SPE 9289 SPE sect ranean AME A NEW METHOD TO ACCOUNT FOR PRODUCING TIME EFFECTS WHEN DRAWDOWN TYPE CURVES ARE USED TO ANALYZE PRESSURE BUILDUP AND OTHER TEST DATA by Ram 6, Agarwal, Amoco Production Co. Ts paper was rerio! ne 5 Aaa Fal Te-acal Conference and snot le Socal Percium Engeets tA ‘Tramataalssectiocoracconby he sumo” Formas acopy sess an sere Ml mae Rar aS mae Wise SOON Garsa Bapay Besse Wes ene <2 omit 1980, American sue of Ming, Mataurgel and Peleun Engines, ne ec Dane. Texas Saperoe' 24 2, 1960 assTRACT Currently, type curve analysis methods ave being comonly used in conjuaction vith the conven= smal methods to obtain better interpretation of Well test data. Although the aajorsty of published type curves are based on pressure dravdoun solu~ tone, they are often applied indiscriminately to analyze both pressure drawdown and buildup data Moreover, the Linitatious of dravdovn type curves, to analyze pressure buildup data collected after short producing tines, are not well understood by the practicing engineers. This may often result in an erroneous interpretation of such busldup tests. Wile analyzing buildup data by the conventional Semi=log method, the Horner method takes into account the effect of producing time, On the other hhand, for type curve analysis of the same set of buildup data, it is customary to Lguore producing tine effects’ and utilize the existing drawdown type curves. This causes discrepancies in results obtained by the Horner method and type curve nethods. Although a few buildup type curves vhich account for the effect of producing times have appeared im the petroleum literature, they are either Limited a scope or somewhat difficult to Je view of the preceding, novel but simple sethod has been developed which eliminates the dependence on producing tine effects and allows liser to utilize the existing dravdoun type curves For analyzing pressure buildup data. This method rnay also be used co analyze tuorrate, multiple-rate ‘and other kinds of tests by type curve methods es Well as the conventional methods. The method appears to work for both unfractured and fractured yells. Wellbore effects such as storage and/or damage may be taken into account except in certain The purpose of this paper >I), the draxdow type curves aay not bePused analyze data from pressure busldup tests. The above requirement on the duration of producing tines is the cane for the conventional semi-log analysis, Tf pressure buildup data obtained after short producing Eine are to be analyzed, the Horner method!® is recommended over the MD (tiller-Dyes-Hutehinsen) Inethod."" “The MDH method is generally used to. ana Tyze busldup data collected after long producing Hses, whereas the Horner method is used for those obtaided after relatively short producing tines Although pressure buildup tests with short producing times say’ occur often under any situation, they are Father more common in the case of drill stem tests ana prevfracturing tests on low permeability ges tells Thus, there is a need for generating buildup type curves, vhich account for the effects of pro- ducing time! Some limited work hae been done tn this vegard. MeKinley! has published type curves for analyzing buildup data for a radial flow systen However, his buildup type curves were generated on the assumption of long producing times} and these type curves are therefore very sinilar to dravdown|A/NEW METHOD TO ACCOUNT FOR PRODUCING TIME EFFECTS WHEN DRAWDOKN TYPE 2 [CURVES ARE USED TO ANALYZE PRESSURE BUILDUP AND OTHER TEST DATA SPE 9289 type curves and are obviously unsuitable for cates here producing tises prior to shut-in are rela~ tively’ short. Crawford, et al-,1? pointed out the above Limitations for Mckinley type curves in ana~ lyzig pressure buildup data from the DST tests. ‘They alse presented buildup curves. for short pro= ducing tines. Since their curves deal with specific Values of real producing times prior to shut-in, they are limited in acope and utility. Recently, the effect of producing tine on analysis of pressure bultdup daca using drawdown type curves has been discussed by Raghavan. !® iis stusy clearly poiats out the Limitations of dravdovn type curves for an yeing busidup data collected after small producing tines. A family of buildup type curves is presented both for unfractured and fractured wells with pro: ducing tine a5 4 parameter. Although these type curves offer » definite advantage over the existing ‘drawdown type curves, they are Gifficult to Use because of the multiplicity of type curves. Ina recent paper, Agarwal!* also discussed the Limits Cons of using dravdovn type curves for analysing buildup data obtained after snail producing times but no details were given. These linitations are discussed here in this paper, Recently Gringerten, et al.'*, presented dravdown type curves, plotted in a slightly different form, and suggested some guidelines regarding the portions of buildup date ‘hich my be analyzed by drawdown type curves Although ‘these guidelines may be useful in certain cases, the basic problem still rensias ‘To overcone the above-mentioned difficulties and to eliminate dependence on producing time, 4 new fuethod has been developed. This wethod should pro Vide a significant improvenent over the current fethods because (1) thix permits ur to account for the effects of producing time, and (2) data are nor~ malized in such a fashion that instead of utilizing 2 family ef type curves with producing time as 2 parameter, the existing dramdova type curves may be Used. This concept appears to vork for both wafrac~ Cured and fractured Wells. wellbore storage effects ith or without danage may also be taken into account provided that producing tine prior to Shutwin 15 Long enough to be out of such wellbore effects ‘This method has been extended to include anal- ysis of data from tworrate tests®’ 1:7 and multiple Fate tests®?7718 by type curve methods. ALthough ot shown, it appears to have a potential for applying type curve methods to other kinds of testing. ‘This new method, although originally conceived for type curve analysis of buildup data, 1s quite suitable for the conventional semi-log analysis. It Le similar to the Horner method because it includes the effects of producing time, and may be used to Metering formation flov capacity, skin factor and the initial reservoir pressure. Hovever, it has an lded advantage. It allows the plotting of pressure buildup data, with and without producing time effects, on the sase tine scale as the graph paper, ‘This ensbles a better comparison of dats uring the MDH and Horner type eraphe Alehough the new wethod will be developed veing he solutions for Tiquié systens, its applicability to gas wells will also be indicated. BASIS OF DRAWDOW AWD BUILDUP TYPE CURVES A type curve is a graphical representation of a ‘matheaatical solution (abtained analytically or Runerically) for a specific flo type. The solution is normally plotted, in terms of dimensionless vari~ ables, on log-log graph paper. The graph thus pre~ pared becomes the type curve for the specific flow problen with given inser and outer boundary condi tions. Depending on the type of solution (dravéown for buildup), drandown and buildup type curves are generated: Drawdown Type Curves As the name inplies, these type curves are based on the drawdown solutions. The pressure drav- down solution fore well producing at + constant rate az 4 function of flowing tive, ¢ may be uritten Hale Pye) Terra * Pann? a where, 2.636 x 107 ee @ oe D Eq. (1) is a general solution and is not meant to be restricted to any particular drainage shape oF Well location. The majority of the published type Surves!® for both unfractured and fractured wells are based on pressure drawdown solutions for Liquid Systens. Examples of pressure drawdown type curves for unfcactured yells are those presented by ‘Agarval, ot al.,* Egrlougher and Kersch* and Gringarten, et gl.1° Tn another publication Orin- garten, ct’al.,® presented type curves for verti- Cally fractured wells with infinite flow capacity and Uniform flux fractures. Type curves for finite How capacity fractures vere provided by Cinco et al,,® and Agarwal, et al.” More regarding the use of above type curves for analyaing buildup data Will be said Later dup Type curve To obtain pressure buildup solutions, superpo~ sition aay be applied in the normal mannet £0 pre Sure drawdown solutions. This provides buildup Pressures at shutrin tines, at after a producing Eine, ty Fige I shove a achesatie of pressure duildupPbchavior obtained following a constant rate Geavdova for a production period, t,. Flowing pres= freres p(t) are shown as + fonevtoR of flowing time, t*bp to's production period, t., when a butldup teat se fnitsated. “fusldup Bressures, Py, (tyrat), are shown as # function of shut-in tine, BE "Pinstead of taking a buildup test, if the well as alloted to produce beyond time, t, flowing pres ures as shown By pug(t sat) would halle been Sbtaines. Note ehat "ENE floviag pressure st the end Of the production period which ss denoted by P.e(t,) {5 sane’ ae the buildup pressure at the iastant™St PSPE 9269 RAM G. ACARIIAL 3 shut-in which 4s shown as p.,(6t=0)- Superposition ‘when applied to dravdovn sofEeions provides the fol- Loving. Bary Pye (ttt) ras ty Ta? oe Pypl (tpt gI-Pypl(40p] o The Moving pressure, Pye(t,) at the end of producing period, t, is givet'by Kaley Pyet)] Tah? qa ~ Pep! (pp! “ Subtracting Bq. (3) from Bq, (4) and substicucing, PyglStH0) for Pye(t,), we obtain = mpl Epp rypl (tH playpl (Oey) > Bq. (5) provides a basis for buildep type curves and haw been utilized tn thie paper. Before discussing the new method, Jet us review the simplified version of q. (5) which has been commonly used in the past and has provided the basis of utilizing dracdown type curves for analysing Pressure butldup data. 1 producing time, ¢,, is Signiiteantay larger then the shutein tine, Phe, it ig reasonable co assume that [(esde)/t,] = 1 Although approximate, this also Euplies?ther (e980) = tyy oF PoE (EHD g] = Pyle, ple Thus, Bq. (5) can be siaplitied asa pressure buildup equation ae shown below: Rolpg(EyP88)-P (E90) una = apl@d,) © A comparison of pressure butldup equation (6) and the pressure drawdown equation (1) inéieates that they are similar at least for cases where. pro~ ducing period, t is sigeificantly longer than the shutcin tine, at? Ie also dmplies that (lp) vs. flowing time, t is equivalent to (ip), ,@7*agy™ shut in tine, at) where ‘butidup (2) aeaudoun ~ PaoPyet) o OM paardup ~ PaotpMO) ~ RyplBE=) (8) Since Eq. (6) has been deréved from Eq. (5) ‘based on the assumption of Long producing perio? tye the difference Rypl(tp dp) Ppl (EHOg] = 0 o on Fig. 1, the above difference has been show as the erosc-hatehed area and may be defined as CP areterence ~ Paty Pyel%pMe — AO or (oeO)mrypltytot) CL) (P) aseeerence 7 Pes As producing period t, gets snaller or it gets larger, the difference sholia by Bqs. (9) through GL) cin no longer be ignored and the use of drav- ova type curves to analyze pressure buildup data becones' invalid. The inpact of the assuption shown by Bq. (9) vill be discussed first in a generalized fashion followed by ite ispact on type curves for specific flow regizes. Finally, the new method will be discussed which accounts for producing tine effects for analysing pressure buildup data, Fig. 2 schonatically shows pressure buildup behavior obtained folloving @ constant rate drawdown but at the end of three succegsively incrgasing pro- ducing periods. t, such that ty > "py > tp, The cross-hatched are shown at chevend of each!produc~ tion period denotes the difference between (P)gcaudoun 2 (Py yeyayp TePEES@REES by Eq, (20) or (14). Note that (4P)gseccrence B&t® smaller as the length of the producing period increases. This can be better shown by means of Fig. 3 where (6D) cudoun V8" flowing time, t has been com pared with (tp), 8. shutein eine, At with ustdup “ producing period t, as a parameter. Although sche~ matic, Fig. 3 cleaPiy indicates that there is @ significant difference between (SP) scsedoon 24 (P)ygergup FOF smALL producing periods. However, this difference gets smaller ae the length of the producsns period increases. Ale> note that for a aiven producing period, the difference between, the fvo (Op)s is snail at Carly shut-in tines bue te sets Digger as shut-in tine, Ge, increases. Pig. 3 clearly indicates the Liaitations of using drawlom type curves for analyzing pressure buildup data where producing period, t,, prior to shutwin i relatively enal2, ° Next we will examine the impact of this differ ence on type curve analysis for the specific flow regines (radial flov, Linear flow, ete.) and discuss fhe few method which accounts for’ producing tine Let us first consider the pressure drawoea solution for a well producing at a coustent rate in a radial systen,