~ TECHNICAL NOTE 2066

Well Interference
J. E. WARREN
MEMBER AIME GULF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CO.
J. H. HARTSOCK PITTSBURGH, PA.
JUNIOR MEMBER AIME

ABSTRACT FIRST METHOD

An asymptotic solution to the equation that describes
the flow of a slightly compressible fluid in an infinite
porous medium has been used to estimate the interac-
tion between two adjacent wells producing from a com-
mon reservoir. A direct method for approximating the
interference time defined by Stevens and Thodos ' has
been suggested. An alternative definition for the time
of interference, based on the minimum pressure change
in the interference region, has been proposed; also, a
direct method of determination has been prescribed.
Examples have been employed to illustrate the use of
both methods.
INTRODUCTION
The pressure behavior associated with a completely
penetrating well in a uniformly thick, homogeneous,
horizontal reservoir containing a single, slightly com-
pressible, mobile fluid is described by the radial form
of the diffusion equation. A useful asymptotic solu-
tion to this equation is the continuous line-source so-
lution'·3 obtained from the basic formulation of Lord
Kelvin!
Stevens and Thodos ' recently presented a method for
estimating the interference characteristics of two ad-
jacent wells. They defined the time of interference to be
that time at which each well caused a specified pressure
drop at the same point within the reservoir. The proper
time and position were found by graphical methods.
The expressions for the pressure distributions due to
a pair of wells, A and B, in an infinite reservoir can
be obtained from Eq. 1. Since maximum interference
occurs along the line connecting the two wells, it is
only necessary to consider pressures on that line. The
equations can be simplified on the line of centers be-
cause the sum of rA and rB must equal the well spacing
D. The equations can be written in the following com-
pact form.
,6.<I>A (x, t)
,6.(1\, (x, t) (2)
where
!:::.p k h
t::. (I> = -::~;;----;o:-

p, - p(r,t)
70.7 qfL f3 . ( - 948 'cP fL C r) 70.7 q fL f3
kh El kt 948 cP fL CD'
a=
(1) k
In the derivation of Eq. 1, it is assumed that a well of and
infinitesimal radius is producing at a constant rate from x = rAID; (1 - x) = rBID.
an infinite reservoir. Because of the assumption of a Let u be a quantity that satisfies the following equa-
vanishing well radius, the solution is valid only for large tion.
values of time. Horner5 discusses the limitations on the !:::.<I> = - Ei ( - u') . (3)
use of this equation; Elkins· presents field data which
Then,
support Horner's conclusions. If two or more wells are
producing from the same reservoir, the resulting pres- , ax'
UA = -1-'
sure distribution is obtained by the superposition of
the solutions for the individual wells. and
The object of this paper is to develop approximate a (l - X)2
UB' =
techniques for determining the time and the place at 1
which pressure disturbances originating from two ad- Solving for t and x,
jacent wells begin to interact, or interfere, significantly.
Two distinct approaches will be followed. First, the ef-
fect due to each well will be considered separately;
then, the cumulative effect of the two wells will be ex- x = ---,--- (4)
amined. U + U
A B

The desired information can be obtained directly from

Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers Eqs. 3 and 4; to facilitate the use of this method, - Ei
office April 4, 1960. Revised manuscript received June 24. 1960.
lReferences given at end of paper. (- u 2 ) is plotted as a function of u in Fig. 1.
SPE 1492-G
SEPTEMBER, 1960 89
Heprinted from the September. 1960 Issue of .JOUH='iAL OF PETHOLEUM TECH'.JOLOGY
 10.0 pressure along the line connecting the two wells falls

~ below some pr.escribed level. * In this case, the combined

effect of the two wells is taken into account.

1.0
~ The superposition of two solutions having the form
of Eq. 2 leads to the following expression.

\ A<PAB (x, t) = - Ei ( - ;X') - A Ei

[ - a(~ - x)'] (5)

o. 1 1\ where

\
~
:>
(ApA + AP/J) k h
~ 70.7 qA JL f3
W and
A = qB/qA'
.0 I
Differentiating Eq. 5 with respect to x,
-ax' -a(1-x)'
O<P AH 2e-t- 2Ae t
---ax =-x-
-

T (1 - x) (6)
For finite production rates from both wells and
.00 I o~ X ~ 1, the derivative is equal to zero only at the
point of maximum pressure. Equating the derivative to
zero and re-arranging,
a 1 AX
- =--ln~-. (7)
t 1-2x I-x
.000 I
.ol 0.1 1.0 10.0
u The values of aft that satisfy Eq. 7 for various com-
binations of x and A are indicated graphically in Fig. 2;
FIG. 1- u VS - Ei (- u'). for convenience, it is assumed that A :2: 1 and x ~ .5.
With the relationship between aft and x in hand, A<PAB
EXAMPLE may be expressed as a function of aft and A. via Eq. 5;
The following data were used in the example given the results are shown in Fig. 3.
by Stevens and Thodos.' For specified values of <P AB , a and A., the interference
k = 270 md, fJ. = 45 cp, characteristics can be found quite simply. First, aft is
cf> = .22, C = 5.15 X 10-6 pst', read directly from Fig. 3; then, x is obtained from Fig.
h = 57 ft, qA = 550 STB/D, 2 for that aft and the appropriate A..
D = 1,000 ft, qB = 1,100 STB/D,
EXAMPLE
f3 = 1.10, APA = ApB = 25 psi.
Using the same data as in the first example, required
Required calculations are the following. calculations are as follow.
(25) (270) (57)
(50.) (270) (57)
,M'A = (70.7) (550) (45) (1.10) = .200;
(70.7)" (550) (45) (1.10) = .400;
(25) (270) (57)
(.948) (.22.) (45) (5.15 x 10-') (1000)'
A<PB = (70.7) (1100) (45) (1.10) = .100; a=
(270)"
(948) (.22) (45) (5.15 X 10-') (1000)'
a=
(270) "A finite pressure drop must be specified because the form of
the equation is such that an infinitesimal disturbance is propagated
179 hours. at a velocity that approaches infinity.
From Fig. 1, u" is found to be 1.02 and UB is 1.20.
Using the equations of Eq. 4.
o. 6
179 hours
t = (1.02 + 1.20) , = 36.3 hours;
)..:.1.0

--
o. 5
1.02

Therefore,
x = (1.02 + 1.20) = .459 .
fA is 459 ft and fB is 541 ft.
0.4
)."1.5

A'" 2
,.- -...---: --
~~~
f--
..- -t::
--b ;::
~ ~~
~
/"'
This calculated time of interference does not agree
with that obtained in the referenced example because
X 0.3
, ., --
1-,- '--
~ ~v
~
the latter contains a computational error in the argu-
-- ----------
)..' 4
0.2 '--
5
ment of the exponential integral. )..<

).< 6 V
).=8

o. I '" 10

SECOND METHOD
Since it seems difficult to attach any particular phys- o
0.1 1.0 10
ical significance to the definition of interference pre- alt

sented in the preceding section, we propose an alterna- FIG. 2-VALDES OF alt THAT SATISFY EQ. 7 FOR VARIOUS
tive definition: interference occurs when the maximum COMBINATIONS OF X AND y.

90 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 free gas present in the system. Eq. 8 may now be writ-
22 ten as follows.
C = C w Sw, + Co (l - Sw,) + C p • (9)
With no free gas present, the viscosity will be a rather
insensitive function of pressure so an average value may
be used. Then, Eq. 1 is valid.

NOMENCLATURE
6e C = system compressibility, psi-'
D = well spacing, ft
I
4r-~--, ~~~~~~~~ __ 00
r _,
2r-~+--t-t-+---i-t-R~~~~-i----'--,---;--,
~t--
- Ei ( - y) = exponential integral, J _e_ dt,
~
I
dimensionless y
S = saturation, dimensionless
Z = gas deviation factor, dimensionless
h = formation thickness, ft
= 179 hours; ko = effective permeability to oil, md
( 1100) p = pressure, psi
,\ = (550) = 2.0 . q = oil production rate, STB/D
r = radial co-ordinate, ft
From Fig. 3, aft is found to be 5.0. Therefore, t = time, hours
u = positive root of Ei (- u ) + ..0.<1.> = 0,
2
(179)
t = (5J)T = 35.8 hours. dimensionless
x = distance from Well A along the line
From Fig. 2 with aft = 5.0 and ,\ = 2.0, x is .450. centers, dimensionless
Consequently, rA is 450 ft and rn is 550 ft. .0.<1.> = potential change, dimensionless
These results do not differ greatly from those obtained a = time characteristic of system, hours
by the first method; however, for larg<>r pressure drops f3 = oil formation-volume factor, reservoir
and/or larger values of '\, the answers do diverge sig- bbI/STB
nificantly. It can be shown that the procedure of Stevens ,\ = ratio of production rates, dimensionless
and Thodos actually leads to upper bounds on both t f-t = viscosity of oil, cp
and x for a given set of conditions. ¢ = porosity, dimensionless
SUBSCRIPTS
CONCLUSION A = Well A
B = Well B
Two direct methods for determining the presence of
g = gas
interference between two adjacent wells have been pre-
i = initial conditions
sented; both are based on the continuous line-source so-
0 = oil
lution that applies to an ideal physical system. Simple
p = pore volume
examples have been used to illustrate the techniques de-
w = water
scribed.
we = connate water
The validity of the results obtained is limited by the
assumptions made in the derivation of Eq. 1. In gen- REFERENCES
eral, there is not sufficient information available to jus-
tify the use of anything other than average values for 1. Stevens, W. F. and Thodos, G.: "Prediction of Approximate
the formation parameters, i.e., ko, ¢ and h. The com- Timc of Interference Between Adjacent Wells", Trans.,
AIME (1959) 216, 77.
pressibility and the viscosity, however, will be pressure-
2. Muskat, M.: Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through Porous
dependent although only one mobile fluid is present. Media. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., N. Y. (1937) Sec-
Parsons' correctly indicated that the system compres- tion 10.15.
sibility may be defined by the following expression. 3. Bruce, W. A.: "Pressure Prediction for Oil Reservoirs",

[+ - ~ G!)
Trans., AIME (1943) 151, 73.
4. Kelvin, Lord: Mathematical and Physical Papers, II, 41.
C = t ] Sy + C w Sw + c" So + C p
5. Horner: Proc., Third World Petroleum Congress, Sec. II,
(8) 503, E. J. Brill, Leiden (1951).
The use of this definition leads to a nonlinear form 6. Elkins, L. F.: Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1946) 109.
7. Parsons, R. L.: "Discussion on Prediction of Approximate
which has no formal solution. Therefore, a necessary Time of Interference Between Adjacent Wells", Trans.,
additional restriction must be imposed; i.e., there is no AIME (1959) 216, 436. ***

!SEPTEMBER, 1960 91