SPE

So&

lJtwswmkurl

En@weme

SPE 17412
Multiphase Pressure Buildup Analysis: Field Examples
by C, Ayan

and W.J. Lee, Texas A&td U.

SPE Members

Copyright
This paper
This paper
author(a).
author(s).
presented
resiric fed
whew and

196S,

Society

was prepare-d

of Petroleum

Enginears

for preaenlefion

et the SPE

California

Ragional

Maating

held in Long

Beach,

California,

March

23-25,

1988.

was aelactad for presentation

by an SPE Program Committee
following review of information
containad
in an abslracl submitted
by the
have not been reviewad by the %ciely
of Pelroleum
Engineara
and are subjecl to correction by the
contents
of the paper, aapresantad,
The material, as preaenled,
does nol nacossarily reflect any position of tho Society of Petroleum
Engineers,
its officers, or members.
Papers
at SPE meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees
of the =!ety
of Petroleum
Engineers.
Permission
to COPY la
10 an abstracl of not more fhan 300 words. Ikiafrations
may not be coplad. rhe abstract 9hould contain conspicuous
acknowledffmant
of
hy whom the papar is presented.
Write Publications
Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833S36, Richardson,
TX 75063-3S36.
Telex, 730969 SPEDAL.

Multiphase
pressure
buildup tests from a West
Coast Field were analyzed
using a variable
bubble
point, black oil simulator. By history matching the
observed pressure data, possible explanations
were
found
for unusual
buildup
behavior,
for which
conventional analysis methods were ambiguous.

It is a common practice
to conduct pressure
buildup
tests to obtain reliable information abtiut
the producing formation
and the condition
of the
wellbore,
Analysis
of transient
well tests is
usually based on analytical solutions of the radial
diffusivity
equation,
where a major assumption i:
the
flow
of a single
fluid
with
small
compress ability. 3

FetkovichJ
given by

used

a pseudopressure

m(p) = ~ f(p) dp

function

(1)

which
is similar to the real gas pseudopressure
proposed by P,i-Hussainy g.fdIL.
With this function
he demonstrated
the similarities between isochronal
tests conducted in oil and in gas wells. Assuming a
1inear relationship with pressure for the funct ion

f(p) =

k ($,P)
rp ~

Fetkovich
showed that the performance
oil well follows the equation
q=

Perrine4 proposed a simple method to analyze

pressure
buildup tests when more than one phase is
involved.
Martin later justified Perrines method
on a theoretical
basis assuming
the products
of
pressure and saturation gradients to be negligible.
This method gained wide acceptance in the Petroleum
Industry, since it allows the engineer to use single
phase
techniques
after
replacing
mobility
and
compressibility
by total
mobility
and
compressibility of the reservoir fluids,

which

J ( ~z- p;f)n

is frequently

(2)
curve for an

(3)

used for gas wells.

Raghavan5 used this pseudopressure funct ion to

analyze multiphase drawdown and buildup tests.
To
calculate
the pseudopressure function for drawdown,
he used the instantaneous producing gas-cil ratio at
the sandface
to relate the pressure and saturation
at the wellbore.
This approach assumes a constant
gas-oil ratio everywhere within the drainage radius
of the well.
The pseudopressure
function
for
pressure
buildup assumes that the gas-oil ratio is
constant
during the buildup and is equal to the
producing gas-oil ratio at the instant of shut-in.

The Perrine-Martin approach, although

simple,
has been investigated extensively and has been shown
to yield
misleading
results
under
some
7
These circumstances
are the
circumstances.e
consequences
of the assumptions
inherent in the
method and usually
include non-uniform saturation
(and thus compressibility) distributions within the
drainage area.

B9e~,&6
proposed a method to predict the
saturation
change
at the sandface from flowing
pressure
change,
This
method
can
be used
to calculate
the pseudopressure
function,
eliminating the use of pr~ci~~ing gas-oil ratio at
the instant
of shtit-in.
However,
Raghavan

127

MULTIPHASE

PRESSURE BUILDUP

reported that this method is less accurate than the

method that uses the producing gas-oil ratio at the
instant of shut-in.
Aanonsen
used the concept of pseudotime for
the interpretation of multi phase flow problems . He
showed that, for pressure
buildup. pseudotime and
pseudopressure
approximately
linearize
the flow
equations for two-phase flow.
A1-Khal ifah et al .8 formulated the mult iphase
flow equation
in terms
of P2, linearizing
the
equat ion by assuming constant total compressibi 1ityThey
also
presented
new
mobility
ratio.
relationships
to estimate
effective
phase
permeabil ities which depend on the volat i1ity of the
oi 1 under consideration.
The methods mentioned
above usually require a
transformation between saturation and pressure; this
transformation
can be difficult and time-consuming
Some of the methods also use empirical
to compute.
or semiempirical relationships.
Throughout this study, we chose another method
to analyze multi phase pressure buildup tests.
Using
a three-phase,
two-dimensional,
variable
bubble
point reservoir
simulatorz, we tried to match the
observed pressure behavior
of multiphase
pressure
buildup
tests from a West Coast oil field.
The
reservoir consists
of turbidity
sandstones
which
were deposited
in a narrow channel.
The sandstones
were discontinuous laterally, and consisted
of sand
layers separated by thin shales.
Table 1 sunxnarizes
the reservoir
rock and fluid
properties
used
throughout
this study.
Our objectives
were to
identify ihe reservoir properties, to quantify
the
skin factor and to find possible explanations for
the relatively unusual buildup behavior observed
in
these tests.
This paper will discuss buildup tests conducted
on
two wells, which we shall refer to as wells C and D.
Well C lies in a section of the reservoir
which we
shall call Unit B, and Well D is located in another
section of the reservoir which we shall call Unit A.
The oil gravity and bubble point pressure increase
from Unit A to Unit B.
YSIS &JJjQD
Our analysis
te~i,nique stdrts with an attempt
to analyze the bui Ir,uptest using the Perrine-Mart in
method,
For eact, test, we prepared
logarithmic
plots for type curve analysisg using the equivalent
time concept proposed by Agarwal .20 Derivative type
curves of Bourdet s?t al.2 were also included in the
A semi log plot of shut-in bottom hole
analysis.
pressure versus the logarithm of Horner Time Ratio
usually
provided
a straight line whose slope could

AHALYSIS:FIELD EXAMPLE$

SPE17412

be used to provide
a preliminary
estimate
of
individual
phase
effective
permeabilities.
A
preliminary estimate of skin factor was calculated
using the total compressibility and total mobility.
This procedure
was implemented
using a transient
wel 1 test analysis software developed for use with a
microcomputer. 22
The next
step was to prepare a data set for the
simulation
study.
We used the microcomputer
analysis
results as a guideline to set up the data
Important
data were
file for the simulator.
obtained
from detailed
analysis of the well logs,
core and fluid
analyses
reports,
geological
description
of the reservoir,
well completion
reports and injection/production information.
We then performed
history match runs In which
we changed some of the input parameters in the data
set to improve the match.
Production rates, flowing
pressure before shut-in, and the pressure
behavior
during the shut-in period were the data whlzh we
attempted to match.
A key was to honor the givs~,
or measured, data to the extent possible.
The input
parameters
that we varied were the vertical
and
horizontal
permeabilities,
formation thicknesses,
porosities, penetration ratio, fluid properties
and
initial saturations.
The starting pressure and the
drainage area should be consistent to give the same
in the semilog
P * , found
extrapolated
pressure,
The skin effect
was simulated
by a
analysis.
gradual decrease
in the input permeabilities near
the wellbore.
Our model does not simulate multi phase flow in
the tubing.
However, representing the wellbore
as
an integral
part of the reservoir
grid system
allowed us to simulate the flow of wellbore
fluids
back into the formation
during shut-in period in
those cases in which pressure
in the wellbore
temporarily
exceeded
formation pressure because of
re-solutioc
of gas.
Production
allocation
from
individual
layers was also simulated
with ease.
This type of simplification
also allowed
us to
simulate wellbore
storage neglecting, however, the
actual physical
processes
(phase segregation
or
liquid holdup durifig flow) in the tubing.
of
For bui:dup tests with free gas at the Start
the prec:tiing drawdown,
we had to determine the
To solve this problem,
we
initial gas saturation.
made simulations
starting with an undersaturated
system and produced from the outer boundary
of the
drainage
area.
The run was terminated
after
achieving the initial or starting pressure
for the
drawdown.
This pressure and the resulting
gas
saturation
were uniform and used for the entire
An inherent
drawback
of this
drainage
area.
approach is that it neglects possible
non-uniform
saturation prof iles around the wellbore at the start

128

sPE17412

COSAN AYAN ANO W.J. LEE

of the flow period preceding the buildup.

A match
was considered
successful
if the
simulated
test duplicated
the observed
pressure
behavior
and production
data with
reasonable
accuracy.
We also tried
to match
the flowing
bottom-hole pressure at the instant of shut-in.
The
final step was to analyze the simulated
test using
the Perrine-Martin
theory with the microcomputer
The interpretation
welltest
analysis
software,
basically
gives the same apparent results obtained
from the application of Perrine-Martin theory to the
The properties
estimated
from the
field
data.
simulated
test,
following
the changes
in the
reservoir
parameters
required
for a match, can be
quite different from the properties estimated
from
the field test using the Perrine-Martin theory.

Three pressure bui lc!uptests were conducted

in
this
well which
is located
in Unit B of the
The first test was run when the pressure
reservoir.
in drainage
area of the well was below the bubble
point pressure; a routine application
of PerrineMartin theory indicated a skin factor of 20 and an
effective oil permeability of 2 md. Type curve and
semi log plots are shown in Figs. 1 and 2.
Based on this analysis, the well was stimulated
Figs. 3 and 4
with acid and was then re-tested.
show the type curve and semi log plots for this test.
Table 2 contains
the tabulated
pressure
buildup
data. Conventional Perrine-Martin
analysis
of the
second test still indicated a high skin (19). The
reservoir contained free gas in the second test, as
it did in the first test.
After a waterflood was initiated, a third test
Table 3 contains
the tabulated
was conducted.
The pressures measured were
pressure buildup data.
This
much
higher
than in the first two tests.
buildup test had interesting type curve and semi-log
Fig. 6 shows three
plots as Figs. 5 and 6 show.
There is an
potential
semi-log
straight
lines.
upward deviation
from an initial semi-log straight
line which continues for some time, followed
by a
third straight
line with a slope approximately the
The
same as the slope of the first straight
line.
skin factors
corresponding
to these lines were
negative as estimated in the preliminary analysis.
We simulated the third test using a varietyof
reservoir properties to try to match the observed
However, matching
the upward
pressure
behavior.
deviation from the original
straight
line was not
possible
for reasonable
values
of the input
To find the reason for this unusual
parameters.

behavior,
we analyzed
fluid property reports from
wells throughout the field in detail and found that
the bubble point pressure
of the reservoir varied
significantly
from
Unit
A,
first
assumed
representative
throughout the reservoir, to Unit B,
in which this well is completed.
We increased
the
original
bubble point pressure of the oil from 2755
to 2930 psia and successfully matched
the observed
buildup behavior.
Fig. 7 shows the semi-log plot of
the observed and history matched pressure data. The
absolute
permeability input into the model was 1.65
md.
The simulated test, when analyzed
with using
Perrine-Martin theory, gave a calculated skin factor
of -0.5 and an effective permeability to oil of 1.1
md.
The upward deviation
in pressure
from the
straight
1 ine previously established was the result
of the complete
re-dissolution
of the gas phase
within the drainage
area. The system changes from
saturated to undersaturated during the middle time
region.
We conducted a sensitivity study to determine
the effects
of several
input parameters
on the
buildup behavior.
Fig. 8 shows the effect of the
original
bubble point pressure cm the buildup test
behavior.
Note that the upward deviation
from the
original
straight
line is observed
in a limited
range of saturation
pressures.
Above a certain
saturation
pressure,
the system does not become
undersaturated
during the buildup
test
and the
upward
deviation
is not observed.
Kazemig
previously simulated
hypothetical
reservoirs
and
demonstrated
the possibility
of such behavior
,
Ayan and Leez also showed that an upward deviation
from the unit slope
of the type curve plot is
possible if pressure rises above the bubble point
pressure
while
afterflow
is dominating
shut-in
pressures.
This type of behavior, which is due to a change
in fluid pr~perties,
provides
an interesting
derivative plot, as Fig. 5 shows.
It is tempting to
conclude
that the reservoir
is a dual
porosity
system since the derivative
plot has a minimum at
late times.
However , this minimum
does not cross
below 0.5 on a derivative type curve.
After simulating the third test, we studied the
second buildup test which was conducted after the
acid stimulatiofi.
Me found
that the reported
flowing bottomhole pressure at the instant of shutin is questionable.
As Fig. 9 shows, a check using
the Cartesian
plot indicated a flowing bottomhole
pressure of 2631 psia instead of the reported
1829
psia.
We suspect
that the flowing
bottomhole
pressure of 1829 psia, which is very close to the
flowing bottom hole pressure reported in the first
test, was reported
and used incorrectly
in the

129

MULTIPHASE

PRESSURE BUILDUP AHALYSIS:

second test; of course,

it is not relevant
analysis of the second test.

After
correcting
the flowing
bottomhole
pressure, we attempted to simulate this second test.
This was also a check of the reservoir model used to
match the pressure
behavior
of the third buildup
test.
Since the buildup test and the preceding flow
period occurred in a saturated
system, we had to
find tho initial gas saturation to start the history
match study.
Using the method described previously,
we found the initial gas saturation to be 2.5 % with
a starting initial pressure of 2782 ps.ia. With this
initial gas saturation
and the same model used to
simulate the third buildup test, we were able to
match the second buildup test data as wel 1. Fig. 10
presents the semilog plot showing the observed
and
matched
pressure
behavior.
The input absolute
permeability
was kept at 1.65, which we used to
match the third buildup test.
Perrine-Martin theory
analysis of simulated test data led to estimates
of
effective
oil permeability
of 1.0 md; water
permeability, 0.011 md; gas permeability, 0.014 md;
The increase
in the skin
and skin factor,
-2.3.
factor from the second to the third buildup test was
attributed
to plugged perforations; this theory was
later confirmed with field observations.

test to check the validity ~f the reservoir

model.
At this point, the analysis process became much more
complicated.
The second
test was conducted
in a redrill
which was about 25 ft from the original
hole.
The
reason for the redriil was a persistent water leak
int: the wellbore from squeezed perforations
above
the producing
formation.
In an attempt to reduce
water product ion, the redri 11 was perforated only at
the
bottom
of the
producing
formation;
the
penetration ratio was about 0.63.
The type curve

SPE17412

and semi log plots of the pressure

buildup test
conducted in the redrill are given in Figs. 14 and
15. Table 5 contains the tabulated pressure buildup
data,
From the conventional Perrine-Martin analysis
of this test, we found an effective oi 1 permeabil ity
of 0.214 md using the full pay thickness of 102 ft.

in the

This well, in which two buildup tests

were
conducted,
is located
in Unit A section of the
reservoir which had a lower bubble point pressure
than Unit B.
We analyzed the first test using the
microcomputer
welltest
analysis
~rogram
(and
Perrine-Martin
theory) and calculated an effective
oil permeability
of 1.25 md using
a formation
thickness
of 102 ft.
The type cur~e and semilog
plots for this test are shown in Figs. 11 and 12.
Table 4 contains
the tabulated
pressure
buildup
data.
We then matched
the observed
pressure
behavior
using an input absolute permeability of 5
md and a net pay thickness
of 102 ft in the
simulator.
The effective
oil permeability
from
Perrine-Martin analysis of the simulated
test data
was 1.23 md.
Fig.
13 shows
the observed
and
simulated
pressures
for this
test.
Before
concluding
the analysis, we tried to match a second

FIELD EXAWPLES

The next step was to simulate

the pressure
buildup behavior of the second buildup conducted
in
the redrilled
well.
After we had estimated
the
initial gas saturation
to be 1.2 % at an initial
pressure
of 2620 psi, we started
the history
matching procedure,
In a one-dimensional
radial
simulation,
we matched the pressure
buildup test
with an input absolute permeability of 0,76 md using
full penetration,
Though the match was excel lent,
we had to change the input permeability
from the 5
md used to simulate the test of the original hole to
0.76 md. Such a change decreases the permeabilitythickne$s
product from 510 md-ft to 77.5 md-ft for
two wells only 25 ft apart.
The problem now was to find the reason for the
difference in the permeability-thickness
products
obtained
from these two tests conducted in wells in
virtually the same location.
Fig. 16 shows gamma
ray log responses for the original and the redrill,
and includes some core data,
The log responses are
quite comparable,
which further suggests something
other than a drastic change in formation properties.
The core data also indicate low permeability within
the perforated zone. At this point, we prepared
a
data file for a two-dimensional
simulation
of a
partially penetrating well with a penetration
ratio
of 0.59.
The input absolute
permeabilities above
the perforations
were 11 md.
At the perforated
interval we kept the input absolute permeabilities
as 0.76 md.
The thickness-weighted
average of these
permeabil
ities
is 5.0 md, which
is the input
permeabi 1ity used to match the pressure buildup test
in the original
hole.
The vertical permeabi 1ities
were 0.5 md for all the layers,
Fig. 17 shows the
semi log plot for this test and the history match.
The rock properties
used to match
the pressure
buildup
test from the redrill using this data set
were consistent with the core and buildup behavior.
The results confirmed
the reservo!r model used to
match the pressure buildup data from the original
hole, with a permeability of 5 md.
Though we found a possible explanation for the
different
permeability-thickness
products obtained
from these two tests, there was one more question to
answer.
Why did the test from the redrill not
reveal information from the whole pay but, instead,
reflect only the properties of the low permeability
zone perforated ? Kazemi and Sethz found that, in
a layered
reservoir
with crossflow,
a partially
~enetrating well may cause two semi-log
straight
lines on a Horner plot.
The first straight line

130

SPE17412

COSAN AYAN ANO il.J. LEE

yields the flow capacity of the open interval

and
the later one gives
the flow capacity
of the
format ion. They also presented
equations
to find
the time required
for the later straight
line to
develop.
lie used these
equations
both for the
(The
buildup
test
and the preceding
drawdown.
equations and values used for the calculations
are
presented
in tne Appendix.)
We found that the time
to the start of the second semi log straight line was
about 198 hours for drawdown,
whereas
the actual
For the buildup test,
drawdown
time was 236 hours.
a shut-in time of 255 hours was needed to reach the
second straight line, but the test was terminated
after only 63 hours.
These results,
even though
approximate
because of the assumptions
used to
calculate
them, further
suggested
that the first
semilog straight line reflected
the properties
of
the low permeability
region perforated.
Since we
matched the pressure behavior ~f this second test,
one logical confirmation was to simulate this test a
1ittle longer and see if another straight 1ine would
Fig. 18 shows the pressure behavior of the
develop.
simulated test which was also shown in Fig. 17, but
This plot shows a
with a longer shut-in period,
second
straight
line with
a smaller
slope,
indicating that the total formation flow capacity is
indeed higher.

B
Ct

Formation

volume factor, RB/STB

Total compressibility,

l/psi

k (S,P)
f(p)

F(tD)

Pressure function
/.tB

compute pseudopressure
Dimensionless

to

function to calculate

the time required for the second

semi log straight line to begin for
drawdown in a layered reservoir with
crossflow
F(AtD)

Dimensionless

function

to calculate

the shut-in time required for the

second semi log straight line to
begin for bui ldup in a layered
reservoir with crossflow

An important
observation
in this part of the
analysis was that the total compressibility,
which
was quite large, substantially
delayed the second
straight line, particularly because this relatively
large
compressibility
was coupled
with a low
permeabi 1ity.

Net pay thickness,

Net pay thickness open to flow, ft

ft

Back pressure curve coefficient

(Eq. 3), STB/D/(psi Z)n

Horizontal

permeabi 1ity in the net

pay, md
Multiphase
pressure
buildup
tests
can be
1.
analyzed
successfully with numerical simulation and
possible solutions to complex problems can be found.
The formation of multiple straight lines can be
2.
a consequence of changing fluid properties
within
the drainage
area as analysis
of data from Well C
shows .
3.
Buildup
tests
involving
multiphase
flow,
permeability anisotropy and partial penetration
may
display
two semi log straight
lines as analysis of
data from Well D shows.
4.
For a history match study, all available data
from the well logs, rock and fluid property reports,
geological analysis core and wel 1 completion reports
should be used. Good quality data in the buildup
test itself is, of course, essential for successful
analysis.

kr

Relative

permeability

kv

Vertical

permeabi 1ity in the net

pay, md

Vertical distance from the bottom of

the formation to the B/D

r
w

Wellbore

Saturation,

Time, hr

radius, ft

0.0002637kht
D

131

fraction

Dimensionless

time

4 F ctr~
Product ion time prior to buildup,

hr

MULTIPHASE

(tp)~

0.0002637k

PRESSURE BUILDUP ANALYSIS:

At
At D

ti

Shut-in time, hr
0.0002637k

At

10. Chu, W,C., Reynolds, A.C. Jr, and Raghavan, R. :

Pressure Transient Analysis
ormatlon ~
Problems,
151-164.

Dimensionless

@ P ~tr~

Penetration

#J

Porosity,

Jo

of Two-Phase Flow
(Apri 1 1986)

11. Raghavan, R.: Wel 1 Test Analysis For Multi phase

Flow, paper SPE 14098 presented at the 1986 SPE
International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering,
Beijing, China, March 17-20.

Shut-In time
B

SPE17412

9. Kazemi, H.: A Reservoir Simulator for Studying

Productivity Variation and Transient 8ehiivior of
a wel 1 in a Reservoir Undergoing Gas Evolut ion,
~
(Nov. 1975).

Dimensionless

# P ctr~
production

FIELD EXAMPLES

Ratio, fraction

fraction

Oil viscosity,

12. Ayan, C. and Lee, W.J. : The Effects of

Multiphase Flowcm
the Interpretation of
Pressure Buildup Tests, paper SPE 15537
presented at the 1986 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Oct. 5-8!

cp

We would
like to thank the Crisman Institute
for Petroleum
Reservoir
Management
at Texas A&M
University for making this research possible.

13. Fetkovich, M. J.: The Isochronal Testing of Oil

Wells, paper SPE 4529 presented at the 1973 SPE
Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Sept.30-Ott. 3.

1. Earlougher, R,C. Jr.: Advances in Well TesL

p,
Monograph Series, SPE, Oallas (1977)

14. A1-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J. Jr. , and Crawford,

P.8, : The Flow of Real Gases Through Porous
Media. ~
(May 1966) 624-36.

2. Matthews,

15. Raghavan, R.: Well Test Analysis: Wells

Producing by Solution Gas Drive, 30C. Petu
(Aug. 1976) 196-208.

C.S. and Russell,

D.G.: ~ressur~
Monograph
Series, SPE, Dallas (1967) 1.

3. Lee, W.J.: Mel 1 Testing , Textbook

Dallas (1982) 1.

16. BOe, A., Skjaeveland, S.M. and Whitson, C.S.:

Two-Phase Pressure Transient Test Analysis,
paper SPE 10224 presented at the 1981 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, Oct. 5-7.

Series, SPE,

4. Perrine, R. L.: Analysis of Pressure Buildup

~, Dallas
rat. .
Curves, Drill, and rod,
(1956) 482-509.

17. Aanonsen, S.1. : Nonlinear Effects During

Transient Fluid Flow in Reservoirs as
Encountered in Wel 1 Test Analysis ,
dissertation, Dr. Scient. , Univ. of Bergen,
Norway, 1985.

5. Martin, J.C.: Simplified Equations of Flow in

Gas Drive Reservoirs and the Theoretical
Foundation of Multiphase Pressure Buildup
Ar,alyses. ~
(Oct. 1959) 3139-311.

18. A1-Khalifah, A.A., Aziz, K. and Home, R.N.:

A New Approach To Multi phase Wel 1 Test
Analysis, paper SPE 16743 presented at the 1987
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, Sep . 27-30.

6. Weller, W.T.: Reservoir Performance During

Two-Phase Flow, ~
(Feb. 1966)
240-46.
7. Earlougher, R.C., Miller. F.G. and Mueller,
T.D.: Pressure Bui ldu!I Behavior in a Two-Well
Gas-Oil System, ~oc . Pet, ~
(June 1967)
195-204.

19. Gringa,ten, A. C., Bourdet, D., Landel, P.A. and

Kniazefr, V.: A Compar ison Between Oif ferent
Skin a!id Wellbore Storage Type-Curves For Early
Time Transient Analysis, rpaper SPE 8205
presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas,
Sept. 23-26.

8. iiest, W.J., Garvin, W.il. and Sheldon, J.W.:

Solution of the Eauat ions of Unsteadv-state
Two-Phase Flow in Oil Reservoirs, J&I&,
AIME,
201.

132

COSAN AYAN AND W.J. LEE

CD C3-IA19

20. Agarwal, R.G.: A New Method To Account for

Producing Time Effects When Drawdown Type Curves
Are Used To Analyze Pressure Buildup and
Other Test Oata, paper SPE 9289 presented at
the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 21-24.

and the initial

time
straight line to develop

F(Ato) f 0.05

In the above equations,

ratio,

22. McVay, O.A., till, N.C., Lancaster, O.E., Lee,

W.J. and Holditch, S.A.: Interactive Well Test
Analysis Using Microcomputers, paper SPE 15311
presented at the 1986 SPE Symposium on Petroleum
Industry Application of Microcomputers, Silver
Creek, June 18-20.

and h is given by

The dimensionless

R, = Sin~

Cos~

and the time for the beginning

straight line is given by

(A-2)
of

the

F(to) s 0.05
provided
the flow entry
extremity of the bed.

second

(tp)D

RI exp(+r2Ato/h2)

is

@~

(A-8)

ctr~

Since the total mobility from the simulated test was

thought to reflect the properties
of the lower
permeability
region, we did not use the value of
total mobility; using this relatively smaller value
would
almost
guarantee
the delay of the second
For the
horizontal
semi log straight
line.
averaged
permeability,
kh, we used the thickness
permeability
calculated
using the 11 md higher
permeability zone and the 0.76 md lower permeability
zone. Using Eqs. A-1 and A-4 and the values given
for
in Table A-1, we calculated the times IWCeSSdry
the second straight line to develop as

to either

(t )D+At
~

time definition

10-6 l/psi obtained from the simulated test since

the fluid satiations
were well established.
For
the mobility, we used kh/po during the Calculations.

For buildup:

F(Ato) =~

penetration

Before starting
the calculations,
we h?~ to
select
the compressibility,
mobility
and the
horizontal permeability to use in the equations.
We
selected
the total compressibility,
Ct of 100.0 x

(A-3)
is restricted

p is the

0.0002637kht
D=

tihere

(A-5)

(A-7)

23. Ayan, C.: Quarterly Report for The Crisman

Institute For Petroleum Reservoir Management,
Texas A&M U., College Station, TX (March 1987).

Kazemi and Sethz gave equations to determine

the time for the beginning
of the second semi log
straight line for a partially penetrating well in an
anisotropic reservoir.
For Lrawdown:

semi-log

if the flow entry is located at the lower extremity.

21. Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J.A., Whittle, T.M., Pirard,

Y.M. and Kniazeff, V.: Interpreting Well Tests
in Fractured Reservoir s,LiorldOil (Oct. 19B3).

24. Kazemi. H. and Seth. M. S.: Effect of AnisotroDv

and Stratification on Pressure Transient
Analysis of Wells with Restricted Flow Entry,
paper SPE 2153 presented at the 1968 SPE Annual
Meeting, Houston, Sept. 29-Ott. 2.

for the second

is given by

(A-4)

133

Orawdown:

t= 190 hr (8.3 days)

Buildup:

t= 255 hr (10.6 days)

TS8LE
VALUES

USED

A-1

FOR CALCULATING
THE TIME
STRAIGHT
LINE

TABLE

REC!UIREO
FOR THE
TO OEVELOP

l=60ft
hp=

h = 102
60

ft

rw=

SECOND

SEHI1OG

Reservoir
of West

0.6

md

0.411

PO.

0.468

$=

0,21

kh=

Cp

Buildup

Effective

Time
hr

0.0
0.23600E-01
0.40300E-01
0.56900E-01
0.73600E-01
0.90300E-01
0.14030
0.22360
0.30690
0.65780

Oata

fraction

producing

md

ct.

100.0x 10-6 I/psi

tp=

236

hr

Net

pay

thickness,

Oil

Viscosity,

Oil

Formation

ft
cp

Point

Volume

Factor,

Pressure,

psia

Saturation,

RB/STB

time,

C.

to.

SecOnd

1762

to

0.22

0.76

to

6.o

102

to

Pressure

Test

Buildup

Effective

hr

Oata

165

to

1.442

fraction

TABLE

Well

Slmulat!ons

0.17

0.352

For

In

5 t?d

Mater

Pressure

U$ed

R4ttn2
Porosity,

ft

Bubble

TABLE

Properties

ft

Permeability,
kv.

Rock and Fluid

Coast
Reservoir

0,46S

to

1.562

2765

to

2930

0.27

to

0.40

For

producing

Men

tire@,

C,

Third

tp = 9984

Test

hr

Pressure
psia

Time
hr

Pressure
psia

Time
hr

Pressure
psie

Time
hr

Pressure
psia

Time
hr

Pressure
Psla

Time
hr

2630<7
2631.0
2631.1
2631.1
2631.2
2631.3
2631.6
2632.2
2632.8
2635.4

1.0744
1.9078
2.7411
3.9911
4.8244
6.4911
9.8244
14.826
19.913
25.147

2638,7
2644.8
2650.3
2657.2
2661.1
2667.4
2677.2
2688.0
2695.3
2701.1

35.747
50.592
65, 63ZI
80.636
95.634
135.13
159.31
168.38
184.72

2708.3
2715.0
2719.9
2723.6
2726.7
2732.9
2736.3
2736.5
2737.9

0.0
0.25000
0.50000
0.76000
1.7500
2.7500
3.7600
4.7500
5.7200
6.7200
7,7200

2620.5
2633.3
2649.4
2663.4
2707.5
2739.2
2763,2
2781.7
2796.2
2808.1
2817.9

9,7200
12.750
15.750
19.710
23.710
27.710
32.710
40.710
48.710
56.710
68.610

2833.2
2849.1
2860.1
2870.2
2877.7
2883.7
2889.5
2896.8
2902.5
2907.4
2913.3

72.710
76.710
80.710
84.710
88.710
92.710
101.71
113.71
133.71
141.71

TABLE

Buildup

Effective

Oata

For

producing

time,

Time
hr

Pressure
psia

lime

0.0
0.53330
0.86670
1.3670
1.6170
1.8670
2.1170
2.3670

2000.0
2267.0
2424.0
2462.0
2472.0
2479.0
2484.0
2489.0

2.8670
3.3670
3.8670
4.3670
5.3670
6.3670
8.3670
11.370

hr

2915.0
2917.3
2920.1
2923.1
2926.1
2929.3
2936.3
2945.7
2953.4
2965.6

4
TABLE

Pressure

Pressure
psia

Hell

O,

First

tp = 84

Pressure

Test

hr

Bu!ldup

Effective

Oata

For

Uell

producing

Pressure
psia

Time
hr

Pressure
psia

Time
hr

Pressure
psia

Time
hr

2499.0
2509.0
2517.0
2524.0
2534.0
2544.0
2557.0
2572.0

16.370
21.370
26.370
36.370
46.370
56.370
66.3/0
76.370

2587.0
2599,0
2607.0
2619.0
2624.0
2629.0
2634.0
2637.0

0.0
0.30000
0,80000
1.3000
1.7000
2.0000
2.6000
3.6000

489.20
584.70
690.60
793.50
925.90
1062.0
1370.0
1705.0

4.6000
5.6000
6.5000
7.4000

134

time,

10.100
11.300
14.000
17.100

O Redrill

tp=

(Second

236

Pressure
psia

1915. C
2037.0
2123.0
21B4. O
2286.0
2312.0
2342.0
2367.0

Test)

hr

Time
hr

20.300
24.000
?8.200
32.700
41.000
47.200
54.200
63.400

Pressure
psia

2395.0
2414.0
243B. O
2460.0
2462.0
2480.0
2494.0
2508.0

ma

260@

2500

o
0

n
o
0

n
0

,Dli,
,,2,

L.LJ~J__J_L.J

,,,

,~B

-1

~II
,~1

Equivalent

, ~z

time

le

78fJ0
,@l

I
, @3

I
,~z
Horner

(hrs)

llme

, ~4

11

Ratio

t
1

Pressure

?!
6

Pressure

change

Derivative
f

x
x

I
,0-2
,0-3

I
, ~-z

I
, f10

I
,~-1
Equivalent

time

,~1
(hrs)

!I!L..J
, @z

, ~3

2625[
,~1

I
, ~z

I
, ~3

J&&$JJJ.

L*
, ~4
Horner

lime

10
Ratio

F
270a
F
x

~
265+-

t-

a
w
m
l+orner

lime

R&o

___ _...

23l=__
t

2635

2725

2634

2700 L
[

tL
G

2625
x

1
2629t *
0

I
0.10

I
47.20

Tme
Ho.-ah.,

0.40

0.30

2600
, f10

~ L.L*+8D
0.60

0.50

[
101

I
, ~2

I
, ~3

[
,#

I
, f14

I
,#

u
1

(hr)

W ofrty.llnmbul~~ ted68u

to,
Wdl $. Tm

2.

2600 E

t,-

Cl
I

x
.:
n

2500
I

L
x
x

xxx ~xxx

xx

Pressure

x xxx

Derivative

x xx
xx

2300

I
zzoo~d
, @2

,*1

10Homer

ns.12-8-Tar.9

Tme

Rotio

Pb4forweo.

T9@ 1.

L
Ti

r----l;

R
xl-l
Xo
Xo

Xm

i?

.
x
x

11

x
x

(n!sd)

ajnssa,d

2500

-%Dxx

2300

2100

Qx
0

o
0

1100

t
900

ACIUA1 HI51ORY

sIwLATID

III STOL!Y

700

I
,~1

500
, *0

,
Horner

Time

I
, ~2

, ~3

Ratio

2500

~
m
~
Al
L
~

2300

2100

1900

1700

1500

1300

1100

900

o
0

w
L
m

700

o
0

ACTUAL WI$TORv

S1lWIATflI HISTORY

0
D

500}
, ~0

I
,,32

,~1
Horner

Time

139

Ratio

L
,( 1