Chapter 35

Well Performance Equations

R.A. Wattenbarger, Texas A&M U.*

Introduction
This chapter summarizes the equations that apply to the The vector notation used on the left side of the equation
performance of a well in a reservoir. The equations are has the following meaning. In one dimension (lD),
used to calculate the relationship between rate and pres-
sure of a well and the properties of the fluids and forma- 6 1 her ap
tion. These equations apply only in the “drainage area” -= o.ooo264 k at ) . . . . . . (24
of the well and do not describe the entire reservoir per- ax2
formance, except for the case of a single-well depletion
reservoir. For more complete treatment of the entire reser- where x is the distance coordinate in a one-dimensional
voir performance, refer to Chap. 37-Solution-Gas-Drive flow system, ft. In two dimensions (2D),
Oil Reservoirs, Chap. 38-Waterdrive Oil Reservoirs, or
Chap. 39-Gas Condensate Reservoirs.
a2p a2p 1 4wt aP
There have been several excellent references developed --
a,:+2= . (2b)
over the past few years on well pressure behavior. I-’ ay 0.000264 k at’ .““““.
These are much more detailed than this chapter and the
reader should be aware of them. This chapter is a brief where x and y are distance coordinates in a 2D flow sys-
summary of this technology. tem, ft. In radial coordinates,
Diffusivity Equation
The equations that relate pressure and rates for a well are 3% 1ap 1
--hc, ap
@cl
solutions of the diffusivity equation. This equation can ar2+--= r ar 0.000264 k ar ’ “.‘.’ ” ”
be written as
where r is the radius in radial flow system, ft.
1 ~PC, ap Eq. 2c gives the most useful solution of the diffusivity
v2p= o.ooo264 k at ) ... . .. equation for reservoir and well performance.
The geometry of the reservoir is in cylindrical coor-
dinates with an inner radius, rw, into which the fluid
where
flows at a constant rate and an outer boundary, rc , which
p = pressure, psi,
is closed and represents the outer boundary of the reser-
4 = porosity of reservoir rock, fraction, voir. The solutions of this cylindrical coordinate prob-
p = fluid viscosity, cp, lem have been presented by van Everdingen and Hurst’
C I= total compressibility of system (see Eq. 5), and are presented again in Chap. 38.
psi-‘, Eq. 1 is a linear partial differential equation that models
k = permeability of reservoir rock, md, and how pressure changes with location and time. Theoreti-
f = time, hours. cally, solutions of Eq. 1 are valid only for reservoirs
where the fluid and rock properties are constant. The ap-
‘Aulhor of Ihe onginal chapter on ths topic in the 1462 edltmn was Ralph F. plication of the solutions of Eq. 1, then, are literally ap-
Neilsen plicable for fluids with constant compressibility and
35-2 PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK

where
k, = effective permeability to oil, md,
k, = effective permeability to gas, md,
k, = effective permeability to water, md,
PO = oil viscosity, cp,
PLp = gas viscosity, cp, and
CL, = water viscosity, cp.

The total compressibility is the volumetrically weighted

average of the compressibilities of the fluids and pore
space as follows.

ct =cf+s,c, +s,c, fSwC,, . . (5)

Fig. 35.1-Pressure behavior for constant rate
reservoir.
viscosity and for formations with constant permeability.
These conditions are very nearly met in the case of aquifer
flow or for oil reservoir flow at pressures above the bub-
blepoint. The solutions of Eqs. 1 and 2 can be extended
to multiphase reservoir flow for most practical cases.
where
cf = formation compressibility, psi - ’,
S, = oil saturation, fraction of pore volume
(W,
CO = oil compressibility, psi-’ ,
S, = gas saturation, fraction of PV,
in a closed Cg = gas compressibility, psi - t ,
S, = water saturation, fraction of PV, and
CW = water compressibility, psi - ’.
The flow rate also must be expressed in terms of the
equivalent total flow rate for multiphase flow. The ex-
pression for total reservoir flow rate is
q,B,=q,B,+(1,000q,-R,q,)B,/5.615+q,B,,

Multiphase Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)

When more than one phase exists in the reservoir, it is where
still possible to write the differential equation in a form - total reservoir flow rate, STB/D,
similar to Eq. 1. This equation was presented by Martin’ ;; I total formation volume factor, RB/STB,
as
40 = oil flow rate, STBID,
B, = oil formation volume factor, RBISTB,
v 5 vp= o.;2H cpc,;. . ..,. . (3) qg = gas flow rate, Mscf/D,
(>P t R, = solution gas-oil ratio, scf/STB,
B, = gas formation volume factor, res cu
This equation shows that the conditions of homogeneity ftlscf
are not necessarily met. The concepts of total mobility, water flow rate, STBID, and
(k/p), , and total compressibility, ct, are introduced. water formation volume factor, RB/STB.
The total mobility is the sum of the individual phase
mobility as follows. Martin’s equation is a nonlinear partial differential equa-
tion. Therefore the general case does not have analytical
solutions. However, for practical purposes, Eqs. 3
-k ko kg kw
=-+-+-, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4) through 6 can be used for most well performance equa-
0P f PO Pg Pw tions if the meaning of the mobility, compressibility, and
flow rate are taken in this general three-phase sense. The
single-phase solutions of Eq. 1 can be applied to the mul-
tiphase case by using the analogies given in Table 35.1.

TABLE 3&l-ANALOGIES OF SINGLE-PHASE VALUE TO

MULTIPHASE EQUIVALENT
Oil Well Performance
Well Pressure Performance-Closed Reservoir
Single-Phase Multiphase
Value Equivalent The performance of a constant-rate well in a closed reser-
voir (of any geometry or heterogeneity) has the general
w
form shown in Fig. 35.1.
WI4 t
C Ct The lower curve of Fig. 35.1 shows that the wellbore
98 9&3, flowing pressure, p 4, goes through a rapid pressure drop
 WELL PERFORMANCE EQUATIONS 35-3

at early (transient) times and then flattens out until it

reaches a constant slope. On this coordinate plot, the
closed-reservoir, constant-rate case has the properties

aP,
--co
at
and

a*Pwf >O
at* - . log t

When p of reaches a straight line on the coordinate plot,
the period of pseudosteady state has been reached. Ev-
ery pressure point in the reservoir declines at the same
constant rate of depletion after that time. Of particular
importance is the decline of the average reservoir pres-
sure, j?~, which assumes the pseudosteady-state deple-
tion rate from the very beginning of production.
The constant elope of Fig. 35.1 is valid only for
constant-compressibility single-phase fluid. However, the
general concept of the transient period and the pseudo-
steady-state period is the same for a multiphase flow with
changing compressibilities. The PR slope would be
changing according to the changes in compressibility, and
the pR curve after a pseudosteady-state would not be ex-
actly parallel to the p,,,f curve. This nonideal behavior
would be typical of a solution gas drive reservoir or a
dry gas reservoir where the compressibility and mobili-
ties are continually changing. The infinite-acting solutions
and the pseudosteady-state solutions to follow are still ap-
Fig. 35.2-Typical constant-rate drawdown test graph.
plicable for the multiphase flow case by using the analo-
gies in Table 35.1. The value of pR, however, must be
calculated by the material balance method that applies for
this case.
Infinite-Acting Solution (MTR)
The pressure behavior of constant-rate flow in a closed
reservoir goes through several periods: the early-time
region (ETR), middle-time region (MTR), and late-time
region (LTR). These periods are illustrated on a semilog
plot ofp$ vs. log t in Fig. 35.2. The MTR solution is
discussed first.
Eq. 1 can be solved for the infinite-reservoir case, which
is useful for application at early times. The solution ap-
plies to a well producing at constant rate, beginning at
t=O, and a homogeneous reservoir of constant thickness.

PO=

10 I IO 102 IOJ IO’

2
tDr = tD/rD

Fig. X.3-Dimensionless pressure for a single well in an infinite system, no wellbore storage, no skin. Exponential-integral solution.
35-4
There are two important solutions for the intinite-
reservoir case. One solution8 assumes that the wellbore
has a finite radius, r,. This solution is used mostly for
aquifer behavior with the oil field being the inner radius
rather than a wellbore. This solution is given in Chap.
38 for the infinite-aquifer case.
A simpler solution applies for well behavior. This so-
lution, called the “line-source” or “exponential-integral”
solution, assumes that the wellbore radius, rw, ap-
proaches zero. This solution has the form
where
po = kh(pi-p)l(141.2 q&)=dimensionless
pressure,
rD = r/r,,, =dimensionless radius,
tD = (O.O00264kt)l$+c,r,.’ =dimensionless
h = formation thickness, ft,
pi = initial pressure, psi, and
rw = wellbore radius, ft.
The exponential-integral function, Ei, is a special func-
tion that results from the solution of the line-source prob-
lem. A more practical solution to the problem is the plot
of the dimensionless pD vs. t&rD2, which is shown in
Fig. 35.3. The tDr term is the dimensionless time based
on external radius, re. Fig. 35.3 can be used to deter-
mine the pressure at any time and radius from the produc-
ing well. This solution is valid as long as the radius at
which the pressure is calculated is greater than 20 r,+ or
at the wellbore of the producing well (at r,v) at a value
of fo/rD * > 10.
Fig. 35.3 is used mostly to determine the pressure at
distances away from the well such as at a nearby well lo-
cation during an interference test.
The more common solution of the exponential integral
solution is the “semilog straight line solution,” which ap-
plies after to is greater than 100. After this time, Eq. 8
applies at the wellbore:
pD=% hl t,+0.406. .....................
In customary oilfield units, this equation has the form
kt
pKf=pj -In log -3.23 , .
+crrw2 >
where m equals (162.6qBp)lkh and p,+f is the flowing
bottomhole pressure, psi. This equation results in a semi-
log plot of p,,f vs. log t with a slope of -m psi/cycle (the
MTR of Fig. 35.2.)
Eqs. 7 through 9 are used for infinite-acting solutions
before the effects of boundaries affect the pressure tran-
sient behavior. When the closest boundary begins affect-
ing the behavior at the wellbore, this time is the end of
the semilog straight line, t,,d . The last column in Table
35.2 shows tend for various drainage shapes (shape
factors).
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
Skin Effect
The solutions to Eq. 1 are modified to account for for-
mation damage near the wellbore. The damage near the
wellbore can be considered concentrated into a very thin
radius around the wellbore such that the thickness of the
damage is insignificant but a finite pressure drop results
from this damage.
Fig. 35.4 shows a sketch of the physical concept of the
damaged region and Fig. 35.5 shows the pressure pro-
file resulting from this damage.
The magnitude of the pressure drop caused by the skin
effect Ap, is
Ap,=O.87ms, ..... .... .... . . (10)
where s is the skin effect, defined in terms of dimension-
less pressure such that it would have the following effect
on Eq. 8.
time,
pD=% ln tD+o.@ts+s. .. ... . . . . . .(ll)
The value of the skin effect is calculated from transient
well test data such as a buildup test or a drawdown test.
The exact nature of the cause of the skin effect might not
bc known but might be caused by a combination of several
factors. Some of these factors are (1) mud filtrate or mud
damage near the wellbore, (2) the cement bond,
(3) limited perforations through the casing and cement
bond, and (4) partial penetration (completion). On the
other hand, the value of the skin effect, s, might be nega-
tive. This would indicate an improved wellbore condi-
tion, which might be caused by (1) improved permeability
in the vicinity of the wellbore because of acidizing or other
well treatments, (2) a vertical or horizontal hydraulic frac-
ture at the wellbore, or (3) a wellbore at an angle rather
than normal to the bedding plane.
The determination of the skin effect is important in de-
termining the need for a workover or the benefits of a
workover. The effect of the skin can be stated as a modifi-
cation to the wellbore radius by calculating an effective
wellbore radius, r’,,,, calculated by
r’w=r,e - s .............................
(8) .(12)
This effective wellbore radius, rlw, can be considered the
equivalent wellbore radius in an undamaged or un-
improved formation, which would have the same flow
. (9) characteristics as the actual well with the skin effect.
Wellbore Storage Effect (ETR)
At very early times the fluid production tends to come
from the expansion of the fluid in the wellbore rather than
the formation. This tends to delay the production rate from
the formation. The relationship between the surface pro-
duction rate, the expansion of the wellbore fluids, and the
formation production rate are shown in Eq. 13:
24C. Lb
q$=q+L+ . . . (13)
B at
 WELL PERFORMANCE EQUATIONS 35-5

TABLE 35.2-SHAPE FACTORS FOR VARIOUS CLOSED SINGLE-WELL DRAINAGE AREAS

ftDA)end
Use Infinite System
@DA)pss Less Than Solution With Less
Exact 1% Error Than 1% Error
In Bounded Reservoirs cA In CA For tDA > For t, > For t, <

31.62 3.4538 - 1.3224 0.1 0.06 0.10

0
31.6 3.4532 - 1.3220 0.1 0.06 0.10
0

A 27.6 3.3178 - 1.2544 0.2 0.07 0.09

n 27.1 3.2995 - 1.2452 0.2 0.07 0.09

21.9 3.0865 - 1.1387 0.4 0.12 0.08

0.098 - 2.3227 f 1.5659 0.9 0.60 0.015

30.8828 3.4302 - 1.3106 0.1 0.05 0.09

12.9851 2.5638 - 0.8774 0.7 0.25 0.03

4.5132 1.5070 - 0.3490 0.6 0.30 0.025

3.3351 1.2045 -0.1977 0.7 0.25 0.01

21.8369 3.0836 -1.1373 0.3 0.15 0.025

10.8374 2.3830 - 0.7870 0.4 0.15 0.025

4.5141 1.5072 - 0.3491 1.5 0.50 0.06

2.0769 0.7390 + 0.0391 1.7 0.50 0.02

3.1573 1.1497 -0.1703 0.4 0.15 0.005

0.5813 - 0.5425 + 0.6758 2.0 0.60 0.02

0.1109 -2.1991 + 1.5041 3.0 0.60 0.005

5.3790 1.6825 - 0.4367 0.8 0.30 0.01

2.6896 0.9894 - 0.0902 0.8 0.30 0.01

0.2318 - 1.4619 +I.1355 4.0 2:oo 0.03

q3 0.1155 -2.1585 + 1.4838 4.0 2.00 0.01

c&ID 2.3806 0.8589 - 0.0249 1 .o 0.40 0.025

In Vertically-Fractured Reservoirs*
2.6541 0.9761 - 0.0835 0.175 0.08 Cannot use
IO x”xe
,m 2.0348 0.7104 + 0.0493 0.175 0.09 Cannot use

,& 1.9988 0.6924 + 0.0583 0.175 0.09 Cannot use

,@ 1.6620 0.5080 +0.1505 0.175 0.09 Cannot use

,& 1.3127 0.2721 + 0.2685 0.175 0.09 Cannot use

>@ 0.7887 - 0.2374 + 0.5232 0.175 0.09 Cannot use

In Waterdrive Reservoirs
19.1 2.95 - 1.07 - - -
0
In Reservoirs of Unknown
Production Character
25.0 3.22 - 1.20 - - -

‘Use (xJx,)’ in place of A#: for fractured systems.

35-6 PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK

EC
REGION OF DAMAGED
PERMEARILITY

SEALED CIRCULAR
,UND+RIES / WELL BORE
/

1 Fig. 35.4-Radial flow model showing damaged zone. Fig. 35.5--Schematic of pressure
log r

distribution near wellbore.

where C, equals V,,,cd and qsj is the flow rate at the at every point throughout the reservoir. This is a deple-
“sandface,” STB/D and C, is the wellbore storage con- tion period at which every point of the reservoir drops
stant, equal to the volume of the wellbore, V, , times the at a rate according to the pore volume, VP, and compres-
wellbore fluid compressibility, c wf. sibility of the drainage area, ct,
The effect of the wellbore storage is to make the very
early transient pressure behave as though it were reflect- ap -0.234qB
ing production only from the wellbore fluid expansion.
This pressure drop can be calculated from ( >pss=
--$ “~‘pCt . .... (15)

qB
24C,t. . . . . . . . ..~..............
During pseudosteady-state behavior, wellbore pressure
Pi-Pwf’- is related to the average reservoir pressure, PR, by a
productivity index (PI), J, as follows.
Note that this shows a linear relationship between & and
time. Consequently, a p vs. t plot will be linear during q=J(pR -p,j). ....... . . . . . . . . (16)
the wellbore storage period. Also, a plot of log Ap vs.
log I is a straight line with a slope of unity. This wellbore This PI equation relates the pressure drawdown to the pro-
storage effect may last for just a few seconds or it may duction rate. For a circular drainage area we can write
last for many hours-i.e., for a deep, low-permeability out the complete expression for the PI equation as
gas well that has a large storage volume in the wellbore,

a high-compressibility gas, and great resistance to flow
from the formation.
After a period of time, this wellbore storage solution
gives way to the semilog straight line (for the radial flow
case). The period between the linear relationship and the
semilog straight line is from one to one and one-half cy-
cles of log t. Fig. 35.6 shows that Eq. 12 applies during
ETR, then gives way to Eq. 11 during MTR. lo This log-
log dimensionless plot has the same shape as a plot of log
(pi-p,,+) vs. log r. This is sometimes called a “type
curve.”
Pseudosteady-State Behavior (LTR)
After a well produces at constant rate for a period of time,
the boundary effects interrupt the infinite-acting pressure
behavior. If the well is in an irregularly shaped drainage
area, the closest boundary to the well causes the earliest
departure from the infinite-acting pressure solution. Af-
ter a transition period, the well begins pseudosteady-state
1
7.08x 10 -3khl(B/t) _
4= (Pi?-Pwj), ‘. . . . . . (17)
In r,/r, -0.75s~
where re is the exterior boundary radius, ft. Note that
the quantity in brackets is equivalent to J in Eq. 16 for
the circular drainage area. J is a constant if the viscosity
and formation volume factor of the producing fluid are
constant. If these fluid properties are not constant, Eqs.
16 and 17 still apply but the PI value changes with the
changing fluid properties. For multiphase flow these equa-
tions still can be used by substituting the definition in Ta-
ble 35.1 into Eqs. 16 and 17.
Eq. 17 has to be modified if the drainage area is not
circular with the well in the center. A general form of
the pseudosteady-state equation has been worked out by
Dietz l1 and has been cited by other authors. I-5 The gen-
eralized pseudosteady-state equation has the form

1
behavior. The pseudosteady-state behavior begins after
the effects of the farthest boundary have been felt at the 7.08x 10-3khl(Bp)
wellbore. 4= (PR -pwf), . . . (18)
2.2458 A
When pseudosteady-state behavior begins (see Fig. ‘15ln--
2 +s
35.2) the rate of pressure decline, (a~/&)~~~, is constant CA rw
WELL PERFORMANCE EQUATIONS 35-7

Fig. 35.6-Dimensionless pressure for a single well in an infinite reservoir including wellbore storage
and a finite skin-composite reservoir.

where A is the drainage area, sq ft. and CA is the shape Calculate the bottomhole pressure (BHP), pwf, after 12
factor (Table 35.2). This equation can be applied by using hours and after 120 days for a constant oil production rate
the values for CA in Table 35.2 or by moving the terms of 80 STB/D.
in the denominator to the form Solution. From Eq. 5,

Cr=CffS,C, +s,c,
7.08 x 10 -3khl(&)
9= @R -Pwfh
2.2458 A =[3.0+(0.75)(8.5)+(0.25)(3.2)] x 1O-6
% hl- +% lnT+S I
CA rw
=10.2X 10e6 psi-‘.
... . .. . .. .. (19)
Calculate the time required to reach pseudosteady state.
This form is easier to use because the first term of the From Table 35.2,
denominator also is tabulated in Table 35.2.
In Table 35.2, x, is the distance from the well to the O.O00264(45)t,,,
side of the square drainage area, and xf is the distance (tDA)pss=O.l=
from the well to either end of the vertical fracture. Table (O.18)(1.5)(1O.2x1O-6)(1.74x1O6)’
35.2 also shows the dimensionless time, tom, at which
the infinite-acting solution ends, and also the time at which where tpssis 40.3 hours. So the well is infinite acting af-
pseudosteady state begins, (t~~)~~,r. ter 12 hours. By using Eq. 11,

Example Problem 1 (Transient and Pseudosteady p~=‘h h tD+o.do&i+s.

State). A well is centered in an approximately square
drainage area. The following data are given.
By using the definitions of pD and tD in Eq. 8, we have
A = 1.74~ lo6 sq ft (40 acres),
h = 21 ft, WKWW~-p,vf)
s = 1.6,
141.2(80)(1.12)(1.5)
rw = 0.25 ft,
k, = 45 md,
0.000264(45)( 12)
PO = 1.5 cp, =% In +0.4045+1.6;
$fJ= 0.18, (O.18)(1.5)(1O.2x1O-6)(O.25)2
cc7 = 8.5~10~~ psi-‘,
CW = 3.2~10~~ psi-‘, 0.0498(5,100-p,,&=% In (8.28~10~)+0.4045+1.6;
cf = 3.0X10p6 psi-‘,
S, = 0.25, 5,100-p,,=(8.82)/(0.0498)= 177; and
B, = 1.12, and
pi = 5,100 psi. p,f=4,923 psi at 12 hours.
35-8 PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK

4,199-p,,f= 178; and

p,,=4,021 psi at 120 days.

Production Rate Variation (Superposition)

These solutions have included only the constant-rate case.
Of general interest, of course, are the cases where rate
changes with time. These cases are best handled by using
the principle of superposition.
The principle of superposition amounts to dividing the
production history into a sequence of rate changes such
as that shown in Fig. 35.7. The total effect of the pro-
0 tl 12 t3 t4 t N-2 t N-I duction on the pressure response, Ap, is the additive ef-
fects of each of the rate changes. In Fig. 35.7, rate q1
FLOW TIME, t, HOURS
applies from t=O to the current time. At t, the rate in-
creases to q2. The effect of this rate change can be
Fig. 35.7-Schematic representation of a variable production- viewed as an incremental rate, q2 -91, which has been
rate schedule. in effect for a period of time t-t l . Then q3 would also
be seen as a rate change, q3 -92, which has been in ef-
fect for a period of time t- 12. The effect of all these rate
At 120 days, the well is in pseudosteady state (greater changes is computed by superposing the solutions that ap-
than 40.3 hours). First, calculate PR. Using Eq. 15, the plied to each rate change and its corresponding time that
rate of pressure decline can be calculated. it has been in effect. The equation for computing the to-
tal pressure drop, Ap,, is
aP -0.234qB

(-> -
at P==
“pc, p; -p,#= c
N

i=l
(qj -qj-,)f((t-tr-,) , . . (20)

-0.234(80)( 1.12)
when qieI =0 when i=l.
= (21)(O.18)(1.74x1O6)(1O.2x1O-6) The functionf(t) can be called the unit responsefinc-
tion. The unit response function is the pressure drop,
pi -pKf, which occurs at time f for a unit production rate
= -0.313 psi/hr. (q= 1). The unit response functions may be quantified by
the cases described such as the wellbore storage equation
at early times (ETR), the semilog straight line solution
p,=5,100-0.313(120)(24) at MTR, and finally the pseudosteady-state solution at later
times (LTR). For example, if q 1 had been in effect for
=4,199 psi. a time longer than tpss, its contribution to the pressure
drop at time t would be calculated from the pseudosteady-
state equations, which would comprise the calculation of
Now, using Eq. 19, the reduction in p from Eq. 15 and the pressure drop from
p R to pwf in Eq. 16. The effect of the second rate might
be still in the transient period, which would call for Eq.
7.08x 1O-3 khl(&) 11 to be applied.
90 = Note that the calculation of the pressure decline of
2.2458 A
% In- +% In-+s 1 p R can be calculated with Eq. 15 only for the constant-
CA rM compressibility case. For the general case, such as a so-
lution gas drive reservoir, the appropriate material bal-
ance equations would be applicable to calculate PR. If the
last rate change has been in effect for a time greater than
tP,rSand the system has constant compressibility, the fol-
7.08x10-3(45)(21)!(1.12x1.5) lowing simplification can be made for Eq. 15.
(80) =
1.74x 10-6
- 1.3224+ % In +1.6 1
(0.25)* 5.615 NpB,
PR’Pi- VpCr . . . . . (21)
*(4,199-p++&

1
3.982 The following example problem shows how superposi-
(80) = (4,199-p!& tion can be applied for a case where both pseudosteady-
-1.3224+8.571+1.6 state and transient pressure drops are added.
WELL PERFORMANCE EOUATIONS 35-9

Exynple Problem 2 (Superposition). The well in Ex- so the values off(l2), f(lO), andf(4) are used, giving
ample Problem 1 produces according to the following
schedule.
5,100-p,,=(300)[0.1256 ln(6.9x lo4 x 12)+0.504]
time
(hours) (SI%D)
Oto2 300 -(180)[0.1256 ln(6.9x104 x 10)+0.504]
2 to 8 120
thereafter 80
-(40)[0.1256 ln(6.9~10~~4)+0.504]

Calculate p,,,, at 12 hours and at 120 days.

So&ion. As we observed in Example Problem 1, the =(300)(2.22)
well was infinite acting after 12 hours, so we use Eq. 20.

N -(180)(2.19)
pi-Pwf= C (4i-qi-Of(f-ti-1)
i= I
-(40)(2.08)

We first needf(t), the unit response function. We can use

Eq. 11 to find Ap in terms oft for q=l: = 189;

pD=% In tD +0.4@5+3,
p,,=4,911 psi at 12 hours.

At 120 days, the well has a cumulative production of

141.2(1)(1.12)(1.5)
N, =300 STB/D x (2/24 days)
0.000264(45)?
=% In
(0.18)( 1 .S)( 10.2 x 10 -6)(0.25)2 + 120 STBlD x (6/24 days)

+0.4045+1.6,
t80 STBiDx(l19.5 days)

3.98Ap= 1/2In 6.90x 104t+2.004, and

=9.615 STB.

Ap=O.1256 ln(6.90x lO”t)+0.504, Using Eq. 21,

so 5.615NpB,
pREpi-
vpct
f(t)=Ap=O.1256 ln(6.90x104t)+0.504.

Substituting into Eq. 20, 5.615(9,615)(1.12)

=(5,100)-
(21)(0.18)(1.74x106)(10.2x10-“)

=5,100-901=4,199.

Using Eq. 19 (the same as Example Problem l), we cal-

culate

+@I3 -921f(t--12);

and again,

pwf=4,199-178=4,021 psi at 120 days.

+(120-3OO)f(12-2) The effect of the early rate variation is “forgotten” af-

ter the rate is constant for tpss=40.3 hours, except for
the slight increase in cumulative barrels ( 15 STB), which
+(80-12O)f(12-8), is negligible in this case.
 35-10
Gas Well Performance
The performance of gas wells is similar to oil wells (liq-
uid reservoirs) except for two major differences: (1) the
fluid properties of gas change dramatically with pressure
and (2) flow can become partially turbulent near the well-
bore, resulting in a rate-dependent skin factor. These two
factors are discussed and alternative forms of gas perform-
ance equations are presented.
The application of these principles to gas flow is only
slightly more complicated than to liquid flow, but there
is often much confusion about gas wells. There are several
reasons for this. One reason is that there are many ver-
sions of gas flow equations in the literature. Some are in
terms of p, some in terms of p2, and some in terms of
a real gas pseudopressure, m(p). All these equations can
be used and are valid forms. Another reason for confu-
sion is the different coefficients in the equations, which
sometimes arise from the assumed temperature and pres-
sure base of a standard cubic foot of gas. The following
equations use only the symbols T,, and psC, since the
pressure base in different areas does vary significantly.
Still another reason for confusion is that deliverability
testing has been customary with gas wells because of
government requirements. Deliverability testing, based
onalog(pR2 -pwf2) vs. log qg plot, is largely an em-
pirical approach. The deliverability plot approach was de-
veloped mainly for low-pressure gas wells and does not
work well with the deeper, higher-temperature, and
higher-pressure wells that are more common today.
The Effect of Gas Properties
In the derivation of the diffusivity equation, the form of
Eq. 1 is not achieved because the values of z and p vary
with pressure. Consequently the following form occurs
in the derivation.
1 is identified. For example, the slope of a p vs. log r plot
4 ap
&vp= o.ooo264 --
k at , . . . . . . . . (22)
w slope of m(p) vs. log t can be calculated by using Eq.
where L is the dimensionless gas-law deviation factor. This
equation is a nonlinear partial differential equation and
cannot be solved analytically by the methods applied to
Eq. 1.
A method for “linearizing” the partial differential equa-
tion was developed by Al-Hussainy er al. l2 They intro-
duced a real gaspseudopressure, which may be defined as
m(p)=2;p$p. . . . . . . . .(23)
This pressure-dependent function integrates the variations
ofp, Z, and ,Uwith pressure. When this function is intro-
duced into the derivation of the diffusivity equation, the
diffusivity equation for a real gas takes the form
1 4cLcg WP)
Vm(p)= o.ooo264 k ar . . ..
This equation still is not quite a linear differential equa-
tion because p and cR vary significantly with pressure.
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
The gas compressibility, cg , can be expressed in terms
of 2 as
1 Id.2
cg=----. ....... . . ____ __ (25)
P zQ
For practical purposes, however, Eq. 23 can be taken
as a linear differential equation in terms of m(p). This
was confirmed by the result of computer simulations per-
formed by Wattenbarger and Ramey. l3 They showed that
the pressure transient equations can be used, with very
good approximation, in terms of m(p). After pseudo-
steady-state, PI equations similar to Eqs. 16 through 19
can be used.
The application of the m(p) solutions is not difficult.
the values of m( p) vs. p can be determined by graphical
integration or can be calculated with computer programs
that use built-in correlations to estimate the variation of
z and p with pressure.
Since our equations and graphical techniques depend
on equations of a straight line of p either on a linear plot
or a semilog plot, it is worth analyzing how the slopes
of m(p) are related to the slopes of p plots, or p2 plots;
we can show that the derivative of m(p) with respect to,
for example, log t is as follows.
am(p)
--=c$&=<t,&.
wag4 .C2@
These relationships indicate that an m(p) plot, or a p plot,
or ap* plot can be used and then the relationships in Eq.
26 applied. The m(p) plot is preferable because it is most
likely to have the proper semilog straight line. Thep and
p* plots can be used as shortcuts if the proper MTR slope
can be determined from a plot and then the value of the
26 without ever actually plotting values of m(p).
Non-Darcy Flow
Darcy’s law applies to gases at lower rates (laminar flow),
which are found throughout the reservoir. However, near
the wellbore the rates can become extremely high because
of the converging flow as the gas approaches the well-
bore. At these rates inertial e&ts can become impor-
tant and Darcy’s law no longer applies. The inertial effects
take the form of distorted flow paths and also turbulence
in different locations in the pore structure. Although the
exact nature of this microscopic flow is not known in the
reservoir, the net effect is a higher pressure gradient when
these inertial effects become important.
For laminar flow we can rearrange Darcy’s law to the
following form.
ap P
--.-z--v
ax k , ~,............................ . (30)
where apldx is the pressure gradient and v is the macro-
scopic (Darcy) fluid velocity. At the higher rates, when
WELL PERFORMANCE EQUATIONS

inertial effects become important, the Forchheimer equa-

tion is used:

(31)

where p is the fluid density and F, is the turbulence fac-

tor. The right side of Eq. 3 1 contains a term for viscous /
/
forces and a term for inertial forces, both of which con- /

tribute to the pressure loss. *< s’=s

Although a number of workers have correlated the value
of F, with rock properties, for practial purposes the ve-
locity varies too much in the vertical direction near a well-
Production rate, q,
bore to predict the effect of non-Darcy flow in a particular
well. One practical approach is to consider the nonDarcy
effect near the wellbore as a rate-dependent part of the Fig. 35.8-Skin factor determination.
skin effect:

s’=s+FDa 1 qg 1 , . .. ....... .(32)
where FD, is the non-Darcy (turbulence) factor, (lo3 cu
ft/D) -’ , 1qg / is the absolute value of gas rate, lo3 cu
ft/D, and s’ is the effective skin effect of a well flowing
at a rate qg. Fig. 35.8 shows how s’ varies with rate. The
value of FD, varies with pressure but for simplicity can
be considered constant. The value of FD, must be evalu-
ated by transient testing of the well at several rates and
determining corresponding values of s’
The transient equations (MTR) and pseudosteady-state
equations (LTR) are modified for gas wells as shown in
the following.
Infinite-Acting Gas Reservoir (MTR)
The transient solution for the infinite-acting gas reservoir
is analogous to the liquid case shown in Eq. 11. Eq. 11
then must be modified for the effect of non-Darcy flow
and fluid property variation with pressure. This results
in the following equation.
mD=% In t,+0.4045+s+F, 1qg ) , . . .(33)
Before putting Eq. 33 into a more practical form, con-
sider that the pressure drop term, m( p i) - m( p ,+,f),can
be stated as Am(p) and can be related to Ap and Ap2 by
the relationships
Am(p)= (z&Q= (;):2. . . (34)
The average values shown in parentheses are the integrat-
ed average values over the pressure range. For practical
purposes it is accurate to evaluate these average quanti-
ties at the midpoint pressure. In other words, 2plzpp is
evaluated at j, where ji is equal to (jYR +p,f)/2 and
(1l~l.r)~ is evaluated at j?, where jY is equal to
(jY~+p,,,f)I2, or ,/(p~+pK,/)/2 for the p* equation.
For the infinite-acting reservoir, the average reservoir
pressure, PR, is the same as pi.
These relationships are important because they allow
us to account for the variation of fluid properties, within
engineering accurac and still express equations simply
in terms of p and p Y> . Eq. 33, when put in more practi-
cal form, can be expressed in terms of m(p), p, or p2, as

where
m(pi)-m(pwf)
1
2.303 0.000264kc
=-log
2 (4P41~W2
and
= dimensionless m(p),
mD
+0.4045+~+F~, ( qn / , . . . . . . . (35a)
tD = dimensionless time,
T,, = standard condition temperature, “R,
PSC = standard condition pressure, psia,
1.987x 10 -5 t (Pi-P&$)
TR = reservoir temperature, “R, (p >
m(pi) = m(p) at initial pressure pi, psia2icp, and P
m(pWf) = m(p) at wellhore flowing pressure pWf,
psia2/cp. 2.303 0.000264kt
=-log
2
2 (4W) ir w

The value of TV is evaluated with &LC evaluated at the

initial pressure. +0.4&t5+S+F, ( qe 1 , .. .... . . (35b)
35-12 PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK

0.08 Pseudosteady-State Solutions (LTR)

The pseudosteady-state solutions are analogous to the liq-
uid solutions and can be put in essentially the same form.
GAS GRAVITY = 0.7 The only changes are to allow for the changes of fluid
REDUCED properties with pressure and non-Darcy flow. The inclu-
TEMPERATURE= 17(195’F) sion of these effects is the same as discussed above. The
0.06 result is the following form of the pseudosteady-state equa-
tions, in terms of m(p), p, and p*.

kh
2.2458A
% ln---- +~+FD, kg I
CAT,'

* m(p)-m(p,f)
[ 1 , _. _. _. _. (364

where m@)=m(p) at p R, psia’/cp, and CA =shape fac-

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 tor from Table 35.2.
P, psla

Flg. 35.9-Typical variation of m(p) and zp with pressure.

kh
2.2458A
Vi In- +s+FDa I qgI
C,4rw2
1.987x 1O-5

(PR-p,,,,), ... . .... . . . (36b)

P
2.303 O.ooo264kt
=-log
2 (4Pc)irw 2 and

+0.4045+s+FDa I qg I , . . . ... (35~)

where (@PC);=&LC evaluated at pi. Eq. 35 can be used

to predict p,,f for the infinite-acting period (MTR) be- kh
tween the wellbore storage period and the beginning of 2.24584
pseudosteady state. l/z In- +~+FDcI I qs I
Fig. 35.9 shows a typical relationship of zp with pres- c*rw2
sure. The value of Z,Uis almost constant when p is below
2,000 psia. This makes the p2 type of equation fairly ac-
curate below 2,000 psi because Z,Ucan be taken out of
the integral in Eq. 23 if zp is constant. p2 plots and equa-
tions tend to work well in reservoir pressures less than
2,000 psia. Eqs. 36 have general application for pseudosteady-state
Fig. 35.9 also shows that m(p) tends to be linear with gas flow. Note that these forms of the pseudosteady-state
pat higher pressures (above 3,000 psia). This means that equations are considerably different from the gas deliver-
p plots and equations tend to work well for higher-pressure ability approach that is used extensively. The gas deliver-
reservoirs. If there is a doubt about whether these p* or abili approach is empirical and based on a log-log plot
p simplifications apply to a particular reservoir, then m(p) ofp 9 -p,,,,’ vs. qg. The comparison between Eqs. 36
plots and equations should be used. and the deliverability plot approach is discussed by Lee. 5
WELL PERFORMANCE EQUATIONS 35-13

Long-Term Forecast From Table 35.2,

Long-term forecasting can be accomplished in a fairly
straightforward manner using Eqs. 36 along with a p R/z CA z5.3790.
plot. The CR/z plot, of course, is simply a material bal-
ance for a closed gas reservoir. Through this plot the value Eq. 36b is
of P.Q can be determined for any value of cumulative pro-
duction, G,. Given this value of p R, one of the forms
of Eqs. 36 then can be used to determine qx.
Note that in deep, high-pressure reservoirs, the influ-
ence of formation and water compressibility can become
important compared with gas compressibility. At these kh
high pressures, greater than about 6,000 psig, the p R/Z 2.24584
plot should be modified to account for the formation and l/2 In T+S+FDO hi: 1
water compressibilities. A technique for this modified CArw

p,& plot is presented by Ramagost and Farshad. tJ

2P
A complete forecast of production rate vs. time can be
generated by converting the cumulative production to a
time scale. The value ofp%f might be fixed as a condi-
(->z/J p
(PR-Pwf);

tion of the production forecast, or it may be solved si-

multaneously with wellbore hydraulic relationships, such (520)
q,=1.987x10-5
as given in Chap. 34. (14.7)(670)

Example Problem 3. A gas well produces from a

(0.52)(34)
drainage area that approximates a 4: 1 rectangle with the
well in the center. The following data apply. 2.2458(6.96x 106)
% In +2.3+0.0052 1 qK 1
(5.379)(0.23)*
A = 6.96x lo6 sq ft (160 acres),
h = 34 ft,
*(3.42x105)(4,150-1,500)
s = 2.3,
FD, = 0.0052 (lo3 cu MD)-‘,
rw = 0.23 ft,
k, = 0.52 md,
17.68
= 1.987x 10 -5(0.0528)
ZPR
= see Fig. 35.9, 8.91+2.3+0.0052 1qR 1
4 = 0.11,
TR = 210”F+460=670”R, .(3.42x 105)(2,650)
T,, = 6WF+460=520”R,
pSc = 14.7 psia, and 1.68~10~
j?~ = 4,150 psia.
11.21+0.0052 ( qg 1

Calculate the pseudosteady-state rate, qg , if pWf= 1,500

psia.
Solution. Use Eq. 36b-the
pseudosteady-state equation.
(11.21+0.0052 1qg I)q,=1.68x104.
simplest form of the
This equation can be solved as a quadratic equation, or
simply by trial and error, by using estimates of I qx I
starting with I qg 1 =0:

= (4,150 + 1,500)/2 (11.21+O)q,=1.68x104

4,: = 1,499.
=2,825 psia.
Next, try
From Fig. 35.9, we estimate ~~~ at 2,825 psia as
(11.21+0.0052x1,499)q,=1.68x104;
zpR =0.0165
qg =884.

Next, try

2(2,825) (11.21+0.0052x884)q,=1.68x 104;

=-=3.42x lo5
0.0165
qR = 1,063.
35-14 PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK

970
For oil wells,

.(I, 960
8 lf=%oBo~o
k,h= - , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (374
; 950 m
0.

E 940 and for gas wells,

2
2 930 -5.792 x 104q,(p,,TR/Ts,)
E k,h= . . . . . . . . Wb)
m*
P 920

?I where m* is the slope of m(p) plot,

ii 910

-5.W!X ~04q,(p,,TR/Ts,)
k,h=
FLOW TIME, t, hours m’ wb ’

Fig. B&10-Semilog data plot for drawdown test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (37c)

where m’ is the slope of p plot, or

Next, try
-5.792x 104q,(p,,TR/T,,)
k,h= (z~~)wb. Wd)
nP
(11.21+0.0052x1,063)q,=1.68x104;
where m” is the slope ofp* plot and subscript wb refers
qg=1m4
to wellbore. The values of zpl2p in Eq. 37c and zp in
Eq. 37d are evaluated at pW, rather than’(pR+p,,)/2,
until the solution converges at which is used in the pseudosteady-state equations.
The value of the skin effect, s, is determined from one
of the following equations for oil and gas wells.
qg = 1,018 x lo3 cu ft/D.
For oil wells,

Transient Well Test Analysis Pi-P1 k

x=1.151 -log-
The subject of transient well test analysis can be very com- 112 I
~wtr,2
plicated and has been covered very thoroughly in the liter-
ature. I-5 These references show not only the
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (384
straightforward cases of transient well test analysis but
also go into many exceptions, alternative techniques for
where p 1 is the pressure at AZ= 1 hour; and for gas wells,
analysis, and other complications. It is the intent here to
cover only the most straightforward and routine methods
for analysis of oil and gas wells.
s=1.151
m(pi)-m(pl)
-log-
k
The most common values to calculate from a transient m* +crr,2
well test analysis are kh, s, and PR. With these three
values plus a knowledge of the drainage area and shape
of the drainage area (values of CA and A), the flow rate
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (38b)
can be calculated or forecast for a particular BHP, p,,,f,
by using the pseudosteady-state equations. The method k
-log---
of analyzing kh and s for a drawdown test and a buildup I
hc,r,2
test are summarized now.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (38~)
Drawdown Test
The drawdown test is accomplished simply by putting a or
well on a constant production rate after the well has been
shut in. Variations of the drawdown test involve analysis
of variable rates, but only the constant-rate case is cov-
ered here. The analysis is based on the infinite-acting so-
lution (MTR). The data are plotted on a pressure vs. log
time semilog plot and the slope of the plot, m, is deter- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3W
mined graphically in units of psi/cycle (see Fig. 35.10).
The equations for determining w1 for an oil well or a gas The disadvantage of this equation (compared to buildup
well are as follows. testing) is that pi must be known to calculate S.
WELL PERFORMANCE EQUATIONS 35-15

It is important to evaluate the proper semilog straight 3350

line. In many cases it is difficult to tell whether an appar- = 3317

ent semilog straight line is in the MTR solution or is still

being affected by wellbore effects (ETR) . It is often help-
ful to make a log-log plot of Pi -pwf vs. flowing time,
t, to analyze when the wellbore effects are finished. A
straight line with a slope of unity on this log-log plot in-
dicates that the pressure behavior is being totally domi-
nated by wellbore storage. The semilog straight line then
can be expected to begin at about 1.5 log cycles after the
data points leave the log-log straight line of unity slope.

Buildup Testing
Buildup testing is more common than drawdown testing.
The main reason for this is that the well rate is known !i 30000 ,454 6
when the well is shut in (q=O). The analysis of a buildup 10-I I IO

test is based on the assumption that a constant flow rate SHUT-INTIME, At, hours
is maintained for a producing time, tp , and then the well
is shut in. Variations of the buildup test include analysis Fig. 35.11 -MDH plot for buildup test.
of variation in production rate before shut-in, but only
the constant-rate production period is covered here. The
pressure, p$ (At=O), is measured just before shut-in and
then at different shut-in times, A?, after the time of shut-in. SHUT-IN-TIME,At, hours
A plot is made of the shut-in pressures, PDF, vs. a time
scale based on the shut-in time, At. The time scale is either
log At or log (I,, +At)iAt. The first of these plots (Fig.
01
35.11) is called an “MDH plot” (Miller, Dyes, and ‘E3300
Hutchinson 15). The second type of plot (Fig. 35.12) is
called a “Homer ~10~“~~ Both plots give the same semi- PI, * 3266 P
Pi -40 PS/o/CYCL
log straight line slope, which is also the same as meas- -3250
2 OF STORAGE
ured in the drawdown test.
3
The kh for an oil or gas well can be determined from
2
u3200
the slope of this semilog straight line by the following
equations (identical to Eqs. 37, except for the sign). h

For oil wells,

k h= 162.6qoBofio

43
2
0 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 094
m

and for gas wells, 8 654 3 2 86543 2 a

IO’ 2
IO’
(tp +At),A:’
k h= 5.792x104q,hJ’/dL)
g . . (39b)
m*
Fig. 35.1 P-Horner plot of pressure buildup data from Fig. 35.11.

5.792x 104q,(p,,WW
k,h= (39c)
m’ wb ’ and for gas wells,
or

k h= 5.792 x 104q,hJ-dW
m(pl)-m(p,f)
I
g m"
hg)wb. WW
s=1.151
(I m*

Note that the signs are reversed for the Homer plot. -log- kg
+3.23 , .. ... . . . . . . . . . (40b)
The skin factor, s, can be determined from one of the 4ClgCt >
following equations.
For oil wells,

-log
ko
4ihctr?
s=l.151
Pl -Pwf
mr
I -log kg hsctrw2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (404 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4Oc)
35-16 PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK

Asymptotically, the data approach the correct value of

2 PR as At approaches infinity. Since our shut-in time nor-
,300 mally is limited, the MBH method is based on extrapolat-
2
z ing the semilog straight line to At= 03, or
Kcr (fp +At)lAt= 1 .O. This value is called p*. The method
a,
w QIZOO then provides a correction to calculate the correct value
d ; of j?~ from the extrapolated value of p*.
IQ The MBH method assumes that the well flowed at a
8 II00 constant rate for tp and that the drainage area A is known
I= for the well. The dimensionless producing time, tpDA , is
8 calculated. If tpDA is greater than (tp~A)psJ, the later
IO00 value can be used as tpDA . In other words, it is not im-
343 2 86543 2 82.3.1 2
I02 IO portant what the rate history was before pseudosteady state
(to + Af)/U was achieved.
Now that p* has been extrapolated from the data and
tpDA has been calculated, then the correction between p*
Fig. 35.13-Horner plot of typical pressure buildup data from a
well in a finite reservoir. and jYR is made by using the MBH correction curve that
best represents the drainage shape. The MBH correction
curves are presented in Figs. 35.14 through 35.17. A step-
wise procedure to determine p.8 can be summarized as
or follows.
1. Make a Horner plot.
2. Extrapolate the semilog straight line to the value of
P2 I -P2 wf kg
s=l.l51 -log +3.23 . p* at (tP +At)lAt= 1.0.
(I m” CbgCd > 3. Evaluate m, the slope of the semilog straight line.
4. calculate tpDA =(o.ooo264kt,)/~pcr~.
. ........ . ..... . (404 5. Find the closest approximation to the drainage shape
in Figs. 35 _14 through 35.17. Choose a correction curve.
The slope refers to the corresponding semilog straight line. 6. Read the value of 2.303(p*-jY~)lrn from the cor-
prr,f is the last pI(,f at At=O. These equations are based rection curve at t,~~.
on the equation of the semilog straight line. Therefore, 7. Calculate the’value of 5 R.
if p ws does not fall on the extrapolated semilog straight This procedure gives the value of p R in the drainage
line at At= 1 hour, then p I is read on the semilog straight area of one well. If a number of wells are producing from
line rather than at the actual data. the reservoir, each well can be analyzed separately to give
Again, be reminded that transient well test analysis can a j?~ for its own drainage area. This is done, assuming
be very complicated and can depart in many ways from that all wells are producing in pseudosteady state, by
the simple analysis presented here. These equations are dividing the reservoir up into drainage areas for each well
presented only for quick reference and to show the prop- by constructing no-flow boundaries between the wells.
er interpretation of the real gas formulas for the normal Fig. 35.18 shows an illustration of such a segmentation
cases. The reader should refer to Refs. 1 through 5 for of a reservoir. These no-flow boundaries represent the
more details and explanation of departures from these sim- “watersheds” of the different drainage areas. The
ple cases. drainage areas are calculated so that each drainage area
has the same reservoir flow rate compared to its PV. Thus,
Determination of p 8
The value of PR represents the average reservoir pres-
sure in the drainage area of the well. It is important to (qr/Vp) 1 =(qr/Vp)2 =(q,lvp)3=(qtlvp)i. . . . C41)
determine PR from a buildup test so that PR can be used
for material balance calculations, history matching in
reservoir simulation, or in pseudosteady-state perform-
ance equations. This relationship divides the drainage area (or PV) ac-
There are several methods for determining Jo from a cording to the producing rate of the well. As the well’s
buildup test but the most general is the MBH (Matthews, rates change, then the drainage area changes for the well.
Brons, and Hazebioek I’). This method is generally ap- If q=O, for example, then no area would be allocated to
plicable because a number of different reservoir drainage that well. This procedure of calculating the drainage area
area shapes are available for analysis. These reservoir and approximating drainage shape is repeated at the time
shapes are the same as those used for evaluating shape of each pressure survey. The drainage areas and shapes
factors in Table 35.2. keep changing as rates change.
Fig. 35.13 shows how the method is applied. The build- There is often confusion about the meaning of p* in the
up test has a semilog straight line, which begins bending Horner plot. The value of p* has no physical meaning
at the later shut-in times because of the effect of the bound- except in the special case of an infinite-acting well
aries. The data normally will bend down and become flat (T?=w). This is the case that Horner16 originally ad-
from this curve, but for unusual cases the data actually dressed in determining the initial pressure, pi ,-in a newly
can bend up from the semilog straight line before it even- discovered well. In this special infinite-acting case, p*=
tually becomes horizontal. p R =pi. Otherwise, p* has no physical meaning.
PansH =2.303( p’-fn)lm P meH =2.303(p*-pR)/m

N Y h u

I!
”

0
o-
js,
E
P
r
 PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK

,-

I-

I -

DIMENSIONLESS PRODUCTION TIME. tCD.

Fig. 35.16-MBH dimensionless pressure for different welt locations in a 2: 1 rectangular drainage area.

,o- I
DIMENSIONLESS PRODUCTION TIME. tpo4

Fig. 35.17-MBH dimensionless pressure for different well locations in 4: 1 and 5: 1 rectangular drainage area
WELL PERFORMANCE EQUATIONS 35-19

TABLE 35.3-PRESSURE BUILDUP TEST DATA

FOR EXAMPLE 4,i, =310 HOURS

At t, +At (At, + At) PW Pwn-Pwt

(hours) (hours) At (Psk3) (PW
0.0: - 2,761 -
0.10 310.10 3,101 3,057 296
0.21 310.21 1,477 3,153 392
0.31 310.31 1,001 3,234 473
0.52 310.52 597 3,249 480
0.63 310.63 493 3,256 495
0.73 370.73 426 3,260 499
0.84 370.84 370 3,263 502
0.94 37 0.94 331 3,266 505
Fig. 35.18--Reservoir map showing approximate no-flow 1.05 311.05 296 3,267 506
boundaries. 1.75 371.15 271 3,268 507
t .36 37 1.36 229 3,271 510
1.68 311.68 186 3,274 513
1 .ss 311.99 157 3,276 515
Example Problem 4 (Pressure Buildup Analysis) (af- 2.51 312.51 125 3,200 519
3.04 313.04 103 3,283 522
ter Earlougher 2). Pressure Buildup Test Analysis- 3.46 313.46 SO.6 3,286 525
Homer Method. Table 35.3 shows pressure buildup data 4.08 314.08 77.0 3,269 528
from an oil well with an estimated drainage radius of 2,640 5.03 315.03 62.6 3,293 532
ft. Before shut-in the well had produced at a stabilized 5.97 315.97 52.9 3,297 536
6.07 316.07 52.1 3,297 536
rate of 4,900 STBiD for 310 hours. Known reservoir data
7.01 317.01 45.2 3,300 539
are 8.06 318.06 39.5 3,303 542
9.00 319.00 35.4 3,305 544
10.05 320.05 31.8 3,306 545
D = 10,476 ft, 13.09 323.09 24.7 3,310 549
rw = (4.25112) ft, 16.02 326.02 20.4 3,313 552
C - 22.6~10~~ psi-‘, 20.00 330.00 16.5 3,317 556
26.07 336.07 12.9 3,320 559
4; i 4,900 STB/D, 31.03 341.03 11.0 3,322 561
h = 482 ft, 34.98 344.98 9.9 3,323 562
pdAt=O) = 2,761 psig, 37.54 347.54 9.3 3,323 562

PO = 0.20 cp,
c#l= 0.09,
B, = 1.55 RBISTB, We can estimate Ap across the skin from Eq. 10:
casing di = (6.276/12) ft, and
rp = 310 hours. Ap, =0.87(40)(8.6)=299.

Average Drainage-Region Pressure-MBH. We use

Solution. The Horner plot is shown as Fig. 35.12. the pressure-buildup test data of Table 35.3. Pressure
Residual wellbore storage or skin effects at shut-in times buildup data are plotted in Figs. 35.12. Other data are
of less than 0.75 hour are apparent. The straight line,
drawn after At=0.75 hour, has a slope of -40 psigicycle, A= ?rre2
so m=40 psiglcycle.
Eq. 37a is used to estimate permeability: =a(2,640)2 sq ft.

To see if we should use tp = 310 hours, we estimate tpss

162.6(4,900)(1.55)(0.20)
k,= =12.8 md. using @DAlpss =O.l from Table 35.2.
WWW
(0.09)(0.2)(22.6x 10 -6)(7r)(2,640)2(0. 1)
tpss =
Skin factor is estimated from Eq. 40a using p ,hr = (0.0002637)(12.8)
3.266 psig from Fig. 35.12:
=264 hours.

3,266-2,761 Thus, we could replace tp by 264 hours in the analysis.

s=1.1513 However, since tp is only about l.l7t,,,, we expect no
40
difference in j?~ from the two methods, so we use
t,=310 hours. As a result, Fig. 35.12 applies.

1
(12.8)(12)2 Fig. 35.12 does not show p* since (t,, +At)lAt does not
-log go to 1.0. However, we may compute p* from pws at
(0.09)(0.20)(22.6x 10 -6)(4.25)2
(tp +At)lAt= 10 by extrapolating one cycle:

p* = 3,325 + (1 cycle)(40 psi/cycle)

+3.2275 =8.6.
I =3,365 psig.
35-20 PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK

Using the definition of tpDA: tpss = time required to achieve pseudosteady

state
(0.0002637)(12.8)(310) u = macroscopic (Darcy) fluid velocity
V, = volume of the wellbore
rpDA= (0.09)(0.20)(22.6x 10 -6)(a)(2,640)2
xe = distance from well to side of square
drainage area
=0.117. xf = distance from well to either end of a
vertical fracture
From the curve for the circle in Fig. 35.14, poMnn(~~D,+,
=O. 117)= 1.34. Then, from our step-wise procedure, Subscript
wb = wellbore
pR=3,365- p(1.34)
4o Key Equations in SI Metric Units
2.303
1 46 ap
v2p= 3,557x10-9 -- k at’ .......,,......
=3.342 psig. (1)

This is 19 psi higher than the maximum pressure recorded. where

p is in kPa,
Nomenclature 4 is a fraction,
A = drainage area of well p is in Paas,
cfi = total compressibility evaluated at p; c, is in kPa-t,
cWf = wellbore fluid compressibility k is in md, and
t is in hours.
CA = shape factor from Table 35.2
C, = wellbore storage constant
4t4 =qoB, +(s, -R,q,)B, +q,B,, (6)
f(t) = unit response function
F Da= non-Darcy (turbulence) factor where
F, = turbulence factor qo,qr,qw are in std m3/d,
m = (162.6qBp)lkh B,,BI,B, are in res m3/std m3,
mD = dimensionless m(p) qg is in std m3/d, and
B, is in res m3/std m3,
m(p) = 2jPtdp= real gas pseudopressure
0
, ..... .. .. (7)
m(p) = m(P) atpR
m( pi) = m(p) at initial pressure pi where
m(p,,,f) = m(p) at wellbore flowing pressure p,,,f PD = [kh(pi -~YW-W%41,
m* = slope of m(p) plot
r
m’ = slope of p plot rD = -,
m ” = slope of p* plot rw
p* = MTR pressure trend extrapolated to
3.557 x 10 -9kt
infinite shut-in time tD =
po = kh(pi -p)/( 141.2qBp) =dimensionless 4wrrw 2
pressure h,r,rw are in m,
PDMBH = 2.303(p*-pR)lm, dimensionless k is in md,
pressure, MBH method p,pi are in Pa,
Aps = additional pressure drop across q is in m3/d,
altered zone I3 is in res m3/std m3,
(qg 1 = absolute value of gas rate p is in Pa*s,
t is in hours,
qsf = flow rate at the sandface
4 is a fraction, and
rD = r/rw =dimensionless radius
c,is in kPa-*.
re = external drainage radius
rw’ = effective wellbore radius kt
s’ = effective skin effect pwf =pi -m log choir, 2 -8.10 , . . . . . . . . . (9)
>
tD = dimensionless time
tDA = dimensionless time based on drainage
where m=2.149~lO”qB~/(kh). See Eq. 7. for other
area, A
units.
bDA)Pss = time required to reach pseudosteady
state, dimensionless
t end = end of MTR in drawdown test ap -4.168~1O-~qB
VpC, ) . . . . . . . . . . . . (15)
tpDA = dimensionless producing time (->
at - PSS
WELL PERFORMANCE EQUATIONS 35-21

where VP is in m3, See Eq. 7 for other units. See Eqs. 7 and 9 for units.

5.356x10p1E
BP
4= (PR -Pw& . . . . . (17) k,h= . . . . . . . . . . WW
>
In T’ -0.75+s m*
rw
where where m* is in kPa2/Pa* s-cycle. See Eq. 33 for other
re =m, units.
s is dimensionless, and
p~,p~f are in kPa.
See Eq. 7 for other units.
s=1.151 (I? ) -log4pc;rw,2 .,.lO),

pR=pi-- vpc, ) .. . . .. .. . .. .. . .... . . .. . . . (21)

,......................... (384
where where m is in kPa/cycle. See Eq. 7 for other units.
Np isinm3,
VP is in m3,
B, is in res m3/std m3,
References
c, is in Wa-‘, and I. Matthews, C.S. and Russell, D.G.: Pressure Buildup and Fknv Tests
p~,p; are in kPa. in Wells, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1967) I.
2. Earlougher, R.C. Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Monograph
Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1977) 5.
1 4Wg am(p) 3. Dake, L.P.: Fundmmntals ofReservoir Engineering, Elsevier Scien-
V2m(p)= ~- . (24) tific Publishing Co., Amsterdam (1978).
3.557x10-9 k at ’ ....I 4. Gas Well Testing-Theory and Practice, fourth ed., Energy
Resources and Conservation Board, Calgary, AIL, Canada (1979).
5. Lee, John: Well Testing, Textbook Series, SPE, Richardson, TX
where m(p) is in kPa2 and cg is in kPa-’ . See Eq. 7
(1982).
for other units. 6. Pressure Analysis Methods, Reprint Series No. 9, SPE, Richard-
son. TX (1967).
7. Pressure Transient Testing Methods, Reprint Series No. 14, SPE,
,,lj,=% h, t,+o.4@,5+S+FD,IqgI, . . . . . . . (33)
Richardson, TX (1980).
8. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: “The Application of the
where Laplace Transformation of Flow Problems in Reservoirs,” Trans.
AIME (1949) 186, 305-24.
9. Martin, J.C.: “Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Drive Reser-
mD = 2.708x10-” voirs and the Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase Pressure Buildup
Analyses,” Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 309-l 1.
10. Wattenbarger, R.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: “An Investigation of Well-
bore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow: II. Fimte
Difference Treatment,” Sot. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept. 1970) 291-97;
Trans., AIME, 249.
11. Die& D.N.: “Determination of Average Reservoir Pressure From
3.557x 10-9kt Buildup Surveys,” .f. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1965) 955-59; Trans.,
tD = AIME. 234.
2 ’
dw, r,,’ 12. Al-Hussainy,R., Ramey,H.J. Jr., and Crawford, P.B.: “The Flow
of Real Gases Through Porous Media,” J. Pet. Tech. (May 1966)
s is dimensionless,
624-36; Trans., AIME, 237.
FD, is dimensionless, 13. Wattenbarger, R.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: “Gas Well Testing With
qg is in m3/d, Turbulence, Damage and Wellbore Storage,” J. Pet. Tech. (Aug.
1968) 877-87; Trans., AIME, 243.
T,,.,TR are in K,
14. Ramagost, B.P. and Farshad, F.F.: “p/z Abnormally Pressured Gas
prc is in kPa, Reservoirs,” paper SPE 10125 presented at the 1981 SPE Annual
k is in md, Technical Conference and ExhibItion, San Antonio. Oct. 4-7.
h is in m, and 15. Miller, C.C., Dyes, A B., and Hutchinson, C.A. Jr: “The Esti-
mation of Permeability and Reservoir Pressure From Bottom Hole
m(p;),m(p,j) are in kPa2/Pa.s. Pressure Build-Up Characteristics,” Trans., AIME (1950) 189,
See Eq. 7 for other units. 91-104
16. Homer. D.R.: “Pressure Build-Up in Wells,” Proc.. Third World
Pet. Gong., The Hague (1951) Sec. II, 503-23.
k h= _ 2.149x 106qoB,~o 17. Matthews.C.S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek, P.: “A Method for
0 . . (374 Determination of Average Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir,”
.._
m Trans., AIME (1954)201, 182-91