangement of Eq. 2.73 shows that the portion of the total
skin effect caused by factors other than directional drilling is
st +s*sq +0.8*(*0.516)+1.32.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
Pi
/'
Pi
D..
J:
m
EarlyTime
Region (ETR)
c:
""j
...
:::I
..c::
(J)
_____ Log of Homer Time Ratio
_____ Log of Homer Time Ratio
Fig. 2.22Builduptest plot for an infiniteacting well in a reser
Fig. 2.23Builduptest plot for a well near a boundary in a reser
voir with negligible pressure depletion.
voir with negligible pressure depletion.
LateTime
2.5 Analysis of LateTime Data
in Flow and Buildup Tes ts
This section focuses on the analysis of latetime welltest data (i.e.,
data that have been influenced by outer reservoir boundaries). Spe
cifically, we examine methods for estimating drainagearea pres
sure, distances to reservoir boundaries, and reservoir pore volume
(PV)
Region (L TR)
MiddleTime
Region (MTR)
from well tests. We should emphasize that these methods are
limited to well tests from homogeneousacting, singlelayer forma
 p*
D..
J:
m
.E
..c::
(J)
tions producing slightly compressible liquids.
2.5.1 Estimating DrainageArea Pressure. The average pressure
"'"If
in the drainage area of a well represents the driving force for fluid
flow and is useful in materialbalance calculations. For a well in a
Fig. 2.24Extrapolated pressure, MBH method.
new reservoir with negligible pressure depletion, extrapolation of
builduptest data to infinite shutin time,
(tp + I'1t)/l'1t
1, on a Horn
er semilog plot provides an estimate of original (and current) drain
agearea pressure. For a well in a reservoir in which the average
pressure has declined from its original value because of fluid pro
duction, the pressure extrapolated to infinite shutin time is called
p*, which is related, but not equal to the current average pressure in
the drainage area of the well.
For a well in a reservoir with negligible pressure depletion, we
consider two possibilities. First, if the pressure transient data are not
drainage areas. The symbol
duction period before the buildup test, a typical buildup test will
have the shape shown in Fig. 2.22, which is a Horner semilog plot.
The original reservoir pressure, Pi, is obtained by extrapolating the
middletime semilog straight line to
(tp + I'1t)/I'll
1.
For a well completed in a reservoir with negligible pressure deple
tion and having one or more boundaries relatively near the well (and
encountered by the radius of investigation during the production peri
od), a buildup test will exhibit the shape shown in Fig. 2.23, which
is also a Horner sernilog plot. The latetime semilog straight line is
extrapolated to
(tp + I'1t)/l'1t
1 to obtain Pi. For a reservoir in which
the pressure has been depleted, either the MatthewsBronsHaze
broekl4 (MBH) method or the modified Muskat method 15 can be
used to estimate the average drainagearea pressure.
MBH Method. The MBH method is based on theoretical correla
tions between the extrapolated pressure, p*, and current average
drainagearea pressure, p, for various drainagearea configurations.
Fig. 2.24 shows the extrapolated pressure, P *. We should emphasize
thatp* is not the true average drainagearea pressure; however, sev
eral correlations have been developed that relate p* and p.
Figs. 2.25 and 2.26 show two of the numerous correlation charts
available. Fig.
2.25
applies to wells in various locations in square
drainage areas. The most common approximation of drainage area is
(tAD) pss
tAD is
pseudosteadystate flow, where
indicates the beginning of
defined by Eq.
2.78. Similar
charts for other drainagearea shapes are available in several refer
ences.l ,2, 14 In Figs. 2.25 and 2.26, a dimensionless pressure, PMBH,D,
is plotted as a function of a dimensionless time,
less variables plotted in Figs. 2.24 and
[kh(p *
PMBH,D =
influenced by boundaries (either real reservoir boundaries or artifi
cal boundaries created by adjacent producing wells) during the pro
Log of Homer Time Ratio
and
2.25
tAD.
The dimension
are defined as
P)l/70.6qB}l ................. (2.7 7)
tAD = 0.000 26 3 7ktp/cPW,A,
(2.78)
where A = drainage area, ft2, of the tested well.
We recommend the following procedure for applying the MBH
method.
1. Extrapolate
(tp + /'1t)/l'1t= 1.
2. Estimate
the
middletime
semilog
The extrapolated pressure is
straight
p*.
line
to
the drainagearea shape. If there is insufficient in
formation to estimate the shape, assume a circular drainage area.
3. Select the appropriate MBH chart1,2,14 for the drainage area.
4. Calculate tAD with Eq. 2.78.
5. From the appropriate MBH chart at the calculated value of tAD,
read
PMBH,D
kh(p *  P)
70.6qB}l
2.30 3(p *
P)
......... (2.79)
6. Calculate p by
Jf
P* 
pMBH,D/2.30 3 ) . ................... (2.80)
The advantages of the MBH method are that it does not require data
beyond the middletime region and that it is applicable to a wide va
riety of drainagearea shapes. The disadvantages are that the drain
that the well is centered in a square drainage area, with area equal to
agearea size and shape must be known and that reliable estimates
the acreage assigned to the well. Fig.
of rock and fluid properties, such as
2.26
applies to
2: 1 rectangular
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW AND BUILDUP TEST ANALYSISSLIGHTLY COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
Ct
and
must be available. In
45
Fig. 2.25MBH dimensionless pressures for various well locations in a square drainage area
(after Earlougher2).14
addition, the method is limited to well tests in singlelayer formations and cannot be applied accurately to multilayer formations.
Modified Muskat Method.15 The modified Muskat method is
based on the theoretical observation that, after boundary effects
have been felt for a well centered in its drainage area, the following
relationship exists:
log(p * p ws) + c 1 ) c 2Dt , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.81)
where c1 and c2 are constants. This relationship is valid for Dt
approximately in the range
250fmc t r 2e
750fmc t r 2e
x Dt x
.
k
k
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.82)
Thus, latetime, rather than middletime, data are required for this
method. To find p, we make an initial guess of p and plot
log(p*pws ) vs. Dt. Various values of p are chosen until a straight
line results (Fig. 2.27). The value of p that produces a straight line
is the correct average reservoir pressure.
Compared with the MBH method, the modified Muskat method
has the advantage that no estimates of reservoir properties are required. The method also applies to hydraulically fractured wells and
layered reservoirs for which the MBH method is not applicable. The
modified Muskat method has the disadvantage that it is limited to
Fig. 2.26MBH dimensionless pressures for various well locations in a 2:1 rectangular drainage area (after Earlougher2).14
46
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
Fig. 2.28Horner semilog plot, Example 2.10.
Fig. 2.27Estimating correct average reservoir pressure with
the modified Muskat method.1
wells reasonably centered in their drainage areas. An even more
limiting restriction is that shutin times of 250fmct r 2e/k and greater
may be impractically long. We illustrate application of both the
MBH and modified Muskat Methods with Example 2.10.
Example 2.10Estimating DrainageArea Pressure From a
Buildup Test. A buildup test was run on an oil well that is centered
in a square drainage area of 160 acres. Table 2.17 gives time and
pressure data. Fig. 2.28 is a Horner plot of the test data. Data obtained from the Horner plot and other known data are summarized
next. Estimate the average pressure in the wells drainage area with
the MBH p* method and the modified Muskat method.
m+
k+
f+
B+
p1hr +
q+
m+
re +
p*+
tp + 13,630 hours
ct + 17 106 psia1
Solution. MBH Method
1. Extrapolate the middletime semilog straight line to
(tp )Dt)/Dt+1. As shown by the Horner plot in Fig. 2.28,
p*+4,577 psi.
2. For the p* method, we use the MBH chart in Fig. 2.25 for a well
centered in a square drainage area. First, we calculate tAD :
t AD + 0.0002637kt pfmc t A
+
(0.0002637)(7.65)(13, 630)
+ 7.44.
(0.039)(0.8)(17 10 *6)(160 43, 560)
3. From Fig. 2.25,
70 psi/cycle
7.65 md
0.039
1.136 RB/STB
4,288
250 STB/D
0.8 cp
1,320 ft
4,577 psia
[2.303(p * * p)]m + 5.45.
We estimate the average drainagearea pressure, p, to be
p + p * * 5.45m + 4, 577 *
2.303
TABLE 2.17PRESSUREBUILDUPTEST DATA,
EXAMPLE 2.10
Time, Dt
(hours)
Pressure, pws
(psia)
Horner Time
Ratio
0.15
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
1
2
4
6
7
8
12
16
20
24
30
40
50
60
72
3,680
3,723
3,800
3,866
3,920
4,103
4,250
4,320
4,340
4,344
4,350
4,364
4,373
4,379
4,384
4,393
4,398
4,402
4,405
4,407
90,868
68,151
45,434
34,076
27,261
13,631
6,816
3,409
2,273
1,948
1,705
1,137
853
683
569
455
342
274
228
190
(5.45)(70)
+ 4, 411 psi.
2.303
Modified Muskat Method.
1. Check whether the modified Muskat method is valid for the test
data. In this particular case, because we have estimates of k and re , test
data outside the applicable time range may be eliminated. Of course,
we often do not have these estimates. While lack of data does not limit
the applicability of the method, it does require that we assume that the
first deviation of the test data from the semilog straight line of the
middletime region indicates the onset of boundary effects.
For the example shown, the lower time limit is
250fmc t r 2e
(250)(0.039)(0.8)(17
+
k
7.65
10 *6)(1, 320)
10 *6)(1, 320)
+ 30.2 hours,
and the upper time limit is
750fmc t r 2e
(750)(0.039)(0.8)(17
+
k
7.65
+ 90.6 hours.
Thus, we can use test data from Dt+30 hours until the end of the test
at Dt+72 hours.
2. Prepare the following data for three trial values of p shown in
Table 2.18. From plots of (p*pws ) in Fig. 2.29 for different estimates of p, we see that p+4,412 psia is the best estimate of average
drainagearea pressure. Note that the method is very sensitive to different values of p, as evidenced by the distinct curvatures of the plots
for only slightly incorrect estimates of p.
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW AND BUILDUP TEST ANALYSISSLIGHTLY COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
47
TABLE 2.18TRIAL VALUES OF p FOR MODIFIED MUSKAT
METHOD CALCULATIONS, EXAMPLE 2.10
p*pws
Dt
(hours)
pws
(psia)
at p+4,408
(psi)
at p+4,412
(psi)
at p+4,422
(psi)
30
40
50
60
72
4,393
4,398
4,402
4,405
4,407
15
10
6
3
1
19
14
10
7
5
29
24
20
17
15
This example application of the MBH p* and modified Muskat
methods is intended to illustrate only the mechanics of each method.
In this particular case, the pressure had built up to within 5 psia of its
static value at a shutin time of 72 hours, in which case there is little
value in applying either method. Both methods are of more value
when the pressure at the end of a buildup test is far from stabilization.
ShutIn Time, hours
Fig. 2.29Estimating average reservoir pressure with a modified Muskat method plot, Example 2.10.
2.5.2 Estimating Distance to Boundaries. The pressure history of
a well located a distance L from a reservoir boundary can be simulated by adding the drawdown caused by the actual well, acting as
if it were in an infinite reservoir, to the drawdown caused by an
image well located a distance 2L from the actual well and with exactly the same rate history as the actual well. Fig. 2.30 illustrates this
technique, which uses superposition in space. Constantrate production for a well near a boundary is simulated by
p i * p wf +
162.6qBm
logktfmc tr 2w * 3.23 ) 0.869s
kh
70.6qBm
kh
* 948fmc t(2L)
kt
* Ei
Fig. 2.30Modeling a noflow boundary with an image well.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.83)
The logarithmic term models the actual well, while the Ei function
models the image well. The equation modeling a buildup test is then
162.6qBm
kh
p i * p ws +
k t p ) Dt
* 3.23 ) 0.869s
fmc tr 2w
log
162.6(* q)Bm
logkDtfmc tr 2w * 3.23 ) 0.869s
k
* 3, 792fmc t L 2
70.6qBm
Ei
kh
k t p ) Dt
* 3792fmc t L 2
70.6(* q)Bm
. . . . . . (2.84)
Ei
kh
kDt
Fig. 2.31Builduppressure behavior affected by a noflow
boundary.
Eq. 2.84 can be simplified and written in the form
p ws + p i * 162.6qBmkh
log
) 0.434Ei
48
L
t )DtDt * 0.434Ei*k3792fmc
t ) Dt
p
* 3792fmc t L 2
kDt
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.85)
Eq. 2.85 predicts that, initially, the usual middletime region will develop; however, at later times, the data will deviate from the established semilog straight line of the middletime region (Fig. 2.31).
The term pMT is the pressure on the extrapolated middletime semilog straight line, and DpL is the difference between pMT and the measured BHP. To estimate the distance to the fault, we determine DpL ,
which is the difference in the Ei functions,
Dp L + 70.6qBmkh
L
L
* 3, 792fmc
) Ei*k3792fmc
kDt
t ) Dt
* Ei
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
TABLE 2.19PRESSUREBUILDUPTEST DATA,
EXAMPLE 2.11
Dt
(hours)
pws
(psia)
0.0
0.01
0.0131
0.0171
0.0224
0.0293
0.0383
0.05
0.0654
0.0856
0.1119
0.1464
0.1914
0.2504
0.3274
0.4282
0.5600
0.7324
0.9579
6,835.6
6,856.9
6,857.6
6,858.3
6,859.0
6,859.7
6,860.4
6,861.1
6,861.8
6,862.5
6,863.2
6,863.9
6,864.6
6,865.4
6,866.2
6,867.0
6,867.9
6,868.9
6,869.9
* Ei
Dt
(hours)
pws
(psia)
1.25
1.64
2.14
2.80
3.66
4.79
6.27
8.20
10.72
14.02
18.34
23.98
31.36
41.02
53.65
70.16
91.76
120.00
L
* 3, 792fmc
.
kt
6,871.1
6,872.2
6,873.4
6,874.7
6,875.9
6,877.2
6,878.5
6,879.8
6,881.2
6,882.5
6,883.8
6,885.1
6,886.4
6,887.7
6,888.9
6,890.1
6,891.3
6,892.4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.86)
Eq. 2.86 can then be solved for L by trial and error. In the special case
when tp Dt, Eq. 2.86 reduces to
Dp L +
* 3, 792fmc t L 2
70.6qBm
* Ei
kh
kDt
p ws + p i * 162.6qBmkh
log
+ pi *
* 162.6qBm
logt )DtDt
kh
t p ) Dt
Dt
t p ) Dt
352.2qBm
log
kh
Dt
+ p i * 2m log
t )DtDt.
p
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.88)
Eq. 2.88 shows that the slope of a builduptest plot eventually will
double for a well near a barrier, such as a sealing fault. When the
slope doubles, the distance to the boundary can be estimated in a
simple way. From the Horner graph, we find the shutin time, Dtx ,
corresponding to the point of intersection of the middle and latetime straight lines, which has exactly double the slope of the middletime line. The distance, L, from the well to the fault is given by the
empirical equation16
L + 0.000148kDt xfmc t .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.89)
This method of estimating the distance to a fault is appealing because of its simplicity. Unfortunately, it is not often applicable because the time required for the slope to double can be long:
3, 792fmc t L 2kDt t 0.01
or Dt u 3.8
10 5fmc t L 2k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.91)
For large L or small k, the slope will not double during a typical
buildup test. Gray16 discusses this and other methods for estimating
the distance to a noflow boundary from buildup or drawdown data.
We would like to restate that unless the slope of the latetime data
is exactly twice the slope of the middletime data, the doubleslope
method will not give the correct estimate of the distance to the fault.
Furthermore, the reservoir geometry must be such that the nearest
noflow boundary is much closer to the wellbore than the secondnearest boundary. There must be adequate time for the slope to
double because of the presence of the nearest boundary before any
other boundaries are felt. This restriction often limits the applicability of this method.
. . . . . (2.87)
which can be solved directly for L. When sufficient shutin time has
elapsed so that the logarithmic approximation applies to the Ei functions, the buildup equation becomes
Fig. 2.32Horner semilog plot, Example 2.11.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.90)
Example 2.11Estimating Distance to a Fault. The following
pressurebuildup test was simulated for a well located near a fault.
Table 2.19 summarizes the test data; other known data follow next.
Estimate the distance from the well to the fault.
q+
m+
f+
tp +
B+
h+
ct +
rw +
293 STB/D
0.6 cp
0.22
400 hours
1.31 RB/STB
25 ft
12.7 106 psi1
0.5 ft
Solution. Our approach is to plot pws vs. (tp +Dt)/Dt, identify the
position of the middletime line, and determine whether the latetime data fall on a line with slope double that of the middletime line.
If so, then the straightforward doubleslope method can be used to
estimate the distance to the boundary. If not, a more complicated calculation is required.
1. Construct a Horner semilog plot (Fig. 2.32) with the plotting
functions given in Table 2.20.
2. The slope of the bestfit line drawn through the initial data (i.e.,
middletime region) is
logt
) Dt Dt * log t ) Dt Dt
p ws2 * p ws1
m+
6, 854.5 * 6, 860.5
log(10
) * log(10 )
5
+ 6.0 psicycle.
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW AND BUILDUP TEST ANALYSISSLIGHTLY COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
49
TABLE 2.20PRESSUREBUILDUPTEST DATA,
EXAMPLE 2.11
pws
(psia)
(tp )Dt)/Dt
6,835.6
6,856.9
6,857.6
6,858.3
6,859.0
6,859.7
6,860.4
6,861.1
6,861.8
6,862.5
6,863.2
6,863.9
6,864.6
6,865.4
6,866.2
6,867.0
6,867.9
6,868.9
6,869.9
40,001
30,535
23,393
17,858
13,653
10,445
8,001
6,117
4,674
3,576
2,733
2,091
1,598
1,223
935.1
715.3
547.1
419.6
pws
(psia)
(tp )Dt)/Dt
6,871.1
6,872.2
6,873.4
6,874.7
6,875.9
6,877.2
6,878.5
6,879.8
6,881.2
6,882.5
6,883.8
6,885.1
6,886.4
6,887.7
6,888.9
6,890.1
6,891.3
6,892.4
320.3
245.1
187.7
143.7
110.1
84.5
64.8
49.8
38.3
29.5
22.8
17.7
13.8
10.8
8.5
6.7
5.4
4.3
3. The permeability is estimated from the slope of the semilog
straight line.
4. The slope of the bestfit straight line drawn through the later
data (i.e., the latetime region) is
p *p
logt ) Dt Dt * logt ) Dt Dt
m+
ws2
p i * p wf +
+ 12 psicycle.
Note that this slope is two times greater than that determined in Step
2. From the Horner plot shown in Fig. 2.32, the Horner time ratio at
which the middle and latetime straight lines intersect is
(tp )Dtx )/Dtx +405, from which we calculate Dtx +0.99 hours.
Thus, the distance from the well to the fault is estimated to be
(0.000148)(249.6)(0.99)
0.000148kDt
+ (0.22)(0.6)(12.7
fmc
10 )
*6
+ 147.7 ft.
The time required for the slope to double (Eq. 2.91) is estimated
to be
Dt u
3.8
(3.8
10 5fmc t L 2
k
10 5)(0.22)(0.6)(12.7
249.6
10 *6)(147.7)
+ 55.7 hours,
which is much shorter than the duration of the buildup test (i.e., 120
hours). We should note that this pressurebuildup test was simulated
without wellborestorage effects. In practice, however, these effects
0.0744qBt 141.2qBm
r
)
lnr e * 3 ) s .
w
4
kh
fc thr 2e
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.92)
Eq. 2.92 predicts that, during pseudosteadystate flow, pwf will plot
as a linear function of flowing time, t. The slope, dpwf /dt, of this
straight line is
dp wf
* 0.0744qB
* 0.234qB
+
+
.
c tV p
dt
fhr 2e c t
. . . . . . . . . . . . (2.93)
Therefore, PV, Vp (in cubic feet), can be determined from the
slope by
Vp +
* 0.234qB
c t dp w f dt
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.94)
For wells with drainagearea shapes other than circular (cylindrical),
a more general form of the pseudosteadystateflow equation is
p i * p wf +
0.234qBt 141.2qBm 1
)
ln 10.06A
*3)s ,
2
4
kh
fc t hA
C Ar 2w
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.95)
where A+drainage area of the well, ft2, and CA +shape factor,2
which depends on the drainagearea shape and the location of the
well within the drainage area. Similarly, for a generalized reservoir
geometry,
dp wf
* 0.234qB
* 0.234qB
+
+
.
c tV p
dt
fc thA
ws1
6, 876.2 * 6, 888.2
+
log(100) * log(10)
50
2.5.3 Estimating PV From Flow Tests. For a well centered in a cylindrical drainage area, pseudosteadystate flow of a slightly compressible liquid is modeled by
162.6qBm
(162.6)(293)(1.31)(0.6)
+
+ 249.6 md.
(6.0)(25)
mh
k+
L+
will be present and may distort or even mask the appearance of the
first straight line.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.96)
Thus, if pseudosteadystate flow is achieved, the reservoir PV can be
estimated from the slope of a pwf vs. t graph (Cartesian coordinates)
for any drainagearea configuration. The table of shape factors in Appendix D indicates how long a reservoir will be infiniteacting, when
the pseudosteadystateflow equation becomes exact, and when it
predicts pressure drawdown within 1%. These times are expressed in
the table in terms of dimensionless time, tAD , defined as
t AD + 0.0002637ktfmc t A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.97)
For a well centered in a circular drainage area, the reservoir ceases
to become infiniteacting at tAD +0.1. The pseudosteadystateflow
equation becomes exact at tAD +0.1 and is accurate within 1% for
tAD u0.06. Thus, for this reservoir shape, there is no transition region, sometimes referred to as the late transient region. By contrast,
for a well centered in one quadrant of a square drainage area, the reservoir is infiniteacting only to tAD +0.025, and the pseudosteadystateflow equation is accurate to within 1% only when tAD u0.3.
Thus, a late transient region exists for values of tAD between the limits 0.025vtAD v0.3.
Example 2.12Estimating Reservoir PV From a ConstantRate Flow Test. A constantrate pressuredrawdown test (Table
2.21) was run on an oil well. During the test, wellbore distortion ended at about 12 hours flow time. Determine the formation permeability, skin factor, and reservoir PV.
q+
B+
ct +
rw +
m+
250 STB/D
1.136 bbl/STB
17 106 psi1
0.198 ft
0.8 cp
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
TABLE 2.21CONSTANTRATE FLOW DATA, EXAMPLE 2.12
p;;
Pwt
(psia)
Pwf
(hours)
(psia)
4,412
17.3
3,567
0.20
4,201
24.9
3,555
(hours)
4,272
0.12
20.7
4,122
0.30
29.8
4,057
0.40
3,995
43.0
0.70
3,912
61.8
3,857
89.1
3,953
0.90
1.94
4.82
6.94
8.32
319
14.40
3,573
460
3400
0 psi/eye
Time, hours
100
1000
Fig. 2.33Semilog plot, Example 2.12.
3,490
3,481
3,472
3,460
3,446
3650
3,429
3600
III
h= 69 ft
'8,
= 0.039
3550
a:::z::
Solution.
1. Prepare a semilog plot of flowing bottomhole pressure,
a function of time,
10
3,497
383
3,593
3500
3,503
266
3,600
ffi
3,509
222
3,607
Q.
a:
3,515
185
3,616
5.78
III
'iii
3,521
154
3,636
3600
3,526
128
3,653
4.01
3,532
107
3,699
2.79
3,537
74.2
3,822
1.00
3,544
51.5
3,884
0.80
3,549
35.8
0.50
0.60
3,561
3,652 psia
Pwf, as
3500
t, as Fig. 2.33 shows. The semilog graph confirms
d Pm Idt
0.222 psilhour
3450
the conclusion reached from typecurve analysis that wellbore stor
age distortion ended at about 12 hours.
3400
2. Because we have no information about location of boundaries,
we assume that boundary effects begin when the drawdown curve
in Fig. 2.33 starts to deviate from the established straight line on the
semilog graph at a flowing time of 150 hours. The slope of the
middletime line is
3,6523,582
100
162.6qB!1
mh
70 psi/cycle.
(162.6)(250)(1.136)(0.8)
(70)(69)
= 1.151
7.65 m d.
4. Now, we check the radius of investigation at the beginning and
end of the apparent middletime straight line to ensure that we are sam
 10g
pling a representative portion of the formation. With Eq. 2.59, the ra
dius of investigation at the beginning (
ri
kt
948!1c,
) [
= 12
hours) of the test is
(7.65)(12)
(948)(0.039)(0.8)(17
106)
400
500
Fig. 2.34Cartesian plot of test data for estimating reservoir
pore volume, Example 2.12.
3. The formation permeability is
200
300
Time, hours
4, 412 3, 652
70
(7.65)
(0.039)(0.8)(17
2
10 6)(0.198)
+ 3.23
= 6.4.
6. We plot
Pwf vs. t, as in Fig. 2.34. The slope of this curve, dPwjldt,
t> 130 hours and is
is constant for
= 427 ft.
dplVJ 3,531  3,429
_
Similarly, at the end of the middletime region ( = 150 hours),
ri
kt
948!1c,
) [
(7.65)(150)
(948)(0.039)(0.8)(17
106)
dt
0 460
0.234qB
c,(dPIVJ/dt)
= 17.61
A substantial amount of formation has been sampled. Thus, we can
formation.
5. The skin factor,
s =
1.151
s,
is
[ (Pi  Plhr)
m
 log
(k/!1c,rlV2 ) + 3.23
0 . 222 pSI'/hour.
The PY sampled during the test is estimated to be
= 1, 511 ft.
be confident that the permeability of7 .65 md is representative of the
or Vp
3.14
( 0.234)(250)(1.136)
(17
10 6)(0.222)
106 ft3
106 res bbl.
2.6 Analyzing Well Tests With Multiphase Flow
All the previous analysis techniques were derived assuming single
phase flow in the reservoir; however, in welltest analysis, we often
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW AND BUILDUP TEST ANALYSISSLIGHTLY COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
51
encounter situations in which more than one phase is flowing.
Therefore, in this section, we discuss a simple yet widely applicable
method for analyzing flow and buildup tests complicated by multiphase flow. Perrine17 developed an approximate method to analyze
pressure transient tests in wells that produce oil, gas, and water simultaneously. Martin18 later provided theoretical justification for
Perrines method, which requires essentially uniform saturations of
each phase throughout the drainage area of a well for accurate results. If Perrines suggestions do not lead to an adequate test analysis, then other methods1923 are available. Perrines method requires
the following definitions:
Total rate,
(qB)t +qo Bo )Bg (qgt *qo Rs /1,000))qw Bw.
. . . . . . . . . . (2.98)
total mobility,
k + ko ) kw ) kg .
lt + m
mo mw mg
t
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.99)
total compressibility,
ct +co So )cg Sg )cw Sw )cf ,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.101)
B g dR sw
dB
.
and c w + * 1 w )
B w dp
1000B w dp
. . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.102)
The nomenclature defines the other symbols. Oil and water compressibility for a reservoir below the bubblepoint (and, therefore,
with Rs and Rsw not constant) must be calculated from either experimental Bo , Rs , Bw, and Rsw vs. p data or with correlations that include variations of these properties with pressure.
To analyze pressure transient tests from a well producing two or
three phases simultaneously, we plot test data just as for a singlephase test. For example, for a pressurebuildup test, we plot
p ws vs. log t p ) DtDt .
After identifying the end of wellborestorage distortion with the aid
of type curves (used identically as in singlephase test analysis and
as discussed in Chap. 3), we identify the middletime region and determine its slope, m, which is related to the permeability of each
phase flowing as
k o + 162.6q o B o m omh , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.103)
kg +
162.6 q gt * q o R s1, 000 B g m g
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.104)
mh
and k w + 162.6q w B w m wmh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.105)
The total mobility of the system is given by
) B g q gt * q o R s1000 ) q wB w . . . . . (2.106)
The total mobility, lt , is required for calculations that include the
skin factor,
s + 1.151
p 1hr * p wf
m
* logl tfc t r 2w ) 3.23 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.107)
To estimate the current average drainagearea pressure, p, we proceed just as in a singlephase test, usually the MBH p* method. For
52
and p MBH,D +
2.303(p * * p)
h(p * * p)
+
.
m
70.6qBl t
. . . . . . . (2.109)
Distance to boundaries can be estimated by techniques similar to those
used for wells with singlephase flow. For example, when the slope of
a semilog graph doubles at late time for a well near a barrier, the distance to the barrier can be estimated with
L + 0.000148l tDt xfc t ,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.110)
where Dtx +shutin time at which the middletime line intersects the
latetime line, whose slope is double that of the middletime line. In
all these equations used to interpret pressure transient tests, fluid
properties should be evaluated at current average drainagearea
pressure, p.
Example 2.13Analyzing a PressureBuildup Test With Multiphase Flow. A pressurebuildup test was run in a well suspected of
being in a highly faulted reservoir. In addition to confirming reservoir
size, the test also had the objective of confirming a fault quite close
to the well. Before shutin, the well produced oil, gas, and water simultaneously. Table 2.22 gives the pressure and time data from the
buildup test, while other known data are summarized here. Fluid
properties were evaluated at p*, used as an approximation to p.
Determine the following: (1) the start and end of the middletime
region on a semilog graph, given that typecurve analysis indicates
that wellborestorage distortion ended at about 0.25 hours and that
boundary effects began at about 5.3 hours; (2) effective permeabilities ko , kw, and kg ; (3) the skin factor, s; (4) the distance, L, to the
boundary believed to be near the well; and (5) the current average
drainagearea pressure, p, for this well. Geological evidence suggests that the well is completed oneeighth of the distance from the
long edge of a 2 1 rectangle.
qo + 1,100 STB/D
qw + 4,200 STB/D
qgt + 1,800 Mscf/D
tp + 20.5 hours
Rs at p*+ 537 scf/STB
Rsi + 705 scf/STB
mo + 0.49 cp
mw + 0.231 cp
mg + 0.01778 cp
Bo + 1.34 RB/STB
Bw + 1.057 RB/STB
Bg + 1.424 RB/Mscf
co + 2.04 x 104 psi1
cw + 9.79 106 psi1
TABLE 2.22PRESSUREBUILDUPTEST DATA,
EXAMPLE 2.13
l t + 162.6(qB) tmh + 162.6mh
q B
t AD + 0.0002637l t t pfc t A , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.108)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.100)
B g dR s
dB
where c o + * 1 o )
,
B o dp
1000B o dp
multiphase flow, the dimensionless time and pressure functions are
defined, respectively, as
Shutin
Time
(hr)
Pressure
(psia)
Horner
Time
Ratio
Shutin
Time
(hr)
Pressure
(psia)
Horner
Time
Ratio
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.75
1.0
1.5
2.0
1,658
1,778
1,829
1,853
1,864
1,877
1,898
1,912
1,933
1,944
206
103.5
69.3
52.3
42.0
28.3
21.5
14.7
11.3
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9
10
11
12
1,963
1,976
1,984
1,992
1,997
2,003
2,008
2,013
2,016
2,021
7.83
6.13
5.10
4.42
3.93
3.56
3.28
3.05
2.86
2.71
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
+ 0.38 md.
4. To calculate the skin factor, we need p1hr and ct . From Fig. 2.35,
we find p1hr+1,912 psia at (tp )Dt)/Dt+(20.5)1)/1+21.5. Total
system compressibility is
c t + c o S o ) c g S g ) c wS w ) c f
+ 2.04
10 *4(0.33) ) 5.33
) 9.79
10 *6(0.57) ) 3.9
+ 1.30
10 *4psi *1.
10 *4(0.1)
10 *6
Fig. 2.35Horner semilog plot, Example 2.13.
cg +
Sw +
Sg +
cf +
f+
h+
rw +
gg +
oil gravity+
T+
total dissolved solids+
A+
5.33 104 psi1
0.57
0.10
3.9 106 psi1
0.165
114 ft
0.411 ft
0.80 (no N2, H2S, or CO2)
32API
250F
10,000 ppm
23 acres
Solution.
1. Prepare a Horner semilog plot of the data. From Fig. 2.35, the
middletime region begins at (tp )Dt)/Dt+69.3 or Dt+0.3 hours
and ends at (tp )Dt)/Dt+3.93 or Dt+7.0 hours. The slope, m, of the
semilog straight line of the middletime region is
m+116 psi/cycle.
2. Calculate the total flow rate, (qB)t :
(qB) t + q o B o ) q w B w ) q gt * q o R s1, 000 B g
The skin factor is computed with the total mobility.
s + 1.151
+ 1.151
* log
) 1, 800 *
(1, 100)(527)
(1.424)
1, 000
3. Calculate the total system mobility and the effective permeabilities to each flowing phase. First, the total system mobility is
162.6(qB) t
(162.6)(7, 635)
+
+ 93.9 mdcp.
lt +
(116)(114)
mh
The effective permeabilities to oil, water, and gas are, respectively:
ko +
162.6q oB o m o
(162.6)(1, 100)(1.34)(0.49)
+
+ 8.9 md
(116)(114)
mh
kw +
162.6q w B wm w
(162.6)(4, 200)(1.057)(0.231)
+
(116)(114)
mh
+ 12.6 md,
and k g +
qo Rs
1,000
* logl tfc t r 2w ) 3.23
(1, 912 * 1, 658)
116
(0.165)(1.30
93.9
) 3.23
2
10 *4)(0.411)
5. Although we see the effects of the boundary on the pressure response, the slope does not double during the test. Thus, we cannot
use the methods presented in this chapter to estimate the distance to
the boundary. However, we can calculate the radius of investigation
at a shutin time of 7 hours, when boundary effects began to be felt.
(93.9)(7)
l Dt
948fc
+ (948)(0.165)(1.3
10 *4
+ 180 ft.
We can estimate the distance to the nearest boundary from geological considerations. The well is thought to be oneeighth of the width
of a 2 1 rectangle from the nearest edge. The length of the short
side of a 23acre, 2 1 rectangle is given by
2L 2 + 43, 560A;
+ 7, 635 RBD.
162.6 q gt *
p 1hr * p wf
+ * 2.3.
ri +
+ (1, 100)(1.34) ) (4, 200)(1.057)
B m
g
therefore, L +
mh
+ 88.5 ft.
We would expect boundary effects to be felt when the radius of investigation reaches the image well; that is, when
r i + 2L + (2)(88.5) + 177 ft.
Thus, we conclude that the pressure response is consistent with the
geological interpretation.
6. To estimate the current average drainagearea pressure, p, we
extrapolate the semilog straight line to obtain p*+2,068 psia from
Fig. 2.35. The MBH dimensionless time group is
t AD +
(43, 560)(23)
0.0002637l t t p
(0.0002637)(93.9)(20.5)
+
(0.165)(1.3 10 *4)(1, 001, 880)
fc t A
+ 0.024.
From Fig. 2.36,
(162.6) 1, 800 * (1, 100) (0.537) (1.424) (0.01778)
+
(116) (114)
p MBH,D +
2.303(p * * p)
+ * 0.55
m
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW AND BUILDUP TEST ANALYSISSLIGHTLY COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
53
Fig. 2.36MBH chart for Example 2.13.
Then P
mpMBH,D
2.303
2 '068
(1 1 6 )( 0.55)
2.303
is infiniteacting throughout the entire production history. We consid
ered both the special case of a tworate test and the more general case
of an nrate test. From the tworate test, it is possible to solve for the
2 , 09 6
initial pressure, Pi, in addition to permeability and skin factor; for the
psia.
nrate test, the initial pressure must be known.
In Sec.
2.3,
we turn our attention to pressurebuildup tests. As
noted earlier, flow tests are subject to variation in rate, which ad
versely ffects our ability to analyze the tests. By shutting in a well,
2.7 Chapter Summary
This chapter introduces the traditional methods for flow and build
uptest analysis for a well producing a singlephase, slightly com
pressible liquid from a singlelayer reservoir. Sec.
2.1
presents an
overview of the chapter.
In Sec.
2.2, we discuss flow tests, also known as drawdown tests,
where the pressure response to a known production rate or rates is
measured. These tests can be used to estimate permeability, skin fac
tor, reservoir PV, and distance to nearby linear boundaries. Flow
tests are often conducted when economic considerations prohibit
the use of pressurebuildup tests.
Sec.
2.2.1
presents an analysis method for estimating permeabil
ity and skin factor for constantrate drawdown tests. This method is
based on plotting wellbore pressure vs. producing time on a semilog
scale and drawing a bestfit straight line through the data.
It is often difficult to maintain a constant flow rate during a flow
test. In fact, the inability to maintain a strictly constant flow rate is
the major disadvantage of flow tests compared with buildup tests.
Accordingly, in the following two subsections, we present methods
for analyzing flow tests where the rate is a function of time.
Sec. 2.2.2 introduces the Winestock and Colpitts3 method of anal
ysis, which is applicable to flow tests where the flow rate is changing
s owly and smoothly. In this technique, we plot the pressure change
dIVIded by the production rate vs. the production time, again on
sernilog coordinates. The analysis provides estimates of formation
permeability and skin factor.
Sec.
2.2.3
presents an analysis method applicable to a well that has
had n discrete rate changes during its production history. This method
is based on the assumption that the logarithmic approximation to the
Ei function is applicable to each production period; i.e., the reservoir
54
we can Impose a strictly constant surface rate on the well. Thus,
pressurebuildup tests traditionally have been used in lieu of flow
tests for measuring permeability and skin factor.
Sec.
2.3.1
presents the Horner analysis method, which is applica
ble to pressurebuildup tests where the well is shut in following a
constantrate flow period. To use this method, we plot the shutin
wellboe pressure vs. the Horner time ratio, defined as (tp + l!,.t)/l!,.t,
.
on semllog coordmates. The Horner method provides estimates of
formation permeability, skin factor, and, for infiniteacting reser
voirs, original reservoir pressure.
Secs.
2.3.2
and
2.3.3
present analysis techniques for wells where
the shutin period is preceded by two and by n
different flow
rates, respectively. Both these methods are based on the use of su
perposition, where the logarithmic approximation to the Eifunction
solution describes the contribution to the pressure drop from each
producing period. Again, both methods provide estimates of forma
tion permeability, skin factor, and initial reservoir pressure.
We also presented two alternatives to the superposition method,
for wells in which the number of flowrate changes makes the super
position analysis inconvenient. The Odeh and Selig method is appli
cable to tests where the shutin time is greater than the actual pro
ducing time. This method is applied by modifying the production
time and flow rate with Eqs.
2.50 and 2.51, then applying Horner's
method with these modified values.
Horner's approximation is often used when the flow period im
mediately preceding the shutin is comparable in length with the
shutin period. To use this approximation, we compute a pseudopro
ducing time
tpH
tp as
24Np/qlast'.......................... (2.111 )
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
then use this value in place of the actual producing time in the Horner method.
Actual tests invariably are affected by any of a number of factors
that cause the pressure response to deviate from the ideal response
assumed in developing the methods considered in Secs. 2.2 and 2.3.
In Sec. 2.4, we discuss a number of these factors, including reservoir heterogeneity, reservoir boundaries, wellbore storage, and
wellbore damage and stimulation.
Sec. 2.4.1 introduces the concept of radius of investigation. The
radius of investigation is given by
ri +
kt
948fmc
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.112)
t
for a flow test and by
r i + kDt948fmc t
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.113)
for a buildup test. The radius of investigation provides a framework
for understanding the influence of reservoir heterogeneities on the
wellborepressure response. Heterogeneities outside the radius of
investigation have no effect on the wellbore response. As the duration of the test increases, the radius of investigation also increases,
as does the likelihood that significant heterogeneities will be encountered.
In Sec. 2.4.2, we discuss the three time regions (early, middle, and
late) into which flow or builduptest data are often divided. During
the earlytime region, the pressure response deviates from the ideal
owing to wellbore storage and/or wellbore damage or stimulation.
During the middletime region, the pressure response corresponds
to the ideal response on which the analysis methods presented in this
chapter are based. Thus, a straight line drawn through the data in this
region is often referred to as the correct semilog straight line. During the latetime region, the pressure response again deviates from
the straightline response, because of the presence of significant reservoir heterogeneities, interference from other wells, or reservoir
boundaries.
Sec. 2.4.3 discusses wellborestorage effects, also known as wellbore unloading for flow tests and afterflow for buildup tests. This
phenomenon results from the fact that the sandface flow rate lags the
surface flow rate when the wellbore has a finite volume. We characterize the degree of wellbore storage by the wellborestorage coefficient, C. We present expressions to estimate the wellborestorage
coefficient either for a rising or falling gas/liquid interface (Eq.
2.62) or for a wellbore containing a singlephase fluid (Eq. 2.63).
Sec. 2.4.4 discusses various ways of characterizing the degree of
damage or stimulation in the nearwellbore region. The skin factor is
often used to characterize an alteration in the nearwellbore region,
with positive values representing damage and negative values representing stimulation. The simplest skineffect model, applicable only
to damaged skin, consists of an infinitesimally thin zone of reduced
permeability adjacent to the wellbore, causing a step change in the
pressure profile across the skin zone. Another model involves a twozone reservoir, with altered permeability ks within a radius rs of the
wellbore. This model can represent either damage or stimulation. An
alternative model involves the effective wellbore radius, rwa . For
damaged wells, rwa is smaller than the actual radius rw ; for stimulated
wells, it is larger than rw. For wells with a highconductivity hydraulic
fracture, the fracture halflength may be related to rwa by Lf +2rwa .
The skin factor may also be characterized by the additional pressure
drop associated with the damaged zone,
Dp s +
141.2qBm
s .
kh
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.114)
A final method of characterizing the skin effect is the flow efficiency, E, where values less than 1 represent damage, and values greater
than 1 represent stimulation.
The next two sections discuss the apparent skin factor owing to
the presence of either an incompletely perforated interval or partial
penetration (Sec. 2.4.5) or a deviated wellbore (Sec. 2.4.6.)
In Sec. 2.5, we turn our attention to the latetime region, discussing methods of estimating drainagearea pressure, distance to
boundaries, and reservoir PV.
Sec. 2.5.1 introduces three methods for estimating the drainagearea pressure. If at least one side of the reservoir is still infiniteacting,
the Horner straight line may be extrapolated to infinite shutin time
to obtain the initial pressure, pi . If the reservoir is finiteacting and the
drainagearea shape and well placement within the drainage area are
known, the MBH method is applicable. The Horner straight line is extrapolated to infinite shutin time as in the case of an infinite acting
reservoir, but the extrapolated pressure p* must then be corrected by
use of the appropriate MBH function to obtain average drainagearea
pressure, p. The modified Muskat method is limited to wells centered
in the drainage area. Because it depends on the availability of pressurebuildup data within the transition from the middletime region
to the boundarydominated region, it is restricted in its applicability.
TABLE 2.23SOURCES FOR ROCK AND FLUID PROPERTIES
Property
Suggested Sources of Property
Rock Porosity, f (Fraction)
Net Pay Thickness, h (ft)
Formation Compressibility, cf (psi1):
Core analysis or well logs
Drilling reports or well logs
Laboratory measurements or correlations
Fluid Compressibilities (psi1):
(Eq. L88 or L89, Appendix L)
Laboratory measurements of fluid samples, or use
Oil, co
Water, cw
Gas, cg
Fluid Saturations: So , Sw , Sg (fraction)
Fluid Viscosities (cp):
mo
mw
mg
Formation Volume Factors:
Bo
Bw
Bg
Total Compressibility, ct (psi1)
the following correlations from Appendix L:
Eq. L65 or L66
Eq. L82 or L83
Eq. L44
Core analyses or well logs
Laboratory measurements of fluid samples, or use
the following correlations from Appendix L:
Eq. L68 or L71
Eqs. L84 and L87
Eq. L46
Laboratory measurements of fluid samples,
or calculate as follows:
Eq. L63
Eq. L73
Eq. L8
co So )cw Sw )cg Sg )cf
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW AND BUILDUP TEST ANALYSISSLIGHTLY COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
55
In Sec. 2.5.2, we discuss a method of determining the distance to
a linear noflow boundary when the slope of a builduptest plot
doubles during the test.
Sec. 2.5.3 presents a method for estimating reservoir PV from a
Cartesian graph of wellbore pressure vs. time for a well produced
at constant rate.
Finally, in Sec. 2.6, we adapt the techniques presented in earlier
sections for singlephase flow to the analysis of tests where more
than one phase is flowing.
Successful application of the welltest analysis techniques presented in this chapter requires rock and fluid properties. Table 2.23
summarizes pertinent data requirements and suggests sources for
estimating these data.
Exercises
1. Estimate formation permeability and skin factor from the drawdown test data given the following formation and fluid properties:
q+90 STB/D; pi +1479 psia; h+17 ft; f+25%; rw +0.21 ft;
B+1.1 RB/STB; ct +7.65 106 psi1; and m+7.86 cp.
TABLE 2.26DRAWDOWN TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.3
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
10
12
7811.9
7774.0
7751.8
7736.1
7723.9
7713.9
7698.2
7686.0
7676.0
14
16
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
7667.6
7660.3
7653.9
7645.4
7638.1
7631.7
7625.9
7620.7
7616.0
4. Estimate formation permeability and skin factor from the drawdown test data given the following formation and fluid properties:
q+17 STB/D; pi +788.5 psia; h+37 ft; f+16.5 %; rw +0.24 ft;
B+1.046 RB/STB; ct +6.7 106 psi1; and m+13.7 cp.
DRAWDOWN TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.1
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
283.8
239.8
214.5
196.6
182.8
171.5
162.0
153.8
146.5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
140.0
134.1
128.8
123.9
119.3
115.1
111.1
107.4
103.9
1.00
2.10
3.31
4.64
6.11
7.72
9.49
11.4
13.6
15.9
291.1
279.8
273.0
268.1
264.2
260.8
257.9
255.2
252.8
250.5
18.5
21.4
24.5
28.0
31.8
35.9
40.5
45.6
48.0
248.3
246.3
244.4
242.5
240.7
239.0
237.3
235.6
234.9
2. Estimate formation permeability and skin factor from the drawdown test data given the following formation and fluid properties:
q+90 STB/D; pi +2140 psia; h+5 ft; f+21.7%; rw +0.49 ft;
B+1.091 RB/STB; ct +7.8 106 psi1; and m+2.44 cp.
DRAWDOWN TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.2
Time
(minutes)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(minutes)
Pressure
(psi)
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
180
538.8
499.2
479.1
465.4
455.0
446.6
439.6
433.5
428.1
423.4
419.1
415.2
195
210
225
240
255
270
285
300
315
330
345
360
411.6
408.3
405.2
402.4
399.7
397.1
394.7
392.4
390.3
388.2
386.2
384.3
3. Estimate formation permeability and skin factor from the drawdown test data given the following formation and fluid properties:
q+777 STB/D; pi +8294.5 psia; h+98 ft; f+18.6%; rw +0.24 ft;
B+1.342 RB/STB; ct +11.4 106 psi1; and m+0.895 cp.
56
DRAWDOWN TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.4
Time
(hours)
5. Estimate formation permeability and skin factor from the drawdown test data given the following formation and fluid properties:
q+50 STB/D; pi +1326.6 psia; h+25 ft; f+27.6 %; rw +0.36 ft;
B+1.099 RB/STB; ct +9.4 106 psi1; and m+5.28 cp. Where do
you draw the straight line?
DRAWDOWN TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.5
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.100
0.220
0.364
0.537
0.744
0.993
1.29
1.65
2.08
1109.0
937.0
805.1
707.8
638.4
589.9
555.5
530.2
510.3
2.60
3.22
3.96
4.85
5.92
7.20
8.74
10.59
12.81
493.7
478.9
465.4
452.8
440.8
429.3
418.1
407.2
396.6
15.47
18.67
22.50
27.10
32.62
39.25
47.20
48.00
386.1
375.8
365.6
355.5
345.5
335.5
325.6
324.7
6. Estimate formation permeability and skin factor from the drawdown test data given the following formation and fluid properties:
q+1200 STB/D; pi +4474.4 psia; h+26 ft; f+21.6 %; rw +0.22
ft; B+1.52 RB/STB; ct +16.6 106 psi1; and m+0.29 cp. Where
do you draw the straight line?
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
DRAWDOWN TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.6
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.010
0.022
0.036
0.054
0.074
0.099
0.129
0.165
0.208
0.260
0.322
0.396
0.485
4449.3
4419.7
4384.8
4343.9
4296.2
4240.7
4176.7
4103.1
4019.5
3925.2
3820.2
3704.9
3580.1
0.592
0.720
0.874
1.06
1.28
1.55
1.87
2.25
2.71
3.26
3.92
4.72
5.67
3447.8
3310.4
3171.5
3035.0
2905.3
2786.8
2682.6
2595.0
2524.0
2468.4
2425.3
2391.6
2364.1
6.82
8.19
9.84
11.8
14.2
17.0
20.5
24.6
29.5
35.4
42.5
48.0
2340.6
2319.5
2299.8
2281.1
2263.1
2245.6
2228.5
2211.7
2195.1
2178.7
2162.5
2151.8
7. Estimate formation permeability and skin factor from the drawdown test data given the following formation and fluid properties:
pi +4521.6 psia; h+13 ft; f+3.88 %; rw +0.25 ft; B+1.30 RB/
STB; ct +8.44 106 psi1; and m+1.73 cp. Note that the pressure
is actually rising at the end of the test, in spite of the fact that this is
a flow test.
ability, skin factor, and initial pressure from the tworate test data
given the following formation and fluid properties: q1+100 STB/
D; tp1+72 hr; q2+200 STB/D; pwf1+4403.44 psi; h+12 ft;
f+10.9 %; rw +0.32 ft; B+1.263 RB/STB; ct +12.2 106 psi1;
and m+1.067 cp.
TWORATE TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.9
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.109
0.149
0.201
0.245
0.299
0.401
0.538
0.653
4257.15
4252.51
4248.10
4245.24
4242.43
4238.29
4234.21
4231.52
0.792
0.96
1.552
2.07
2.506
3.035
4.043
5.384
4228.84
4226.18
4219.53
4215.55
4212.88
4210.20
4206.15
4202.06
6.517
8.677
10.502
15.502
20.502
24.000
4199.29
4195.08
4192.21
4186.19
4181.69
4179.07
10. A well is produced at 50 STB/D for 72 hrs. The rate is then decreased to 25 STB/D for 24 hours. Estimate formation permeability,
skin factor, and initial pressure from the tworate test data given the
following formation and fluid properties: q1+50 STB/D; tp1+72 hr;
q2+25 STB/D; pwf1+1142.24 psi; h+43 ft; f+8.2 %; rw +0.45 ft;
B+1.143 RB/STB; ct +10.5 106 psi1; and m+1.278 cp.
DRAWDOWN TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.7
TWORATE TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.10
Time
(hours)
Rate
(STB/D)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Rate
(STB/D)
Pressure
(psi)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
249
248
247
246
245
244
243
242
241
240
239
4329.5
4322.3
4318.4
4315.9
4314.2
4312.9
4312.0
4311.3
4310.9
4310.5
4310.3
12
14
16
18
21
24
27
30
36
42
48
238
236
234
232
229
226
223
220
214
208
202
4310.2
4310.2
4310.4
4310.9
4311.8
4313.0
4314.4
4316.0
4319.5
4323.3
4327.5
8. Estimate formation permeability and skin factor from the drawdown test data given the following formation and fluid properties:
pi +2782.78 psia; pwf +1800 psi; h+19 ft; f+7.5 %; rw +0.37 ft;
B+1.166 RB/STB; ct +12.1 106 psi1; and m+2.999 cp. Note
that flowing bottomhole pressure is constant.
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.109
0.149
0.201
0.245
0.299
0.401
0.488
0.592
1354.12
1371.25
1382.65
1387.69
1391.29
1395.01
1396.87
1398.50
0.719
0.872
1.057
1.552
2.070
3.035
4.043
5.384
1400.01
1401.46
1402.87
1405.61
1407.58
1410.12
1411.94
1413.68
5.923
7.170
7.887
9.546
10.502
15.502
19.502
24.000
1414.25
1415.34
1415.87
1416.90
1417.39
1419.25
1420.20
1420.96
11. A drawdown test is run on an oil well at a series of three different rates, with each flow period lasting 3 hours. Given the following
formation and fluid properties, estimate formation permeability and
skin factor from the test data using the multirate analysis method:
q1+15 STB/D; q2+30 STB/D; q3+45 STB/D; pi +5883.16 psi;
h+13 ft; f+17.7 %; rw +0.42 ft; B+1.231 RB/STB;
ct +9.79 106 psi1; and m+3.371 cp.
TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.11
DRAWDOWN TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.8
Time
(hours)
Rate
(STB/D)
Time
(hours)
Rate
(STB/D)
Time
(hours)
Rate
(STB/D)
6
12
18
24
36
48
60
72
96
120
70.0
56.9
53.2
50.9
48.0
46.1
44.8
43.8
42.2
41.1
144
168
192
216
240
264
288
312
336
360
40.2
39.5
38.9
38.4
38.0
37.6
37.2
36.9
36.6
36.3
384
408
432
456
480
528
576
624
672
720
36.0
35.8
35.6
35.4
35.2
34.9
34.5
34.3
34.0
33.7
9. A well is produced at 100 STB/D for 72 hours. The rate is then
increased to 200 STB/D for 24 hours. Estimate formation perme
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
5349.68
5335.65
5327.76
5322.27
5318.05
5314.62
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
4778.26
4761.74
4751.66
4744.21
4738.22
4733.19
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
4195.34
4177.45
4166.1
4157.46
4150.36
4144.26
12. A drawdown test is run on an oil well at a series of three different rates, with each flow period lasting 4 hours. Given the following
formation and fluid properties, estimate formation permeability and
skin factor from the test data using the multirate analysis method:
q1+250 STB/D; q2+225 STB/D; q3+200 STB/D; pi +2003.80
psi; h+33 ft; f+29.5 %; rw +0.2 ft; B+1.181 RB/STB;
ct +12.0 106 psi1; and m+1.661 cp.
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW AND BUILDUP TEST ANALYSISSLIGHTLY COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
57
TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.12
BUILDUP TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.16
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
1810.32
1794.41
1785.12
1778.54
1773.44
1769.27
1765.75
1762.70
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
1779.35
1778.54
1777.29
1775.96
1774.64
1773.37
1772.15
1770.98
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
1789.21
1789.74
1789.65
1789.34
1788.91
1788.44
1787.93
1787.41
0.05
0.11
0.182
0.268
0.372
0.496
0.646
0.825
1.040
1.298
1.608
1.979
6552.27
6707.23
6864.04
7020.47
7173.63
7320.43
7457.95
7583.84
7696.62
7795.84
7882.09
7956.77
2.42
2.96
3.60
4.37
5.30
6.41
7.74
9.33
11.25
13.55
16.31
19.62
8021.74
8078.99
8130.31
8177.16
8220.64
8261.51
8300.33
8337.44
8373.10
8407.47
8440.65
8472.71
23.6
28.4
34.1
41.0
49.2
59.1
71.0
85.2
102.3
122.8
144.0
8503.65
8533.47
8562.13
8589.59
8615.78
8640.64
8664.10
8686.10
8706.57
8725.50
8740.72
13. Estimate formation permeability and skin factor from the
buildup test data given the following formation and fluid properties:
q+1000 STB/D; tp +72 hr; pwf +3319.1 psia; h+12 ft; f+25.7%;
rw +0.32 ft; B+1.41 RB/STB; ct +12.5 106 psi1; and m+0.53
cp.
BUILDUP TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.13
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.100
0.220
0.364
0.537
0.744
5155.7
5266.4
5335.5
5388.3
5432.4
0.993
1.292
1.650
2.080
2.596
5471.2
5506.3
5538.8
5569.3
5598.3
3.215
3.958
4.850
5.920
6.000
5626.1
5652.9
5678.7
5703.7
5705.4
14. Estimate formation permeability and skin factor from the buildup test data given the following formation and fluid properties:
q+1000 STB/D; tp +72 hr; pwf +2096.2 psia; h+55 ft; f+28.2%;
rw +0.37 ft; B+1.155 RB/STB; ct +10.7 106 psi1; and m+2.48
cp.
BUILDUP TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.14
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.100
0.220
0.364
0.537
0.744
2833.3
2850.9
2862.0
2870.6
2877.7
0.993
1.292
1.650
2.080
2.596
2884.0
2889.7
2895.0
2899.9
2904.7
3.215
3.958
4.850
5.920
6.000
2909.2
2913.5
2917.7
2921.8
2922.1
17. Estimate formation permeability and skin factor from the
buildup test data given the following formation and fluid properties:
h+5 ft; f+20.7 %; rw +0.37 ft; B+1.356 RB/STB;
ct +15.45 106 psi1; and m+0.658 cp.
BUILDUP TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.17
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.0
0.019
0.029
0.041
0.056
0.075
0.099
0.129
0.166
0.213
0.271
2595.04
2660.54
2689.87
2723.10
2759.94
2799.64
2840.96
2882.19
2921.28
2956.28
2985.70
0.344
0.435
0.548
0.691
0.868
1.090
1.368
1.715
2.15
2.69
3.37
3008.87
3026.09
3038.36
3047.01
3053.34
3058.35
3062.68
3066.69
3070.53
3074.28
3077.95
4.22
5.27
6.60
8.25
10.32
12.90
16.14
20.17
24.00
3081.57
3085.13
3088.65
3092.13
3095.58
3099.01
3102.41
3105.79
3108.40
18. Estimate formation permeability and skin factor from the buildup test data given the following formation and fluid properties: h+62
ft; f+21.5 %; rw +0.26 ft; B+1.163 RB/STB; ct +8.38 106
psi1; and m+2.19 cp. Note that the short final flow period makes use
of the Horner pseudoproducing time approximation inappropriate.
BUILDUP TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.18
15. Estimate formation permeability and skin factor from the
buildup test data given the following formation and fluid properties:
q+7 STB/D; tp +144 hr; pwf +858.3 psia; h+16 ft; f+12.8 %;
rw +0.37 ft; B+1.077 RB/STB; ct +7.8 106 psi1; and m+4.44
cp.
BUILDUP TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.15
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.100
0.220
0.364
0.537
0.744
0.993
1.292
1.650
1001.55
1006.20
1009.08
1011.27
1013.10
1014.71
1016.16
1017.51
2.080
2.596
3.215
3.958
4.850
5.920
7.204
8.744
1018.79
1020.00
1021.16
1022.29
1023.38
1024.45
1025.49
1026.51
10.593
12.812
15.474
18.669
22.503
24.000
1027.51
1028.48
1029.43
1030.36
1031.27
1031.58
16. Estimate formation permeability and skin factor from the buildup test data given the following formation and fluid properties:
q+225 STB/D; tp +144 hr; pwf +6399.66 psia; h+5 ft; f+7.9 %;
rw +0.33 ft; B+1.261 RB/STB; ct +8.45 106 psi1; and m+2.43
cp.
58
Time
(hours)
0
0.005
0.011
0.019
0.029
0.041
0.056
0.075
0.099
0.129
0.166
Pressure
(psi)
5048.0
5167.4
5265.2
5339.0
5390.0
5422.4
5442.0
5453.8
5461.5
5467.1
5471.8
Time
(hours)
Rate
(STB/D)
144
6
180
90
Time
(hours)
0.213
0.271
0.344
0.435
0.548
0.691
0.868
1.090
1.368
1.715
2.15
Pressure
(psi)
5476.1
5480.2
5484.1
5488.0
5491.8
5495.6
5499.3
5503.2
5507.0
5511.0
5515.0
Time
(hours)
2.69
3.37
4.22
5.27
6.60
8.25
10.32
12.90
16.14
20.17
24.00
Pressure
(psi)
5519.1
5523.3
5527.7
5532.2
5536.8
5541.5
5546.3
5551.2
5556.2
5561.1
5564.9
19. Estimate formation permeability and skin factor from the
buildup test data given the following formation and fluid properties:
h+11 ft; f+19 %; rw +0.34 ft; B+1.19 RB/STB; ct +10.5 106
psi1; and m+5.91 cp.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
BUILDUP TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.19
Time
(hours)
Rate
(STB/D)
24
72
6
18
180
250
0
120
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0
0.020
0.045
0.076
0.115
0.164
0.225
0.301
0.397
2526.72
2645.98
2765.76
2881.13
2986.13
3075.48
3146.16
3198.19
3234.23
0.516
0.665
0.851
1.084
1.375
1.739
2.19
2.76
3.47
3258.30
3274.49
3286.08
3295.24
3303.22
3310.64
3317.78
3324.73
3331.57
4.36
5.47
6.86
8.59
10.76
13.47
16.86
21.1
24.0
3338.32
3345.02
3351.69
3358.35
3365.02
3371.70
3378.40
3385.09
3388.94
20. Estimate formation permeability and skin factor from the
buildup test data given the following formation and fluid properties:
h+56 ft; f+15.6 %; rw +0.4 ft; B+1.232 RB/STB;
ct +10.1 106 psi1; and m+1.35 cp.
BUILDUP TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.20
Time
(hours)
Rate
(STB/D)
4
4
4
135
90
45
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0
0.006
0.013
0.022
0.033
0.046
0.063
0.082
0.107
0.136
0.172
0.216
6013.03
6027.74
6043.98
6061.61
6080.29
6099.54
6118.68
6136.89
6153.39
6167.52
6178.90
6187.54
0.269
0.334
0.414
0.511
0.630
0.774
0.950
1.166
1.428
1.748
2.14
2.62
6193.72
6197.96
6200.83
6202.82
6204.31
6205.56
6206.70
6207.80
6208.88
6209.95
6211.01
6212.06
3.20
3.91
4.77
5.83
7.11
8.69
10.60
12.94
15.79
19.27
23.52
24.00
6213.09
6214.10
6215.09
6216.04
6216.96
6217.83
6218.65
6219.42
6220.12
6220.76
6221.34
6221.39
21. Given the following formation and fluid properties, calculate
the radius of investigation at 1 hour, 10 hours, 100 hours, and 1000
hours: h+23 ft; f+16.5%; rw +0.32 ft; B+1.322 RB/STB;
ct +14.3 106 psi1; m+1.53 cp; q+83 STB/D; and k+147 md.
22. Given the following formation and fluid properties, calculate
the radius of investigation at 1 hour, 10 hours, 100 hours, and 1000
hours: h+49 ft; f+8.9 %; rw +0.25 ft; B+1.17 RB/STB;
ct +122 106 psi1; m+0.35 cp; q+247 STB/D; and k+12 md.
23. Given the following formation and fluid properties, calculate
the time required to reach a radius of investigation of 10 feet, 50 feet,
100 feet, and 500 feet: h+63 ft; f+19.7 %; rw +0.23 ft; B+1.26
RB/STB; ct +12.9 106 psi1; m+6.77 cp; q+28 STB/D; and
k+252 md.
24. Given the following formation and fluid properties, calculate the
time required to reach a radius of investigation of 10 feet, 50 feet, 100
feet, and 500 feet: h+7 ft; f+12.2 %; rw +0.33 ft; B+1.131 RB/
STB; ct +9.8 106 psi1; m+12.3 cp; q+7 STB/D; and k+39 md.
25. Calculate the wellbore storage coefficient for a wellbore filled
with water. The well has 2273 feet of 3in. tubing (2.992 inches ID),
with 327 ft of 6inch casing (5 inches ID) below the packer. The average compressibility of the water in the wellbore is 3.6 106 psi1.
26. Calculate the wellbore storage coefficient for a wellbore filled
with gas. The well has 5743 ft of 27/8in. tubing, (2.441 inches ID),
with 517 ft of 5in. casing (4.950 inches ID) below the packer. The
average compressibility of the gas in the wellbore is 2.7 104 psi1.
27. Calculate the wellbore storage coefficient for a water injection well with a changing liquid level. The well has 3in. tubing,
(2.992 inches ID) and 6inch casing (5 inches ID). The gasliquid
interface is within the tubing. The tubing is isolated from the tubingcasing annulus by a packer. The density of the liquid in the wellbore
is 1.04 g/cm3.
28. Calculate the wellbore storage coefficient for a pumping well
with a rising liquid level. The well has 27/8in. tubing (2.441 inches
ID) and 5in. casing (4.950 inches ID). Both the tubing and the
tubingcasing annulus are in communication with the formation.
The density of the liquid in the wellbore is 0.82 g/cm3.
29. Analysis of a pressure buildup test showed that an oil well
with a productivity problem had a skin factor of 8.2 and an effective
permeability to oil of 19.1 md. Prior to shutting in the well, the flowing bottomhole pressure at the time of shutin was 2309 psi, and the
well produced oil at a constant rate of 105 STB/D. Estimate the following: a) altered zone permeability, ks , for assumed altered zone
radii of 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10 feet; b) the effective wellbore radius, rwa ;
c) the additional pressure drop near the wellbore due to formation
damage; and d) the flow efficiency, E. Use the following data:
m+3.75 cp; B+1.226 RB/STB; rw +0.23 ft; h+67 ft; k+19.1 md;
s+8.2; q+105 STB/D; pwf +2309 psi; and p+3137 psi.
30. Analysis of a pressure buildup test showed that a recently
stimulated oil well had a skin factor of *2.7 and an effective permeability to oil of 8.9 md. Prior to shutting in the well, the flowing bottomhole pressure at the time of shutin was 1441 psi, and the well
produced oil at a constant rate of 152 STB/D. Estimate the following: a) the effective wellbore radius, rwa ; b) the additional pressure
drop near the wellbore due to formation damage; and c) the flow efficiency, E. m+0.382 cp; B+1.193 RB/STB; rw +0.33 ft; h+9 ft;
k+8.9 md; s+*2.7; q+152 STB/D; pwf +1441 psi; and p+1992
psi.
31. A well is completed in the top 6 feet of a 47footthick zone.
The wellbore radius is 0.33 feet. The ratio kv /kh is 0.08. Calculate the
apparent skin factor due to failure to complete the entire interval.
What would the apparent skin factor be if the well were completed
in the bottom 6 feet of the zone instead? If the perforated interval
were centered in the zone?
32. A well is completed in a 192footthickzone. The perforated
interval is 17 feet, with the top of the perforations 21 feet below the
top of the zone. The wellbore radius is 0.25 feet. The ratio kv /kh is
0.05. Calculate the apparent skin factor due to failure to complete
the entire interval.
33. A deviated well is completed in a 92footthick reservoir. The
wellbore lies at an angle of 63 degrees from the vertical. The wellbore radius is 0.27 feet. The ratio kv /kh is 0.12. Calculate the apparent skin factor due to the deviated wellbore.
34. You are planning a deviated well for a field where you expect
to encounter a zone 220 feet thick. The well will be drilled with a
6inch bit (wellbore radius will be 0.25 feet). The ratio kv /kh is not
known, so assume a value of 0.1 for planning purposes. Calculate
the apparent skin factor due to the deviated wellbore for deviation
angles of 0 to 75 degrees in 5 degree increments. Graph your results.
35. A well is centered in a square reservoir. Use Horner analysis
to estimate formation permeability and skin factor given the following formation and fluid properties: q+27 STB/D; tp +1440 hrs;
re +1320 ft; h+51 ft; f+29.4 %; rw +0.29 ft; B+1.136 RB/STB;
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW AND BUILDUP TEST ANALYSISSLIGHTLY COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
59
ct +9.68 106 psi1; and m+8.7 cp. Then use the MBH and Modified Muskat methods to estimate average drainage area pressure.
DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.35
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0
0.050
0.110
0.182
0.268
0.372
0.496
0.646
0.825
1.040
1.298
1.608
1.979
2162.11
2202.30
2234.27
2258.66
2276.35
2288.59
2296.80
2302.29
2306.12
2309.01
2311.38
2313.45
2315.34
2.42
2.96
3.60
4.37
5.30
6.41
7.74
9.33
11.25
13.55
16.31
19.62
23.60
2317.10
2318.77
2320.37
2321.91
2323.41
2324.88
2326.31
2327.72
2329.10
2330.45
2331.79
2333.09
2334.37
28.4
34.1
41.0
49.2
59.1
71.0
85.2
102.3
122.8
147.4
177.0
196.0
2335.62
2336.84
2338.02
2339.17
2340.26
2341.29
2342.25
2343.13
2343.92
2344.59
2345.15
2345.41
36. A well is centered in an 80acre, 2 1 rectangular reservoir.
Use Horner analysis to estimate formation permeability and skin factor given the following formation and fluid properties: q+10 STB/D;
tp +960 hrs; A+80 acres; h+10 ft; f+31.9%; rw +0.34 ft;
B+1.098 RB/STB; ct +10.9 106 psi1; and m+5.11 cp. Then use
the MBH method to estimate average drainage area pressure. Why is
the Modified Muskat method not appropriate for this problem?
DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.37
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0
0.00030
0.00066
0.00109
0.00161
0.00223
0.00298
0.00387
0.00495
0.00624
0.00779
0.00965
0.01187
0.01455
0.01776
0.0216
0.0262
2820.04
3160.59
3213.30
3223.92
3228.68
3232.13
3234.99
3237.50
3239.79
3241.92
3243.93
3245.86
3247.72
3249.53
3251.29
3253.02
3254.73
0.0318
0.0384
0.0464
0.0560
0.0675
0.0813
0.0979
0.1177
0.1416
0.1702
0.205
0.246
0.295
0.355
0.426
0.511
0.614
3256.41
3258.07
3259.73
3261.38
3263.04
3264.73
3266.45
3268.24
3270.09
3272.03
3274.07
3276.21
3278.45
3280.79
3283.12
3285.75
3288.35
0.737
0.885
1.062
1.274
1.530
1.836
2.20
2.64
3.17
3.81
4.57
5.48
6.58
7.90
9.48
11.37
12.00
3291.03
3293.76
3296.54
3299.37
3302.23
3305.12
3308.03
3310.95
3313.87
3316.78
3319.69
3322.58
3325.44
3328.27
3331.05
3333.78
3334.57
38. A new well was drilled in a closed reservoir, and a 7day flow
test was run. Estimate formation permeability and skin factor given
the following formation and fluid properties: q+423 STB/D;
pi +1701.09 psi; h+21 ft; f+27.4 %; rw +0.31 ft; B+1.138 RB/
STB; ct +9.8 106 psi1; and m+2.305 cp. Then estimate the reservoir pore volume.
DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.38
DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.36
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0
0.050
0.110
0.182
0.268
0.372
0.496
0.646
0.825
1.040
1.298
1192.45
1206.92
1217.90
1226.92
1234.52
1241.02
1246.66
1251.62
1256.04
1260.05
1263.73
1.608
1.979
2.42
2.96
3.60
4.37
5.30
6.41
7.74
9.33
11.25
1267.15
1270.37
1273.43
1276.36
1279.19
1281.93
1284.61
1287.22
1289.79
1292.31
1294.80
13.55
16.31
19.62
23.6
28.4
34.1
41.0
49.2
59.1
71.0
72.0
1297.24
1299.66
1302.04
1304.39
1306.71
1308.99
1311.23
1313.42
1315.56
1317.65
1317.81
37. A well is located near a sealing fault in a reservoir with no other nearby boundaries. Use Horner analysis to estimate formation
permeability and skin factor, then estimate the distance to the
boundary given the following formation and fluid properties:
q+655 STB/D; tp +72 hrs; h+11 ft; f+17.3 %; rw +0.23 ft;
B+1.301 RB/STB; ct +10.1 106 psi1; and m+0.845 cp.
60
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.0100
0.0222
0.0371
0.0552
0.0774
0.1044
0.1374
0.1776
0.227
0.287
0.360
0.449
0.557
0.690
1656.73
1625.93
1604.46
1589.60
1579.19
1571.60
1565.75
1560.94
1556.76
1553.00
1549.52
1546.24
1543.11
1540.09
0.852
1.049
1.290
1.584
1.943
2.38
2.91
3.56
4.36
5.33
6.51
7.95
9.71
11.86
1537.15
1534.29
1531.47
1528.70
1525.96
1523.25
1520.56
1517.88
1515.23
1512.58
1509.92
1507.23
1504.46
1501.57
14.48
17.67
21.6
26.3
32.1
39.2
47.8
58.4
71.2
86.9
106.0
129.4
157.8
168.0
1498.50
1495.19
1491.58
1487.58
1483.10
1478.00
1472.08
1465.10
1456.77
1446.70
1434.49
1419.60
1401.45
1394.97
39. A new well was drilled in a closed reservoir, and a 7day flow
test was run. Estimate formation permeability and skin factor given
the following formation and fluid properties: q+75 STB/D;
pi +3394.81 psi; h+11 ft; f+9.9 %; rw +0.48 ft; B+1.303 RB/
STB; ct +14.4 106 psi1; and m+1.324 cp. Then estimate the reservoir pore volume.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.39
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.010
0.023
0.040
0.062
0.090
0.128
0.176
0.239
0.320
0.426
0.564
3356.75
3313.75
3266.60
3216.91
3167.10
3120.11
3078.81
3045.17
3019.69
3001.29
2987.94
0.743
0.976
1.279
1.673
2.18
2.85
3.72
4.84
6.30
8.20
10.67
2977.65
2969.01
2961.24
2954.00
2947.09
2940.42
2933.91
2927.52
2921.23
2915.00
2908.82
13.88
18.06
23.5
30.5
39.7
51.6
67.1
87.3
113.5
147.6
168.0
2902.68
2896.56
2890.38
2883.94
2876.78
2868.26
2857.55
2843.77
2825.87
2802.60
2788.63
40. A well has been producing from a solution gas drive reservoir
for 4 years. The well was shut in for a 12hour buildup test. Estimate
total mobility, skin factor, effective permeability to oil, effective
permeability to gas, and current average drainage area pressure given the following formation and fluid properties: qo +250 STB/D;
qg +347.6 Mscf/D; qw +0 STB/D; h+27 ft; f+20.2%; rw +0.33
ft; Sw +26.7%; Sg +11.0%; tp +3660 days; Bo +1.104 RB/STB;
co +5.96 104 psi1; mo +1.636 cp; Bg +3.161 RB/Mscf;
cg +1.24 103 psi1; mg +0.013 cp; Bw +1.018 RB/STB;
cw +4.0 106 psi1; mw +0.824 cp; Rso +176 scf/STB; and
A+306.6 acres. Assume a circular drainage area shape.
DATA FOR EXERCISE 2.40
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.0
0.0059
0.0117
0.0176
0.0234
0.0293
0.0352
0.0469
0.0527
0.0645
0.0762
0.0938
0.1113
452.07
473.71
497.20
507.38
531.75
546.21
562.18
579.54
598.08
617.15
636.70
656.28
675.29
0.1348
0.1641
0.1992
0.234
0.281
0.340
0.410
0.492
0.592
0.709
0.850
1.020
1.225
693.17
709.23
723.35
735.30
745.33
753.49
760.09
765.47
769.96
773.84
777.31
780.51
783.53
1.471
1.764
2.12
2.54
3.05
3.66
4.39
5.27
6.32
7.58
9.10
10.92
12.00
786.41
789.19
791.89
794.54
797.14
799.69
802.18
804.64
807.09
809.52
811.94
814.36
815.55
References
1. Matthews, C.S. and Russell, D.G.: Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in
Wells, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas (1977) 1, 16, 19, 21,
49, 7283.
2. Earlougher, R.C., Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas (1977) 5, 7489, 191.
3. Winestock, A.G. and Colpitts, G.P.: Gas Technology, Reprint Series,
SPE, Richardson, Texas (1977) 13, 12230.
4. Gladfelter, R.E., Tracy, G.W., and Wilsey, L.E.: Selecting Wells
Which Will Respond to ProductionStimulation Treatment, Drill. &
Prod. Prac., API, Dallas (1955) 11729.
5. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: NonDarcy Flow and Wellbore Storage Effects on
Pressure Buildup and Drawdown of Gas Wells, JPT (February 1965)
223; Trans., AIME, 234.
6. Russell, D.G.: Determination of Formation Characteristics From TwoRate Tests, JPT (December 1963) 1,347; Trans., AIME, 228.
7. Odeh, A.S. and Jones, L.G.: Pressure Drawdown Analysis, VariableRate Case, JPT (August 1965) 960; Trans., AIME, 234.
8. Horner, D.R.: Pressure Buildup in Wells, Pressure Analysis Methods,
Reprint Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas (1967) 9, 2543.
9. Odeh, A.S. and Selig, F.: Pressure Buildup Analysis, VariableRate
Case, JPT (July 1963) 790; Trans., AIME (1963) 228.
10. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: The Application of the Laplace
Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs, Trans., AIME (1949)
186, 30524.
11. Prats, M., Hazebroek, P., and Strickler, W.R.: Effect of Vertical Fractures on Reservoir BehaviorCompressible Fluid Case, SPEJ (June
1962) 87; Trans., AIME, 225.
12. Papatzacos, Paul: Approximate PartialPenetration Pseudoskin for InfiniteConductivity Wells, SPERE (May 1987) 227; Trans., AIME
(1987) 283.
13. Cinco, H., Miller, F.G., and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: UnsteadyState Pressure
Distribution Created by a Directionally Drilled Well, JPT (November
1975) 1392; Trans., AIME, 259.
14. Matthews, C.S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek, P.: A Method for Determination of Average Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir, Trans., AIME
(1954) 201, 18291.
15. Larson, V.C.: Understanding the Muskat Method of Analyzing Pressure Buildup Curves, J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (Fall 1963) 2, 136.
16. Gray, K.E.: Approximating WelltoFault Distance From Pressure
Buildup Tests, JPT (July 1965) 761.
17. Perrine, R.L.: Analysis of Pressure Buildup Curves, Drill. & Prod.
Prac. (1956) 482.
18. Martin, J.C.: Simplified Equations of Flow in Gasdrive Reservoirs and
the Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase Pressure Buildup Analyses,
JPT (October 1959) 309; Trans., AIME, 216.
19. Raghavan, R.: Well Test Analysis: Wells Producing by Solution Gas
Drive, SPEJ (August 1976) 196; Trans., AIME (1976) 261.
20. Boe, A., Skjaeveland, S.M., and Whitson, C.H.: TwoPhase Pressure
Test Analysis, SPEFE (December 1989) 604.; Trans., AIME (1989)
287.
21. AlKhalifah, AJ.A., Aziz, K., and Horne, R.N.: A New Approach to
Multiphase Well Test Analysis, paper SPE 16743 presented at the
1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 2730
September.
22. Serra, K.V., Peres, A.M.M., and Reynolds, A.C.: WellTest Analysis
for SolutionGasDrive Reservoirs: Part 2Buildup Analysis,
SPEFE (June 1990) 133.
23. Serra, K.V., Peres, A.M.M., and Reynolds, A.C.: WellTest Analysis
for SolutionGasDrive Reservoirs: Part 3A Unified Treatment of the
PressureSquared Method, SPEFE (June 1990) 141.
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW AND BUILDUP TEST ANALYSISSLIGHTLY COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
61
Chapter 3
Introduction to Flow and BuildupTest
Analysis: Compressible Fluids
3.1 Overview
sure and pseudotime variables magnitudes comparable with those
Chap. 2 presents the fundamental theory and practical applications
of the untransformed pressure and time, whereas the unnormalized
variables
and tap typically have values on the order of 105 to 108.
Reference values of pressure used for normalization are arbitrary.
of analysis techniques for flow and buildup tests based on the as
sumption of slightly compressible fluids (i.e., liquids) with relative
ly constant properties.For flow of a compressible fluid (i.e., gas) in
which the properties are strong functions of pressure, however,
these analysis techniques usually are not accurate enough to analyze
well tests. This chapter extends the concepts presented in Chap. 2
and presents modifications to the slightly compressible liquid solu
Pp
In this chapter, we define normalized variables as
PI! ,uf PP
r
( )
,u z
;
( ) J
These
modifications
include
pressure,
pressuresquared,
and
tion of gas properties with pressure. In addition, we discuss non
and
t/1
are limited to singlelayer formations.
(,ugct)r tap VtgCtt ( dt /,ugCt) ,
Darcy flow effects that are more pronounced in gaswell testing.
The analysis techniques, which we illustrate with several examples,
............ (3.4)
where the subscript n refers to the normalized variables and the sub
script
refers to the reference values of properties used in the nor
malization process.
3.2 Pseudo pressure and Pseudotime Analysis
Some engineers prefer properties evaluated at original reservoir
Pi. Because it can be measured directly, others prefer flow
The equations developed for slightly compressible fluids (i.e., liq
pressure,
uids) can be altered by replacing pressure and time with realgas
1 3
pseudopressure and pseudotime variables, respectively.  These
ing bottomhole pressure (BHP),
this chapter, we use the current static drainagearea pressure,
transformations account for variations in gas properties with pres
though
Pwf, at the end of a flow period.In
p. Al
p may not be available at the start of an analysis, using the
P* (the pressure on the sernilog straight line extrapolated
sure.Accuracy is improved for both semilog and typecurve analy
pressure
ses of gaswell tests by replacing pressure with the realgas pseudo
l
pressure (or realgas potential) function, Pp, which is defined as
to a Horner time ratio of unity) as an estimate of
pp(p)
p is quite satisfacto
ry for buildup tests because the choice of a reference pressure is
completely arbitrary (i.e., the value of
f [p/,ug(p)z(p)] dp.
(3.3)
tions that can be used for analysis of gaswell flow and buildup tests.
pseudopressure transformation variables that account for the varia
.. .
.............
Pr has no effect on results).
For a flow test, of course, the pressure at the start of the test is
...................
(3.1)
p. We
shall call our normalized variables adjusted pressure, Pa, and ad
justed time, ta, and we define them, respectively, as
For typecurve analysis (discussed in Chap. 4), particularly of well
borestoragedistorted data from both flow and buildup tests, accu
................... (3.5)
racy also is improved by replacing time with pseudotime, ap (P),
2
which is defined as
tap(p)
t
[dt/,ug(P)Ct(p)] .
...................... (3.2)
and
ta {jrC;)tap
=
(jrct)
f :t'
...................
(3.6)
P* and p Pi for a new well. In terms of adjusted vari
For convenience, although not by necessity, Pp and tap can be
4
normalized to have units of psia and hours, respectively, like the
ables, the unsteadystate equation for slightly compressible liquids,
original variables
Eq. 2.2, becomes
62
P and t. Normalization also gives the pseudopres
where
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
Pa,;  Pa,w!
an adequate approximation, ,ugZ = constant =,ug Z (see Sec. 1.2.3).
162.6qgBif
kh
When this approximation is valid, Eq.3.5 becomes
[ IOg(kt/rj> ,UgC/v)
6 9 s'
 3.23 + 0.8
... (3.7)
For semilog analysis of buildup tests, adjusted pressure and adjusted
time should be used, but the adjusted producing time,
tpa, used in the
Pa
p
'ugZ pdp
p J ,ugZ
p2
=
........................ (3.1 2)
2p
and the unsteadystateflow equation can be written as
Homer time ratio is evaluated at current average drainagearea pres
sure, and
tpa has a very simple form.
 3.23 + 0.869s'
Eq. 3.8a suggests that, for semilog analysis of pressurebuildup
tests, the adjusted Homer time ratio is evaluated at the real produc
For
Psc =
14.7 psia and
] . ..................... (3.13)
Tsc = 5 20oR, Eq.3.12 becomes
ing time rather than adjusted producing time, or
(tpa
I'!ta)/I'!ta
(tp
l'1.ta)/I'!ta
where the adjusted shutin time,
(3.8b)
I'!ta, is evaluated from the integral
where
/;.t
I'!ta
(,zrgCt) J [d(I'1.t)/,ugct],
with,ug and
Ct
................... (3.9)
'
s
= apparent skin that includes nonDarcyflow effects,
which we discuss in more detail in a later section.
These modified unsteadystateflow equations for gas wells serve
as the basis for buiJdup and flowtest analysis techniques for gas
evaluated at shutin BHP,
Pws, at values of I'!t during
the test.For semilog analysis of a flow test, adjusted pressure should
be used, but adjusted flowing time,
drainagearea pressure,
(3.14)
 3.23 + 0.869s' ] ,
ta, is evaluated at current static
p. Consequently, Eq.3.8a, which involves
no numerical integration, can be used to calculate adjusted flowing
time.This is equivalent to using actual flowing time rather than ad
justed flowing time, and all our working equations will be written
with this result.
The logic behind these rules is that, for semilog analysis (data not
distorted by wellbore storage), gas properties should be evaluated
at the pressure at the radius of investigation reached at the time un
der consideration.For flow, the pressure at the radius of investiga
tion is
wells. Table 3.1 provides summaries of interpretation and analysis
equations for the variables frequently used in gaswelltest analysis.
For comparison, we also include variables for welltest analysis of
slightly compressible liquids.
Aziz
et al.5 showed that neither the P nor p2 approximation should
be assumed to be adequate in any given case. P lots of (P/,ugz) and
,ugZ as functions of pressure should always be prepared to determine
the pressure range, if any, in which (P/,ugz) or,ugZ is constant in a par
ticular case. If any question exists concerning which transformed
variables to use, we recommend adjusted pressures and times.
3.4 NonDarcy Flow
p. For buildup tests, the pressure at the radius of investigation
is Pws, the current shutin pressure in the wellbore. For typecurve
highvelocity or nonDarcy flow near the wellbore.6,7 The com
storage, we defer further discussion about the pressure at which gas
analysis with constantrate production of a gas is based on the solu
analysis, which deals particularly with data distorted by wellbore
properties are evaluated in the pseudotime transformation until
Chap. 4.
The transientpressure response of a gas well may be affected by
monly used unsteadystateflow equation for pressure drawdown
tion for slightly compressible liquid flow with pressure replaced by
pseudopressure, or
3.3 Pressure and PressureSquared Analysis
The use of adjusted time and adjusted pressure in formulating equa
tions for analysis of transient tests in gas wells is not always neces
sary. For cases where use of transformed variables is not needed,
two approximations are possible.The first of these approximations
is based on the observation that, for some (although certainly not all)
gases at high pressure (greater than 3,000 psia, for example), an ade
quate approximation isp/,ugz
constant
 3.23 + 0.869s' .
.................... (3.1 5)
In terms of normalized pseudopressure (adjusted pressure),
unsteadystatef1ow equation becomes
Pa, the
pl,llgZ (Chap. 1, Sec.l.2.3
discusses the conditions under which these approximations are val
id). When this approximation is valid, Eq.3.5 becomes
Pa
,Ul J
 3.23 + 0.869S'
= p.
......................... (3.10)
Thus, in the unsteadystateflow equation given by Eq.3.7, adjusted
pressure,
Pa, can be replaced by ordinary pressure, p, and the un
steadystateflow equation becomes
p;
 Pw!
(162.6qgBg,Ug/kh)[log(kt/rj>,Ugctrv)
6 9s' ] ,
 3.23 + 0.8
.....................(3.11)
here the average gas formatin volume factor (FVF), Bg, viscosity,
,ug, and total compressibility,
Ct,
are evaluated at the average pres
where
'
Dqg
..................... (3.1 )
is an effective skin factor that includes true
formation damage (or stimulation) and the effects of nonDarcy
rD 1 can be written
PpD(tD) 0.5 [In(tD) + 0.80 90 7] + s + Dqg , .......... (3.1 7)
where PpD(tD)
dimensionless pseudopressure (or normalized
pseudopressure) at the wellbore and dimensionless time, tD, is de
flow.In dimensionless form, Eq.3.15 at
fined by
................... (3.1 8)
where,ug and Ct are evaluated at
p. Chaps. 1 and 4 discuss the devel
sure in the drainage area of the well.
opment of dimensionless variables.
some gases at low pressures (less than 2,000 psia, for example), as
Darcyflow effect can be represented as a ratedependent pseudoskin
The second approximation is based on the observation that, for
The usual assumption in conventional calculations is that the non
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW AND BUILDUP TEST ANALYSIS: COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
63
TABLE 3.1SUMMARY OF WORKING EQUATIONS, RADIAL OR PSEUDORADIAL FLOW
Case
Flow Test
Semilog graph variables
Permeability from slope, m,
of semilog straight line
Skinfactor calculation
k+
s + 1.151
Oil
Gas, Using Adjusted Variables
pwf vs. t
pa,wf vs. t
162.6q oB om o
mh
p i * p 1hr
k
* log
) 3.23
m
fm oc t r 2w
Buildup Test
Semilog graph variables
pws vs. (tp )Dt)/Dt
Permeability from slope, m,
of semilog straight line
k+
Skinfactor calculation
s + 1.151
k+
p a,i * p a,1hr
k
* log
) 3.23
m
fmc t r 2w
s + 1.151
pa,ws vs. (tp )Dta )/Dta
162.6q oB om o
mh
k+
p 1hr * p wf
k
* log
) 3.23
m
fm oc t r 2w
s + 1.151
162.6q gB gm
mh
p a,1hr * p a,wf
k
* log
) 3.23
m
fmc t r 2w
khp *a * p a
kh(p * * p)
70.6q oB om o
Definition of pMBH,D
162.6q gB gm
mh
70.6q gB gm
Case
Gas, Using Pressure and Time
Gas, Using Pressure Squared and Time
pwf vs. t
p 2wf vs. t
Flow Test
Semilog graph variables
Permeability from slope, m,
of semilog straight line
Skin factor calculation
k+
s + 1.151
162.6q gB gm
mh
k+
p * p a,1hr
k
* log
) 3.23
m
fmc t r 2w
Buildup Test
Semilog graph variables
pws vs. (tp )Dt)/Dt
Permeability from slope, m,
of semilog straight line
k+
Skin factor calculation
Definition of pMBH,D
s + 1.151
s + 1.151
1637q gTzm
mh
p 2 * p 21hr
k
* log
) 3.23
m
fmc t r 2w
p 2ws vs. (t p ) Dt)Dt
162.6q gB gm
mh
k+
p 1hr * p wf
k
* log
) 3.23
m
fmc t r 2w
s + 1.151
1637q gTzm
mh
p 21hr * p 2wf
k
* log
) 3.23
m
fmc t r 2w
khp * 2 * p 2
kh(p * * p)
70.6q gB gm
711q gTzm
Case
Gas, Using Pseudopressure and Time
Flow Test
Semilog graph variables
pp vs. t
Permeability from slope, m,
of semilog straight line
Skin factor calculation
k+
s + 1.151
1637q gT
mh
p p * p p,1hr
k
* log
) 3.23
m
fmc t r 2w
Buildup Test
Semilog graph variables
pp vs. (tp )Dt)/Dt
Permeability from slope, m,
of semilog straight line
k+
Skin factor calculation
Definition of pMBH,D
64
s + 1.151
1637q gT
mh
p p,1hr * p p,wf
k
* log
) 3.23
m
fm gc t r 2w
khp *p * p p
711q gT
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
l.l SI{[( Pa.i  Pa.w!)/m] [log(kt /> 'uCf rv ) + 3.23 J}.
................... (3.2 2)
Again, for convenience, we set the flow time, t, equal to 1 hour, and
q2
s'
use the symbol Pa, Ihr for the flowing BHP, Pa,wj, at this time.Note
that the pressure Pa, Ihr necessarily lies on the semilog straight line
t1
InI
3.2 2 yields
or its extrapolation. Substituting these into Eq.
Time
l.lSI{[(Pa.i  Pa,lhr)/m]  log( kt />Jl , rv) + 3.23}.
s'
Fig. 3.1Variablerate production history.
.................. (3.23)
defined as Dqg, where D is a constant known as the nonDarcyflow
coefficient with units of DIMscf, and
qg is the flow rate with units of
MscflD. The true skin factor, s, that reflects formation damage or
stimulation near the wellbore cannot be determined from a single
constantrate drawdown or buildup test.Rather, the apparent skin fac
tor, s'
s + D g , is obtained.If s and D are to be determined separate
ly, two flow tests may be run at different rates so that two equations
3.1S) can be solved simultaneously8 for the two un
(given by Eq.
knowns, s and D. If only one test is available, D may be estimated by
2.7 1S
where
kg
1O15f3kgMpsc
'
hrw Tscftg,wj
x
... ..... ..... .... (3.19)
..
effective gas permeability, md;
dard conditions, psia;
Tsc
Pc
s
pressure at stan
temperature at standard conditions, OR;
M = gas molecular weight, Ibm/Ibmmol; Jlg,wj= pressuredepen
=
dent gas viscosity evaluated at flowing BHP, cp; andf3
turbulence
In summary, from the straight line predicted by theory for a plot of
adjusted pressure vs. time on semilogarithmic paper, we can esti
k, and the apparent skin factor, s'.
squared variables are used.Table 3.1 summarizes the appropriate
mate effective gas permeability,
Similar calculations are possible when either pressure or pressure
plotting functions and equations.
3.5.2 GasFlow Tests With Discrete Rate Changes. Similar to the
variablerate solution for slightly compressible fluids presented in
2,
Chap. we model a variablerate gasflow test with superposition
I
in time. O11 First, we consider the pressure drawdown caused by a
single production rate in terms of adjusted pressures in an infinite
acting gas reservoir.If we assume, for now, negligible nonDarcy
3.7 can be rewritten as
flow effects, Eq.
Pa,;  Pa,w!
proportional to effective gas permeability and may be determined
experimentally or from a correlation,9 such as
=
1.88 X 01 0
k1.47</>O.53. ................... (3.20)
+ 0.869S
Pa,;  Pa,w! = m' qilog t
or
where
3.5 Analysis of GasWell Flow Tests
(162.6qgBg,Ug/kh)[ log(t)
 3.23
parameter.The turbulence parameter,f3, is approximately inversely
f3
m'
(k/</>,U gc/v )
+ log
... .... ..... ..... ... (3.2 4)
..................
+ s),
162.6Bg,Ug/kh ....................... (3.2 6)
(3.2 7)
In most gasfield operations, the wells are produced at conditions
approximating constant wellhead pressure or variable bottomhole
rates, rather than at constant bottomhole rates.In addition, many gas
well tests, especially deliverability tests, are conducted under vari
ablerate conditions.In this section, we begin with a brief discussion
of constantrate gasflow tests, but we concentrate on analysis tech
(3.2 S)
For the variablerate production history illustrated in Fig. 3.1, the
pressure drawdown resulting from
time
t> tll
discrete rate changes and for
isl2
niques for variable gas rates, induding gaswell tests with discrete
rate changes and tests in which the rates are smoothly changing.We
also address nonDarcyflow effects in flow tests.Finally, we discuss
the effects of reservoir boundaries on gaswell testing.
3.7, developed in terms
+ .
3.5.1 ConstantRate GasFlow Tests. Eq.
of adjusted pressures, describes the pressure drop at the wellbore as
a function of time when a gas well is produced at a constant rate.
Like the solution for production of slightly compressible liquids,
3.7 with the equation of a straight line suggests that,
if the pressure behavior of a reservoir can be modeled with Eq.3.7,
a plot of PaMj vs.log t should result in a straight line from which the
slope, m, allows us to estimate effective gas permeability, k, and ap
comparing Eq.
parent skin factor, s'. This method of analysis assumes the non
Darcyflow coefficient, D, is constant. W hen nonDarcyflow
losses are large, this assumption is not valid, because Eq.3.19 shows
D is inversely proportional to gas viscosity evaluated at flowing
3.S.4 addresses the more complicated situation in which
BHP. Sec.
D cannot be assumed constant.
. . + m'( qn  qn_I)[log(t  fnI) + s] . (3.28)
Eq. 3.28 can be rewritten as
(Po,;  Pa,w!)/qn
m' f[( qi  qi_I)/q,,]log(f  tiI)
i=1
for
qll "'0.
m's
3 2 9a)
( .
3.29 suggests that we plot
The form of Eq.
(Pa,i  Pa,wf)/qn
vs.
LiI=1 t.qi
. (3 . 2 9b)
(tn  tiI)
...
IOg
Pa,; adjusted initial reservoir
fll' psia; qll =
k = 162.6qgBg,Ug/mh, ........................ (3.2 1) last of different flow rates, STBID; t.qj qjqj ( qO 0);
("
total (cumulative) flowing time for
constantrate flow peri
where the absolute value of the slope of the semilog straight line is
ods, hours; and t.9 = time at which rate was changed, hours. A
used.Rearranging Eq.3.7, we also can develop an expression for the
straight line with slope, m', inversely proportional to k should result
For singlephase gas flow, the effective gas permeability in the
drainage area of the well is computed from
on Cartesian coordinate paper where
n
apparent skin factor, s'.
pressure, psia; Pa,wj= adjusted flowing BHP at time
=
 I,
from this plot. Specifically,
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW AND BUILDUP TEST ANALYSIS: COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
65
TABLE 3.2FLOWAFTERFLOW TEST DATA, EXAMPLE 3.1
Cumulative
Flow Time, t
(hours)
Bottomhole
Flowing
Pressure, pwf
(psia)
Adjusted
Flowing
Pressure,
pa,wf
(psia)
0
6
8
9.5
12.5
6,180
566
832
1,130
1,646
4,709.4
66.4
142.2
258.9
535.2
Gas Flow
Rate, q
(Mscf/D)
0
2,711
2,607
2,504
2,309
s + 1.151 bm * logkfm g c t t r 2w ) 3.23 .
. . . . (3.31)
The plotting method assumes that the reservoir is infiniteacting at
all times up to tn . Once boundary effects are felt by the pressure transient, the method is invalid. This method of analysis can be particularly valuable for gaswell testing. The method can be used with
fourpoint deliverability or backpressure tests, which are simply
variablerate tests with discrete changes in flow rate.
To include nonDarcy flow effects in a gaswell test, we plot
a, i
* p a,wf * Dq 2nq n
vs. q1
n
Dq logt
n
* t j*1,
j+1
where D + 141.2B g m gDkh is a constant, and D+nonDarcy
flow coefficient. With the nonDarcyflow term, D q 2n, we are
forced either to assume D+0 or to find, by trial and error, the value
of D that results in the best straightline plot. The slope, m, of the
straight line provides an estimate of permeability and skin factor by
use of Eqs. 3.30 and 3.31, respectively.
In principle, this method is potentially useful because backpressure data are available for virtually all gas wells. Thus, we have a
useful method to estimate permeability and skin factor when buildup or drawdown tests are not available. However, the method has at
least two limitations. First, a well may not be cleaned up at the time
of testing. Second, the method assumes wellborestorage distortion
is negligible; however, wellbore storage almost certainly distorts
some of the test data and may distort all or most of the data in shortduration flow periods.
* p a,wf * Dq 2nq n vs. q1
n
Dq logt
n
* t j*1 .
j+1
Thus, the first step is to calculate the pressure and timerate plotting
functions for each of the four flow periods. For example, at t+6
hours, n+1, t1+6 hours, q1+2,711 Mscf/D, and D+0:
p a,i * p a,wf
4, 709.4 * 66.4
+
+ 1.713 psiMscfD.
qn
2, 711
1
qn
Dq logt
n
* t j*1 + q1 Dq 1 logt 1 * t 0
1
j+1
k + 162.6q gB g m g mh, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3.30)
where m is defined by Eq. 3.26.
The skin factor also can be determined from this plot. If the intercept of the plot (the value of Dp/q at which the timeplotting function is zero) is denoted by b, then the skin factor, s, is given by
a, i
1 [(2, 711 * 0) log(6 * 0)]
2, 711
+ 0.7782.
At t+9.5 hours, n+3, t3+9.5 hours, q3+2,504 MscfD, and
D+0:
p a, i * p a,wf
4, 709.4 * 258.9
+
+ 1.777 psiMscfD.
qn
2, 504
1
qn
Dq logt
n
* t j*1
j+1
+ 1q 3 Dq 1 log t 3 * t 0 ) Dq 2 log t 3 * t 1
) Dq 3 logt 3 * t 2
+ 12, 504 * [(2, 711 * 0) log(9.5 * 0)]
) [(2, 607 * 2, 711) log(9.5 * 6)]
) [(2, 504 * 2, 607) log(9.5 * 8)]
+ 1.0287.
Fig. 3.2 plots calculated values of the pressure and time/rate plotting
functions (Table 3.3).
Using leastsquares regression analysis, calculate the bestfit
straight line through the data. From this line, we determine the slope,
m, and intercept, b, to be
m+0.236 and b+1.532.
Example 3.1Determining Permeability and Skin Factor
From a Multirate Test. A gas well was tested with a conventional
flowafterflow backpressure test. Table 3.2 summarizes the measured pressures and rates. Assuming nonDarcyflow effects (D q 2g)
are negligible, estimate effective gas permeability and skin factor
with the following well, rock, and gas properties.
gg +
T+
f+
rw +
ct +
mg +
h+
Bg +
0.7
200F
0.176
0.255 ft
73.3 106 psia1
0.0286 cp
19 ft
0.5878 RB/Mscf
Solution.
1. Our objective is to prepare a plot of
66
Fig. 3.2Cartesian plot of multirate test data, Example 3.1.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
TABLE 3.3PRESSURE AND TIME FUNCTIONS,
EXAMPLE 3.1
Pressure
Function
(psi/MscfD)
TimeRate
Function
1.713
1.752
1.777
1.808
0.7782
0.9271
1.0287
1.1819
2. The effective gas permeability is calculated with Eq. 3.30.
k+
162.6B g m g
mh
(162.6)(0.5878)(0.0286)
+ 0.61 md.
(0.236)(19)
3. Next, calculate the skin factor with Eq. 3.31.
s + 1.151 bm * log kfm g c tr 2w ) 3.23
2
10 (0.255) )3.23
*5
Flowing Time, t
(hours)
Gas Flow
Rate, q
(Mscf/D)
Flowing Time, t
(hours)
Gas Flow
Rate, q
(Mscf/D)
2.4
4.8
7.2
9.6
12.0
14.4
16.8
19.2
21.6
24.0
28.8
33.6
38.4
432.0
405.9
392.9
385.4
380.3
376.3
372.9
370.0
367.5
365.2
361.4
358.3
355.7
43.2
48.0
60.0
72.0
84.0
96.0
108.0
120.0
132.0
144.0
168.0
192.0
216.0
353.5
351.7
348.1
345.1
342.8
340.8
339.6
337.4
335.9
334.5
332.1
330.4
328.1
k + 162.6B g m g mh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3.34)
The skin factor is
+ 1.151 1.5320.236 * log 0.61(0.176)
(0.0286)7.33
TABLE 3.4TIME AND FLOW DATA FOR EXAMPLE 3.2
s + 1.151 1 p a, i * p a,wf q
m
1hr
* logkfm gc t r 2w ) 3.23
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3.35)
+ 2.6.
A positive skin factor indicates damage resulting from a reduction
in permeability in the formation adjacent to the wellbore.
3.5.3 VariableRate GasFlow Tests With Smoothly Changing
Rates. In many testing situations, a strictly constant producing rate
is impractical or even impossible to maintain. A more probable
mode of operation is production at a constant surface pressure; if
tubing friction effects are negligible, the BHP also is constant. At
early times, however, both BHP and rate may be changing rapidly.
Data obtained under these nonideal test conditions can be analyzed
accurately with a simple modification of the transientflow equation
for constantrate production.
Winestock and Colpitts13 showed that, even when both pwf and q
vary with time, the following equation (written to model slightly
compressible liquid flow) may be used as long as the rate is changing slowly and smoothly rather than abruptly:
p i * p wf
162.6Bm
logktfmc t r 2w * 3.23 ) 0.869s.
+
q
kh
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3.32)
To analyze transient data, we prepare a semilog graph of (pi *pwf )/q
as a function of time, t. For analyzing variablerate tests in gas wells
where nonDarcy effects are important, we can rewrite Eq. 3.32 in
terms of adjusted pressures, or
p a,i * p a,wf * Dq 2g q g
162.6mB g
+
logktfm g c t r 2w * 3.23 ) 0.869s ,
kh
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3.33)
where D + 141.2B g m g Dkh.
Either the nonDarcyflow effects (the D q 2g term) must be neglected or the value of D that leads to the best straight line in the
middletime region must be found with an iterative process.
Once we have identified the semilog straight line indicative of the
middletime region, the formation permeability is estimated from
the slope, m, of this line or from
where [(pa ,i *pa,wf )/q]1hr must lie on the semilog straight line or its
extrapolation to 1 hour. Similar to constantrate production data, the
variable rate data may be affected by wellbore storage at early times
and reservoir boundaries at late times, which distorts the pressure
response and possibly masks the correct semilog straight line indicative of the middletime region.
Example 3.2Analysis of VariableRate GasFlow Tests. A gas
well was produced at a constant BHP of 1,000 psia. We summarize
known data next and in Table 3.4. Gas and formation properties are
evaluated at the initial reservoir pressure, pi . Assuming nonDarcyflow effects (D q 2g) are negligible, estimate effective gas permeability and skin factor with the semilog analysis technique for variablerate gasflow tests.
rw +
h+
f+
gg +
T+
Bg +
pi +
pa,i +
mg +
pwf +
pa,wf +
ct +
0.365 ft
23 ft
0.14
0.7
180F
0.668 RB/Mscf
4,650 psia
3,251.5 psia
0.0247 cp
1,000 psia
213.0 psia
11.53 105 psia1
Solution.
1. Prepare a plot of
pa,i * pa,wf * Dq2gqg vs. log t.
For this problem, we assume that nonDarcyflow effects are negligible (i.e., D+0). With the adjusted initial and BHPs given above,
the plotting functions are calculated as illustrated with the following
example. For example, at t+4.8 hours, the plotting function is
pa, i * pa,wfq g + (3, 251.5 * 213.0)405.9 + 7.49.
Similarly, Table 3.5 summarizes plotting functions for each measured rate.
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW AND BUILDUP TEST ANALYSIS: COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
67
TABLE 3.5PLOTTING FUNCTIONS, EXAMPLE 3.2
pa,i *pa,wf
pa,i *pa,wf
qg
qg
t
q
t
q
(hours) (Mscf/D) (psi/MscfD) (hours) (Mscf/D) (psi/MscfD)
2.4
4.8
7.2
9.6
12.0
14.4
19.2
21.6
24.0
28.8
33.6
38.4
432.0
405.9
392.9
385.4
380.3
376.3
370.0
367.5
365.2
361.4
358.3
355.7
7.03
7.49
7.73
7.88
7.99
8.07
8.21
8.27
8.32
8.41
8.48
8.54
43.2
48.0
60.0
72.0
84.0
96.0
120.0
132.0
144.0
168.0
192.0
216.0
353.5
351.7
348.1
345.1
342.8
340.8
337.4
335.9
334.5
332.1
330.4
328.1
8.60
8.64
8.73
8.80
8.86
8.92
9.01
9.05
9.08
9.15
9.20
9.26
2. Fig. 3.3 also plots the data from Table 3.5. From typecurve analysis (discussed in Chap. 4), we have identified the beginning of the
middletime region at approximately 30 hours. Therefore, the slope
of the line drawn through data points after this time is
m+0.947 psi/cycle.
3. From Eq. 3.34, the effective gas permeability is
k+
162.6B gm g
mh
(162.6)(0.668)(0.0247)
+ 0.12 md.
(0.947)(23)
4. Next, we calculate the skin factor. From Fig. 3.3, we see the value of the pressure function at the extrapolation of the straight line
to t+1 hour is
pa,i * pa,wfq g
1hr
+ 7.04 psiMscfD.
From Eq. 3.35, the skin factor is
s + 1.151 1 p a * p a,wfq * logkfm g c t r 2w ) 3.23
m
1hr
+ 1.151 (7.04) (10.947) * log 0.12(0.14)(0.0247)
(11.53
10 *5)(0.365) 2 ) 3.23
+ 5.0.
Because we assume that nonDarcy effects are negligible, we also
assume that the skin factor represents true formation damage.
Time, hours
Fig. 3.3Semilog plot of variablerate data, Example 3.2.
tions shown. The lowermost solid line is the liquidflow response
with a slope of 1.151. Response B, with a slope of 1.163, shows only
the effect of nonDarcy flow. Response C is a translation of response
A with a positive skin factor, assuming that the nonDarcy pseudoskin effect is an additive term to the pressure response. Response D,
with a slope of 1.183, is the actual response with nonDarcy flow
and a positive skin factor, indicating that the nonDarcy term is not
additive and thereby confirming that D is not constant.
Fligelman et al.6 present a method to estimate formation permeability, k, and true skin factor, s, from pressure drawdown data for
a gas well. Their equations, written in terms of pseudopressures, are
modified here for use with adjusted pressures. They define the dimensionless group
Bq D +
2.715
10 *15bkMp scq g
,
T schr w m g
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3.37)
where mg +gas viscosity evaluated at p. For a constant skin factor,
the dimensionless intercept, bD , of the semilog straight line in a plot
of dimensionless pseudopressure as a function of the log of dimensionless time is defined as
bD +
p a,i * m log0.0002637kfm g c tr 2w * p a,1hr
,
q D p a,i
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3.38)
where m and pa,1hr + the slope and intercept, respectively, of the
semilog straight line in a plot of pa vs. log t. The dimensionless form
of the slope m is given by
m D + mq Dp a, i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3.39)
3.5.4 GasFlow Tests With Variable NonDarcyFlow Coefficient.
In Sec. 3.5.1, we discussed analysis procedures for a constantrate
flow test in which the nonDarcyflow coefficient, D, could be assumed constant. In this section, we show how to analyze a constantrateflow test taking into account that D can vary throughout the test.
Unsteadystate, constantrate gas flow can be modeled in terms
of dimensionless pseudopressure as
ppD (tD )+0.5 [ln(tD ))0.80907])s)Dqg , . . . . . . . . . (3.36)
where the nonDarcyflow coefficient, D, which is frequently
treated as a constant, is in fact variable because it depends on gas viscosity near the well. Because the gas viscosity near the wellbore depends on the flowing BHP, which continuously decreases during a
flow test, the gas viscosity also changes throughout the test.
Fig. 3.4 illustrates the effects of nonDarcy flow and skin damage
on the pressure response. The dimensionless pseudopressure responses A, B, and C are simulated by use of Eq. 3.36 for the condi68
Fig. 3.4Effects of nonDarcy flow and skin factor on transientpressure response. After Fligelman et al.6
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
10
0 .
s .
10.0
IS.C
20.0
30
2'5.0
25
20
"
15
.00
"
;:

BqD
10
"
"
"
Fig. 3.5Correlation of bD and BqD. After Fligelman et al.6
The dimensionless flow rate,
qv
;,
10
;;
;,
Fig. 3.GCorrelation ofPDand BqD' After Fligelman et al.6
qo, is given by
0.1 38qgPscT/khTscPa,i
The intercept bo is related to
Po FOR UQUID
PpD FOR NATURAL GAS (qo = 0.05)
= 0.05)
., PpD FOR IDEAL GAS (qo
o PpD FOR NATURAL GAS (qD= 0.10)
IDEAL GAS (qD = 0.10)
Q PpD FOR
(3.40)
Bqo by the correlation
bo= cl(Bqo) + C2 ,
(3.4 1)
where selected values of the constants, Cl and C2, are summarized
next. Fig. 3.5 shows the correlation of
0
.... ...,
bo and Bqo for a range of
skin factors.
Skin Factor, s
5
10
CI
C2
1.001 3
0.3205
5.2 411
3.9627 3
10.199 3
7.47 3 3
A second correlation relates the pseudopressure response with non
Darcy flow to the group Bqo. The dimensionlesswellborepressure
response as a function of dimensionless time is given by
Pao=(mo1.151) log t;+bo0.40 45s, ...
where
. .
.. (3.42)
mo is the slope of the straight line in a plot of Ppo vs. log to.
t; is defined as
The time
greatest limitation is that the accuracy of the method depends on the
applicability of the empirical correlation for {3 used in the study,
which is subject to considerable uncertainty.9
P :v, is related to Bqo by
3.5.5 GasFlow Tests in Bounded Reservoirs. W hen a pressure
the correlation
transient encounters reservoir boundaries during a gaswell test, the
liquid solution no longer describes the pressure behavior.1,14,lS
where selected values of the constants, q, q, and Cs, are summa
rized next. Fig. 3.6 shows the correlation of
P;'v and Bqo for a range
With boundary effects, variations in Jig and C( affect the pressure re
sponse. In the semilog plot of Fig. 3.7, dimensionlesspseudopres
sure solutions are compared with the liquid solution. Dimensionless
time,
of skin factors.
4.168
0.202
0.0 49
10
7.62 4
0.366
0.1 3 4
Fig. 3.7Comparison of dimensionless pressure responses for
liquid and gas solutions. After AIHussainy.14
................... (3.4 3)
The pressure response with turbulent flow,
Skin Factor, s
tao
0.002
0.002
0.002
Although Fligelman's method allows for correction for nonDarcy
flow effects, the method has certain limitations. First, only non
Darcyflow effects are considered. The effects of the nonDarcy
flow coefficient, D, on a phase change (i.e., condensation) as gas
approaches the wellbore, if such occurs, are not taken into account.
Second, because the correlations are based on positive skin factors,
the procedure applies only whens
>
O. Third, the correlations were
tao, is defined by Eq. 3.45:
tav = 0.00026 37ktp/rPfI (;, A,
g
.................. (3.45)
where fluid properties are evaluated at p. About
1 log cycle of di
mensionless time after the pseudosteadystate flow begins, the gas
solutions begin to deviate from the liquid solution. The cause of the
deviation is the variation in the JiCt product for gas; for a liquid, this
product is constant. As a result, the pore volume cannot be found as
described in Chap.2 for slightly compressible fluids (i.e., liquids).
However, Fraim and Wattenbarger16 developed an iterative proce
dure that accounts for variations in gas properties during boundary
dominated flow in a gas well producing at constant BHP.
3.6 Analysis of GasWell Buildup Tests
developed for a damagedregion/wellboreradius ratio greater than
This section discusses analysis techniques for pressurebuildup
10. For a higher ratio and a given value ofs, the slope of the semilog
tests in wells completed in gas reservoirs. We begin with buildup
straight line is unaffected but the nonDarcy effect is smaller. The
tests with constantrate production before shutin and show how the
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW AND BUILDUP TEST ANALYSIS: COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
69
tp +
gg +
T+
mg +
qg +
Bg +
pi +
pa,i +
z+
ct +
Fig. 3.8Modeling a pressurebuildup test with rate superposition in time.
analysis techniques for slightly compressible liquids can be extended to gas wells when transformed variables are used. We then
discuss the more probable production scenariosdiscrete rate
changes before shutin or constantpressure production before shutin. Finally, we illustrate how average drainagearea pressure is determined from a gaswell buildup test.
3.6.1 Buildup Tests With ConstantRate Production Before
ShutIn. Similar to the method presented in Chap. 2 for analyzing
pressurebuildup tests with slightly compressible liquids, we can
also use superposition in time to develop an analysis technique for
gaswell buildup tests. Again, assuming that Horners approximation is valid, the entire production history before shutin can be modeled as production for a period tp at the last production rate, qlast.
Referring to Fig. 3.8, the term Dt denotes the time elapsed since
shutin. In terms of adjusted pressures and times, the variation of the
adjusted shutin BHP with time is
Solution. Figs. 3.9 through 3.11 give Horner plots in terms of
pressure, pressuresquared, and adjusted pressures, respectively.
Note that semilog straight lines passing through the later data and
through pi (equal to p* in this case) appear in each case.
Analysis With Pressure Variables (Fig. 3.9):
1. Calculate the slope of the line drawn through the middletime
region:
m+2,375*2,329.9+45.1 psi/cycle.
2. The effective permeability to gas is
k+
k + 162.6qB g m g mh.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3.47)
We also can develop an equation for calculating the skin factor.
s + 1.151
a,1hr
* p a,wfm * logkfm g c t r 2w ) 3.23 ,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3.48)
where pa,1hr + adjusted pressure at Dta equal to 1 hour and pa,wf +
adjusted flowing BHP before shutin. Similar equations can be developed with pressure and pressuresquared variables (Table 3.1).
Example 3.3Analysis of a GasWell PressureBuildup Test. A
pressurebuildup test was run on a gas well in a newly discovered
reservoir. We summarize known and calculated data here and in
Table 3.6. Because the pressure has not been depleted in the reservoir, the semilog straight line should extrapolate to original reservoir pressure at a Horner time ratio of unity; i.e., p*+pi . Prepare
Horner plots of (1) pws vs. (tp )Dt)/Dt; (2) p 2ws vs. (tp )Dt)/Dt; and
(3) pa,ws vs. adjusted Horner time ratio, (tp )Dta )/Dta . Determine
effective permeability to gas and skin factor from each plot.
h+ 28 ft
rw + 0.3 ft
f+ 0.18
70
162.6q g B g m g
mh
(162.6)(5, 256)(0.962)(0.01885)
.
(45.1)(28)
+ 12.27 md.
3. Calculate the skin factor. The pressure p1hr
(tp )Dt)/Dt+(2000)1)/1+2,001 is 2,226 psia. Therefore,
s + 1.151
1hr
* p wfm * logkfm g c t r 2w ) 3.23
at
+ 1.151 (2, 226 * 1, 800)45.1 * log 12.27(0.18)
p a,ws + p a,i * 162.6q B gm g kh logt p ) Dt aDt a ,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3.46)
where tp +adjusted producing time and Dta +adjusted shutin time defined by Eqs. 3.8 and 3.9, respectively, and q+qlast. In addition, note
that Bg and mg are evaluated at the average drainagearea pressure.
The form of Eq. 3.46 suggests that permeability can be estimated
from the slope of the semilog line on a plot of pa,ws vs.
log[(tp )Dta )/Dta ], or
2,000 hours
0.7
640R (180F)
0.01885 cp
5,256 Mscf/D
0.962 RB/Mscf
2,906 psia
1,718.59 psia
0.8678
2.238 104 psia1
(0.01885)(0.0002238)(0.3) 2 ) 3.23
+ 5.09.
Analysis With PressureSquared Variables (Fig. 3.10).
1. Calculate the slope of the line drawn through the middletime
region:
106*5.425
m+5.63
106+0.205
106 psia2/cycle.
2. The effective permeability to gas is
k+
1637q gTzm g
(1637)(5, 256)(640)(0.868)(0.01885)
+
mh
(2.05 10 5)(28)
+ 15.7 md.
3. Calculate the skin factor. The term p 21hr at (tp )Dt)/Dt+2,001
equals 4.95 106 psia2, so
s +
2
1hr
+ 1.151
* p 2wfm * logkfm g c t r 2w ) 3.23
4.95
10 6 * 3.24
2.05 10 5
10 6
* log 15.7 (0.18)(0.01885)(0.0002238)(0.3)
) 3.23
+ 3.69.
Analysis With Adjusted Pressure Variables (Fig. 3.11).
1. Calculate the slope of the line drawn through the middletime
region:
m+39.7 psi/cycle.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
TABLE 3.6GAS WELL PRESSURE BUILDUP TEST DATA, EXAMPLE 3.3
Dt
(hours)
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
pws
(psia)
1800
1,842.4
1,878.3
1,909.2
1,935.8
1,959
1,979.3
1,997.1
2,012.7
2,026.6
2,038.8
2,108.3
2,135.2
2,148.6
2,156.7
2,162.4
2,166.7
2,170.2
2,173.2
2,175.8
2,191.7
2,200.4
2,206.4
2,211
2,214.8
2,217.9
2,220.6
2,223
2,225.2
2,239.1
2,247.1
2,252.8
2,257.2
2,260.8
2,263.8
2,266.4
2,268.7
2,270.8
2,284.3
2,292.1
2,297.6
2,301.9
2,305.3
2,308.2
2,310.7
p 2ws
(psia2
106)
3.24
3.39
3.53
3.65
3.75
3.84
3.92
3.99
4.05
4.11
4.16
4.44
4.56
4.62
4.65
4.68
4.69
4.71
4.72
4.73
4.80
4.84
4.87
4.89
4.91
4.92
4.93
4.94
4.95
5.01
5.05
5.08
5.09
5.11
5.12
5.14
5.15
5.16
5.22
5.25
5.28
5.30
5.31
5.33
5.34
162.6q gB gm
mh
(162.6)(5, 256)(0.962)(0.01885)
(39.7)(28)
+ 1.151
a,1hr
* p a,wfm * logkfm g c t r 2w ) 3.23
* 726.47)
(1, 079.9639.7
3,031,200
1,502,000
993,280
739,530
587,710
486,800
414,950
361,260
319,660
286,500
139,470
91,578
68,034
54,074
44,848
38,300
33,414
29,630
26,612
13,162
8,729.2
6,525.5
5,208.2
4,332.2
3,707.8
3,240.3
2,877.2
2,587.1
1,286.4
855.08
640.07
511.34
425.67
364.56
318.78
283.22
254.79
127.24
84.903
63.791
51.149
42.734
36.731
32.234
) 3.23
+ 4.4.
3. Calculate the skin factor. At an adjusted Horner time ratio of
(tp )Dta )/Dta +(2,000)1)/1+2,001, pa,1hr+1,079.9 psia.
2,000,001
1,000,001
666,668
500,001
400,001
333,334
285,715
250,001
222,223
200,001
100,001
66,668
50,001
40,001
33,334
28,572
25,001
22,223
20,001
10,001
6,667.7
5,001.0
4,001.0
3,334.3
2,858.1
2,501.0
2,223.2
2,001.0
1,001.0
667.67
501.00
401.00
334.33
286.71
251.00
223.22
201.00
101.00
67.667
51.000
41.000
34.333
29.571
26.000
Adjusted
Horner
Time Ratio
* log 13.9(0.18)(0.01885)(0.0002238)(0.3)
+ 13.9 md.
s + 1.151
Horner
Time
Ratio
726.47
758.94
786.86
811.21
832.42
851.09
867.54
882.11
894.91
906.41
916.5
974.88
997.78
1,009.3
1,016.2
1,021.1
1,024.8
1,027.9
1,030.5
1,032.7
1,046.5
1,054.1
1,059.3
1,063.3
1,066.6
1,069.3
1,071.7
1,073.8
1,075.7
1,087.9
1,095.0
1,100.0
1,103.9
1,107.1
1,109.7
1,112
1,114.1
1,115.9
1,127.9
1,134.9
1,139.8
1,143.6
1,146.7
1,149.2
1,151.5
2. The effective permeability to gas is
k+
Adjusted
Pressure
(psia)
In this example, little difference exists in the results of the pressure,
pressuresquared, or adjustedpressure analysis on a Horner semilog
graph. We should emphasize, however, that when wellborestorage
distorted data are analyzed on a type curve, the differences can be significant. We discuss typecurve analysis in Chap. 4.
3.6.2 Buildup Tests With Discrete Changes in Rate Before ShutIn. When Horners approximation is not an accurate representation
of the rate history before shutin, we can use superposition in time
to develop an alternative analysis technique for a gaswell buildup
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW AND BUILDUP TEST ANALYSIS: COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
71
t t**t t ,
) log
n*1
n
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3.49)
where qn)1+0 by definition. Note that t*tn +Dt, shutin time. The
following analysis procedure, based on Eq. 3.49, is similar to that
presented in Chap. 2. Although presented in terms of adjusted variables, the same procedure is applicable with either pressure or pressuresquared variables.
1. Calculate the plotting function, X.
t*t
q
X + q 1 log t *t t ) . . . ) log t * n*1
tn .
n
1
. . . . . (3.50)
2. Plot pa,ws as a function of X on Cartesian coordinate graph paper.
3. Determine the slope, m, of the plot and calculate effective gas
permeability.
Fig. 3.9Horner plot with pressure, Example 3.3.
k + * 162.6q n B m g mh.
g
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3.51)
4. Calculate the skin factor, s, from the equation
s + 1.151
a,1hr
* p a,wf m * logkfm g c t r 2w ) 3.23 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3.52)
Fig. 3.10Horner plot with pressuresquared, Example 3.3.
5. Extrapolate the middletime line to X+0 and read the value of
pa,ws . This extrapolated pressure is pa *, which is equal to pa,i for an
infiniteacting reservoir.
Three important limitations apply. First, the improvement in accuracy by use of more than three terms in the summation in Eq. 3.48
is negligible. Second, the plotting function, X, is based on the fundamental assumption that, for a producing time t+tp1)tp2 ) . . .
)tpn )Dt, the reservoir is infiniteacting. This assumption will
rarely be true for large values of t. Third, the plotting function is
based on the assumption that, at the end of each flow period, the data
are not distorted by wellbore storage. This assumption will not be
satisfied in some cases with shortduration flow periods.10
Odeh and Selig17 suggested that a buildup test following n different rates could be analyzed by a method similar to the Horner method. The shutin pressure response is given by
p a,i * p a,ws + 162.6q * Bm gkh log t *p ) Dt Dt ,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3.53)
where the modified production time, t *p, and flow rate, q*, are defined, respectively, as
q t * t
+ 2t *
2 q t * t
2
j
t *p
2
j*1
j+1
n
j+1
j*1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3.54)
q t * t j*1 .
and q *+ 1*
t p j+1 j j
Fig. 3.11Horner plot with adjusted pressure and adjusted
Horner time ratio, Example 3.3.
test following n distinct rates. Similar to the development presented
in Chap. 2, we can write
p a,i * p a,ws +
j+1
+ mq n
72
162.6q nBm g n)1 q j
t * t j*1
q n log t * t j
kh
q n*1
t * t n*2
q1
t
q n log t * t 1 ) . . . ) q n log t * t n*1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3.55)
The OdehSelig method, approximate but accurate, is applicable
only for pressures at values of Dt greater than the producing time,
tp . Unfortunately, this condition is likely to occur only in a drillstem
test or short production test. Chap. 2, Example 2.6 illustrates application of the superposition and OdehSelig methods.
3.6.3 Buildup Tests With ConstantPressure Production Before
ShutIn. Conventional builduptestanalysis techniques have been
developed primarily for wells producing at a constant rate before
shutin. However, some common situations involve production at
constant BHP rather than at constant rate. Examples include decliningrate production during reservoir depletion, fluid flow into a
constantpressure separator, or open wells flowing at atmospheric
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
pressure. With slight modification, conventional Horner and type
curve analysis can be used to analyze buildup test data following
,
production at constant BHP.l 20 The Horner method gives the cor
rect semilog straight line from which formation permeability, sldn
factor, and average drainagearea pressure can be found.
For Horner analysis of a buildup test following constantpressure
production, the actual producing time, tactua], rather than tp defined
3.5 6,
by Eq.
should be used in the Horner plotting function. This is
in contrast to conventional Horner analysis, in which we use a pro
ducing time defined by
tP
Cumulative Production
............ (3.5 6)
Most Recent Production Rate '
where the most recent production rate is the last established flow
rate before shutin.
To illustrate the difference in plotting functions, consider an ex
ample: suppose that a gas well has been produced at constant BHP
1 year (8,7 60 hours). At the time of shutin for a buildup test, cu
100,000 Mscf. The last established flow rate
is 100 Mscf/D. The conventional Horner producing time is
for
mulative production is
Cumulative Production
tp =
At a shutin time of I'1t=
tp + I'1t
I'1t
10
24, 000 + 10
10
8,7 60
With tactual =
plotting function is
t actual + I'1t
I'1t
24 , 000
l. Assume a value ofp; calculate the adjusted pressure and time,
and make a Horner plot of the buildup data using values of adjusted
pressure, Pa,ws, and adjusted Horner time ratio, (tp + I'1ta)/l'1ta.
2. Extrapolate P a ws to (tp + I'1ta)/l'1ta= 1. The extrpolated ad
justed pressure,
if
hours rather than tp =
P: is clearly larger
than the apparent level value ofPa, continue
to use the initial estimate of Pa in subsequent steps.
3. Estimate
the drainagearea shape. If there is insufficient in
formation to estimate the shape, assume a circular drainage area.
4. Select the appropriate MBH chartlO,ll,19 for the drainage area.
5.Calculate taD withEq. 3.4 5 with,ug and Ct evaltated at the pres
sure corresponding to the most recent estimate of Pa.
6.From the MBH chart at the calculated value of taD, read the val
ue of the MBH pressure function, which equals
=
Pa = Pa 
kh(p
 Pal
70 . 6 q B g,ug
2.30 3(p  Pal
m
...... (3.59)
mp".MBH.D
2.30 3
...................... (3.60)
estimate, then evaluate the gas properties at the pressure associated
24,000
hours, the Horner
with the new estimate ofpa. Repeat Steps
through 7, recalculating
3.60 converges. The correctP is the pressure correspond
ing to the final value of Pa.
877.
Kazemi 15 and Reynolds et ai. 21 present other methods to estimate
m.
..................... (3.57)
where qg.Jast= last established producing rate, not the average rate
over the producing period. The sldn factor is
{ [ ( Pa.lhr  Pa,IV/) lm ]  ( /.ui;,r )
log k
taD at the new values of the fluid properties, until the estimate of Pa
from Eq.
8, 7 60 + 10
10
p, may be an improved estimate of Pa; however,
8.If the estimate ofPa fromEq. 3.6 1 is different from the previous
2, 401.
Effective permeability to gas is
1.1 51
either pressure or pressuresquared variables are used.
hours, the Horner plotting function is
based on tactual gives the correct semilog straight line with slope
timate of frompa,MBHD' This same procedure is applicable when
7. Calculate the next estimate ofPa with
hours.
A plot of shutin pressure, Pa,w., vs. the adjusted Horner time ratio
associated with Pa, calculating the MBH pressure function,
Pa,MBHD, on the basis of those properties, and obtaining another es
Pa,MBHD
Most Recent Production Rate
(24)(100, 000)
100
lined here, involves maldng an initial estimate of Pa (the adjusted
pressure evaluated at p), evaluating fluid properties at the pressure
3.2 3 .
.................... (3.5 8)
Extrapolation of the semilog straight line to infinite shutin time (ad
P for gas reservoirs. Kazemi's method requires an iterative proce
dure, while the method of Reynolds et ai. avoids iteration and re
quires a Horner plot in terms of real time and pseudopressure rather
than adjusted time and adjusted pressure.
3.7 Chapter Summary
In this chapter, we introduced the reader to semilog analysis of gas
well pressure transient tests.
In Sec.
3.2, we reviewed the use of pseudopressure and pseudotime
1.We introduced the concept of normalized pres
introduced in Chap.
sure as an alternative to the use of pseudopressure. Normalized pres
sure is simply pseudopressure multiplied by a factor ,ug(Pr)z(Pr)/2pr,
for some suitable reference pressure
P" to give units of psi rather than
psi 2/cp. We defined the adjusted pressure by taldngPr to be the current
justed Horner time equal to 1) gives Pa,; for an infiniteacting reser
average drainage area pressure,
(boundary effects evident before shutin). For the latter case, the
we defined the Horner time ratio for semilog analysis of gaswell
voir or
P:
for a bounded reservoir with partial pressure depletion
MatthewsBronsHazebroek (MBH) method19 provides an esti
p. Similarly, we defined the adjusted
time as the pseudotime multiplied by the factor
,ugCP)c/p). Finally,
pressurebuildup tests as tp + I'1ta /l'1ta by use of the actual produc
mate of average drainagepressure in a reservoir.
ing time rather than an adjusted producing time.
fects of wellbore storage, skin damage, and nonDarcy (highveloc
most general formulation for gas wells. However, the practicing en
For buildup tests following constantpressure production, the ef
ity) gas flow usually are shortlived and do not affect the slope of the
semilog straight line. However, in gas reservoirs with k> 0.1 md,
nonDarcyflow effects may cause substantial error in estimates of
the apparent skin factor,
'
s ,
from matchpoint data in typecurve
analysis. Under these conditions, semilog analysis must be used for
reliable formation evaluation. Furthermore, when nonDarcy flow
effects are significant, a buildup test gives more reliable results than
does a drawdown test.6
3.6.4 Determining Average DrainageArea Pressure for Gas
Analysis in terms of pseudopressure or adjusted pressure is the
gineer needs to be acquainted with analysis methods in terms of
pressure and pressuresquared simply because of the widespread
use of these methods in industry and in the literature. In particular,
the limitations of these two methods to high and low pressures, re
spectively, should be kept in mind. In Sec.
Table
3.1,
we summarized the semilog analysis equations for both
flow and buildup testsfor oil wells in terms of pressure and time;
and for gas wells in terms of adjusted pressure and adjusted time,
pressure and time, pressuresquared and time, and pseudopressure
Wells. The average drainagearea pressure, P, for a gas well can be
and time.
To find the correct P, pressuredependent fluid properties must be
deviates from Darcy's law. In Sec.
found with the MBH p* method discussed earlier for the liquid case.
evaluated at that pressure, p. This suggests an iterative procedure.
For gas, we use adjusted pressure, Pa. The procedure, which is out
3.3 we wrote the semilog
analysis equations in terms of pressure and pressuresquared. In
Gas wells are frequently subject to flow where the pressure drop
3.4,
we discussed the effect of
nonDarcy flow on the pressure response and modified the semilog
analysis equations to take into account nonDarcy flow.
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW AND BUILDUP TEST ANALYSIS: COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
73
In Sec. 3.5, we discussed the analysis of flow tests in gas wells.
We discussed the simplest case, that of pressure response caused
by constantrate production, in Sec. 3.5.1. We presented equations
for obtaining both apparent skin factor and effective permeability
from the pressure drop resulting from constantrate production. The
expression for apparent skin factor, Eq. 3.23, now includes a contribution from nonDarcy flow, in addition to the true skin factor
from damage.
In Sec. 3.5.2, we modified the method developed in Chap. 2 for
analyzing oil well tests with discrete rate changes to apply to gas
wells. As was the case with oil wells, this method assumes that the
reservoir is infiniteacting throughout the test and that wellbore storage is negligible. Further, we must assume that the nonDarcyflow
coefficient, D, is either negligible or determine D by trial and error.
In Sec. 3.5.3 we discussed gaswell flow tests where the flow rate
changes slowly and smoothly. As in the case of discrete rate
changes, we must assume no nonDarcy flow or estimate the degree
of nonDarcy flow by trial and error.
In Sec. 3.5.4, we discussed a method introduced by Fligelman et
al. for estimating formation permeability and true skin factor, rather
that the apparent skin factor. Fligelmans method is limited to
singlephase gas flow to wells that have positive skin factors and
that have a fairly large damaged zone. Finally, Fligelmans method
depends on the validity of the empirical correlation he used for b.
In Sec. 3.5.5, we discussed the differences between the liquid
solution and the gas solution for bounded reservoirs. Although the
solution to the gasflow equation in terms of pseudopressure and
time agrees with the liquid solution as long as the reservoir is infiniteacting, this does not hold true once boundarydominated flow
is established because of the variation of the mg ct product with average drainagearea pressure.
In Sec. 3.6, we discussed the analysis of pressurebuildup tests in
gas wells. We introduce builduptest analysis for shutin following
a period of constantrate production, in Sec. 3.6.1. We presented the
analysis in terms of adjusted pressure and adjusted Horner time ratio, t p ) Dt aDt a. We then analyzed an example buildup test with
pressure, pressuresquared, and adjustedpressure analysis and
compared the results. For this particular example, all three analysis
methods give comparable results.
In Sec. 3.6.2, we discussed analysis of pressurebuildup tests
where a series of discrete changes in rate occur during the production period before shutin. In Sec. 3.6.3, we discuss analysis of
buildup tests following a period of constantpressure production. In
this case, we find that the actual producing time, tactual, should be
used instead of the Horner producing time tp (defined in Eq. 3.56)
in calculating the Horner time ratio. It is also necessary to use the
last producing rate in the analysis rather than the average rate over
the producing period.
In Sec. 3.6.4 we modified the MBH method for estimating average drainagearea pressure to allow it to be used for analyzing gaswell tests.
Exercises
1. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability and skin factor from the drawdown test data.
pi +278.3 psia; h+10 ft; gg +0.89 (air+1.0); rw +0.21 ft;
Tf +60F; f+29.6%; cw +3.6 106 psi1; q+200 Mscf/D;
Sw +10.6%; cf +4 106 psi1.
74
FLOW TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 3.1
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.25
0.75
1.75
2.75
3.75
4.75
5.75
6.75
7.75
113.3
102.5
94.5
90.1
87.0
84.5
82.5
80.7
79.2
8.75
9.75
10.75
11.75
12.75
13.75
14.75
15.75
16.75
77.8
76.6
75.5
74.4
73.4
72.5
71.7
70.9
70.1
17.75
18.75
19.75
20.75
21.75
22.75
23.75
24
69.4
68.7
68.0
67.4
66.7
66.1
65.6
65.4
2. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability and skin factor from the drawdown test data.
pi +2618 psia; h+11 ft; gg +0.68 (air+1.0); rw +0.35 ft;
Tf +147F; f+21.3%; cw +3.6 106 psi1; q+2100 Mscf/D;
Sw +26.8%; cf +4 106 psi1.
FLOW TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 3.2
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
2
4
6
8
10
12
1386.56
1337.06
1310.24
1291.54
1277.12
1265.36
14
16
18
20
22
24
1255.42
1246.79
1239.17
1232.33
1226.14
1220.47
3. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability and skin factor from the multirate drawdown test data. pi +968.9 psia; h+16 ft; gg +0.63 (air+1.0);
Tf +76F; f+16.7%; cw +3.6 106 psi1; rw +0.27 ft;
Sw +14.3%; cf +4 106 psi1.
FLOW TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 3.3
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Rate
(Mscf/D)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Rate
(Mscf/D)
0.27
0.49
1.11
2.25
3.20
4.00
4.27
4.49
5.11
862.4
857.0
849.7
843.5
840.4
838.5
713.6
706.6
696.1
550
550
550
550
550
550
1100
1100
1100
6.25
7.20
8.00
8.27
8.49
9.11
10.25
11.20
12.00
686.2
680.8
677.3
516.3
506.1
490.2
474.5
465.3
459.0
1100
1100
1100
1650
1650
1650
1650
1650
1650
4. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability and skin factor from the multirate drawdown test data. pi +3140.48 psia; h+74 ft; gg +0.78 (air+1.0);
Tf +122F; f+26.0%; cw +3.6 106 psi1; rw +0.45 ft;
Sw +10.1%; cf +4 106 psi1.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
FLOW TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 3.4
BUILDUP TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 3.7
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Rate
(Mscf/D)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Rate
(Mscf/D)
Time
(hours)
Rate
Mscf/D
0.24
2740.18
3150
6.25
2301.31
5975
0.55
2726.50
3150
7.20
2295.41
5975
4
4
4
550
1100
1650
1.11
2716.89
3150
8.00
2291.52
5975
2.25
2707.80
3150
8.24
1960.43
8500
3.20
2703.35
3150
8.55
1942.70
8500
4.00
2700.56
3150
9.11
1931.55
8500
4.24
2338.24
5975
10.25
1919.54
8500
4.55
2322.89
5975
11.20
1912.78
8500
5.11
2312.32
5975
12.00
1908.21
8500
5. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability and skin factor from the buildup test data.
pwf +1378.84 psia; h+10 ft; gg +0.741 (air+1.0); rw +0.46 ft;
Tf +108.9F; f+10.6%; cw +3.6 106 psi1; q+8000 Mscf/D;
Sw +13.5%; cf +4 106 psi1; tp +72 hr.
BUILDUP TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 3.5
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.0020
1404.55
0.0851
2056.86
0.859
2417.79
0.0045
1435.71
0.1084
2146.08
1.076
2423.72
0.0076
1473.23
0.1375
2224.89
1.347
2429.36
0.0115
1518.03
0.1739
2288.38
1.686
2434.79
0.0164
1570.97
0.219
2334.55
2.11
2440.06
0.0225
1632.74
0.276
2364.99
2.64
2445.20
0.0301
1703.63
0.347
2383.87
3.30
2450.22
0.0397
1783.36
0.436
2395.84
4.13
2455.13
0.0516
1870.73
0.547
2404.40
5.16
2459.94
0.0665
1963.25
0.686
2411.45
6.00
2463.11
6. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability and skin factor from the buildup test data.
pwf +1219.1 psia; h+27 ft; gg +0.725 (air+1.0); rw +0.41 ft;
Tf +134.7F; f+26.7%; cw +3.6 106 psi1; q+12500 Mscf/D;
Sw +11%; cf +4 106 psi1; tp +144 hr.
BUILDUP TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 3.6
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.0010
1259.13
0.0542
2099.97
0.674
2630.90
0.0023
1305.43
0.0688
2177.37
0.843
2663.17
0.0038
1358.89
0.0869
2246.31
1.055
2694.76
0.0058
1420.06
0.1097
2306.98
1.319
2725.79
0.0082
1489.17
0.1381
2360.40
1.650
2756.34
0.0113
1566.02
0.1736
2407.95
2.06
2786.47
0.0151
1649.82
0.218
2451.03
2.58
2816.24
0.0198
1739.08
0.274
2490.78
3.23
2845.66
0.0258
1831.62
0.343
2528.11
4.03
2874.76
0.0333
1924.63
0.430
2563.63
5.04
2903.53
0.0426
2015.04
0.538
2597.79
6.00
2925.64
7. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability, skin factor, and average reservoir pressure
from the buildup test following a multirate flow period. pwf +459.0
psia; h+16 ft; gg +0.63 (air+1.0); Tf +76F; f+16.7%;
cw +3.6 106 psi1; rw +0.27 ft; Sw +14.3%; cf +4 106 psi1.
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.0036
0.0060
0.0093
0.0123
0.0161
0.0209
0.0269
0.0346
0.0443
0.0565
0.0720
567.71
617.67
670.48
704.79
736.43
764.26
787.77
806.59
821.79
834.26
844.45
0.0917
0.1166
0.1480
0.1879
0.238
0.302
0.383
0.485
0.614
0.778
0.985
853.27
861.23
868.65
875.71
882.46
888.76
894.80
900.64
906.29
911.76
917.06
1.247
1.579
1.999
2.53
3.20
4.06
5.13
6.50
8.22
10.41
12.00
922.18
927.12
931.79
936.09
940.10
943.81
947.22
950.31
953.10
955.58
956.97
8. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability, skin factor, and average reservoir pressure
from the buildup test following a multirate flow period.
pwf +1908.21 psia; h+74 ft; gg +0.78 (air+1.0); Tf +122F;
f+26.0%; cw +3.6 106 psi1; rw +0.45 ft; Sw +10.1%;
cf +4 106 psi1.
BUILDUP TEST DATA FOR EXERCISE 3.8
Time
(hours)
Rate
Mscf/D
4
4
4
3150
5975
8500
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.0015
0.0030
0.0051
0.0081
0.0123
0.0183
0.0269
0.0346
0.0443
0.0565
0.0720
1942.99
1974.92
2018.72
2079.34
2159.88
2264.51
2395.00
2493.96
2598.64
2701.32
2793.80
0.0917
0.1166
0.1480
0.1879
0.238
0.302
0.383
0.485
0.614
0.778
0.985
2871.62
2928.53
2967.18
2993.34
3010.30
3022.69
3032.93
3042.07
3050.55
3058.54
3066.13
1.247
1.579
1.999
2.53
3.20
4.06
5.13
6.50
8.22
10.41
12.00
3073.35
3080.20
3086.69
3092.81
3098.54
3103.85
3108.75
3113.21
3117.22
3120.80
3122.80
References
1. AlHussainy, R., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Crawford, P.B.: The Flow of
Real Gases Through Porous Media, JPT (May 1966) 624; Trans.,
AIME, 237.
2. Agarwal, R.G.: Real Gas PseudotimeA New Function for Pressure
Buildup Analysis of MFH Gas Wells, paper SPE 8279 presented at the
1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas,
Nevada, 2326 September.
3. Lee, W.J. and Holditch, S.A.: Application of Pseudotime to BuildupTest Analysis of LowPermeability Gas Wells With LongDuration
WellboreStorage Distortion, JPT (December 1982) 2877.
4. Meunier, D.F., Kabir, C.S., and Wittmann, M.J.: Gas Well Test Analysis: Use of Normalized Pressure and Time Functions, SPEFE (December 1987) 629.
5. Aziz, K. et al.: Use of Pressure, PressureSquared or PseudoPressure
in the Analysis of Transient Pressure Drawdown Data from Gas Wells,
J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (AprilJune 1976) 58.
6. Fligelman, H. et al.: PressureDrawdown Test Analysis of a Gas WellApplication of New Correlations, SPEFE (Sept. 1989) 406.
INTRODUCTION TO FLOW AND BUILDUP TEST ANALYSIS: COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
75
7. Ramey Jr., H.J.: NonDarcy Flow and Wellbore Storage Effects in
Pressure Buildup and Drawdown of Gas Wells, JPT (February 1965)
223; Trans., AIME (1965) 234.
8. Dake, L.P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier Scientific Publishing, Amsterdam (1978) 249, 264286.
9. Jones, S.C.: Using the Inertial Coefficient, b, To Characterize Heterogeneity in Reservoir Rock, paper SPE 16949 presented at the 1987
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, September
2730.
10. Earlougher Jr., R.C.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas (1977) 5, 7489, 191.
11. Matthews, C.S. and Russell, D.G.: Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in
Wells, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas (1977) 1, 16, 19, 21,
49, 7283.
12. Odeh, A.S. and Jones, L.G.: Pressure Drawdown Analysis, VariableRate Case, Trans., AIME (1965) 234, 960.
13. Winestock, A.G. and Colpitts, G.P.: Advances in Estimating Gas Well
Deliverability, Gas Technology, Reprint Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas (1977) 13, 122130.
14. AlHussainy, R.: Transient Flow of Ideal and Real Gases Through Porous Media, PhD dissertation, Texas A&M U., College Station, Texas
(1967).
76
15. Kazemi, H.: Determining Average Reservoir Pressure From Pressure
Buildup Tests, SPEJ (February 1974) 55; Trans., AIME (1974) 257.
16. Fraim, M.L. and Wattenbarger, R.A.: Gas Reservoir DeclineCurve
Analysis Using Type Curves With Real Gas Pseudopressure and
Normalized Time, SPEJ (December 1987) 671.
17. Odeh, A.S. and Selig, F.: Pressure BuildUp Analysis, VariableRate
Case, JPT (July 1963) 790; Trans., AIME (1963) 228.
18. Martin, J.C.: Simplified Equations of Flow in Gasdrive Reservoirs and
the Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase PressureBuildup Analyses, JPT (October 1959) 309; Trans., AIME, 216.
19. Matthews, C.S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek, P.: A Method for Determination of Average Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir, Trans., AIME
(1954) 201, 182.
20. BehrumenC., S., SamaniegoV., F., and CincoLey, H.: Transient
Pressure Analysis and Performance of Gas Wells Producing Under
Constant Pressure Conditions, paper SPE 19098 presented at the 1989
SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Dallas, 79 June.
21. Reynolds, A.C., Bratvold, R.B., and Ding, W.: Semilog Analysis of
Gas Well Drawdown and Buildup Data, SPEFE (Dec. 1987) 657.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
Chapter 4
WellTest Analysis by Use of Type Curves
4.1 Overview
(4.4)
Type curvesplots of theoretical solutions to flow equationsare
very useful in welltest analysis, especially when used in concert
with semiloganalysis techniques. Type curves can help estimate
and
tD
reservoir properties, identify the appropriate reservoir model, and
O.0002637kt
JJlcrrv
4.2 through 4.5
identify various flow patterns during a test. In this chapter, we ex
Combining Eqs.
plain what type curves are, explore some of their more useful prop
dimensionless form,
erties, and illustrate how they can be used to improve pressure tran
sient test analysis. We begin with type curvesl6 developed for
slightly compressible fluids, then present modifications for applica
tions to gaswelltest analysis. We also discuss the development and
application of pressurederivative type curves. Systematic analysis
PD
( )
At the well where rD
4.2 Development of Type Curves
PD
tions, we can generate them for virtually any kind of reservoir model
for which a general solution describing the flow behavior is avail
able. To apply a type curve correctly, one must understand the as
sumptions underlying the solution. Furthermore, those assumptions
must model accurately the well or reservoir conditions being ana
lyzed. As a matter of convenience, type curves are usually presented
in terms of dimensionless, rather than real, variables. The definition
of the dimensionless variables varies according to the reservoir
model. For example, consider the linesource or Eifunction solu
tion for slightly compressible liquids developed in Chap.
_
P 
7 0.6 qBJl '
E1
kh
94 8JJlCrr2
.
kt
1,
.......... (4.1)
on the numerical value of many other variables. The solution can be
made more compact if the equation is rearranged and some dimen
sionless variables are defined. Rearrangement of Eq.
 2E1
 (r/r
4(O.0002637kt/JJlcrrv)
4 .1
as
..... (4.2)
suggests the following dimensionless pressure, radius, and time
Ei
the solution simplifies to
( :)
t
' ..................... (4.7)
kh(Pi  p )
4 3)
141.2qBJl ' ............................ ( .
WELLTEST ANALYSIS USING TYPE CURVES
PwD
kh Pi Pwt
4 8)
141.2qBJl . ........................... ( .
Eq. 4.7 implies that we can develop a type curve from a plot of PwD
as a function of the single variable tD . Generating a single graph in
terms of PwD is much simpler than attempting to plot bottomhole
flowing pressure,Pwf, as a function of time, t, for all reasonable val
ues of the variables that appear in the dimensional form of the line
source solution (Eq. 4.1). Thus, with this type curve, we can analyze
any pressure transient test conducted under conditions that satisfy
the assumptions made in deriving the Eifunction solution. For more
complex reservoirs than that modeled by the linesource solution,
the solutions to the flow equations can be expressed in a general
PD
f(tD ,rD's",,),
........................... (4.9)
The function represented by Eq. 4.9 may be very complex depend
ing on the wellbore and reservoir conditions being modeled. Again,
before using any type curve, the engineer must fully understand the
variables, respectively:
PD
1,
functional form as
Eq. 4.1 implies that pressure,p, at a point in the reservoir depends
kh(PiP)
14 1.2qBJl
PwD
(4.6)
where the dimensionless pressure evaluated at the wellbore is
Because type curves are plots of theoretical solutions to flow equa
Pi
yields the Eifunction solution in
 r2
D
1
2 Ei 4t
.
D
procedures illustrate the use of type curves, and we present work
sheets for analysis of test data and reservoirmodel identification.
.......................... (4.5)
inherent assumptions of the model.
4.3 Application of Type Curves
Homogeneous Reservoir Model,
Slightly Compressible Liquid Solution
In this section, we introduce four common type curves and illustrate
their application with systematicanalysis procedures and examples.
All the type curves were developed assuming homogeneousacting
77
Fig. 4.1Type curves for constant production rate, infiniteacting reservoir (Ramey6).
formations producing slightly compressible fluids (i.e., liquids); however, the type curves can be used for gaswelltest analysis with appropriate plotting functions discussed in later sections.
4.3.1 Rameys Type Curves. Agarwal et al. and Ramey5,6 generated type curves for the situation of a constantrate pressuredrawdown test in a reservoir with the following characteristics: slightly
compressible, singlephase liquid flowing; sufficient homogeneity
so that the radialdiffusivity equation adequately models flow in the
reservoir; uniform pressure in the drainage area of the well before
production; infiniteacting reservoir (no boundary effects during the
flow period of interest for testanalysis purposes); constant withdrawal rate at the surface; and wellbore storage and concentrated
wellbore damage or stimulation characterized by a skin factor, s.
This list of assumptions is tedious but important. When one or more
of these assumptions is not valid in a specific case, there is no assurance that use of the type curves can lead to a valid test interpretation.
(Some of these limitations can be removed, as we note later in this
chapter. Of major importance is that the curves can be used for
buildup tests and for gaswell tests.) Fig. 4.1 shows the result of
Rameys work.
Some important properties of these curves follow.
1. Examination of the analytical solution on which the type curves
are based shows that, at earliest times when wellbore unloading is responsible for 100% of the flow in a drawdown test (or afterflow rate
equals rate before shutin in a buildup test), Dp is a linear function of
Dt (Dp is pressure change and Dt is time elapsed since test start).
Thus, the log Dplog Dt curve is also linear with a slope of unity (a
45 line), and the wellborestorage coefficient C, can be determined
from any point (Dt,Dp) on this line (Fig. 4.2) from the relation
C+
qB Dt
24 Dp
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.10)
USL
Note that, in a well with a liquid/gas interface in the wellbore,
C+
Fig. 4.2Use of unitslope line to calculate wellborestorage
constant.
78
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.11)
and for a wellbore filled with a singlephase liquid or with gas,
C+cwb Vwb bbl/psi
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.12)
and CD +0.8936 C/fct hrw 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.13)
Successful application of Rameys type curves for quantitative
analysis depends significantly on our ability to establish the correct
value of CD to be used for curvematching type curves for a given
value of s. Curves for different values of CD have very similar
shapes, which makes it difficult to find the best fit without prior
knowledge of CD . Direct calculation of C, and thus CD , from known
values of Awb and wb or cwb and Vwb does not characterize test
conditions as well as the value of C determined from actual test performance as reflected in the unitslope lines.3
2. Wellbore storage has ceased distorting the pressure transient
test data when the type curve for the value of CD characterizing the
test becomes identical to the type curve for CD +0 (Fig. 4.3). This
usually occurs about one and a half to two cycles from the end of the
unitslope line. Thus, these type curves can be used to determine
how much data (if any) can be analyzed by conventional methods,
such as the Horner plot for buildup tests.
3. The type curves, which were developed for drawdown tests,
also can be used for builduptest analysis under certain circumstances if an equivalent shutin time, Dte +Dt/(1)Dt/tp ), is used as
the time variable. The equivalent time is valid under either of
two conditions.
First, equivalent time is valid for shutin times where the pressure
responses from both the flow period and the shutin period lie within
the middletime region. Specifically, the pressure responses from
both the flow period and the shutin period must be described by the
logarithmic approximation to the Ei function; that is, the assumption
of homogeneous, infiniteacting radial flow must be applicable.
If Dty0.1tp and the pressure response from either the flow period
or the shutin period do not lie within the middletime region, the
builduptest data will not lie on the drawdown type curve, even
p
p
25.65A wb
wb bbl/psi,
CD=0
D
Fig. 4.3Use of type curves to determine end of wellborestorage distortion.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
k + 141.2
qBm
pD
h p i * p wf
pD
p p
t
and fc t + 0.000264k
tD
mr 2w
t, hours
Fig. 4.4Horizontal and vertical shifting to find position of fit
and match points.
when equivalent time is used. A number of factors can cause this behavior, including wellbore storage, boundary effects, nonradialflow patterns in hydraulically fractured wells (Chap. 6), and naturally fractured reservoirs (Chap. 7). If any of these conditions are
suspected, equivalent time should be used with caution.
Equivalent time is also valid for short shutin times; that is, when
Dttp . In this case, Dte [Dt. When Dttp , the pressure response
from the flow period is approximately constant during the shutin
period: pwf (tp)Dt)[pwf (tp ). For such times, either time or equivalent time may be used to analyze buildup tests by use of drawdown
type curves.
For large shutin times, lim Dte +tp . Thus, for shutin times
DtR
much larger than the producing time, the use of equivalent time
compresses the time scale. Tests with a very short production period
followed by an extended shutin period cannot be analyzed with the
equivalenttime function. Horner analysis is also impractical for
these tests because of the compression of the time scale. Methods
known as impulse tests (Chap. 9) are available to analyze such tests.
4. A loglog plot of pD vs. tD differs from a loglog plot of
(pi *pwf ) vs. t (for a drawdown test) only by a shift in the origin of
the coordinate system; i.e., log tD differs from log t by a constant and
log pD differs from log (pi *pwf ) by another constant. Eqs. 4.14 and
4.15 show this.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.14)
t D + 0.0002637kt
fmc tr 2w
and p D +
khp i * p wf
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.15)
141.2qBm
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.16)
thus, log t D + log t ) log 0.000264k
fmc tr 2w
and log p D + logp i * p wf ) log
kh
. . . . . . . . . (4.17)
141.2qBm
The significance of this result is that the plot of an actual drawdown test (log t vs. log Dp) should have a shape identical to that of
a plot of log tD vs. log pD , but we have to displace both the horizontal
and vertical axes (i.e., shift the origin of the plot) to find the position
of best fit (Fig. 4.4).
Once a fit is found by vertical and horizontal shifting, we choose
a match point to determine the relationship between actual and dimensionless time and between actual pressure drawdown and dimensionless pressure for the test being analyzed. Any point on the
graph paper will suffice as a match point (i.e., the result is independent of the choice of match point). For the match point chosen, we
determine the corresponding values of (t,tD ) and [( pi *pwf ),pD ].
Then, from definition of pD and tD ,
WELLTEST ANALYSIS USING TYPE CURVES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.18)
MP
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.19)
MP
Use of Rameys Type Curves. The theory of Rameys type curves
leads to the following procedure for using the curves for test analysis. The procedure is given for a slightly compressible liquid;
Tables 4.1 and 4.2 show the changes necessary when a gaswell test
is analyzed.
1. Plot (pi *pwf ) vs. t (drawdown test) or (pws *pwf ) vs.
Dte +Dt/(l)Dt/tp ) (buildup test) on loglog paper the same size as
Rameys type curve. Caution: Unless a type curve is used that is not
distorted in the reproduction process, it will not have the same dimensions as commercially available graph paper and finding a fit may be
misleading or impossible. The best solution is to use an undistorted
type curve; an acceptable alternative is to plot test data on tracing paper using the grid on the distorted type curve as a plotting aid.
2. If the test has a uniformslope region (45 line at earliest times),
choose any point [t, (pi *pwf )] or [Dt, (pws *pwf )] on the unitslope
line and calculate the wellborestorage coefficient C:
C+
qB
t
24 p i * p wf
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.20)
USL
Then calculate the dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.21)
C D + 0.894C
fc thr 2w
Note that estimates of f and ct are required at this point; the implications of this are discussed later.
If a unitslope line is not present, C and CD must be calculated
from wellbore properties, and inaccuracies may result if these properties do not describe actual test behavior.14
3. Using type curves with CD as calculated in Step 2, find the
curve that most nearly fits all the plotted data. This curve will be
characterized by some skin factor, s; record its value. Interpolation
between curves should improve the precision of the analysis but
may prove difficult. Even for fixed CD from the unitslope curve, the
analyst may experience difficulty in determining that one value of
s provides a better fit than another, particularly if all data are distorted by wellbore storage or if the scatter or noise that characterizes much actual field data is present. If CD is not known with certainty, the possible ambiguity in finding the best fit is even more
pronounced.
4. With the actual testdata plot placed in the position of best fit,
record corresponding values of (pi *pwf , pD ) and (t, tD ) from any
convenient match point.
5. Calculate k and fct with Eqs. 4.18 and 4.19. Eq. 4.19 does not
establish fct on the basis of test performance unless CD can be established without assuming values for fct; it simply reproduces the
values assumed in Step 2.
In summary, the procedure outlined in Steps 1 through 5 provides
estimates of k, s, and C.
Example 4.1Drawdown Test Analysis by Use of Rameys Type
Curves. Problem. Determine k, s, and C from the data below and
in Table 4.3, which were obtained in a pressure drawdown test on
an oil well.
q+
f+
m+
ct +
rw +
h+
Bo +
pi +
500 STB/D
0.2
0.8 cp
10 10*6 psi*1
0.3 ft
56 ft
1.2 RB/STB
3,000 psia
Solution. We must first prepare the data for plotting (Table 4.4).
Fig. 4.5 shows the plot of the data.
79
TABLE 4.1EQUIVALENT VARIABLES IN LIQUID AND GAS FLOW
Liquid
Gas, Using Pseudopressure
and Pseudotime
Gas, Using Adjusted Pressure
and Adjusted Time
Pressure, p
Pseudopressure,
Adjusted pressure,
pdp
mz
p p(p) + 2
p a(p) +
mz
p (p)
2p p
p0
Dimensionless pressure,
Dimensionless pseudopressure,
Dimensionless adjusted pressure,
khT scDp
p pD +
50, 300qp scT
khDp
pD +
141.2qBm
Time, t
p aD +
Pseudotime,
khDp a
141.2qB gm g
Adjusted Time,
ta (p)+(mg Ct )tap (p)
dt
mc t
t ap(p) +
t0
Radius, r
Radius, r
Radius, r
Dimensionless radius,
rD +r /rw
Dimensionless radius,
rD +r /rw
Dimensionless radius,
rD +r /rw
Skin factor, s
Apparent skin factor,
Apparent skin factor,
s+s)Dq
s+s)Dq
Wellborestorage
coefficient,
C+25.65 Awb /wb
Modified wellborestorage
coefficient,
Ce +C (Tct )/(Twb cwb )
+Vwb Tct /Twb
Modified wellborestorage
coefficient,
Ce +C (Tct )/(Twb cwb )
+Vwb Tct /Twb
Dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient,
CD +0.8936C/fct h r 2w
Modified dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient,
CeD +0.8936Vwb T/fhr 2w Twb
Modified dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient,
CeD +0.8936Vwb T/fhr 2w Twb
TABLE 4.2SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES FOR TYPECURVE PLOTS
Case
Interpretation
of Pressure
Match Point
Definition
of CD
Interpretation
of Unit Slope Line
Slightly Compressible Fluids (Oil)
Dp vs. Dt
CD +
0.0372q oB o Dt
Dp
fhc t r 2w
USL
CD +
22.92A wb
wbfc t h r 2w
141.2q oB om o p D
Dp
h
MP
141.2q g m gB g p
D
Dp
h
MP
141.2q g m gB g p
D
k+
Dp
h
MP
k+
Compressible Fluids (Gas)
Dp vs. Dt
Dpa vs. Dta
D(p2) vs. Dt
Dpp vs. Dt
CD +
0.0372q gB g Dt
Dp
fhc t r 2w
0.0372q gB g Dt
CD +
Dp
fhc t r 2w
CD +
0.375q gTz
CD +
fhc t r 2w
0.375q gT
fhc t r 2w
Dt
Dp 2
Dt
Dp p
CD +
USL
CD +
USL
CD +
0.8936V wbc wb
c t r 2w
0.8936V wbT
fh r 2wT wb
0.8936V wbc wb
fc t hr 2w
k+
k+
1422q gTzm g
h
USL
CD +
USL
0.8936V wbc wb
fc t hr 2w
k+
1422q gT
h
pD
Dp 2
MP
pD
Dpp
MP
1. For drawdown test analysis, the plotting functions are defined as Dp +p*pwf (or equivalent) and Dt +t +flow time (or equivalent).
2. For buildup test analysis, the plotting functions are defined as Dp+pws *pwf (Dt+0) (or equivalent) and Dt+Dte +Dt/(1)Dt/tp )
(or equivalent).
From the unitslope line (on which the data lie for tx0.0218
hour),
C+
80
qB
t
24 p i * p wf
USL
(500)(1.2)
(24)
(0.0218)
(47)
+0.0116 RB/psi.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
TABLE 4.2SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES FOR TYPECURVE PLOTS (continued)
Interpretation
of Time for
Hydraulically Fractured Wells
Definition
of CD
Case
Slightly Compressible Fluids (Oil)
Dp vs. Dt
Dt
C D + 0.0002637k
fm oc t h r 2w t DC D
MP
Dt
tL D
0.0002637k
fm oc t
Lf +
MP
Compressible Fluids (Gas)
Dp vs. Dt
Dpa vs. Dta
D(p2) vs. Dt
Dpp vs. Dt
Dt
C D + 0.0002637k
t DC D
fm gc t r 2w
Dt
C D + 0.0002637k
t DC D
fm gc t r 2w
Dt
C D + 0.0002637k
t DC D
fm gc t r 2w
Dt
C D + 0.0002637k
t DC D
fm gc t r 2w
MP
Dt
tL D
0.0002637k
fm gc t
Lf +
MP
MP
Dt
tL D
0.0002637k
fm gc t
Lf +
MP
MP
Dt
tL D
0.0002637k
fm gc t
Lf +
MP
MP
Dt
tL D
0.0002637k
fm gc t
Lf +
MP
1. For drawdown test analysis, the plotting functions are defined as Dp +p*pwf (or equivalent) and Dt +t +flow time (or equivalent).
2. For buildup test analysis, the plotting functions are defined as Dp+pws *pwf (Dt+0) (or equivalent) and Dt+Dte +Dt/(1)Dt/tp )
(or equivalent).
TABLE 4.3CONSTANTRATE DRAWDOWNTEST DATA
t
(hours)
pwf
(psi)
t
(hours)
pwf
(psi)
t
(hours)
pwf
(psi)
0.0109
0.0164
0.0218
0.0273
0.0328
0.0382
0.0437
0.0491
0.0546
0.109
2,976
2,964
2,953
2,942
2,930
2,919
2,908
2,897
2,886
2,785
0.164
0.218
0.273
0.328
0.382
0.437
0.491
0.546
1.09
1.64
2,693
2,611
2,536
2,469
2,408
2,352
2,302
2,256
1,952
1,828
2.18
2.73
3.28
3.82
4.37
4.91
5.46
6.55
8.74
10.9
16.4
1,768
1,734
1,712
1,696
1,684
1,674
1,665
1,651
1,630
1,614
1,587
TABLE 4.4DRAWDOWN DATA TABULATED
FOR PLOTTING
t
(h
)
(hours)
pi *pwf
( i)
(psi)
t
(h
)
(hours)
pi*pwf
( i)
(psi)
t
(h
)
(hours)
pi *pwf
( i)
(psi)
0.0109
0.0164
0.0218
0.0273
0.0328
0.0382
0.0437
0.0491
0.0546
0.109
24
36
47
58
70
81
92
103
114
215
0.164
0.218
0.273
0.328
0.382
0.437
0.491
0.546
1.09
1.64
307
389
464
531
592
648
698
744
1,048
1,172
2.18
2.73
3.28
3.82
4.37
4.91
5.46
6.55
8.74
10.9
16.4
1,232
1,266
1,288
1,304
1,316
1,326
1,335
1,349
1,370
1,386
1,413
Then,
C D + 0.894C
fc thr 2w
+
k + 141.2
(0.894)(0.0116)
(0.2)(1
+1.03
^1
10 *5)(56)(0.3)
103
103.
For CD +103, the bestfitting type curve is for s+5. A time match
point is t+1 hour when tD +1.93 104. A pressure match point is
(pi *pwf ) 100 psi, when pD +0.85.
From the match, we also note that wellborestorage distortion
ends at t+5.0 hours (i.e., the type curve for CD +103 becomes identical to the type curve for CD +0).
From the pressure match point,
WELLTEST ANALYSIS USING TYPE CURVES
qBm
pD
h p i * p wf
MP
(141.2)(500)(1.2)(0.8) 0.85
100
(56)
+10.3 md.
From the time match point,
t
fc t + 0.000264k
tD
mr 2w
+
MP
(0.000264)(10.3)
(0.8)(0.3)
1.93 1
10 4
81
4.3.2 McKinley Type Curve. McKinley1 developed type curves
with the primary objective of characterizing damage or stimulation in
a drawdown or buildup test in which wellbore storage distorts most
of or all the data, thus making this characterization possible with relatively shortterm tests. In constructing his type curves, McKinley observed that the ratio of pressure change, Dp, to the flow rate causing
the change, qB, is a function of several dimensionless quantities:
CD
CD
FLOW TIME, hours
Fig. 4.5Drawdowntest analysis with Rameys type curve.
+1.96
106 psi1.
Compare these with the values used to determine CD from C:
fct +(0.2)(1
+2
105)
106.
This is the same value we used to calculate CD . As noted previously,
the time match point does not provide an independent estimate of fct .
Dp
r
+ f khDt , kDt 2 , r e , Dt
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.22)
qB
mC fmc tr w w t p
Type curves with so many parameters would be difficult, if not impossible, to use. Accordingly, McKinley simplified the problem
with the following assumptions.
1. The first is that the well has produced long enough (essentially
to stabilization) so that the last group, Dt /tp , is not important. In other words, he assumed that the producing time, tp , is much greater
than the test duration, Dt. Consequently, the type curves may not
give accurate results for pressurebuildup tests with short producing
periods before shutin.
2. He ignored boundary effects, thus eliminating the variable
re /rw in the logic used to construct the type curves (see, however, Assumption 6).
3. His analysis of simulated buildup and drawdown curves
showed that, during the wellborestoragedominated portion of a
test, the parameter khDt/mC was much more important in determining Dp/qB than was kDtfmc tr 2w . Accordingly, he let kfmc tr 2w
+10 106 mdpsi/cpft2 (an average value) for all his type curves.
Even when kfmc tr 2w varies from this average value by one or two
orders of magnitude, the shape of the type curves is not affected significantly. The reason for this approximation was McKinleys judgment that the loss of accuracy is more than compensated for by the
Fig. 4.6McKinleys1 type curve for a single well in an infinite system and including wellbore storage, no skin. (After Earlougher3).
82
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
Fig. 4.7Earlytime data fit on McKinleys1 type curve.
Fig. 4.8Latertime data fit on McKinleys1 type curve.
gain in sensitivity in the type curves (i.e., the shape of each curve is
distinctly different at earliest times).
4. To account for the remaining parameters that do have a significant influence on test results, McKinley plotted his type curves as
Dt (ordinate) vs. 5.615CDp/qB (abscissa) with the single correlating
parameter kh/5.615Cm. Fig. 4.6 shows a smallscale version of
McKinleys curves.
5. The skin factor, s, does not appear as a parameter in his curves.
Instead, they assess damage or stimulation by noting that the earliest
wellborestoragedistorted data are dominated by the effective nearwell transmissibility, (kh/m)wb . Thus, (kh/m)wb can be calculated
from a typecurve match of the earliest test data. After wellborestorage distortion has diminished, pressure/time behavior is governed by the transmissibility in the formation, (kh/m)f , which can be
estimated from a typecurve match of later data.
6. McKinley approximated boundary effects by plotting the simulatorgenerated type curves for approximately onefifth log cycle
beyond the end of wellborestorage distortion and then making the
curves vertical. This step roughly simulates drainage conditions of
40acre spacing. Note that this gives the curves early, middle, and
latetime regions, but the curves were designed to be used primarily
to analyze earlytime data. Hence, when the curves are applied to
drawdown tests, they must be applied to data not affected by boundaries because they do not simulate boundary effects in drawdown
tests properly.
McKinley prepared three different type curves: one for 0.01 to 10
minutes, one for 1 to 1,000 minutes, and one for 103 to 106 minutes.
The curve for 1 to 1,000 minutes is by far the most useful and, accordingly, is the only one shown here. Earlougher3 provides the other curves. The following steps outline a recommended procedure for
using McKinleys type curves.
1. Plot Dt (minutes) as the ordinate vs. Dp+(p*pwf ) for a drawdown test or (pws *pwf ) for a buildup test as the abscissa either on
tracing paper or on 3 5 cycle loglog paper the same size as McKinleys type curve. The time range on the axis should correspond exactly to one of the type curves; i.e., it should span 0.01 to 10, 1 to 1,000,
or 103 to 106 minutes.
2. Match the time axis of the testdata plot with that of the appropriate McKinley type curve. Move the data horizontally only until the earliest data match one of the type curves (Fig. 4.7).
3. Record the correlating parameter value [(kh/m)/5.615C]wb for
the matched type curve.
4. Choose a match point, any Dp from the test data plot and the
corresponding value of 5.615DpC /qB from the type curve, or (Dp,
5.615DpC/qB)MP.
5. Determine the wellborestorage coefficient, C, from the match
point:
7. If the data trend away from the type curve matching the earliest
data, then shift the data plot horizontally to find another type curve
that better fits the later data. A shift to a higher value of
(kh/m)/5.615C indicates damage, while a shift to a lower value indicates stimulation (Fig. 4.8).
8. Calculate formation transmissibility:
C+
qB
.
5.615DpCqB
5.615
Dp
khm + 5.615C
f
khm
5.615C
(C)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.25)
where 7 and 5+Steps 7 and 5, respectively. Note that we do not find
a new pressure match point to determine C again. The storage coefficient, C, is found ultimately in Step 5. In fact, if only data reflecting
formation transmissivity (after wellborestorage distortion has disappeared) are analyzed, error will result with the McKinley method.
However, in such a case, other methods, such as semilog analysis,
are accurate. The match point must be found with early wellborestoragedistorted data.
9. Flow efficiency also can be estimated with McKinleys type
curves.2 A working definition of flow efficiency, E, is
E[
p * * p wf * Dp s
Dp * * Dp s
+
. . . . . . . . . . . . (4.26)
p * * p wf
Dp *
The quantities Dp* and Dps are estimated from the McKinley type
curves. In Eq. 4.26, Dp*+the vertical asymptote approached by Dp
in the McKinley plot (Fig. 4.9), while Dps is calculated from Dpd ,
the pressure change at the intersection of the earlyfit type curve and
the latefit type curve. Dps is calculated from
Dp s + 1 *
k wb
Dp d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.27)
kf
Example 4.2Drawdown Test Analysis With McKinleys Type
Curve. Problem. A drawdown test was run on an oil well. Table 4.5
summarizes known data. Estimate nearwell permeability, forma
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.23)
MP
6. Calculate nearwell transmissibility, (kh/m)wb , from the parameter value recorded in Step 3 and the wellborestorage coefficient
determined in Step 5:
khm
wb
+ 5.615C
khm
5.615C
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.24)
wb
WELLTEST ANALYSIS USING TYPE CURVES
Fig. 4.9Flow efficiency calculation from McKinleys2 type
curve.
83
TABLE 4.5PRESSUREDRAWDOWNTEST DATA,
EXAMPLE 4.2
t
(minutes)
pwf
(psi)
1.31
1.64
1.97
2.29
2.62
2.95
3.28
6.54
9.84
13.1
16.4
19.7
22.9
26.2
2,953
2,942
2,930
2,919
2,908
2,897
2,886
2,785
2,693
2,611
2,536
2,469
2,408
2,352
t
(minutes)
32.8
65.4
98.4
131
164
197
229
262
295
328
393
524
654
984
pwf
(psi)
t
(minutes)
pi *pwf
(psi)
t
(minutes)
pi *pwf
(psi)
2,256
1,952
1,828
1,768
1,734
1,712
1,696
1,684
1,674
1,665
1,651
1,630
1,614
1,587
1.31
1.64
1.97
2.29
2.62
2.95
3.28
6.54
9.84
13.1
16.4
19.7
22.9
26.2
47
58
70
81
92
103
114
215
307
389
464
531
592
648
32.8
65.4
98.4
131
164
197
229
262
295
328
393
524
654
984
744
1,048
1,172
1,232
1,266
1,288
1,304
1,316
1,326
1,335
1,349
1,370
1,386
1,413
tion permeability, and flow efficiency with the McKinley type
curves for the following conditions.
q+
ct +
f+
h+
Bo +
pi +
rw +
m+
500 STB/D
10*5 psi*1
0.2
56 ft
1.2 RB/STB
3,000 psia
0.3 ft
0.8 cp
data plot horizontally to match the later data with a type curve. The
best fit of the later data is for
khm
5.615C
+ 10, 000.
wb
The shift to a higher value indicates that the formation near the wellbore is damaged (i.e., the nearwellbore formation permeability is
lower than that in the formation away from the wellbore).
8. The formation transmissibility is
Solution. Example 4.2Drawdown Test Analysis by Use of
McKinleys Type Curve.
1. First, plot flowing time, t vs. pressure change,
Dp+(p*pwf )+pi *pwf with the data summarized in Table 4.6. Because all the data lie in the 1 to 1,000minute range, we choose the
type curve corresponding to this time range.
2. Match the data with the type curve by shifting the data plot horizontally (Fig. 4.10).
3. From the match with the bestfitting McKinley1 curve for the
early data, the typecurve parameter is
khm
5.615C
TABLE 4.6PRESSUREDRAWDOWNTEST PLOTTING
FUNCTIONS, EXAMPLE 4.2
khm
5.615C f
khm
5.615C
khm +
f
khm
wb
wb
(10, 000)
(281)
(5, 000)
+ 562 mdftcp.
The effective permeability to oil is
mh + (562)0.8
+ 8.03 md.
56
k + kh
m
9. At the point of intersection of the early and latetime matched
type curves, Dpd +1,180 psi. The data become asymptotic at
approximately Dp*+1,500 psi. The parameter Dps is
+ 5, 000.
wb
4. A match point for the earlytime fit is
Dp+107 psi and 5.615DpC/qB+0.010.
5. From the match point, the wellborestorage coefficient is
C+
qB
5005.6151.2
+ 0.010
5.615DpCqB
5.615
107
Dp
MP
+ 0.01 RBpsi.
6. The nearwell transmissibility is
khm
wb
khm
5.615C
(5.615C) + (5, 000)(5.615)(0.01)
wb
+ 281 mdftcp.
The apparent nearwell permeability to oil, kwb , is
k wb + kh
m
wb
m
(281)(0.8)
+
+ 4.01 md.
(56)
h
7. At Dtd of approximately 100 minutes, the data depart from the
type curve matched with the early data. Accordingly, we shift the
84
Fig. 4.10Drawdown test analysis with McKinleys1,2 type
curve.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
Fig. 4.11Gringarten et al.4 type curve for a well with wellborestorage and skin.
Dp s + 1 *
k wb
Dp d + 1 * 4.01 (1, 180) + 590 psi.
8.03
k
The flow efficiency is
Dp * * Dp s
1, 500 * 590
+
+ 0.607 or 60.7%.
E[
1, 500
Dp *
and C+wellborestorage coefficient (bbl/psi). For a rising or falling
liquid level in the wellbore, C is calculated from
C+
25.65A wb
wb .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.30)
For a wellbore filled with a singlephase liquid or gas,
C+Vwb cwb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.31)
4.3.2 Gringarten et al. Type Curve. The type curve developed by
Gringarten et al.4 is based on solutions to the diffusivity equation
modeling the flow of a slightly compressible liquid in a homogeneousacting formation. The initial condition is uniform pressure
throughout the drainage area of the well. The outerboundary condition specifies an infiniteacting or unbounded reservoir, while the
inner boundary condition is constantrate flow with wellbore storage and skin effect. These initial and boundary conditions are the
same conditions assumed for the solutions plotted on the Ramey5,6
type curve. Gringarten et al.4 replotted Rameys solutions to facilitate application of the type curve. In Fig. 4.11, pD is plotted vs. the
time plotting function, tD/ CD , and as a function of the correlating parameter CD e2s. We discuss some important properties of type curves
in general and of the Gringarten type curve in particular in the following section.
1. As long as wellbore unloading accounts for all the flow during
a drawdown test or while afterflow accounts for 100% of the flow
rate before shutin in a buildup test, a line having a slope equal to one
will occur at early times on a loglog plot. In dimensionless variables, the unitslope line has the property
tD
+ 1, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.28)
C Dp D
where CD +dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient defined by
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.29)
C D + 0.8936C
fc thr 2w
WELLTEST ANALYSIS USING TYPE CURVES
The variables in Eqs. 4.30 and 4.31 are defined as Awb +wellbore
area, ft2; wb +density of the liquid in the wellbore, lbm/ft3;
Vwb +wellbore volume, bbl; and cwb +compressibility of the fluid
in the wellbore, psi*1.
The wellborestorage coefficient, C, can be determined from any
point (Dt, Dp)USL on the unitslope line. Substituting the definitions
of pD , tD , and CD (Eqs. 4.3, 4.5, and 4.29, respectively) for a slightly
compressible liquid into Eq. 4.28, we find that, for a point on the
unitslope line,
C+
qB Dt
24 Dp
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.32)
USL
The dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient, CD , is
CD +
0.03723qB Dt
Dp
fc thr 2w
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.33)
USL
2. The preferred curve on the Gringarten type curve indicates
the end of wellborestorage distortion of the pressure transient data.
The original curve is a much more conservative indication of the
end of wellbore storage. Accordingly, when a plot of test data crosses the preferred curve in a typecurve match, a straight line begins
at approximately the same time on a semilog graph of the test data.
This straight line commonly is referred to as the semilog straight
line or the middletime region. The more pronounced the effect
of wellbore storage on the pressure response during a test, the longer
the delay in the onset of the middletime region.
85
A nearly horizontal line that crosses the type curves for fractional
values of CD e2s lies in the fracturedwell region on the Gringarten
curve. As before, this line indicates the beginning of a straight line
on a semilog graph of test data for the fracturedwell solutions
plotted on the Gringarten type curves. However, wellbore storage
does not delay the onset of the middletime region. Rather, the nearly horizontal line marks the transition from a flow regime characterized by linear flow from the reservoir into a vertical, highconductivity hydraulic fracture (Chap. 6) to essentially radial flow (called
pseudoradial flow). Neither the transition from linear to pseudoradial flow is complete nor will a semilog straight line appear until the
the testdata plot crosses this line.
3. The Gringarten type curves are based on solutions to equations
modeling constantrate flow. For a drawdown test, a plot is made of
Dp+pi *pwf as a function of flowing time, t. The type curves also
can be used to analyze buildup tests if the producing time before
shutting in the well is much greater than the duration of the buildup
test; i.e., tp Dt. However, for situations in which the producing
time before shutting in the well is less than 1/10 the maximum shutin
time to be analyzed (i.e., Dtmax u0.1tp ), the drawdown type curves
cannot be used to analyze pressurebuildup data accurately.
To account for the effects of producing time on pressurebuildup
tests, Agarwal7 proposed an equivalent time defined by
Dt e
+ Dt .
1 ) Dtt
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.34)
The meaning of equivalent time is that a given pressure change, Dp,
that occurred at shutin time Dt during a buildup test would have occurred at an equivalent time, Dte , during a constantrate flow test.
For analyzing buildup tests, we recommend plotting Dp+pws *pwf
as a function of equivalent time, Dte . The definition of equivalent
time is rigorous only for radial flow in homogeneous, infiniteacting
reservoirs with test data undistorted by wellbore storage. It may be
used to analyze radialflow data distorted by wellbore storage, but
test data affected by boundaries are usually best plotted vs. Dt. For
linear flow, which occurs at early test times in many hydraulically
fractured wells (Chap. 6), another expression for equivalent time is
more appropriate and is presented later.
4. For a drawdown test from a well producing a slightly compressible liquid, a loglog plot of pD vs. tD /CD differs from a loglog plot
of (pi *pwf ) vs. t only by displacement of both coordinates by
constants. Combining Eqs. 4.5 and 4.29, the dimensionless time
group is
fmc r
0.8936C
+ 0.0002951kht
.
mC
tD
+ 0.0002637kt
CD
fmc tr 2w
2
t w
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.35)
Taking the logarithms of each side of Eq. 4.35 yields
log
Ct + log t ) log0.0002951kh
.
mC
D
. . . . . . . . . . (4.36)
Similarly, taking the logarithms of each side of the dimensionless
pressure defined by Eq. 4.3 yields
log p D + logp i * p wf ) log
kh
141.2qBm
.
. . . . . . . . (4.37)
Thus, a plot of drawdowntest data (log Dp vs. log t) should have a
shape identical to that of a plot of log pD vs. log tD /CD but with the
horizontal and vertical axes displaced.
To use the Gringarten type curve, we compare a plot of test data
with the type curve. The test data are plotted either on tracing paper
or on loglog graph paper with the same size log cycles as the type
curve. Next, the data plot is overlaid on the type curves and matched
with the curve having the same shape as the test data plot. When the
match is found, the correlating parameter, CD e2s, describing the
matched curve is recorded and corresponding values of the pressure
86
and time match points, (pD ,Dp) and (tD /CD ,t), respectively, are selected. Any convenient dimensionless values and the corresponding
real values can be used when choosing the match point. Finally, the
formation properties can be estimated by use of the match points and
the definitions of the dimensionless variables. We recommend the
following procedure for analyzing buildup or flow tests with the
Gringarten type curve.
1. Plot pressure change, Dp+( p*pwf ), vs. flowing time, t, for a
drawdown test or pressure change, Dp +pws *pwf (Dt+0), vs.
equivalent shutin time, Dte , for a buildup test. Make the plot either
on tracing paper or on loglog graph paper with the same size log
cycles as the Gringarten type curve.
2. If a unitslope line is present on the testdata plot at early times,
calculate the dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient, CD , with
a data point (t or Dte ,Dp)USL from the unitslope line.
CD +
0.03723qB t or Dt e
Dp
fhc tr 2w
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.33)
USL
If desired, calculate the dimensional storage coefficient, C, with the
same point from the unitslope line,
CD +
qB t or Dt e
24
Dp
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.32)
USL
Note that, even if no unitslope line is present at early time, we can
still determine CD from the time match point (Step 6).
3. Overlay the test data on the type curves and find the type curve
that most nearly fits all the plotted test data. Record the value of the
typecurve correlating parameter, CD e2s, corresponding to the
matched type curve. This match will probably not be unique; i.e.,
other curves may match the data equally well.
4. With the testdata plot still fitted to the type curve, select convenient pressure and time match points. Record the values of (Dp,pD )
and (t,tD /CD ) for a drawdown test or (Dte ,tD /CD ) for a buildup test
at the match point.
The pressurematchpoint values (Dp,pD ) are corresponding values of the pressure variables on both the test data plot and on the type
curve, while the timematchpoint values (t,tD /CD ) or (Dte ,tD /CD )
are corresponding values of the time variables on the testdata plot
and on the type curve.
5. Using the definition of dimensionless pressure given by Eq.
4.3, calculate permeability from the pressure match point.
k+
141.2qBm p D
h
Dp
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.38)
MP
where Dp+(pi *pwf ) for a drawdown test or Dp+(pws *pwf ) for a
pressure buildup test.
6. Calculate the dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient, CD ,
from the time match point.
C D + 0.0002637k
fhc tr 2w
t torCDt
e
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.39)
MP
This value should be comparable with that calculated in Step 2 by
use of a data point on the unitslope line. Inconsistencies between
the two values indicate possible errors in the analysis.
7. Calculate the skin factor, s, with the typecurve correlating parameter, CD e2s, from Step 3 and the dimensionless wellborestorage
coefficient, CD , determined from the time match point in Step 6.
s + 0.5 ln
CCe .
D
2s
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.40)
The pressurebuildup test in Example 4.3 illustrates the typecurvematching procedure with the Gringarten type curve.
Example 4.3Analyzing a PressureBuildup Test With the
Gringarten Type Curve. Problem. The data summarized in Table
4.7 are from a buildup test on an oil well. Because the reservoir pressure is still above the original bubblepoint pressure, only oil is flowing in the reservoir. Estimate the effective permeability to oil, the
skin factor, and the wellborestorage coefficient with the Gringarten
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
TABLE 4.7PRESSUREBUILDUPTEST DATA FOR
EXAMPLE 4.3
Dt
(hours)
0
0.0001
0.0002
0.0005
0.0008
0.0010
0.0030
0.0050
0.0080
0.0100
0.0160
0.0255
0.0406
0.0649
0.104
0.165
0.264
0.421
0.672
1.07
pws
(psi)
250
254.09
258.16
270.30
282.33
290.29
367.39
440.40
542.99
607.11
780.68
1,005.1
1,263.2
1,515.6
1,714.0
1,837.0
1,907.4
1,950.0
1,983.2
2,013.5
Dt
(hours)
pws
(psi)
Dte
(hours)
Dp
(psi)
Dte
(hours)
Dp
(psi)
1.71
2.73
4.36
6.50
10.5
15.1
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
72.0
80.0
2,043.1
2,072.1
2,100.7
2,124.9
2,153.7
2,175.4
2,192.0
2,205.2
2,215.9
2,225.0
2,232.8
2,239.6
2,245.7
2,251.2
2,256.2
2,260.8
2,265.0
2,266.6
2,272.6
0.0001
0.0002
0.0005
0.0008
0.0010
0.0030
0.0050
0.0080
0.0100
0.0160
0.0255
0.0406
0.0649
0.1040
0.1650
0.2640
0.4209
0.6717
1.0692
4.0900
8.1600
20.300
32.330
40.290
117.39
190.40
292.99
357.11
530.68
755.10
1,013.2
1,265.6
1,464.0
1,587.0
1,657.4
1,700.0
1,733.2
1,763.5
1.7079
2.7247
4.3465
6.4700
10.422
14.939
19.718
24.561
29.371
34.146
38.889
43.599
48.276
52.921
57.534
62.116
66.667
68.478
75.676
1,793.1
1,822.1
1,850.7
1,874.9
1,903.7
1,925.4
1,942.0
1,955.2
1,965.9
1,975.0
1,982.8
1,989.6
1,995.7
2,001.2
2,006.2
2,010.8
2,015.0
2,016.6
2,022.6
type curve. In addition, analyze the data with the Horner semilog
plotting method and compare the results.
h+
m+
q+
pwf +
f+
B+
p+
rw +
ct +
tp +
TABLE 4.8PLOTTING FUNCTIONS FOR GRINGARTEN
TYPECURVE ANALYSIS, EXAMPLE 4.3
78 ft
1 cp
600 STB/D
250 psia
0.20
1.1 RB/STB
2,447 psia
0.365 ft
1.61 10*5 psi*1
1,400 hours
Solution. Gringarten TypeCurve Analysis.
1. First, we plot the pressure/time data. Because our test is a pressurebuildup test, we plot pressure change, Dp+pws *pwf , as a function of the Agarwal7 equivalent time, Dte , on a loglog graph (Fig.
4.12). Table 4.8 summarizes the typecurve plotting functions.
2. Because the earliest data fall on a unitslope (45) line, the
wellborestorage coefficient can be estimated with a point on the
line. One point on the unitslope line is Dp+40.29 psi, Dte +0.001
hour. With this point, the dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient is
Fig. 4.12Loglog plot of pressure buildup test data, example
4.3.
WELLTEST ANALYSIS USING TYPE CURVES
CD +
0.03723qB Dt e
Dp
fhc tr 2w
USL
(0.03723)(600)(1.1)
10 *5)(0.365)
(0.2)(78)(1.61
0.001
40.29
+ 18.2.
The dimensional wellborestorage coefficient is
C+
qB Dt e
24 Dp
USL
(600)(1.1) 0.001
40.29
(24)
+ 6.84
10 *4 RBpsi.
3. Next, we match the loglog plot of the pressure buildup data
with the Gringarten type curve (Fig. 4.13) by overlaying the test
data on the type curve. A good fit is found for the type curve defined
by the correlating parameter CD e2s+1010. With the preferred
curve on the typecurve plot, the approximate start of the semilog
Fig. 4.13Type curve match with Gringarten type curve, Example 4.3.
87
Horner
Time Ratio
pws
(psia)
Horner
Time Ratio
250
254.09
258.16
270.30
282.33
290.29
367.39
440.40
542.99
607.11
780.68
1,005.1
1,263.2
1,515.6
1,714.0
1,837.0
1,907.4
1,950.0
1,983.2
2,013.5
14,000,000
7,000,000
2,800,000
1,750,000
1,400,000
466,670
280,000
175,000
140,000
87,501
54,903
34,484
21,573
13,463
8,485.8
5,304.0
3,326.4
2,084.3
1,309.4
2,043.1
2,072.1
2,100.7
2,124.9
2,153.7
2,175.4
2,192.0
2,205.2
2,215.9
2,225.0
2,232.8
2,239.6
2,245.7
2,251.2
2,256.2
2,260.8
2,265.0
2,266.6
2,272.6
819.71
513.82
322.10
216.38
134.33
93.715
71.000
57.000
47.667
41.000
36.000
32.111
29.000
26.455
24.333
22.538
21.000
20.444
18.500
straight line of the middletime region is Dte +0.53 hour. Because
the test data do not deviate from the type curve before the end of the
test, we conclude that the reservoir was infiniteacting throughout
the test.
4. From the match with the type curve, we select a pressure match
point of Dp+120 psi, pD +1 and a time match point of Dte +28
hour, tD /CD +10,000. Note that the match points are completely arbritrary. Any convenient values can be selected.
5. From the pressure match point, the effective permeability to oil is
k+
141.2qBm p D
h
Dp
MP
Bottomhole Shutin
pws
(psia)
TABLE 4.9PLOTTING FUNCTIONS FOR HORNER
SEMILOG ANALYSIS, EXAMPLE 4.3
Fig. 4.14Horner8 semilog analysis of pressurebuilduptest
data, Example 4.3.
m+
p ws2 * p ws1
logt p ) Dt 2Dt 2 * logt p ) Dt 1Dt 1
2, 192.0 * 2, 272.6
log(71)
+ 138 psicycle.
* log(18.5)
2. Next, calculate the effective permeability to oil with Eq. 2.30.
By convention, we use the absolute value of the slope for calculating
the effective permeability.
k+
162.6qBm
(162.6)(600)(1.1)(1.0)
+
+ 9.97 md,
(138)(78)
mh
which agrees with the value estimated from the Gringarten typecurve
analysis, suggesting that our initial typecurve analysis is correct.
3. The skin factor is calculated from Eq. 2.33. From Fig. 4.14, the
value of pws at Dt+1 hour (i.e., a Horner time ratio+1,401) is
p1hr+2,025 psia.
s + 1.151
(141.2)(600)(1.1)(1.0) 1
+
120
(78)
+ 9.96 md.
+ 1.151
6. The dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient is
Dt e
C D + 0.0002637k
fhc tr 2w
t DC D
+
* log
MP
(0.0002637)(9.96)
(0.2)(1.0)(1.61
10 *5)(0.365)
10,28000
+ 17.1,
which is consistent with CD +18.2 calculated from the unitslope
line in Step 2 and suggests that our analysis is correct.
7. The skin factor, s, is estimated with the matching parameter,
CD e2s, from the typecurve match and the dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient, CD , from Step 6, giving
s + 0.5 ln
10 + 10.1.
CCe + 0.5 ln17.1
D
2s
10
Horner Semilog Analysis.
1. Table 4.9 summarizes plotting functions for the Horner8 semilog analysis, and Fig. 4.14 plots the data. The results from the Gringarten typecurve analysis suggest the middletime region begins at
Dte +0.53 hour or a Horner time of 2,642. From Fig. 4.14, the slope
of the bestfit straight line drawn through the last 20 data points is
88
p 1hr * p wf
* log
fmck r ) 3.23
2
t w
(2, 025 * 250)
138
10
) 3.23
2
(0.20)(1.0)(16.1 10 *6)(0.365)
+ 10.0,
which also agrees with the result from the typecurve analysis.
One of the inherent problems with typecurve analysis is the difficulty in finding a unique match of the data. Because of the similar
shapes of the type curves for a wide range of the correlating parameter, the field data often can be matched with more than one type
curve; consequently, more than one solution is possible. To eliminate this problem, we can iterate between typecurve and semilog
analyses until we obtain consistent results. This iterative technique
is a viable method, however, only if semilog analysis is possible;
i.e., wellbore storage or reservoir boundary effects may distort the
middletime region, thus making semilog analysis impossible.
Although the agreement between the results obtained with the
Gringarten typecurve and Horner semilog plotting techniques gives
us confidence in our analyses, the pressurederivative plotting technique provides an alternative to pressure/time plots. The pressure derivative has found great utility in welltest analysis and usually is used
simultaneously with pressure/time plots to reduce the ambiguity of
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
Fig. 4.15Pressurederivative type curve (after Bourdet et al.10).
typecurve analysis. In the next section, we introduce pressurederivative type curves and illustrate their use with an example.
4.3.3 Bourdet et al. Derivative Type Curve. Tiab and Kumar9 first
introduced the use of pressure derivatives for welltest analysis to
the petroleum industry by using pressure derivatives to identify
sealing faults uniquely from interference tests. Similarly, Bourdet et
al.10 developed a type curve, which includes a pressurederivative
function, based on the analytical solution derived by Agarwal et al.5
and plotted on the Gringarten type curves. The dimensionless pressurederivative function p D(t DC D) is plotted as a function of tD /CD
for various values of the correlating parameter CD e2s. For these type
curves, the derivative is defined by
p D +
dp D
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.41)
dt DC D
The derivative type curve has the useful properties summarized next.
Ref. 11 presents more details about the utility of derivative curves.
1. For test data on the unitslope line, pD +tD /CD ; thus,
dp D
+ p D + 1 and p Dt DC D + t DC D .
dt DC D
. . . . . . (4.42)
Then, log p D(t DC D)+logtD /CD , and the slope of a plot of p D
(tD /CD ) vs. tD /CD on a loglog graph is unity. Consequently, at early
times a typecurve plot of pD vs. tD /CD should coincide with the plot
of p D(t DC D) vs. tD /CD if the early data are distorted by wellbore
storage and are characterized by a unitslope line.
2. For test data on the semilog straight line, dimensionless pressure can be modeled with the logarithmic approximation to the linesource solution,
p D + 0.5(ln t D ) 0.80907 ) 2s). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.43)
Adding and subtracting ln CD inside the brackets in Eq. 4.43 yields
p D + 0.5ln t D * ln C D ) 0.80907 ) ln C D ) lne 2s
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.44a)
or p D + 0.5lnt DC D ) 0.80907 ) lnC De 2s. . . . . . (4.44b)
Thus,
dp D
+ p D + 0.5
t DC D
dt DC D
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.45)
and p Dt DC D + 0.5, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.46)
which indicates that the dimensionless pressure derivatives from the
semilog straight line or middletime region will form a horizontal
line at p D(t DC D)+0.5 on the derivative type curve.
WELLTEST ANALYSIS USING TYPE CURVES
Fig. 4.16Pressurechange and derivative type curves (after
Bourdet et al.10).
3. Fig. 4.15 illustrates derivative curves with unitslope lines at
early times, a horizontal line at late times, and more complex shapes
at intermediate times. As we see in later sections, reservoirs exhibit
distinct shapes at these intermediate times, making the derivative
curve a powerful tool for identifying the correct reservoir model for
welltest analysis.
4. The pD and p D(t DC D) type curves can and should be included
together on a single plot, permitting simultaneous typecurve
analysis with both pressure and pressurederivative curves (Fig.
4.16) and reducing the ambiguity (nonuniqueness) of the Gringarten type curves.
Procedure for Test Analysis With the Derivative Type Curve.
The following procedure is recommended for using the Bourdet et
al.10 derivative type curve in analyzing test data.
1. Calculate pressurederivative functions of the welltest data.
For drawdown tests, calculate
*
dp wf
dp wf
+*t
+ tDp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.47)
d(ln t)
d(t)
For a buildup test, calculate the pressure derivative in terms of the
equivalent time,
dp ws
dp ws
+ Dt e
+ Dt eDp.
d(ln Dt e)
d(Dt e)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.48)
2. Plot tDp (or Dte Dp) and Dp as functions of t (or Dt for tests
with boundary effects) either on tracing paper or on loglog graph
paper with the same size log cycles as the Bourdet typecurve graph.
3. If possible, force a match of the data to the type curve in the vertical direction by aligning the flat region of the test data with the
p D(t DC D)+0.5 line on the type curve.
4. If possible, force a match in the horizontal direction by aligning
the unitslope regions of the testdata derivative plot and the derivative type curve. If a unitslope line is present on the testdata plot,
calculate the dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient, CD , using
a data point (t or Dte ,Dp)USL from the unitslope line.
CD +
0.03723qB Dt
Dp
fc thr 2w
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.33)
USL
If desired, calculate the dimensional storage coefficient, C, with the
same point from the unitslope line,
C+
qB Dt
24 Dp
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.32)
USL
5. Determine CD e2s from the matching parameter of the derivative typecurve match. This same matching parameter also charac89
TABLE 4.10PRESSUREBUILDUPTEST DATA,
EXAMPLE 4.4
Dt
(hours)
Dt
(hours)
pws
(psi)
0
0.0001
0.0002
0.0005
0.0008
0.0010
0.0030
0.0050
0.0080
0.0100
0.0160
0.0255
0.0406
0.0649
0.104
0.165
0.264
0.421
0.672
1.07
250
254.09
258.16
270.30
282.33
290.29
367.39
440.40
542.99
607.11
780.68
1,005.1
1,263.2
1,515.6
1,714.0
1,837.0
1,907.4
1,950.0
1,983.2
2,013.5
1.71
2.73
4.36
6.50
10.5
15.1
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
72.0
80.0
pws
(psi)
Dte
(hours)
Dp
(psi)
Dte Dp
Dte
(hours)
Dp
(psi)
Dte Dp
2,043.1
2,072.1
2,100.7
2,124.9
2,153.7
2,175.4
2,192.0
2,205.2
2,215.9
2,225.0
2,232.8
2,239.6
2,245.7
2,251.2
2,256.2
2,260.8
2,265.0
2,266.6
2,272.6
0.0001
0.0002
0.0005
0.0008
0.0010
0.0030
0.0050
0.0080
0.0100
0.0160
0.0255
0.0406
0.0649
0.1040
0.1650
0.2640
0.4209
0.6717
1.0692
4.0900
8.1600
20.300
32.330
40.290
117.39
190.40
292.99
357.11
530.68
755.10
1,013.2
1,265.6
1,464.0
1,587.0
1,657.4
1,700.0
1,733.2
1,763.5
5.8718
9.0490
21.410
35.762
44.832
119.84
182.17
268.64
317.26
425.64
518.27
546.56
479.59
342.82
208.69
120.45
81.174
68.094
64.192
1.7079
2.7247
4.3465
6.4700
10.422
14.939
19.718
24.561
29.371
34.146
38.889
43.599
48.276
52.921
57.534
62.116
66.667
68.478
75.676
1,793.1
1,822.1
1,850.7
1,874.9
1,903.7
1,925.4
1,942.0
1,955.2
1,965.9
1,975.0
1,982.8
1,989.6
1,995.7
2,001.2
2,006.2
2,010.8
2,015.0
2,016.6
2,022.6
62.642
61.664
61.021
60.641
60.329
60.127
60.014
60.031
59.989
59.941
59.858
59.940
59.787
59.774
59.799
59.808
59.914
59.980
59.834
terizes the fit on the pressurechange type curve (pD vs. tD /CD ). Select pressure (Dp,pD ) and time (Dt or Dte ,tD /CD ) match points.
6. Calculate permeability, k, from the pressure match point.
k+
141.2qBm p D
h
Dp
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.38)
MP
7. Calculate the dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient, CD ,
from the time match point and compare with the value computed
from the unitslope line if a unitslope line is present.
C D + 0.0002637k
fhc tr 2w
t torCDt
e
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.39)
MP
8. Calculate the skin factor, s, with CD from Step 7 and CD e2s from
Step 5.
s + 0.5 ln
CCe .
D
TABLE 4.11PRESSURE AND DERIVATIVE PLOTTING
FUNCTIONS, EXAMPLE 4.4
2s
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.40)
Determining derivatives requires such tedious arithmetic that a
computer program is essential. Several programs to perform this
calculation, as well as other computations and test analysis, are marketed for use on microcomputers. The algorithm11 outlined in Appendix F can also be implemented with a spreadsheet.
Solution.
1. Calculate pressurederivative functions of the welltest data.
For a buildup test, calculate
dp ws
dp ws
+ Dt e
+ Dt eDp.
d(ln Dt e)
d(Dt e)
Table 4.11 summarizes both pressure and pressurederivative loglog plotting functions.
2. Plot Dte Dp and Dp as functions of Dte either on tracing paper
or on loglog graph paper with the same size log cycles as the typecurve graph (Fig. 4.17). Note that both the pressure and pressurederivative test data form a unitslope line at early times, indicating
wellborestorage effects. In addition, note that the latertime derivative data flatten, suggesting the presence of the middletime region.
3. To find the best fit of the data to the type curve, we align the
horizontal portion of the latertime derivative data for Dte u0.672
hour with (t DC D)p D+0.5 on the derivative type curve (Fig. 4.18).
4. We then align the data points exhibiting a unit slope,
Dte t0.005 hour, with the unitslope line of the pressurechange and
derivative type curve (Fig. 4.18).
5. Both pressure and pressurederivative data fit the type curve for
the correlating parameter CD e2s+1010. With the data in the matched
position, we select the following pressure and time match points: ressure match point of Dp+120 psi and pD +1 and a time match point
of Dte +28 hours and tD /CD +10,000. Again, the selection of both the
pressure and time match points is completely arbritrary.
Example 4.4Analyzing a Buildup Test With the Derivative
Type Curve. Problem. Use pD and p D type curves (Gringarten and
Bourdet) to determine permeability and skin factor for the pressurebuildup test described in Example 4.3. Table 4.10 repeats the pressurebuildup test data.
h+
m+
q+
pwf +
f+
B+
p+
rw +
ct +
tp +
90
78 ft
1 cp
600 STB/D
250 psia
0.20
1.1 RB/STB
2,447 psia
0.365 ft
1.61 10*5 psi*1
1,400 hours
,
Fig. 4.17Loglog plot of pressurechange and pressurederivative data, Example 4.4.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
'"
worm.
10(,"
I""
'"
: ; ,.
"'"
IllI
III
0.'
111111
[lio
'0
0.1
leOO
Equivalent Time, hours
Dimensionless Time, to I CD
10'
10'
Fig. 4.19Effect of pseudopressure and equivalent time vari
ables on curve shape.
Fig. 4.18Typecurve match by use of the Bourdet etal.10 pres
surederivative model, Example 4.4.
Innlll1.
6. The effective permeability to oil is computed with the pressure
match point:
141.2qB,u
h
k=
9.96
0,(01
0.0002637k
</>hctr
()
tDiCD
0.)1
11111
0.1
11111
0
11)0
Fig. 4.20Effect of pseudopressure and equivalent pseudotime
MP
Bourdet et al. 'slO) derived on the assumption of a constant wellbore
28
2
105)(0.365) 100
( )
storage coefficient can be used for gaswelltest analysis.
Table
4.1 summarizes analogies between variables used in type
curve analysis with the pseudopressure and pseudotime transforma
17.2l.
tions for slightly compressible liquids and gases. When adjusted
5.
s =
1020
variables on curve shape,
8. Calculate the skin factor, s, with CD from Step 7 and CDe2sfrom
Step
Equivalent Pseudotime, hrpsia/cp
(0.0002637)(10.0)
(0.2)(1.0)(1.61
I e2s
;1, ,..
[III
md.
with the time match point:
I"
The dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient is computed
CD
ri':",arten'Type :urve OJ
I""
MP
( )
7.
(PD)
P
(141.2)(600)(1.1)(1.0) _1_
120
(78)
I"'"
lor"
time and adjusted pressure are used for gaswelltest analysis, the
same modified wellborestorage coefficients arise.The definitions
of dimensionless pressure and time variables have the same form as
0.51n
CDe2S);
(c;
0.51n
1010
17.2
( )
for slightly compressible liquids, except that the gas properties are
1O.l.
evaluated at average drainagearea pressure,
p.
Figs. 4.19 and 4.20 illustrate the effect of replacing time with
pseudotime on a logarithmic plot of a gaswell buildup test. Fig.
4.19 is a plot of pseudopressure change as a function of equivalent
time for a simulated gaswell test.The earlytime data fall on a line
4.4 Application of Type CurvesHomogeneous
with a slope greater than unity and followed by a sharp flattening at
Reservoir Model, Compressible Fluids
Spivey and Leel2 showed that, for both buildup and flowtest anal
ysis in gas wells, the use of pseudotime and pseudopressure (or ad
justed time and adjusted pressure) is essential for analyzing early
time data distorted by wellbore storage.Without this transformation
of variables, conventional type curves cannot model the early pres
sure behavior.For a gas well with no liquid production, the well
borestorage coefficient, C, is
C= VwbCwb,
..................................
later times, indicating a changing wellborestorage coefficient dur
ing the test.Because the Gringarten type curves were developed as
suming a constant wellborestorage coefficient, no single curve fits
all the test data.
When the same data are plotted as a function of adjusted equiva
lent time, the earliest data fall on a unitslope line, indicating a
constant wellborestorage coefficient. In addition, all test data are
fit by a single type curve (Fig.4.20). Table 4.2 summarizes the inter
(4.31)
where gas compressibility, Cwb, is a strong function of pressure.
pretation of the unitslope line and the pressure and timematch
points for typecurve analysis of gaswell tests that use the common
plotting functions, including adjusted pressure and adjusted time.
Thus, in a test where the pressure changes by one to two orders of
For comparison, we also include interpretation equations for type
magnitude, the storage coefficient also changes drastically.Lee and
curve analysis of oilwell tests.
Holditch 13 showed that, with the change in variables to pseudopres
The pressurederivative approach presented for welltest analysis
sure and pseudotime, the modified dimensionless wellborestorage
of slightly compressible liquids is also applicable to gas wells.The
coefficient becomes independent of pressure and can be treated as
a constant.Therefore, type curves (such as the Gringarten et al.4 and
WELLTEST ANALYSIS USING TYPE CURVES
following typeanalysis procedure has been adapted from slightly
compressible liquid analysis techniques by use of pressure and pres
91
surederivative type curves. Simultaneous application of pressure
and pressure derivatives, either with liquid or gaswelltest analysis,
helps to reduce the ambiguity associated with type curves. Although
we present the procedure in terms of adjusted pressure and time
variables, the procedure also can be used with other gaswelltest
plotting functions.
Procedure for GasWellTest Analysis With Type Curves.
1. From test data, calculate the following derivatives. For a drawdown test,
*
dp a,wf
dp a,wf
+ * ta
+ t aDp a .
d(ln t a)
d(t a)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.49)
For a buildup test,
dp a,ws
dp a,ws
+ Dt ae
+ Dt aeDp a .
d(ln Dt ae)
d(Dt ae)
. . . . . . . . . . . (4.50)
2. For a drawdown test, plot ta D p a and Dpa +(pa ,i *pa ,wf ) vs. ta .
For a buildup test, plot Dtae D p a and Dpa +(pa ,ws *pa ,wf (Dt+0))
vs. Dtae where Dtae+ Dta /(1)Dta /tp )). Make the plots either on
tracing paper or on loglog graph paper the same size as the typecurve graph.
3. If possible, force a match of the pressure and pressurederivative data to the type curve in the vertical direction. Attempt to align
the flat region of the derivative test data with the p D(t DC D)+0.5
line on the type curve. The flat region is the middletime region.
Note that, if this flat region is not present, semilog analysis is not
possible.
4. If possible, force a match in the horizontal direction by aligning
the earlytime regions of the pressurechange and derivative test
data with the unitslope regions of the type curves. If a unitslope
line is present, calculate the dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient, CD , using a point (ta or Dtae , Dpa )USL from the unitslope line
of the pressurechange data.
CD +
0.0372q gB g t a or Dt ae
Dp a
fhc tr 2w
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.51)
USL
where Bg and ct are evaluated at the average reservoir pressure.
5. Record the value of the correlating parameter CD e2s corresponding to the matched type curve. The value of CD e2s should be
the same from the match of both the pressure and pressurederivative type curves.
6. With the testdata plot fitted to the type curve, record a pressure
match point (Dpa,pD )MP and a time match point (ta ,tD /CD )MP for a
drawdown test or (Dtae ,tD /CD )MP for a buildup test.
7. Calculate permeability from the pressure match point.
k+
141.2q gB gm g p D
h
Dp a
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.52)
MP
where mg is evaluated at the average reservoir pressure.
8. Calculate CD from the time match point. Compare this value
of CD with that calculated from the unitslope line.
C D + 0.0002637k
fm gc tr 2w
t torCDt
a
ae
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.53)
MP
9. Calculate the skin factor, s, with the matching parameter,
CD e2s, and CD from Step 8.
s + 0.5 ln
CCe .
D
2s
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.54)
TABLE 4.12PRESSURE BUILDUP TEST DATA,
EXAMPLE 4.5
Dt
(hours)
pws
(psia)
0
0.0100
0.0149
0.0221
0.0329
0.0489
0.0728
0.108
0.161
0.240
0.356
0.530
0.788
1.17
1.74
2.59
6,287.1
6,296.6
6,301.1
6,307.8
6,317.7
6,332.1
6,353.1
6,383.5
6,427.1
6,488.6
6,573.6
6,687.9
6,834.7
7,011.8
7,208.3
7,405.9
92
3.86
5.74
8.53
12.7
18.9
28.1
41.8
62.1
92.4
137
204
304
452
672
1,000
pws
(psia)
7,586.0
7,738.7
7,864.9
7,971.4
8,065.6
8,153.2
8,234.4
8,313.4
8,389.8
8,463.7
8,534.9
8,602.9
8,666.6
8,725.3
8,777.6
analysis method. Use adjusted pressure and time variables as the
plotting functions.
h+
tp +
mg +
pi +
rw +
qg +
ct +
pa,i +
f+
T+
gg +
z+
Bg +
21 ft
2,000 hours
0.03274 cp
9,000 psia
0.365 ft
100 Mscf/D
45.4 10*6 psia*1
7,366.1 psia
0.10
670R (210F)
0.6
1.310
0.491 RB/Mscf
Solution.
1. The first step is to calculate the pressurederivative functions,
which are tabulated in Table 4.13 in terms of adjusted pressure
change and adjusted equivalent time.
2. Next, we plot adjusted pressure change (Dpa ) and adjusted pressure derivative (Dtae D p a) vs. adjusted equivalent time (Dtae ) on loglog paper (Fig. 4.21). Note that both the pressurechange and derivative data at early times form a unitslope line, indicating
wellborestorage effects. In addition, the pressurederivative data at the
end of the test flatten, suggesting the presence of a middletime region.
3. Using the Bourdet et al. type curves, match both Dpa and Dtae
D p a in the vertical direction (Fig. 4.22). Several adjusted pressurederivative data points at the end of the test begin to flatten and appear
to form a middletime region. In addition, we can match several of the
last few pressurederivative points on the type curve for
p D (tD /CD )+0.5, suggesting the presence of the middletime region.
4. Because the earlytime data, both pressure change and pressure
derivative, form a unitslope line indicative of wellborestorage effects, we can obtain a match in the horizontal direction. In addition,
we can calculate CD using a point (Dtae ,Dpa )USL from the unitslope
line of the pressurechange data. We choose the point
(Dtae +0.01528 hour Dpa +21.010 psi) and calculate
CD +
Example 4.5GasWell BuildupTest Analysis With Pressure
and PressureDerivative Type Curves. Problem. With the gaswell builduptest data presented in Table 4.12, estimate the formation permeability and skin factor with the Bourdet type curves.
Compare the results with those obtained with the Horner semilog
Dt
(hours)
0.0372q gB g Dt ae
Dp a
fhc tr 2w
USL
(0.0372)(100)(0.491)
(0.10)(21)(45.4
10 *6)(0.365)
0.01528
21.010
+ 105.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
TABLE 4.13PRESSURE AND PRESSUREDERIVATIVE
PLOTTING FUNCTIONS, EXAMPLE 4.5
I'1fe
(hours)
la'
.,
;
'E
Mae
(hours)
0.0100
0.0069
0.0221
0.0153
0.0149
14.210
21.010
31.059
290.87
0.1125
736.00
0.3789
323.68
1.1693
0.8631
456.53
2.5867
1.9993
454.02
5.7236
4.6507
0.2519
1,136.6
1,319.6
1,602.5
399.43
1.3114
282.93
12.620
10.704
1,894.3
27.711
24.310
209.96
54.310
197.48
18.723
1,976.5
2,056.3
2,207.9
128.22
118.42
2,348.0
263.89
249.23
502.99
484.97
2,523.5
191.57
666.67
()
which agrees with the Homer analysis (not shown) and confirms our
initial selection of the middletime region.
S. Calculate the dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient, CD,
from the time match point.
J.lclrv
(i )
!3.tae
tD CD
MP
(0.0002637)(0.03)
(0.10)(0.03274)(45.4
106)(0.365)
( 0.027 )
OT
= lOS,
which agrees with the value calculated from the unitslope line.
9. Estimate the skin factor with the value of CD from Step S and
the correlating parameter, CDe2s= 100.
WELLTEST ANALYSIS USING TYPE CURVES
10
100
1000
Fig. 4.21Loglog plot of adjustedpressurechange and pres
surederivative data, Example 4.5.
10'
CDe2s:::: 102
l\Pa = 3.800 psi. Po = 10
IIt,c=0.027 hr. '0=0.1
10'
0101
"
::l 10
0
"
c
'"
'"
'510]
is
f...Ma[ch Point
>
!!"
a 102
10"'
Pressure Change
Pressure Derivative
10
10
10'
10'
10'
+......,..J.:J
D 'IIlI'\Ii'oi ID.nl!$lse 'is J,llIl\;.lpJ
t /r...j
10
10'
10'
10'
10'
Adjusted Equivalent Shutin Time, hours
Fig. 4.22Type curve match of a gaswell pressurebuildup test
by use of the Bourdet et al.10 type curve, Example 4.5.
= 0.5 In
(C;;)
CDe2S
= 0.51n
( 100) =
lOS
 0.04.
4.5 Correcting Initial Pressure in a Well Test
= 0.03 md,
0.0002637
0.1
Adjusted Equivalent Shutin Time, hours
182.19
(141.2)(100)(0.491)(0.03274)
3, SOO
21
CD =
::>
228.46
648.68
MP
UnitSlope Lin
'0'
173.32
( )
141.2QgBJl .!!!2.
h
!3.Pa
186.43
5. A good match of both adjusted pressurechange and derivative
data is obtained with the type curves characterized by the correlating
parameter CDe2s= 102.
6. From the match shown in Fig. 4.17, we obtain a pressure match
point of !3.pa= 3,SOO psi and PD = 10 and a time match point of
!3.tae =0.27 hour and tDICD =0.1.
7. From the pressure match point, the permeability is
k
188.26
351.85
368.68
2,498.1
194.43
172.93
185.12
2,412.0
201.32
80.629
88.320
2,279.6
224.20
36.439
60.230
2,133.4
245.20
16.167
40.944
337.57
1,710.5
1,805.8
400.08
7.0594
8.4938
10'
'"
"0
476.88
3.0545
3.8526
1,474.6
249.29
0.5711
1.7385
935.76
184.69
0.5299
103
"
00
"
oj
.c
U
132.03
0.1685
0.7877
556.02
65.568
93.656
0.2400
0.3559
406.93
45.022
0.0751
0.1610
204.56
30.993
0.0505
0.1080
142.12
21.194
0.0339
0.0728
66.990
14.350
0.0228
0.0489
97.850
11.442
0.0103
0.0329
45.675
Pressure Change
Pressure Derivativ
<1J
Q
"
"
oj
9.6426
"
c
The pressure at the beginning of a test (i.e., Pi for a drawdown test
or Pwf (!3.t =0) for a buildup test) is sometimes read or recorded in
correctly from the pressuremeasuring device. An incorrect initial
pressure distorts the shape of the pressurechangedata plot for type
curve matching. In semilog analysis, an incorrect initial pressure re
sults in an incorrect estimate of skin factor. When the derivative plot
is smooth, an incorrect initial pressure is clearly evident. Because
the derivative is not affected by an incorrect estimate of initial pres
sure, the derivative and pressurechangedata plots will have in
consistent shapes on a loglog graph if the initial pressure is wrong.
Derivative data, however, frequently scatter at early times. Conse
quently, we need an alternative to the pressure derivative to deter
mine not only whether the initial pressure is correct but also correct
the initial pressure to its correct value. A related problem is that zero
time in a test is not always known accurately. Thus, we need a meth
od to correct initial time to its actual value.
A suitable method to correct initial pressure or time is to prepare
a Cartesiancoordinate plot of pressure as a function of elapsed test
time. Data falling on a unitslope line on a loglog plot will also fall
on a straight line on a Cartesiancoordinate plot. Therefore, if any ear
ly test data fall on a unitslope straight line, we can plot these data on
Cartesian coordinates and extrapolate the straight line back to !3.t =O.
93
4300
TABLE 4.14PRESSUREBUILDUPTEST DATA,
EXAMPLE 4.6
4280
4260
ca
'4240
4220
til
Q.4200
/
4180
o
0.02
4,171.58
0.2
0.01
4,171.58
0.4
0.0
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
time, hr
Fig. 4.23Example 4.6, correcting initial pressure and time.
Pressures recorded during the flow period normally will be changing
slowly, and we can extrapolate these data forward to I'1t= O. The inter
section of these two straight lines gives the time and pressure at
I'1t= O. Fig. 4.23 illustrates this process.
Example 4.6Correcting Initial Time and Pressure.
Problem.
Given the times and pressures in Table 4.14, determine the time at
which I'1t= 0 and the correct flowing bottomhole pressure at shutin.
Solution.
1. Inspection of the data shows that that well was not shut in until
a few moments after the recorded shutin time. To correct the initial
time and pressure, we plot the early data on a convenient Cartesian
coordinate scale. Then, we draw straight lines through both the flow
data and the initial straightline portion of the buildup data, as Fig.
4.23 shows.
2. Next, we determine the location of the intersection of the two
straight lines to be I'1t= 0.025 hour, Pwf= 4,17l.58 psia.
3. Finally, we correct the recorded shutin time by subtracting the
recorded shutin time at I'1t = 0.025 hour, as Table 4.15 shows.
4.6 Reservoir Identification With Type Curves
In the previous sections, we presented analysis techniques for well
tests. For each technique, we made the implicit assumption that we
know a priori the correct reservoir model to use for the analysis. In
many cases, however, the engineer may not have sufficient informa
tion from which to choose a reservoir model, especially in newly
discovered fields. Fortunately, wells exhibit characteristic pressure
hours

0.01
0.02
.)J
4160
0.02
/y
Pws
psia
hours

0.1
0.15
4,171.58
4,234.17
4,777.77
4,464.11
10
4,595.12
20
4,631.46
4,301.01
4,542.64
4,254.56
4,341.86
0.6
1.5
4,212.60
Pws
psia
4,410.04
0.8
4,189.73
hours
0.3
4,171.58
4,177.74
Pws
psia

15
30
4,790.91
4,800.73
4,817.95
4,829.81
4,846.15
4,684.62
40
4,857.51
4,741.42
72
4,880.17
4,712.41
4,757.71
60
4,873.22
responses that vary depending on the nearwellbore conditions and
heterogeneities in the drainage area of the well. In fact, the basis of
typecurveanalysis techniques is recognition of a curve shape rep
resentative of some reservoir model.
The underlying principle of typecurve analysis is that, if the test
data exhibit the same shape as a type curve in all time regions (i.e.,
early, middle, and late times), the reservoir is of the same type as that
characterized by the type curves. Unfortunately, this principle is not
infallible. Different reservoir types sometimes exhibit essentially
the same shape on a typecurve plot. In addition, both semilog and
loglog plots of pressure/time data often are insensitive to pressure
changes characteristic of a specific reservoir model. The pressure
derivative type curve is the most definitive of the type curves for
identifying reservoir type. It can identify subtle but characteristic
changes in slope that may be masked or that are not apparent on a
pressure/time type curve. However, both the derivative and the pres
sureltime type curves are better than a semilog graph, such as a
Horner graph, for identifying reservoir type. A type curve spans all
time regions, while usually only the semilog straight line (middle
time region) is examined on the Horner plot. Furthermore, Horner
analysis generally assumes a homogeneous reservoir, while a type
curve reflects a particular reservoir type.
The best approach for identifying the correct reservoir model in
corporates three major plotting techniquesthe ordinary type curve,
the derivative type curve, and a specialized graph for a test. On a spe
cialized graph, properties can be deduced when a straight line devel
ops during a certain time region. These graphs include the Horner plot
for a homogeneous reservoir, a squarerootoftime plot for a well
with a highconductivity fracture, and a fourthrootoftime plot for
a well with a lowconductivity fracture (Chap. 6). When the reservoir
type is identified correctly, all three plots will confirm or at least be
consistent with the hypothesized reservoir type.
TABLE 4.1SPRESSUREBUILDUPTEST DATA, EXAMPLE 4.6
Pwr a n d Pws
(psia)
Recorded t
(hours)
0.01
4,171.58
0.01
4,171.58
Recorded t
(hours)
Corrected t
(hours)
4,171.58
0.02
4,234.17
10
4,301.01
20
0.075
4,254.56
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.8
94
4,189.73
4,212.6
0.15
0.125
0.175
0.275
0.375
0.575
0.775
4,712.41
2.975
0.035
0.1
1.975
0.06
0.055
4,631.46
4,171.58
4,177.74
0.08
0.975
1.475
0.005
0.015
Pwrand Pws
1.5
0.03
0.04
Corrected t
(hours)
3.975
7.975
15
14.975
4,341.86
30
29.975
4,464.11
60
4,410.04
4,542.64
4,595.12
5.975
9.975
19.975
40
39.975
72
71.975
59.975
(psia)
4,684.62
4,741.42
4,757.71
4,777.77
4,790.91
4,800.73
4,817.95
4,829.81
4,846.15
4,857.51
4,873.22
4,880.17
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
Now, we consider the specific application of the derivative type
curve to establish nearwell conditions and reservoir type. The fol
lowing characteristics of the derivative curve are useful for deter
mining the appropriate reservoir model for welltest analysis.
1. A maximum in the curve at early times indicates wellbore stor
age and skin. The greater the maximum, the more severely damaged
the well. Conversely, the absence of a maximum suggests a stimu
lated well (i.e., acidized or hydraulically fractured).
2. A minimum in the curve at intermediate times indicates a devi
ation from homogeneous reservoir behavior (i.e., a reservoir hetero
geneity). Examples include dualporosity (naturally fractured,
Chap. 7) or layered reservoirs.
3. Stabilization or flattening at later times indicates radial flow
and corresponds to the semilog straight line or middletime region
on a Horner graph. Once we have identified this region on a deriva
tive plot, we can use the Horner semilog analysis technique to esti
mate permeability and skin factor.
4. An upward or downward trend of the data at the end of the test
indicates the presence of a reservoir boundary. An upward trend is
characteristic of one or more boundaries having been encountered
with the reservoir still open in at least one direction. An example of
this situation is a single well centered in a rectangularshaped reser
voir. Similarly, a downward trend is an indicator of reservoir closure
(i.e., that all boundaries, either noflow or constantpressure, have
been felt). Noflow boundaries include sealing faults or interference
effects from adjacent wells, while water influx from a large, active
aquifer can be modeled as a constantpressure boundary.
Reservoir Identification Worksheets (Appendix G) summarize
these concepts and facilitate the identification process.
4.7 Systematic Analysis Procedures for
Flow and Buildup Tests
In this section, we recommend a procedure for systematically ana
lyzing pressuredrawdown and buildup well tests. Although illus
trated with homogeneousacting reservoirs, these same analysis
procedures, with slight modifications, are applicable to well tests
with data distorted by wellborephase redistribution (Chap. 5), well
tests from hydraulically fractured wells (Chap. 6), tests from wells
completed in naturally fractured reservoirs (Chap. 7), and injectiv
ity tests (Chap. 10).
One of the inherent problems with typecurve analysis is the diffi
culty in finding a unique match of the data. Because of the similar
shapes of the type curves, the data often can be matched with more
than one curve; consequently, more than one solution is possible.
Note that simultaneously matching both the pressurechange and
derivative curves eliminates much of the ambiguity associated with
conventional typecurve analysis that uses only pressurechange
data. In addition, if a semilog straight line indicative of the radial
flow or middletime region is present and can be identified correctly,
semilog analysis can provide the correct estimate of formation
permeability. These observations suggest that we should not rely
upon either type curves or semilog techniques as the only analysis
method but should use the qualities of each method to complement
and verify the results from the other.
On the basis of these observations, we have developed the follow
ing analysis procedure. Although presented in terms of the variables
required for analyzing a test in a well producing a slightly compress
ible liquid, the method is applicable for gaswelltest analysis with
the appropriate variables for compressible fluids, such as adjusted
pressures and times.
Data Plots. The first step in welltest analysis is to prepare specif
ic plots of the data. The following suggested plots should always be
made; however, additional specialized plots may be required de
pending on the reservoir model. These specialized plots will be dis
cussed in subsequent chapters.
1. Prepare loglog plots of pressure change and pressure deriva
tive vs. elapsed time during the test. For drawdown tests, plot
!:ip (jj Pwj) and t (dpwjldt) vs. t on loglog graph paper. For pres
surebuildup tests, plot !:ip Pws  Pwf and !:ite (dpws Id!:ite) vs. !:ite
(or !:it if boundary effects are present).
=
WELLTEST ANALYSIS USING TYPE CURVES
2. Prepare special plots of the data. Typically, we prepare a semi
log plot of the data. For drawdown tests, plot Pwf vs. log t, while for
pressure buildup tests, plotpws vs. the Horner time ratio, (tp +!:it)/!:it.
Depending on the reservoir model, additional special plots may be
required. For example, when analyzing tests from hydraulically
fractured wells, we would plot pressure vs. either square or fourth
root of time functions.
Qualitative TypeCurve Analysis. The objectives of the prelimi
nary or qualitative typecurve analysis are (1) to identify the ap
propriate reservoir model, (2) to obtain an initial match of the data
by use of the type curves developed for the selected reservoir model,
and (3) to identify any characteristic flow regimes that can be ana
lyzed with special analysis techniques (e.g., the middletime region
can be analyzed with a semilog plotting technique).
1. The engineer often has reservoir data from which the reservoir
model can be identified; however, when the type of reservoir model
is unknown, use the reservoir identification procedure (Sec. 4.6) and
the data plots to select a reservoir model.
2. Once the appropriate reservoir model has been identified, we
select the correct type curves and proceed with a preliminary type
curve analysis.
First compare the loglog graph of test data to the pressurechange
and pressurederivative type curves to identify specific flow re
gimes. Specifically, we hope to identify the early, intermediate,
and latetime regions on the plot. Earlytime data, which have been
distorted by wellbore storage, will exhibit a unitslope line on the
loglog plot. For pressurebuildup data distorted by wellbore phase
redistribution (Chap. 5), we can sometimes see a gas hump develop
following the unitslope line. The shape of the intermediatedata
will vary, depending on the reservoir model. For homogeneousact
ing reservoirs, we hope to identify the radialflow or middletime re
gion from which we can calculate permeability. For hydraulically
fractured reservoirs, we may see several different flow regimes,
such as bilinear and formation linear flow. Naturally fractured reser
voirs also exhibit unique shapes at intermediate times. Latetime
data, indicative of outerboundary effects, will deviate from type
curves developed for infiniteacting reservoirs. As we see in subse
quent chapters, some type curves are generated for finite reservoirs.
Once we have identified tentative flow regimes, we attempt an
initial match of the test data with the type curves. From this match,
record pressure and time match points and the typecurve correlat
ing parameter. This correlating parameter will vary, depending on
the typecurve model. For example, the correlating parameter for
the Gringarten and Bourdet type curves is CDe2s.
Semilog or Specialized Analysis. The purpose of the semilog or
specialized analysis is to estimate formation properties with the spe
cific characteristics of the flow regimes identified in the qualitative
typecurve analysis. For example, a semilog analysis of the radial
flow or middletime region for a homogeneousacting reservoir pro
vides estimates of permeability and skin factor. Similar analysis is
possible for the pseudoradialflow period in hydraulically fractured
wells and for homogeneousacting periods in naturally fractured
reservoirs. In addition, we can estimate average pressures in the
drainage area of the well from a pressurebuildup test.
Specialized analysis techniques provide additional estimates of
well and reservoir properties. For example, hydraulicfracture half
length can be estimated from a bilinear flow analysis in a finitecon
ductivity, vertically fractured well. Specialized analysis techniques
are discussed in subsequent chapters.
Quantitative TypeCurve Analysis. The purpose of the quantita
tive typecurve analysis is either to confirm the results obtained
from the semilog or specialized analysis or to estimate formation
properties when no specialized analysis is possible.
1. If an estimate of permeability is available from the specialized
analysis, we can confirm the analysis by precalculating a pressure
match point. If this typecurve match with the precalculated pres
sure match point agrees with the qualitative typecurve analysis and
confirms the middletime region used in the semilog analysis, we
have obtained a certain confidence in our analysis. If agreement
cannot be achieved among the various analyses, we repeat the pro
cedure and iterate until agreement is obtained.
95
2. If fonnation property estimates are not available from special
ized analysis, we still attempt a typecurve analysis. Formation and
wellbore properties are estimated with the pressure and time match
points, and the definitions of the dimensionless parameters are used
to develop the type curves. We remember, however, that unique
solutions are difficult to obtain from typecurve analysis alone.
4.8 WellTestAnalysis Worksheets
To facilitate application of the recommended welltestanalysis pro
cedure, we developed worksheets. Appendix H presents examples
of worksheets for analysis of homogeneousacting reservoirs pro
ducing either oil or gas. The oilwelltestanalysis worksheet may
be used for either buildup or drawdowntest analysis in an oil well.
Calculated results include permeability and skin factor. Although
the worksheet does not have sections for estimating current reser
voir pressure or distance to boundaries, such calculations can be ap
pended easily. In later chapters, we present similar worksheets for
other types of reservoirs.
The first section of the fonn summarizes well infonnation and
rock and fluid properties needed in the analysis. Pressuregauge
readings taken at the depth where the pressure bomb is hung in the
well are corrected to the desired reservoir datum. For a single well,
test pressures are usually corrected to the midpoint of the perfora
tions by use of the wellbore fluid gradient. For a pressurebuildup
test, the static wellbore gradient, measured as the pressure bomb is
being pulled out of the wellbore at the conclusion of the buildup test,
should be used. When tests from more than one well are being ana
lyzed, test pressures are first corrected to the midpoint of the perfo
rations in each well (using each well's respective wellbore gradi
ent), then corrected to a common reservoir datum with the reservoir
fluid gradient. If a fluid contact is crossed when correcting a particu
lar well's test pressures to the reservoir datum, then both fluid gradi
ents must be taken into account.
The section at the bottom of the first page leads us through an im
portant preliminary phase of the analysis. We must determine when,
if ever, the semilog straight line begins. This determination is made
by preliminary (i.e., qualitative rather than quantitative) compari
son of a loglog plot of pressurechange and derivative data to a
type curve. The onset of boundary effects, if encountered during the
test, is also determined qualitatively.
When a semilog straight line is present, we perform a convention
al semilog analysis, proceeding through the steps on the second
page of the worksheet. The semilog analysis gives estimates of
permeability and skin factor.
We then proceed with quantitative typecurve analysis, following
the top section on the third page of the form. When semilog analysis
is possible, the semilog analysis can be confirmed by typecurve
analysis. Typecurve analysis may be somewhat ambiguous in that
several curves may fit the test data equally well. We want to deter
mine whether, among several possible data fits, there is one match
that confirms the results of the semilog analysis, thereby increasing
our confidence in the results and possibly inducing us to fine tune
the semilog analysis slightly to improve the consistency of results.
To confirm the semilog analysis when a semilog straight line ex
ists, we precalculate a pressure match point on the type curve, using
the known permeability from the semilog analysis. We choose a
convenient Po from the type curve and calculate the corresponding
!'!p. Having fixed the match in the vertical direction, we then find the
best fit by sliding the data plot only horizontally over the type curve,
ensuring that the calculated !'!p always overlays the corresponding
PD. This forced match should, of course, leave the flat portion of the
test data plot aligned with (toICo) p 0.5 on the derivative type
curve. If the data are not so aligned, then the semilog analysis may
be in error.
When semilog analysis is not possible because the middletime
region is not present in the test data, the pressure match point cannot
be precalculated. In this case, we must find the best typecurve
match possible and estimate permeability from the pressure match
point. The derivative curve can be of considerable value in finding
the best typecurve match as long as goodquality derivative data are
available. The derivative curve is especially helpful when the deriv=
96
ative data clearly lie on a unitslope line at early times and on a hori
zontal line in the middletime region.
The final calculation on the third page of the worksheet is a pro
ductiontime check. If the production time preceding a buildup test,
tp,actuaJ, does not exceed the duration of wellbore storage, tp,min,
then the test is invalid and the analysis results are incorrect. The test
must be rerun with a production period sufficiently long so that the
test data are not all distorted by wellbore storage.
The last page of the worksheet summarizes the radii of investiga
tion achieved during the production period before shutin and at vari
ous times during the buildup test. A key consideration is that reservoir
heterogeneities and boundaries apparent during a shutin test are
highly questionable if ri > ri,prod. If the drawdown before shutin did
not reach beyond a certain distance in the reservoir, ri,prod, then the
buildup test will not sample reservoir properties beyond that distance.
4.9 Chapter Summary
In this chapter, we have introduced the reader to the fundamentals
of typecurve analysis. We began the chapter with a brief overview
in Sec. 4. 1. Then, in Sec. 4.2, we discussed the reasons for present
ing solutions to the diffusivity equation in terms of dimensionless
variables. We noted that it is much simpler to present a dimension
less solution in terms of a rather limited number of dimensionless
parameters than to present solutions for all possible different com
binations of physical variables.
In Sec. 4.3, we introduced and discussed the most commonly used
type curves for radial flow in an infinite reservoir: the Ramey type
curve, the McKinley type curve, the Gringarten type curve, and the
Bourdet derivative type curve. All these type curves share the same
basic assumptionsradial flow of a slightly compressible liquid
produced at constant rate from a linesource wellwith wellbore
storage and skin, in an infiniteacting, homogeneous, reservoir.
In Sec. 4.3.1, we discussed the Ramey type curve. The Ramey
type curve presents the dimensionless pressure, Po, as a function of
dimensionless time, to, dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient,
CD, and skin factor, s. The biggest drawback to the use of the Ramey
type curve is the difficulty in finding the best match because of the
similarity of the shapes of the curves and the need to determine both
time and pressure match points and two correlating parameters si
multaneously. As a result, the Ramey type curve is seldom used for
manual typecurve matching.
In Sec. 4.3.2, we introduced the McKinley type curve. This type
curve is closely related to the Ramey type curve but is plotted in a
nonstandard way. By fixing the value of one of the parameters of the
solution at a typical value, McKinley made it much easier to find the
best match of the data by requiring identification of only the pres
sure match point and a single correlating parameter.
In Sec. 4.3.3, we presented the Gringarten type curve. Although
this type curve is essentially a replotting of the Ramey type curve,
it combines the two correlating parameters of the Ramey type curve,
CD and s, into a single correlating parameter, Coe2s. The dimension
less time to in the Ramey type curve is replaced by the time group
tolCo. With the Gringarten type curve, all wellborestoragedomi
nated data fall on a single unitslope line. As the transition to the
middletime region occurs, the data follow one of several curves
characterized by the parameter Coe2s. With this type curve, the en
gineer can be much more confident that the best match has been
identified with the Ramey type curve.
In Sec. 4.3.4, we introduced the Bourdet derivative type curve. In
contrast to the preceding three type curves, this type curve is a graph
of the derivative of the dimensionless pressure with respect to the
natural logarithm of dimensionless time, rather than the dimension
less pressure itself. By taking the logarithmic derivative, the pres
sure and pressurederivative type curves can be plotted on a com
mon scale. Thus, fieldpressure and pressurederivative data can be
matched to the pressure and pressurederivative type curves at the
same time. The Bourdet derivative type curve has two interesting
features: first, fieldpressurederivative data from the wellboresto
ragedominated period fall on a unitslope line that coincides with
the unitslope line followed by the pressure data; second, data from
the middle time region fall on a horizontal line at (toICo) p Y2.
=
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
The Bourdet derivative type curve is much more sensitive to the reservoir model than the Gringarten type curve and is often used in reservoirmodel identification. If all the available pressure and pressurederivative data can be matched with a single set of pressure and
pressurederivative type curves, the welltest analyst is reassured
that a reasonable interpretion model has been selected and that the
analysis is correct.
In Sec. 4.4, we discussed the application of type curves developed
for slightly compressible liquids to the analysis of gaswell tests. We
presented compared analysis methods for gases in terms of pseudopressure/pseudotime or adjusted pressure/adjusted time with the
pressure/time analysis for slightly compressible liquids. We pointed
out that a pressurebuildup test in terms of pseudopressure/time can
deviate substantially from the corresponding liquid type curve because of the changing wellborestorage coefficient, while the same
data analyzed in terms of pseudopressure/pseudotime (or adjusted
pressure/adjusted time) follow the liquid type curve almost exactly.
Finally, we illustrated the use of the gaswellanalysis methods by
analyzing a pressurebuildup test in terms of adjusted pressure/adjusted time by use of the Gringarten/Bourdet type curves.
In Sec. 4.5, we noted that the recorded shutin time is often inaccurate and must be corrected. We presented a simple graphical
method for estimating both the time of shutin and the flowing wellbore pressure at that time.
In Sec. 4.6, we discussed the use of pressure and pressurederivative type curves in identifying the reservoir model. We discussed
specific features of the derivative type curve that signal certain characteristics of the reservoir model, such as damage, heterogenous behavior, or the presence of boundaries.
In Sec. 4.7, we presented systematic analysis procedures for analyzing both flow and buildup tests. The first step is to make the necessary data plots. For virtually all tests, two plots should be made:
a loglog plot of both pressure and pressure derivative for typecurve matching and a semilog plot of pressure vs. time for semilog
analysis. The next step is a preliminary typecurve match. The primary objectives of this match are to identify the reservoir model and
to identify any characteristic flow regimes that can be analyzed with
straightline methods. The third step is to apply straightline analysis to the data identified in the preliminary typecurve match. The
analysis is complete when a consistent interpretation with all applicable straightlineanalysis methods and the corresponding typecurve match is obtained.
In Sec. 4.8, we discussed the use of worksheets designed to facilitate application of the procedures presented in Sec. 4.7.
Exercises
1. Identify the middle time region and find the permeability, skin
factor, and WBS coefficient for the drawdown test data in Exercise
5, Chapter 2, using type curve analysis.
References
1. McKinley, R.M.: Wellbore Transmissivity From AfterflowDominated PressureBuildup Data, JPT (July 1971) 863; Trans., AIME,
251.
2. McKinley, R.M.: Estimating Flow Efficiency From AfterflowDistorted PressureBuildup Data, JPT (June 1974) 696.
3. Earlougher, R.C. Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas (1977) 5, 7489.
4. Gringarten, A.C. et al.: A Comparison Between Different Skin and
Wellbore Storage TypeCurves for EarlyTime Transient Analysis, paper SPE 8205 presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, 2326 September.
5. Agarwal, R.G., AlHussainy, R., and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: An Investigation
of Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady Liquid FlowI. Analytical Treatment, SPEJ (September 1970) 279; Trans., AIME 249.
6. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: ShortTime Well Test Data Interpretation in the Presence of Skin Effect and Wellbore Storage, JPT (January 1970) 97;
Trans., AIME 249.
7. Agarwal, R.G.: A New Method To Account for Producing Time Effects When Drawdown Type Curves are Used To Analyze Pressure
WELLTEST ANALYSIS USING TYPE CURVES
2. Identify the middle time region and find the permeability, skin
factor, and WBS coefficient for the drawdown test data in Exercise
6, Chapter 2, using type curve analysis.
3. Identify the middle time region and find the permeability, skin
factor, and WBS coefficient for the drawdown test data in Exercise
38, Chapter 2, using type curve analysis.
4. Identify the middle time region and find the permeability, skin
factor, and WBS coefficient for the drawdown test data in Exercise
39, Chapter 2, using type curve analysis.
5. Identify the middle time region and find the permeability and
skin factor for the buildup test data in Exercise 16, Chapter 2, using
type curve analysis.
6. Identify the middle time region and find the permeability and
skin factor for the buildup test data in Exercise 17, Chapter 2, using
type curve analysis. Can you use the Horner pseudoproducing time
approximation? Why or why not?
7. (Difficult) Identify the middle time region and find the permeability and skin factor for the buildup test data in Exercise 18, Chapter 2, using type curve analysis. Can you use the Horner pseudoproducing time approximation? Why or why not?
8. (Difficult) Identify the middle time region and find the permeability and skin factor for the buildup test data in Exercise 19, Chapter 2, using type curve analysis. Can you use the Horner pseudoproducing time approximation? Why or why not?
9. (Difficult) Identify the middle time region and find the permeability and skin factor for the buildup test data in Exercise 20, Chapter 2, using type curve analysis. Can you use the Horner pseudoproducing time approximation? Why or why not?
10. Identify the middle time region and find the permeability and
skin factor for the buildup test data in Exercise 5, Chapter 3, using
type curve analysis.
11. Identify the middle time region and find the permeability and
skin factor for the buildup test data in Exercise 6, Chapter 3, using
type curve analysis.
12. Identify the reservoir model for the data in Exercise 16, Chapter 2, using the reservoir identification worksheets.
13. Identify the reservoir model for the data in Exercise 35, Chapter 2, using the reservoir identification worksheets. Find the permeability, skin factor, and WBS coefficient using type curve analysis.
14. Identify the reservoir model for the data in Exercise 36, Chapter 2, using the reservoir identification worksheets. Can you correctly identify the model? Why or why not? Find the permeability, skin
factor, and WBS coefficient using type curve analysis.
15. Identify the reservoir model for the data in Exercise 37, Chapter 2, using the reservoir identification worksheets. Find the permeability, skin factor, and WBS coefficient using type curve analysis.
16. Find the permeability and skin factor for the buildup test in
Exercise 40, Chapter 2, using type curve analysis.
Buildup and Other Test Data, paper SPE 9289 presented at the 1980
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 2124 September.
8. Horner, D.R.: Pressure Buildup in Wells, Pressure Analysis Methods,
Reprint Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas (1067) 9, 2543.
9. Tiab, D. and Kumar, A.: Detection and Location of Two Parallel Sealing Faults Around a Well, JPT (October1980) 1701.
10. Bourdet, D. et al.: A New Set of Type Curves Simplifies Well Test
Analysis, World Oil (May 1983) 95.
11. Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J.A., and Pirard, Y.M.: Use of Pressure Derivative
in WellTest Interpretation, SPEFE (June 1989) 293.
12. Spivey, J.P. and Lee, W.J.: A Comparison of the Use of Pseudotime and
Normalized Time for GasWell Buildup Analysis in Various Geometries, paper SPE 15580 presented at the 1986 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 58 October.
13. Lee, W.J. and Holditch, S.A.: Application of Pseudotime to BuildupTest Analysis of LowPermeability Gas Wells With LongDuration
WellboreStorage Distortion, JPT (December 1982) 2877.
14. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: Practical Use of Modern Well Test Analysis, paper
SPE 5878 presented at the 1976 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 36 October .
97
Chapter 5
Analysis of PressureBuildup Tests
Distorted by Phase Redistribution
5.1 Overview
In phase redistribution, the gas and liquid phases in the production
string of a well that has been shut in at the surface segregate. The
effects of phase redistribution during a buildup test cause the well
borepressure response to deviate from its expected behavior, thus
complicating the analysis of the test data. We describe the wellbore
phaseredistribution phenomenon and present a mathematical mod
el of phase redistribution. We present an approach to analyze pres
surebuildup
data
graphically
with
phase
redistribution
and
illustrate this approach with several examples. And finally, we iden
tify situations where graphical analysis fails and automatic history
matching of buildup data is necessary.
Phase redistribution is one example of a more general phenome
non of changing wellbore storage. Other examples include increas
ing wellbore storage resulting from changing gas compressibility in
a gas well with a large drawdown before shutin, discussed in Chap.
3, and a step increase or decrease in wellbore storage, discussed in
Chap.
11 of Ref. 1.
1.0 md in gas) formation and having a large positive skin factor.2 In
lowpermeability formations, wellbore pressure builds up slowly,
so the hump usually does not develop. In such wells, the formation
pressure is always higher than the pressure increase caused by
bubble rise in the wellbore. Conversely, when permeability is high
and skin damage is slight, fluid can flow back into the formation fast
enough to prevent a significant increase in BRP resulting from ris
ing gas bubbles.
Wells without packers tend to exhibit smaller gas humps from
phase redistribution than wells with packers.2 The BHP increase
caused by rising gas bubbles is inversely related to the volume of gas
initially in the wellbore. Because wells without packers generally
have much more gas in the wellbore initially than do wells with pack
ers, the pressure increase from bubble rise builds up more slowly and
to a lesser degree than in wells with packers. Using a bottomhole shut
in device instead of shutting in the well at the surface can minimize
severe phaseredistribution effects in buildup tests.
5.3 PhaseRedistribution Model
5.2 Description of Phase Redistribution
The phenomenon of wellbore phase redistribution may occur during
shutin of a well with multiphase flow of gas and liquid.2 Gravity
forces cause the freegas phase to rise through the liquid column and
the liquid phase to flow downward. The gas bubbles near the bottom
of the wellbore are at a pressure comparable with formation pressure.
As the bubbles rise to the surface following shutin, they cannot ex
pand if the wellbore is in poor communication with the formation.
Thus, a highpressure gas column develops at the top of the wellbore
and a column of liquid develops below the gas. Under these condi
tions, the pressure at the sandface is the summation of the pressure in
the freegas phase and the hydrostatic head of liquid below it.
In extreme cases, the bottomhole pressure (BRP) temporarily ex
ceeds formation pressure and liquid in the wellbore flows back into
the formation until equilibrium is reached and BRP declines to forma
tion pressure. This process results in the characteristic hump in the
BRP response during a buildup test (see Figs. 5.1 and 5.2). At early
times during the test, the pressure increase will be abnormally large,
complicating the determination of permeability, skin factor, and well
borestorage coefficient.24 The wellbore diagram in Fig. 5.3 depicts
Wellbore phase redistribution is closely associated with wellbore
storage.3 The wellbore must store fluids of finite compressibility for
phase redistribution to cause a wellborepressure increase. Al
though wellbore storage is a limiting case of phase redistribution,
phase redistribution coupled with wellbore storage is a more com
plex condition than wellbore storage alone.
Fair3 developed a mathematical model for phase redistribution.
Because phase redistribution is associated with wellborestorage ef
fects, he developed the phase redistribution model using the classic
wellborestorage model that van Everdingen and Rurst5 propose.
The effects of wellbore storage can be described in dimensionless
form in terms of the sandface flow rate after shutin (afterflow), qsf,
the constant flow rate at the surface just before shutin, q, the well
borestorage coefficient, CD, and the rate of wellborepressure
change as
qsJ
q
completed in a moderately permeable
98
(10 to 100 md in oil or 0.1 to
CD
(5.1)
dp D
w
dtD '
where dimensionless pressure, time, and wellborestorage coeffi
cient, respectively, are defined, respectively:
the phasedistribution phenomenon.
A gas hump is most likely to occur during a buildup test in a well
PwD
kh(Pws  PWJ)
 141.2 qB,u , ......................... (5.2)
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
Fig. 5.2Loglog plot of Type 1 pressure response with wellbore
storage and phase redistribution.
Fig. 5.1Horner plot of Type 1 pressure response with wellbore
storage and phase redistribution.
t D + 0.0002637kt
,
fmc tr 2w
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.3)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.4)
and C D + 0.8936C
fc thr 2w
To account for the contribution of phase redistribution on the
measured pressure change in the wellbore, Fair3 included an additional term in Eq. 5.1,
q sf
dp wD dp fD
q + 1 * C D dt D * dt D , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.5a)
where pfD +the pressure component attributed to phase redistribution given in dimensionless form by
p fD +
khp f
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.5b)
141.2qBm
The pressure drop, pf , is the change in pressure caused by phase
redistribution and has the following properties. First, pf must be
equal to zero at shutin (t+0); i.e.,
lim p f + 0.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.5c)
t0
Second, pf must increase monotonically to its maximum value,
Cf (a constant); i.e.,
lim p f + C f.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.5d)
tR
During phase redistribution in the wellbore, gas bubbles or slugs
rise through the liquid column. When the first bubble or slug reaches
the surface after shutin, the pressure in the wellbore must increase
by some amount. This pressure increase causes a volume decrease
and a density increase of all other gas bubbles or slugs. These effects
cause a decrease in the rise velocity of the remaining gas, so the rate
of pressure rise must decrease. The same situation holds for all subsequent bubbles or slugs reaching the surface after shutin. Furthermore, because the initial sizes of gas bubbles and slugs in a wellbore
may widely differ, their rise velocities will likewise vary widely.
Thus, when the well is shut in, the phaseredistribution pressure
rises quickly from its initial value of zero and slowly approaches its
maximum value, Cf . A function satisfying the physical constraints
of the situation is
p f + C f1 * e *ta , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.5e)
Fig. 5.3Schematic of wellbore showing segregation of liquid
and gas phases during pressurebuildup test.
where Cf +maximum phaseredistribution pressure (a constant)
and a+time at which 63% of the total phaseredistribution pressure
change has occurred.
The total volume of gas in the wellbore remains constant because
of the assumed incompressibility of the liquid in the wellbore. Thus,
Cf can be estimated from the following equation, which is valid if
(1) the gas/oil ratio in the wellbore is constant, (2) temperature effects are neglected, (3) the liquid is incompressible and the gas is
weightless and idealacting, and (4) wellbore pressure increases linearly with depth:
Cf +
p gef * p whf
lnp gefp whf
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.5f)
where pgef +flowing pressure at the point of gas entry into the wellbore and pwhf +flowing wellhead pressure.
Fair3 defined a pseudowellborestorage coefficient, CeD , as
C eD + C D 1 *
ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE BUILDUP TESTS DISTORTED BY PHASE REDISTRIBUTION
dp fD dp wD
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.6)
dt D dt D
99
which permits us to write Eq. 5.5 as
q sf
dp wD
q + 1 * C eD dt D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.7)
Eq. 5.7 has the same form as Eq. 5.1, implying that the wellbore
storage case is a limiting form of phase redistribution. For the condition dp fDdt D y 0, phase redistribution causes an apparent reduction in the pseudowellborestorage coefficient, CeD . In this case,
the true wellborestorage coefficient, CD , is the upper limit of CeD .
Furthermore, for the condition dp fDdt D y dp wDdt D, the pseudowellborestorage coefficient becomes negative, indicating flow
from the wellbore back into the formation. This situation results in
the gas hump typically associated with phase redistribution in buildup tests.
We define the dimensionless phaseredistribution pressure, pfD ,
as an exponential function similar to Eq. 5.5e, given by
p fD + C fD1 * e *tDaD ,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.8)
where CfD +some maximum dimensionless phaseredistribution
pressure change defined by
khC f
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.9)
C fD +
141.2qBm
The term aD is the dimensionless time at which 63.2% of this
maximum pressure change occurs and is defined by
a D + 0.0002637ka
.
fmc t r 2w
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.10)
We should note that Fairs3 exponential phaseredistribution
model is intuitive and is consistent with only limited laboratory
data; therefore, it may not model all field conditions accurately.
If we define an apparent wellborestorage coefficient, CaD , as
1 + 1 ) C fD , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.11)
aD
CD
C aD
the earlytime solution given by Fair is
p wD +
tD
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.12)
C aD
Eq. 5.12 has the same form as the solution for the earlytime pressure response, characterized by a unitslope line on a logarithmic
plot of test data, in a linesource well with wellbore storage and skin.
This is given by Agarwal et al.6 as
p wD +
tD
.
CD
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.13)
At early times, if phaseredistribution effects are negligible
(CfD +0), the pressure behavior represents true wellbore storage
(CaD +CD ). If phase redistribution affects the pressure response
(CfD u0), the apparent wellborestorage coefficient is less than
the true wellborestorage coefficient (CaD tCD ). This effect appears as a deviation of the earlytime data from the theoretical unitslope line. The dimensional apparent wellborestorage coefficient, Ca , is found with any point (Dte , Dp) on the unitslope line or
its extrapolation,
Ca +
qB Dt e
24 Dp
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.14)
USL
and the dimensionless apparent wellborestorage coefficient, CaD ,
is found from
C aD +
0.0372qB Dt e
fhc t r 2w Dp
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.14a)
USL
The pressure solution in the radialflow or middletime region in
which the true semilog straight line occurs is7
p wD + 1.151(log t D ) 0.351) ) s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.15)
100
Fig. 5.4Types of pressure responses resulting from phase redistribution (after Thompson et al.7).
When phase redistribution affects the measured pressure response during a buildup test, a loglog plot of wellbore pressure as
a function of shutin time displays one of three typical shapes7 (Fig.
5.4). The Type 1 curve represents the greatest degree of phase redistribution as wellbore pressure increases above formation pressure
and forces fluid from the wellbore back into the formation. Region
A is the unitslope line of Eq. 5.12, followed by a transitional period,
Region B, where the curve falls off from the unitslope line. Region
C is the gas hump typically associated with phase redistribution as
free gas rises in the wellbore. The maximum dimensionless pressure
change, pDH , occurs in this region. Region D has a local minimum
dimensionless pressure change, pDL , and is a transitional period between the gas hump and the semilog straight line in Region E.
The Type 2 curve represents a smaller degree of phase redistribution than the Type 1 curve. Region A is the unitslope line (Eq. 5.12)
followed by a transitional period denoted by Region B. The curve
flattens in Region C, then begins to rise in the transitional Regions
D and E. The curve is concave upward throughout Region D and
concave downward throughout Region E; therefore, an inflection
point separates the two regions. Region F is the semilogstraightline region.
The Type 3 curve displays the smallest effects of phase redistribution on the pressure response. The curve has a shape similar to those
of the wellbore storage and skin solutions6 with no phaseredistribution effects. The unitslope line in Region A is followed by a transitional period, Region B, and the semilogstraightline flow regime in Region C. While a Type 3 curve shows no obvious effects
of phase redistribution, it cannot be fit accurately with a conventional wellborestorage and skin type curve.
Conditions on the parameters s, CfD , CaD , and CD determine
which form the pressure response takes during a buildup test.7 The
Type 1 curve appears when the conditions s x C fD3, C fD y 10,
and C aD x C D5 are satisfied. The pressure response will be of
Type 2 if either set of the following conditions holds:
C fD x s x 5C fD and C aD x C D5 or C fD x 5, C D y 10 4 and
C aD x C D5. If the conditions for a Type 1 or Type 2 response are
not met, the pressure response will be of Type 3.
Figs. 5.1 and 5.2 and 5.5 through 5.8 show examples of Types
1, 2, and 3 pressure responses during buildup tests. The semilog
plots show shutin pressure as a function of the Horner time ratio.
The loglog plots show dimensionless pressure change, given by
Eq. 5.2, and dimensionless pressure derivative as functions of dimensionless time, given by Eq. 5.3. As wellborestorage and phaseredistribution effects decay over time, the pressure derivative flattens at a value of 0.5, indicating the development of the true semilog
straight line. Thompson et al.7 developed a set of rules to predict the
start of the semilog straight line, tsl , on a Horner plot of buildup data.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
30
,
20
C1>
0>
c
o C1>
100
0+=
C1>
:s
.
'" C1>
"'0
.c:
10
0..
>
Pressure Change
10
Pressure Derivative
O_rr_
10 a
10 1
10 2
10 3
10 5
10 4
10 6
Horner Time Ratio
c
00..
en
"0
c c
C1> 0
'
E
5
.1 +107
]01
Fig. 5.5Horner plot of Type 2 pressure response with wellbore
storage and phase redistribution.
Fig. 5.6Loglog plot of Type 2 pressure response with wellbore
Derived from simulated solutions for various combinations of pa
rameters, these rules may require a priori estimates of permeability
and skin factor, which themselves depend on the semilog straight
line.Therefore, the major use of these rules is as guidelines to con
firm results from other methods of analysis.We illustrate their use
in subsequent examples.
For a Type 1 pressure response, the shutin time at the start of the
semilog straight line is estimated by ?
tsl
50
C c:J

where tsl is in hours and tL = shutin time (in hours) when the local
minimum pressure, PDL, occurs in Region D. In many cases,
C</>D = DH when the pressure response is of Type 1. Shutin time,
tsl, can then be approximated with field data
tsl
50 1 
PJ tL
141.2QB,uS
kh(PwS.H  PW!)
tL,
................. (5.17)
overestimate the time when the middletime region begins.?
For a Type 2 pressure response, the shutin time at the start of the
semilog straight line is estimated by
.................................. (5.18)

20
C1>0..
E
5
tsl = 103 te .................................... (5.20)
s 3C D, C D 1, and CD 1.5CaD. Eqs.
tp
tp
5.19 and 5.20 can be regarded as six and threelogcycle rules, re
for the condition
a Z.
? rules for estimating the beginning of the
middletime region can result in substantial inaccuracies, particu
larly for a Type 3 pressure response. For this reason, these rules
the semilog and typecurve analyses.
5.4 Analysis Procedure
The basis of pressurebuildup test analysis is the correct identifica
tion of the semilog straight line whose slope is related to effective
permeability. Phaseredistribution effects, however, can delay or
even completely suppress the onset of the radialflow or middle
time period during a buildup test.As a result, neither conventional
(J)
0)
100
o Q)
..c >
U+=
c
:;
c
(J)
Q)
eno
Pressure Change
10
en
'" 0.
a :J
7i5
/),te
The shutin time, tsl, is estimated by
(J)
C/) '(;;
0)'"
C
for the condition s > 5CtpD, CD 103, and CD 2CaD, where
te= time at which the unitslope line ends on a loglog plot of /),P vs.
should be used only as very rough guidelines to validate results from
For a Type 3 pressure response, the shutin time at the start of the
semilog straight line is estimated by
The Thompson et
(Pws,H  w!), replacing (Pws  Pw!). The approximation given by
Eq. 5.17 is most accurate when CD 104. Note that Eq. 5.17 may
:z
:J,......
..c 0
with tinf replacing t.
age caseY
of the gas hump with the maximum pressure change at the hump,
where tint = time (in hours) when the inflection point separating Re
gions 0' and E' occurs.Eq.5.3 gives the dimensionless form of tin!
spectively, similar to the 1.5logcycle rule for the wellborestor
where PDH= dimensionless pressure (defined by Eq.5.2) at the top
tsl=75tinf,
storage and phase redistribution.
'1=106te .................................... (5.19)
. . .... . .... . .... . ....... (5.16)
tL,
Dimensionless Equivalent Time
0..
en
Pressure Derivative
:s
en en
Q) en
10
C
00..
.
C1>
O+
10 a
10 1
10 2
10 3
10 4
10 5
10 6
____
Horner Time Ratio
'0
c
E 0
(5
.1 +r
10 1
10 2
103
10 4
105
10 6
10 7
Dimensionless Equivalent Time
Fig. 5.7Horner plot of Type 3 pressure response with wellbore
Fig. 5.SLoglog plot of Type 3 pressure response with wellbore
storage and phase redistribution.
storage and phase redistribution.
ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE BUILDUP TESTS DISTORTED BY PHASE REDISTRIBUTION
101
Horner semilog nor typecurve analyses may be possible when
phase redistribution distorts buildup data. Specifically, data plots do
not fit conventional type curves until phaseredistribution effects
cease or are negligible, and apparent or false straight lines with
slopes unrelated to formation permeability may appear before the
true semilog straight line on a Horner plot. If phaseredistribution
effects are sufficiently pronounced, the pressure transient may encounter boundaries before the semilog straight line appears on a
Horner plot.
Fair3 developed type curves on the basis of his mathematical
model for analyzing pressurebuildup data distorted by wellbore
phase redistribution. His type curves, however, are functions of several parameters, and unambiguous typecurve matches are difficult
to obtain unless most of the parameters are known. Unfortunately,
obtaining estimates of many of the parameters is an objective of the
well test.
As we discussed in Chap. 4, the shapes of loglog and semilog
plots of buildup test data are useful in identifying characteristic flow
regimes. The pressurederivative curve is particularly helpful in
identifying the presence of phaseredistribution effects and in determining the presence and correct position of the semilog straight line.
If the semilog straight line is present, the middletime region begins
when the derivative plot becomes constant at a dimensionless value
of 0.5. Any apparent straight line on the Horner plot before this time
does not represent the correct semilog straight line. The middletime
region most likely will not occur with a Type 1 or 2 pressure response. The Type 1 pressure response is identified readily by its
characteristic gas hump. The Type 2 and especially Type 3 responses, however, are not so easily identified from initial examination of the data plots, so the presence of phase redistribution during
the buildup test may not be apparent.
A qualitative typecurve analysis by use of the Bourdet8 type
curves can help verify the presence of phase redistribution, particularly when the pressure response is Type 2 or 3, and can confirm the
presence and correct position of the semilog straight line. The pressurechange and derivative data plots are matched with the Bourdet
type curves by aligning the horizontal portion of the test data derivative plot with the corresponding horizontal portion of the derivative
type curve at a dimensionless value of 0.5 and sliding the data plots
horizontally to obtain the best fit of the pressurechange curve to the
type curves. When phase redistribution has affected the pressure response, a loglog plot of the earlytime data will not exhibit the unitslope line characteristic of a constant wellborestorage coefficient
and, thus, cannot be matched on conventional type curves. The
match must be made on the basis of middletime data after phaseredistribution effects have ceased distorting the pressure response.
When the correct semilog straight line indicative of the middletime region exists, formation permeability and skin factor can be
found with conventional Horner semilog analysis. Wellborestorage and phaseredistribution effects have ceased by the time the
semilog straight line develops, so a Horner semilog analysis can be
used to find the formation permeability and skin factor from the
slope, m, of the semilog straight line.
Although the correct permeability and skin factor can be found
when the correct semilog straight line exists, the wellborestorage
coefficient determined from the unitslope portion of the pressurechange curve depends on whether phase redistribution affects the
earlytime data. If phaseredistribution effects are not present, the
coefficient obtained from the unitslope line is the true wellborestorage coefficient, C. If phaseredistribution effects are present,
this estimate represents the apparent wellborestorage coefficient,
Ca . In the latter case, C must be found independently. When phase
redistribution affects the pressure response, the true wellborestorage coefficient must be estimated from wellbore characteristics.
During phase redistribution, the liquid level in the wellbore is falling. The wellborestorage coefficient for a changing liquid level
and with constant tubing pressure is given by
A
C + 25.65 wb , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.21)
wb
102
where Awb is the crosssectional area in square feet of the wellbore
and wb is the density in pounds mass per cubic foot of the liquid
in the wellbore. Because tubing pressure is not constant in wells undergoing phase redistribution, C calculated from Eq. 5.21 and CD
calculated from Eq. 5.4 are, at best, approximations.
The apparent wellborestorage coefficient, Ca, is obtained from
the unitslope line or its extrapolation if phase redistribution causes
the earlytime data to deviate from the line. For any point (Dte ,Dp)
on the unitslope line, the coefficient is given by
Ca +
qB Dt e
24 Dp
and C aD +
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.22)
USL
0.0372qB Dt e
fmc t r 2w Dp
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.23)
USL
CaD also can be obtained with the time match point in typecurve
analysis. The smaller the ratio of CaD to CD , the more pronounced
are the phaseredistribution effects.
The maximum pressure change owing to phase redistribution,
Cf , can be estimated from field data.2,3 Under the assumptions of
a constant liquid/gas ratio in the wellbore, negligible temperature
effects, incompressible liquid and ideal gas of negligible weight in
the wellbore, and a linear increase in wellbore pressure with depth,
Cf is estimated by
Cf +
p gef * p whf
lnp gefp whf
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.5f)
where pgef +flowing pressure at the point of gas entry into the wellbore, psia, and pwhf +flowing wellhead pressure just before shutin, psia. Although Cf is not required for reservoir characterization,
the estimate from Eq. 5.5f can be used as a good initial guess of Cf
if automatic history matching4,9 with Fairs3 model is used as another means of obtaining k, s, and C.
The Bourdet type curves can be used in a quantitative typecurve
analysis to confirm the semilog results and the estimate of C. The
pressurechange data are forcematched with the type curves, ensuring that the pressurederivative data of the semilog straight line region are aligned with the horizontal portion of the derivative type
curve at a dimensionless value of 0.5. The forced match is done with
a convenient value of Dp and the corresponding dimensionless pressure calculated with k from the semilog analysis. Because of phaseredistribution effects, we do not expect earlytime data to match any
type curve. Only middletime data (after phase redistribution and
wellborestorage effects have disappeared and before the onset of
boundary effects) can be used to match the pressurechange and
pressurederivative curves to the type curves.
In moving the data plot horizontally to obtain the best match, the
early pressurechange data are fitted to the early portion of the type
curves. If the early data fall on a unitslope line, those data points
should be forced to match the unitslope portion of the type curves.
Even if no unitslope data points are present, the early data should
still be aligned with the type curves. Observing this constraint in
matching the data will usually give the correct CaD from the time
match point.
Because phaseredistribution effects may distort the pressure response for much or all of a buildup test, possibly resulting in little
or no middletime data, a unique match often is difficult to obtain.
Under these conditions, automatic history matching4,9 of the buildup data is a viable alternative analysis technique. Automatic history
matching generally gives the most accurate estimates of parameters
even when semilog analysis can be performed and, when available,
should be used in analyzing pressurebuildup data.
As a final confirmation of the results, the guidelines established
by Thompson et al.7 can be applied to estimate the beginning of the
semilog straight line, tsl . The estimate of tsl should be consistent with
the beginning of the semilog straight line from the semilog and typecurve analysis. Any inconsistencies in the results indicate that the
semilog analysis and typecurve matching should be repeated to refine the estimates.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
We recommend the following stepbystep procedure to analyze
pressurebuildup tests when the pressure response is distorted by
wellborephase redistribution. Although presented in terms of pressure and time variables for slightly compressible fluids, the same procedure is applicable to gaswell buildup tests with adjusted variables.
1. Construct the following plots of the pressurebuildup test data:
Prepare a semilog plot of shutin pressure, pws, as a function of the
Horner time ratio, (tp )Dt)/Dt, and a loglog plot of pressure
change, Dp+pws *pwf , and pressure derivative, Dte Dp, as functions of Agarwals10 equivalent time, Dte +Dt/(1)Dt/tp ).
2. Perform a preliminary or qualitative typecurve analysis. The
purpose of this analysis is to determine the existence of phase redistribution, the type of pressure response (Type 1, 2, or 3),7 and boundary effects. In addition, the preliminary typecurve analysis can determine whether the semilog straight line (indicative of the
middletime region) is present and, if possible, identify its position.
The horizontal portion of the pressurederivative curve is aligned
with the horizontal portion of the Bourdet8 type curves for radial
flow in a homogeneous reservoir. The typecurve match is obtained
by sliding the pressurechange and pressurederivativedata curves
horizontally. Earlytime pressurechange data lying on a unitslope
line are forced to match the unitslope portion of the type curves.
Even if no unitslope data are present, the early data are still aligned
with the early portion of the type curves. The middletime region
corresponds to the data points lying on the horizontal portion of the
derivative type curve.
3. If the middletime region is present, perform a Horner semilog
analysis to estimate formation permeability and skin factor. Formation permeability and skin factor can be estimated from the slope of
this line (Chap. 2).
4. Perform a quantitative typecurve analysis to confirm the semilog analysis. If a middletime region is present, then use the permeability determined from a Horner semilog analysis to precalculate
a pressure match point (Dp,pD ). Choose a convenient but arbitrary
value of pD , and calculate Dp:
(Dp) MP +
141.2qBm
(p D) MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.24)
kh
The typecurve match is found by aligning Dp and pD from the pressure match point and sliding the pressurechange and pressurederivativedata curves horizontally. As in the qualitative typecurve
match, early pressurechange data are forced to align with the early
portion of the type curves. In particular, data points on the unitslope
line are forced to fit the unitslope line of the type curves. Once the
match is found, select a time match point (Dte ,tD /CD )MP and calculate the dimensionless apparent wellborestorage coefficient, CaD .
Dt e
C aD + 0.0002637k
fr 2wc t m o
t DC D
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.25)
MP
CaD also can be calculated from a point on the unitslope line (Dp,
Dte )USL by
C aD +
0.0372qB Dt e
fmc t r 2w Dp
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.23)
USL
Calculate the skin factor with CaD and the typecurve correlating parameter, CD e2s:
s + 0.5 ln
CC e .
D
2s
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.26)
aD
This skin factor should agree with the value obtained from the Horner semilog analysis. Determine CD from wellbore characteristics
and
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.4)
C D + 0.8936C
fc t hr 2w
TABLE 5.1PRESSUREBUILDUP TEST DATA,
EXAMPLE 5.1
ShutIn Time,
Dt
(hours)
Pressure,
pws
(psia)
0.000417
0.00417
0.02081
0.03741
0.06638
0.1076
0.1608
0.2258
0.3660
0.5232
0.6770
0.8835
1.1021
1.3143
1.6707
2.1495
2.8494
1,009.06
1,078.31
1,216.79
1,232.73
1,195.64
1,142.90
1,104.46
1,082.59
1,067.75
1,064.54
1,064.02
1,064.14
1,064.48
1,064.84
1,065.42
1,066.10
1,066.92
ShutIn Time,
Dt
(hours)
3.4788
4.0478
4.6865
5.5705
6.3189
6.9607
7.6449
8.4844
9.0764
9.6780
12.00
25.00
40.00
80.00
120.0
144.0
168.0
Pressure,
pws
(psia)
1,067.52
1,067.99
1,068.45
1,069.00
1,069.40
1,069.71
1,070.02
1,070.36
1,070.58
1,070.79
1,071.49
1,073.94
1,075.51
1,077.84
1,079.20
1,079.81
1,080.33
where the wellborestorage coefficient, C, is estimated with
A
C + 25.65 wb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5.21)
wb
The smaller the ratio of CaD to CD , the more pronounced is the
effect of phase redistribution on the pressurebuildup response.
5. Confirm the results with the Thompson et al. guidelines (Eqs.
5.16 to 5.20) for estimating the beginning of the semilog straight
line, tsl . The estimate of tsl should be consistent with the beginning
of the semilog straight line from the semilog and typecurve analyses; otherwise, the semilog analysis and typecurve matching
should be repeated to refine the estimates.
The following examples, which were generated with a numerical
simulator, illustrate the correct procedure for builduptest analysis
when the pressure response is distorted by wellbore phase redistribution. Results agree closely with simulation results for the same
conditions, confirming the procedure.
Example 5.1Buildup Test With Wellbore Phase Redistribution, Type 1 Pressure Response. A pressurebuildup test was run
on an oil well completed with 2.875in. tubing inside 7.625in. casing. Table 5.1 gives pressure and time data. Other known data are
summarized next. Estimate formation permeability, skin factor, and
the wellborestorage coefficient.
h+
re +
mo +
pi +
f+
q+
rw +
Bo +
pwf +
wb+
tp +
rt +
ct +
100 ft
3,000 ft
0.8 cp
2,000 psia
0.10
250 STB/D
0.365 ft
1.2 RB/STB
1,000 psia
48 lbm/ft3
14,400 hours
0.1017 ft
15.0 10*6 psia*1
Solution. The following illustrates the application of the recommended analysis procedure.
Construct Data Plots. Fig. 5.9 shows a Horner semilog plot,
while Fig. 5.10 plots pressurechange and pressurederivative data.
Table 5.2 gives plotting functions for these figures.
Qualitative TypeCurve Analysis. A gas hump is evident in each of
the plots, suggesting that phase redistribution affected the pressure response during the test. In particular, the shapes of the pressurechange
ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE BUILDUP TESTS DISTORTED BY PHASE REDISTRIBUTION
103
Fig. 5.9Horner plot of buildup test data, Example 5.1.
and pressurederivative curves in Fig. 5.10 are characteristic of a Type
1 pressure response. In addition, the shape of the pressurederivative
curve at the end of the test suggests that the middletime region is
present; however, we should confirm its presence with a qualitative
typecurve analysis before attempting a semilog analysis.
1. Qualitative typecurve analysis (Fig. 5.11) is performed by
matching the pressurechange and derivative data with the Bourdet8 type curves for radial flow in a homogeneous reservoir. The
match is obtained by aligning the horizontal portion of the pressurederivative curve with the corresponding horizontal portion of the
type curves at a dimensionless pressure of 0.5. The data are moved
horizontally to find the best fit with the type curves.
2. The first two earlytime data points appear to lie on a unitslope
line and are aligned with the unitslope portion of the type curves.
The best fit is obtained with the type curve defined by the correlating
parameter CD e2s+104. The last 12 data points on the derivative
curve lie on the horizontal portion of the derivative type curve, suggesting that the middletime region (semilog straight line) begins at
a shutin time of approximately 6.96 hours (see Table 5.1).
Semilog Analysis.
1. Fig. 5.12 shows the Horner plot. The semilog straight line is
drawn through the last 12 data points, giving a slope of m+7.70 psi/
cycle.
2. The effective permeability to oil is
k+
162.6q oB o m o
(162.6)(250)(1.2)(0.8)
+
+ 50.7 md.
(7.70)(100)
mh
Fig. 5.10Loglog plot of pressurechange and derivative data,
Example 5.1.
tD/CD
Fig. 5.11Qualitative typecurve match, Example 5.1.
3. The skin factor is estimated to be
s + 1.151
+ 1.151
p 1hr * p wf
k
* log
) 3.23
m
fm oc t r 2w
1, 063.22 * 1, 000
7.70
TABLE 5.2SEMILOG AND TYPECURVE PLOTTING FUNCTIONS, EXAMPLE 5.1
104
Dte
(hours)
Dp,
(psi)
0.000417
0.00417
0.02081
0.03741
0.06638
0.1076
0.1608
0.2258
0.3660
0.5232
0.6770
0.8834
1.1020
1.3141
1.6705
2.1492
9.06
78.31
216.79
232.73
195.64
142.90
104.46
82.59
67.75
64.54
64.02
64.14
64.48
64.84
65.42
66.10
Dte Dp
(psi)
65.9123
67.1860
19.8932
100.450
108.130
79.6891
48.9904
15.7708
4.13181
0.55966
1.13528
1.89826
2.30500
2.66656
2.87676
Horner
Time
Ratio
34,569,265
3,456,926
692,141
384,940
216,940
133,864
89,556
63,777
39,340
27,525
21,270
16,300
13,067
10,958
8,620
6,700
Dte
(hours)
Dp,
(psi)
Dte Dp
(psi)
Horner
Time
Ratio
3.4780
4.0466
4.6850
5.5683
6.3162
6.9574
7.6409
8.4794
9.0707
9.6715
11.99
24.96
39.89
79.56
119.0
142.6
67.52
67.99
68.45
69.00
69.40
69.71
70.02
70.36
70.58
70.79
71.49
73.94
75.51
77.84
79.20
79.81
3.05508
3.09311
3.12853
3.16909
3.19734
3.21710
3.23492
3.25340
3.26381
3.27339
3.30079
3.35258
3.36759
3.37773
3.38155
3.38266
4,140
3,559
3,074
2,586
2,280
2,070
1,885
1,698
1,588
1,489
1,201
577
361
181
121
101
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
tD/CD
Equivalent Time, hr
Fig. 5.13Quantitative typecurve match, Example 5.1.
which qualitatively confirms the value of 21.9 from the typecurve
match.
4. With CaD +21.9 and CD e2s+2 104 from the typecurve
match, the skin factor is
Fig. 5.12Horner plot, Example 5.1.
* log
50.7
) 3.23
2
(0.10)(0.8)(15 10 *6)(0.365)
+ 3.38.
Quantitative TypeCurve Analysis. Quantitative typecurve analysis, illustrated in Fig. 5.13, confirms the results from the semilog
analysis.
1. Precalculate a pressure match point. With k+50.7 md from the
semilog analysis and pD +100,
(Dp) MP +
+
(141.2)(250)(1.2)(0.8)
(100)
(50.7)(100)
+ 668 psi.
2. The typecurve match is found by aligning Dp and pD from the
pressure match point and sliding the pressurechange and pressurederivative curves horizontally. Similar to the qualitative typecurve
match, the early pressurechange data are forced to match the early
portion of the type curves. Interpolating, the best fit is obtained with
the CD e2s+2 104 curve. Because of phaseredistribution effects
on the pressure response, the early test data do not match the type
curve. The match is made with the middletime data, after phaseredistribution effects no longer distort the pressure response.
3. Selecting a time match point of (Dte +2.62 hours,
tD /CD +10,000), the correct value of the apparent wellborestorage
coefficient, CaD , is estimated to be
(0.10)(0.365) (15
10 *6
2.62
)(0.8) 10, 000
+ 21.9.
0.0372qB Dt e
fhc t r 2w Dp
2s
aD
which is in close agreement with s+3.38 from the semilog analysis.
5. The true dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient, CD , is determined from wellbore characteristics. For a falling liquid level in
the wellbore, the true wellborestorage coefficient is
A
p(0.1017 2)
C + 25.65 wb + 25.65
+ 0.01736 bblpsi.
48
wb
From Eq. 5.4, the dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient is
The significant effect of phase redistribution on the pressure buildup
during the test is indicated by CD being much greater than CaD .
Confirmation of Results by Use of Thompson et al.s Rules.
1. As a final check of the results, the rules given by Thompson et
al.7 can be used to confirm the beginning of the semilog straight line.
From Fig. 5.10 and Table 5.2, the maximum pressure change at the
top of the gas hump is
Dp H + p wsH * p wf + 1232.73 * 1000 + 232.73 psi.
2. With Eq. 5.2, DpH in dimensionless terms is
p DH +
khDp H
(50.7)(100)(232.73)
+
+ 34.82.
141.2qBm
(141.2)(250)(1.2)(0.8)
3. Again from Fig. 5.10 and Table 5.2, the shutin time at the local
minimum pressure change following the gas hump is tL +0.677
hour. The shutin time at the beginning of the semilog straight line
is given by Eq. 5.17,
A similar value is obtained from the unitslope line. Assuming that
the first data point (Dte +0.000417 hour, Dp+9.06 psia) lies on the
unitslope line, CaD is
C aD +
t sl [ 50 1 * p s
MP
(0.0002637)(50.7)
2
CC e + 0.5 ln2 21.910 + 3.41,
(0.8936)(0.01736)
+
+ 776.
C D + 0.8936C
(0.10)(15 10 *6)(100)(0.365) 2
fc t hr 2w
141.2qBm
(p D) MP
kh
Dt e
C aD + 0.0002637k
t DC D
fr 2wc t m o
s + 0.5 ln
USL
0.0372(250)(1.2)
0.000417 + 25.7,
9.06
(0.1)(15 10 *6)(100)(0.365 2)
DH
+ 50 1 * 3.38 (0.677) + 30.6 hours.
34.82
Recognizing that Eq. 5.17 tends to overestimate the beginning of
the middletime region, this estimate is somewhat consistent with
the time of 6.96 hours from the qualitative typecurve match and
somewhat confirms our identification of the correct semilog straight
line. Note that the straight line that began at 6.96 hours continues to
have the same slope at times greater than 30.6 hours.
Example 5.2Buildup Test With Wellbore Phase Redistribution, Type 2 Pressure Response. A pressurebuildup test was run
on an oil well completed with 2.875in. tubing inside 7.625in. casing. Table 5.3 gives pressure and time data. Other known data are
summarized next. Estimate formation permeability, skin factor, and
the wellborestorage coefficient.
ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE BUILDUP TESTS DISTORTED BY PHASE REDISTRIBUTION
105
TABLE 5.3PRESSUREBUILDUP TEST DATA,
EXAMPLE 5.2
ShutIn Time,
Dt
(hours)
Pressure,
pws
(psia)
0.000417
0.00417
0.02081
0.03741
0.06638
0.1076
0.1608
0.2258
0.3660
0.5232
0.6770
0.8835
1.1021
1.3143
1.6707
2.1495
2.8494
602.582
621.702
657.839
667.218
673.459
679.144
684.581
689.219
694.872
697.856
699.409
700.647
701.508
702.134
702.938
703.746
704.621
h+
re +
mo +
pi +
f+
q+
rw +
Bo +
wb+
rwb +
tp +
rt +
ct +
ShutIn Time,
Dt
(hours)
3.4788
4.0478
4.6865
5.5705
6.3189
6.9607
7.6449
8.4844
9.0764
9.6780
12.00
25.00
40.00
80.00
120.0
144.0
168.0
Pressure,
pws
(psia)
705.226
705.680
706.115
706.624
706.994
707.276
707.549
707.851
708.046
708.232
708.851
710.949
712.283
714.240
715.381
715.892
716.323
Fig. 5.14Horner plot of buildup test data, Example 5.2.
100 ft
3,000 ft
0.8 cp
2,000 psia
0.20
250 STB/D
0.365 ft
1.2 RB/STB
600 psia
48 lbm/ft3
14,400 hours
0.1017 ft
15.0 10*6 psia*1
Solution. Construct Data Plots. Fig. 5.14 shows a Horner semilog plot, while Fig. 5.15 plots pressurechange and derivative data.
Table 5.4 gives plotting functions for these figures.
Qualitative TypeCurve Analysis. The pressurechange and pressurederivative curves of the loglog plot in Fig. 5.15 display the
characteristic shapes of a Type 2 pressure response with phase redistribution. In addition, the shape of the pressurederivative curve at
the end of the test suggests that the middletime region is present;
Fig. 5.15Loglog plot of pressure change and pressure derivative, Example 5.2.
however, we should confirm its presence before attempting a semilog analysis.
1. Qualitative typecurve analysis is performed by matching the
pressurechange and derivative data with the Bourdet type curves
TABLE 5.4SEMILOG AND LOGLOG PLOTTING FUNCTIONS, EXAMPLE 5.2
106
Dte
(hours)
Dp
(psi)
Dte Dp
(psi)
Horner
Time
Ratio
Dte
(hours)
Dp
(psi)
Dte Dp
(psi)
0.000417
0.00417
0.02081
0.03741
0.06638
0.1076
0.1608
0.2258
0.3660
0.5232
0.6770
0.8834
1.1020
1.3141
1.6705
2.1492
2.8489
2.582
21.702
57.839
67.218
73.459
79.144
84.581
89.219
94.872
97.856
99.409
100.647
101.508
102.134
102.938
103.746
104.621
17.66610
20.08040
12.27360
10.73690
12.92660
13.87880
13.16310
9.86433
6.90051
5.23901
4.16778
3.68630
3.46534
3.28087
3.15134
3.05005
34,569,265
3,456,926
692,141
384,940
216,940
133,864
89,556
63,777
39,340
27,525
21,270
16,300
13,067
10,958
8,620
6,700
5,055
3.4780
4.0466
4.6850
5.5683
6.3162
6.9574
7.6409
8.4794
9.0707
9.6715
11.99
24.96
39.89
79.56
119.0
142.6
166.1
105.226
105.680
106.115
106.624
106.994
107.276
107.549
107.851
108.046
108.232
108.851
110.949
112.283
114.240
115.381
115.892
116.323
3.00122
2.97386
2.95362
2.93452
2.92278
2.91442
2.90708
2.89973
2.89483
2.89106
2.87808
2.84904
2.83932
2.83127
2.82964
2.82771
Horner
Time
Ratio
4,140
3,559
3,074
2,586
2,280
2,070
1,885
1,698
1,588
1,489
1,201
577
361
181
121
101
87
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
tD/CD
Fig. 5.16Qualitative typecurve match, Example 5.2.
for radial flow in a homogeneous reservoir. The match is obtained
by aligning the horizontal portion of the pressurederivative curve
with the corresponding horizontal portion of the type curves at a dimensionless pressure of 0.5. The data are moved horizontally to find
the best fit of the pressurechange curve to the type curves, as Fig.
5.16 shows. In finding the match, early pressurechange data are
forced to match the early portion of the type curves. The first two
data points appear to lie on a unitslope line and are aligned with the
unitslope portion of the type curves. The best fit is obtained with
the CD e2s+1010 curve.
2. The last 14 data points on the derivative curve lie on the horizontal portion of the derivative type curve, suggesting that the semilog straight line of the middletime region begins at a shutin time
of approximately 5.57 hours.
Horner Semilog Analysis.
1. The Horner plot is given in Fig. 5.17. The semilog straight line
is drawn through the last 14 data points of the test, giving m+6.58
psi/cycle.
2. With this slope, the effective permeability to oil is
k+
162.6q oB om o
(162.6)(250)(1.2)(0.8)
+
+ 59.3 md.
(6.58)(100)
mh
3. The skin factor is estimated to be
s + 1.151
+ 1.151
* log
p 1hr * p wf
k
* log
) 3.23
m
fm oc t r 2w
701.74 * 600
6.58
Fig. 5.17Horner plot, Example 5.2.
match, the early pressurechange data are forced to match the early
portion of the type curves. Interpolating, the best fit is obtained with
the CD e2s+1012 curve. Because of phaseredistribution effects on
the pressure response, the early test data do not match the type curve.
The match is made with the middletime data, after phaseredistribution effects no longer distort the pressure response.
3. Selecting a time match point of (Dte +9.26 hours,
tD /CD +10,000)MP from Fig. 5.18, the dimensionless apparent
wellborestorage coefficient, CaD , is estimated to be
Dt e
C aD + 0.0002637k
t DC D
fr 2wc t m o
+
(0.0002637)(59.3)
2
(0.20)(0.365) (15
10 *6)(0.8)
10,9.26000
A similar value is obtained from the unitslope line. With the first
data point (Dte +0.000417 hour, Dp+2.582 psia) that appears to lie
on the unitslope line, CaD is
C aD +
0.0372qB Dt e
fhc t r 2w Dp
USL
0.0372(250)(1.2)
0.000417 + 45.1,
(0.2)(15 10 *6)(100)(0.365 2) 2.582
which confirms the value of 45.3 from the typecurve match.
4. Using CaD +45.3 and CD e2s+1012 from the typecurve match,
the skin factor is
s + 0.5 ln
+ 12.
MP
+ 45.3.
59.3
) 3.23
2
(0.20)(0.8)(15 10 *6)(0.365)
CCe + 0.5 ln1 45.310 + 11.9,
D
2s
12
Quantitative TypeCurve Analysis. Quantitative typecurve analysis (Fig. 5.18) confirms the results from the semilog analysis.
1. With k+59.3 md from the semilog analysis and an arbitrary
value of pD +10, precalculate a pressure match point.
(Dp) MP +
+
141.2qBm
(p D) MP
kh
(141.2)(250)(1.2)(0.8)
(10)
(59.3)(100)
+ 57 psi.
2. The typecurve match is found by aligning Dp and pD from the
pressure match point and sliding the pressurechange and pressurederivative curves horizontally. Similar to the qualitative typecurve
tD/CD
Fig. 5.18Quantitative typecurve match, Example 5.2.
ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE BUILDUP TESTS DISTORTED BY PHASE REDISTRIBUTION
107
TABLE 5.5PRESSUREBUILDUP TEST DATA,
EXAMPLE 5.3
Shutin Time,
Dt
(hours)
0.000417
0.00417
0.02081
0.03741
0.06638
0.1076
0.1608
0.2258
0.3660
0.5232
0.6770
0.8835
1.1021
1.3143
1.6707
2.1495
2.8494
Pressure,
pws
(psia)
804.671
812.057
820.227
826.823
835.546
843.772
850.075
854.290
858.196
859.922
860.860
861.703
862.353
862.849
863.505
864.173
864.905
Shutin Time,
Dt
(hours)
3.4788
4.0478
4.6865
5.5705
6.3189
6.9607
7.6449
8.4844
9.0764
9.6780
12.00
25.00
40.00
80.00
120.0
144.0
168.0
Pressure,
pws
(psia)
865.414
865.798
866.167
866.599
866.913
867.153
867.385
867.643
867.809
867.967
868.496
870.289
871.430
873.107
874.084
874.522
874.891
Fig. 5.19Horner plot of buildup test data, Example 5.3.
which is in close agreement with s+12 from the semilog analysis. This agreement seems to confirm our selection of the middletime region.
5. The true dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient, CD , is determined from wellbore characteristics. For a falling liquid level in
the wellbore, the true wellborestorage coefficient, C, is
A
p(0.1017 2)
+ 0.01736 bblpsi.
C + 25.65 wb + 25.65
48
wb
From Eq. 5.4, the dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient is
(0.8936)(0.01736)
+
+ 388.
C D + 0.8936C
(0.20)(15 10 *6)(100)(0.365) 2
fc t hr 2w
The pronounced effect of phase redistribution on the pressure response during the test is indicated by CD much greater than CaD .
Confirmation of Results by Use of Thompson et al.s Rules. As a
final check of the results, the rules given by Thompson et al.7 confirm the beginning of the semilog straight line. From Fig. 5.15 and
Table 5.4, the shutin time at the inflection point separating Regions
D and E (Fig. 5.4) is 0.1608 hour. The inflection point on the pressurechange curve corresponds to the local maximum on the second
hump of the derivative curve. The shutin time at the beginning of
the semilog straight line is given by Eq. 5.18,
tsl +75 tinf +75 (0.1608)+12 hours.
This estimate is reasonably consistent with the time of 5.57 hours
from the qualitative typecurve match and roughly confirms our
selection of the middletime region and our analysis. Note that the
straight line that began at 5.57 hours continues to have the same
slope for times greater than 12 hours.
Example 5.3Buildup Test With Wellbore Phase Redistribution, Type 3 Pressure Response. A pressure buildup test was run
on an oil well completed with 2.875in. tubing inside 7.625in. casing. Table 5.5 gives pressurebuildup test data. Other known data
are summarized next. Estimate formation permeability, skin factor,
and the wellborestorage coefficient.
h+
re +
mo +
pi +
f+
q+
rw +
108
100 ft
3,000 ft
0.8 cp
1,500 psia
0.30
250 STB/D
0.365 ft
Fig. 5.20Loglog plot of pressure change and pressure derivative, Example 5.3.
Bo +
pwf +
wb+
tp +
rt +
ct +
1.2 RB/STB
800 psia
48 lbm/ft3
14,400 hours
0.1017 ft
15.0 10*6 psia*1
Solution. Construct Data Plots. Fig. 5.19 shows a Horner semilog plot, while Fig. 5.20 plots pressurechange and pressurederivative data. Table 5.6 gives plotting functions for both plots.
Qualitative TypeCurve Analysis. Although phaseredistribution
effects are not obvious from the plots, the data do not match the
Bourdet type curves over the complete time range, so we suspect
phase redistribution. The shape of the derivative curve during the
latter half of the test suggests that the middletime region was
reached during the test; however, we should confirm its existence
with further analysis. No boundary effects appear, indicating that
the reservoir was infiniteacting throughout the test duration.
1. Qualitative typecurve analysis is performed by matching the
pressurechange and derivative data with the Bourdet type curves
for radial flow in a homogeneous reservoir. Again, the match is obtained by aligning the horizontal portion of the pressurederivative
curve with the corresponding horizontal portion of the type curves
at a dimensionless pressure of 0.5. The data are moved horizontally
to find the best fit of the pressurechange curve to the type curves,
as Fig. 5.21 shows.
2. In finding the match, early pressurechange data are forced to
match the early portion of the type curves. Assuming that the first
data point on the pressurechange plot lies on a unitslope line and
aligning that point with the unitslope portion of the type curves, the
best fit is obtained with the CD e2s+108 curve.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
TABLE 5.6SEMILOG AND LOGLOG PLOTTING FUNCTIONS, EXAMPLE 5.3
Dte
(hours)
Dp
(psi)
Dte Dp
(psi)
0.000417
0.00417
0.02081
0.03741
0.06638
0.1076
0.1608
0.2258
0.3660
0.5232
0.6770
0.8834
1.1020
1.3141
1.6705
2.1492
2.8489
4.671
12.057
20.227
26.823
35.546
43.772
50.075
54.290
58.196
59.922
60.860
61.703
62.353
62.849
63.505
64.173
64.905
2.39135
9.15455
13.37680
16.69880
16.80930
14.15930
10.57720
5.89135
4.00006
3.36444
3.03704
2.87322
2.77731
2.67956
2.61208
2.56417
Horner
Time
Ratio
34,569,265
3.4780
3,456,926
4.0466
692,141
4.6850
384,940
5.5683
216,940
6.3162
133,864
6.9574
89,556
7.6409
63,777
8.4794
39,340
9.0707
27,525
9.6715
21,270
11.99
16,300 24.96
13,067 39.89
10,958 79.56
8,620 119.0
6,700 142.6
5,055 166.1
3. The last 17 data points on the derivative curve lie on the horizontal portion of the derivative type curve, indicating that the
middletime region begins at a shutin time of approximately 3.48
hours (see Table 5.6).
Horner Semilog Analysis.
1. Fig. 5.22 shows the Horner plot. The semilog straight line
is drawn through the last 17 data points of the test, giving m+5.65
psi/cycle.
2. Using this slope, the effective permeability to oil is
162.6q oB om o
(162.6)(250)(1.2)(0.8)
+
+ 69.1 md.
k+
(5.65)(100)
mh
+ 1.151
* log
p 1hr * p wf
k
* log
) 3.23
m
fm oc t r 2w
Dp
(psi)
Dte Dp
(psi)
Horner
Time
Ratio
65.414
65.798
66.167
66.599
66.913
67.153
67.385
67.643
67.809
67.967
68.496
70.289
71.430
73.107
74.084
74.522
74.891
2.53983
2.52546
2.51231
2.49857
2.48984
2.48337
2.47814
2.47181
2.46873
2.46530
2.45650
2.43695
2.43091
2.42618
2.42376
2.42378

4,140
3,559
3,074
2,586
2,280
2,070
1,885
1,698
1,588
1,489
1,201
577
361
181
121
101
87
Quantitative TypeCurve Analysis. Quantitative typecurve analysis, illustrated in Fig. 5.23, confirms the results from the semilog
analysis.
1. Precalculate a pressure match point using k+69.1 md from the
semilog analysis and pD +10.
(Dp) MP +
+
141.2qBm
(p D) MP
kh
(141.2)(250)(1.2)(0.8)
(10)
(69.1)(100)
+ 49 psi.
3. The skin factor is
s + 1.151
Dte
(hours)
862.38 * 800
5.65
69.1
) 3.23
2
(0.30)(0.8)(15 10 *6)(0.365)
2. The typecurve match is found by aligning Dp and pD from the
pressure match point and sliding the pressurechange and pressurederivative curves horizontally. Similar to the qualitative typecurve
match, the early pressurechange data are forced to match the early
portion of the type curves. Interpolating, the best fit is obtained with
the CD e2s+2 107 curve. Because of phaseredistribution effects
on the pressure response, the early test data do not match the type
curve. The match is made with the middletime data, after phaseredistribution effects have ceased distorting the pressure response.
3. Selecting a time match point of (Dte +3.92 hours,
tD /CD +10,000), the correct value of the apparent wellborestorage
coefficient, CaD , is estimated to be
+ 7.04.
tD/CD
Fig. 5.21Qualitative typecurve match, Example 5.3.
Fig. 5.22Horner plot, Example 5.3.
ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE BUILDUP TESTS DISTORTED BY PHASE REDISTRIBUTION
109
tD/CD
Fig. 5.23Quantitative typecurve match, Example 5.3.
Dt e
C aD + 0.0002637k
t DC D
fr 2wc t m o
+
Fig. 5.24Horner Plot of buildup test data, Example 5.4.
MP
(0.0002637)(69.1)
2
(0.30)(0.365) (15
3.92
10 *6)(0.8) 10, 000
+ 14.9.
A similar value is obtained from the unitslope line. Assuming that
the first data point (Dte +0.000417 hour, Dp+4.671 psi) lies on the
unitslope line,
C aD +
0.0372qB Dt e
fhc t r 2w Dp
USL
(0.0372)(250)(1.2)
0.000417 + 16.6,
(0.3)(15 10 *6)(100)(0.365 2) 4.671
which agrees with 14.9 from the typecurve match.
4. Using CaD +14.9 and CD e2s+2 107 from the typecurve
match, the skin factor is
s + 0.5 ln
CCe + 0.5 ln2 14.910 + 7.05,
D
2s
which agrees with s+7.04 from the semilog analysis.
5. The true wellborestorage coefficient, C, is determined from
wellbore characteristics. For a falling liquid level in the wellbore,
A
p(0.1017 2)
C + 25.65 wb + 25.65
+ 0.01736 bblpsi.
48
wb
From Eq. 5.4, the dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient is
(0.8936)(0.01736)
+
+ 259.
C D + 0.8936C
(0.30)(15 10 *6)(100)(0.365) 2
fc t hr 2w
The difference between CD and CaD (i.e., CD uCaD ) confirms
that phase redistribution has affected the buildup pressure response;
however, the small difference suggests a Type 3 pressure response.
Confirmation of Results With Thompson et al.s Rules. As a final
check of the results, the rules given by Thompson et al.7 confirm the
beginning of the semilog straight line. Noting that CD y2CaD and
CD x103, the sixcycle log rule of Eq. 5.19 applies. In Fig. 5.23, the
unitslope portion of the pressure change curve appears to end with
the first data point at Dte +0.00417 hours. From Eq. 5.19, the shutin
time at the beginning of the semilog straight line is
t sl + 10 6Dt e + 10 6(0.00417) + 417 hours.
Thus, the beginning of the semilog straight line, tsl , is estimated
to be 417 hours compared with 3.48 hours from the qualitative typecurve analysis. This discrepancy illustrates the inaccuracy that is
possible with the Thompson et al. rules for estimating the beginning
of the middletime region for a Type 3 pressure response. Conse110
Fig. 5.25Loglog plot of pressure change and pressure derivative, Example 5.4.
quently, these rules should be used only as very rough guidelines to
validate results from the semilog and typecurve analyses.
Example 5.4Buildup Test With Wellbore Phase Redistribution, Type 1Pressure Response with No Semilog Straight
Line. Suppose that the pressurebuildup test in Example 5.1 had ended at 2.15 hours instead of at 168 hours. Estimate formation permeability, skin factor, and the wellborestorage coefficient from these
more limited data.
Solution. Construct Data Plots. Fig. 5.24 shows a Horner semilog plot, while Fig. 5.25 plots pressure change and pressurederivative data. Table 5.7 summarizes the plotting functions, and Table 5.1
gives pressurebuildup data.
Qualitative TypeCurve Analysis. The gas hump characteristic of
a Type 1 pressure response is evident in the plots and is confirmed
by the typical shape of the pressurederivative curve in Fig. 5.25. In
this case, however, the derivative curve does not become horizontal,
suggesting that the middletime region was not reached during the
test. Hence, the straight line formed by the last several data points
in Fig. 5.24 is not the true semilog straight line of the middletime
region and cannot be used to estimate permeability and skin factor.
Because the derivative curve does not become constant, the pressurechange and derivative curves cannot be aligned uniquely with
the Bourdet type curves. As shown in Figs. 5.26 through 5.28, the
latetime data fit many different type curves equally well, giving a
wide range of values for permeability, skin, and apparent wellborestorage coefficient. Therefore, the only way to obtain accurate estimates of reservoir properties is to use automatic history matching.4,9
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
10'
lO'fBiIIIEPI$"='dri"ti.]"
TABLE 5.7SEMILOG AND TYPE CURVE PLOTTING
FUNCTIONS, EXAMPLE 5.4
/',.p,
.Me
(hours)
0.000417
/',.fe /',.p'
(psi)
9.06
Horner
Time
Ratio
10'
10'
34,569,265
0.00417
78.31
65.9123
3,456,926
0.02081
216.79
67.1860
692,141
0.03741
232.73
19.8932
0.06638
195.64
100.450
216,940
0.1076
142.90
108.130
133,864
0.1608
104.46
79.6891
0.2258
82.59
48.9904
63,777
0.3660
67.75
15.7708
39,340
0.5232
64.54
4.13181
27,525
0.6770
64.02
0.55966
21,270
0.8834
64.14
1.13528
16,300
1.1020
64.48
1.89826
13,067
1.3141
64.84
2.30500
10,958
1.6705
65.42
2.66656
8,620
2.1492
66.10
2.87676
6,700
' =g=' =jl
o =p ="='7h
=
TI,,,;=';;:
}+=cHIII!!!:'
384,940
10'
'
10
tOlC
D
89,556
10
'
10'
Fig. 5.26Qualitative typecurve match, CDe'2s= 1010, k= 87 md,
10, and CaD = 38, Example 5.4.
s=
5.5 Chapter Summary
In this chapter, we discussed phase redistribution or phase segrega
tion, a common example of the more general phenomenon of chang
10,1
ing wellbore storage. Phase redistribution results in an apparent de
may either increase or decrease wellbore storage.
In Sec.
5.2,
we described the physical mechanism that causes
phase redistribution. Here, a flowing well with a wellbore initially
2:::.4!f:;t;2:t;:j:::;:;;:;
t=:rrnJ
; 10
10'
10to'
101
102
101
crease in the wellborestorage coefficient, while other conditions
10
101
tolCo
lOl
Equiva1enlfime, hr
)
1O
Fig. 5.27Qualitative typecurve match, CDe'2s= 104, k= 50 md,
3, and CaD = 41, Example 5.4.
s=
filled with a uniform mixture of liquid and gas experiences segrega
tion of the liquid and gas following shutin. This segregation results
in a pressure change that distorts the reservoir response to the shut
in. Phase redistribution is most likely to occur in formations of mod
erate permeability
(10 to 100 md for oil, 0.1 to 1 md for gas) and a
large positive skin factor.
In Sec.
5.3, we presented the mathematical model of phase redis
tribution introduced by Fair. Although this model is intuitive, it does
describe the general shape of the pressure response caused by phase
redistribution. Specifically, this model predicts the existence of
three different shapes for the pressure response, which are referred
to as Types
1, 2, and 3. Type 1 phase redistribution is the most ob
vious. Here, the pressure response exhibits a "hump," where the
triCD
phase redistribution is severe enough that a fluid flows back into the
formation during shutin. Eventually, the flow reversal ceases and
the pressure response approaches that of a well with no phase redis
tribution. The flow reversal causes the pressure derivative to be
come negative. The Type
2 pressure response is more subtle.
Equivalent Time, hr
Fig. 5.28Qualitative typecurve match, CDe'2s= 102, k= 37 md,
and CaD = 39, Example 5.4.
s = 0,
Here,
no flow reversal occurs, hence the derivative is always positive. The
pressure flattens before approaching the undistorted pressure re
Exercises
sponse, while the pressure derivative has a local minimum. This
type of response is unlikely to be mistaken for homogenous reser
1.
Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability, skin factor, WBS coefficient, and initial
voir behavior, but it may be confused with dualporosity behavior,
reservoir pressure from the buildup test data. What type of phase re
discussed in Chap.
distribution does this test exhibit? q =
7. The Type 3 pressure response is the most sub
tle. There is no apparent hump in the pressure or local minimum in
the pressure derivative. It may be difficult, however, to find a single
type curve that fits all the pressure and pressurederivative data. For
175 STB/D; h = 6 ft;
1.157 RBISTB; tp 600 hr; rp 6.0%; c, 13.0 X 106 psi1;
Pwf= 1067.79 psia; rw = 0.26 ft;.u = 0.82 cpo
B
each of the typical responses for phase redistribution, we presented
equations to estimate the shutin time necessary to reach the semilog
straight line.
In Sec.
5.4,
we presented a technique for analyzing pressure
buildup tests that have been distorted by phase redistribution that
uses only standard wellbore storage and skin type curves and Horner
semilog analysis. If the test is of sufficient duration, the middletime
region will appear and the test can be analyzed with the methods dis
cussed in Chaps.
2 through 4,
ignoring the portion of the data af
fected by phase redistribution. We illustrated this technique with
four examples.
ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE BUILDUP TESTS DISTORTED BY PHASE REDISTRIBUTION
III
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 5.1
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 5.3
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.000
0.010
0.022
0.036
0.054
0.074
0.099
0.129
0.165
0.208
0.260
0.322
0.396
1067.79
1112.41
1164.08
1223.51
1291.32
1367.89
1453.30
1547.07
1648.06
1754.20
1862.29
1967.89
2065.32
0.485
0.592
0.720
0.874
1.059
1.281
1.547
1.867
2.25
2.71
3.26
3.92
4.72
2147.92
2208.69
2241.24
2241.27
2208.00
2145.37
2062.22
1970.97
1884.79
1814.15
1764.19
1734.23
1719.65
5.67
6.82
8.19
9.84
11.82
14.19
17.04
20.5
24.6
29.5
35.4
42.5
48.0
1714.69
1714.68
1716.82
1719.86
1723.33
1727.06
1730.97
1734.97
1739.02
1743.08
1747.13
1751.17
1753.87
0.000
0.015
0.035
0.060
0.093
0.136
0.191
0.264
0.358
0.480
0.639
2773.20
2874.73
3002.96
3163.64
3362.78
3606.08
3897.66
4238.23
4622.25
5034.42
5446.07
0.846
1.115
1.464
1.919
2.509
3.277
4.275
5.573
7.260
9.452
12.303
5813.10
6078.31
6181.88
6081.66
5779.27
5337.08
4865.91
4477.21
4228.40
4106.98
4063.56
16.009
20.827
27.090
35.232
45.817
59.577
77.465
100.719
130.950
170.250
196.000
4054.35
4057.10
4064.32
4073.76
4084.39
4095.64
4107.20
4118.91
4130.66
4142.31
4148.48
2. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability, skin factor, WBS coefficient, and initial
reservoir pressure from the buildup test data. What type of phase redistribution does this test exhibit? q+75 STB/D; h+14 ft;
B+1.126 RB/STB; tp +720 hr; f+24.6%; ct +11.3 106 psi1;
pwf +1662.62 psia; rw +0.46 ft; m+1.00 cp.
4. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability, skin factor, WBS coefficient, and initial
reservoir pressure from the buildup test data. What type of phase redistribution does this test exhibit? q+1800 STB/D; h+24 ft;
B+1.213 RB/STB; tp +720 hr; f+25.2%; ct +14.7 106 psi1;
pwf +1518.53 psia; rw +0.37 ft; m+0.70 cp.
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 5.4
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 5.2
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.000
0.020
0.045
0.076
0.115
0.164
0.225
0.301
0.397
0.516
0.665
0.851
1.084
1.375
1662.62
1666.13
1669.83
1673.58
1677.21
1680.54
1683.41
1685.77
1687.67
1689.25
1690.74
1692.31
1694.11
1696.21
1.739
2.194
2.762
3.473
4.361
5.471
6.859
8.594
10.762
13.473
16.861
21.096
26.390
33.007
1698.64
1701.41
1704.49
1707.83
1711.32
1714.82
1718.19
1721.25
1723.88
1726.01
1727.67
1728.92
1729.90
1730.71
41.279
51.619
64.544
80.699
100.894
126.138
157.692
197.135
246.439
308.069
385.106
481.402
601.773
720.000
1731.42
1732.06
1732.67
1733.24
1733.79
1734.31
1734.81
1735.28
1735.73
1736.15
1736.53
1736.89
1737.22
1737.46
3. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability, skin factor, WBS coefficient, and initial
reservoir pressure from the buildup test data. What type of phase redistribution does this test exhibit? q+2300 STB/D; h+87 ft;
B+1.33 RB/STB; tp +1440 hr; f+13.1%; ct +12.0 106 psi1;
pwf +2773.20 psia; rw +0.44 ft; m+0.66 cp.
112
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.000
0.008
0.018
0.031
0.046
0.066
0.090
0.121
0.159
0.206
0.266
0.341
0.434
0.550
1518.53
1528.76
1540.69
1554.35
1569.66
1586.38
1604.05
1622.00
1639.38
1655.28
1668.96
1680.04
1688.68
1695.59
0.696
0.877
1.105
1.389
1.744
2.19
2.74
3.44
4.31
5.39
6.74
8.44
10.56
13.20
1701.76
1708.18
1715.63
1724.62
1735.54
1748.71
1764.46
1783.05
1804.71
1829.49
1857.24
1887.51
1919.51
1952.06
16.51
20.6
25.8
32.3
40.4
50.5
63.1
78.9
98.6
123.2
154.0
192.6
240.7
288.0
1983.72
2012.94
2038.38
2059.22
2075.38
2087.46
2096.52
2103.61
2109.54
2114.78
2119.55
2123.95
2128.02
2131.06
5. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability, skin factor, WBS coefficient, and initial
reservoir pressure from the buildup test data. What type of phase redistribution does this test exhibit? q+112 STB/D; h+5 ft;
B+1.182 RB/STB; tp +1440 hr; f+29.2%; ct +17.2 106 psi1;
pwf +1189.66 psia; rw +0.49 ft; m+0.69 cp.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 5.5
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.000
0.030
0.068
0.114
0.173
0.246
0.338
0.452
0.595
0.774
0.998
1.277
1.626
1189.66
1198.43
1209.05
1221.79
1236.95
1254.75
1275.34
1298.71
1324.65
1352.63
1381.82
1411.08
1439.13
2.06
2.61
3.29
4.14
5.21
6.54
8.21
10.29
12.89
16.14
20.2
25.3
31.6
1464.77
1487.24
1506.53
1523.40
1539.18
1555.22
1572.48
1591.27
1611.35
1632.07
1652.52
1671.71
1688.73
39.6
49.5
61.9
77.4
96.8
121.0
151.3
189.2
236.5
295.7
369.7
462.1
480.0
1702.95
1714.21
1722.84
1729.46
1734.78
1739.32
1743.41
1747.21
1750.78
1754.15
1757.32
1760.31
1760.80
6. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability, skin factor, WBS coefficient, and initial
reservoir pressure from the buildup test data. What type of phase redistribution does this test exhibit? q+75 STB/D; h+8 ft; B+1.076
RB/STB; tp +720 hr; f+19.6%; ct +7.64 106 psi1;
pwf +664.69 psia; rw +0.34 ft; m+1.50 cp.
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 5.6
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.000
0.030
0.068
0.114
0.173
0.246
0.338
0.452
0.595
0.774
0.998
1.277
664.69
677.22
692.68
711.66
734.87
763.09
797.18
837.99
886.34
942.83
1007.73
1080.71
1.626
2.06
2.61
3.29
4.14
5.21
6.54
8.21
10.29
12.89
16.14
20.2
1160.57
1245.01
1330.44
1412.09
1484.41
1542.03
1580.96
1599.80
1600.23
1586.38
1563.29
1535.40
25.3
31.6
39.6
49.5
61.9
77.4
96.8
121.0
151.3
189.2
236.5
288.0
1505.88
1476.96
1450.45
1427.95
1410.65
1399.03
1392.66
1390.35
1390.59
1392.07
1393.95
1395.63
7. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability, skin factor, WBS coefficient, and initial
reservoir pressure from the buildup test data. What type of phase redistribution does this test exhibit? q+675 STB/D; h+82 ft;
B+1.361 RB/STB; tp +72 hr; f+13.8%; ct +14.0 106 psi1;
pwf +3581.24 psia; rw +0.3 ft; m+0.47 cp.
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 5.7
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.000
0.0025
0.0056
0.0095
0.0144
0.0205
0.0281
0.0377
0.0496
0.0645
0.0831
0.1064
3581.24
3592.97
3601.31
3607.13
3611.60
3615.75
3620.30
3625.59
3631.80
3638.99
3647.18
3656.29
0.1355
0.1719
0.217
0.274
0.345
0.434
0.545
0.684
0.857
1.074
1.345
1.684
3666.15
3676.49
3686.90
3696.90
3705.99
3713.76
3719.97
3724.66
3728.07
3730.56
3732.48
3734.09
2.11
2.64
3.30
4.13
5.16
6.45
8.07
10.09
12.61
15.77
19.71
24.00
3735.54
3736.89
3738.17
3739.40
3740.58
3741.73
3742.84
3743.91
3744.94
3745.94
3746.89
3747.68
8. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability, skin factor, WBS coefficient, and initial
reservoir pressure from the buildup test data. What type of phase redistribution does this test exhibit? q+900 STB/D; h+12 ft;
B+1.325 RB/STB; tp +600 hr; f+11.8%; ct +14.7 106 psi1;
pwf +2447.24 psia; rw +0.24 ft; m+0.49 cp.
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 5.8
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.000
2447.24
0.1279
3079.52
5.16
3247.12
0.0010
2463.61
0.1673
3098.25
6.71
3254.99
0.0023
2484.26
0.219
3108.73
8.73
3261.58
0.0040
2510.12
0.285
3115.70
11.35
3267.44
0.0062
2542.11
0.372
3122.47
14.76
3272.90
0.0090
2581.13
0.484
3130.55
19.18
3278.11
0.0128
2627.81
0.630
3140.43
24.9
3283.14
0.0176
2682.30
0.820
3152.21
32.4
3288.02
0.0239
2743.89
1.067
3165.76
42.2
3292.78
0.0320
2810.66
1.389
3180.67
54.8
3297.40
0.0426
2879.28
1.806
3196.23
71.2
3301.88
0.0564
2945.09
2.35
3211.48
72.0
3302.06
0.0743
3002.87
3.05
3225.43
0.0976
3048.28
3.97
3237.38
References
1. Earlougher, R.C. Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas (1977) 5.
2. Stegemeier, G.L. and Matthews, C.S.: A Study of Anomalous PressureBuildup Behavior, Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 44.
3. Fair, W.B., Jr.: PressureBuildup Analysis With Wellbore Phase Redistribution, SPEJ (April 1981) 259.
4. Rushing, J.A. and Lee, W.J.: Use of an Automatic HistoryMatching
Technique To Analyze PressureBuildup Data Affected by Wellbore
Phase Segregation: Case Histories, paper SPE 18837 presented at the
1989 SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 1314 March.
5. Van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: The Application of the Laplace
Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs, Trans., AIME (1949)
186, 305.
6. Agarwal, R.G., AlHussainy, R., and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: An Investigation
of Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow: I. Analytical Treatment, SPEJ (September 1970) 278; Trans., AIME (1970)
249.
7. Thompson, L.G., Jones, J.R., and Reynolds, A.C.: Analysis of PressureBuildup Data Influenced by Wellbore Phase Redistribution,
SPEFE (October 1986) 435.
8. Bourdet, D. et al.: A New Set of Type Curves Simplifies Well Test
Analysis, World Oil (May 1983) 95.
9. Olarewaju, J.S. and Lee, W.J.: Effects of Phase Segregation on Buildup Test Data From Gas Wells, paper SPE 19100 presented at the 1989
SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Dallas, 79 June.
10. Agarwal, R.G.: A New Method To Account for ProducingTime Effects When Drawdown Type Curves Are Used To Analyze Pressure
Buildup and Other Test Data, paper SPE 9289 presented at the 1980
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 2124 September.
ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE BUILDUP TESTS DISTORTED BY PHASE REDISTRIBUTION
113
Chapter 6
WellTest Interpretation In Hydraulically
Fractured Wells
Bilinear flow (Fig. 6.1b) evolves only in finiteconductivity frac
6.1 Overview
Many wells, particularly gas wells in lowpermeability formations,
require hydraulic fracturing to be commercially viable.Interpreting
pressure transient data in hydraulically fractured wells is important
in evaluating the success of fracture treatments and for predicting
future performance of fractured wells.In this chapter, we describe
graphical techniques, including semilog, loglog, and Cartesian
coordinate, for analyzing postfracture pressure transient tests. Be
cause identification of specific flow patterns often can aid in well
test analysis, we frrst identify several flow patterns that are charac
teristic of hydraulically fractured wells.
6.2 Flow Patterns in Hydraulically Fractured Wells
tures as fluid in the surrounding formation flows linearly into the
fracture and before fracturetip effects begin to influence well be
havior. Fractures are considered to be finite conductivity when
CrD
100.Most of the fluid entering the wellbore during this flow
<
period comes from the formation.During the bilinearflow period,
bottomhole pressure (BHP), Pwj, is a linear function of t'i4 on Carte
sian coordinate paper.A loglog plot of
period may last for a significant time, as
conductivity and is given by Eqs. 6.5a through 6.5c for a range of
dimensionless times and fracture conductivities!:
tL
terns, often separated by transition periods, include fracture linear,
bilinear, formation linear, elliptical, and pseudoradial flow. Fracture
tL
f
linear flow (Fig. 6.1a) is very shortlived and may be masked by
wellborestorage effects.During this flow period, most of the fluid
entering the wellbore comes from fluid expansion in the fracture,
and
\0
cal use in welltest analysis.The duration of the fracturelinearflow
period is estimated by,,3
tL o
f
O.IC ;o
}o
1J
where tL
f
tL O
f
................................ (6.1)
f.1cJ}
........................... (6.2)
The dimensionless fracture conductivity, CrD, is
C,o
and 1J o
f
1J o
f
114
'
nkLJ
.................................. (6.3)
dimensionless hydraulic diffusivity defined by
k c,
kfcf,

rO
for C,o
>
3,
.......................(6.5a)
153
0.020 5(Cro  1.5) for 1.6
( )
 2.5
CrO
3, . (6.5b)
4
for Cro
<
1.6.
.........(6.5c)
Formationlinear flow (Fig. 6.1c) occurs only in highconductivity
dimensionless time in terms of fracture halflength,
wkf
(CrD 100) fractures.This period continues to a dimensionless time
0.0002 6 37kt
shows.
Fig. 6.2
The duration of bilinear flow depends on dimensionless fracture
Five distinct flow patterns (Fig. 6.1) occur in the fracture and forma
short duration, the fracturelinearflow period often is of no practi
as a function of
a slope of one fourth during this same time period.The bilinearflow
tion around a hydraulically fractured well.'3 Successive flow pat
and the flow pattern is essentially linear. Because of its extremely
(Pi Pwj)
time exhibits a slope of one fourth.The pressure derivative also has
of tL
both
(Pi
0.0 1 6.The transition from fracturelinear flow to forma
tion linear flow is complete by a time of tL
104. On Cartesian
=
coordinate paper, Pwj is a linear function of tY', and a loglog plot of
 Pwj) and the pressure derivative as a function of time ex
hibits a slope of one half.
Elliptical flow (Fig. 6.1d) is a transitional flow period and occurs
between a Iinear or nearlinearflow pattern at early times and a ra
dial or nearradialflow pattern at late times.
Pseudoradial flow (Fig. 6.1e) occurs with fractures of all conduc
tivities.After a sufficiently long flow period, the fracture appears to
the reservoir as an expanded wellbore (consistent with the effective
wellbore radius concept that Prats et al.6 suggest).At this time, the
drainage pattern can be considered a circle for practical purposes.
The larger the fracture conductivity, the later the development of an
................................ (6.4)
essentially radial drainage pattern.If the fracture length is large rela
tive to the drainage area, then boundary effects distort or entirely
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
pCD

Fig. 6.2Bilinearflow region4 for a finiteconductivity vertical
fracture5 (after Economides2).
Fig. 6.1Flow periods in a vertically fractured well (after CincoLey and SamaniegoV.1).
mask the pseudoradial flow regime. Pseudoradial flow begins at
t L D [ 3 for highconductivity fractures (CrD y100) and at slightly
f
smaller values of t L D for lower values of CrD . Fig. 6.3 shows the
f
beginning of pseudoradial flow, which is indicated by the start of a
straight line on a graph of pwf vs. log t, for several values of CrD . The
pressure derivative flattens when pseudoradial flow begins. This
characteristic is often used to identify this flow period.
These flow patterns also appear in pressurebuildup tests and occur at about the same dimensionless times as in flow tests. The
physical interpretation is that the pressure has built up to an essentially uniform value throughout a particular region at a given time
during a buildup test. For example, at a given time during bilinear
or formationlinear flow, pressure has built up to a uniform level
throughout an approximately rectangular region around the fracture. At a later time during elliptical flow, pressure has built up to
a uniform level throughout an approximately elliptical region centered at the wellbore. At a given time during pseudoradial flow, pressure has built up to a uniform level throughout an approximately circular region centered at the wellbore. The area of the region and the
pressure level within that area increase with increasing shutin time.
Example 6.1 illustrates how to estimate the duration of flow periods
for hydraulically fractured wells.
Fig. 6.3Dimensionless pressure/time plot showing start of
pseudoradialflow period for finiteconductivity vertical fractures (after CincoLey et al.7).
TABLE 6.1DURATION OF FLOW PERIODS IN A
HYDRAULICALLY FRACTURED WELL
k,
(md)
Lf ,
(ft)
Case
1
100
100
0.01
1,000
0.01
Solution. The end of the linearflow regime occurs at a dimensionless time of t L D [ 0.016 or, with Eq. 6.2,
f
Example 6.1Estimating Duration of Flow Periods in a Hydraulically Fractured Well. For each of the following cases, estimate the end of the linearflow period and the time at which pseudoradialflow period begins. Assume that pseudoradial flow begins
when t L D+3 (see Table 6.1).
t[
f+
CrD +
m+
ct +
0.15
100
0.03 cp
1 10*4 psi*1
fmc t L 2f t L D
f
0.0002637k
2.73
10 *5L 2f
k
(0.15)(0.03)(1
10 *4)L 2f (0.016)
0.0002637k
Similarly, the time to reach pseudoradial flow is t L
t[
WELLTEST INTERPRETATION IN HYDRAULICALLY FRACTURED WELLS
fmc t L 2f t L
fD
0.0002637k
(0.015)(0.03)(1
fD
[ 3, or
10 *4)L 2f (3)
0.0002637k
115
TABLE 6.2RESULTS OF LINEAR FLOW
Lf
(tt)
Case
Time to End of
Linear Flow
(hours)
(md)
Time to Start of
Pseudoradial
Flow
(hours)
51.2
0.273
100
2
100
0.01
1,000
0.01
5,120**
27.3
2,730*
512,000***
'114 days; "213 days; " '58 years
5.12 1O5L}
k
X
b
Fig. 6.4Elliptical flow pattern around a vertically fractured well.
Table 6.2 summarizes the results.
6.3 Flow Geometry and Depth of Investigation
of a Vertically Fractured Well
Fluid flow in a vertically fractured well has been described with el
2
liptical geometry. 81 The equation for an ellipse with its major axis
along the x axis and minor axis along the
x2 y2
+
a2
b2
y axis is
1, .................................. (6.6 )
0)
( a,
and
b), respectively. The foci of the ellipse are c where
2
2
a b
In terms of a well with a single vertical fracture with
where the endpoints of the major and minor axes are
(0,
c2
two wings of equal length,
4,
the relation becomes
L}
2
a 
b2
where 4 is the focal length of the ellipse. Fig. 6.4 shows the ellipti
cal geometry of a vertically fractured well.
Hale and Eversll defined a depth of investigation for a vertically
fractured well. They based their definition on a definition of dimen
sionless time at a distance
t O.0002637kt
bD
b,
the length of the minor axis:
(6.7)
1>f.iCtb2
Solving for the length of the minor axis,
\I,
(0.0002637kt
t ) . .......................... (6.8 )
1>f.iCt bD
If we assume that pseudosteadystate flow exists out to distance
at dimensionless time
comes
bD
lin as in linear systems, Eq.
6.8
be
\I,
0.02878(1)cJ ' .......................... (6.9)
t Ii
which represents the depth of investigation in a direction perpendic
ular to the fracture at time
wells, the terms
f.i
and
Ct
drainagearea pressure,
for a vertically fractured well. In gas
should be
and
Cf, evaluated at average
p.
The elliptical pattern of the propagating pressure transient can be
fully described in terms of the lengths of the major axis,
axis,
b, and the focus, 4.
a,
With the estimate of b from Eq.
the minor
6.9
estimate of 4 obtained by one of the methods described later, we can
estimate the length of the major axis from
a
jL} + b2.
Given values of
and
at a particular time,
6.6.
t,
b,
we can calculate the depth of investigation
in any direction from the fracture by use of Eq.
t
.................................... (6.11)
0.02878 100)6.9.
Furthermore, the area, A, enclosed by the ellipse at time (i.e., the
area of the reservoir sampled by the pressure transient) is given by
nab.
The coefficient
ly conductive fractures
116
in Eq.
(CrD
2':
O.
(i.e., a
6.4 Specialized Methods for PostFracture
WellTest Analysis
Generally, the objectives of postfracture pressuretransienttest
analysis are to assess the success of the fracture treatment and to es
timate the fracture halflength, fracture conductivity, and formation
permeability. In this section, we discuss three specialized methods
for analyzing postfracture pressure transient testspseudoradial
flow, bilinear flow, and linear flow. We include examples with these
analysis methods in the following section.
6.4.1 PseudoradialFlow Method. The pseudoradialflow meth
od3 applies when a short, highly conductive fracture is created in a
highpermeability formation so that pseudoradial flow develops in
a short time. The time required to achieve pseudoradial flow for an
infinitely conductive fracture
(CrD i:';
pressurebuildup test is estimated by
D
Lf
0.0002637kt 3
=
1>f.iCtL}
100)
in either a flow test or a
(6.12)
The beginning of pseudoradial flow is characterized by the flatten
ing of the pressure derivative on a loglog plot and by the start of a
straight line on a semilog plot. Therefore, when the pseudoradial
flow regime is reached, conventional semilog analysis, described in
Chaps.
2 3,
and
can be used to calculate permeability and skin factor.
For a highly conductive fracture, skin factor is related to fracture
halflength byl3
Lf
2rwes.
(6.13 )
Table 6.3 summarizes working equations for pseudoradialflow
analysis for five cases:
(1)
slightly compressible liquid,
(2)
(5)
gas with
(3) gas
(4) gas with
adjusted pressure and adjusted time as plotting functions,
with real pressure and real time as plotting functions,
pressure squared and real time as plotting functions, and
gas with
pseudopressure and real time as plotting functions. We recommend
the following procedure for analyzing test data from the pseudora
dialflow regime.
1.
(6.10) 3.2.
and an
CrD approaches
alb is
ratio alb also becomes smaller. The lower bound of
circle) as
For a drawdown test, make a semilog plot of Pwf vs. log
t.
For a
buildup test, make a semilog plot of Pws vs. the Homer time ratio. Use
adjusted pressure for gas wells; for shutin periods, use adjusted time.
Determine the position and slope,
With
m,
calculate values of
m,
of the semilog straight line.
k 6.3.
4,
and
(or
'
s
for a gas well) with
the appropriate equations from Table
4. Calculate the fracture halflength,
with Eq.
6.13.
The pseudoradialflow method has the following limitations that
make it seldom applicable in practice.3
1.
The conditions that are most favorable for the occurrence of
pseudoradial flow are short, highly conductive fractures in high
is strictly correct only for high
permeability formations. These formations, however, are rarely
CrD becomes smaller, the
fractured. The most common application of hydraulic fractures,
As
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
TABLE 6.3SUMMARY OF WORKING EQUATIONS: RADIAL OR PSEUDORADIAL FLOW CASE
Case
Oil
Flow Test
Semilog graph variables
Permeability from slope, m, of
semilog straight line
Gas, With Adjusted Variables
pwf vs. t
162.6q oB om o
k+
mh
Skin factor calculation
s + 1.151
Buildup Test
Semilog graph variables
pa,wf vs. t
162.6q gB gm g
k+
mh
p * p 1hr
k
* log
) 3.23
m
fm oc tr 2w
p * p 1hr
k
* log
m
fm gc tr 2w
s + 1.151
pws vs. (tp )Dt)/Dt
162.6q oB om o
k+
mh
Permeability from slope, m, of
semilog straight line
Skin factor calculation
s + 1.151
pa,ws vs. (tp )Dta )/Dta
k+
p 1hr * p wf
k
* log
) 3.23
m
fm oc tr 2w
162.6q gB gm g
mh
p 1hr * p wf
k
* log
)3.23
m
fm gc tr 2w
s +1.151
kh(p * * p)
70.6q oB om o
Definition of pMBH,D
) 3.23
khp *a * p a
70.6q gB gm g
TABLE 6.3SUMMARY OF WORKING EQUATIONS: RADIAL OR PSEUDORADIALFLOW CASE (continued)
Case
Gas, With Pressure and Time
Flow Test
Semilog graph variables
pwf vs. t
Permeability from slope, m, of
semilog straight line
k+
Skin factor calculation
s + 1.151
Buildup Test
Semilog graph variables
p 2wf vs. t
1, 637q gTzm g
k+
mh
162.6q gB gm g
mh
p * p 1hr
k
* log
m
fm gc tr 2w
p * p 21hr
k
* log
m
fm gc tr 2w
s + 1.151
) 3.23
k+
Skin factor calculation
s + 1.151
162.6q gB gm g
mh
p 1hr * p wf
k
* log
m
fm gc tr 2w
) 3.23
p 1hr * p 2wf
k
* log
)3.23
m
fm gc tr 2w
s +1.151
khp * 2 * p 2
kh(p * * p)
70.6q gB gm g
wells with long fractures in lowpermeability formations, requires
impractically long test times to reach pseudoradial flow.
2. The second limitation of the pseudoradialflow method is that,
for gas wells, the apparent skin factor, s, calculated from test data
often affected by nonDarcy flow.
3. The pseudoradialflow method applies only to highly conductive (CrD y100) fractures. For lowerconductivity fractures, fracture lengths calculated with the skin factor (Eq. 6.13) will be too low.
Fig. 6.5, which relates effective wellbore radius, rwa , to CrD , is useful in estimating Lf if both s and CrD can be estimated.
6.4.2 BilinearFlow Method. The bilinearflow method3 applies to
test data obtained during the bilinearflow regime in wells with finiteconductivity vertical fractures. Bilinear flow is indicated by a
quarterslope line on a loglog graph of ( pi *pwf ) vs. t for a
constantrate flow test, or (pws *pwf ) vs. Dte for a buildup test, with
Agarwals14 equivalent time function, Dte +Dt/(1)Dt/tp ). The loglog plot of the pressure derivative will also have a quarter slope during this same time period. In gaswell analysis, real time should be
used for flow periods and adjusted time (pseudotime normalized by
use of m and ct evaluated at p) for shutin periods.
) 3.23
p 2ws vs. (tp )Dt)/Dt
1637q gTzm g
k+
mh
pws vs. (tp )Dt)/Dt
Permeability from slope, m, of
semilog straight line
Definition of pMBH,D
Gas, With PressureSquared and Time
711q gTzm g
During bilinear flow,
p D + 1.38 t
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.14)
C rD Lf D
and t L
dp D
+ 0.345 t
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.15)
dt L D
C rD Lf D
f
We recommend the following procedure for analyzing test data
obtained in the bilinearflow regime.
1. For a constantrate flow test, plot pwf vs. t on Cartesian coordinate paper. For a buildup test, plot pws vs. Dte (or Dtae for a gas
well test).
2. Determine the slope, mB , of the linear region of the plot.
3. From independent knowledge of k (e.g., from a prefracture well
test), estimate the fracture conductivity, wf kf , with mB and the relationship
44.1qBm
fmc1 k
hm
2
wf kf +
0.5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.16)
where m and ct evaluated at p are used for a gaswell test.
WELLTEST INTERPRETATION IN HYDRAULICALLY FRACTURED WELLS
117
TABLE 6.3SUMMARY OF WORKING EQUATIONS: RADIAL OR PSEUDORADIALFLOW
CASE (continued)
Gas, With Pseudopressure and Time
Flow Test
Semilog graph variables
Permeability from slope, m, of semilog
straight line
Skin factor calculation
pp vs. t
1, 637q gT
k+
mh
s + 1.151
p p * p p,1hr
k
* log
m
fm gc tr 2w
Buildup Test
Semilog graph variables
) 3.23
pp vs. (tp )Dt)/Dt
1, 637q gT
k+
mh
Permeability from slope, m, of semilog
straight line
Skin factor calculation
s + 1.151
p p,1hr * p p,wf
k
* log
m
fm gc tr 2w
) 3.23
khp *p * p p
Definition of pMBH,D
711 q gT
The bilinearflow analysis method has the following important limitations.
1. Fracture halflength, Lf , cannot be estimated with this analysis
technique.
2. In wells with lowconductivity fractures, wellbore storage frequently distorts early test data for a sufficient length of time so that
the quarterslope line characteristic of bilinear flow may not appear
on a loglog plot of test data.
3. The greatest limitation is that an independent estimate of k is
required, suggesting that prefracture well tests should be conducted
before fracturing the well to obtain independent estimates of formation properties.
6.4.3 LinearFlow Method. The linearflow method3 applies to test
data obtained during formationlinear flow in wells with highconductivity fractures (CrD y100). After wellborestorage effects have
ended, formationlinear flow occurs up to a dimensionless time of
t L D[0.016. Formationlinear flow is modeled by
f
p D + pt L
fD
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.17)
so that log p D + 1 log t L D ) 1 log(p), . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.18)
2
2
f
which means that a loglog plot of pressure change vs. time will
have a slope of onehalf. Note that the pressure derivative is
pCrD=wfkf/Lfk
Fig. 6.5Effective wellbore radius vs. dimensionless fracture
conductivity for a vertical fracture (after CincoLey and SamaniegoV.1).
118
tL
dp D
+ 1 pt L D
D
2
f
f dt L D
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.19)
so that log t L
dp D
f D dt L D
f
+ 1 log t L D ) 1 log(p), . . . (6.20)
2
2
f
which indicates that a loglog plot of the derivative against time will
have a slope of onehalf during the same time period.
According to Economides,2 Agarwals14 equivalent time function,
Dt e +
Dt
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.21)
1 ) Dt pt p
is used in place of t in the definition of dimensionless time in Eq. 6.3
when analyzing a pressurebuildup test. However, the definition of
Dte given by Eq. 6.21 applies rigorously only for radial flow in an
infiniteacting reservoir. Under the conditions when linear flow is
the only flow pattern occurring during the test, a more appropriate
form of the equivalent time function is
Dt eL + t p ) Dt * tp ) Dt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.22)
Note that test conditions where only linear flow occurs are rare, and,
consequently, Eq. 6.22 is infrequently used for welltest analysis.
Table 6.4 summarizes working equations for linearflow analysis
for five cases: (1) slightly compressible liquid, (2) gas with adjusted
pressure and adjusted time as plotting functions, (3) gas with real
pressure and real time as plotting functions, (4) gas with pressure
squared and real time as plotting functions, and (5) gas with pseudopressure and real time as plotting functions. Note that the pressurebuildup equations in Table 6.4 are presented in terms of Eq. 6.21.
We recommend the following procedure for analyzing test data
obtained in the linearflow regime.
1. For a constantrate flow test, plot pwf vs. t on Cartesian coordi
nate paper. For a buildup test, plot pws vs. Dt
e (or Dt ae for a gas well
test).
2. Determine the slope, mL , of the linear region of the plot.
3. From independent knowledge of k (e.g., from a prefracture well
test), estimate the fracture halflength, Lf , with the appropriate equation for kLf from Table 6.4.
The linearflow analysis method also has limitations.
1. The method applies only for fractures with high conductivities.
Strictly speaking, linear flow occurs for the condition of uniform
flux into a fracture (same flow rate from the formation per unit
crosssectional area of the fracture at all points along the fracture)
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
TABLE 6.4SUMMARY OF WORKING EQUATIONS: LINEAR FLOW
Gas, With Pressure
Oil
and T ime
Gas, With Adjusted Variables
Flow Test
Cartesiancoordinate
it
Pwf vs.
graph variables
Ik Lf from slope,
mL, of straight line
Ik Lf
4.064qB(.uo)
=
mLh
it
Pa.wf vs.
1'2
kLf
Ik
1>ct
4.064qgBg (,iTg)
it
Pwf vs.
Yz
kLf
Ik
1>ct
mLh
4.064qgBg (,iTg)
mLh
Yz
r
ct
Buildup Test
Cartesiancoordinate
PW$ vs.
graph variables
Ik Lf from slope,
mL, of straight line
Ik Lf
[i:t;,
4.064qB(.uo)
=
mLh
j!!.tae
Pa,w$ vs.
1'2
kLf
Ik
1>ct
PW$ vs.
4.064qgBg (,iTg)
Yz
kLf
Ik
1>ct
mLh
[i:t;,
TABLE 6.4SUMMARY OF WORKING EQUATIONS: LINEAR FLOW
4.064qgBg (,iTg)
=
mLh
Yz
r
ct
(Continued)
Gas, With Pressure Squared
Gas, With Pseudopressure
and Time
and T ime
P vs.
Pp vs.
Flow Test
Cartesiancoordinate
graph variables
Ik Lf from slope,
mL, of straight line
40.93qgTZ(,iTg)
r;
v kLf
it
1',
"' 'f'ct
mLh
it
Buildup Test
Cartesiancoordinate
graph variables
p$ vs.
[i:t;,
Pp vs.
[i:t;,
Ik Lf from slope,
mL, of straight line
rather than for infinite fracture conductivity. Therefore, only very
early test data
ity fracture.
2.
(tLfD 0.016) exhibit linear flow in a highconductiv
Some or all of these early data may be distorted by wellbore
storage, further limiting the amount of linearflow data available for
analysis.
3. Like the bilinearflow method,
estimating fracture halflength
requires an independent estimate of permeability, k, which suggests
that a prefracture well test should be conducted.
We recommend the following procedure for analyzing test data
with the GringartenRameyRaghavan type curve. Although pres
ented for well tests in oil wells, the procedure is also valid for gas
well tests when the appropriate adj usted plotting functions are used.
1. Plot the pressure change, /).p, and pressure derivative, t/).p', vs.
t for a constantrate flow test or /).p and /).te/).p' vs /).te for a buildup
test on tracing paper or loglog paper with the same grid size as the
type curve.
2.
Perform a qualitative typecurve analysis. The purpose of this
preliminary analysis is to obtain an initial match and to use the type
6.5 PostFracture WellTest Analysis With Type Curves
We discussed welltest analysis with type curves for homogeneous
acting reservoirs in Chap.
4. In this section, we introduce four type
curves developed specifically for analyzing well tests from hydrau
lically fractured wells. Because typecurve methods are more gener
al than the specialized analysis methods, they span the entire range
of flow regimes and include the intervening transition regions. We
illustrate typecurve analysis techniques with the following type
curves:
Cinco
(1)
the GringartenRameyRaghavan 15 type curve,
(2)
the
et at.? type curve, (3) the Agarwal et al.5 type curve, and (4)
the BarkerRamey type curve.16
Table 6.5 summarizes interpreta
tion of match points and parameters for typecurve plots for both oil
and gaswell tests.
ture analysis of data from a constantrate flow test. The type curve is
a graph of solutions to flow equations modeling a vertical hydraulic
fracture in a finite reservoir under the following assumptions:
fracture is infinitely conductive,
(2)
(1) the
the well is centered in a square
drainage area with noflow boundaries,
(4)
If
the
typecurve
match
indicates
early
(3) the fracture has two equal
wellborestorage effects are ignored.
data points
with
tL i D < 0.016 and a slope equal to onehalf for both pressure change
ard pressure derivative, the linearflow pattern may be present, and
we can analyze the data with the technique presented previously.
If the typecurve match indicates a flattening derivative and several
> 3, pseudoradial flow has occurred and we can
f
analyze the data with the technique presented previously. The
data points with
tL D
pseudoradialflow period in a hydraulically fractured well is similar
to radial flow in a homogeneousacting reservoir, so the pressure de
rivative during this time period will form a horizontal line.
If boundary effects occur during the test, the test data will deviate
upward from the infiniteacting curve defined by
6.5.1 GringartenRameyRaghavan15 Type Curve. The Gringar
tenRameyRaghavan 15 type curve (Fig. 6.6) is useful for postfrac
length wings, and
curves to identify any flow regimes characteristic of infinitecon
ductivity vertical fractures.
4/4= 00 and will
match one of the curves for a finite reservoir characterized by the
parameter
4/4 = 00.
3. If any flow regimes characteristic of infiniteconductivity ver
tical fractures are identified, perform a postfracture analysis with
the specialized techniques discussed previously.
If the preliminary typecurve match indicates data points for
tL D < 0.016,
I
plot
Pwf
vs.
tV,
on Cartesian coordinate paper for a
constantrate flow test or Pws vs.
WELLTEST INTERPRETATION IN HYDRAULICALLY FRACTURED WELLS
/).t' for a buildup test. A straight
119
TABLE 6.5SUMMARY OF INTERPRETATION PROCEDURES
Case
Interpretation of Unit Slope Line
Interpretation of Pressure
Match Point
Definition of CD
Slightly Compressible Fluids (Oil)
Dp vs. Dt
CD +
0.0372q oB o Dt
Dp
fhc tr 2w
CD +
USL
22.92A wb
k+
wbfc thr 2w
141.2q oB om o p D
Dp
h
MP
Compressible Fluids (Gas)
Dp vs. Dt
Dpa vs. Dta
CD +
0.0372q gB g Dt
CD +
Dp
fhc tr 2w
Dp2 vs. Dt
CD +
Dpp vs. Dt
0.0372q gB g Dt
Dp
fhc tr 2w
0.375q gTz
CD +
fhc tr 2w
CD +
Dt
Dp p
CD +
k+
fhc tr 2w
141.2q gm gB g p D
Dp
h
141.2q gm gB g p D
k+
Dp
h
0.8936V wbT
fhr 2wT wb
USL
Dt
Dp 2
0.8936V wbc wb
USL
0.375q gT
fhc tr 2w
CD +
0.8936V wbc wb
k+
fc thr 2w
1422q gTzm g
CD +
k+
fc thr 2w
USL
MP
pD
Dp 2
USL
0.8936V wbc wb
MP
1422q gT p D
h
(Dp)
MP
MP
For drawdowntest analysis, the plotting functions are defined as Dp+p*pwf (or equivalent) and Dt+t+flow time (or equivalent). For builduptest analysis, the plotting functions are
defined as Dp+pws *pwf (Dt+0) (or equivalent) and Dt+Dte +Dt/(1 + Dt/tp ) (or equivalent).
TABLE 6.5SUMMARY OF INTERPRETATION PROCEDURES (continued)
Case
Interpretation Time Match Point in
Gringarten Type Curve
Interpretation of Time Match Point in
Fractured Well Type Curves
Slightly Compressible Fluids (Oil)
Dp vs. Dt
Dt
C D + 0.0002637k
t DC D
fm oc tr 2w
Lf +
MP
0.0002637k
fm oc t
tDt
L D
f
MP
Compressible Fluids (Gas)
Dp vs. Dt
Dpa vs. Dta
D(p2)
vs. Dt
Dpp vs. Dt
Dt
C D + 0.0002637k
t DC D
fm gc tr 2w
Dt
C D + 0.0002637k
t DC D
fm gc tr 2w
Dt
C D + 0.0002637k
t DC D
fm gc tr 2w
Dt
C D + 0.0002637k
t DC D
fm gc tr 2w
Lf +
MP
Lf +
MP
Lf +
MP
Lf +
MP
0.0002637k
fm gc t
0.0002637k
fm gc t
0.0002637k
fm gc t
0.0002637k
fm gc t
Dt
tL D
f
MP
Dt
tL D
f
MP
Dt
tL D
f
MP
Dt
tL D
f
MP
For drawdowntest analysis, the plotting functions are defined as Dp+pi *pwf (or equivalent) and Dt+t+flow time (or equivalent) For builduptest analysis, the plotting functions are defined
as Dp+pws *pwf (Dt+0) (or equivalent) and Dt+Dte +Dt/(1 + Dt/tp ) (or equivalent).
line should appear with a slope inversely proportional to kLf . If
permeability can be estimated from a pseudoradialflow analysis or
if a prefracture value is available, we can estimate fracture halflength, Lf .
If the typecurve match indicates a flattening of the derivative and
several data points with t L Du3, plot pwf vs. log t for a constantrate
f
flow test or pws vs. log (tp +Dt)/Dt for a buildup test. If a semilog
straight line appears, we can make a unique estimate of effective
permeability.
If boundary effects occur during the test and if we have an estimate of the drainage area shape and relative location of the well in
this area, we can estimate drainage area with the parameter Le /Lf and
the estimate of fracture halflength from the linearflow analysis.
120
4. Next, perform a quantitative typecurve analysis to either confirm the results from the specialized analysis techniques or to obtain
estimates when these analysis techniques are not possible.
If a prefracture permeability estimate is available, or, with the
permeability estimate from the pseudoradial flow analysis, precalculate a pressure match point. Use a convenient and arbitrary value
of dimensionless pressure, pD , to precalculate Dp.
(Dp) MP +
141.2qBm
(p D) MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.23)
kh
Compare the typecurve match with the preliminary match obtained in Step 2. If the matches differ greatly, then repeat Steps 2 and
3 until a consistent match is obtained.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
1,000
10,000
Dimensionless Time, t Lf D
Fig. 6.6GringartenRameyRaghavan15 type curve for a vertically fractured well in the center of a closed square, infiniteconductivity fracture, no wellbore storage.
If a value of permeability is not available, choose a pressure
match point (pD , Dp)MP from the qualitative typecurve match and
estimate formation permeability from
k+
141.2qBm p D
h
Dp
Fig. 6.7Qualitative typecurve analysis with the GringartenRameyRaghavan15 model, Example 6.2.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.24)
MP
Choose a time match point (Dt, t L D)MP and estimate fracture
f
halflength,
Lf +
Time, hours
0.0002637k Dt
tL D
fmc t
f
MP
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.25)
The value of fracture halflength computed with the time match
point should be consistent with the value obtained from the linearflow analysis. If the values are not consistent, repeat Steps 2 and 3.
Example 6.2Analysis of a PostFracture, ConstantRate Flow
Test With Boundary Effects. A constantrate drawdown test was
run in a gas well following a fracture treatment. Table 6.6 summarizes pressuredrawdown data, while other known data are summarized next. Assume that wellborestorage effects are negligible. Determine formation permeability, skin factor, and fracture
halflength. Use the adjusted pressure and time plotting functions
introduced in Chaps. 3 and 4.
qg + 3,000 Mscf/D
h+ 60 ft
rw + 0.25 ft
T+
gg +
z+
pi +p+
pa,1hr+
pa +
ct +
Bg +
mg +
f+
Sw +
110F
0.65
0.9910
5,000 psi
5,239 psi
3,974 psi
2.084 10*4 psi*1
0.7085 RB/Mscf
0.01961 cp
0.10
0.35
Solution. To facilitate postfracture welltest analysis, we have
developed worksheets similar to those discussed in Chap. 4. The
Appendix gives blank worksheets and worksheets for Example 6.2.
Qualitative TypeCurve Analysis.
1. Plot the adjusted pressure change, Dpa , and pressure derivative, tDpa , vs. t on loglog paper with the same grid size as the type
curve (Fig. 6.7). Table 6.7 summarizes plotting functions.
2. From a preliminary typecurve analysis using the curve for
Le /Lf [10, we observe the following. Formationlinear flow, which
ends at t L D+0.016, appears to exist for 0.0014xtx1.775 hours.
f
TABLE 6.6PRESSURE DRAWDOWN TEST DATA,
EXAMPLE 6.2
t
(hours)
pwf
(psi)
t
(hours)
pwf
(psi)
0.001410
0.002813
0.005613
0.011199
0.028131
0.070662
0.17750
0.44586
1.1200
1.7751
3.5421
5.6144
8.8995
11.205
17.764
22.368
35.473
4,993.1
4,990.2
4,986.2
4,980.5
4,969.1
4,951.0
4,922.4
4,877.0
4,806.2
4,758.3
4,668.5
4,594.6
4,507.3
4,458.4
4,347.7
4,284.9
4,142.8
56.275
89.236
141.91
225.78
360.02
455.26
576.26
730.43
927.60
1,180.7
1,507.4
1,932.0
2,488.9
3,227.3
4,221.8
5,588.5
3,977.9
3,792.9
3,588.9
3,369.2
3,135.3
3,016.8
2,892.6
2,766.7
2,637.6
2,502.5
2,355.7
2,188.4
1,984.4
1,720.3
1,347.9
683.8
Pseudoradial flow, which begins at t L D+3, appears to be present
f
for 141.91xtx1,932.0 hours. In addition, the pressure derivative
is stable (unchanging) in this time region. Boundary effects are exhibited for tu1,932.0 hours, indicating a finite reservoir with
Le /Lf [10. Note that the pressure derivative increases rapidly in this
region. Because the linear and pseudoradialflow regimes have
been identified tentatively, we should attempt to analyze the data in
these regimes and obtain an estimate of formation permeability and
fracture halflength.
PseudoradialFlow Analysis.
1. First, we plot the adjusted pressure, pa , vs. the log of flow time
(Fig. 6.8). The slope of the straight line through the points during the
time period 141.91xtx1,932.0 hours is m+1,284.5 psi/cycle.
2. With the slope, the formation permeability (Table 6.3) is
k+
162.6q gB gm
(162.6)(3, 000)(0.7085)(0.01961)
+
(1, 284.5)(60)
mh
+ 0.088 md.
3. From Table 6.3, the appropriate equation for skin factor, s, is
s + 1.151
+ 1.151
WELLTEST INTERPRETATION IN HYDRAULICALLY FRACTURED WELLS
p ai * p a,1hr
k
* log
) 3.23
m
fmc t, r 2w
* 5, 239
3, 9741, 284.5
121
TABLE 6.7PLOTTING FUNCTIONS FOR WELLTEST ANALYSIS, EXAMPLE 6.2
Dpa
(psi)
pwf,a
(psi)
3,966.6
3,963.6
3,959.5
3,953.6
3,941.8
3,923.2
3,893.7
3,846.7
3,773.5
3,723.8
3,630.6
3,553.8
3,462.8
3,411.8
3,296.3
3,230.7
3,082.1
* log
tDpa
(psi)
7.1113
10.102
14.226
20.104
31.859
50.522
80.050
126.96
200.23
249.88
343.10
419.95
510.88
561.87
677.42
743.02
891.57
0.088
(0.10)(0.01961)(2.084
10 *4)(0.25)
Square
Root Time
Function
(hours)
pwf,a
(psi)
Dpa
(psi)
0.03755
0.05304
0.07492
0.10583
0.16772
0.26582
0.42131
0.66773
1.0583
1.3323
1.8820
2.3695
2.9832
3.3474
4.2147
4.7295
5.9559
3,082.1
2,909.8
2,716.4
2,503.3
2,274.9
2,033.9
1,913.0
1,787.5
1,661.8
1,534.7
1,404.1
1,265.5
1,112.2
933.36
718.29
453.14
119.69
891.57
1,063.9
1,257.4
1,470.4
1,698.8
1,939.8
2,060.7
2,186.2
2,311.9
2,439.0
2,569.6
2,708.2
2,861.5
3,040.3
3,255.4
3,520.6
3,854.0
5.1497
7.2395
10.332
16.513
26.161
41.495
65.240
98.385
118.66
154.08
182.11
214.81
232.59
274.30
298.10
347.83
) 3.23
+ * 4.94,
where pa,1hr+the adjusted pressure on the extrapolated semilog
straight line at t+1 hour.
3. For an infiniteconductivity fracture, the fracture halflength is
Lf [2rw e* s+(2)(0.25) e*(*4.94)+70 ft.
LinearFlow Analysis.
1. First, we plot adjusted pressure, pa , vs. the square root of time
(Fig. 6.9).
2. The slope of the straight line through the data points during the
time period 0.0014xtx1.7751 hours is mL +193.9 psi/ hr . With
this slope and with permeability from the pseudoradial flow analysis, we estimate the fracture halflength (Table 6.4) to be
Lf +
4.064q gB g m
m h k fc t
tDpa
(psi)
Square Root
Time
Function
(hours)
347.83
396.05
439.35
476.02
504.21
520.13
525.19
527.36
533.97
542.66
564.34
607.58
678.45
782.32
923.50
1,091.8
5.9559
7.5017
9.4512
11.913
15.026
18.974
21.337
24.005
27.026
30.457
34.361
38.826
43.955
49.888
56.809
64.975
74.756
+ 77 ft,
which agrees with the estimate of 70 ft from the pseudoradialflow
analysis. Because this estimate is obtained from a straightline slope
of data in a particular flow regime, we have more confidence in its
accuracy than in an estimate from typecurve or pseudoradialflow
analysis.
Quantitative TypeCurve Analysis.
1. Because the pseudoradialflow analysis provided us with an estimate of formation permeability, we can confirm our analysis with
type curves. First, we precalculate a pressure match point (Fig. 6.10)
with an arbitrary value of pD +1.
The pressure match point is
(Dp a) MP +
+
141.2q gB gm
(p D) MP
kh
(141.2)(3, 000)(0.7085)(0.0196)
(1)
(0.088)(60)
+ 1, 115 psi.
(4.064)(3, 000)(0.7085)
0.01961
(0.10)(2.084 10 *4)
(193.9)(60) 0.088
2. Maintaining the pressure match point from Step 1, we slide the
loglog plot horizontally until a match is obtained. As Fig. 6.10
shows, a good match is obtained at an interpolated value of the parameter Le /Lf +8.5. This value is approximately equal to the value
obtained in the preliminary typecurve analysis. With the data in the
Pa, 1 hour=5,329 psia
m=1,284.5 psi/cycle
Time, hours
Fig. 6.8Pseudoradialflow analysis, Example 6.2.
122
Fig. 6.9Linearflow analysis, Example 6.2.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
10
1
0.1 CrD=0.5
0.01
t=1,000 hours, tLfD=11
0.001
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
Dimensionless Time, tLfD
Fig. 6.11CincoLey et al.7 type curve for a vertically fractured
well, finiteconductivity fracture.
Time, hours
Fig. 6.10Typecurve match with the GringartenRameyRaghavan15 model, Example 6.2.
matched position, we choose the time match point Dta +1,000 hours
and t L D+11.
f
Estimate the fracture halflength with the time match point:
Lf +
0.0002637k Dt a
tL D
fmc t
f
MP
(0.0002637)(0.088)
1, 000
(0.10)(0.01961
10 ) 11
*4
+ 72 ft,
which is consistent with the values obtained from both the linearand pseudoradialflow analyses. Inconsistency among calculated
values of hydraulic fracture halflength from the linear, pseudoradial, and typecurve analyses may require iteration until the values
are approximately equal. Because Le /Lf +8.5 and because the best
value of Lf +77 ft, Le +655 ft.
6.5.2 CincoLey et al.7 Type Curve. The CincoLey et al.7 type
curve (Fig. 6.11) can be used for postfracture analysis of data from
a constantrate flow test or a pressurebuildup test. The type curve
is a graph of solutions to flow equations modeling a vertical hydraulic fracture in an infiniteacting reservoir under the following assumptions: (1) the fracture has finite conductivity that is uniform
throughout the fracture, (2) the fracture has two equallength wings,
and (3) wellborestorage effects are ignored.
We recommend the following procedure for analyzing test data
with the CincoLey et al. type curve. Although presented in terms
of variables for slightly compressible liquids, the procedure is also
applicable for gaswell tests when the appropriate plotting functions
are used.
1. Plot the pressure change, Dp, and pressure derivative, tDp, vs.
t for a constantrate flow test or Dp and Dte Dp vs. Dte for a buildup
test on tracing paper or loglog paper with the same grid size as the
type curve.
2. Perform a preliminary or qualitative typecurve analysis to obtain an initial match and to use the type curves to identify any flow
regimes characteristic of finiteconductivity vertical fractures. Find
the type curve that best matches the test data. Because of the similar
curve shapes, a unique match is difficult to obtain, especially for lowconductivity fractures.
For infiniteconductivity fractures, pseudoradial flow begins at
t L D+3. Pseudoradial flow begins somewhat sooner for finiteconf
ductivity fractures. In either case, the pressure derivative flattens
during this flow regime. If the typecurve match indicates a flat de
rivative and several data points with t L Du3, pseudoradialflow ref
gime is present and we can analyze these data with the technique
presented in Sec. 6.4.
Bilinear flow may appear with a finiteconductivity fracture if
wellborestorage effects do not distort the pressure response. If the
pressurechange and pressurederivative curve match indicates early data points with a onequarter slope, then the bilinearflow pattern
may be present and we can perform bilinearflow analysis.
If boundary effects occur during the test, the test data will deviate
from the type curves, which were developed assuming an infiniteacting reservoir.
3. If any flow regimes characteristic of finiteconductivity vertical fractures are identified, perform a postfracture analysis with the
specialized techniques discussed previously.
If the typecurve match indicates several data points with a flat
derivative and with t L Du3, plot pwf vs. log t for a constantrate flow
f
test or pws vs. log (tp +Dt)/Dt for a buildup test. If a semilog straight
line appears, a unique estimate of formation permeability can
be made.
If the typecurve match indicates a onequarter slope for both
pressure change and pressure derivative, then plot pwf vs. t on Cartesian coordinate paper for a constantrate flow test or pws vs. Dt
e
for a buildup test. We can estimate fracture conductivity (Eq. 6.16)
from the slope of the straight line indicative of bilinear flow, but we
must have an estimate of formation permeability, either from a prefracture well test or from the pseudoradialflow analysis.
4. Next, perform a quantitative typecurve analysis. The purpose
of this analysis is either to confirm the results from the specialized
analysis techniques or to obtain estimates when these analysis techniques are not possible.
If a prefracture permeability estimate is available or with the
permeability estimate from the pseudoradial flow analysis precalculate a pressure match point. Use an arbitrary value of dimensionless
pressure, pD , to precalculate Dp.
(Dp) MP +
141.2qBm
(p D) MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.23)
kh
Compare the typecurve match with the preliminary match obtained in Step 2. If the matches are significantly different, repeat
Steps 2 and 3 until a consistent match is obtained.
If a value of permeability is not available, choose a pressure
match point ( pD , Dp) from the qualitative typecurve match and estimate formation permeability with
k+
141.2qBm p D
h
Dp
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.24)
MP
Note that, without an independent estimate of k, unambiguous
typecurve matches are difficult to obtain.
Choose a time match point (Dt, t L D) and estimate fracture halff
length,
Lf +
WELLTEST INTERPRETATION IN HYDRAULICALLY FRACTURED WELLS
0.0002637k Dt
tL D
fmc t
f
MP
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.25)
123
TABLE 6.8POSTFRACTURE BUILDUP TEST DATA,
EXAMPLE 6.3
Dt
(hours)
pws
(psi)
Dt
(hours)
pws
(psi)
0.0480
0.1440
0.3360
0.7200
1.4880
3.0240
6.0960
12.240
4,673.8
4,677.1
4,680.7
4,685.1
4,691.1
4,698.9
4,709.8
4,725.1
23.129
39.257
62.537
86.537
110.54
134.54
158.54
168.00
4,742.6
4,761.6
4,781.0
4,796.0
4,808.7
4,818.6
4,827.9
4,831.1
The value of fracture halflength computed with the time match
point should be consistent with the value obtained from the linearflow analysis. If the values do not agree, repeat Steps 2 and 3.
After k and Lf have been determined, the fracture conductivity, wf kf ,
can be found with the value of dimensionless fracture conductivity,
CrD , from the typecurve match. Fracture conductivity is given by
Adjusted Equivalent Time, hours
Fig. 6.12Qualitative typecurve match with the CincoLey et
al.7 model, Example 6.3.
tp +
tpa +
z+
gg +
T+
pi +p+
pwf +
Sw +
wf kf +CrD pkLf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.26)
The value of fracture conductivity computed with Eq. 6.26 should
be comparable with the value estimated from the bilinearflow
analysis; however, the value obtained from the bilinearflow analysis should be more accurate because method uses the pressure behavior from a Cartesian coordinate plot (rather than a less sensitive
loglog plot).
Example 6.3PostFracture PressureBuildup Test in a Gas Well
With a FiniteConductivity Vertical Fracture. A pressure buildup
test was run following a fracture treatment in a gas well. Table 6.8
summarizes pressure and time data, while other known data are summarized next. A prefracture pressurebuildup test gave a permeability
estimate of k+0.1 md. Determine the fracture halflength, Lf , and
fracture conductivity, wf kf with the CincoLey et al. type curves and
assuming a finiteconductivity vertical fracture. In addition, identify
and use any specialized analysis techniques to confirm the results.
f+
h+
rw +
ct +
Bg +
m+
qg +
0.20
100 ft
0.25 ft
1.057 10*4 psi*1
0.6992 RB/Mscf
0.0244 cp
1,000 Mscf/D
168 hours
355.5 hours
1.0136
0.68
225F
5,000 psi
4,664 psi
0.25
Solution. Qualitative TypeCurve Analysis.
1. Plot Dpa and Dtae Dpa vs. Dtae on tracing paper or loglog paper with the same grid size as the type curve (Fig. 6.12). Table 6.9
summarizes the welltest analysis plotting functions.
2. From a preliminary typecurve analysis, we observe the following: for infiniteconductivity fractures, pseudoradial flow begins at t L D[3 and the pressure derivative flattens. On the basis of
f
the match shown in Fig. 6.12, the pseudoradialflow regime probably is not present. Bilinear flow, which may evolve with a finiteconductivity fracture, has a characteristic quarter slope on both
pressure change and pressurederivative plots at early times. The
preliminary type curve match suggests the first several points may
exhibit bilinear flow. No boundary effects appear at the end of the
test, indicating an infiniteacting reservoir.
BilinearFlow Analysis.
1. First, we plot the adjusted pressure, pa , vs. the fourth root of
time function (Fig. 6.13).
TABLE 6.9PLOTTING FUNCTIONS FOR WELLTEST ANALYSIS, EXAMPLE 6.3
Dtae
(hours)
0.044595
0.13390
0.31259
0.67002
1.3847
2.8120
5.6557
11.293
21.103
35.202
54.660
73.666
91.671
108.74
124.94
131.11
124
pa
(psi)
3,098.2
3,101.4
3,105.0
3,109.4
3,115.3
3,123.1
3,133.9
3,149.1
3,166.5
3,185.4
3,204.7
3,219.6
3,232.3
3,242.2
3,251.4
3,254.6
Dpa
(psi)
9.4277
12.703
16.275
20.642
26.596
34.346
45.179
60.384
77.776
96.683
115.99
130.92
143.57
153.44
162.70
165.89
Dtae Dpa
(psi)
Fourth
Root of
Time
Function
(hours)
3.6761
5.0108
6.9953
9.5877
13.237
18.763
25.048
32.839
40.673
48.228
53.865
58.620
63.746
65.625
0.45954
0.60492
0.74773
0.90474
1.0848
1.2949
1.5421
1.8332
2.1433
2.4358
2.7191
2.9297
3.0943
3.2292
3.3433
3.3838
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
Dtae=6.5 hours, tLfD=0.01
Adjusted Equivalent Time, hours
Fig. 6.13Bilinearflow analysis, Example 6.3.
Fig. 6.14Typecurve match with CincoLey et al.7 model for a
finiteconductivity fracture, Example 6.3.
2. The first several data points appear to be linear. The slope of the
straight line through the data for 0.0446v(Dtae )v0.67 hr is
mB +27.04 psi/(hr). From Eq. 6.16, the fracture conductivity is estimated to be
44.1qBm
wf kf +
hm B
fmc1 k
2
0.1 CrD=0.5
0.01
1
(0.20)(0.0244)(1.057
10 *4)(0.1)
0.001
0.00001
0.5
141.2q gB gm
(p D) MP
kh
(141.2)(1, 000)(0.6992)(0.0244)
(1)
(0.1)(100)
+ 241 psi.
2. Find the best match by sliding the loglog plot horizontally
while maintaining the pressure match point. We match on a dimensionless fracture conductivity of CrD +10; a time match point is
Dtae +6.5 hours and t L D+0.01.
f
From the time match point, the fracture halflength is
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
Fig. 6.15Agarwal et al.5 type curve for a vertically fractured
well, finiteconductivity fracture, constant BHP production.
is fairly consistent with the bilinear analysis, thus confirming the
presence of the bilinearflow regime.
Quantitative TypeCurve Analysis.
1. Find the type curve (Fig. 6.14) that best matches the test data.
For this test, we have an estimate of formation permeability before
the fracture treatment, so the pressure match point is precalculated
with an arbitrary value of pD +1.
Lf +
0.0001
tLfD
+ 340.9 mdft.
0.5
(44.1)(1, 000)(0.6992)(0.0244)
+
(100)(27.04)
(Dp a) MP +
10
0.0002637k Dt ae
tL D
fmc t
f
(0.0002637)(0.1)
(0.20)(0.0244
10
MP
*4
6.5
) 0.01
+ 182.3 ft.
3. The fracture conductivity, wf kf , can be found with the value of
dimensionless fracture conductivity, CrD +10, from the type curve
match, wf kf +pkCrD Lf +p (0.10)(10)(182.3)+572.7 mdft, which
6.5.3 Agarwal et al.5 Type Curve. The Agarwal et al.5 type curve
(Fig. 6.15) is useful for analyzing flow tests or longterm production
data in wells produced at essentially constant BHP. The type curve
is a graph of solutions to flow equations modeling a vertical hydraulic fracture in an infiniteacting reservoir under the following assumptions: (1) the fracture has finite conductivity that is uniform
throughout the fracture and (2) the fracture has two equallength
wings. When a well produces at constant BHP, wellborestorage effects (other than wellbore unloading immediately after starting production from a previously shutin well) are not present, so wellbore
storage is not of concern in analyzing test data for this case.
We recommend the following procedure to analyze data from
constant BHP well tests with the Agarwal et al. type curve. Although presented in terms of variables for a slightly compressible
liquid, the procedure is also valid for gaswell test analysis with the
appropriate plotting functions.
1. Plot the reciprocal of rate, 1/q, vs. flowing test time, t, on tracing paper or loglog paper with the same grid size as the type curve.
2. Find the type curve that best matches the test data. The data may
fit more than one curve, particularly for lower values of CrD . An unambiguous match cannot be obtained without an independent estimate of permeability. Once the best match is obtained, record the
value of the type curve correlating parameter, CrD .
3. If a typecurve match is attempted without an independent estimate of permeability, estimate k with a rate match point (1/q,
1/qD )MP from the typecurve match,
k+
141.2qBm
hp i * p wf
1q
1q
D
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.27)
MP
4. If an independent estimate of formation permeability is available, a unique typecurve match can be found. First, precalculate a
WELLTEST INTERPRETATION IN HYDRAULICALLY FRACTURED WELLS
125
TABLE 6.10FLOWTEST DATA, EXAMPLE 6.4
qg
(Mscf/D)
t
(hours)
qg
(Mscf/D)
t
(hours)
1.5102
1.9013
2.3935
3.0133
3.7935
4.7757
6.0123
7.5690
9.5289
11.996
15.102
19.013
23.935
30.133
37.935
47.757
60.123
75.690
95.289
6,693.7
6,071.2
5,493.1
4,958.9
4,467.8
4,018.2
3,608.3
3,235.9
2,898.7
2,594.3
2,320.0
2,073.3
1,851.9
1,653.5
1,475.7
1,316.8
1,174.7
1,048.0
935.1
119.96
151.02
190.13
239.35
301.33
379.35
477.57
601.23
756.90
952.89
1,199.6
1,510.2
1,901.3
2,393.5
3,013.3
3,793.5
4,775.7
6,012.3
7,569.1
834.7
745.5
666.4
596.1
533.7
478.0
428.5
384.3
344.8
309.6
278.4
250.6
225.7
203.6
183.9
166.4
150.8
136.9
124.5
1.5102
1.9013
2.3935
3.0133
3.7935
4.7757
6.0123
7.5690
9.5289
11.996
15.102
19.013
23.935
30.133
37.935
47.757
60.123
75.690
95.289
rate match point by selecting an arbitrary value for 1/qD and calculating 1/q,
1q +
MP
141.2Bm
1q D MP .
khp i * p wf
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.28)
Align the matching values of 1/q and 1/qD and move the test data
horizontally to obtain a unique match. Record a time match point
(Dt, t L D)MP from the match.
f
5. Estimate fracture halflength, Lf , with Eq. 6.25 and a time
match point and the permeability.
Lf +
0.0002637k Dt
tL D
fmc t
f
MP
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.25)
Example 6.4 Analyzing a PostFracture Production Test Under Constant Bottomhole Flowing Conditions. A hydraulically
fractured gas well produced at a constant flowing BHP with the rate
history given in Table 6.10. Analysis of a prefracture buildup test
indicates k+0.01 md. Estimate the hydraulic fracture halflength
and fracture conductivity with the Agarwal et al. type curve.
rw +
h+
f+
T+
gg +
z+
Bg +
ct +
m+
pi +p+
pai +
pwf +
pawf +
1q +
MP
wf kf +CrD pkLf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.26)
0.25 ft
50 ft
0.10
150F
0.80
0.985
1.3639 RB/Mscf
4.5 10*4 psi*1
0.0142 cp
2,400 psi
1,476 psi
2,000 psi
1,077 psi
Solution.
1. First, we plot the reciprocal of rate, 1/qg , vs. elapsed test time,
t, on loglog paper with the same grid size as the type curve. Because
t
(hours)
1/qg ( 106)
(Mscf/D)1
149.4
164.7
182.0
201.7
223.8
248.9
277.1
309.0
345.0
385.5
431.0
482.3
540.0
604.8
677.6
759.4
851.3
954.2
1,069.4
1/qg ( 106)
(Mscf/D)1
119.96
151.02
190.13
239.35
301.33
379.35
477.57
601.23
756.90
952.89
1,199.6
1,510.2
1,901.3
2,393.5
3,013.3
3,793.5
4,775.7
6,012.3
7,569.1
1,198.1
1,341.4
1,500.7
1,677.6
1,873.9
2,091.9
2,333.8
2,602.2
2,899.8
3,229.5
3,592.1
3,990.3
4,431.6
4,912.7
5,438.5
6,010.1
6,631.4
7,303.7
8,029.5
this is a flow test, use real time rather than adjusted time. Table 6.11
summarizes the plotting functions.
2. Because we have a prefracture estimate of the formation
permeability, we can precalculate a rate match point and obtain a
unique match. For this problem, we arbitrarily select
(1/qD )MP +101.
The corresponding reciprocal rate is
6. After k and Lf have been determined, calculate the fracture conductivity, wf kf (Eq. 6.26), with the value of dimensionless fracture
conductivity, Cr , from the typecurve match.
126
TABLE 6.11PLOTTING FUNCTIONS, EXAMPLE 6.4
t
(hours)
141.2B gm
khp a,i * p a,wf
1q D
MP
(141.2)(1.364)(0.0142) *1
10
(0.01)(50)(1, 476 * 1, 077)
+ 0.00137 DMscf.
Maintaining the rate match point, we obtain a good match with
CrD +100 (Fig. 6.16). In addition, we select the following time
match point: t+100 hours and t L D+9.75 10*4.
f
3. With the time match point, the fracture halflength is
Lf +
0.0002637k Dt
tL D
fm c t
f
MP
t=100 hours, tLfD=9.75 104
Time, hours
Fig. 6.16Typecurve match, Example 6.4.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
analysis or if a prefracture value is available, we can estimate fracture halflength, Lf .
4. Next, perform a quantitative typecurve analysis. The purpose
of this analysis is either to confirm the results from the specialized
analysis techniques or to obtain estimates of formation and fracture
properties when these analysis techniques are not possible.
If a permeability estimate is available from either a prefracture
test or from pseudoradial flow analysis, precalculate a pressure
match point. Use a convenient and arbitrary value of dimensionless
pressure, pD , to precalculate Dp.
10
100
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
Fig. 6.17BarkerRamey type curve for a vertically fractured
well with wellbore storage.16
(0.0002637)(0.1)
100
+
(0.10)(0.0142)(4.5 10 ) 9.75 10
*4
141.2qBm
(p D) MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.23)
kh
Compare the typecurve match with the preliminary match obtained in Step 2. If the matches are significantly different, repeat
Steps 2 and 3 until a consistent match is obtained.
If a value of permeability is not available, choose a pressure
match point (pD , Dp) from the qualitative typecurve match and estimate formation permeability from
(Dp) MP +
Dimensionless Time, tLfD
*4
+ 651 ft.
4. The fracture conductivity, wf kf , is wf kf +pCrD kLf +p(100)
(0.01)(651)+2,045 mdft.
6.5.4 BarkerRamey Type Curve.16 The BarkerRamey type
curve (Fig. 6.17) includes wellborestorage effects on a postfracture constantrate flow test or pressurebuildup test.16 The type
curve is a graph of solutions to flow equations modeling a vertical
hydraulic fracture in an infiniteacting reservoir under the following
assumptions: (1) the fracture is infinitely conductive and (2) the
fracture has two equallength wings.
We recommend the following procedure for analyzing test data
with the BarkerRamey type curve. Although presented in terms of
variables for a slightly compressible liquid, the procedure also is valid
for gaswelltest analysis with the appropriate plotting functions.
1. Plot the pressure change, Dp, and pressure derivative, tDp vs.
t, for a constantrate flow test or Dp and Dte Dp vs. Dte or a buildup
test on tracing paper or loglog paper with the same grid size as the
type curve.
2. Perform a preliminary or qualitative typecurve analysis. The
purpose of this preliminary analysis is to obtain an initial match and
to use the type curves to identify any flow regimes characteristic of
infiniteconductivity vertical fractures.
Wellborestorage effects are indicated for data matched on type
curves for CfD u0. Earlytime data with a slope significantly steeper
than that of any type curve usually indicates wellborestorage distortion of the test data.
If the typecurve match indicates several data points with t L Du3
f
and if the pressurederivative plot flattens, the pseudoradialflow regime is present and we can perform a pseudoradialflow analysis.
If the type curve match indicates early pressure change and pressure derivative points with slopes of one half for t L Dt0.016, the
f
linearflow pattern may be present and we can perform a linearflow
analysis.
If boundary effects occur during the test, then latetime data will
deviate from the type curves that were developed assuming an infiniteacting reservoir.
3. If any flow regimes characteristic of infiniteconductivity vertical fractures are identified, perform a postfracture analysis with
the specialized techniques discussed previously.
If the typecurve match indicates several data points with t L Du3
f
and with a flat pressure derivative, then plot pwf vs. log t for a
constantrate flow test or pws vs. log (tp +Dt)/Dt for a buildup test.
If a semilog straight line appears, formation permeability can be estimated uniquely.
If the type curve indicates pressure change and pressure derivatives with halfslopes for t L Dt0.016, plot pwf vs. Dt
e on Cartesian
f
coordinate paper for a constantrate flow test or for a buildup test.
A straight line should appear with a slope inversely proportional to
kL . If we can estimate permeability from a pseudoradialflow
f
k+
141.2qBm p D
h
Dp
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.24)
MP
Choose a time match point (Dt, t L D) and estimate fracture halff
length,
Lf +
0.0002637k Dt
tL D
fmc t
f
MP
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.25)
The value of fracture halflength computed with the time match
point should be consistent with the value obtained from the linearflow analysis. If the values do not agree, repeat Steps 2 and 3.
The matching parameter is a dimensionless fracture storage coefficient (analogous to the dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient), CfD , defined by
C fD + 0.8936C
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6.29)
fhc t L 2f
With the estimated fracture halflength and the value of CfD from
the typecurve match, estimate the wellborestorage coefficient, C,
from Eq. 6.29. To verify the typecurve analysis if data are available,
estimate CfD from wellbore properties shown in Table 6.5.
Estimate a lower bound on the fracture conductivity. For an infiniteconductivity fracture, CrD y100 and wf kf yCrD pkLf y100pkLf .
Example 6.5Analyzing a PostFracture PressureBuildup
Test With WellboreStorage Distortion. A pressurebuildup test
was run following a fracture treatment in a gas well. Table 6.12 summarizes pressure and time data, while other known data are given
next. With a prefracture permeability estimate of 0.1 md, determine
the fracture halflength and conductivity. In addition, verify the
typecurve analysis with any applicable specialized analysis techniques. Because this is a gas well, use adjusted pressure and time
variables for your analyses.
rw +
h+
f+
gg +
T+
z+
ct +
Bg +
m+
qg +
tp +
tpa +
pwf +
pi +p+
Sw +
k+
WELLTEST INTERPRETATION IN HYDRAULICALLY FRACTURED WELLS
0.25 ft
100 ft
0.12
0.65
200F
0.945
1.506 10*4 psi*1
0.7855 RB/Mscf
0.0216 cp
1,400 Mscf/D
1,644 hours
865.6 hours
3,249 Mscf/D
4,000 psi
0.25
0.1 md
127
TABLE 6.12PRESSURE BUILDUP TEST DATA, EXAMPLE 6.5
t
(hours)
pws
(psi)
pa,ws
(psi)
0.0041
0.0065
0.0082
0.0131
0.0165
0.0207
0.0261
0.0328
0.0413
0.0520
0.0655
0.0824
0.1038
0.1306
0.1645
0.2070
0.2606
0.3281
0.4131
0.5200
0.6547
0.8242
1.0376
3,249.1
3,249.2
3,249.3
3,249.4
3,249.5
3,249.7
3,249.8
3,250.0
3,250.3
3,250.6
3,250.9
3,251.4
3,252.0
3,252.7
3,253.5
3,254.5
3,255.7
3,257.2
3,259.0
3,261.1
3,263.6
3,266.6
3,270.1
1,822.0
1,822.1
1,822.2
1,822.3
1,822.4
1,822.6
1,822.7
1,822.9
1,823.2
1,823.5
1,823.7
1,824.2
1,824.8
1,825.4
1,826.2
1,827.1
1,828.2
1,829.7
1,831.3
1,833.3
1,835.7
1,838.5
1,841.8
Solution. Qualitative TypeCurve Analysis.
1. Plot adjusted pressure change, Dpa , and adjusted pressure derivative, Dtae Dpa , vs. Dtae on loglog paper with the same grid size
as the type curve (Fig. 6.18). Table 6.13 summarizes the plotting
functions required for this analysis.
2. On the basis of the preliminary typecurve match with the curve
for CfD +0.1, we observe that pseudoradial flow, which begins at
t L D[3, does not appear to be present for this test. There are some
f
data for t L Dx0.016 (i.e., the linearflow time range); however, the
f
data are all distorted by wellbore storage and we cannot perform linearflow analysis. No boundary effects are present, indicating an infiniteacting reservoir. Because we cannot perform a linearflow
analysis, we attempt a quantitative typecurve analysis.
Quantitative TypeCurve Analysis.
1. Because we have a permeability estimate, we can precalculate
a pressure match point. We arbitrarily choose the dimensionless
pressure pD +3.0, and the pressure match point is
141.2q gB gm
(p D) MP
(Dp a) MP +
kh
t
(hours)
1.3063
1.6446
2.0705
2.6066
3.2815
4.1312
5.2011
6.5478
8.2436
10.379
13.067
16.451
20.714
26.080
32.834
41.350
52.071
65.576
82.591
104.03
131.06
165.13
pws
(psi)
pa,ws
(psi)
3,274.2
3,279.0
3,284.5
3,290.9
3,298.3
3,306.6
3,316.1
3,326.6
3,338.3
3,351.3
3,365.5
3,381.0
3,397.9
3,416.2
3,436.1
3,457.6
3,480.9
3,506.0
3,530.0
3,556.0
3,582.0
3,609.0
1,845.6
1,850.2
1,855.3
1,861.4
1,868.4
1,876.2
1,885.2
1,895.1
1,906.2
1,918.6
1,935.1
1,946.8
1,962.9
1,980.4
1,999.5
2,020.1
2,042.5
2,066.7
2,089.8
2,115.0
2,140.2
2,166.5
(141.2)(1, 400)(0.7855)(0.0216)
(3.0)
(0.1)(100)
+ 1, 000 psi.
With this precalculated match point, the type curve for CfD +0.06
matches the data (Fig. 6.19). In addition, we obtain the time match
point Dtae +1,000 hours and t L D+6.25.
f
2. The fracture halflength is computed with the time match point.
Lf +
0.0002637k Dt ae
tL D
fm c t
f
MP
(0.0002637)(0.10)
1, 000
+
(0.12)(0.0216)(1.506 10 ) 6.25
*4
+ 104 ft.
3. Compute the wellborestorage coefficient, C, with the type
curve correlating parameter, CfD .
103
C+
102
0.8936
C fD
2
+
101
fhc tL 2f
(0.12)(100)(1.506 10 *4)(104)
(0.06)
0.8936
+ 1.31 bblpsi.
4. For an infiniteconductivity fracture (i.e., CrD y100), the fracture conductivity is estimated to be at least wf kf ypCrD kf +p(100)
(0.1)(104)+3,270 mdft.
Fig. 6.18Qualitative typecurve analysis with the BarkerRamey type curve, Example 6.5.16
128
6.5.5 Recommended Procedure for TypeCurve Analysis of
PostFracture Well Tests. We recommend the following stepbystep procedure for analysis of postfracture buildup and constantrate flow tests. The procedure combines both typecurve and specialized analysis techniques.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
TABLE 6.13LOGLOG PLOTTING FUNCTIONS FOR WELLTEST ANALYSIS, EXAMPLE 6.5
Dtae
(hours)
Dpa
(psi)
Dtae Dpa
(psi)
Dtae
(hours)
Dpa
(psi)
Dtae Dpa
(psi)
0.0033
0.0053
0.0067
0.0106
0.0133
0.0168
0.0211
0.0266
0.0334
0.0421
0.0530
0.0667
0.0840
0.1058
0.1332
0.1677
0.2111
0.2659
0.3348
0.4216
0.5310
0.6687
0.8423
0.0942
0.1881
0.2824
0.3761
0.4702
0.6582
0.7522
0.9403
1.2224
1.5046
1.7864
2.2565
2.8208
3.4788
4.2312
5.1713
6.2996
7.7100
9.4023
11.377
13.727
16.548
19.839
0.2297
0.2299
0.4081
0.4762
0.6215
0.8166
0.9189
1.1226
1.4287
1.7349
2.1425
2.6533
3.1631
3.7746
4.5906
5.6093
6.7305
8.0543
9.5812
11.311
11.343
15.681
1.0610
1.3367
1.6841
2.1220
2.6741
3.3704
4.2485
5.3558
6.7525
8.5144
10.736
13.536
17.066
21.512
27.103
34.141
42.972
54.035
67.854
85.049
106.36
132.59
23.694
28.207
33.398
39.443
46.433
54.273
63.247
73.188
84.290
96.624
110.11
124.88
140.99
158.48
177.52
198.15
220.53
244.72
267.88
293.05
318.27
344.50
18.240
21.213
24.597
28.181
32.253
36.446
40.865
45.695
50.552
55.755
61.150
66.740
72.802
79.208
86.165
93.686
98.513
104.01
107.92
111.26
116.72
1. Plot pressure change and pressure derivative as a function of
elapsed time, either flow time for drawdown tests or shutin time for
buildup tests, on loglog coordinates.
For an oilwell flow test, plot pressure change, Dp, and pressure
derivative, tDp, vs. elapsed time since the start of the test, t. For an
oilwell buildup test, plot Dp and Dte Dp vs. Agarwals equivalent
time, Dte .
For a gaswell buildup test, plot adjusted pressure change, Dpa ,
and adjusted pressure derivative, Dtae Dpa , vs. equivalent adjusted
time, Dtae . For a gaswell flow test, plot adjusted pressure change,
Dpa , and adjusted pressure derivative, tDpa , vs. real time, t, rather
than adjusted time. Table 6.5 summarizes interpretation procdures
for typecurve plots.
2. Select the appropriate type curve for analysis. Attempt to match
the test data with the CincoLey et al.7 type curve for finiteconductivity fractures. For long fractures in lowpermeability formations,
this type curve usually is required and often will suffice.
Earlytime data with a slope significantly steeper than that of any
type curve usually indicate wellborestorage distortion of the test
data. If a significant portion of the data exhibits this pattern, then the
BarkerRamey type curve may provide better test interpretation.16
Match Point: (Interpolating to CrD+0.06)
103
Dtae+1,000 hours, tLfD+ 6.25
102
101
Fig. 6.19Qualitative typecurve analysis with the BarkerRamey type curve, Example 6.5.16
The BarkerRamey type curve is limited, however, to infiniteconductivity fractures.
If fracture conductivity is high (CrD y10 or, preferably, 100) and
latetime data exhibit a steepening slope, boundary effects may be
indicated. The GringartenRameyRaghavan15 type curve for finite
reservoirs can be used and can confirm the presence of boundary effects. Quantitative application of this type curve also is limited to infiniteconductivity fractures (CrD y100).
If fracture conductivity is very high (CrD y100), then the Bourdet
et al.17 type curve (discussed in Chap. 4) for radial flow in a homogeneous reservoir also can be used to analyze the test data. The result is a skin factor from which the fracture halflength can be estimated as Lf [2rw e* s.
The Agarwal et al.5 type curve should be used for a constant BHP
flow test or longterm productiondata analysis. Satisfactory
matches usually can be obtained with this curve as long as the reservoir is infiniteacting.
3. While the testdata plot is in a fitted position on a type curve, determine whether specific flow regimes can be analyzed. Better estimates
of formation permeability and fracture halflength can be obtained if
specific flow regimes can be identified in the test data, particularly if
a permeability estimate is available from a prefracture test.
If some data extend beyond t L D[3 and the pressure derivative
f
flattens, a straight line indicative of pseudoradial flow may appear
on a semilog plot. If the pseudoradial regime is present, permeability can be estimated more accurately from a semilog plot than from
typecurve analysis alone and can be used to obtain a better typecurve fit. A postfracture estimate of permeability, particularly if it
can be obtained from pseudoradialflow analysis, is likely to be
more accurate than a prefracture estimate because more of the
formation may be in communication with the wellbore after fracturing. If CrD y100, Lf may be estimated by Lf [2rw e* s.
If a halfslope appears on both pressurechange and pressurederivative plots at early times ( t L Dx0.016) and CrD y100, a straight
f
line should appear on a t plot. From this plot, we can estimate kLf ,
which can be used to verify or improve estimates from typecurve
analysis or, given a prefracture permeability estimate, to obtain a
good estimate of fracture halflength.
If a quarterslope appears on both pressurechange and pressurederivative plots at early times, a straight line, indicative of bilinear
flow, should appear on a t plot. From this plot, wf kf can be estimated
and used to verify or improve estimates from typecurve analysis.
WELLTEST INTERPRETATION IN HYDRAULICALLY FRACTURED WELLS
129
Wellbore
Fracture
Fig. 6.20lnfiniteconductivity vertical fracture with fluidloss
damage (after CincoLey and SamaniegoV.4).
6.5.6 Limitations of TypeCurve Analysis.
Because they encom
pass all flow regimes and intervening transition periods, type curves
provide a more general method of test analysis than do methods based
on a particular flow regime (bilinear, linear, or pseudoradial).Howev
Fig. 6.21Choked fracture (after CincoLey and Samaniego
V.4).
The pressure response in a well with a choked fracture is similar
to that for a fracture with skin damage.4 The skin factor representing
a choked fracture is given by
er, typecurve analysis does have some significant limitations.3
1.Typecurve matches frequently are not unique because the test
data often match more than one curve equally well.This problem is
particularly likely to occur with lowconductivity (i.e., CrD
<
10)
fractures. An independent estimate of formation permeability can
reduce the ambiguity problem, but to obtain the estimate requires ei
ther the achievement of pseudoradial flow during a postfracture test
(unlikely in lowpermeability formations with long fractures) or a
prefracture test in the same interval open to the well after fracturing.
2. Type curves necessarily focus on key features (such as conduc
tivity range) and may not reflect additional complications, such as
wellbore storage, boundary effects, or fracture closure (which re
sults in continuously variable fracture conductivity along the length
of a fracture or with continued test time).As a result, they generally
are oversimplified models of the tested formation and fracture.
3. Test
interpretation may be complicated by variable fracture
conductivity.In most gaswell buildup tests, nonDarcy flow in the
fracture continues for a long time after shutin, causing the apparent
fracture conductivity to increase continuously throughout much of
a test.l8 Fracture conductivity also will change if higherpermeabil
ity proppants are injected near the ends of a fracture or if the fracture
becomes narrower as it extends laterally into the formation.19 Be
cause a type curve has a fixed value of fracture conductivity as a pa
rameter, variable fracture conductivity may render typecurve anal
ysis of test data impossible.
4. Unequallength fracture wings can cause the value of If esti
mated with either the Agarwal et at.s type curve or the CincoLey
et at.?
type curve to be less than the actual fracture halflength.19The
error occurs when the ratio of the shorter wing length to that of the
longer wing is less than
0.3.
CincoLey and Samaniegov.4,20 suggested that two types of frac
ture damage can occur during the hydraulic fracturing process:
within the fracture adjacent to the wellbore and in the formation
around the fracture face.The first type of damage, often described
as a "choked" fracture, is thought to be caused by proppant crushing
and embedding in the formation.The second type of damage, quan
tified as a fractureface skin, is probably caused by fracturefluid
losses into the formation and adverse reactions between the forma
tion and fracture fluids.
The presence of skin damage around the fracture face may com
plicate postfracture typecurve analysis of the formation and the
fracture.4,20 The fractureskin factor is defined as
nws
2L
f
where Ws
( k;  )
k
, .......................... (6.30)
where Ls
. . .
nLsk
'
wf k f s
.............. .... .... .......
(6.3 1)
the length of the choked portion of the fracture, W j the
fracture width, and kjs
the permeability of the choked portion
=
(Fig. 6.21).
CincoLey and Samanieg04 developed type curves
for analyzing well tests from hydraulically fractured wells with
choked fractures.
6.7 Chapter Summary
In this chapter, we discussed interpretation methods for wells that
have been hydraulically fractured.Fracturing is often necessary in
lowpermeability formations to achieve economic flow rates.
In Sec.6.2, we discussed the five flow patterns that may occur in
hydraulically fractured wells.These five patterns include fracture
linear flow, bilinear flow, formationlinear flow, elliptical flow, and
pseudoradial flow. Fracturelinear flow is usually very shortlived
and does not play an important role in welltest analysis. Bilinear
flow occurs in finiteconductivity fractures as fluid flows from the
formation into the fracture, then down the fracture to the wellbore.
Formationlinear flow occurs only in highconductivity fractures
where linear flow occurs within the formation to the fracture. Ellip
tical flow is a transitional flow pattern that occurs between either bi
linear or formationlinear flow at early times and pseudoradial flow
at late times.The last flow pattern encountered in an infinite acting
reservoir is pseudoradial flow, which may occur with fractures of
any conductivity.We also presented equations for estimating the be
ginning and end of each of these flow periods.
In Sec. 6.3, we discussed the flow geometry and depth of inves
k"
allow us to estimate depth of investigation in any direction from the
well and the total area sampled by a well test of a given duration.Al
though these expressions assume highly conductive fractures, they
may be used to get rough estimates that apply to lowerconductivity
fractures as well.
In Sec. 6.4, we presented specialized analysis methods that are
appropriate for three different flow regimes.These methods allow
us to analyze wells that are exhibiting pseudoradial, bilinear, or
formationlinear flow.For each of the specialized analysis methods,
we presented working equations for oil.We also presented working
equations for gas in four different forms: adjusted pressure and ad
justed time, pressure and time, pressuresquared and time, and
pseudopressure and time. A consistent theme throughout this sec
tion and Sec.6.S is the need for independent permeability estimates
to analyze postfracture transient tests best. These independent
permeability estimates preferably are obtained from analysis of pre
fracture pressure transient tests.
the extent of fluidloss damage into the formation (nor
mal to the fracture face) and
tigation of a vertically fractured well.We presented equations that
6.6 Effects of Fracture and Formation Damage
sfs
Sfs.ch
the permeability of the damaged
In Sec.
6.4.1,
we discussed pseudoradialflow analysis. This
method is applicable to short, highconductivity fractures in high
CincoLey and Samaniegov.20 developed type
permeability formations, where the pseudoradialflow pattern is
curves for analyzing well tests in hydraulically fractured wells with
likely to be established during the test.W hen the pseudoradialflow
fluidloss damage.
method is applicable, it allows the engineer to estimate formation
zone
130
(Fig. 6.20).
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
permeability, k, and skin factor, s. If the fracture conductivity is
known, the fracture halflength can be estimated from the skin factor. The biggest limitation of the pseudoradial flow method is that
pseudoradial flow is seldom achieved in lowpermeability formations with long fractures. Other limitations include the fact that the
skin factor measured during the test includes an apparent skin resulting from nonDarcy flow and the need to know fracture conductivity
to estimate fracture halflength.
In Sec. 6.4.2, we discussed the bilinearflow method. This method applies to data within the bilinearflow regime from wells that
have finiteconductivity fractures. The bilinearflow regime may be
recognized on a loglog graph of pressure change vs. time change
by the appearance of a quarterslope line. The pressure derivative
also follows a quarterslope line during this flow regime. If the
formation permeability, k, is known, we can estimate the fracture
conductivity wf kf from data obtained during the bilinearflow regime. The limitations of the bilinearflow method are that we cannot
estimate fracture halflength Lf , that wellbore storage often masks
the bilinearflow regime, and that an independent estimate of formation permeability k is required.
In Sec. 6.4.3, we discussed the linearflow method. This method
applies to test data obtained during formation linear flow in wells
with highconductivity fractures. During the linearflow period, a
loglog graph of pressure change vs. time has a slope of onehalf, as
will the pressurederivative graph. If we have an independent estimate of formation permeability k, we can estimate the fracture halflength Lf by use of linearflow analysis. Limitations of the linearflow method include the assumption of a highconductivity
fracture, possible distortion of data during the linearflow period by
wellbore storage, and the necessity of an independent estimate of
formation permeability.
In Sec. 6.5, we presented four type curves that may be useful in
analyzing postfracture transient well tests. These type curves include the GringartenRameyRaghavan type curve, the CincoLey
et al. type curve, the Agarwal et al. type curve, and the BarkerRamey type curve. Analysis with the type curves is complemented
by the specialized analysis methods presented in Sec. 6.4.
The GringartenRameyRaghavan type curve, discussed in Sec.
6.5.1, is a family of solutions to the flow equation with the following
assumptions: the fracture has infinite conductivity, the well is centered in a square drainage area with noflow boundaries, the fracture
has two equallength wings, and wellborestorage effects are ignored. The correlating parameter for this family of type curves is
Le /Lf . Thus, if sufficient data are available for a complete analysis
with the GringartenRameyRaghavan type curve, we can obtain
formation permeability k from the pressure match point, fracture
halflength Lf from the time match point, and distance to the boundary Le from the correlating parameter.
In Sec. 6.5.2, we presented the CincoLey et al. type curve. This
type curve presents solutions to the flow equation with the following
assumptions: the well has a finiteconductivity fracture, the fracture
has two equallength wings, and wellbore storage effects are negligible. For this type curve, the correlating parameter is the dimensionless fracture conductivity, CrD . A complete analysis with this
type curve provides estimates of formation permeability k from the
pressure match point, fracture halflength Lf from the time match
point, and fracture conductivity wf kf from the dimensionless fracture conductivity CrD .
The Agarwal et al. type curve presented in Sec. 6.5.3 makes essentially the same assumptions as the CincoLey et al. type curve.
However, this type curve is a solution for production at constant
pressure rather than from production at constant rate. The dependent
variable is the reciprocal of the dimensionless production rate, 1/qD .
The correlating parameter is the dimensionless fracture conductivity, CrD . A complete analysis with this type curve provides estimates
of formation permeability k from the rate match point, fracture halflength Lf from the time match point, and fracture conductivity wf kf
from the dimensionless fracture conductivity CrD .
In Sec. 6.5.4, we discussed the BarkerRamey type curve. This
type curve includes the effect of wellbore or fracture storage. Other
assumptions for this type curve include infiniteconductivity fracture and equallength wings. The correlating parameter for this type
curve is the dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient based on
fracture halflength, CfD . If sufficient data are available, this type
curve can provide estimates of formation permeability k from the
pressure match point, fracture halflength Lf from the time match
point, and wellbore storage coefficient C from the dimensionless
wellbore storage coefficient CfD .
In Sec. 6.5.5, we recommended a procedure for typecurve analysis
of postfracture well tests. This procedure has three main steps: (1)
plot pressure change and pressure derivative as functions of elapsed
time on loglog coordinates, (2) select the appropriate type curve for
analysis, and (3) identify and analyze any specific flowregime data
appearing during the test. The typecurve analysis and the specificflowregime analysis must be consistent for a correct analysis.
In Sec. 6.5.6, we discussed the limitations of typecurve analysis,
which include the following: (1) it is often difficult to get a unique
match; (2) type curves focus on a single key feature and may not reflect all complications affecting the test; (3) the assumption of uniform fracture conductivity is not achieved in practice; and (4) if the
fracture has unequal length wings, the fracture halflength estimates
may be too high.
In Sec. 6.6, we briefly discussed the effects of fracture and formation damage. Two types of damage may occur. The first, damage to
the fracture face, may be caused by fracturefluid losses into the
formation and adverse reactions between fracture and formation
fluids. Because of the tremendous surface area of the fracture, the
permeability reduction near the fracture must be high for this mechanism to cause significant damage. The second type of damage is
often referred to as a choked fracture. Here, the fracture conductivity adjacent to the wellbore is decreased because of the crushing
of the proppant or to overflushing the fracture treatment. We presented equations for estimating the skin factor resulting from each of
these types of damage.
Exercises
1. Estimate the beginning and end of the linear flow period and
the time at which pseudoradial flow begins for each of the following
cases. Assume that pseudoradial flow begins at tLfD +3. Convert
times to successively larger units (days, months, years) until the result can be expressed as a number between 1 and 100. f+8%;
m+0.022 cp; CrD +1000; ct +2.5 104 psi1.
DATA FOR EXERCISE 6.1
Case No.
Lf , ft
k, md
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
75
75
75
225
225
225
675
675
675
5
0.5
0.05
1.5
0.15
0.015
0.5
0.05
0.005
2. Calculate the dimensionless fracture conductivity CrD for each
of the following cases. Determine whether each situation is a high
conductivity or low conductivity case. For the finiteconductivity
cases, estimate when bilinear flow ends. For highconductivity
cases, estimate the beginning and end of the linear flow period. Estimate the time at which pseudoradial flow begins for all cases; assume that pseudoradial flow begins at tLfD +3 regardless of conductivity. Convert times to successively larger units (days, months,
years) until the result can be expressed as a number between 1 and
100. f+12%; m+0.025 cp; wf kf +1000 mdft; ct +5 104 psi1.
WELLTEST INTERPRETATION IN HYDRAULICALLY FRACTURED WELLS
131
DATA FOR EXERCISE 6.2
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 6.5
Case No.
Lf , ft
k, md
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
65
65
65
215
215
215
650
650
650
15
1.5
0.15
1.5
0.15
0.015
1.5
0.15
0.015
3. Compare the dimensionless conductivity for two hydraulically
fractured wells, one in an oil reservoir and the other in a gas reservoir. Note that the term kh/m is the same for both reservoirs. How
high would the fracture conductivity wf kf have to be in each reservoir to give a dimensionless conductivity CrD of 100? Can you draw
any conclusions about the feasibility of creating long, high conductivity hydraulic fractures in oil wells vs. gas wells?
Oil reservoir properties: f+12%; k+1.5 md; Bo +1.31 RB/
STB; pi +2400 psi; Lf +500 ft; mo +0.5 cp; h+25 ft; wf kf +1000
mdft; ct +2.0 105 psi1.
Gas reservoir properties: f+12%; k+0.054 md; Bg +1.31 RB/
STB; pi +2400 psi; Lf +500 ft; mg +0.018 cp; h+25 ft; wf kf +1000
mdft; ct +4.0 104 psi1.
4. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability, fracture halflength, and drainage radius
from the drawdown test data for this oil well. q+200 STB/D; h+12
ft; B+1.325 RB/STB; pi +3343.40 psia; f+11.8%;
ct +14.7 106 psi1; rw +0.25 ft; m+0.49 cp.
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 6.4
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.0000
0.0010
0.0023
0.0040
0.0062
0.0090
0.0128
0.0176
0.0239
0.0320
0.0426
0.0564
0.0743
0.0976
0.1279
0.1673
3343.40
3313.75
3302.25
3291.60
3280.78
3269.31
3256.86
3243.17
3227.97
3211.07
3192.27
3171.42
3148.39
3123.04
3095.23
3064.77
0.219
0.285
0.372
0.484
0.630
0.820
1.067
1.389
1.806
2.35
3.05
3.97
5.16
6.71
8.73
11.35
3031.45
2994.99
2955.06
2911.26
2863.12
2810.17
2751.98
2688.23
2618.84
2543.91
2463.80
2378.98
2290.03
2197.55
2102.14
2004.33
14.76
19.18
24.9
32.4
42.2
54.8
71.2
92.6
120.4
156.5
203.5
264.5
343.9
447.0
581.1
600.0
1904.57
1803.26
1700.73
1597.23
1492.94
1387.98
1282.51
1176.82
1071.07
964.31
853.11
730.51
586.07
406.67
177.07
144.85
5. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability, fracture halflength, and drainage radius
from the drawdown test data for this gas well. Tf +147F; h+11 ft;
gg +0.68 (air+1.0); q+750 Mscf/D; pi +2618 psia; f+21.3%;
cw +3.6 106 psi1; rw +0.35 ft; Sw +26.8%; cf +4 106 psi1.
132
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.000
0.030
0.069
0.120
0.186
0.271
0.383
0.528
0.716
0.961
1.279
1.692
2.23
2.93
3.84
2618.00
2608.34
2603.95
2599.87
2595.71
2591.29
2586.49
2581.21
2575.37
2568.89
2561.74
2553.84
2545.17
2535.65
2525.23
5.02
6.55
8.55
11.15
14.52
18.91
24.61
32.02
41.65
54.18
70.46
91.63
119.15
154.93
201.4
2513.82
2501.31
2487.60
2472.53
2455.92
2437.59
2417.37
2395.14
2370.82
2344.43
2316.06
2285.82
2253.90
2220.46
2185.69
261.9
340.5
442.7
575.5
748.2
972.7
1265
1644
2137
2778
3612
4695
6104
6500
2149.74
2112.75
2074.82
2036.02
1996.43
1956.14
1915.26
2873.70
1830.63
1783.96
1730.15
1664.20
1579.81
1556.00
6. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
fracture conductivity and fracture halflength (if possible) from the
buildup test data. Note that the permeability is already known from
a prefracture buildup test. Tf +145F; h+44 ft; gg +0.593
(air+1.0); q+900 Mscf/D; rw +0.48 ft; f+12.7%;
cw +3.6 106 psi1; tp +2880 hr; k+0.012 md; Sw +51.1%;
cf +4 106 psi1; pwf +2180.46 psia.
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 6.6
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.000
0.040
0.088
0.146
0.215
0.298
0.397
0.517
0.660
0.832
1.038
1.286
1.583
2180.46
2196.50
2201.30
2205.43
2209.37
2213.31
2217.35
2221.56
2226.00
2230.72
2235.77
2241.19
2247.04
1.940
2.37
2.88
3.50
4.24
5.12
6.19
7.47
9.00
10.84
13.05
15.70
18.88
2253.36
2260.20
2267.63
2275.69
2284.46
2294.01
2304.40
2315.72
2328.05
2341.49
2356.14
2372.10
2389.49
22.7
27.3
32.8
39.4
47.3
56.8
68.2
81.8
98.2
117.9
141.6
169.9
196.0
2408.45
2429.09
2451.58
2476.05
2502.68
2531.65
2563.15
2597.37
2634.53
2674.84
2718.51
2765.69
2805.15
7. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
fracture conductivity and fracture halflength (if possible) from the
buildup test data. Note that the permeability is already known from
a prefracture buildup test. Tf +154F; h+147 ft; gg +0.714
(air+1.0); q+3950 Mscf/D; rw +0.23 ft; f+6.7%;
cw +3.6 106 psi1; tp +3600 hr; k+0.061 md; Sw +55.2%;
cf +4 106 psi1; pwf +970.82 psia.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 6.7
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.000
0.030
0.068
0.114
0.173
0.246
0.338
0.452
0.595
0.774
0.998
970.82
1037.74
1052.47
1063.67
1073.48
1082.64
1091.50
1100.28
1109.10
1118.07
1127.26
1.277
1.626
2.063
2.609
3.291
4.143
5.209
6.541
8.207
10.288
12.890
1136.73
1146.53
1156.71
1167.32
1178.40
1190.00
1202.19
1215.02
1228.57
1242.91
1258.15
16.143
20.209
25.291
31.644
39.585
49.511
61.919
77.428
96.815
121.049
144.000
1274.39
1291.76
1310.39
1330.44
1352.08
1375.48
1400.85
1428.37
1458.18
1490.40
1517.15
8. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
fracture conductivity and fracture halflength (if possible) from the
buildup test data. Note that the permeability is already known from
a prefracture buildup test. Tf +211F; h+157 ft; gg +0.711
(air+1.0); q+4750 Mscf/D; rw +0.42 ft; f+8.5%;
cw +3.6 106 psi1; tp +720 hr; k+0.092 md; Sw +46.6%;
cf +4 106 psi1; pwf +2669.89 psia.
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 6.8
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.0000
0.0025
0.0056
0.0095
0.0144
0.0205
0.0281
0.0377
0.0496
0.0645
0.0831
0.1064
0.1355
0.1719
0.217
2669.89
2682.23
2685.00
2687.13
2689.00
2690.76
2692.48
2694.18
2695.90
2697.67
2699.48
2701.36
2703.31
2705.35
2707.48
0.274
0.345
0.434
0.545
0.684
0.857
1.074
1.345
1.684
2.11
2.64
3.30
4.13
5.16
6.45
2709.72
2712.08
2714.57
2717.20
2719.99
2722.95
2726.11
2729.48
2733.10
2737.00
2741.21
2745.77
2750.72
2756.11
2762.00
8.07
10.09
12.61
15.77
19.71
24.6
30.8
38.5
48.1
60.2
75.2
94.0
117.5
144.0
2768.44
2775.50
2783.23
2791.71
2801.02
2811.24
2822.43
2834.68
2848.02
2862.48
2878.05
2894.67
2912.23
2928.91
9. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
fracture conductivity and fracture halflength (if possible) from the
buildup test data. Note that the permeability is already known from
a prefracture buildup test. Tf +217F; h+247 ft; gg +0.722
(air+1.0); q+6500 Mscf/D; rw +0.37 ft; f+5.3%;
cw +3.6 106 psi1; tp +7200 hr; k+0.027 md; Sw +50.1%;
cf +4 106 psi1; pwf +2602.34 psia.
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 6.9
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.0000
0.0010
0.0023
0.0038
0.0058
0.0082
0.0113
0.0151
0.0198
0.0258
0.0333
0.0426
0.0542
0.0688
0.0869
2602.34
2610.23
2612.00
2613.37
2614.59
2615.76
2616.91
2618.09
2619.31
2620.60
2621.98
2623.46
2625.07
2626.82
2628.74
0.1097
0.1381
0.1736
0.218
0.274
0.343
0.430
0.538
0.674
0.843
1.055
1.320
1.650
2.06
2.58
2630.85
2633.18
2635.76
2638.62
2641.79
2645.32
2649.24
2653.62
2658.49
2663.93
2670.00
2676.77
2684.34
2692.78
2702.22
3.23
4.04
5.04
6.31
7.88
9.86
12.32
15.40
19.26
24.1
30.1
37.6
47.0
58.8
72.0
2712.76
2724.53
2737.69
2752.40
2768.83
2787.19
2807.71
2830.64
2856.27
2884.91
2916.93
2952.70
2992.62
3037.06
3081.72
10. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
permeability, fracture conductivity, and fracture halflength (if possible) from the production data. pi +1759.3 psia; h+33 ft;
gg +0.599 (air+1.0); pwf +650 psia; Tf +120F; f+12.2%;
cw +3.6 106 psi1; rw +0.45 ft; Sw +52.0%; cf +4 106 psi1.
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 6.10
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
3.05
4.80
7.00
9.75
13.20
17.45
22.80
29.55
37.95
48.40
61.50
77.85
1990.0
1625.8
1391.9
1221.8
1088.2
978.1
884.4
802.8
730.6
666.2
608.6
557.2
98.30
123.90
153.10
183.10
213.10
243.10
273.10
303.10
333.10
363.10
393.10
423.10
511.6
471.5
438.7
413.9
394.8
379.4
366.8
356.1
346.9
338.8
331.8
325.4
453.10
483.10
513.10
543.10
573.10
603.10
633.10
663.10
693.10
714.05
319.7
314.6
309.8
305.5
301.5
297.8
294.3
291.1
288.1
286.1
11. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
permeability, fracture conductivity, and fracture halflength (if possible) from the production data. pi +2725.5 psia; h+175 ft;
gg +0.633 (air+1.0); pwf +900 psia; Tf +148F; f+5.4%;
cw +3.6 106 psi1; rw +0.43 ft; Sw +31.4%; cf +4 106 psi1.
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 6.11
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
2.90
4.50
6.40
8.65
11.40
14.70
18.65
23.40
29.10
35.90
4362.9
3504.4
2935.8
2519.7
2196.6
1935.6
1718.9
1535.1
1376.9
1239.2
44.05
53.85
65.60
79.70
96.65
117.00
141.40
170.70
205.85
248.00
1118.7
1012.8
919.8
838.1
766.2
703.0
647.2
597.6
553.3
513.4
298.60
359.35
432.25
519.70
624.65
750.55
901.65
1007.05
477.2
444.1
413.8
385.8
359.8
335.7
313.3
300.3
12. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
as many fracture and formation properties as possible from the
buildup test data. q+50 STB/D; h+11 ft; B+1.073 RB/STB;
tp +900 hr; f+23.2%; ct +9.25 106 psi1; pwf +74.2 psia;
rw +0.25 ft; m+1.47 cp.
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 6.12
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.000
0.0100
0.0225
0.0381
0.0577
0.0831
0.1126
0.1507
0.1984
0.258
0.333
0.426
0.542
74.2
75.73
77.56
79.72
82.29
85.33
88.92
93.16
98.12
103.90
110.59
118.28
127.06
0.688
0.870
1.097
1.381
1.736
2.18
2.74
3.43
4.30
5.38
6.74
8.43
10.55
137.00
148.17
160.65
174.47
189.68
206.27
224.22
243.44
263.82
285.19
307.38
330.16
353.34
13.19
16.50
20.6
25.8
32.3
40.3
50.4
63.1
78.8
98.6
120.0
376.72
400.14
423.46
446.57
469.39
491.87
513.95
535.58
556.74
577.38
595.08
13. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
as many fracture and formation properties as possible from the
buildup test data. q+1000 STB/D; h+38 ft; B+1.243 RB/STB;
WELLTEST INTERPRETATION IN HYDRAULICALLY FRACTURED WELLS
133
tp +720 hr; f+6.4%; ct +12.6
rw +0.31 ft; m+0.58 cp.
106 psi1; pwf +1497.33 psia;
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 6.13
Time
(hours)
0.000
0.025
0.056
0.095
0.144
0.205
0.282
0.377
0.496
0.645
Pressure
(psi)
1497.33
1513.86
1531.72
1551.44
1573.23
1597.10
1622.97
1650.59
1679.62
1709.59
Time
(hours)
0.831
1.064
1.355
1.719
2.17
2.74
3.45
4.34
5.45
6.84
Pressure
(psi)
1739.98
1770.25
1799.92
1828.60
1856.04
1882.14
1906.89
1930.39
1952.79
1974.24
Time
(hours)
8.57
10.74
13.45
16.84
21.1
26.4
33.0
41.3
48.0
Pressure
(psi)
1994.90
2014.90
2034.35
2053.32
2071.89
2090.09
2107.94
2125.46
2137.12
14. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
as many fracture and formation properties as possible from the
buildup test data. Note that formation permeability is known from
a prefracture buildup test. Tf +86F; h+181 ft; gg +0.572
(air+1.0); q+875 Mscf/D; rw +0.2 ft; f+11.0%; cw +3.6 106
psi1; tp +2400 hr; k+0.007 md; Sw +54.2%; cf +4 106 psi1;
pwf +753.45 psia.
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 6.14
Time
(hours)
0.000
0.0030
0.0069
0.0120
0.0186
0.0271
0.0383
0.0527
0.0716
0.0960
0.1279
0.1692
0.223
Pressure
(psi)
753.45
753.94
754.52
755.22
756.06
757.05
758.20
759.52
761.00
762.64
764.41
766.30
768.30
Time
(hours)
0.293
0.384
0.502
0.655
0.855
1.115
1.452
1.891
2.46
3.20
4.17
5.42
7.05
Pressure
(psi)
770.40
772.60
774.92
777.39
780.05
782.95
786.13
789.65
793.57
797.94
802.85
808.36
814.56
Time
(hours)
9.16
11.92
15.49
20.1
26.2
34.0
44.3
57.6
74.8
97.3
126.5
144.0
Pressure
(psi)
821.52
829.36
838.17
848.07
859.17
871.61
885.51
901.03
918.28
937.42
958.56
969.80
References
1. CincoLey, H. and SamaniegoV., F.: Transient Pressure Analysis for
Fractured Wells, JPT (September 1981) 1749.
2. Economides, M.J.: PostTreatment Evaluation and Fractured Well
Performance, Reservoir Stimulation, M.J. Economides and K.G.
Nolte (eds.), Schlumberger Educational Services, Houston (1987)
Chap. 11, 117.
3. Lee, W.J.: PostFracture Formation Evaluation, Recent Advances in
Hydraulic Fracturing, J.L. Gidley et al. (eds.), Monograph Series, SPE,
Richardson, Texas (1989) 12, 317340 and 416430.
134
4. CincoLey, H. and SamaniegoV., F.: Transient Pressure Analysis: FiniteConductivityFracture Case vs. DamagedFracture Case, paper
SPE 10179 presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 57 October.
5. Agarwal, R.G., Carter, R.D., and Pollock, C.B.: Evaluation and Performance Prediction of LowPermeability Gas Wells Stimulated by
Massive Hydraulic Fracturing, JPT (March 1979) 362; Trans., AIME,
267.
6. Prats, M., Hazebroek, P., and Strickler, W.R.: Effect of Vertical Fractures on Reservoir BehaviorCompressible Fluid Case, SPEJ (June
1962) 87; Trans., AIME, 225.
7. CincoLey, H., SamaniegoV., F., and Dominguez, N.: Transient Pressure Behavior for a Well With a FiniteConductivity Vertical Fracture,
SPEJ (August 1976) 253.
8. Coats, K.H, Tek, M.R., and Katz, D.L.: UnsteadyState Liquid Flow
Through Porous Media Having Elliptical Boundaries, Trans., AIME
(1959) 216, 460.
9. Kucuk, F. and Brigham, E.W.: Transient Flow in Elliptical Systems,
SPEJ (December 1979) 401; Trans., AIME, 267.
10. Kucuk, F.: UnsteadyState Water Influx in Elliptical and Anisotropic
Reservoir/Aquifer Systems, SPEJ (June 1981) 309.
11. Hale, B.W. and Evers, J.F.: Elliptical Flow Equations for Vertically
Fractured Gas Wells, JPT (December 1981) 2489.
12. Obut, S.T. and Ertekin, T.: A Composite System Solution in Elliptical
Flow Geometry, SPEFE (September 1987) 227.
13. Lee, W.J.: Well Testing, Textbook Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas
(1977) 1.
14. Agarwal, R.G.: A New Method To Account for ProducingTime Effects When Drawdown Type Curves Are Used To Analyze PressureBuildup and Other Test Data, paper SPE 9289 presented at the 1980
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 2124 September.
15. Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Raghavan, R.: UnsteadyState
Pressure Distributions Created by a Well With a Single InfiniteConductivity Vertical Fracture, SPEJ (August 1974) 347; Trans., AIME,
257.
16. Ramey, H.J. Jr. and Gringarten, A.C.: Effect of High Volume Vertical
Fractures on Geothermal Steam Well Behavior, Proc., Second United
Nations Symposium on the Use and Development of Geothermal Energy, San Francisco (1975).
17. Bourdet, D. et al.: A New Set of Type Curves Simplifies Well Test
Analysis, World Oil (May 1983) 95.
18. Holditch, S.A. and Morse, R.A.: The Effects of NonDarcy Flow on
the Behavior of Hydraulically Fractured Wells, JPT (October 1976)
1169.
19. Bennett, C.O. et al.: Influence of Fracture Heterogeneity and Wing
Length on the Response of Vertically Fractured Wells, SPEJ (April
1983) 219.
20. CincoLey, H. and SamaniegoV., F.: Effect of Wellbore Storage and
Damage on the Transient Pressure Behavior of Vertically Fractured
Wells, paper SPE 6752 presented at the 1977 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 912 October.
21. Lee, W.J. and Holditch, S.A.: Fracture Evaluation With Pressure Transient Testing in LowPermeability Gas Reservoirs, JPT (September
1981) 1776.
22. Holditch, S.A.: Pretreatment Formation Evaluation, Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, J.L. Gidley et al. (eds.), Monograph
Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas (1989) 12, 47.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
Chapter 7
Interpretation of WellTest Data In
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
7.1 Overview
1
I\.
This chapter focuses on the interpretation of welltest data from
wells completed in naturally fractured reservoirs. In previous chap
ters, we developed welltest analysis techniques for homogeneous
acting reservoirs; however, because of the presence of two distinct
types of porous media,the assumption of homogeneous behavior is
no longer valid in naturally fractured reservoirs. In this chapter, we
fractures, and
. ... . . ... . . ... . . ... . . ... . . ... . . ...
(7 . 1)
parameter characteristic of the system geometry.
The interporosity flow coefficient is a measure of how easily fluid
2
flows from the matrix to the fractures. The parameter a is defined by
describe two naturally fractured reservoir models, including the
special semilog and typecurve analysis techniques for well tests in
2 kill
rw k '
f
where km = permeability of the matrix, k[= permeability of the natural
physics governing fluid flow in these reservoirs. We also introduce
these reservoirs. Finally, we use several examples to illustrate the
4j(j +
2)
, ................................
(7.2)
where L = a characteristic dimension of a matrix block and j = the
number of normal sets of planes limiting the lesspermeable me
underlying theoretical concepts and practical applications of the
dium (j =
analysis techniques.
model in Fig. 7.1. On the other hand, for the multilayered or "slab"
7.2 Naturally Fractured Reservoir Models
A characteristic of naturally fractured reservoirs is the presence of
two distinct types of porous media called the matrix and fracture.
Because of the different fluidstorage and conductivity characteris
tics of the matrix and fractures, these reservoirs often are called
1,2,3). For example,j
hm (the thickness of an individual matrix block),A becomes
2 kill
A l2rw
kh2
f
(7.3)
111
1
The storativity ratio,
OJ,
is defined by
reservoir composed of a rock matrix surrounded by an irregular sys
. .. . . . .. . . . .. .
tem of vugs and natural fractures. Fortunately,it has been observed
teristic behavior that can be interpreted with an equivalent,homoge
neous dualporosity model like that shown in the idealized sketch.
Several models have been proposed to represent the pressure be
havior in a naturally fractured reservoir.These models differ con
ceptually only in the assumptions made to describe fluid flow in the
matrix. Most dualporosity models assume that production from the
naturally fractured system goes from the matrix to the fracture and
thence to the wellbore (i.e.,the matrix does not produce directly into
the wellbore). Furthermore, the models assume that the matrix has
low permeability but large storage capacity relative to the natural
fracture system, while the fractures have high permeability but low
l
storage capacity. Warren and Root introduced two dualporosity
3 in the idealized reservoir block
model that Fig. 7.2 shows, j = 1. For the "slab" model, by letting
dualporosity reservoirs. Fig. 7.1 illustrates a naturally fractured
that a real,heterogeneous naturally fractured reservoir has a charac
(7 .4)
where V = ratio of the total volume of one medium to the bulk vol
ume of the total system and rp
ratio of the pore volume (PV) of one
medium to the total volume of that medium. The subscripts f and
f+ m refer to the fracture and to the total system (fractures plus ma
trix), respectively. Consequently, the storativity ratio is a measure
of the relative fracturestorage capacity in the reservoir.
Although many models have been developed for naturally frac
tured reservoirs, we present two common modelspseudosteady
state and transient flowdescribing flow in the lesspermeable me
l5 7
dium, the matrix. Barenblatt et al.4 and subsequent authors , 8 13
assumed pseudosteadystate flow, while others, notably de
8
Swaan, assumed transient flow in the matrix. Intuition suggests
that, in a lowpermeability matrix, very long times should be re
parameters in addition to the usual singleporosity parameters that
quired to reach pseudosteadystate and that transient matrix flow
can be used to describe dualporosity reservoirs.
should dominate; however, test analysis indicates that pseudostea
Interporosity flow is the fluid exchange between the two media
(i.e., the matrix and fractures) constituting a dualporosity system.
Warren and Root defined the interporosity flow coefficient,A, as
dystate flow is quite common. A possible explanation of this seem
ing inconsistency is that matrix flow is almost always transient but
can exhibit a pseudosteadystatelike behavior if there is a signifi
INTERPRETATION OF WELLTEST DATA IN N ATURA LLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS
135
./
.n
::?
::?
!?
::?
AI
'\
\f'RACTURE
tolATRIX
ACTUAL RESERVOIR
MATRIX
A )::?
./V
VUGS
h,
f'RACTURES
"'OOEL RESERVOIR
Fig. 7.1Actual and idealized dualporosity reservoir model (af
ter Warren and Rootl).
cant impediment to flow from the lesspermeable medium to the
morepermeable one (e.g., solution deposits in fissures).
7.3 PseudosteadyState Matrix Flow Model
The pseudosteadystate flow model assumes that, at a given time,
the pressure in the matrix is decreasing at the same rate at all points,
and, thus, flow from the matrix to the fracture is proportional to the
Fig. 7.2Schematic reservoir with rectangular matrix elements
(after Serra et a/.3).
difference between matrix pressure and pressure in the adjacent
fracture. Specifically, this model, which does not allow unsteady
ISOO
state pressure gradients within the matrix, assumes pseudosteady
state flow conditions are present from the beginning of flow.
Because it assumes a pressure distribution in the matrix that
would be reached only after what could be a considerable flow peri
field tests. One possible reason is that damage to the face of the ma
trix could cause the flow from matrix to fracture to be controlled by
a sort of choke (the thin, lowpermeability damaged zone) and,
/'
1600
od, the pseudosteadystate flow model obviously is oversimplified.
Again, however, this model seems to match a surprising number of
./
ctS
'w
.II
Extrapolate to PI
hr
a.
1400
Q.
therefore, is proportional to pressure differences upstream and
downstream of the choke. The next two sections present semilog
1200
and loglog analysis techniques for well tests in naturally fractured
reservoirs exhibiting pseudosteadystate flow characteristics.
./
1000
../'
/A
10'
7.3.1 Semilog Analysis Technique. The pseudosteadystate matrix
10'
10'
1and P
/1..'
10'
10'
10'
tOO
l
flow solution developed by Warren and Root predicts that two par
allel straight lines will develop on a semilog graph of test data.
Curve A in Fig. 7.3 represents this characteristic pressure response.
The initial straight line reflects flow in the fracture system only.
At this time, the formation is behaving like a homogeneous forma
Fig. 7.3Characteristic pressure response predicted by the
Warren and Rootl pseudosteadystate model.
tion with fluid flow originating only from the fracture system with
terporosity flow coefficient, A, can be obtained from the time of inter
no contribution from the matrix. Consequently, the slope of the ini
section of a horizontal line, drawn through the middle of the transition
curve, with either the first or second semilog straight line.2
tial semilog straight line is proportional to the permeabilitythick
ness product of the naturalfracture system, just as it is for any ho
W hen semilog analysis is possible (i.e., when the correct semilog
mogeneous system. Following a discrete pressure drop in the
straight line can be identified), the following procedure is recom
fracture system, the fluid in the matrix begins to flow into the frac
mended for semilog analysis of buildup or drawdown test data from
ture and a rather flat transition region appears. Finally, the matrix
and fracture reach an equilibrium condition and a second straight
line appears. At this time, the reservoir again behaves like a homo
geneous system, but now the system consists of both the matrix and
the fractures. The slope of the second semilog straight line is propor
tional to the total permeabilitythickness product of the matrix/frac
ture system. Because the permeability of the fractures is much great
er than that of the matrix, the slope of the second line is almost
identical to that of the initial line.
The shape of a semilog plot of test data from a naturally fractured
reservoir is almost never the same as predicted by Warren and Root's
model. Wellbore storage almost always obscures the initial straight line
and often obscures part of the transition region between the straight
lines. Curve B in Fig.
7.3
gives a more common pressure response.
The reservoir permeabilitythickness product,
of the fractures, or
kh (actually
the
kh
(kh)r, because (kh)11l is usually negligible), can be
wells completed in naturally fractured reservoirs. Although pres
ented in variables for slightly compressible fluids (i.e., liquids), the
same procedure is applicable to gas well tests when the appropriate
variables are used.
1. From the slope of the initial straight line (if present) or final
straight line (more likely to be present), determine the permeability
kh. In either case, the slope, m, is related to the
kh of the system; total system kh is essentially all in the frac
thickness product,
total
tures. The permeabilitythickness product is given by
(kh)!
where k
kh
162.6qBfl
=
, ........................ (7.5)
(kh)rlh. Strictly speaking, the slope of the second straight
[(kh)r + (kh)l1l], but (kh)11l ordinarily is much less
line is related to
than
(kh)r.
obtained from the slope, m, of the two semilog straight lines. Storativ
2. If both initial and final straight lines can be identified (or the
ity, OJ, can be determined from their vertical displacement, Op. The in
position of the initial line can at least be approximated) and the pres
136
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
Fig. 7.4Type curves for pseudosteadystate matrix flow (after
Bourdet et al.16).
Fig. 7.5Derivative type curves for pseudosteadystate matrix
flow (after Bourdet16).
sure difference, dp, established, then the storativity ratio, w, is calculated from
where Dp1hr+(pi *p1hr) for a drawdown test or [p1hr*pwf (Dt+0)]
for a buildup test.
5. The second semilog straight line should be extrapolated to p*
(Fig. 7.3). From p*, p can be found with conventional methods (e.g.,
the MatthewBronsHazebroek15 p* method described in Chap. 2).
w + 10 *dpm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.6)
If the times of intersection of a horizontal line drawn through the
midpoint of the transition data with the first and second semilog
straight lines are denoted by t1 and t2, respectively, the storativity ratio also may be calculated from
t
w + t1 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.7)
For a buildup test, where the times of intersection of a horizontal line
drawn through the midpoint of the transition data with the first and second semilog straight lines are denoted by [(tp )Dt)/Dt]1 and
[(tp )Dt)/Dt]2, respectively, the storativity ratio may be calculated from
w+
t p ) Dt Dt
t p ) Dt Dt
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.8)
3. The interporosity flow coefficient, l, is calculated14 for a drawdown test by
l+
fVc t mr 2w
f
gkt 1
fVc t mr 2w
f)m
gkt 2
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.9)
or for a buildup test by
l+
fVc t mr 2w t ) Dt
fVc t mr 2w t ) Dt
f
f)m
p
p
1
2
+
,
Dt 1
Dt 2
gkt p
gkt p
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.10)
where g is the exponential of Eulers constant (g+1.781). Because
t1 and t2 often are approximated, the value of l obtained by this
method may not be very accurate but usually is of the same order of
magnitude as the correct value.
The terms (fV)m and (ct )m in Eq. 7.10 are obtained by conventional methods. A porosity log usually reads only the matrix porosity
(not the fracture porosity) and thus gives fm , while (ct )m is the sum
of co So , cg Sg , cw Sw, and cf . Vm usually can be assumed to be essentially 1.0. From the definition of w in Eq. 7.4,
fVc t + fVc t
f
m
1 *w w .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.11)
4. The second semilog straight line should be extrapolated to p1hr,
and the skin factor is
s + 1.151
Dp 1hr
k
m * log fmc t r 2 ) 3.23 , . . . . . . . (7.12)
w
7.3.2 TypeCurve Analysis Technique. Particularly because of
wellborestorage distortion, type curves are quite useful for identifying and analyzing dualporosity systems. Fig. 7.4 shows an example of the Bourdet et al.16 type curves developed for pseudosteadystate matrix flow. Initially, test data follow a curve for some value
of CD e2s where CD is the dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient. In the example in Fig. 7.4, the earliest data for Well A follow
the curve for CD e2s+1. The data then deviate from the early fit and
follow a transition curve characterized by the parameter le2s. In
Fig. 7.4, the data follow the curve for le2s+3 104. When equilibrium is reached between the matrix and fracture system, the data
then follow another CD e2s curve; in the example, the later data follow the CD e2s+0.1 curve.
At earliest times, the reservoir behaves like a homogeneous reservoir, with all fluid originating from the fracture system. During intermediate times, there is a transition region as the matrix begins to
produce into the fractures. At later times, the system again behaves
like a homogeneous system, with both matrix and fractures contributing to fluid production.
Fig. 7.5 illustrates derivative type curves for a formation with
pseudosteadystate matrix flow.16 The most notable feature, characteristic of naturally fractured reservoirs, is the dip below the homogeneous reservoir curve. The curves dipping downward are characterized by a parameter lCD /w(1*w), while the curves returning to the
homogeneous reservoir curves are characterized by the parameter
lCD /(1*w). Test data that follow this pattern on the derivative type
curve can be interpreted reasonably as identifying a dualporosity reservoir with pseudosteadystate matrix flow (a theory that needs to be
confirmed with geological information and reservoir performance).
Pressure and pressurederivative type curves can be used together for
analysis of a dualporosity reservoir. The pressurederivative data are
especially useful for identifying dualporosity behavior.
The following procedure is recommended for typecurve analysis
of buildup or drawdown test data from wells completed in naturally
fractured reservoirs following the pseudosteadystate model. The
procedure is presented in terms of variables for slightly compressible fluids; however, the procedure is also applicable for gaswell
tests when the appropriate plotting functions are used. The procedure suggests the use of equivalent time, Dte , for buildup tests.
Equivalent time as we have defined it is rigorously correct only for
radial flow in homogeneousacting formations.
1. Plot pressurechange and pressurederivative data on loglog
graph paper or on tracing paper. Plot (pi *pwf ) vs. t for a drawdown
test or [pws *pwf (Dt+0)] vs. Dte for a buildup test.
2. Perform a qualitative typecurve analysis. The purpose of this
analysis is to identify the various flow regimes characteristic of
INTERPRETATION OF WELLTEST DATA IN NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS
137
dualporosity behavior, including the early and late semilog straight
lines that reflect fracture and fracture/matrix flow, respectively.
If there is a horizontal line on the derivative plot of the test data
at the end of the test, overlay this line onto the (tD /CD ) p D +0.5 line
on the type curve. These data represent flow from the fracture/matrix system.
If there is a unitslope line at early times, fix the horizontal match
of the data by overlaying the unitslope line on the type curve. If no
unitslope line is present, fix the horizontal match by finding the best
match possible for the early data on the derivative type curve.
3. If the two straight lines are present and can be identified, perform a semilog analysis with the procedure discussed in Sec. 7.3.1.
4. Perform a quantitative typecurve analysis. The objective of
this analysis is either to confirm the results from the semilog analysis or to estimate reservoir properties when no semilog analysis is
possible.
A. If an estimate of permeability is available from the semilog
analysis, calculate a pressure match point with Eq. 7.13,
(Dp) MP +
141.2qBm
(p D) MP , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.13)
kh
where pD is an arbitrarily chosen value. Record a time match point
(Dt, tD /CD ).
B. With the type curve in matched position, determine the value
of CD e2s characterizing the fit of the earliest data on the pressure
type curve. The fit on the derivative type curve should confirm this
parameter value. The earliest data are those that appear before the
transition region. This value of CD e2s, which we call (CD e2s)f , characterizes the fracture system.
C. With the type curve remaining in the same position, determine
the value of CD e2s, which we call (CD e2s)f+m , that characterizes the
test data after the transition to total system flow has been completed.
D. Read the value of le*2s that characterizes the horizontal transition curve crossed by the test data on the pressure type curve at an
intermediate time in the transition region. There is a significant
uniqueness problem in determining the bestfitting transition curve.
For Test B in Fig. 7.4, the transition curve chosen was for
le*2s+10*7.
E. Calculate the storativity ratio, w, from the ratio of the two
CD e2s values:
TABLE 7.1RATE DATA, EXAMPLE 7.1
t
(hours)
q
(Mscf/D)
t
(hours)
q
(Mscf/D)
1,296
1,968
2,688
3,408
4,080
4,824
5,592
6,240
7,032
7,776
8,520
9,240
212.60
229.80
222.70
206.30
203.70
202.40
198.30
194.80
139.80
177.90
155.30
156.30
991
10,656
11,400
12,048
12,720
13,536
14,256
14,952
15,696
16,440
17,232
147.30
181.90
135.80
150.40
148.50
143.40
137.90
153.10
142.60
142.10
149.30
Example 7.1Analysis of a Buildup Test in a Naturally Fractured Reservoir With PseudosteadyState Matrix Flow. A pressurebuildup test was obtained from a gas well completed in a naturally fractured reservoir. Wells in this formation usually exhibit
pseudosteadystate matrix flow. The test period was preceded by
more than one rate. Tables 7.1 and 7.2 summarize the rate data and
pressurebuilduptest data, respectively. Determine permeability;
skin factor; the storativity ratio, w; and the interporosity flow coefficient, l, with semilog and typecurve analysis techniques.
rw + 0.3 ft
f+ 0.0533
mg + 0.01118 cp
h+ 286 ft
Sg + 1.0
ct+ 0.002658 psia*1
A+ 43.0 acres
Bg + 6.48012 RB/Mscf
pa wf(Dt+0)+ 36.67 psia
Solution. Calculate tp . First, we calculate the effective producing
time before buildup test with the principle of superposition,
q * q
n+last
w+
(C De 2s) f)m
(C De 2s) f
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.14)
tp +
F. If no semilog analysis is possible, calculate permeability from
the pressure match point (Dp, pD ).
141.2qBm
p D.
k+
Dph
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.15)
Record a time match point (Dt, tD /CD ).
G. Compute the wellborestorage coefficient from the time match
point (Dt, tD /CD ).
Dt
C D + 0.0002637k
fmc tr 2w
t DC D
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.16)
MP
For a gaswelltest analysis with adjusted pressure, pa , and adjusted time, ta , m and ct in Eq. 7.16 are evaluated at average drainagearea pressure, p.
H. From the value of CD determined in Step 4G and the value of
(CD e2s)f+m determined in Step 4C, compute the skin factor, s.
s + 0.5 ln
(C De 2s) f)m
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.17)
CD
I. Using the estimate of s from Step 4H and the parameter le*2s
from Step 4D, calculate l. This value should be consistent with the
estimate of l from semilog analysis. If it is not, then the typecurve
match should be refined.
138
i*1
i+1
tn *
j+i*1
j+0
qn
(212.6 * 0)(17, 232 * 0)
) (229.8 * 212.6)(17, 232 * 1, 296)
+
) . . . ) (149.3 * 142.1)(17, 232 * 16, 440)
149.3
+ 19, 836 hours.
Construct Data Plots. We then plot adjusted pressure change and
pressure derivative vs. equivalenttime function on a loglog plot
(Fig. 7.6) and adjusted pressure vs. equivalenttime function on a
semilog graph (Fig. 7.7). Table 7.3 gives semilog and loglog plotting functions.
Qualitative TypeCurve Analysis. Dualporosity behavior is evident from a match of both adjusted pressure change and pressurederivative data (Fig. 7.6) with the Bourdet et al.16 type curve for
pseudosteadystate interporosity flow. The derivative data from
longest shutin times (Dte u100 hours) can be aligned with the
(tD /CD ) p D +0.5 line, whereas earlier derivative data
(0.3tDte t100 hours) fall below this line, characteristic of a dualporosity system. Because the earliest data are trending toward a
unitslope line, we also can establish a tentative horizontal match.
Semilog Analysis. Because we have tentatively identified the second straight line indicative of the naturally fractured system behaving like a homogeneous system, we now attempt a semilog analysis.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
TABLE 7.2PRESSUREBUILDUP TEST DATA, EXAMPLE 7.1
Dt
(hours)
0
0.016998
0.034000
0.050999
0.068001
0.084999
0.10200
0.13600
0.15300
0.17000
0.18700
0.20400
0.22100
0.23800
0.25500
0.27200
0.28900
0.32300
0.34000
0.35700
0.37400
0.39100
0.40800
0.42500
0.44200
0.45900
0.47600
0.51000
0.57800
pws
(psia)
Dt
(hours)
pws
(psia)
Dt
(hours)
pws
(psia)
171.75
174.06
177.77
181.26
184.62
187.83
190.90
196.81
199.53
202.15
204.67
207.09
209.41
211.64
213.77
215.83
217.79
221.69
223.41
225.06
226.63
228.12
229.56
230.91
232.21
233.45
234.63
236.93
240.65
0.66300
0.74800
0.85000
0.96900
1.0880
1.2240
1.3770
1.5470
1.7510
1.9720
2.2270
2.4990
2.8050
3.1620
3.5530
3.995
4.488
5.049
5.678
6.375
7.157
8.041
9.027
10.047
11.305
12.699
14.280
16.031
18.003
244.32
247.11
249.52
251.46
252.76
253.81
254.62
255.28
255.89
256.41
256.90
257.33
257.74
258.19
258.61
259.04
259.49
259.97
260.47
260.99
261.53
262.09
262.69
263.26
263.94
264.66
265.43
266.26
267.14
20.213
22.695
25.466
28.594
32.113
36.040
40.460
45.424
51.022
57.330
64.385
72.353
81.234
91.194
102.340
114.960
128.990
144.780
162.460
182.300
204.570
229.550
257.630
289.110
324.470
364.250
408.770
458.680
507.420
268.09
269.11
270.19
271.36
272.61
273.92
275.32
276.80
278.35
280.01
281.73
283.56
285.45
287.44
289.48
291.67
293.92
296.29
298.76
301.30
303.84
306.38
308.88
311.40
313.87
316.53
319.25
321.93
324.22
1. On the Horner plot in Fig. 7.7, a straight line with slope
m+107*67+40 psi/cycle is fit through the later data identified
from the qualitative typecurve match. Another straight line with the
same slope is drawn through the early data.
2. From the second (latertime) semilog straight line, we calculate
the permeabilitythickness product with Eq. 7.5,
(kh) f + kh +
+
162.6q last B g m g
m
(162.6)(149.31)(6.48012)(0.01118)
40.0
+ 43.97 mdft.
The average fracture permeability is
k + kh + 43.97 + 0.154 md.
286
h
3. The vertical displacement between the two parallel lines in Fig.
7.7 is dp + 116 * 51 + 65 psi.
The storativity ratio is estimated with Eq. 7.6:
w + 10 *dpm + 10 *6540 + 0.02371.
4. Forcing a horizontal line through the approximate middle
of the transition data at (pa )ws +86 psia in Fig. 7.7, we find that
this line intersects the first and second parallel semilog straight
lines at Horner time ratios of t p ) Dt aDt a + 27, 938 and
1
t p ) Dt aDt a + 661.2, respectively. Now we
calculate the
2
term fVct for the matrix, (fVct )m +(0.0533) (0.002658)+
1.4167 10*4.
From Eq. 7.11 the same term for the fracture system is
fVc t + fVc t
f
m
1 *w w
hours
Fig. 7.6Qualitative typecurve match, Example 7.1.
Fig. 7.7Horner plot, Example 7.1.
INTERPRETATION OF WELLTEST DATA IN NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS
139
TABLE 7.3SEMILOG AND LOGLOG PLOTTING FUNCTIONS, EXAMPLE 7.1
Dte
(hours)
Horner Time
Ratio
pws
(psia)
pa,ws
(psia)
Dpa
(psi)
0.007856
0.015844
0.023987
0.032278
0.04071
0.049278
0.066799
0.075745
0.084804
0.093973
0.10325
0.11262
0.12209
0.13166
0.14131
0.15105
0.17077
0.18074
0.19079
0.20091
0.21109
0.22134
0.23164
0.24199
0.2524
0.26286
0.28393
0.32657
0.38063
0.43536
0.50169
0.5797
0.65818
0.74826
0.84995
0.96323
1.0995
1.2474
1.4184
1.601
1.8068
2.0473
2.3111
2.6097
2.9433
3.3235
2,525,013
1,251,957
826,947.9
614,536.2
487,251.3
402,532.6
296,950.6
261,878.7
233,904.1
211,081.9
192,116.2
176,132.1
162,470.3
150,660.8
140,372.2
131,320.8
116,156.2
109,748.8
103,967.7
98,730.77
93,969.4
89,617.78
85,632.88
81,970.33
78,589.54
75,462.22
69,862.29
60,740.42
52,113.6
45,562.29
39,538.36
34,217.7
30,137.65
26,509.5
23,337.84
20,593.21
18,040.93
15,901.88
13,984.77
12,389.76
10,978.53
9,688.858
8,582.926
7,600.874
6,739.374
5,968.407
174.06
177.77
181.26
184.62
187.83
190.9
196.81
199.53
202.15
204.67
207.09
209.41
211.64
213.77
215.83
217.79
221.69
223.41
225.06
226.63
228.12
229.56
230.91
232.21
233.45
234.63
236.93
240.65
244.32
247.11
249.52
251.46
252.76
253.81
254.62
255.28
255.89
256.41
256.9
257.33
257.74
258.19
258.61
259.04
259.49
259.97
37.661
39.291
40.854
42.382
43.879
45.327
48.19
49.53
50.489
52.124
53.371
54.575
55.749
56.882
57.986
59.052
61.19
62.147
63.064
63.953
64.805
65.619
66.402
67.157
67.874
68.561
69.919
72.14
74.361
76.079
77.573
78.788
79.609
80.274
80.787
81.206
81.599
81.933
82.249
82.529
82.793
83.078
83.347
83.63
83.915
84.228
0.994
2.6241
4.1872
5.7155
7.2125
8.6606
11.524
12.864
14.182
15.457
16.704
17.908
19.082
20.215
21.319
22.385
24.523
25.48
26.397
27.286
28.138
28.952
29.736
30.49
31.207
31.895
33.252
35.473
37.694
39.412
40.906
42.122
42.942
43.607
44.121
44.539
44.932
45.267
45.582
45.862
46.126
46.412
46.681
46.963
47.249
47.561
+ 1.4167
10 *4
+ 3.4406
10 *6 .
0.02371
1 * 0.02371
The interporosity flow coefficient is estimated with Eq. 7.10 and
the intersection of the first semilog line with the horizontal line
through the transition data,
fVc t m gr 2w t ) Dt
f
p
a
l+
Dt a
gkt p
Dt e
dDp a
, psi
dDt e
2.3237
3.2321
4.626
5.9853
7.2615
8.3864
10.408
11.301
12.13
12.826
13.545
14.266
14.888
15.402
15.834
16.132
16.678
16.875
17.031
17.104
17.025
16.979
16.913
16.589
16.54
16.464
15.98
14.905
13.259
11.427
9.5998
7.7489
6.2778
5.0686
4.1069
3.4501
2.9531
2.648
2.4722
2.3507
2.2986
2.2832
2.327
2.4173
2.5082
2.6358
Similarly, using the intersection of the second semilog line with
the horizontal line through the transition data,
l+
fVc t m gr 2w t ) Dt
f)m
p
a
Dt a
gkt p
2
2
+
1
(1.4167 10 *4)(0.01118)(0.3)
(661.2)
(1.781)(0.154)(19, 836)
+ 1.73
10 *8.
(3.4406 10 *6)(0.01118)(0.3)
(27, 938)
(1.781)(0.154)(19, 836)
+ 1.78
140
10 *8.
Averaging the two values, which theoretically should be equal,
we obtain
l + 1.75
10 *8.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
TABLE 7.3SEMILOG AND LOGLOG PLOTTING FUNCTIONS, EXAMPLE 7.1 (CONTINUED)
Dte
(hours)
3.7505
4.2245
4.7572
5.3606
6.0349
6.7338
7.5976
8.5569
9.6476
10.859
12.226
13.764
15.496
17.436
19.633
22.114
24.894
28.036
31.579
35.592
40.136
45.241
51.036
57.526
64.843
73.075
82.44
92.909
104.76
118.1
133.15
150.14
169.28
190.9
215.24
242.67
273.63
308.38
347.45
385.68
Horner Time
Ratio
5,288.895
4,695.467
4,169.68
3,700.332
3,286.881
2,945.736
2,610.824
2,318.129
2,056.055
1,826.688
1,622.444
1,441.151
1,280.072
1,137.646
1,010.34
896.9883
796.8185
707.5189
628.139
557.3163
494.2197
438.4518
388.6668
344.818
305.9081
271.4471
240.6114
213.4992
189.3471
167.9594
148.9748
132.1167
117.1786
103.9078
92.15759
81.74064
72.49205
64.32324
57.09023
51.43124
pws
(psia)
pa,ws
(psia)
Dpa
(psi)
260.47
260.99
261.53
262.09
262.69
263.26
263.94
264.66
265.43
266.26
267.14
268.09
269.11
270.19
271.36
272.61
273.92
275.32
276.8
278.35
280.01
281.73
283.56
285.45
287.44
289.48
291.67
293.92
296.29
298.76
301.3
303.84
306.38
308.88
311.4
313.87
316.53
319.25
321.93
324.22
84.557
84.895
85.248
85.619
86.015
86.386
86.831
87.304
87.814
88.369
88.959
89.598
90.276
91.005
91.779
92.65
93.547
94.505
95.534
96.61
97.758
98.98
100.27
101.61
103.04
104.51
106.11
107.76
109.5
111.34
113.25
115.18
117.11
119.04
121
122.93
125.03
127.19
129.35
131.19
47.89
48.228
48.582
48.953
49.348
49.719
50.164
50.637
51.148
51.702
52.293
52.932
53.61
54.338
55.132
55.984
56.88
57.839
58.867
59.944
61.091
62.314
63.604
64.948
66.375
67.844
69.439
71.091
72.838
74.676
76.582
78.511
80.448
82.374
84.332
86.266
88.361
90.524
92.683
94.528
5. Extrapolating the second semilog straight line in Fig. 7.7 to a
shutin adjusted time of 1 hour, we obtain pa1hr+27 psia. The skin
factor is
s + 1.151
+ 1.151
* log
p a1hr * p awf (Dt + 0)
k
* log
) 3.23
m
fm gc tr 2w
Dt e
dDp a
, psi
dDt e
2.7666
2.9263
3.0626
3.2268
3.4188
3.6172
3.8846
4.1605
4.5003
4.8366
5.2031
5.6083
6.0201
6.4496
6.895
7.3834
7.8526
8.3288
8.8366
9.3601
9.8884
10.434
10.985
11.598
12.199
12.836
13.525
14.186
14.816
15.299
15.667
15.963
16.093
16.353
16.691
17.018
17.314
17.638
17.72
17.966
1. We have an estimate of kh+0.154 mdft from the semilog analysis, so we precalculate a pressure match point with an arbitrary value of pD +10,
(Dp) MP +
+
27.0 * 36.67
40.0
141.2q last B g m g
kh
(p D) MP
(141.2)(149.3)(6.48012)(0.01118)
(10)
43.97
+ 343.4 psi.
0.154
) 3.23
2
(0.0533)(0.01118)(0.002658)(0.3)
+ * 3.505.
Quantitative TypeCurve Analysis. The purpose of this final analysis is to use type curves to confirm the results from the semilog
analysis. Fig. 7.8 illustrates the typecurve match.
2. The match also forces the time derivative data to overlay
(tD /CD ) p D +0.5 and (CD e 2s)f+m +10*1.4 (interpolating to a better
fit). The earlytime data are fit to the curve for (CD e 2s)f +101, while
our best estimate of the matching parameter for the transition data
is le*2s+10*1.30. Finally, we choose a time match
point; Dt e + 6.0 hours and t DC D + 1.0.
3. The storativity ratio is
w+
(C De 2s) f)m
(C De 2s) f
INTERPRETATION OF WELLTEST DATA IN NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS
*1.4
+ 10 1 + 0.00398.
10
141
10
10'
Match Point:
PD = 10.0,
.[
6Pa
to/CD = 6.0, 6te =
. 10'
1.0
<)
c
..:;;;111'
JO
//
L /'
O'
10
Equiv
'
ves
e2sCu
_
to1
/'
10"

=1
'c",,"cu
// /'10,.......
"
tol
Regime 1

"
c..
Row
 
343.4 psi;
lent TIme,
hours
10'
lOU
'
Row
Regime 3
e
03
10'
Wellbore
Storage
o
JO
Row
Regime 2
01
I
Slope=ml
I
Time, hours
10'
Fig. 7.SQuantitative typecurve match, Example 7.1.
Fig. 7.9Characteristic flow regimes in a dualporosity system
with transient matrix flow.
4. The dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient is computed
matrix into the fracture begins and continues until the matrixto
fracture transfer reaches equilibrium. This equilibrium point marks
from the time match point.
the beginning of Flow Regime 3, during which total system flow,
from matrix to fracture to well bore, is dominant. The same three
flow regimes appear when there is pseudosteadystate matrix flow.
The duration and shape of the transition flow regimes, however, is
0.0002637(0.154)
0.0533(0.01118)(0.002658)(0.3)
()
1
2 6
latetime semilog straightline periods, respectively, have the same
5. The skin factor is calculated with Eq. 7.17,
(CDe2S)f+11I
CD
= 0.51n
101.4
47.48
Flow Regime 2 has a slope of approximately onehalf that of Flow
Regimes 1 and 3. If all or any two of these regimes can be identified,
then a complete analysis is possible with semilog methods alone.
Certain nonideal conditions, however, may make this analysis diffi
which agrees with the estimate of s =  3.505 from semilog analysis.
6. The interporosity flow coefficient, A, is calculated with
Ae2s= 10  1 . 30 from the typecurve match and s =  3.542 from
Step 5,Ae  2s= 10  1.30 or
I\.
101.30
=
=
e2s
slope. 1.7 Flow Regime 2 is an intermediate transitional period be
tween the first and third flow regimes. The semilog straight line of
=  3.542,
Serra et ai. 13 observed that pressures from each of these flow re
gimes will plot as straight lines on conventional semilog graphs.
Flow Regimes 1 and 3,which correspond to the classic early and
= 47.48.
s = 0.5 In
considerably different for the two matrix flow models.
0.05
_
4.19
2) e2(354
10
5
The estimates of (() and A are in poor agreement with the values
from semilog analysis. The lack of closer agreement is related to the
fact that the earlytime test data do not overlay the 0.5 line of the de
rivative type curve. This suggests that the initial straight line identi
fied in the semilog analysis is not correct and hence the estimates of
(() and A are not correct.
cult to apply.
Flow Regime 1 often is distorted or even totally obscured by well
bore storage, which often makes this flow regime difficult to identify.
Flow Regime 2,the transition region, also may be obscured by well
bore storage. Flow Regime 3 sometimes requires a long flow period
followed by a long shutin time to be observed, especially in low
permeability formations. Furthermore, boundary effects may appear
before Flow Regime 3 is fully developed. Secs. 7.4.1 and 7.4.2 pres
ent semilog and loglog plotting analysis techniques for well tests
from dualporosity reservoirs exhibiting transient matrix flow.
7.4.1 Semilog Analysis Techniques. Serra et at. 3 presented a semilog
method for analyzing welltest data in dualporosity reservoirs exhib
iting transient matrix flow. They found that the existence of the transi
tion region, Flow Regime 2,and either Flow Regime 1 or Flow Re
7.4 Transient Matrix Flow Model
The more probable flow regime in the matrix is unsteadystate or
gime 3 is sufficient to obtain a complete analysis of drawdown or
builduptest data. Further, they assumed unsteadystate flow in the
matrix, no wellbore storage, and rectangular matrixblock geometry
transient flow (i.e., flow in which an increasing pressure drawdown
(Fig. 7.2). On the basis of our experience, the rectangular matrix
starts at the matrix/fracture interface and moves farther into the ma
block geometry is adequate, although different assumed geometries
trix with increasing time). Only at late times should pseudosteady
can lead to slightly different interpretation results.
state be achieved, although a matrix with a thin, lowpermeability
The major weakness of the Serra et ai. method is that it assumes
damaged zone at the fracture face may behave as predicted by the
no wellbore storage. In many cases, Flow Regimes 1 and 2 are par
pseudosteadystate matrix flow model even though the flow in the
tially or even totally obscured by wellbore storage, making analysis
matrix is actually unsteadystate.
by their method impossible or difficult. Despite this limitation, the
A semilog graph of test data for a formation with transient matrix
Serra et ai. method has great practical value when used in conjunc
flow has a characteristic shape different from that for pseudosteady
tion with typecurve methods. The following discussion presents
state flow in the matrix. Three distinct flow regimes have been iden
tified that are characteristic of dualporosity reservoir behavior with
transient matrix flow. Fig. 7.9 illustrates these on a semilog graph.
We label these as Flow Regimes 1,2,and 3.
Flow Regime 1 occurs at early times when all production comes
from the fractures. Flow Regime 2 occurs when production from the
142
calculation procedures for application of the Serra et ai. method.
These calculations apply to both buildup and drawdowntest data.
Although presented for welltest analysis of slightly compressible
liquids, this procedure is also applicable to gaswelltest analysis
when adjusted time and adjusted pressure variables are used, with
gas properties evaluated at average drainagearea pressure,
p.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
Semilog Analysis Based on Flow Regimes 1 and 2. This case is
rarely observed because of wellbore storage. If these flow regimes
are present, however, the following procedure can be used to analyze the test data.
1. Estimate kf hft +kh from the slope of the semilog straight line
(m or m*, where m*+m/2),
k f h f t [ kh +
162.6qBm
81.29qBm
+
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.18)
m
m*
where hft +net fracture thickness.
2. Estimate the skin factor, s, in one of two ways.
A. First, assuming a value of n2km fm cmt (which will be improved
in Step 7 as part of an iterative procedure),
Dp * log k h ) 3.729,
s + 0.5756
m * n k f c mr
*
1hr
f ft
4
w
m m mt
Fig. 7.10Estimating w and l with data from Flow Regimes 1
and 2 (after Serra et al.3).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.19)
where n+number of fractures (equal to net matrix thickness, hmt ,
divided by individual matrixblock thickness, hm , or net fracture
thickness, hft , divided by individual fracture thickness, hf ); km +matrix permeability, md; fm +matrix porosity, fraction; cmt +total matrix compressibility, psi*1; and kf +fracture permeability, md.
B. Alternatively, assuming a value of ff hft cft (which will be
checked in Step 6 as part of an iterative process),
Dp
m
s + 1.151
1hr
* log
kf hf t
f f h f t c f mr 2w
) 3.23 , . . . (7.20)
where ff +fracture porosity, fraction, and cft +fracture system total compressibility, psi*1.
3. Calculate pwD with:
p wD +
k f h f tDp
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.21)
141.2qBm
4. Plot pwD vs. Dt on tracing paper or on semilog graph paper with
the same scale as in Fig. 7.10.
5. Align the vertical axis of the data plot with the vertical axis of
Fig. 7.10. Move the data plot in the horizontal direction only to obtain a time match point. Record values of the parameters l, w, t *1,
t1D , and (tD , Dt) at the match point, where t *1 is the time (hours) at
the point of intersection of Flow Regimes 1 and 2 and t1D is the dimensionless time at this point, defined by
t 1D +
0.0002637kt *1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.22)
fmc t r 2w
9. Assume that hmt +h and estimate l and w.
w +
and l + 12
ff cf t hf t +
10 *4k f h f t Dt
tD
mr 2w
. . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.23)
MP
If the value does not agree with that in Step 2B, use this updated
value, return to Step 2B, and repeat until there is no further change
in the value of ff cft hft .
7. Estimate n2km fm cmt ,
n 2k m f mc mt +
532.3mf f c f t h f t
t *1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.24)
If the value does not agree with that in Step 2A, use this updated
value, return to Step 2A, and repeat until there is no further change
in the value of n2km fm cmt .
8. Assume a value of fm cmt and estimate km / h 2m ,
n 2k mf mc mt
km
+
.
h 2f mc mt
h 2m
km h 2
r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.27)
h 2m k f h f t w
10. Estimate w and l.
w+
1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.28)
1 ) w
and l [ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.29)
Semilog Analysis Based on Flow Regimes 2 and 3. Because of
wellborestorage effects, Flow Regimes 2 and 3 are more commonly observed in practice. The following procedure can be used to analyze test data under these conditions.
1. Estimate kf hft +kh from the slope of the semilog straight line
(m or m*, where m*+m /2) with Eq. 7.18.
2. Assume a value of fm cmt m and calculate km / h 2m .
532.3f mc mtm
km
+
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.30)
Dt *
h 2m
where Dt*+time at which Flow Regimes 2 and 3 intersect.
3. Estimate l.
l + 12
6. Estimate ff cft hft from the time match point,
2.637
f mc mth
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.26)
ff cf hf t
k
k mh mt r 2w
[ 12 m2 h r 2w , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.31)
hm kf hf t
k f h f t h 2m
where h[hmt .
4. Estimate the time, tb2 (or Dtb2 for buildup), at which Flow Regime 2 begins and calculate
f f c f t h f t + 8.33
10
*4
k f h f t f mc mthlt b2
mr 2w
. . . . . . . (7.32)
5. Estimate w, w, and l.
w +
w+
f mc mth mt
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.33)
ff cf t hf t
1
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.34)
1 ) w
and l [ l, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.35)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.25)
assuming h[hmt .
INTERPRETATION OF WELLTEST DATA IN NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS
143
line on the test data should overlay that line on the derivative type
curve. Similarly, horizontal lines should overlay the
(tD /CD ) p D +0.25 line (transition region) or the (tD /CD ) p D +0.5
line (homogeneousacting region) on the derivative type curve.
3. If the two straight lines are present and can be identified, perform a semilog analysis with the procedures discussed in the previous sections.
4. Perform a quantitative typecurve analysis. The objective of this
analysis is to confirm the results from the semilog analysis or to estimate reservoir properties when no semilog analysis is possible.
If an estimate of permeability is available from the semilog analysis, calculate a pressure match with Eq. 7.13.
141.2qBm
(p D) MP , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.13)
kh
where pD +an arbitrarily chosen value. If no estimate of permeability is available, use the match from the qualitative typecurve analysis. Obtain a time match point (Dt,tD /CD ).
If no semilog analysis is possible, match the data with type curves
and obtain pressure and time match points, (Dp,pD ) and (Dt,tD /CD ),
respectively. Compute the average system permeability with the
pressure match point.
(Dp) MP +
Fig. 7.11Type curves for transient matrix flow (after Bourdet
et al.17).
6. Estimate the skin factor, s.
s + 1.151
kf hf t
Dp 1hr
m * log f mc mthmr 2 ) 3.23 .
w
. . . (7.36)
For a flow test, Dp1hr+pi *p1hr. For a buildup test, Dp1hr
+p1hr*pwf (Dt+0).
Both of these semilog methods require some knowledge of or assumptions about matrix and fracture properties. The advantage of
semilog analysis is the unique interpretation possible when the correct semilog straight lines are identified. The disadvantages are that
(1) wellbore storage can distort data to the extent that application of
semilog analysis is impossible and (2) the test duration is sometimes
insufficient to reach Flow Regime 3 (especially in lowpermeability
formations), or boundary effects may occur before Flow Regime
3 develops.
7.4.2 TypeCurve Analysis Technique. Bourdet et al.17 presented
type curves for analyzing well tests in dualporosity reservoirs that
include the effects of wellbore storage and unsteadystate flow in
the matrix. The type curves are useful supplements to the Serra et
al. semilog analysis. Fig. 7.11 gives an example of the pressure and
pressurederivative type curves for transient matrix flow. Early
(fracturedominated) data are fit on the pressure type curve by a
CD e2s value indicative of homogeneous behavior. Data in the transition region are fit by curves characterized by a parameter b. Finally,
data in the homogeneousacting, fractureplusmatrix flow regime
are fit by another CD e2s curve.
On the derivative type curve, early data also are fit by a derivative
curve reflecting homogeneous behavior. If wellborestorage distortion ceases before the transition region begins (unlikely but possible),
the derivative data will be horizontal and should be aligned with the
(tD /CD ) p D +0.5 curve. However, if the transition region is present
(recall that its semilog slope is half that of the middletime straight
line), the derivative curve will flatten and should be aligned with the
(tD /CD ) p D +0.25 curve. After wellbore distortion has ceased and before boundary effects have appeared, the homogeneous (fractureplusmatrix) data should be horizontal on the derivative type curve
and should be aligned with the (tD /CD ) p D +0.5 curve.
We recommend the following procedure for using the Bourdet
transient or unsteadystate matrixflow type curves. For analyzing
gaswelltest data, use the appropriate adjusted pressure and time
plotting functions presented in Chaps. 3 and 4. In addition, evaluate
the gas properties at the average reservoir pressure.
1. Plot data as Dp vs. Dt on tracing paper or on loglog graph paper
with the same scale as the type curves.
2. Next, perform a qualitative typecurve analysis. The purpose
of this step is to identify various flow regimes to determine whether
semilog analysis is possible. Overlay the loglog graph on the type
curves and move the graph horizontally and vertically until a good
match is obtained on the basis of the following criteria: A unitslope
144
k+
141.2qBm p D
h
Dp
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.37)
MP
Calculate (CD )f)m from the time match point (Dt,tD /CD ),
Dt e
(C D) f)m + 0.0002637k
f mc mt mr 2w t DC D
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.38)
MP
Calculate the skin factor, s.
s + 0.5 ln
CCe
D
2s
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.39)
f)m
Calculate the interporosity coefficient, l.
l + 1.8914
(C De 2s) f)m
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.40)
b e *2s
MP
Calculate the storativity ratio, w.
w+
(C De 2s) f)m
(C De 2s) f
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.41)
If (CD e2s)f cannot be determined uniquely, then
wx
(C De 2s) f)m
(C De 2s) f
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7.42)
Although this procedure can be used to analyze tests that have
wellborestorage distortion, it does require the existence of Flow
Regime 3 for a good interpretation. For best results, the type curves
and the semilog analysis methods should be applied simultaneously
until a consistent interpretation can be found with both approaches.
Some tests may exhibit behavior that can be interpreted equally well
as single or dualporosity. In these cases, additional data from such
sources as cores, logs, or additional well tests are needed to determine which interpretation is more likely.
Example 7.2Analysis of a PressureBuildup Test in Naturally
Fractured Reservoir With Transient Matrix Flow. A pressurebuildup test was simulated for an oil well in a naturally fractured reservoir with transient matrix flow behavior. Well and reservoir data are
summarized next, and Table 7.4 gives the builduptest data. Determine permeability, skin factor, storativity ratio, and interporosity flow
coefficient with the semilog and typecurve analysis techniques.
qg + 333 STB/D
tp + 2,000 hours
So + 0.67
rw + 0.33 ft
h+ 33 ft
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
TABLE 7.4PRESSURE BUILDUP TEST DATA, EXAMPLE 7.2
t
(hours)
pwf
(psi)
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
2,697.7
2,703.0
2,708.0
2,712.6
2,717.0
2,721.2
2,725.1
2,728.8
2,732.3
2,735.6
2,760.5
2,775.8
2,785.5
2,792.0
2,796.4
2,799.6
2,802.0
2,803.8
2,805.3
2,812.0
2,814.9
2,816.8
2,818.2
2,819.2
t
(hours)
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
90.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
900.0
1,000.0
pwf
(psi)
2,820.1
2,820.9
2,821.5
2,822.1
2,825.7
2,827.8
2,829.2
2,830.3
2,831.2
2,831.9
2,832.5
2,833.1
2,833.6
2,837.0
2,839.4
2,841.3
2,847.6
2,848.5
2,854.3
2,857.6
2,859.8
2,865.4
2,866.1
f+ 0.0633
Bo + 1.3 RB/STB
ct + 2.52 10*5 psi*1
mo + 1.3 cp
Sw + 0.33
cmt + 4.0 10*6 psi*1
pi +p+ 2,876 psi
pwf (Dt+0)+ 2,692.05 psi
Solution. Construct Data Plots. Because the simulated well test
is an oilwell buildup test, we plot pressure change and pressure derivative vs. equivalent time on loglog paper (Fig. 7.12) and pressure vs. Horner time ratio (Fig. 7.13) on semilog paper. Table 7.5
gives typecurve plotting functions, while Table 7.6 gives semilog
plotting functions.
Qualitative TypeCurve Analysis. The objective of this initial
qualitative typecurve analysis is to determine whether Flow Regimes 1, 2, and 3 can be identified.
Match both pressure change and pressurederivative data (Fig.
7.12) with the Bourdet et al.17 type curves. Dualporosity behavior
is evident from the match of the test data with the type curve for transient flow in the matrix. Specifically, the trend of the derivative data
for Dt ew150 hours is horizontal and can be aligned on the
Fig. 7.12Qualitative typecurve match, Example 7.2.
TABLE 7.5PLOTTING FUNCTIONS FOR TYPE CURVE
ANALYSIS, EXAMPLE 7.2
Dte ,
(hours)
Dp,
(psi)
Dte Dp
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.0399
0.0499
0.0599
0.0699
0.0799
0.0899
0.0999
0.1998
0.2998
0.3999
0.4999
0.5998
5.65
10.95
15.95
20.55
24.95
29.15
33.05
36.75
40.25
43.55
68.45
83.75
93.45
99.95
104.35
107.55
109.95
111.75
113.25
119.95
122.85
124.75
126.15
127.15
7.65
10.60
14.67
18.49
21.51
24.29
26.68
28.32
30.05
31.64
37.07
35.07
30.27
26.21
22.57
19.38
17.76
15.56
13.84
8.08
6.85
6.29
5.97
5.80
Dte ,
(hours)
Dp,
(psi)
Dte Dp
0.6998
0.7997
0.8996
0.9995
1.9980
2.9955
3.9920
4.9875
5.9821
6.9756
7.9681
8.9597
9.9502
19.802
29.557
39.216
86.120
95.240
181.82
260.87
333.33
620.69
666.67
128.05
128.85
129.45
130.05
133.65
135.75
137.15
138.25
139.15
139.85
140.45
141.05
141.55
144.95
147.35
149.25
155.55
156.45
162.25
165.55
167.75
173.35
174.05
5.63
5.58
5.54
5.47
5.19
5.06
4.99
4.82
4.82
4.78
4.78
4.78
4.84
5.61
6.43
7.11
7.76
8.01
8.67
9.10
9.04
9.72
9.09
(tD /CD ) p D+0.5 line, while the trend of the earlier derivative data
for 4xDte x15 hours is flat and matches the (tD /CD ) p D+0.25 line.
This behavior is characteristic of a dualporosity system. With the
earliest data trending toward a unitslope line, we also can establish
a reasonable horizontal match. The typecurve match, in particular
the derivative typecurve match, suggests that Flow Regimes 2 and
3 are present.
TABLE 7.6PLOTTING FUNCTIONS FOR HORNER
SEMILOG ANALYSIS, EXAMPLE 7.2
p,
(psi)
2,697.7
2,703.0
2,708.0
2,712.6
2,717.0
2,721.2
2,725.1
2,728.8
2,732.3
2,735.6
2,760.5
2,775.8
2,785.5
2,792.0
2,796.4
2,799.6
2,802.0
2,803.8
2,805.3
2,812.0
2,814.9
2,816.8
2,818.2
2,819.2
INTERPRETATION OF WELLTEST DATA IN NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS
Horner
Time
Ratio
2,000,000
1,000,000
666,667
500,000
400,000
333,333
285,720
250,000
222,222
200,000
100,000
66,668
50,001
40,001
33,334
28,572
25,001
22,223
20,001
10,001
6667.7
5001.0
4001.0
3334.3
p,
(psi)
Horner
Time
Ratio
2,820.1
2,820.9
2,821.5
2,822.1
2,825.7
2,827.8
2,829.2
2,830.3
2,831.2
2,831.9
2,832.5
2,833.1
2,833.6
2,837.0
2,839.4
2,841.3
2,847.6
2,848.5
2,854.3
2,857.6
2,859.8
2,865.4
2,866.1
2,858.1
2,501.0
2,223.2
2,001.0
1,001.0
667.67
601.00
401.00
334.33
286.71
251.00
223.22
201.00
101.00
67.67
51.00
23.22
21.00
11.00
7.67
6.00
3.22
3.00
145
Semilog Analysis Based on Flow Regimes 2 and 3. Because we
have tentatively identified Flow Regimes 2 and 3, we now attempt
a semilog analysis.
1. A final straight line in Fig. 7.13 with slope m+20.8 psi/cycle is
a reasonable fit of the later data (i.e., Flow Regime 3). We can force
a line with slope m*+m/2+10.4 psi/cycle through the earlier data
that fall on the (tD /CD ) p D+0.25 line on the derivative type curve.
The two semilog lines intersect at a Horner time ratio of
Dt * ) t p
+ 59.8,
Dt *
or the point of intersection is
tp
2, 000
+
+ 34 hours.
59.8 * 1
58.8
Dt *+
Although the beginning of Flow Regime 2 is unclear because of
wellborestorage distortion of the test data, we assume it begins at
Dt b2 ) t p
+ 2, 200
Dt b2
or Dt b2 +
Fig. 7.13Horner plot, Example 7.2.
2. Determine kf hft [kh from the slope of the semilog straight line.
6. Estimate w, w, and l, where h[hmt .
w +
162.6q oB o m o
k f h f t [ kh +
m
f mc mth mt
(0.0633)(4 10 *6)(33)
+
+ 91.8.
9.1 10 *8
ff cf t hf t
The parameter w is
(162.6)(333)(1.3)(1.3)
+
20.8
w+
1
1
+
+ 0.0108.
1 ) 91.8
1 ) w
Then, l [ l + 5 10 *8.
7. To calculate skin factor, we need p1hr on the semilog straight
line of Flow Regime 3. At Dt+1 hour, the adjusted Horner time ratio is (tp )Dt)/Dt+(2,000)1)/1+2,001. At this value in Fig. 7.13,
we obtain p1hr+2,807.4 psia. The skin factor is
+ 4, 399.3 mdft
or, for h+33 ft,
k + 4, 399.333 + 133.3 md.
3. Calculate km / h 2m . From the available data, we have
fm +0.0633, cmt +4.0 10*6 psia*1, and mo +1.3 cp. Then
s + 1.151
532.3f mc mt m o
km
+
.
Dt *
h 2m
+ 5.066
10 *6 mdft 2.
* log
4. Estimate l.
l [ 12
+5
10 *6)(33)(0.33)
4, 399.3
5. From time Dtb2 when Flow Regime 2 begins, estimate ff cft hft .
+ 8.33
146
* 2, 692.05
2, 807.4 20.8
(0.033)(2.52
4, 399.3
) 3.23
2
10 *5)(33)(1.3)(0.33)
Quantitative TypeCurve Analysis. The purpose of this final analysis is to use type curves to confirm the results from the semilog analysis.
1. Using the loglog plot in Fig. 7.14, find the match points and
matching parameters. In this case, we have an estimate of kh from
semilog analysis, so we precalculate a pressure match point. We arbitrarily choose pD +1 and calculate
10 *8.
f f c f t h f t + 8.33
kf hf t
p 1hr * p wf(Dt + 0)
* log
) 3.23
m
fc t hm or 2w
+ 0.
km h 2
r
h 2m k f h f t w
(12)(5.066
+ 1.151
10 *6)(1.3)
532.3(0.0633)(4.0
+
34
10 *8 ftpsi.
+ 9.1
2, 000
+ 0.91 hour.
2, 200 * 1
10 *4
k f h f t f mc mthlDt b2
m or 2w
10 *4
(4399.3)(0.0633)(4
(Dp) MP +
141.2q oB om o
(p D) MP
kh
(141.2)(333)(1.3)(1.3)(1)
(4399.3)
+ 18.1 psi.
10 *6)(33)(5
(1.3)(0.33)
10 *8)(0.91)
The match also forces the latetime derivative data to overlay
(tD /CD ) p D+0.5 and the early derivative data to overlay
(tD /CD ) p D+0.25. The typecurve correlating parameters were
(CD e2s)f +104 (early data), while parameter (CD e2s)f)m +102 (latePRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
Match Point:
18.1 psi, PD = 1.0
fracture system. For a reservoir where both porosity systems have
_t= O3. 2 oh usr ,;tCD ='O;O=+
==
102,
Cl' e2 Curves
.
l
la'
Curves
10'
10"
10'
10'
10'
__,
Pressure Change
Pressure Derivat ve
i!iIii"
10'
"
the same compressibility, w is simply the fraction of the total PV at
tributable to the fracture system.
7.3, we discussed methods for analyzing tests in pseudo
In Sec.
steadystate dualporosity reservoirs. Although neglecting transient
flow in the matrix would appear to be an oversimplification of the
behavior of the system, this model does match a surprising number
of field cases.
Sec.
7.3.1 discusses semilog analysis methods for pseudosteady
state dualporosity systems. Ideally, a pseudosteadystate dualpo
rosity system exhibits two parallel, straight lines on a semilog graph.
The initial straight line represents flow in the fracture system only,
before the matrix begins to respond. As the matrix begins to provide
10'
101
Dimensionless Time
I
Function,to/CD
Iif
lOS
Fig. 7.14Quantitative typecurve match, Example 7.2.
time data).
{3'
is estimated to be
1010.
A time match point is
0.32 hour and tDICD 100.
2. Calculate (CD'>!+m from the time match point.
l1te
(C
o
J+m
0.0002637k
Cl!lorv
()
t /CD
o
0.5 In
lines can be identified, the storativity ratio, w, and the interporosity
flow coefficient, A, also can be estimated. The second straight line
is used to estimate skin factor,
In Sec.
s,
and extrapolated pressure, p*.
7.3.2, we discussed the Bourdet et al.16 type curves for
pseudosteadystate dualporosity systems. These type curves account
pressure data again represent flow in the fracture system only. These
data are identified by the parameter group (CDe2s'>!characterizing the
fracture system only. The data within the transition region are charac
terized by the parameter group Ae  2,s. Once the matrix begins to con
tribute fully to fluid flow, the system again behaves like a homoge
neous system. The data within this region are identified by the
parameter group (CDe2'?t+m, characterizing the total system.
0.51n
(13 000)
138
 0.57,
J+m
which agrees with s == 0 from the semilog analysis.
4. Calculatd with Eq. 7.40.
1.8914(Coe2S)f+m (1.8914)(1,000)
=
= 6.0 x 10 8,
A =
7)
(10 1 O ) e 2(  0 5
({3' ) Mpe 2s
which agrees with A'
5.0 x 10  8 from semilog analysis.
5. Calculate w with Eq. 7.41.
(Coe2s)J+m 102
1.0 X 102,
W (COe2S)f  104 o
If either straight line can be identified with semilog analysis, the
permeabilitythickness product can be determined. If both straight
log graph, as the well is coming out of wellbore storage, the early
3. Compute the skin factor.
s
obscures part of the transition region as well.
straight line is obscured by wellbore storage to be analyzed. On a log
MP
3,138.
(ct2S )
The final straight line represents total system flow. Wellbore storage
almost always obscures the first semilog straight line and frequently
for wellbore storage and skin and allow tests where the first semilog
(0.0002637)(133.3)
(0.32)
2
5
(0.0633)(2.52 x 10 )(1.3)(0.33) 100
=
fluid to the fracture system, a rather flat transition region appears.
which agrees very well with w =
0.0108 from semilog analysis.
Next, we presented a recommended procedure for analysis of a
pseudosteadystate dualporosity system, combining both semilog
and typecurve analysis. If a match is possible, and the parameter
groups can be estimated from the match, the test can be analyzed,
even if semilog analysis is not possible. The storativity ratio is w ob
tained from the two groups (CDe2 s,>! and (CDe2'?t+m' The permeabil
ity is calculated from the pressure match point. The time match point
is used to calculate the wellborestorage coefficient, CD. The skin
s,
factor,
is obtained from the wellborestorage coefficient and the
group (CDe2S)f+m' Finally, the interporosity flow coefficient is ob
tained from s and the group Ae  2s.
An example analysis of a buildup test in a naturally fractured res
7.3.2.
7.4 discusses methods for analyzing tests in dualporosity
ervoir with pseudosteadystate matrix flow completes Sec.
Sec.
reservoirs that exhibit transient flow in the matrix. The ideal semilog
response from a transient dualporosity system has two straight
lines, just as the response from a pseudosteadystate system. The
early straight line (Flow Regime
7.5 Chapter Summary
In this chapter, we introduced interpretation methods for naturally
1) represents flow in the fractures,
3) represents total system re
and the late straight line (Flow Regime
sponse. The major difference between the responses of the two dual
porosity models lies in the transition region, Flow Regime
2. In the
fractured reservoirs. Naturally fractured reservoirs have two dis
transient dualporosity model, the data within the transition region
most of the PV of the reservoir lies in the matrix, while most or all
and last straight lines. Wellbore storage often obscures Flow Re
tinct porosity systems: the fracture system and the matrix. Typically,
of the flow capacity is provided by the fracture system.
In Sec.
7.2, we discussed two conceptual models of a naturally
fractured or dualporosity reservoir. The pseudosteadystate model
assumes that flow from the matrix to the fracture system occurs un
der pseudosteadystate conditions; that is, that the flow rate between
the matrix and the fracture is proportional to the difference between
follow a third straight line, which has a slope onehalf that of the first
gimes
1 and 2. Flow Regime 3 may be obscured by boundary effects
or insufficient producing or shutin time.
We present semilog analysis methods appropriate for these reser
7.4.1. Semilog analysis may be based on either Flow
1 and 2 or Flow Regimes 2 and 3. Analysis with either of
voirs in Sec.
Regimes
these methods requires some knowledge of or assumptions about
the pressure in the fracture and the average pressure in the matrix.
matrix and fracture properties.
equation is needed to describe flow from the matrix to the fracture
obtained from the slope of either straight line. The skin factor,
The transient dualporosity model assumes that a transient flow
system. Both pseudosteadystate and transient dualporosity mod
els are characterized by two properties: the interporosity flow coef
ficient, A, which describes the degree of communication between
the two porosity systems, and the storativity ratio, w, which is the
fraction of the total PV compressibility product provided by the
If Flow Regimes I and
2 are present, the permeability, k, may be
s,
is
then obtained with an iterative process. Finally, storativity ratio and
2
3 are present, k may be obtained from the slope of either straight
line. A is estimated from the time at which Flow Regimes 2 and 3 in
interporosity flow coefficient, A, are estimated. If Flow Regimes
and
tersect, while w is estimated from A and the time at which Flow Re
INTERPRETATION OF WELLTEST DATA IN N ATURA LLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS
147
gime 2 begins. Finally, s is estimated from the straight line for Flow
Regime 3.
In Sec. 7.4.2, we discussed type curves for transient dualporosity
systems. These type curves account for wellbore storage and skin.
As with the pseudosteadystate dualporosity type curves, the early
and late data are identified by the parameter groups (CD e2s)f and
(CD e2s)f+m , respectively. Data within the transition region are characterized by a new parameter group, b. Assuming that wellbore
storage has ended, the derivative of the early and late data should fall
on the horizontal line corresponding to (tD /CD ) p D. The derivative
of the transition region data should fall on a line corresponding to
(tD /CD ) p D+0.25.
Interpretation of the match points and matching parameters with
the transient dualporosity type curves follows very closely that
with the pseudosteadystate dualporosity type curves, except that
l is obtained from the parameter group b.
Finally, we illustrated both semilog and typecurve analysis of
transient dualporosity reservoirs with an example problem.
Exercises
1. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability, skin factor, l, and w from the buildup test
data. q+125 STB/D; h+17 ft; B+1.054 RB/STB; tp +1200 hr;
f+13.0%; ct +7.19 106 psi1; pwf +211.20 psia; rw +0.30 ft;
m+1.72 cp.
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 7.1
Time
(hours)
0.0
0.0010
0.0023
0.0040
0.0062
0.0090
0.0128
0.0176
0.0239
0.0320
0.0426
0.0564
0.0743
0.0976
0.1279
0.1673
Pressure
(psi)
211.20
390.73
404.32
413.00
419.73
425.39
430.36
434.81
438.82
442.43
445.66
448.48
450.87
452.84
454.36
455.46
Time
(hours)
0.219
0.285
0.372
0.484
0.630
0.820
1.067
1.389
1.806
2.35
3.05
3.97
5.16
6.71
8.73
11.35
Pressure
(psi)
456.20
456.65
456.90
457.03
457.11
457.18
457.27
457.39
457.55
457.75
458.01
458.35
458.78
459.33
460.03
460.92
Time
(hours)
14.76
19.18
24.94
32.42
42.15
54.80
71.24
92.61
120.39
156.51
203.5
264.5
343.9
447.0
581.1
720.0
Pressure
(psi)
462.03
463.40
465.08
467.10
469.49
472.24
475.32
478.66
482.17
485.76
489.32
492.79
496.11
499.25
502.16
504.37
2. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability, skin factor, l, and w from the buildup test
data. Compare your results from those from Exercise 7.1. q+125
STB/D; h+17 ft; B+1.054 RB/STB; tp +1200 hr; f+13.0%;
ct +7.19 106 psi1; pwf +211.20 psia; rw +0.30 ft; m+1.72 cp.
3. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability, skin factor, l, and w from the buildup test
data. q+20 STB/D; h+12 ft; B+1.108 RB/STB; tp +1600 hr;
f+17.8%; ct +10.4 106 psi1; pwf +385.68 psia; rw +0.37 ft;
m+1.16 cp.
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 7.3
Time
(hours)
0.0
0.0050
0.0115
0.0200
0.0309
0.0452
0.0638
0.0879
0.1193
0.1601
0.213
0.282
0.372
0.488
0.640
Pressure
(psi)
385.68
392.84
402.01
413.72
428.57
447.31
470.76
499.77
535.20
577.71
627.61
684.56
747.29
813.35
879.15
Time
(hours)
0.836
1.092
1.425
1.858
2.42
3.15
4.10
5.34
6.94
9.03
11.74
15.27
19.86
25.8
33.6
Pressure
(psi)
940.37
992.84
1033.80
1062.77
1081.58
1093.23
1100.51
1105.24
1108.37
1110.43
1111.83
1112.89
1113.90
1115.04
1116.45
Time
(hours)
43.6
56.7
73.8
95.9
124.7
162.1
210.8
274.0
356.2
463.0
602.0
782.6
1017.3
1200.0
Pressure
(psi)
1118.22
1120.41
1123.10
1126.35
1130.21
1134.69
1139.72
1145.21
1150.98
1156.83
1162.55
1167.97
1172.98
1175.88
4. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability, skin factor, l, and w from the buildup test
data. Tf +140F; h+72 ft; gg +0.636 (air+1.0); q+2800 Mscf/D;
rw +0.24 ft; f+9.9%; cw +3.6 106 psi1; tp +288 hr;
Sw +34.0%; cf +4 106 psi1; pwf +1442.19 psia.
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 7.4
Time
(hours)
0.0
0.0050
0.0113
0.0191
0.0288
0.0410
0.0563
0.0754
0.0992
0.1290
0.1663
0.213
0.271
Pressure
(psi)
1442.19
1552.50
1684.60
1841.77
2027.06
2242.80
2489.58
2764.60
3058.59
3352.58
3618.93
3829.12
3968.46
Time
(hours)
0.344
0.435
0.548
0.691
0.868
1.090
1.368
1.715
2.15
2.69
3.37
4.22
5.27
Pressure
(psi)
4044.08
4077.73
4091.44
4098.95
4106.07
4114.46
4124.59
4136.80
4151.42
4168.75
4189.06
4212.49
4239.09
Time
(hours)
6.60
8.25
10.32
12.90
16.14
20.2
25.2
31.5
39.4
49.3
60.0
Pressure
(psi)
4268.68
4300.91
4335.25
4371.02
4407.55
4444.24
4480.67
4516.55
4551.68
4585.91
4615.19
5. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability, skin factor, l, and w from the buildup test
data. Tf +110F; h+236 ft; gg +0.695 (air+1.0); q+9500 Mscf/
D; rw +0.21 ft; f+9.0%; cw +3.6 106 psi1; tp +3600 hr;
Sw +56.8%; cf +4 106 psi1; pwf +1515.89 psia.
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 7.2
Time
(hours)
0.0
0.0010
0.0023
0.0040
0.0062
0.0090
0.0128
0.0176
0.0239
0.0320
0.0426
0.0564
0.0743
0.0976
0.1279
0.1673
148
Pressure
(psi)
211.20
212.07
213.19
214.64
216.50
218.90
221.98
225.91
230.92
237.26
245.22
255.11
267.26
281.94
299.31
319.31
Time
(hours)
0.219
0.285
0.372
0.484
0.630
0.820
1.067
1.389
1.806
2.35
3.05
3.97
5.16
6.71
8.73
11.35
Pressure
(psi)
341.53
365.13
388.74
410.60
428.91
442.40
450.83
455.12
456.85
457.47
457.80
458.15
458.58
459.14
459.84
460.73
Time
(hours)
14.76
19.18
24.94
32.42
42.15
54.80
71.24
92.61
120.39
156.51
203.5
264.5
343.9
447.0
581.1
720.0
Pressure
(psi)
461.85
463.23
464.92
466.95
469.35
472.11
475.21
478.57
482.11
485.71
489.29
492.77
496.09
499.23
502.15
504.36
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 7.5
Time
(hours)
0.0
0.0010
0.0023
0.0040
0.0062
0.0090
0.0128
0.0176
0.0239
0.0320
0.0426
0.0564
0.0743
0.0976
0.1279
Pressure
(psi)
1515.89
1543.26
1569.76
1596.61
1623.85
1651.21
1678.35
1704.90
1730.56
1755.10
1778.39
1800.36
1821.02
1840.36
1858.37
Time
(hours)
0.1673
0.219
0.285
0.372
0.484
0.630
0.820
1.067
1.389
1.806
2.35
3.05
3.97
5.16
6.71
Pressure
(psi)
1875.03
1890.26
1903.97
1916.05
1926.38
1934.92
1941.67
1946.81
1950.63
1953.53
1955.99
1958.45
1961.28
1964.77
1969.14
Time
(hours)
8.73
11.35
14.76
19.18
24.9
32.4
42.2
54.8
71.2
92.6
120.4
156.5
196.0
Pressure
(psi)
1974.61
1981.35
1989.53
1999.29
2010.66
2023.58
2037.85
2053.16
2069.13
2085.45
2101.85
2118.15
2131.98
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
6. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability, skin factor, l, and w from the buildup test
data. Compare your results from those from Exercise 7.1. q+125
STB/D; h+17 ft; B+1.054 RB/STB; tp +1200 hr; f+13.0%;
ct +7.19 106 psi1; pwf +211.20 psia; rw +0.30 ft; m+1.72 cp.
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 7.6
Time
(hours)
0.0
0.0010
0.0023
0.0040
0.0062
0.0090
0.0128
0.0176
0.0239
0.0320
0.0426
0.0564
0.0743
0.0976
0.1279
0.1673
Pressure
(psi)
211.20
352.90
365.64
373.73
379.99
385.27
389.93
394.18
398.13
401.83
405.35
408.70
411.92
415.02
418.01
420.91
Time
(hours)
0.219
0.285
0.372
0.484
0.630
0.820
1.067
1.389
1.806
2.35
3.05
3.97
5.16
6.71
8.73
11.35
Pressure
(psi)
423.71
426.44
429.10
431.69
434.22
436.70
439.13
441.51
443.86
446.17
448.46
450.71
452.94
455.14
457.32
459.47
Time
(hours)
14.76
19.18
24.9
32.4
42.2
54.8
71.2
92.6
120.4
156.5
203.5
264.5
343.9
447.0
581.1
720.0
Pressure
(psi)
461.60
463.71
465.83
468.03
470.39
472.98
475.85
478.99
482.35
485.83
489.35
492.79
496.11
499.24
502.16
504.37
7. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability, skin factor, l, and w from the buildup test
data. Compare your results from those from Exercises 7.1, 7.2, and
7.6. q+125 STB/D; h+17 ft; B+1.054 RB/STB; tp +1200 hr;
f+13.0%; ct +7.19 106 psi1; pwf +211.20 psia; rw +0.30 ft;
m+1.72 cp.
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 7.7
Time
(hours)
0.0
0.0010
0.0023
0.0040
0.0062
0.0090
0.0128
0.0176
0.0239
0.0320
0.0426
0.0564
0.0743
0.0976
0.1279
0.1673
Pressure
(psi)
211.20
212.07
213.19
214.63
216.48
218.86
221.91
225.78
230.70
236.88
244.58
254.08
265.62
279.38
295.42
313.55
Time
(hours)
0.219
0.285
0.372
0.484
0.630
0.820
1.067
1.389
1.806
2.35
3.05
3.97
5.16
6.71
8.73
11.35
Pressure
(psi)
333.31
353.87
374.07
392.61
408.33
420.59
429.47
435.67
440.13
443.63
446.64
449.38
451.95
454.40
456.76
459.05
Time
(hours)
14.76
19.18
24.9
32.4
42.2
54.8
71.2
92.6
120.4
156.5
203.5
264.5
343.9
447.0
581.1
720.0
Pressure
(psi)
461.28
463.47
465.65
467.88
470.25
472.85
475.73
478.90
482.28
485.79
489.32
492.77
496.09
499.23
502.15
504.36
8. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability, skin factor, l, and w from the buildup test
data. q+425 STB/D; h+12 ft; B+1.161 RB/STB; tp +2400 hr;
f+21.7%; ct +11.5 106 psi1; pwf +1372.92 psia; rw +0.39 ft;
m+0.89 cp.
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 7.8
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.0
0.0025
0.0058
0.0100
0.0155
0.0226
0.0319
0.0440
0.0596
0.0800
0.1065
0.1410
0.1858
0.244
1372.92
1389.41
1409.40
1433.40
1461.74
1494.48
1531.29
1571.26
1612.91
1654.24
1693.08
1727.64
1756.91
1780.86
0.320
0.418
0.546
0.713
0.929
1.210
1.575
2.05
2.67
3.47
4.52
5.87
7.64
9.93
1800.25
1816.22
1829.89
1842.13
1853.49
1864.30
1874.75
1884.94
1894.93
1904.75
1914.51
1924.47
1934.99
1946.50
12.91
16.79
21.83
28.38
36.89
47.96
62.35
81.06
105.38
136.99
178.09
196.00
1959.35
1973.70
1989.48
2006.42
2024.16
2042.33
2060.65
2078.93
2097.07
2115.00
2132.66
2139.03
9. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability, skin factor, l, and w from the buildup test
data. Is it realistic to run a buildup test this long? Why or why not?
Is it possible to estimate l or w from a shorter test? Tf +139F;
h+76 ft; gg +0.668 (air+1.0); q+1000 Mscf/D; rw +0.28 ft;
f+8.8%; cw +3.6 106 psi1; tp +7200 hr; Sw +25.8%;
cf +4 106 psi1; pwf +2308.07 psia.
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 7.9
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.0
0.0200
0.0470
0.0835
0.1327
0.1991
0.289
0.410
0.573
0.794
1.092
1.494
2.04
2308.07
2326.04
2347.75
2373.69
2403.99
2438.34
2475.87
2515.14
2554.38
2591.94
2626.66
2658.15
2686.68
2.77
3.76
5.09
6.90
9.33
12.62
17.06
23.0
31.1
42.0
56.8
76.7
103.5
2712.86
2737.36
2760.76
2783.46
2805.71
2827.71
2849.56
2871.33
2893.08
2914.83
2936.58
2958.33
2980.07
139.8
188.7
255
344
464
627
846
1143
1543
2083
2812
3600
3001.72
3023.20
3044.58
3066.34
3089.48
3115.14
3144.16
3176.53
3211.37
3247.20
3282.41
3309.96
10. Given the following formation and fluid properties, estimate
formation permeability, skin factor, l, and w from the buildup test
data. Tf +109F; h+190 ft; gg +0.794 (air+1.0); q+12800 Mscf/
D; rw +0.34 ft; f+13.5%; cw +3.6 106 psi1; tp +3600 hr;
Sw +55.6%; cf +4 106 psi1; pwf +1005.81 psia.
PRESSURETIME DATA FOR EXERCISE 7.10
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
Time
(hours)
Pressure
(psi)
0.0
0.0010
0.0024
0.0042
0.0066
0.0100
0.0144
0.0205
0.0287
0.0397
0.0546
0.0747
0.1018
0.1385
1005.81
1044.35
1085.41
1129.46
1175.60
1222.36
1267.97
1310.82
1349.77
1384.41
1414.95
1442.00
1466.30
1488.52
0.1880
0.255
0.345
0.467
0.631
0.853
1.152
1.557
2.10
2.84
3.83
5.18
6.99
9.44
1509.21
1528.76
1547.44
1565.47
1582.99
1600.10
1616.88
1633.39
1649.68
1665.79
1681.74
1697.56
1713.23
1728.80
12.74
17.20
23.2
31.4
42.3
57.1
77.1
104.1
140.6
189.8
256.2
345.9
360.0
1744.55
1761.13
1779.38
1800.08
1823.56
1849.58
1877.46
1906.36
1935.57
1964.62
1993.23
2021.24
2024.92
References
1. Warren, J.E. and Root, P.J.: The Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, SPEJ (September 1963) 245; Trans., AIME, 228.
INTERPRETATION OF WELLTEST DATA IN NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS
149
2. Gringarten, A.C.: Interpretation of Tests in Fissured and Multilayered
Reservoirs With DoublePorosity Behavior: Theory and Practice, JPT
(April 1984) 549; Trans., AIME, 277.
3. Serra, K.V., Reynolds, A.C., and Raghavan, R.: New Pressure Transient Analysis Methods for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, JPT (December 1983) 2271; Trans., AIME, 275.
4. Barenblatt, G.E., Zheltov, I.P., and Kochina, I.N.: Basic Concepts in
the Theory of Homogeneous Liquids in Fissured Rocks, J. Appl. Math.
Mech. (1960) 24, 852864.
5. Odeh, A.S.: UnsteadyState Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, SPEJ (March 1965) 60; Trans., AIME, 234.
6. Kazemi, H., Seth, M.S., and Thomas, G.W.: The Interpretation of Interference Tests in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs With Uniform Fracture Distribution, SPEJ (December 1969) 463; Trans., AIME, 246.
7. Mavor, M.J. and Cinco, H.: Transient Pressure Behavior of Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs, paper SPE 7977 presented at the 1979 SPE
California Regional Meeting, Ventura, California,1820 April.
8. deSwaan, A.: Analytical Solutions for Determining Naturally Fractured Reservoir Properties by Well Testing, SPEJ (June 1976) 117;
Trans., AIME, 261.
9. Najurieta, H.L.: A Theory for Pressure Transient Analysis in Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs, JPT (July 1980) 1241; Trans., AIME, 269.
150
10. Kazemi, H.: Pressure Transient Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs With Uniform Fracture Distribution, SPEJ (December 1969)
451; Trans., AIME, 246.
11. Boulton, N.S. and Streltsova, T.D.: Unsteady Flow to a Pumped Well
in a Fissured WaterBearing Formation, J. Hydrol. (1977) 35, 257.
12. Cinco, H. and Samaniego, F.: Pressure Transient Analysis for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, paper SPE 11026 presented at the 1982 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 2629
September.
13. Streltsova, T.D.: Well Pressure Behavior of a Naturally Fractured Reservoir, SPEJ (October 1983) 769; Trans., AIME, 275.
14. Bourdet, D. and Gringarten, A.C.: Determination of Fissured Volume
and Block Size in Fractured Reservoirs by TypeCurve Analysis, paper SPE 9293 presented at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, 2124 September.
15. Matthews, C.S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek, P.: A Method for Determination of Average Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir, Trans., AIME
(1954) 201, 182.
16. Bourdet, D. et al.: Interpreting Well Tests in Fractured Reservoirs,
World Oil (October 1983) 7787.
17. Bourdet, D. et al.: New Type Curves Aid Analysis of Fissured Zone
Well Tests, World Oil (April 1984) 111224.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
Chapter 8
Drillstem Testing and Analysis
8.1 Overview
the wellbore, permitting any mudfiltrateinvaded zone to bleed
Petroleum engineers have used the drillstem test (DST) as a forma
tion evaluation method for many years. Originally used to identify
reservoir fluids, the DST also has become an important method for
estimating reservoir pressure and well potential. If sufficient fluid
is produced into the drillpipe or captured in the sample chamber, the
fluid content of a reservoir from a DST of the test tool can be estab
lished. In addition, well potential can be determined from informa
tion on pressure and flow rate as functions of time. In this chapter,
we describe conventional DST analysis techniques, present guide
lines for test design and monitoring, discuss the closedchamber
DST and the impulsetesting method, and present recommended
pressure transient analysis techniques. Examples illustrate all anal
ysis techniques.
back to or below static reservoir pressure.
The initial shutin period, which should be at least 1 hour long,
allows the formation pressure to build up to true static formation
pressure and, if its duration is long enough for wellborestorage ef
fects to end, provides buildup data for initial estimates of reservoir
properties.
The final flow period (30 minutes to several hours) must provide
a reservoir fluid sample in the test chamber and must draw down the
pressure as far out into the formation as possible to generate a pres
sure transient whose radius of investigation reaches beyond any al
tered zone around the wellbore.
The final shutin period (one to two times as long as the final flow
period) provides pressure transient data to estimate reservoir prop
erties. The extrapolated shutin pressures (estimates of initial reser
voir pressure) from the initial and final shutin periods should be in
8.2 Conventional DST
agreement. If the second extrapolated pressure is significantly
The most common application of a DST is to obtain information
smaller than the first, reservoir depletion may be indicated.
about a zone during the drilling phase but before the completion
Fig. 8.1 shows a typical pressure chart recorded during a DST.
phase. Although the DST also can be used to monitor reservoir and
The chart usually is an oxidecoated metal with the pressure reading
well conditions in developed productive zones, this is a less com
1 3
mon application.  DST can be viewed as a temporary well
indicated by a scratch on the coating material made by a stylus at
completion whose purpose is to obtain some or all of the following
chart have the following meanings.
information:
(1) identification of reservoir fluid; (2) an indication of
well productivity; and (3) pressure transient data to estimate forma
tion permeability, skin factor, and static reservoir pressure.
The following is a common procedure for running a conventional
DST.
tached to the pressure gauge. The points, lines, and curves on the
1. The baseline represents the surface pressure.
2. Line 1 shows the increasing hydrostatic pressure of the mud col
umn as the tool is lowered into the hole.
3. Pi hm is the initial hydrostatic pressure of the mud column when
the tool reaches the interval to be tested. When the tester valve is
1. A DST tool that includes packers and a tester valve is attached
to the end of the drillstring and run into the mudfilled wellbore to
the zone to be tested.
opened, the pressure drops immediately from
flowing pressure during the first flow period,
Pihm to the initial
Pifl.
4. Line 2 is the pressure response during the initial flow period. As
2. The packers on test tool are set, isolating the interval of interest
fluid flows into the drillpipe, the liquid level in the pipe rises and
from the mud column in the annulus. Opening the tester valve im
causes pressure at the tool to increase from Pifl to the final flowing
poses a sudden pressure drop at the formation face, causing formation
pressure during the first flow period,
fluid to flow into the drillpipe and increasing the liquid level in the
wellbore. For wells in which the liquid level does not reach the sur
Pffl.
5. Curve 3 is the initial shutin period. When the tester valve is
closed, pressure builds up to the initial shutin pressure, Pisi.
face during a flow period, the DST typically displays a decreasing
6. When the tester valve is reopened for the final flow period, pres
flow rate throughout the flow period. When the tester valve is closed
sure drops immediately from the initial shutin pressure, Pisi, to the
for a buildup period, the wellborestorage coefficient decreases by as
initial flowing pressure during the second flow period,
much as two orders of magnitude from a relatively large value for a
Pij2.
7. Line 4 is the pressure response during the final flow period. As
rising liquid level to a relatively small value for fluid compression.
in the initial flow period, pressure increases from Pij2 to Pff2, the fi
Pressure is recorded continuously during the test.
nal flowing pressure in the second flow period, as the liquid level in
3. A DST commonly consists of two flow periods and two shutin
periods. The initial flow period is a brief
(5 minutes or less) produc
tion period whose purpose is to draw down the pressure slightly near
DRILLSTEM TESTING AND ANALYSIS
the pipe rises.
8. Curve
5 is the final shutin period. When the tester valve is re
Pfsi.
closed, pressure builds up to the final shutin pressure,
151
5. Reverse circulating (Fig. 8.2e). CIP valve closed; mud pumped
BASE LINE
down annulus to displace produced fluids up drillstring for mea
surement at surface.
AT THE SURFACE
W
0:
::J
en
en
w
0:
0..
6. Pulling out of hole (Fig. 8.2f). CIP valve closed; mud in dril
lstring bled into annulus through open valve.
8.3 Conventional DST Design
Appropriate equipment and holepreparation procedures are re
quired to obtain DST data that are sufficiently accurate for forma
tion evaluation. We adapted the following recommended guidelines
5
from Erdle.
Pill",
FIRST
CYCLe
SCOND
CYCLE
1. Length of test zone. The length of the zone to be tested should
P'IIm
be minimized. The shorter the zone, the less mud that must be dis
placed out of the test tool during the first flow period, thus increasing
the likelihood of recovering reservoir fluid. Wellborestorage effects
TIME
during shutin periods are shorter lived for a shorter test zone.
2. Cushions. A cushion is a volume of liquid placed in the tool to
Fig. 8.1Typical DST pressure chart (after Earlougher2).
help control highpressure formations and to minimize slugging
during the test. The use of cushions, either liquid or gas, in the string
9. When the packers are pulled loose after the end of the test, pres
during a DST should be minimized. The presence of cushions in the
10. Line 6 shows the decreasing hydrostatic pressure of the mud
hydrostatic pressure of the cushions and can interfere with the de
sure returns to the final hydrostatic pressure of the mud column, Pfhm.
pipe can inhibit the recovery of reservoir fluids because of the added
scription of recovered fluid samples. Cushions should be run during
column as the tool is pulled out of the hole.
DST tools usually include two or more clockdriven, bourdon
a DST only for the following reasons: to prevent pipe collapse dur
tube recording pressure gauges, one or two packers, and a set of
ing deep tests or when mud weights are high, to control differential
flow valves. Fig. 8.2 illustrates the sequence of events in a conven
pressure across the packers at the start of the initial flow period (for
tional DST for a typical Halliburton tool assembly, which occurs
normal bottomhole temperatures, the pressure differential should
not exceed 5,000 psi for openhole tests or 7,500 psi for casedhole
as follows.
1. Running into hole (Fig. 8.2a). Closedin pressure (CIP) valve
tests), to prevent high differential pressures at the formation face
when testing unconsolidated formations or gravelpack comple
open, tester valve closed, bypass ports open.
2. Flowing formation (Fig. 8.2b). CIP valve open, tester valve
tions (the pressure differential should be less than 400 psi to prevent
open, bypass ports closed; formation fluid flowing into drillstem
formation sand production, gravelpack plugging, or hydraulic
fracture proppant production), and to protect pipe from corrosive
(may or may not reach surface).
3. Formation closed in (Fig. 8.2c). CIP valve closed, tester valve
gases by running a slug of inhibitor.
3. Test tools. Tools that provide a large sealing area and that can
open, bypass ports closed; cessation of flow from formation; pres
take advantage of high operating forces with minimal rotation of the
sure buildup in formation.
4. Equalizing pressure (Fig. 8.2d). CIP valve closed, tester valve
string should be used. Rotationally operated tools are less reliable
closed (sample of formation fluid trapped between valves), bypass
than those operated by reciprocating motion of the pipe. If used at
ports open; pressure equalized across packer.
all, rotational tools should be used only for shallow (less than
I I
I I
Reverse
Calculating Sub
Dual CIP
Circulating Ports
Dual ClosedIn
Pressure Valve
Tester Valve
_.
__
Bypass Ports
Pressure Recorder
VR Safety Joint
Bypass Ports
Packer
ft.
.,
k
I
,i
;;.
'f
..
Perforated Anchor
:
.l
...
'..
i ..
;;
f..
f.
;; .
.
;:
Blanked Oil
Pressure Recorder
RUNNING IN
(a)
[11
,I U
,Ojl
FLOWING
FORMATION
EQUALIZING
REVERSE
FORMATION
CLOSEDIN
PRESSURE
CIRCULATING
(b)
(C)
(d)
(e)
. \..:
PULLING OUT
(f)
Fig. 8.2DST tool operation for open hole formation test (after Edwards and Winn4).
152
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
2,000ft depth) openhole DSTs. Pressureoperated tools have less
operating force available for opening and closing and so require
more maintenance than tools operated by reciprocation. Sleevetype valves have more potential sealing area than fullbore valves
and so are more reliable.
4. Packers. Packers with short elements are preferred to packers
with long elements. When the packer is set, long rubber elements
deform just as short elements do, providing the same contact area
with the borehole wall. Furthermore, longelement packers may allow more rubber extrusion around the bottom of the packer.
5. Hole conditions. To help ensure the success of an openhole
DST, the hole should be clean and a lowwaterloss, lowviscosity
mud should be used. American Petroleum Inst. (API) water loss6
should be no more than 10 cm3 to minimize mudcake thickness.
Marshfunnel viscosity6 should be 80 seconds or less to minimize
swabbing effects. Before a casedhole test, a scraper should be run
to remove residual cement that could damage the test tool or interfere with packer sealing.
6. Packer seats. Before an openhole test, a caliper log should be
run to help identify an appropriate packer seat. The seat should be
opposite a consolidated sandstone or an unfractured carbonate. A
casedhole packer seat should be located away from sections of
overlapping liner and casing and from squeezedoff sections.
7. Bottomholepressure (BHP) and temperature recorders. At
least three recorders should be used. Two gauges are positioned at
the bottom of the tool to measure flowing and shutin pressures during the test and hydrostatic mudcolumn pressure while running in
or out of the hole. A third gauge is positioned above the tester valve
to measure pressure inside the drillstring. This recorder can detect
leaks in the tool or drillstring during shutin or while running in or
out of the hole, calculate liquidfillup rates in the pipe, and provide
data for slugtest analysis of pipe fillup during flow periods.
8. Isolation of tested interval. The number of packer seats and the
exposure of the formation to drilling fluids should be minimized.
The longer the sandface is exposed to drilling fluids, the worse
washing out and mudfiltrate invasion will be.
An onbottom test that uses conventional hardrubber packers to
isolate an interval at the bottom of the wellbore is the best technique
for an openhole DST. This method has the following advantages: (1)
only one packer seat is required, (2) mudfiltrate invasion is minimized because the test is usually done shortly after the test interval
has been drilled, and (3) the test interval is short. In practice, two
packers may be set at the top of the interval to be tested as a safeguard against losing the packer seat during the test.
If the wellbore extends below the bottom of the zone to be tested,
a straddle test that uses conventional packers to isolate the interval
from above and below is the secondbest technique for openhole
drillstem testing. Because two packer seats are required, this method
may produce less reliable test data than the technique requiring only
one packer seat. In practice, four packers (two above the interval to
be tested and two below) may be set to reduce the chance of losing
a packer seat.
Replacing conventional hardrubber packers with inflatable
packers in either of these two configurations may reduce the quality
of the DST data significantly. If the hole is washed out, however, inflatable packers may be required. Under such circumstances, the
formation usually has been exposed to drilling fluid for a long period of time. Skin damage caused by mudfiltrate invasion may be
high, and pressure transient analysis may not produce as good results as when wellbore conditions are more favorable.
Although reservoir conditions may dictate the durations of test
periods in specific situations, we offer the following general guidelines5 for designing the durations of the flow and shutin periods of
a DST.
1. Determine the total onbottom time available for the test.
2. Subtract the durations of the initial flow and shutin periods
from the total time. The inital flow period should be 5 minutes or
less. The initial shutin period should be at least 1 hour.
3. If the interval to be tested is expected to be homogeneous
(singlelayer, singleporosity), then the final flow period should be
onethird of the remaining onbottom test time. The final shutin period should be twothirds of the remaining time. This allocation is
DRILLSTEM TESTING AND ANALYSIS
intended to maximize the probability of obtaining good pressurebuildup data.
4. If the interval to be tested is expected to be heterogeneous (multilayer or dualporosity), then the final flow and final shutin periods
should each be allocated half of the remaining onbottom test time.
The relatively longer final flow period in this case is important for
detecting heterogeneities.
Example 8.1Conventional DST Design Without a Water
Cushion. A development well5 has been drilled in a consolidated
sandstone formation that is thought to be relatively homogeneous
acting. Total well depth is 5,300 ft. From log analysis, the interval
5,120 to 5,150 ft has been identified tentatively as a productive zone.
Casing has not yet been set in this zone. The drillpipe is 3.5 in. (2.992
in. inside diameter), 9.50lbm/ft internalupset pipe with a collapse
rating of 10,040 psi. In addition, the wellbore is filled with 9lbm/gal
mud. Temperature at the midpoint of the interval (5,135 ft) is 120F,
and pressure at the midpoint is 2,390 psia. Assuming that no water
cushion is required, design a DST to evaluate the interval. The objectives of the DST are to identify formation fluids and to obtain
pressure transient data for formation evaluation.
Solution. Erdles5 design guidelines can be used to design the
DST. To maximize the likelihood of recovering reservoir fluids and
to minimize wellborestorage effects during the test, the test is limited as nearly as possible to the 30ft interval. The drilling mud in
the hole is a lowwaterloss (10 cm3 or less) mud to minimize mudcake thickness. To minimize swabbing effects, the Marshfunnel
viscosity does not exceed 80 seconds.
Assuming that no water cushion is required in this case and with
a design safety factor of 1.125 for collapse, the collapse pressure
owing to the mud column on the outside of the pipe is
p collapse +
+
(g w)(W m)(D c)F d
Ww
(0.433)(9)(5, 150)(1.125)
8.33
+ 2, 711 psi,
where gw +water gradient, psi/ft; Wm +mud weight, lbm/gal;
Dc +depth, ft; Fd +design factor; and Ww +water weight, lbm/gal.
The collapse rating of 10,040 psi is more than adequate in this case,
so the test can be run with empty drillpipe.
A straddle design is used for the test. The test string includes two
conventional packers to be positioned immediately above and below the interval to be tested. Satisfactory packer seats are available
in this vicinity, the sand is consolidated, and the caliper log indicates
no washouts in the neighborhood of the interval. The test tool has
three pressure recorders and is operated by reciprocating motion of
the drillstring.
Because of the objectives of the DST, the test is designed with two
flow and two shutin periods. Experience with this formation suggests that a total test time of 10 hours should be adequate to achieve
the test objectives. The initial flow period is 5 minutes, and the initial shutin period is 90 minutes. On the basis of a previous evaluation of this formation, the reservoir is thought to be homogeneous
(singlelayer, singleporosity). Therefore, the final flow period is
168 minutes (onethird of the remaining 505 minutes), and the final
shutin period is 337 minutes (twothirds of the remaining time).
Example 8.2Conventional DST Design With a Water Cushion. A development well5 has been drilled in a carbonate formation
that is probably naturally fractured (i.e., a dualporosity reservoir).
Total depth is 10,050 ft. The interval 9,950 to 10,020 ft has been
identified from logs as a potentially productive zone. Casing has not
yet been set in this zone. The drillpipe is 4.5in. (3.958 in. inside diameter), 13.75lbm/ft internalupset pipe with a collapse rating of
7,200 psi. The wellbore is filled with 12.4lbm/gal mud. Temperature and pressure at the midpoint of the interval (9,985 ft) are 180F
and 4,500 psia, respectively. Assuming a water cushion is required,
153
design a DST to evaluate the interval. The objectives of the DST are
The nature and volume of the fluid produced into the drillstring
to identify formation fluids and to obtain pressure transient data for
during the DST are not known with certainty until the fluid is recov
formation evaluation.
S
Solution. Erdle's design guidelines can be used to design the
the closedin pressure valve and the tester valve, is recovered by re
DST. The test is limited as nearly as possible to the interval to maxi
versing out.
ered and analyzed at the surface.The fluid sample, trapped between
mize the likelihood of recovering reservoir fluids and to minimize
Proper analysis of fluid samples is extremely important.Gas re
wellborestorage effects during the test. The drilling mud in the hole
is a lowwaterloss (10 cm3 or less) mud to minimize mudcake
covery from the sample chamber should be measured to ensure cor
thickness. To minimize swabbing effects, the Marshfunnel viscos
emulsions are recovered. Compositions and chemical properties of
ity does not exceed 80 seconds.
samples recovered from the sample chamber and the drillstring
rect identification of reservoir fluids, especially when stable, foamy
A water cushion is needed to avoid collapse of the drillpipe in this
should be evaluated after emulsions have been broken. Chemical
case.By use of a design safety factor of 1.125 for collapse, the col
analysis should be done on watercushion samples taken before and
lapse pressure owing to the mud column on the outside of the pipe is
after the DST.
8.5 DST Analysis Techniques
1 S 79
Conventional semilog and typecurve methods  ,  are frequent
(0.433)(12.4)(10, 020)(1.125)
ly used to analyze pressure transient data from DST's.The Homer
8.33
method, discussed in Chaps.2 and 3, is the most common analysis
7, 2 6 6 psi,
technique for buildup data, but the underlying assumptions often do
not accurately describe the physical processes occurring during a
which exceeds the collapse rating of7,200 psi for this pipe. To offset
DST before the time when produced fluids reach the surface. The
the hydrostatic pressure and reduce the net collapsing pressure on
Horner method assumes that the well is produced at a constant rate
the pipe below7,200 psi, a 158ft cushion of water is run in the drill
before shutin.The solution to the diffusivity equation for a constant
pipe.At a water gradient of 0. 433 psi/ft, a 158ft water column in
production rate gives a declining flowing pressure with time. Most
side the pipe creates an offsetting hydrostatic pressure of 68 psi to
DST's, however, exhibit a declining flow rate and increasing flow
reduce the net collapsing pressure to 7,200 psi.
Because the bottom of the interval to be tested is very near the bot
tom of the wellbore, an onbottom design is used. The caliper log
indicates numerous washouts in the wellbore, limiting the availabil
ity of good packer seats.According to the log, the nearest acceptable
site for a packer seat is 50 ft above the top of the interval.If a conven
tional packer were to be placed at this point, the total tested interval
would be 150 ft. With such a long interval, a substantial amount of
mud would have to be displaced out of the test tool, possibly pre
venting the collection of a good sample of formation fluids.Further
more, wellborestorage effects could last too long for satisfactory
pressure transient data to be obtained.Therefore, an inflatable pack
er is used to isolate the interval below 9,950 ft.The test tool has three
pressure recorders and is operated by reciprocating motion of
the drillstring.
Because of the objectives of the DST, the test is designed with two
flow periods and two shutin periods.Experience with this forma
tion suggests that a total test time of 12 hours should be adequate to
achieve the test objectives.The initial flow period is 5 minutes, and
the initial shutin period is 90 minutes. Because the reservoir is natu
rally fractured (dualporosity), the final flow and shutin periods
each is 312.5 minutes (onehalf of the remaining 625 minutes). The
relatively longer final flow period, compared with that for a homo
geneous reservoir, is necessary for detecting heterogeneities.
ing pressure during the flow periods.Furthermore, produced fluids
do not reach the surface during the flow period of most DST's.As
a result, the Horner method may lead to incorrect interpretations of
DST buildup data, including false indications of reservoir heteroge
neities or depletion.
Conventional typecurve matching of DST data may also give
misleading or inconclusive results when the well does not flow to
S
the surface during the test. Guidelines for determining the end of
wellborestorage effects from type curves (i.e., the line indicating
the start of the semilog straight line shown on some type curves) do
not apply to DST data and may indicate erroneously that the correct
semilog straight line is not present. In addition, a changing well
borestorage coefficient during flow periods may render typecurve
9 1O 18
matching , impossible.
The Homer method and conventional typecurve matching are
adequate for analyzing a DST only when the well flows to the sur
face and when the rate remains constant.Refer to Chaps.2 and 4 for
use of the Homer semilog and loglog typecurve methods, respec
tively, for analyzing DST data.For those DST's in which the well
does not flow to the surface, other analysis techniques, such as those
?
9
developed by Ramey et al. and Peres et al., should be considered.
8.5.1 Ramey et al.9 Type Curves. Ramey
et al. developed semilog
and loglog type curves for analyzing data from DST's in which the
flow does not reach the surface.The type curves are also applicable
8.4 DSTMonitoring Procedures
to slug tests in underpressured reservoirs.Slug testing involves the
imposition of an instantaneous change in pressure in a well and the
Monitoring a DST is essential to ensure that the desired information
measurement of the resulting change in pressure as a function of
is obtained from the test and that safe operating conditions are main
S
tained during the test. Three monitoring systems are currently in use:
time.This change in pressure is created by either injecting a specific
(1) the traditional bubblebucket system, (2) the closedchamber sys
the well.Slug testing is most suitable for wells that do not flow to
tem, and (3) the surfacepressurereadout system.
the surface or for wells that are capable of flowing to the surface but
The bubblebucket system involves observing bubbles of air dis
placed out of the drillstring into a bucket of water during a flow peri
volume of fluid (i.e., a slug) into the well or withdrawing a slug from
are restrained mechanically from reaching the surface.A DST with
a short flow period is similar to and can be modeled like a slug test.
od of a DST. The flow rate of the air is related qualitatively to reser
The type curves in Figs. 8.3 to 8.5 are solutions to the diffusivity
voirflow capacity and reservoirfluid type.The lack of quantitative
equation modeling the pressure behavior in a well with a rising liq
measurements commonly results in erroneous interpretations with
this monitoring system.
The closedchamber system is an inexpensive monitoring meth
od that provides quantitative measurements of fluid influx from the
formation throughout a test. Flow rates can be estimated as the test
progresses.Sec.8.6 discusses this test method.
The surfacepressurereadout system is the most sophisticated
and expensive method of monitoring a DST. BHP data are con
uid level in the wellbore during the test.The rising liquid level re
sults from accumulation of fluid in the wellbore following an instan
taneous pressure change at the sandface. In addition, Ramey
The type curves are presented in terms of a dimensionless pres
sure ratio, PDR, and a dimensionless timeplotting function,
IS4
tDleD.
The dimensionless pressure ratio is defined by
ducted to the surface electronically, providing continuous realtime
data on the reservoir pressure response throughout the test.
et al.
include steadystate skin effects.
PDR
Pi  PIV/t)
Pi
Po '
............................ (8.1)
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.5)
C D + 0.8936C
fc t hr 2w
1.0
0.9
0.8
where the wellborestorage coefficient C (in bbl/psi) owing to a
changing fluid level in the wellbore is
0.7
0.6
0.5
C+
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
1.0
10
100
1,000
10,000
Fig. 8.3Ramey et al.9 semilog type curve for analysis of earlyand latetime DST flowperiod data. Reprinted with permission
from the Canadian Inst. of Mining, Metallurgy, and Petroleum.
25.65A wb
wb .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.6)
In Eq. 8.6, Awb+crosssectional area of the wellbore or drillstring
and wb+density of the fluid in the wellbore or drillstring. Similar
to the Gringarten et al.18 type curves, Ramey et al.9 plot their type
curves as functions of the correlating parameter CD e2s, where CD
+dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient defined by Eq. 8.5
and s+dimensionless skin factor.
Ramey and Agarwal15 also define a dimensionless sandface rate as
q DR + 1 * p DR + 1 * C D
1.0
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.01
1.0
10
100
1,000
10,000
Fig. 8.4Ramey et al.9 loglog type curve for analysis of latetime DST flowperiod data. Reprinted with permission from the
Canadian Inst. of Mining, Metallurgy, and Petroleum.
1.0
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.01
1.0
10
100
1,000
10,000
Fig. 8.5Ramey et al.9 loglog type curve for analysis of earlytime DST flowperiod data. Reprinted with permission from the
Canadian Inst. of Mining, Metallurgy, and Petroleum.
where pi +initial reservoir pressure, psia; pwf (t)+flowing BHP, psia;
and po +pressure in the drillstring immediately before the flow period
begins, psia.
For the initial flow period, po is atmospheric pressure or the pressure exerted by any fluid cushion in the drillstring. For the final flow
period, po is the pressure at the end of the previous flow period.2 According to Ramey and Agarwal,15 Eq. 8.1 also describes the fluid
unloading rate in the drillstring. Alternatively, the wellbore unloading rate is
p DR + C D
dp wD
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.2)
dt D
where pwD +dimensionless wellbore pressure,
p wD +
khp i * p wf
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.3)
141.2qBm
In addition, dimensionless time is defined by
t D + 0.0002637kt
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.4)
fmc t r 2w
and the dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient is
DRILLSTEM TESTING AND ANALYSIS
dp wD
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.7)
dt D
which is often used as a plotting function to provide better resolution
of very early DST or slugtest data (Fig. 8.5).
TypeCurveAnalysis Procedure. The following typecurveanalysis procedure, which is similar to that described in Chap. 4 for
other type curves, is adapted from Earlougher2 for analyzing DST
flow data or slugtest data with the Ramey et al.9 type curves.
1. Prepare semilog and loglog plots of pDR vs. t and a loglog plot
of qDR +1*pDR vs. t. Make the plots either on tracing paper or on
semilog and loglog paper the same size as the type curves.
2. Overlay the testdata plots on the appropriate type curve (Figs.
8.3 through 8.5) and find the type curve that nearly fits all the plotted
test data. Fig. 8.3 provides better resolution of both early and latetime data, while Figs. 8.4 and 8.5 are better for analyzing either latetime or earlytime data, respectively.
Note that pDR and qDR have values between zero and one and are
independent of flow rate and formation properties. Consequently,
we simply fit equal values of pDR or qDR from the type curves and
test data and slide the test plots horizontally only until a match is obtained. To reduce the ambiguity (i.e., uniqueness) problems
associated with typecurve analysis, we also recommend matching
pDR and qDR simultaneously until a consistent match is obtained.
3. From the matches, record the value of the correlating parameter
CD e2s. The value of this parameter from both pDR and qDR matches
should be equal.
4. With the testdata plots still fitted to the type curves, select a
convenient time match point, (t, tD /CD )MP.
5. Compute the wellborestorage coefficient with Eq. 8.6.
6. Compute the dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient, CD ,
defined by Eq. 8.5.
7. Calculate permeability with the time match point from Step 4
and the wellborestorage coefficient from Step 5. Note that time, t,
is measured in hours in Eq. 8.8.
k+
3, 390mC t DC D
t
h
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.8)
MP
8. Estimate the skin factor from the typecurve correlating parameter, CD e2s, and the dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient,
CD .
s + 0.5 ln
r (C e )
fc 0.8936C
+ 0.5 ln(C Ce ) .
2
t w
2s
MP
2s
MP
. . . (8.9)
Ramey et al.s9 type curves were developed for homogeneousacting, singlelayered reservoirs, but similar type curves are available for doubleporosity (i.e., naturally fractured) reservoirs,19 hydraulically fractured wells,20 and multilayer formations.21
Example 8.3 demonstrates the analysis of a flow period of a DST
with the Ramey type curves.
Example 8.3Analysis of DST Flow Data With the Ramey Type
Curves. A DST consisting of a 5hour flow period followed by a
155
TABLE 8.1PRESSURE AND TIME DATA FROM THE FLOW
PERIOD OF A DST, EXAMPLE 8.3
t
(hours)
pwf
(psi)
t
(hours)
pwf
(psi)
0.0506
0.0675
0.090
0.120
0.160
0.213
0.285
0.379
0.506
354.6
383.2
420.6
469.3
532.2
613.1
716.2
846.3
1,007.8
0.675
0.90
1.20
1.60
2.13
2.85
3.79
5.06
1,204.6
1,438.3
1,706.4
2,000.8
2,305.8
2,598.8
2,854.1
3,050.7
buildup period of 6 hours was conducted in an oil well. The pressure
and time data, given in Table 8.1, were taken during the flow period
of the test. Use the Ramey et al.9 type curves to analyze the data and
estimate the permeability, skin factor, and dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient.
pi +
po +
f+
rw +
h+
C+
m+
ct +
3,315.2 psi
263.1 psi
0.13
0.365 ft
23 ft
0.01609 bbl/psi
0.43 cp
14.7 106 psi1
(0.8936)(0.01609)
(0.13)(14.7
10 *6)(23)(0.354)
+ 2, 610.
3, 390mC t DC D
t
h
MP
(3, 390)(0.43)(0.01609) 10.0
1.2
23
+ 8.50 md.
7. Estimate the skin factor with the typecurve correlating parameter, CD e2s, from Step 3 and the dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient, CD , computed in Step 5.
s + 0.5 ln
3, 315.2 * 354.6
3, 315.2 * 263.1
(C Ce ) + 0.5 ln3 2, 61010 + 10.4.
D
2s
12
MP
8.5.2 Peres et al.7 Method. Peres et al. provide a method for analyzing pressurebuildup data from a DST when produced liquids do not
reach the surface during a flow period. The method accounts for producing time and variable flow rate during the flow period. Similar
to the Horner graphical method presented in Chaps. 2 and 3, a
straightline plot is used to obtain permeability, k; skin factor, s; and
initial reservoir pressure, pi . The following definitions, which are
given in oilfield units, are used to develop the Peres et al. method.
The drawdown wellborestorage coefficient, CF (RB/psi), is defined by
+ 0.9700
and q DR + 1.0 * p DR + 1.0 * 0.9700 + 0.0300.
At a flowing time of 0.0675 hours,
+*
k+
p i * p wf (t)
p DR + p * p
o
i
t pDR + *
C D + 0.8936C
fc t hr 2w
6. Calculate permeability with the time match point and the wellborestorage coefficient from Step 5.
Solution.
1. Prepare semilog and loglog plots of dimensionless pressure,
pDR , vs. t and a loglog plot of dimensionless rate, qDR +1*pDR ,
vs. t. Make the plots either on tracing paper or on semilog and loglog paper with the same size log cycles as the type curves. Table 8.2
summarizes the plotting functions.
For example, at a flowing time of t+0.0506 hours, pDR and qDR are
2. Overlay the testdata plot on the appropriate type curve and find
the type curve that nearly fits all the plotted test data. Note that, because pDR and qDR have values between 0.0 and 1.0 on both the type
curves and data plots, we simply align the vertical axes and slide the
data plot horizontally until a match is found. From Figs. 8.6 through
8.8, we obtain a good match for CD e2s between 1010 and 1015.
3. Interpolating between the type curves, the typecurvecorrelating parameter is CD e2s+3 1012.
4. From the match, we select a time match point, (t, tD /CD )MP ;
t+1.2 hours and tD /CD +10.0.
5. Compute the dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient, CD ,
defined by Eq. 8.6.
p DR1 * p DR2
ln t 1 * ln t 2
0.9700 * 0.9484
[ln(0.0506) * ln(0.090)]
C F *+
25.65pr 2p
25.65A wb
+
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.10)
wb
wb
+ * 0.0376.
TABLE 8.2DIMENSIONLESSPRESSURE AND RATEPLOTTING FUNCTIONS,
EXAMPLE 8.3
156
t
(hours)
pDR
qDR
tpDR
0.0506
0.0675
0.090
0.120
0.160
0.213
0.285
0.379
0.506
0.9700
0.9607
0.9484
0.9324
0.9118
0.8853
0.8515
0.8089
0.7560
0.0300
0.0393
0.0516
0.0676
0.0882
0.1147
0.1485
0.1911
0.2440
0.0376
0.0490
0.0635
0.0821
0.1045
0.1326
0.1664
0.2034
t
(hours)
pDR
qDR
tpDR
0.675
0.90
1.20
1.60
2.13
2.85
3.79
5.06
0.6915
0.6150
0.5271
0.4307
0.3307
0.2347
0.1511
0.0867
0.3085
0.3850
0.4729
0.5693
0.6693
0.7653
0.8489
0.9133
0.2449
0.2857
0.3203
0.3423
0.3394
0.3118
0.2579
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
1.0
0.9
0.8
t+1.2 hours
0.7
0.1
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.01
0.3
0.2
t+1.2 hours
0.1
0
0.001
0.1
1.0
100
10
1,000
10,000
0.1
100
10
1,000
10,000
Fig. 8.6Semilog typecurve match of early and latetime data
with the Ramey et al.9 type curves, Example 8.3.
Fig. 8.8Loglog typecurve match of earlytime data with the
Ramey et al.9 type curves, Example 8.3.
for a rising liquid level in the wellbore, where rp +inside diameter
of the drillpipe, in., and wb+density of the fluid produced into the
drillpipe, lbm/ft3.
Similarly, the buildup wellborestorage coefficient is defined by
Extrapolating the straight line of Eq. 8.12 to tm +0 gives the initial reservoir pressure, pi . Permeability, k, is obtained from Eq. 8.15.
Fig. 8.9 illustrates this graphical analysis technique.
The skin factor, s, is given by
CS +Vwb cwb , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.11)
where Vwb +volume of the wellbore during the buildup period, bbl,
and cwb +isothermal compressibility of the fluid in the wellbore,
psi1.
The pressure response during a buildup period in a DST is given by
pws (Dt)+pi *mm tm , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.12)
where pws +bottomhole shutin pressure, psia; pi +initial reservoir
pressure, psia; Dt+elapsed time since shutting in the well, hours;
tm +multirate time function defined by Eq. 8.14, hours; and mm +
slope of straight line through data.
The producing time interval [0, tp ] is partitioned (with an arbitrary
value of n) as
p * p * log k ) 3.23
fmc r
m ln 10
* p t
p t
* logt * t
,
p t * p
s + 1.151
j+0
t
n
tm +
j+0
tp
p ) Dt * t j,p
wf
t j)1,p * p wf tj,p
p wf t p * p o
wf
j)1,p
wf
j,p
j,p
wf
tp
p f + t1
p
wf (t)dt.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.17)
The integration in Eq. 8.17 can be performed with enough accuracy for most field applications with the trapezoidal rule. Partioning
the producingtime interval as in Eq. 8.13 and integrating Eq. 8.17
by the trapezoidal rule gives
where pwf +bottomhole flowing pressure, psia, and po +initial
BHP at the start of the test, psia. Note that the multirate time function
is dimensionless.
Similar to conventional pressurebuildup tests discussed in Chap.
2, we can estimate the formation permeability with the slope of the
straight line, mm ,
141.2m 24C Fp wf t p * p o
.
2t p
m mh
where pf is the average flowing pressure during the flow period and
is defined by
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.14)
k+
2
t w
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.16)
0+t0, p tt1, p tt2,p t . . . ttn,p ttn)1,p +tp , . . . . . (8.13)
where tp +the producing time during the flow period of the test. The
multirate time function, tm , in Eq. 8.12 is defined by
p f + t1
j+0
p wf t j)1,p ) p wf t j,p
2
tj)1,p * tj
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.15)
1.0
0.1
0.01
0.001
t+1.2 hours
0.0001
0.1
1.0
10
100
1,000
10,000
Fig. 8.7Loglog typecurve match of latetime data with the
Ramey et al.9 type curves, Example 8.3.
DRILLSTEM TESTING AND ANALYSIS
Fig. 8.9Graphical analysis technique for pressurebuildup
data from DST.
157
TABLE 8.3DST DATA, EXAMPLE 8.4
Flow Period
Elapsed
Test Time
(hours)
Flowing
BHP, pwf
(psi)
Elapsed
Test Time
(hours)
Flowing
BHP, pwf
(psi)
0.00
0.24
0.48
0.72
0.96
1.20
1.44
1.68
1.92
2.16
2.40
263.10
475.80
520.45
584.78
684.57
765.97
852.63
927.47
999.68
1,060.1
1,107.3
2.64
2.88
3.12
3.36
3.60
3.84
4.08
4.32
4.56
4.8576
1,170.4
1,221.6
1,278.0
1,331.9
1,377.8
1,421.1
1,467.1
1,513.1
1,556.4
1,606.3
ShutIn Period
+ t1
p
Elapsed
Test Time
(hours)
Shutin
BHP, pws
(psi)
Buildup
Time, Dt
(hours)
Elapsed
Test Time
(hours)
ShutIn
BHP, pws
(psi)
Buildup
Time, Dt
(hours)
4.8768
4.8864
4.8960
4.9056
4.9248
4.9440
4.9632
4.9920
5.0208
5.0400
5.0688
5.0976
5.1264
5.1552
5.1936
5.2320
5.2800
5.3280
5.3856
5.4528
2,602.8
2,626.5
2,643.5
2,654.0
2,682.9
2,703.9
2,721.0
2,743.3
2,764.3
2,777.4
2,790.6
2,805.0
2,816.8
2,827.3
2,841.8
2,854.9
2,868.0
2,879.9
2,893.0
2,906.1
0.0192
0.0288
0.0384
0.0480
0.0672
0.0864
0.1056
0.1344
0.1632
0.1824
0.2112
0.2400
0.2688
0.2976
0.3360
0.3744
0.4224
0.4704
0.5280
0.5952
5.5200
5.6064
5.6928
5.9136
6.0096
6.2016
6.3456
6.5376
6.7296
6.9696
7.2096
7.4976
7.8336
8.1696
8.6016
9.0336
10.1376
10.7616
11.0400
2,917.9
2,931.1
2,944.2
2,973.1
2,984.9
3,005.9
3,017.7
3,032.2
3,045.3
3,059.7
3,072.9
3,087.3
3,103.1
3,114.9
3,129.3
3,142.5
3,166.1
3,176.6
3,179.2
0.6624
0.7488
0.8352
1.0560
1.1520
1.3440
1.4880
1.6800
1.8720
2.1120
2.3520
2.6400
2.9760
3.3120
3.7440
4.1760
5.2800
5.9040
6.1824
p wf t 1,p) p wf t 0,p
2
In the absence of wellborestorage effects, the data should lie on
a straight line. Consequently, any deviations from a straight line during early shutin times suggest wellborestorage effects.
2. Draw the bestfit line through the data and compute the slope, mm ,
t1,p* t0,p
p wf t 2,p) p wf t 1,p
t2,p* t1,p ) . . .
2
p wf t p) p wf t n,p
t p* t n,p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.18)
2
The following procedure is recommended for analyzing DSTs
with the Peres et al.7 method.
Analysis ProcedurePeres et al. Method.
1. To analyze a DST with Peres et al.s7 method, we must prepare
a plot of shutin BHP, pws , vs. the multirate time function, tm , defined by Eq. 8.14.
t
n
tm +
j+0
tp
p ) Dt * t j,p
wf
t j)1,p ) p wf tj,p
p wf t p * p o
For subsequent calculations, use the absolute value of the slope.
3. Using the slope from Step 2, calculate the formation permeability with Eq. 8.15.
k+
141.2m 24C Fp wf t p * p o
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.15)
2t p
m mh
4. Estimate the initial reservoir pressure, pi , from the extrapolation of the straight line to tm +0.
5. Compute the skin factor with Eq. 8.16,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.14)
158
p *p
m m + tws2 * t ws1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.19)
m2
m1
s + 1.151
pi * p f
m m ln 10
* log
fmck r ) 3.23
2
t w
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
TABLE 8.4PRESSURE AND TIMEPLOTTING FUNCTIONS, EXAMPLE 8.4
Flow Period
Elapsed
Test Time
(hours)
0.00
0.24
0.48
0.72
0.96
1.20
1.44
1.68
1.92
2.16
2.40
pwf
(psi)
Flowing
Time, tj,p
(hours)
Index,
j
263.10
475.80
520.45
584.78
684.57
765.97
852.63
927.47
999.68
1,060.1
1,107.3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.00
2.64
2.88
3.12
3.36
3.60
3.84
4.08
4.32
4.56
4.8576
Elapsed
Test Time
(hours)
Flowing
Time, tj,p
(hours)
pwf
(psi)
Index,
j
1,170.4
1,221.6
1,278.0
1,331.9
1,377.8
1,421.1
1,467.1
1,513.1
1,556.4
1,606.3
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Elapsed
Test Time,
(hours)
pws
(psi)
Dt
(hours)
tm
5.5200
5.6064
5.6928
5.9136
6.0096
6.2016
6.3456
6.5376
6.7296
6.9696
7.2096
7.4976
7.8336
8.1696
8.6016
9.0336
10.1376
10.7616
11.0400
2,917.9
2,931.1
2,944.2
2,973.1
2,984.9
3,005.9
3,017.7
3,032.2
3,045.3
3,059.7
3,072.9
3,087.3
3,103.1
3,114.9
3,129.3
3,142.5
3,166.1
3,176.6
3,179.2
0.6624
0.7488
0.8352
1.0560
1.1520
1.3440
1.4880
1.6800
1.8720
2.1120
2.3520
2.6400
2.9760
3.3120
3.7440
4.1760
5.2800
5.9040
6.1824
1.6616
1.5974
1.5394
1.4129
1.3656
1.2816
1.2263
1.1606
1.1026
1.0387
0.9826
0.9235
0.8636
0.8116
0.7538
0.7040
0.6034
0.5587
0.5408
2.64
2.88
3.12
3.36
3.60
3.84
4.08
4.32
4.56
4.8576
2.64
2.88
3.12
3.36
3.60
3.84
4.08
4.32
4.56
4.8576
ShutIn Period
Elapsed
Test Time,
(hours)
pws
(psi)
Dt
(hours)
tm
4.8768
4.8864
4.8960
4.9056
4.9248
4.9440
4.9632
4.9920
5.0208
5.0400
5.0688
5.0976
5.1264
5.1552
5.1936
5.2320
5.2800
5.3280
5.3856
5.4528
2,602.8
2,626.5
2,643.5
2,54.0
2,682.9
2,703.9
2,721.0
2,743.3
2,764.3
2,777.4
2,790.6
2,805.0
2,816.8
2,827.3
2,841.8
2,854.9
2,868.0
2,879.9
2,893.0
2,906.1
0.0192
0.0288
0.0384
0.0480
0.0672
0.0864
0.1056
0.1344
0.1632
0.1824
0.2112
0.2400
0.2688
0.2976
0.3360
0.3744
0.4224
0.4704
0.5280
0.5952
2.6300
2.5991
2.5695
2.5410
2.4871
2.4371
2.3903
2.3255
2.2661
2.2292
2.1774
2.1292
2.0842
2.0420
1.9897
1.9412
1.8852
1.8337
1.7770
1.7166
logt p * t j,p
p wf t j)1,p * p wf t j,p
j+0
p wf t p * p o
ues of t1, p +0.24 hours, t2,p +0.48 hours, . . . , t19,p +tn,p +4.56
hours, and tn+1,p +tp +4.8576 hours. The multirate time function,
tm , is calculated for each shutin time, Dt, with n+19 (Table 8.4). For
example, the value of tm at Dt+0.0192 hours is
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.16)
where pf is calculated with Eq. 8.18.
tm +
j+0
Example 8.4DST Analysis With the Peres et al. Method. A
DST7 consisting of one 5hour flow period and one 6hour shutin
period was conducted. Table 8.3 gives drawdown and buildup data
from the test. Other known data are summarized next. Determine
formation permeability, skin factor, and initial reservoir pressure
with the Peres et al.7 method.
pi +
po +
f+
rw +
h+
CF +
m+
ct +
3,315.2 psi
263.1 psi
0.13
0.365 ft
23 ft
0.01609 bbl/psi
0.43 cp
14.7 106 psi1
Solution.
1. Calculate the multirate time function defined by Eq. 8.14. Producing time during the flow period is partioned (Eq. 8.13), giving valDRILLSTEM TESTING AND ANALYSIS
tp
t p ) Dt * t j,p
p wf t j)1,p ) p wf t j,p
p wf t p * p o
4.8576
4.8576 )
475.8 * 263.1
0.0192 * 0 1606.3 * 263.1
4.8576 )4.8576
520.45 * 475.8 ) . . .
0.0192 * 0.24 1606.3 * 263.1
4.8576 )4.8576
1606.3 * 1556.4
0.0192 * 4.56 1606.3 * 263.1
+ 2.63.
2. Reservoir properties are found from a plot of shutin BHP, pws ,
as a function of multirate time, tm (Fig. 8.10). Wellborestorage effects during the buildup period cease at about tm +2.2.
3. Draw a straight line through the data points in Fig. 8.10. This
line has a slope of mm +231.5 psi. By rearranging Eq. 8.15, we get
the formation permeability.
159
3400
___ Pi
3200
3000
'"
. iii
0
3,304 psia
"
'
:r
231.5
End of Well bore
Line Slope,
""
= 0.3 from Example 8.3.
...
2800
p..'
::c:
which agrees with
mm
2600
8.6 ClosedChamber DST
22
is a welltesting method that permits
The closedchamber DST
monitoring of the initial flow period of a test to identify formation
fluids and provide good field estimates of gas and liquid flow rates
during the initial flow period. If the remainder of the DST is to be
conventional, information about the initial flow period from the
closedchamber test can be used to establish minimum times for the
2400
0.0
1.0
0.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Multirate Time Function,Im
final flow and buildup periods and to preset surface equipment for
the remainder of the test.A closedchamber test differs from a con
ventional DST in that the well is closed in at the surface during flow
Fig. 8.1 OPressure and multirate time plot, Example 8.4.
periods and is open at the surface when the well is shut in at the
formation.Fluid influx into the test tool is monitored throughout the
test, allowing flow rates to be estimated as the test progresses.Flow
rates and recoveries can be confirmed upon test completion.
With accurate measurement of both downhole and surface pres
(1 41.2)(0.4 3)
( 2 31.5)( 2 3)
( 2 4)(0.01609)(1,606.3  26 3.1)
2( 4.8576)
sures, closedchamber tests also can be analyzed to obtain estimates
of formation properties.Kabir et al.23 present a method to estimate
.
compression, friction,and mass transfer.With accurate estimates of
4. Extrapolating the straight line to tm = 0 in Fig. 8.7, the initial
reservoir pressure is estimated to be Pi = 3,30 4 psi.
5.Finally,we can calculate the skin factor.First,the average flow
ing pressure is given by Eq. 8.1 8,
P
_1_
4.8576
[(
5 20.45
1606.3
475.8 + 26 3.1
2
475.8
flow rates of both gas and liquid with surface and bottomhole pres
sure gauges.Their model accounts for the effects of gas and liquid
flow rates of both phases, they were able to obtain accurate esti
mates of formation permeability.
A set of equations describing pressures and flow rates can be
derived from a mass balance of gas and liquids in the drillpipe dur
ing a closedchamber DST run with empty drillpipe.When the tester
valve is opened, gas and liquids enter the drillpipe. Gas is vented
(0.2 4  0)
from the pipe but liquids do not reach the surface.If the rate at which
gas is vented differs from the gasinflux rate, then the mass of gas
in the system will change.Under the given conditions,the mass bal
(0.4 8  0.2 4) +
ance for singlephase gas flow is described by change of the mass
mass rate out.
1556.4
in the system divided by change in time equals mass rate in
( 4.8576  4.56)
The mass in the system at any time tis pMv/RTz, the mass rate in
is PscMqinlRTsc, and the mass rate out is PscMqouriRTsc. V is the gas
volume inside the chamber (drillpipe). If the chamber is initially
empty,then V is initially equal to the drillpipe volume.Assuming Tz
= 1,069 psia.
to be constant, the mass balance becomes
From Eq. 8.16, the skin factor is
= 1.151
Pi 
minus
qin  qOUl =
Pf
(k)
 log . <pf.l c , r2lV
mmIn 10
+ 3.2 3
Tsc Vdp /dt + pdV / dt
PSCTz
. .............. ( 8.20)
While the assumption of constant Tz is adequate for identifying
reservoir fluids and for obtaining field estimates of flow rates,it can
cause errors in calculated flow rates, as shown by Kabir et al. 23
For a rising liquid level in the drillpipe during the flow period of
the DST, V decreases as liquid enters the pipe.Thus, the term dVldt
is negative,and  dVldtrepresents the rate at which liquid enters the
drillpipe. For a standard temperature of 60F (5 200R) and a base
pressure of 1 4.65 psia, Eq. 8.20 becomes
= 1.151
qill  qOlll =
3, 30 4  1,069
2 31.5In(lO)
2 86 Vdp / dt + pdV / dt
'
Tz
............. ( 8.21)
where flow rate is in MscflD, volume is in barrels, and time is in
minutes. Useful modeling equations can be derived from Eg. 8.21
 10g
for the following four cases.
0.609
(0.1 3)(0.4 3)(1.45
log( 4.8576  0)
105)(0.35 4)
475.8  26 3.1
1,606.3  26 3.1
5 20.45  475.8
+ log( 4.8576  0.2 4)
1606.3  26 3.1
160
+ 3.2 3
1. Surface valve closed, tester valve open, only gas produced:
qouf = 0, dV/dt= O.Under these conditions, Eq. 8.21 reduces to
qill =
2 86V dp
z:Tdt'
............................... ( 8.2 2)
which gives the flow rate of clean gas.In Eg. 8.2 2, T is the average
flowing temperature of the gas in the chamber.
+
2. Surface valve closed, tester valve open, only water produced:
qout = 0, qin = 0 and Eq. 8.21 reduces to
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
TABLE 8.5WATER PRODUCTION AS A PERCENTAGE OF INITIAL CHAMBER VOLUME (AFTER ALEXANDER22).
Water Production With Complete SolutionGas Breakout, %
Surface
Pressure
(psig)
GasFree
Production
(%)
A: 600
B: 1.05
1,000
1.58
1,500
2.10
2,000
2.50
3,000
3.29
4,000
3.95
5,000
4.48
6,000
4.87
8,000
5.53
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
60
80
100
150
200
0
6
11
16
21
25
28
32
35
37
40
50
57
62
67
70
73
75
77
80
84
87
91
93
0
3
6
9
12
14
17
19
21
23
25
33
40
45
50
54
57
60
62
67
73
77
83
87
0
3
5
7
10
12
14
16
17
19
21
28
35
40
44
48
51
54
57
61
68
73
80
84
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
13
15
17
18
25
31
35
40
43
47
50
52
57
64
69
77
81
0
2
4
6
7
9
10
12
13
15
16
23
28
33
37
40
44
47
49
54
61
66
74
80
0
2
3
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
14
19
24
28
32
36
39
42
44
49
56
61
70
76
0
1
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
17
22
26
29
32
35
38
41
45
52
58
67
73
0
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
16
20
24
27
30
33
36
38
43
50
55
65
71
0
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
8
9
10
15
19
22
26
29
32
34
37
41
48
54
63
70
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9
14
17
21
24
27
29
32
34
38
45
51
61
68
A: Reservoir pressure, psia
B: Gaswater ratio, bbl/bbl
dp
+ * p c dV , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.23)
dt
dt
which relates the rate of water influx to the change in pressure. The
average chamber pressure, pc , is related to surface pressure by
pc +
p e g gL53.34Tz * 1
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.24)
g gL53.34Tz
where gg +gasspecific gravity (air+1); L+height of the gas column in feet; and 53.34 is the universal gas constant, ftlbf/lbmR.
3. Surface valve open, tester valve closed, gas vented: qin+0,
dV/dt+0. Under these conditions, Eq. 8.21 reduces to
dp
* q out + 286V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.25)
zT dt
The volume of gas in the drillpipe at a particular time can be calculated by measuring qout and the rate of pressure change, dp/dt.
The volume of liquid in the drillpipe is equal to the difference between the drillpipe volume and the gas volume.
4. Surface valve closed, tester valve open, gas and liquid produced: qout+0, dV/dt00, and Eq. 8.21 reduces to
dp
q in + 286 V ) p c dV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.26)
zT
dt
dt
The gas volume, V, is determined at the end of the flow period.
The rate dV/dt is calculated as an average rate during the flow period
(implicitly assuming a constant rate during the flow period even
though the flow rate during a DST declines with time). The use of
Eq. 8.26 is limited to final calculations after the test has been completed and subsurfacepressure charts have been analyzed.
When only liquid (water or mud) is produced into the drillpipe
during a flow period, the fraction of drillpipe fillup is
Vp
p2 * p1
+
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.27)
Vc
p 2 ) 14.65
DRILLSTEM TESTING AND ANALYSIS
where p1+surface pressure at the beginning of the flow period,
psig; p2+surface pressure at the end of the flow period, psig; Vc +
initial chamber volume, bbl; and Vp +volume of liquid produced
into the chamber, bbl.
Table 8.5 gives the gasfree chamber fillup as a percentage for a
range of surface pressures with p1+0 psig.
If gas comes out of solution, then the fillup fraction is reduced
from its gasfree value. Assuming that all solution gas is liberated,
Eq. 8.18 becomes
Vp
p2 * p1
+
, . . . . . . . . . . . (8.28)
Vc
p 1 ) 14.65 R s ) p 2 ) 14.65
where Rs +solution gas/liquid ratio (bbl/bbl). Table 8.5 gives values
of Vp /Vc as a percentage with complete liberation of solution gas for
a range of BHPs. For example, as Table 8.5 shows, in a well with
gasfree liquid flowing into the sample chamber at a surface pressure of p2+15 psig (initial surface pressure p1+0 psig), the liquid
influx during the flow period is equal to 50% of the original chamber
volume by Eq. 8.27. If reservoir pressure is 2,000 psi and all the
solution gas is liberated, then liquid influx is reduced to 23%. A recovery of less than 23% would indicate the presence of free gas. For
an initial surface pressure, p1, greater than zero, the values in Table
8.5 would differ in accordance with Eqs. 8.27 and 8.28.
By use of Eqs. 8.22 and 8.23, the range of the rates of change
in surface pressure (dp/dt) that can be expected during a closedchamber DST can be estimated as part of pretest planning. The highest and lowest expected rates of surfacepressure change are
associated with production only of gas and only of water, respectively. If the rate of change in surface pressure is higher than the lowest expected rate, then the presence of oil or gas is likely. The following procedure is recommended for estimating the maximum
expected rate of surfacepressure change if only gas is produced
during a DST. The observed rate of change may be considerably less
than the estimated value because of well damage, formation drawdown, or tool configuration.
161
TABLE 8.6ORIFICE COEFFICIENTS FOR CRITICAL
FLOW PROVER24
Orifice Size (in.)
Meter Coefficient, (MscfD)/psi
Fraction
Decimal
2 in.
1/
16
3/
32
1/
8
3/
16
7/
32
0.0625
0.09375
0.125
0.1875
0.21875
0.0848
0.1867
0.3506
0.8052
1.1112
0.25
0.3125
0.375
0.4375
1.4390
2.2130
3.1484
4.5123
1.387
7/
8
0.50
0.625
0.750
0.875
5.6647
8.5694
12.5147
17.2112
5.576
8.686
12.448
16.927
1
11/8
1
13/8
1
1
1.0
1.125
1.250
1.375
1.5
1.75
22.6311
28.9803
36.5871
44.9506
55.5750
22.052
27.778
34.300
41.295
49.208
67.220
2
2
2
2
2.0
2.25
2.5
2.75
88.811
113.851
142.787
176.787
3.0
217.241
5/
16
3/
8
7/
16
5/
8
4 in.
3.117
Analysis ProcedureClosedChamber Testing With Only Gas
Production.
1. Specify the sizes of the orifice and meter to be used. The smallest orifice that will not become plugged should be used.
2. Estimate BHP with the best available data for the particular area.
3. Calculate the sample chamber volume in barrels.
4. Estimate bottomhole temperature and gascompressibility factor.
5. Calculate the maximum gas flow rate, qg , with the equation for
a critical flow prover24:
qg +Cm pu Ftf Fg Fpv , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.29)
where Cm +orifice coefficient for critical flow prover (Table 8.6);
pu +upstream pressure, psia, equal to BHP; Ftf +flowing tempera
ture factor+ 519.67T m ; Tm +temperature of gas flowing through
meter, R, equal to bottomhole temperature; Fg+gravity fac
tor+ 0.6g g ; and Fpv +gassupercompressibility factor+ 1z.
6. Calculate the maximum expected rate of surfacepressure
change (psi/min) from Eq. 8.22, rearranging and solving for dp/dt.
The estimated average flowing temperature, rather than bottomhole
temperature, is used in this calculation.
A similar procedure can be followed to estimate the minimum expected rate of surfacepressure change if only water is produced during a DST. An observed rate of change significantly higher than the
estimated value is a good indication that oil or gas is present. A lower observed rate does not preclude the possibility of a very low rate
of oil or gas production.
Analysis ProcedureClosedChamber Testing With Only Water Production.
1. Determine the size of the smallest choke that can be used without plugging.
2. Estimate BHP with the best available data for the particular area.
3. Calculate the sample chamber volume in barrels.
162
4. Calculate the maximum water flow rate with the equation for
liquid flow through an orifice22:
* dVdt + q w + 0.35d 2 p,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8.30)
where d+orifice diameter, in., and p+BHP, psig.
5. Calculate the minimum expected rate of surfacepressure
change (psi/min) from Eq. 8.23, rearranging and solving for dp/dt.
Assume that surface pressure (psia) is equal to the average pressure
in the chamber.
Example 8.5Pretest Planning CalculationsClosedChamber Testing. A well22 is to be tested at a depth of 10,000 ft with drillpipe with a capacity of 0.0108 bbl/ft. Other known data are summarized next. Estimate the range of the rates of change in surface
pressure that can be expected during a DST.
Local pressure gradient: pgrad +0.45 psi/ft.
Local temperature gradient: Tgrad +1.6F/100 ft.
Local mean surface temperature: Tsurf +60F.
Atmospheric pressure: patm +14.7 psia.
Local gasspecific gravity: gg +0.65.
Local gascompressibility factor: z+0.9.
Solution. A 2in. meter with a 3/8 in. orifice is used to measure
flow rates during the DST. With the local pressure gradient of 0.45
psi/ft for wells in this area, BHP is estimated to be
p+(pgrad )(Lc )+(0.45)(10,000)+4,500 psig, or in terms of inches
of water, hw +p/(0.0361 gw )+4,500/[0.0361(1)]+1.247 105 in.,
where gw+specific gravity of water and Lc +chamber length. The
volume of the chamber is
V+(Sc )(Lc )
+(0.0108)(10,000)
+108 bbl,
where Sc +chamber capacity.
The maximum rate of change in surface pressure during the initial
flow period of the test will occur if only gas is produced. From the
local temperature gradient of 1.6F/100 ft, the bottomhole temperature is estimated to be
T+Tsurf )(Tgrad )(depth)+60)(1.6/100)/(10,000)+220F.
From Eq. 8.29 and Table 8.6, the maximum gas flow rate is
Cm +3.1484,
Ftf + 519.67(220 ) 460) +0.874,
Fg + 0.60.651 +0.961,
Fpv + 10.94+1.054,
and
qg +(3.1484)(4500)14.7)(0.874)(0.961)(1.054)+12,583
Mscf/D.
The maximum expected rate of surfacepressure change (psi/
min) is found by rearranging Eq. 8.22 and solving for dp/dt. In the
following calculation, the average flowing temperature is estimated
with the local temperature gradient at the midpoint of the chamber
(5,000 ft), giving
T+60)(1.6/100)/(5,000)+140F.
With this average flowing temperature, dp/dt is
dpdt +
+
q inTz
286V
(12, 583)(140 ) 460)(0.9)
(286)(108)
+ 220 psi/min.
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
TABLE 8.7CLOSEDCHAMBER DST DATA, EXAMPLE 8.6
Initial Flow Period
Cumulative Flow
Time
(minutes)
Manometer
Pressure
(in. of water)
Surface Pressure
(psig)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.0
1.2
2.3
2.5
2.6
3.6
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.2
0.0000
0.0433
0.0830
0.0903
0.0939
0.1300
0.1372
0.1408
0.1444
0.1480
0.1516
Final Flow Period
Cumulative Flow
Time
(minutes)
Surface Pressure
(psig)
PressureBuildup
Rate, Dp/Dt
(psi/min)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
0.0
2.4
3.6
4.5
5.6
7.0
8.0
9.3
10.5
11.6
13.2
14.5
16.0
0.48
0.24
0.18
0.22
0.28
0.20
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.32
0.26
0.30
The minimum rate of change in surface pressure will occur if only
water is produced during the flow period. By use of Eq. 8.30, the
maximum water flow rate is calculated to be
2
* dVdt + q w + 0.3538 4500 + 3.30 bbl/min.
1. Initial flow period. Like the pretest planning procedure, calculate the maximum and minimum expected rates of surfacepressure
change if gas or water, respectively, is encountered during the test.
Connect a water manometer to the pressuregauge manifold. Open
the tool with only the bubble hose open at the surface. When bubbles
appear in the bucket, shut off the bubble hose and begin timing with
a stopwatch. Observe and record pressures every minute. Terminate
the initial flow period after 5 minutes or when pressure reaches a
predetermined safe operating level. Record the duration of the initial flow period.
2. Initial shutin period. Shut in the well for at least 1 hour. Wait
until surface pressure stablizes. If surface pressure is greater than
15 psig, install a criticalflow prover with a 1/16in. orifice plate on
the blowdown line. Vent the criticalflow prover to the atmosphere
and record chamber pressures for a few minutes. The volume of free
gas and hence the volume of liquid produced then can be calculated with Eqs. 8.25 and 8.29 as described. Review the test objectives and plan the remainder of the test (additional flow and shutin
periods) accordingly.
Example 8.6Analysis of a ClosedChamber DST. A closedchamber DST consisting of two flow periods and two shutin periods was run in a newly drilled well.22 The objectives of the test were
to identify formation fluids and to obtain flowrate data to be used
in determining the necessary shutin time required to obtain satisfactory pressure transient data. The total liquid recovered after the
final flow period was 1.8 bbl of filtrate and muddy water. The blowdown consisted of only air, while the initial chamber volume was
49.7 bbl. Table 8.7 gives time and pressure data for the two flow periods; the durations of the flow and shutin periods are summarized
next. With the flowperiod data, identify the formation fluids and,
if gas was produced during the test, determine the flow rate: initial
flow period+10 minutes; initial shutin period+90 minutes; finalflow period+60 minutes; final shutin period+120 minutes.
Solution.
1. Pretest planning calculations similar to those illustrated in Example 8.5 indicated that only liquid entered the drillpipe during the
initial flow period. Rearranging Eq. 8.27, the liquid influx into the
chamber during the initial flow period is estimated to be
Vp +
The average chamber pressure is
p e ggL53.34 Tz * 1
p+
g gL53.34Tz
(14.7) e [(0.65)(10,000)][(53.34)(140)460)(0.9)] * 1
+
[(0.65)(10, 000)][(53.34)(140 ) 460)(0.9)]
+ 16.49 psia,
where T+average flowing temperature. Rearranging Eq. 8.23, the
rate of change in surface pressure if only water is produced during
the initial flow period of the DST is
dpdt +
* pdVdt
(16.49)(3.30)
+
+ 0.504 psi/min.
V
108
Any gas coming out of solution would increase this rate slightly;
therefore, for purposes of preplanning estimation the rate may simply be doubled to 1 psi/min.
In summary, the rate of change in surface pressure during the initial flow period of the DST is expected not to exceed 234 psi/min.
If observed pressure changes are significantly more than 1 psi/min,
then either oil or gas probably is present.
ClosedChamber Test Procedure. The following procedure,22
which is based on field experience, is recommended for closedchamber DSTs.
DRILLSTEM TESTING AND ANALYSIS
V c p 2 * p 1
p 2 ) 14.65
(49.7)(0.1516 * 0)
(0.1516 ) 14.65)
+ 0.51 bbl.
2. We solve for the volume of gas in the chamber after the finalflow period, expressed at standard conditions, to determine how
much gas entered the chamber during the final flow period. At the
beginning of the final flow period, the chamber volume was equal
to the initial volume less the liquid influx during the initial flow period; i.e., 49.7*0.5+49.2 bbl. Given the total recovery of 1.8 bbl, 1.3
bbl of liquid was produced during the final flow period. The volumes of gas produced during the initial flow period can be calculated from the real gas law, expressed in the form
psc V2,sc /Tsc zsc +p2V2/T2z2.
At a standard temperature of 60F (520R) and an initial pressure
of p1+14.65 psia, the number of standard cubic feet in the drillpipe
at the end of the test can be calculated. Assuming the average chamber temperature to be 90F, then the values of zsc and z2 are 1.0 and
0.98, respectively, and the initial volume of gas in the chamber, expressed at standard conditions, is
V 2,sc +
+
p 2V 2T scz sc
p scT 2z 2
(16 ) 14.65)(49.7 * 1.8)(60 ) 460)(1)
(14.65)(90 ) 460)(0.98)
163
9 6.7
bbl.
The drillpipe contained
4 9.7  0.5 1
4 9.2 bbl of liquid at the end
of the initial flow period or at the beginning of the final flow period.
Thus, the volume of gas produced into the chamber during the final
26 7 scf. Because this vol
ume of gas was produced during a period of 1 hour, the average flow
flow period was
9 6.7 4 9.2 4 7.5
=
bbl or
rate is equal to
(26 7)(24)
qg = (1, 0 0 0) = 6.4
_
From Eq.
8.26
time group (!1p!1t, psihours) during the subsequent shutin period
will follow the pressurederivative typecurve response, p .
The behavioral model of a reservoir will be apparent in the pres
sure response during the impulse period (flow or injection) and the
sponse during the shutin period will exhibit the derivative behavior
MscflD.
characteristic of a particular model. Chap.
and assuming that the average chamber pressure
of the final flow period is estimated to be
28 6
the pressurechange typecurve response, PD, while the pressure/
subsequent shutin period (buildup or falloff). The pressure re
is equal to the surface pressure, the instantaneous flow rate at the end
qill
Therefore, a loglog plot of the pressure/time group (!1ptp, psi
hours) as a function of time during the impulse period will follow
Vdp/ dt + PcdV / dt
Tz
Theoretically, an impulse generates a signal that contains all the
information characterizing a reservoir. In practice, however, the res
nal can be read. The higher the transmissibility (khl,u) of a reservoir,
the larger the quantity of flowing fluid required to create a given am
plitude of pressure response. Hence, impulse testing may not work
(16
O)l} ) / [(9 0
well in veryhightransmissibility reservoirs.
14.6 5)
Example 8.7Analysis of an Impulse Test. Fig. 8.11 shows an
25
impulsetest analysis
of a tubingconveyed perforating operation
4 6 0)(0.9 8)]
in an unconsolidated sand. The well was perforated while underba
lanced, allowed to flow
= 7.1 MscflD,
17
bbl in
0.30
psi/min from Table
=
,u =
h=
=
rw =
Pi =
C=
8.7. Had the
Ct
test been run as a conventional DST, the gas production might have
been missed.
8.7 Impulse Testing
25 26
is a method suitable for testing wells that do not
Impulse testing ,
flow to the surface during a test or for which extended flow is unde
sirable. The formation is subjected to an impulse generated by a
short flow or injection period, followed by a buildup or falloff peri
od. Accurate measurements of the pressure response with time and
12.6 x 10 6 psi1
0.39 cp
35 ft
0.25
0.29 ft
5 ,0 7 4 psia
0.13 bbl/psi
Solution.
1. The
following typecurve correlating parameter and pressure
and time match points were obtained from the match shown in Fig.
8.11:
of the total quantity of fluid produced or injected are required. Pres
surechange and pressurederivative type curveslO12 are used to
Correlating parameter: CDe2s =
interpret the pressure response. The impulse method permits a low
Pressure match point:
cost evaluation of the reservoir and wellbore condition before fi
nal completion.
.
TIme match pomt:
.
The impulsetesting technique method is particularly useful for
analyzing buildup data following a short flow period (no more than
a few minutes). The initial flow period of a DST is short enough to
be considered an impulse. During a tubingconveyed perforating
operation, perforating when the well is underbalanced results in a
rapid influx of fluid into the tubing, followed by shutin after a short
k=
In practice, the impulse rate is not instantaneous, so buildup or
duration of the impulse, tp, becomes small compared with the shut
in time, t. For this condition or when the impulse is instantaneous,
the pressure response during the shutin period is given by25
338 8.8Qt,u ,
=
PD,'
kh
...
...
...
injected. The pressure response during the impulse (flow) period is
given by
(Pi
164
 p)tp
338 8.8Qt,u
PD"
kh
................... (8.32)
5 4.
( )
3, 38 8.8Qt,u
h
!1p!1t
MP
28 2 md.
3. Next, calculate the dimensionless wellborestorage coefficient,
8.6.
CD, with Eq.
CD = 0.8 9 36C
cthr;v
(0.8 9 36)(0.13)
(0.25)(0.39)(12.6
1.1
.. (8.31)
where Qt = the total quantity of fluid (reservoir barrels) produced or
= 0.4 4.
MP
(3, 38 8.8)(17)(0.39)
(0.4 4)
35
When a formation is subjected to an instantaneous impulse, the
falloff data will not follow the pressurederivative response until the
t D/ C D
104.
the typecurve analysis:
analysis by the impulsetesting method.
sponse, not its derivative, will match the pressurederivative curve.
MP
2. If we rearrange Eq. 8.31, we can calculate permeability from
wellbore for a short period. All three situations are wellsuited to
resulti
pressure response over time is given by Green's func
2
tions.
The functions are the time derivatives of the dimensionless
pressure solutions developed as type curves.2831 The pressure re
(:i )
( )
l.5
time. A backsurge operation also creates a high flow rate into the
 p)!1t
minutes, and then shut in. The
following reservoir and fluid properties were known:
where the rate of surfacepressure change, dpldt, at the end of the
final flow period is equal to
(Pi
discusses the pressure
olution capabilities of the pressure gauge limit how much of the sig
28 6 (4 9.7  l.8)(0.30)
[(0  l.8)/(6 0 
derivative characteristics of various reservoir models.
106)(0.29)2
106.
4. The skin factor is estimated with the typecurve correlating pa
rameter, CDe2s, and the dimensionless wellborestorage coeffi
cient, CD.
= 0.5In
(C
D:)
MP
]
PRESSURE TRANSIENT TESTING
2
1 0 ,,
E
::;)
o
)(
at time zero. The type curves also include the effects of wellbore
TYf'ECURVES
storage and skin factor. The solutions are presented in terms of a di
 "'ES$URE
DlUVATrvE
'iii
a.
instantaneous production or injection of a specific volume of fluid
o AC'TUAL OATA
mensionless pressure ratio as a function of the dimensionless time
group tolCo. The matching parameter is Coe2s. The dimensionless
10
pressure ratio is calculated directly from field pressure data. A
match is then obtained by sliding the field data horizontally until the
a.
::;)
best match is found. We then illustrated the use of the Ramey type
01
curves through analysis of an example DST.
Sec. 8.5.2 presents the Peres et ai. method for analyzing DST's.
::;)
'"
'"
This method provides a way to analyze the pressure data obtained
during the shutin period. The Peres et ai. method takes into account
a.
producing time and variable flow rate during the flow period
10
1
1
2
10
10
time, hours
Fig. 8.11lmpulse analysis, tUbingconveyed perforating op
eration (after Ayoub et al.25).
through the use of a multirate time function. The Peres et ai. method
provides estimates of formation permeability k, skin factor
s,
and
initial reservoir pressure Pi. We illustrated the Peres et ai. method
with an example.
In Sec. 8.6, we discuss the closedchamber DST. This is a meth
od of monitoring the initial flow period of a DST to indentify pro
duced fluids and to provide estimates of gas and liquid flow
=
=
0.5In

C:i
104
106
2.1.
The negative skin factor indicates effective perforation cleanup
of drilling fluids. In addition, a possible improvement in permeabil
ity was obtained near the wellbore.
rates during the initial flow period. Information gained during the
closedchamber test can be used to establish minimum times for the
remaining flow and shutin periods. The closedchamber DST is
based on a mass balance of fluids in the wellbore. We can estimate
the maximum pressure change to be expected assuming that either
gas only or water only is produced. If the pressure rises faster than
predicted for water production only, then either oil or gas is flowing
into the wellbore. After the test is completed, we can estimate the
flow rate from the pressures measured during the test. We illustrate
S.S Chapter Summary
In this chapter, we discussed DST design, monitoring, and analysis
procedures.
Sec. 8.2 describes a conventional DST. DST's are run to obtain
both pre and postcalculations for closedchamber DST analysis
with examples.
Sec. 8.7 describes impulse testing. In an impulse test, the formation
is subjected to a short flow or injection period followed by a much
longer shutin period. To use the impulsetest method, the quantity of
one or more of the following: (1) identification of reservoir fluid; (2)
fluid produced or injected must be known. The pressure response is
estimate of well productivity; and (3) estimates of formation perme
analyzed with conventional pressure and pressurederivative type
ability, skin factor, and static reservoir pressure. A conventional
curves. However. the pressure response during the shutin period is
DST consists of two flow periods and two shutin periods. The DST
tool is first run into the hole. The valves are then open for a short
flow period, usually about 5 minutes. At the end of the first flow pe
riod, the valves are closed for a buildup test, which should last 1 hour
or more to obtain a good estimate of true static formation pressure.
A second flow period and shutin period are then obtained. The se
cond flow period typically lasts from 30 minutes to several hours.
The final shutin period typically lasts one to two times as long as
the final flow period. After the final shutin period, the DST tool is
pulled out of the hole and the test chart recovered and analyzed.
Sec. 8.3 discusses guidelines for designing a conventional DST.
Mechanical considerations include the height of the test zone, the
use