Are you sure?
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Fall 2005
Mazher Ibrahim
Basis for Grade:
Homework 20%
Examinations (3) 45%
Final Examination 25%
Class Participation/Pop Quizzes 10%
total = 100%
Grade Cutoffs: (Percentages)
A: < 90
B: 89.99 to 80
C: 79.99 to 70
D: 69.99 to 60
F: < 59.99
Introduction
to Well Testing
Objectives
• List the more common objectives of well testing.
• Describe the diffusivity equation by explaining
– its purpose and applications
– assumptions made in its derivation and how it is
derived
– its form for onedimensional radial flow.
• List, define, give the units for, and specify typical sources
for each of the variables that influence responses in a well
test.
• Compute the total compressibility for different reservoir
systems (undersaturated oil, saturated oil, gas).
What Is A Well Test?
• A tool for reservoir evaluation and characterization
– Investigates a much larger volume of the reservoir
than cores or logs
– Provides estimates of
– permeability under insitu conditions
– nearwellbore conditions
– distances to boundaries
– average pressure
How Is A Well Test Conducted?
q
t
q
t
p
Well is
allowed to
produce
normally
Sensor is
lowered
into well
Production
remains
constant
Pressure
stabilizes
How Is A Well Test Conducted?
q = 0
t
q
t
p
Sensor is
lowered
into well
Well is
shut in
Production drops to 0
Pressure
rises
Fundamental Concepts
• Applications and objectives of well testing
• Development of the diffusivity equation
• Definitions and sources for data used in
well testing
Types and Purposes of Well
Tests
• Pressure transient tests
– We generate and measure pressure changes with time
• Deliverability tests
– Well controlled production
• (Production Analysis)
– Use of production data for goals usually achieved by
well testing
Production data analysis
• Reservoir properties (permeability, skin
factor, fracture halflength, etc).
• Reservoir pore volume (estimated using
longterm production performance).
• Estimated ultimate recovery (EUR)—
movable fluid volumes.
Well Test Applications
• Define reservoir limits
• Estimate average drainage area pressure
• Diagnose productivity problems
• Characterize reservoir
• Evaluate stimulation treatment effectiveness
Well Test Objectives
Single, Multiwell Tests
q
Well is
allowed to
produce
normally
Sensor is
lowered
into well
Single, Multiwell Tests
Well is shut in,
pressure is
measured
Well is
shut in
Sensor is
lowered
into
offset
well
. . . pressure is
measured at
offset well(s)
Single, Multiwell Tests
Kinds of Well Tests
q
t
P
wf
Produce well
at constant
rate
Plot
pressure
response
Lower
sensor
into well
Produce
well at
constant
rate
Shut in well
Lower
sensor
into well
t
P
ws
Plot
pressure
response
Kinds of Well Tests
t
p
Inject fluid
into well at
constant rate
Plot
pressure
response
Kinds of Well Tests
t
p
Inject fluid
into well at
constant rate
Measure
pressure
response
q=0
Shut in well
Kinds of Well Tests
Multiwell Tests
. . . measure pressure
response at offset
well(s)
Produce
one well at
constant
rate . . .
t
p
. . . measure
pressure
response at
offset well(s)
Alternately
produce and
shut in one
well . . .
t
p
q
Multiwell Tests
PTA: SingleWell Tests
– one well in which the pressure response is measured
following a rate change.
• pressure buildup test
– shut in after controlled production
• drawdown or flow test
– (specific drawdown tests: are called reservoir limits tests
• pressure falloff test
– similar to a pressure buildup test, except it is, conducted
on an injection well
• injectivity test
– Inject into the well at measured rate and measure pressure
as it increases with time
– analogous to pressure drawdown testing.
PTA: Multiwell Tests
• Flow rate is changed in one well
• Pressure response is measured in one or more other
wells
• Directional variations of reservoir properties
(orientation of natural fractures)
• Presence or lack of communication between two
points in the reservoir
• Ratio of the porositycompressibility products of the
matrix and fracture systems
Multiwell tests:
• Interference tests
– The active well is produced at a measured, constant
rate throughout the test
– (Other wells in the field must be shut in so that any
observed pressure response can be attributed to the
active well only.)
• Pulse tests
– The active well produces and then, is shut in, returned
to production and shut in again
– Repeated but with production or shutin periods
rarely exceeding more than a few hours
– Produces a pressure response in the observation wells
which usually can be interpreted unambiguously (even
when other wells in the field continue to produce)
Deliverability tests (DT)
• production capabilities of a well under
specific reservoir conditions
• primarily for gas wells
• absolute openflow (AOF) potential
• inflow performance relationship (IPR) or gas
backpressure curve
DT: FlowAfterFlow Tests
(referred to as gas backpressure or fourpoint tests)
• producing the well at a series of different stabilized
flow rates
• measuring the stabilized bottomhole flowing pressure
at the sandface
• typically, with a sequence of increasing flow rates
DT: SinglePoint Tests
• lowpermeability formations
• flowing the well at a single rate until the bottomhole
flowing pressure is stabilized
– required by many regulatory agencies
– requires prior knowledge of the well's deliverability
behavior
– (from previous testing or from correlations with other
wells producing in the same field under similar conditions)
DT: Isochronal Tests
• Specifically, the isochronal test is a series of single
point tests developed to estimate stabilized
deliverability characteristics without actually
flowing the well for the time required to achieve
stabilized conditions
• The isochronal test is conducted by alternately
producing the well, then shutting in the well and
allowing it to build up to the average reservoir
pressure prior to the beginning of the next
production period.
Issues
• Development Wells vs. Exploration Wells
• Producing Wells vs. Injection Wells
• Shallow Wells vs. Deep Wells
• Stimulated Wells vs. Unstimulated Wells
• Effects of Reservoir Properties
• Low Permeability vs. High Permeability
Formations
• Single Zones vs. Multiple Zones
• Safety and Environmental Considerations
• Sweet Gas vs. Sour and Corrosive Gases
• Other environmental Concerns
Production data analysis
• Reservoir properties (permeability, skin
factor, fracture halflength, etc).
• Reservoir pore volume (estimated using
longterm production performance).
• Estimated ultimate recovery (EUR)—
movable fluid volumes.
End of Class
The Diffusivity Equation
• Describes the flow of
– a slightly compressible fluid
– having constant viscosity
– in a porous medium
– at constant temperature
• Derived from basic relationships of
– continuity
– flow equation (Darcy’s law)
– equationofstate
The Continuity Equation
2 1
v A v A m
(Aµv)
1
(Aµv)
2
Flow Equation (Darcy’s Law)
or, in differential form,
L
p kA
q
x
p k
u
x
x
Equation of State for a Slightly
Compressible Liquid
o
p p c
o
e
The Diffusivity Equation
t
p
k
c
r
p
r
r r
t
1
Onedimensional, radial form:
Formation Volume Factor
surf
res
V
V
B
surf
res
o
V
V
B
For oil:
surf
res
w
V
V
B
For water:
surf
res
g
V
V
B
For gas:
Viscosity
• A fluid’s resistance to flow
– Gasoline—low viscosity
– Vaseline—high viscosity
Fluid Compressibility
p
V
p
V
V
c
ln 1
Porosity
Permeability
p A
L q
k
Pore Compressibility
p
ln
p
c
f
1
Shale
Sand
Net Pay Thickness
h
3
h
2
h
1
h
4
(No perforations
in this sand)
h = h
1
+ h
2
+ h
3
Net Pay Thickness
Vertical well,
horizontal formation
Deviated well,
horizontal formation
Deviated well,
slanted formation
Vertical well,
slanted formation
Saturations
Wellbore Radius
r
w
Total Compressibility
g g w w o o f t
c S c S c S c c
Modeling Radial Flow
Instructional Objectives
• State the Eifunction solution to the diffusivity
equation, and list all the assumptions on which it
is based. State practical rules for determining the
numerical values of the Eifunction.
• Given formation and fluid properties, be able to
calculate the radius of investigation at a given
time and the time necessary to reach a given
radius of investigation.
• Describe the effects of reservoir properties on the
radius of investigation.
Radial Flow Reservoir Model
h
r
r
w
Bulk
formation
EiFunction Solution
to the Diffusivity Equation


.

\

÷ + =
kt
r c
Ei
kh
qB
. p p
t
i
2
948
6 70
µ µ
·
÷
÷ ÷ ÷
x
u
du
u
e
x Ei
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
x
0
2
4
6
EiFunction Graph
Log approximation
Eifunction
drops to zero
ShortTime Approximation for Ei
Function Solution
i
p p
10
948
2
>
kt
r c
t
µ
Applies when
(large radius or small time)
LongTime Approximation
to EiFunction Solution


.

\

+ ~
kt
r c
log
kh
B q
. p p
t
i
2
10
1688
6 162
µ  µ
Applies when 01 0
948
2
.
kt
r c
t
<
µ
(small radius or large time)
Pressure Profile
During Drawdown
t = 0
Distance from center of wellbore, ft
Pressure,
psi
2000
1000
1 10 1000 100 10000
t = 0.01 hrs
t = 1 hr
t = 100 hrs
t = 10000 hrs
r
i
r
i
r
i
r
i
Pressure Profile
During Buildup
Distance from center of wellbore, ft
2,000
1,000
1,200
1,600
1,800
1,400
1 10 1,000 100 10,000
t = 100 hrs
t = 1 hr
t = 0.01 hrs
t = 0
t = 10,000 hrs
r
i
r
i
r
i
r
i
Radius of Investigation Equations
• Radius of investigation for a
given time t:
t
i
c
kt
r
µ 948
=
k
r c
t
i t
2
948µ
=
• Time required to reach a given
radius of investigation r
i
:
Characterizing Damage and
Stimulation
Instructional Objectives
• List factors that cause skin damage or geometric skin factor.
• Calculate skin factor for a given additional pressure drop due to
damage; conversely, calculate additional pressure drop for a given
skin factor.
• Calculate flow efficiency given the skin factor, wellbore pressure,
and average drainage area pressure.
• Express skin factor as an apparent wellbore radius; conversely,
express apparent wellbore radius as a skin factor.
• Express a given skin factor as an equivalent fracture halflength (for
an infiniteconductivity fracture); conversely, express fracture half
length as an equivalent skin factor.
Drilling Fluid Damage
Mud filtrate
invasion
Fines may clog pore
throats, reducing
effective permeability
Filtrate may cause
clays to swell,
causing damage
Production Damage
p < p
b
p > p
b
p > p
d
P< p
d
Oil Reservoir
Free gas reduces
effective permeability
Gas Condensate
Reservoir
Immobile condensate
ring reduces
effective permeability
Injection Damage
‘dirty’
water
incompatible
water
Reservoir Model
Bulk
formation
h
Skin Effect
r
w
r
a
k
k
a
Altered
zone
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Distance from center of wellbore, ft
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,
p
s
i
Reservoir Pressure Profile
Ap
s
Skin and Pressure Drop
s
p
qB
h k .
s
00708 0
Skin and Pressure Drop
s
kh
qB .
p
s
2 141
r
h
Skin Factor and Properties
of the Altered Zone
w
a
a
r
r
k
k
s ln 1
r
w
r
ds
Skin Factor and Properties
of the Altered Zone
w a
a
r r
s
k
k
ln
1
Effective Wellbore Radius
w
wa
r
r
s ln
wa
s
w wa
e r r
wa
Minimum Skin Factor
w
e
min
r
r
s ln
Minimum Skin Factor
3 7
5 0
745
ln
ln
.
.
r
r
s
w
e
min
Example
Converging Flow to Perforations
Geometric Skin
Partial Penetration
h
h
p
Geometric Skin
Incompletely Perforated
Interval
h
t
h
p
h
1
p d
p
t
s s
h
h
s
Geometric Skin
Partial Penetration
Apparent Skin Factor
(
(
¸
(
¸

.

\

÷
÷
+
+


.

\

÷ =
2
1
1
1
2
ln
1
2
ln 1
1
B
A
h
h
h r h
s
pD
pD
pD D pD
p
t
t p pD
h h h =
t D
h h h
1 1
=
4
1
1 pD D
h h
A
+
=
4 3
1
1 pD D
h h
B
+
=
2
1


.

\

=
h
v
t
w
D
k
k
h
r
r
Geometric Skin
Deviated Wellbore
u sec h u
h
u
s s s
d
Geometric Skin
Deviated Wellbore
Apparent Skin Factor

.

\



.

\

÷


.

\

÷ =
100
log
56 41
865 1 06 2
D
.
'
w
.
'
w
h
s
u u
u


.

\

=
÷
w
h
v
'
w
tan
k
k
tan u u
1
v
h
w
D
k
k
r
h
h =
Well With Hydraulic Fracture
Geometric Skin
L
f
wa f
r L 2
2
f
wa
L
r
r
we
r
dp
L
p
k
R
k
d
k
dp
r
p
r
w
r
d
Completion Skin
dp d p
s s s s


.

\

÷


.

\



.

\

=
d
R
dp
R
p
dp
p
dp
k
k
k
k
r
r
n L
h
s ln
Gravel Pack Skin
L
g
Cement
2
2
p gp
g R
gp
r nk
hL k
s
Productivity Index
wf
p p
q
J
Flow Efficiency
wf
s wf
f
p p
p p p
J
J
E
ideal
actual
Flow Efficiency and Rate
old
new
old new
f
f
E
E
q q
Semilog Analysis
For Oil Wells
Instructional Objectives
• Analyze a constantrate drawdown test using semilog
analysis.
• Analyze a buildup test following a constantrate flow
period using the Horner method.
0.001 100
x
2
4
6
EiFunction Solution


.

\

÷ + =
kt
r c
kh
qB
p p
t
i
2
948
Ei 6 . 70
µ µ
500
2,000
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Distance from center of wellbore, ft
Reservoir Pressure Profile
Positive (damage) skin (s = +5)
Negative skin
(s = 2)
Pressure,
psi
Unsteadystate pressure
(s=0)
• For r = r
w
Incorporating Skin into the
EiFunction Solution
(
(
¸
(
¸
÷


.

\

÷ + = s
kt
r c
Ei
kh
qB
p p
w t
i
2
948
6 . 70
2
µ  µ
• For r > r
a


.

\

÷ + =
kt
r c
Ei
kh
B q
p p
t
i
2
948
6 . 70
µ  µ
Log Approximation to the
EiFunction
( )
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ ÷


.

\

+
÷ =
s . .
r c
k
log t log
kh
qB
. p p
w t
i wf
869 0 23 3
6 162
2
10 10
µ
µ
y = mx + b
Use m in computations
from this point forward
Estimating Permeability and
Skin
(
(
¸
(
¸
+


.

\

÷
÷
= 23 3 151 1
2
10
1
.
r c
k
log
m
p p
. s
w t
hr i
µ
mh
qB
k
µ 6 . 162
=
700
1,200
0.1 1 10 100 1,000
Elapsed Test Time, hrs
Pressure,
psi
Drawdown Test Graph
(t
2
, p
wf2
)
(t
1
, p
wf1
)
Powers of 10
Usually several cycles apart
p
1hr
is p at
1 hr on best
fit line
Plot pressure vs. time
Example
• q = 250 STB/D p
i
= 4,412 psia
• h = 46 ft  = 12%
• r
w
= 0.365 ft B = 1.136 RB/STB
• c
t
= 17 x 10
6
psi
1
µ = 0.8 cp
(
(
¸
(
¸
+


.

\

÷
÷
= 23 3 151 1
2
10
1
.
r c
k
log
m
p p
. s
w t
hr i
µ
Example
• q = 250 STB/D p
i
= 4,412 psia
• h = 46 ft  = 12%
• r
w
= 0.365 ft B = 1.136 RB/STB
• c
t
= 17 x 10
6
psi
1
µ = 0.8 cp
(
(
¸
(
¸
+


.

\

÷
÷
= 23 3 151 1
2
10
1
.
r c
k
log
m
p p
. s
w t
hr i
µ
mh
qB
k
µ 6 . 162
=
Example
3,300
3,600
1 10 100
Time, hrs
Extrapolate to get p
1 hr
p
1hr
~ 3,540 psi
m
~ 100
Plot data points
from field data
One log cycle
p
10hr
~ 3,440 psi
slope
= p
10 hr
p
1 hr
~ 100
Example
• q = 250 STB/D p
i
= 4,412 psia
• h = 46 ft  = 12%
• r
w
= 0.365 ft B = 1.136 RB/STB
• c
t
= 17 x 10
6
psi
1
µ = 0.8 cp
(
(
¸
(
¸
+


.

\

÷
÷
= 23 3 151 1
2
10
1
.
r c
k
log
m
p p
. s
w t
hr i
µ
mh
qB
k
µ 6 . 162
=
p
1hr
~ 3,540 psi
m~ 100
Problems with Drawdown
Tests
• It is difficult to produce a well at a strictly constant
rate
• Even small variations in rate distort the pressure
response
Alternative to Drawdown
Tests
• There is one rate that is easy to maintain – a flow
rate of zero.
• A buildup test is conducted by shutting in a
producing well and measuring the resulting
pressure response.
Buildup Test  Rate History
At
0
 q
0
t
p
+ At
q
t
p
At
0
q
Sum after shutin
of 0.
Rate after shutin of q
Rate during production of +q.
Buildup Pressure Response
At t
p
At
0
t
p
+ At
0
Pressure normally declines
during production...
…but rises during the
‘injection’ (buildup) period...
…yielding a pressure curve that is the
sum of the two rate curves:
0
Buildup Test  Superposition
( )
( )
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ ÷


.

\

+ A +
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ ÷


.

\

+ A + ÷ =
s . .
r c
k
log t log
kh
qB
.
s . .
r c
k
log t t log
kh
qB
. p p
w t
w t
p i ws
869 0 23 3 6 162
869 0 23 3 6 162
2
10 10
2
10 10
µ
µ
µ
µ


.

\

A
A +
÷ =
t
t t
kh
qB
p p
p
i ws 10
log 6 . 162
µ
y = mx + b
Buildup StraightLine
Analogy
h m
qB
k
6 . 162
1 @
t
t t
b p
p
i
Horner time ratio
Buildup Test Graph
p
i
1,400
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Horner time ratio
2,000
Estimating Skin Factor
From a Buildup Test
(
(
¸
(
¸
+


.

\

÷
÷
= 23 . 3 log 151 . 1
2
10
1
w t
wf hr
r c
k
m
p p
s
µ
Horner Pseudoproducing
Time
last
24
q
N
t
p
p


.

\

A
A +
÷ =
t
t t
log
kh
B q
. p p
p
i ws 10
last
6 162
µ
Semilog Analysis
For Gas Wells
Instructional Objectives
1. Identify range of validity of pressure,
pressuresquared, and adjusted pressure
analysis methods
2. Estimate pressure drop due to nonDarcy
flow
3. Analyze flow and buildup tests using
semilog analysis
Outline
• Flow Equations For Gas Wells
– Pseudopressure
– PressureSquared
– Pressure
– Adjusted Pressure
• NonDarcy Flow
• Example
Diffusivity Equation  Liquids
• Continuity Equation
• Equation of State For Slightly
Compressible Liquids
• Darcy’s Law
t
p
k
c
r
p
r
r r
t
1
Real Gas Law
pV=znRT
absolute pressure, psi
p
ideal gas constant, 10.72
(ft
3
)(lb)/(mole)(in
2
)(°R)
R
temperature, °R
T
number of moles
n
volume, ft
3
V
real gas deviation factor,
dimensionless
z
Real Gas Pseudopressure
p
p
p
z
pdp
p p
0
2 p
absolute pressure, psi
Gas Flow Equation
Real Gas Pseudopressure
• Continuity Equation
• Real Gas Law Equation of State
• Darcy’s Law
t
p
k
c
r
p
r
r r
p
t
p
c
c
=


.

\

c
c
c
c µ 1
Gas Flow Equation
PressureSquared
• Continuity Equation
• Real Gas Law Equation of State
• Darcy’s Law
• The term µz Is Constant
t
p
k
c
r
p
r
r r
t
c
c
=


.

\

c
c
c
c
2 2
1 µ
PressureSquared Ranges
0
0.16
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Pressure, psia
mu*z,
psi/cp
T
f
= 200 °F
SG=1.2
SG=1.0
SG=0.8
SG=0.6
Fairly constant at
rates <2,000 psi
Gas Flow Equation: Pressure
• Continuity Equation
• Real Gas Law Equation of State
• Darcy’s Law
t
p
k
c
r
p
r
r r
t
c
c
=

.

\

c
c
c
c µ 1
• If p/µz is constant,
Pressure: Range Of
Application
T
f
= 200°F
SG=0.6
SG=0.8
SG=1.0
SG=1.2
0
250
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Pressure, psia
Fairly constant at rates >3,000 psi
Gas  Dependent Variables
• PressureSquared  Valid Only For Low
Pressures (< 2000 psi)
• Pressure  Valid Only For High Pressures (>
3000 psi)
• Real Gas Pseudopressure  Valid For All
Pressure Ranges
Gas Flow Equation:
Real Gas Pseudopressure
• Continuity Equation
• Real Gas Law Equation of State
• Darcy’s Law
t
p
k
c
r
p
r
r r
p
t
p
c
c
=


.

\

c
c
c
c µ 1
Strong Variation
With Pressure
Real Gas Pseudotime
( ) ( )
}
A
÷ A
t
t
ap
p c p
dt
t
0
µ
Adjusted Variables
( ) ( ) p p
p
z
z
pdp
p
z
p p
p
i
p
p
i
a


.

\

=


.

\

÷
}
2
0
µ
µ
µ
( )
( ) ( )
( )
ap
i
t
t
t
i
t a
t c
p c p
dt
c t A = ÷ A
}
A
µ
µ
µ
0
Using Horner Time Ratio
With Adjusted Time
a
a p
t
t t
HTR
A
A +
÷
NonDarcy Flow
• Flow equations developed so far assume
Darcy flow
• For gas wells, velocity near wellbore is
high enough that Darcy’s law fails
• NonDarcy behavior can often be
modeled as ratedependent skin
Apparent Skin Factor
g
Dq s s + = '
Estimating NonDarcy
Coefficient
From Multiple Tests
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Flow rate, Mscf/D
Apparent
skin factor
s = 3.4
D = 5.1x10
4
D/Mscf
Estimating NonDarcy Coefficient
From Turbulence Parameter
• Often, only one test is available
• If so, we can estimate D from
wf g sc w
sc g
T hr
Mp k
D
,
15
10 715 . 2
µ

÷
×
=
Estimating Turbulence
Parameter
• If  is not known, it can be estimated from
53 . 0 47 . 1 10
10 88 . 1
÷ ÷
× ~   k
Wellbore Storage
Objectives
• Define wellbore unloading
• Define afterflow
• Calculate wellbore storage (WBS)
coefficient for wellbore filled with a
singlephase fluid
• Calculate WBS coefficient for rising
liquid level
FluidFilled Wellbore 
Unloading
Bottomhole
Rate
Surface Rate
Rate
Time
wb wb
sf
w
c V
B q q
dt
dp
24
÷
=
0
Eifunction solution
assumes constant
reservoir rate
Mass balance
equation resolves
problems
FluidFilled Wellbore 
Afterflow
Bottomhole
Rate
Rate
Time
wb wb
sf
w
c V
B q q
dt
dp
24
÷
=
Surface Rate
Bottomhole flow
continues after
shutin
Rising Liquid Level


.

\



.

\

÷
=
c wb
wb
sf
w
g
g
A
.
B q q
dt
dp
144
615 5
24
µ
Rate
Time
Bottomhole
Rate
Surface Rate
Liquid rises until
hydrostatic head in
wellbore matches
pressure in formation
Wellbore Storage
wb wb
sf
w
c V
B q q
dt
dp
24
÷
= Fluidfilled wellbore


.

\



.

\

÷
=
c wb
wb
sf
w
g
g
A
.
B q q
dt
dp
144
615 5
24
µ
Rising liquid level
C
B q q
dt
dp
sf
w
24
÷
=
General
Wellbore Storage Definition
dt
dp
B q q
C
w
sf
24
÷
÷
wb wb
c V C
Fluidfilled
wellbore
wb
wb
c
wb
wb
A
.
g
g
.
A
C
µ
µ
65 25
615 5
144
=
=
Rising
liquid level
Type Curve Analysis
Objectives
1. Identify wellbore storage and middle time regions
on type curve.
2. Identify pressure response for a well with high,
zero, or negative skin.
3. Calculate equivalent time.
4. Calculate wellbore storage coefficient,
permeability, and skin factor from type curve
match.


.

\

÷ + =
kt
r c
Ei
kh
qB
p p
t
i
2
948
6 . 70
µ µ
( )






.

\



.

\



.

\

÷ ÷ =
÷
2
2
0002637 . 0
4
2
1
2 . 141
w t
w
i
r c
kt
r
r
Ei
qB
p p kh
µ
µ


.

\

÷ ÷ =
D
D
D
t
r
Ei p
4 2
1
2
( )
µ qB
p p kh
p
i
D
2 . 141
÷
÷
w
D
r
r
r ÷
2
0002637 . 0
w t
D
r c
kt
t
µ
÷
Dimensionless Variables
Radial Flow With WBS And
Skin
( )
µ qB
p p kh
p
i
D
2 . 141
÷
÷
2
0002637 . 0
w t
D
r c
kt
t
µ
÷
w
D
r
r
r ÷
µ
A
qB
p kh
s
s
2 . 141
÷
2
8936 . 0
w t
D
hr c
C
C

÷
Gringarten Type Curve
• Constant rate production
• Vertical well
• Infiniteacting homogeneous reservoir
• Singlephase, slightly compressible liquid
• Infinitesimal skin factor
• Constant wellbore storage coefficient
Gringarten Type Curve
t
D
/C
D
0.01
100
100,000
P
D
Time group
C
D
e
2s
=0.01
C
D
e
2s
=10
60
C
D
e
2s
=100
Wellbore storage coefficient
Skin factor
C
D
e
2s
Type curve
Stem
Gringarten Type Curve
t
D
/C
D
0.01
100
100,000
P
D
Similarities of curves make
matching difficult
Pressure Derivative
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ ÷


.

\

= s
r c
kt
kh
qB
p
w t
869 . 0 23 . 3 log
6 . 162
2
µ
µ
A
( ) t
p
t
p
t
ln c
c
=
c
c A A
kh
qB
t
p
t
µ A 6 . 70
=
c
c
( )
D
D
D
D
D
t
p
t
p
t
ln c
c
=
c
c
5 . 0 =
c
c
D
D
D
t
p
t
Derivative Type Curve
t
D
/C
D
0.01
100
100,000
t
D
/P
D
'
C
D
e
2s
=0.01
C
D
e
2s
=10
60
C
D
e
2s
=100
Differences in curve
shapes make
matching easier
Pressure + Derivative Type
Curves
t
D
/C
D
0.01
100
100,000
P
D
Combining curves
gives each stem
value two distinctive
shapes
Pressure/Derivative Type
Curve
t
D
/C
D
0.01
100
100,000
P
D
WBS Transition Radial Flow
Early Time Region Middle Time Region
Unit
Slope
Line
Horizontal Derivative
Pressure + Derivative Type
Curve
t
D
/C
D
0.01
100
100,000
P
D
Low skin
High skin
No skin
Equivalent Time For PBU
Tests
( )
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ ÷


.

\

+ = ÷ s
r c
k
t
kh
qB
p p
w t
p wf i
869 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
2
10
µ
µ
( )
( )
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ ÷


.

\

+ ÷
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ ÷


.

\

+ + = ÷
s
r c
k
t
kh
qB
s
r c
k
t t
kh
qB
p p
w t
w t
p ws i
869 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
869 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
2
10
2
10
µ
A
µ
µ
A
µ
Equivalent Time For PBU
Tests
( )
( )
( )
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ ÷


.

\

+ +
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ ÷


.

\

+ + ÷
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ ÷


.

\

+ + = ÷
s
r c
k
t
kh
qB
s
r c
k
t t
kh
qB
s
r c
k
t
kh
qB
p p
w t
w t
p
w t
p wf ws
869 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
869 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
869 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
2
10
2
10
2
10
µ
A
µ
µ
A
µ
µ
µ
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ ÷


.

\

+


.

\

+
= ÷ s
r c
k
t t
t t
kh
qB
p p
w t
p
p
wf ws
869 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
2
10
µ
A
A
µ
Equivalent Time For PBU
Tests
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ ÷


.

\

µ
+


.

\

A +
A
µ
= ÷ s
r c
k
t t
t t
kh
qB
p p
w t
p
p
wf ws
869 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
2
10
( )
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ ÷


.

\

+ = ÷ s
r c
k
t
kh
qB
p p
w t
p wf i
869 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
2
10
µ
µ
( )
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ ÷


.

\

µ
+ A
µ
= ÷ s
r c
k
t
kh
qB
p p
w t
e wf ws
869 . 0 23 . 3 log log 6 . 162
2
10
Equivalent Time For PBU
Tests
Drawdown
t p p p
wf i
vs
Buildup
e wf ws
t p p p vs
Properties Of Equivalent
Time
t t
t t
t
p
p
e
A
A
A
+
÷
t
t t
t
p
p
A
A +
=
p
p
t
t t
t
A
A
+
=
HTR
t
p
=
p
t t t << ~ A A ,
p p
t t t >> ~ A ,
Adjusted Variables For Gas
Wells
( ) ( )
}
=


.

\

÷
p
p
ref
a
p z p
dp p
p
z
p
0 '
' '
' '
µ
µ
( )
( ) ( )
}
=
÷
t
t
t
ref
t a
p c p
dt
c t
A
µ
µ A
0 '
'
ref g wb a
c V C ÷
Field Data Plot
t
eq
1
1,000
1,000
AP
t
D
/C
D
0.01
100
100,000
P
D
Overlay Field Data on Type
Curve
t
eq
1
1,000
1,000
AP
t
D
/C
D
0.01
100
100,000
P
D
Move Field Data Toward
Horizontal
t
eq
1
1,000
1,000
AP
Align data with
horizontal part of
type curves
t
D
/C
D
0.01
100
100,000
P
D
Move Field Data Toward
Match
t
eq
1
1,000
1,000
AP
Stop when data align
with horizontal stems
Begin to move toward unit slope line
t
D
/C
D
0.01
100
100,000
P
D
Move Field Data Toward
Stems
t
eq
1
1,000
1,000
AP
t
D
/C
D
0.01
100
100,000
p
D
Move Field Data Toward
Stems
t
eq
1
1,000
1,000
Ap
Extrapolate curve
as necessary
Ap/p
D
÷ k
T
eq
/t
D
÷ C
D
Calculate s from
matching stem value
Let’s say s=7x10
9
Assume
Ap = 262
Assume
p
D
= 10
Assume
t
eq
= 0.0546
Assume
t
D
/C
D
= 1
Use Reservoir, Well
Properties
q = 50
B = 1.325
µ = 0.609
h =15
 = 0.183
c
t
= 1.76 x 10
5
r
w
2
= 0.25
C
D
= 1703
Calculate k From Pressure
Match
. P . M
D
p
p
h
qB .
k


.

\

A
=
µ 2 141
md .
. . .
k
5 14
262
10
15
609 0 325 1 50 2 141
=

.

\

=
Calculate C
D
From Time
Match
. P . M
D D
eq
w t
D
C t
t
r c
k .
C


.

\

=
2
0002637 0
µ
1703
1
0546 0
25 0 10 76 1 609 0 183 0
5 14 0002637 0
5
=

.

\

×
=
÷
.
. . . .
. .
C
D
Calculate s From C
D
e
2s


.

\

=
D
s
D
C
e C
ln s
2
2
1
6 7
1703
10 7
2
1
9
.
ln s
=


.

\

×
=
Manual LogLog
Analysis
Instructional Objectives
• To be able to manually estimate permeability and
skin factor from the loglog diagnostic plot
without using type curves
Estimating Permeability and
Skin Factor from the
Diagnostic Plot
1
10
100
1000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Equivalent time, hrs
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
s
i
Ap
r
(tAp’)
r
t
r
Estimating Permeability
and Skin Factor
r
p t h
qB
k
'
A
=
µ 6 . 70
(
(
¸
(
¸


.

\

÷
'
A
A
=
2
1688
ln
2
1
w t
r
r
r
r c
kt
p t
p
s
µ
Example
q = 50 STB/D p
wf
= 2095 psia
h = 15 ft  = 18.3%
B = 1.36 RB/STB c
t
= 17.9 x 10
÷6
psi
÷1
µ = 0.563 cp r
w
= 0.25 ft
Estimate (t p’)
r
, t
r
, and p
r
1
10
100
1000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Equivalent time, hrs
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
,
p
s
i
400
14
20
Estimate Permeability
md
p t h
qB
k
r
9 . 12
14 15
563 . 0 36 . 1 50 6 . 70
6 . 70
=


.

\

=
'
A
=
µ
Estimate Skin Factor
( )
( )( )
( )( )( )( )( )
23 . 7
25 . 0 10 9 . 17 563 . 0 183 . 0 1688
20 9 . 12
ln
14
400
2
1
1688
ln
2
1
2
6
2
=
(
(
¸
(
¸


.

\

×
÷ =
(
(
¸
(
¸


.

\

÷
'
A
A
=
÷
w t
r
r
r
r c
kt
p t
p
s
 µ
Flow
Regimes and
the
Diagnostic
Plot
Objectives
1. Identify early, middle, and late time
regions on a diagnostic plot.
2. Identify characteristic shapes of flow
regimes on a diagnostic plot.
3. List factors that affect pressure response
in early time.
4. List boundaries that affect pressure
response in late time.
The Diagnostic Plot
Elapsed time (At ), hrs
Pressure change (Ap)
Pressure derivative (Ap' )
The Diagnostic Plot
Elapsed time (At ), hrs
Middle
time
region
Latetime
region
Earlytime
region
Unitslope
line
(wellbore storage)
Nearwellbore effects
The Diagnostic Plot
Elapsed time (At ), hrs
Middle
time
region
Latetime
region
Earlytime
region
Partial penetration,
phase redistribution,
fracture conductivity
Homogenous reservoir
÷ horizontal derivative
(best estimate of k )
The Diagnostic Plot
Elapsed time (At ), hrs
Middle
time
region
Latetime
region
Earlytime
region
Partial penetration,
phase redistribution,
fracture conductivity
Infiniteacting
behavior
Boundary
effects
Flow Regimes
• Common characteristic shapes of derivative
– Volumetric
– Radial
– Linear
– Bilinear
– Spherical
• Different flow patterns may appear at
different times in a single test
• Flow regimes follow sequence within model
Volumetric Behavior
Fluids from outside ‘recharge’ tank
Volumetric Behavior
V V
b t m p + = A
General Form
PseudosteadyState Flow
Wellbore Storage
C
qBt
p
24
= A
(
¸
(
¸
+ ÷


.

\

+ = ÷ s
r
r
kh
qB
hr c
qBt
p p
w
e
e t
wf i
4
3
ln
2 . 141 0744 . 0
2
µ

V V
b t m p + = A
General Form
Derivative
( )
t m
t
b t m
t
t
p
t
V
V V
=
c
+ c
=
c
A c
Volumetric Behavior
Volumetric Behavior
Elapsed time (At ), hrs
Pressure derivative
Pressure change during recharge
or pseudosteadystate flow
Volumetric Behavior
Elapsed time (At ), hrs
Wellbore
storage
Radial Flow
Wellbore
Radial Flow
Wellbore
Fracture
Radial Flow
Early radial flow
Late radial flow
Wellbore
Radial Flow
(
¸
(
¸
+ ÷


.

\

= A s
r c
kt
kh
qB
p
w t
869 . 0 23 . 3 log
6 . 162
2
µ
µ
Vertical Well
( ) b t m p + = A log
General Form
Radial Flow
( ) b t m p + = A log
General Form
( ) ( )
303 . 2
log
m
t
b t m
t
t
p
t
=
c
+ c
=
c
A c
Derivative
Radial Flow
Elapsed time (At ), hrs
Pressure derivative
Pressure
Elapsed time (At ), hrs
Radial
flow
Radial Flow
Spherical Flow
x
z
y
Spherical Flow
Few perforations
open
Spherical flow
Vertical wellbore
Spherical Flow
Vertical wellbore
Small part of
zone perforated
Spherical flow
Spherical Flow
Vertical wellbore
Certain wireline
testing tools
Spherical flow
Spherical Flow


.

\

÷ = ÷
kt
r c
kr
q
p p
p t
p
wf i
2
1
4
µ
t
µ
Spherical Probe (RFT)
General Form
2 1 ÷
÷ = A t m b p
S S
Spherical Flow
2 1 ÷
÷ = A t m b p
S S
General Form
Derivative
( )
2 1
2 1
2
1
÷
÷
=
c
÷ c
=
c
A c
t m
t
t m b
t
t
p
t
S
S S
Spherical Flow
Elapsed time (At ), hrs
1
2
Pressure
Pressure derivative
Elapsed time (At ), hrs
Spherical flow
Spherical Flow
Linear Flow
Vertical wellbore
Fracture
Linear flow
Linear Flow
Channel (ancient
stream) reservoir
Vertical
wellbore
Linear
flow
Linear Flow
Wellbore
Early linear flow
Linear Flow
Late linear flow
Wellbore
Linear Flow
2 1
26 . 16


.

\

= A
t
c
kt
khw
qB
p
µ
µ
Channel
2 1
064 . 4


.

\

= A
t f
c
kt
khL
qB
p
µ
µ
Hydraulic
Fracture
L L
b t m p + = A
2 1
General
Form
Linear Flow
L L
b t m p + = A
2 1
General
Form
Derivative
( )
2 1
2 1
2
1
t m
t
b t m
t
t
p
t
L
L L
=
c
+ c
=
c
A c
Linear Flow
Elapsed time (At ), hrs
1
2
Pressure change in
undamaged
fractured well
Pressure change in fractured/damaged
or horizontal well
Pressure
derivative
Bilinear Flow
Bilinear Flow
4 1
2 1
1 1 . 44


.

\



.

\

= A
k c
t
wk h
qB
p
t f
µ
µ
Hydraulic Fracture
General Form
B B
b t m p + = A
4 1
Bilinear Flow
General Form
B B
b t m p + = A
4 1
Derivative
( )
4 1
4 1
4
1
t m
t
b t m
t
t
p
t
B
B B
=
c
+ c
=
c
A c
Bilinear Flow
Elapsed time (At ), hrs
Pressure in fractured,
undamaged well
Pressure in fractured,
damaged well
Pressure derivative
1
4
Diagnostic Plot
Elapsed time (At ), hrs
Wellbore
storage
Spherical flow
Radial
flow
Recharge?
Estimating
Average Reservoir
Pressure
Estimating Reservoir
Pressure
• Middle Time Region Methods
– MatthewsBronsHazebroek Method
– RameyCobb Method
• Late Time Region Methods
– Modified Muskat Method
– ArpsSmith Method
MiddleTime Region Methods
• Based on extrapolation and correction of MTR
pressure trend
• Advantage
– Use only pressure data in the middletime region
• Disadvantages
– Need accurate fluid property estimates
– Need to know drainage area shape, size, well
location within drainage area
– May be somewhat computationally involved
MatthewsBronsHazebroek
Producing time prior to shutin, t
p
= 482 hr
Porosity,  = 0.15
Viscosity, m = 0.25 cp
Total compressibility, c
t
= 1.615 x 10
5
Drainage area, A = 1500 x 3000 ft (a 2x1 reservoir)
1
2
Curves for Square Drainage
Area
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.01 0.1 1 10
t
pAD
p
M
B
H
D
Curves for 2x1 Rectangle
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.01 0.1 1 10
t
pAD
p
M
B
H
D
Curves for 4x1 Rectangle
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0.01 0.1 1 10
t
pAD
p
M
B
H
D
MatthewsBronsHazebroek
2400
2450
2550
2650
2750
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
Horner time ratio
Shutin well
pressure, psia
p*=2689.4
m=26.7
Step 1: Plot pressure vs. Horner time ratio Step 2: Extrapolate slope m to find p*
( )( )( )
( )( )( )( )( )
35 . 0
3000 1500 10 615 . 1 25 . 0 15 . 0
482 5 . 7 0002637 . 0
0002637 . 0
5
=
×
=
=
÷
A c
kt
t
t
p
pAD
µ A c
kt
t
t
p
pAD
µ
0002637 . 0
=
Step 3: Calculate dimensionless producing time
MatthewsBronsHazebroek
Step 4: On appropriate MBH curve, find p
MBHD
MatthewsBronsHazebroek
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.01 0.1 1 10
p
MBHD
t
pAD
t
pAD
= 0.35
2x1 rectangle
2.05
( )
( )
6 . 2665
05 . 2
303 . 2
7 . 26
4 . 2689
303 . 2
*
=
÷ =
÷ =
pAD MBHD
t p
m
p p ( )
pAD MBHD
t p
m
p p
303 . 2
*÷ =
MatthewsBronsHazebroek
Step 5: Calculate average reservoir pressure, p
• Plot p
ws
vs (t
p
+At)/At on semilog coordinates
• Extrapolate to (t
p
+At)/At=1 to find p*
• Calculate the dimensionless producing time t
pAD
• Using the appropriate MBH chart for the drainage
area shape and well location, find p
MBHD
MatthewsBronsHazebroek
• If t
p
>> t
pss
, more accurate results may be obtained
by using t
pss
in place of t
p
in calculating the Horner
time ratio and t
pAD
• Calculate p
• Advantages
– Applies to wide variety of drainage area shapes, well
locations
– Uses only data in the middletime region
– Can be used with both short and long producing
times
• Disadvantages
– Requires drainage area size, shape, well location
– Requires accurate fluid property data
MatthewsBronsHazebroek
Reservoir Shapes
1
1
Dietz shape factor C
A
= 30.8828 Dietz shape factor C
A
= 12.9851
Dietz shape factor C
A
= 4.5132
1
Dietz shape factor C
A
= 10.8374
2
Reservoir Shapes
4
1
Dietz shape factor C
A
= 5.379
Reservoir Shapes
Dietz shape factor
C
A
= 31.62
Dietz shape factor
C
A
= 31.6
Dietz shape factor
C
A
= 19.17
Dietz shape factor
C
A
= 21.9
Dietz shape factor
C
A
= 0.098
Dietz shape factor
C
A
= 27.1
Reservoir Shapes
Step 1: Plot pressure vs. Horner time ratio
Step 2: Calculate dimensionless producing time
( )( )( )
( )( )( )( )( )
35 . 0
3000 1500 10 615 . 1 25 . 0 15 . 0
482 5 . 7 0002637 . 0
0002637 . 0
5
=
×
=
=
÷
A c
kt
t
t
p
pAD
µ
RameyCobb
Step 3: Find the Dietz shape factor C
A
for the
drainage area shape and well location
Shape factor C
A
= 21.8369
( )( )
63 . 7
35 . 0 8 . 21
=
=
=


.

\

A
A +
pAD A
p
p
t C
t
t t
RameyCobb
2400
2450
2550
2650
2750
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
Horner time ratio
Shutin wellbore
pressure, psia
RameyCobb
8 . 2665 = p
HTR = 7.63
RameyCobb
• Plot p
ws
vs (t
p
+At)/At on semilog coordinates
• Calculate the dimensionless producing time t
pAD
• Find the Dietz shape factor C
A
for the drainage
area shape and well location
• Calculate HTR
avg
• Extrapolate middletime region on Horner plot to
HTR
avg
• Read p at HTR
avg
• Advantages
– Applies to wide variety of drainage area shapes, well
locations
– Uses only data in the middle time region
• Disadvantages
– Requires drainage area size, shape, well location
– Requires accurate fluid property data
– Requires producing time long enough to reach
pseudosteady state
RameyCobb
LateTime Region Methods
• Based on extrapolation of postmiddletime
region pressure trend to infinite shutin time
• Advantages
– No need for accurate fluid property estimates
– No need to know drainage area shape, size, well
location within drainage area
– Tend to be very simple
• Disadvantage
– Require postmiddletimeregion pressure transient
data
LateTime Region Data
k
r c
t
k
r c
e t e t
2 2
750 250
LateTime Region Data
Dimensionless
pressure
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
9
Dimensionless shutin time
Modified Muskat Method
bt
ws
Ae p p
÷
bt A ln p p ln
ws
Average reservoir pressure
Shutin pressure
Exponential decline
bt C p p ln
ws
Modified Muskat Method
Step 1: Assume a value for average
pressure
bt C p p ln
ws
p
Time, minutes
5575
5560
5600
10
100
1000
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
psi
, ws
p p÷
Modified Muskat Method
Assumed pressure too low
Assumed pressure too high
Assumed pressure fits
• Advantages
– Very simple to apply
• Disadvantages
– Somewhat subjective: Which data points
should I try to ‘straighten’?
– More sensitive to estimates that are too low
than to estimates that are too high
– Not easily automated
Modified Muskat Method
• Recommendations
– Don’t try to straighten data until there has
been a clear deviation from the middletime
region
– Once middletime region has ended, try to
straighten all data
– Expect best reliability for wells reasonably
centered in drainage areas
Modified Muskat Method
ArpsSmith Method
bt
ws
Ae p p
÷
bt
ws
Abe
dt
dp
÷
ws
ws
p p b
dt
dp
ArpsSmith Method
Step 1: Assume a value for average
pressure, accepting theory based on
empirical observation
ws
ws
p p b
dt
dp
ArpsSmith Method
Step 2: Plot dp
ws
/dt vs p
ws
on Cartesian scale
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
5300 5350 5400 5450 5500 5550 5600
P
ws,
psi
dp
ws
/dt,
psi/hr
P
avg
= 5575 psi
Step 3: Fit a straight line
through the data points
Step 4: Read p from
the xintercept
ArpsSmith Method
Optional: Estimate the productivity index
in STB/D/psi from the slope b and the
wellbore storage coefficient C
ws
ws
p p b
dt
dp
÷ =
wf
p p J q ÷ =
dt
dp
C B q q
w
sf
24 = ÷
o
B
Cb
J
24
• Advantages
– Simple to apply
– Easily automated
• Disadvantages
– Requires data in latetime region, after all
boundaries have been felt
ArpsSmith Method
– Requires numerical differentiation of pressure
with respect to time
– Assumes p
ws
approaches p exponentially
Hydraulically
Fractured
Wells
Hydraulically Fractured
Wells
• Flow Regimes
• Depth of Investigation
• Fracture Damage
• Straight Line Analysis
– Bilinear Flow Analysis
– Linear Flow Analysis
– Semilog Analysis
• Type Curve Analysis
Ideal Hydraulic Fracture
Reservoir sand
(permeability=k
r
)
Fracture
halflength, L
f
Hydraulic fracture
(permeability =k
f
)
Wellbore
Fracture width, w
f
Dimensionless Variables for
Fractured Wells
( )
wf i D
p p
qB
kh
p ÷ =
µ
00708 . 0
t
L c
k
t
f t
D L
f
2
0002637 . 0
µ
=
k
c
c
k
t
f
t f
f
fD


q =
2
8936 . 0
f t
D L
hL c
C
C
f

=
r
f
f f
cD
C
kL
k w
F t = =
f
f f
r
kL
k w
C
t
=
• Fracture flow
– Linear
– Bilinear
• Formation flow
– Linear
– Elliptical
– Pseudoradial
Flow Regimes in Fractures
Fracture Linear Flow
Transient moves down fracture length
Transient has not
moved into reservoir
Transient has not
reached end of fracture
Fracture Linear Flow
Time
(Loglog plot)
(Too early for practical application)
D L fD
cD
D
f
t
F
p tq
2
=
Fracture Linear Flow
Time
(Loglog plot)
2
2
01 . 0
fD
cD
D L
F
t
f
q
s
Dimensionless
time
End of linear flow
Bilinear Flow
Lowconductivity fracture, C
f
< 100
Pressure transient moves down
fracture, into formation
Bilinear Flow
Lowconductivity fracture, C
f
< 100
Pressure transient has not reached end of fracture
Bilinear Flow
Time
(Loglog plot)
( )
4
1
4
1 45 . 2
2 25 . 1
D L
cD
D L
cD
D
f f
t
F
t
F
p ~
I
=
t
Pressure
drop:
Bilinear Flow
(Time depends on dimensionless
flow, fracture conductivity)
Time
(Loglog plot)
Bilinear Flow
4
5 . 2
55 . 4
÷
(
(
¸
(
¸
÷ s
cD
D L
F
t
f
If F
cD
< 1.6
 
53 . 1
5 . 1 0205 . 0
÷
÷ s
cD D L
F t
f
If 1.6 < F
cD
< 3
2
1 . 0
cD
D L
F
t
f
s
If F
cD
> 3
(Time depends on dimensionless
flow, fracture conductivity)
Bilinear Flow
Lowconductivity fracture, C
r
< 100
Data can yield fracture conductivity wk
f
if k
f
is known.
Bilinear Flow
Lowconductivity fracture, C
f
< 100
Data cannot yield L
f
, but may identify lower bound .
Formation Linear Flow
Transient moves linearly into wellbore
Negligible pressure drop down fracture
Flow from beyond ends of
fracture not yet significant
Formation Linear Flow
D L D
f
t p t =
016 . 0
100
2
s s
D L
cD
f
t
F
Elliptical Flow
Pseudoradial Flow
Pseudoradial Flow
3 >
D
f
L
t
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ ÷


.

\

= A s . .
r c
kt
log
kh
qB .
p
w t
869 0 23 3
6 162
2
µ
µ
Depth Of Investigation
b
a
1
2
2
2
2
= +
b
y
a
x
2 2 2
b a L
f
÷ =
L
f
For linear flow, pseudosteady
state flow exists out to a
distance b at a dimensionless
time given by
Depth Of Investigation
2
0002637 . 0
b c
kt
t
t
bD
µ 
=
t
1
=
bD
t
2 1
02878 . 0
(
¸
(
¸
=
t
c
kt
b
µ 
Depth of investigation for
a linear system at time t
Depth of Investigation
2 1
02878 . 0
(
¸
(
¸
=
t
c
kt
b
µ 
2 2
b L a
f
+ =
b a A t =
Depth of investigation
along minor axis
Depth of investigation
along major axis
Area of investigation
Hydraulic Fracture
With Choked Fracture
Damage
k
w
f
L
f
k
f
k
fs
L
s
Choked Fracture Skin Factor
kA
L qB
p
001127 . 0
µ
A =
( )
f f fs
s
s
w h k
L qB
p
2 001127 . 0
µ
A =
s f
p
qB
kh
s A
µ
00708 . 0
=
( )


.

\



.

\

=
f f fs
s
w h k
L qB
qB
kh
2 001127 . 0
00708 . 0 µ
µ
f fs
s
f
w k
kL
s
t
=
Hydraulic Fracture
With Fracture Face Damage
k
w
f
k
f
k
s
w
s
L
f
Fracture Face Skin Factor
kA
L qB
p
001127 . 0
µ
A =
( )


.

\

÷ =
k k L h
w qB
p
s f f
s
s
1 1
4 001127 . 0
µ
A
s f
p
qB
kh
s A
µ
00708 . 0
=
( )


.

\



.

\

÷


.

\

=
k k L h
w qB
qB
kh
s f f
s
1 1
4 001127 . 0
00708 . 0 µ
µ


.

\

÷ = 1
2
s f
s
f
k
k
L
w
s
t
Bilinear Flow Analysis
Procedure
• Identify the bilinear flow regime using the
diagnostic plot
• Graph p
wf
vs. t
1/4
or p
ws
vs At
Be
1/4
• Find the slope m
B
and the intercept p
0
of the best
straight line
• Calculate the fracture conductivity wk
f
from the
slope and the fracture skin factor s
f
from the
intercept
Bilinear Equivalent Time
4
4 1
4 1 4 1
t t t t t
p p Be
A + ÷ A + = A
p Be
t t , t t << A A ~ A
p p Be
t t , t t >> A ~ A
Bilinear Flow Analysis
Equations
5 . 0 2
1 1 . 44


.

\



.

\

=
k c m h
B q
wk
t B
f
µ 
µ
( )
0
00708 . 0
p p
qB
kh
s
i f
÷ =
µ
( )
wf f
p p
qB
kh
s ÷ =
0
00708 . 0
µ
Buildup
Drawdown
Bilinear Flow Analysis
p
0
=2642.4 psi
m=63.8 psi/hr
1/4
p
wf
=2628.6 psi
Ap
s
2600
2650
2700
2750
2800
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
t
eqB
1/4
, hrs
1/4
p
w
s
,
p
s
i
Limitations of
Bilinear Flow Analysis
• Applicable only to wells with lowconductivity
fractures (C
r
< 100)
• Bilinear flow may be hidden by wellbore storage
• Requires independent estimate of k
• Gives estimate of wk
f
and s
f
• Cannot be used to estimate L
f
Linear Flow Analysis
Procedure
• Identify the linear flow regime using the
diagnostic plot
• Graph p
wf
vs. t
1/2
or p
ws
vs At
Le
1/2
• Find the slope m
L
and the intercept p
0
of the best
straight line
• Calculate the fracture halflength L
f
from the slope
and the fracture skin factor s
f
from the intercept
Linear Equivalent Time
2
2 1
2 1 2 1
t t t t t
p p Le
A + ÷ A + = A
p Le
t t , t t << A A ~ A
p p Le
t t , t t >> A ~ A
Linear Flow Analysis
Equations
( )
0
00708 . 0
p p
qB
kh
s
i f
÷ =
µ
( )
wf f
p p
qB
kh
s ÷ =
0
00708 . 0
µ
Buildup
Drawdown
2 1
064 . 4


.

\

=
t L
f
c k h m
B q
L

µ
Linear Flow Analysis
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
t
aLeq
1/2
, hrs
1/2
p
a
w
s
,
p
s
i
p
a0
=2266.0 psi
m=211 psi/hr
1/2
p
awf
=1656.2 psi
Ap
s
Limitations of
Linear Flow Analysis
• Applicable only to wells with highconductivity
fractures (C
r
> 100)
• Wellbore storage may hide linear flow period
• Long transition period between end of linear flow
(t
LfD
< 0.016) and beginning of pseudoradial flow
(t
LfD
> 3)
• Requires independent estimate of k
• Gives estimate of L
f
and s
f
• Cannot be used to estimate wk
f
Pseudoradial Flow Analysis
Procedure
• Identify the pseudoradial flow regime using the
diagnostic plot
• Graph p
wf
vs. log(t) or p
ws
vs log(At
e
)
• Find the slope m and the intercept p
1hr
of the best
straight line
• Calculate the formation permeability k from the
slope and the total skin factor s from the intercept
• Estimate fracture halflength from total skin factor
Pseudoradial Flow Analysis
Equations
Buildup
Drawdown
mh
qB
k
µ 6 . 162
=
(
(
¸
(
¸
+


.

\

÷
÷
= 23 . 3 log 151 . 1
2
10
1
w t
hr i
r c
k
m
p p
s
µ
(
(
¸
(
¸
+


.

\

÷
÷
= 23 . 3 log 151 . 1
2
10
1
w t
wf hr
r c
k
m
p p
s
µ
Pseudoradial Flow Analysis
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
t
e
, hrs
p
w
s
,
p
s
i
p
1hr
=2121 psi
m=120 psi/cycle
A
Apparent Wellbore Radius
1
10
100
0.1 1 10 100 1000
F
cD
L
f
/
r
w
a
Estimating L
f
From Skin
Factor
1. Calculate r
wa
from r
wa
= r
w
e
s
2. Estimate L
f
from L
f
= 2r
wa
3. Estimate fracture conductivity wk
f
4. Calculate F
cD
from F
cD
= wk
f
/kL
f
5. Find L
f
/r
wa
from graph or equation
6. Estimate L
f
from L
f
= (L
f
/r
wa
)*r
wa
7. Repeat steps 4 through 6 until convergence
(Warning: may not converge)
Limitations of
Pseudoradial Flow Analysis
• Boundaries of reservoir may be encountered
before pseudoradial flow develops
• Long transition period between linear flow and
pseudoradial flow
• Pseudoradial flow cannot be achieved for practical
test times in low permeability reservoirs with long
fractures
• Gives estimate of k and s
t
• Does not give direct estimate of L
f
, wk
f
, or s
f
Dimensionless Variables For
Fractured Wells
wf i D
p p
qB
kh .
p ÷ =
µ
00708 0
t
L c
k .
t
f t
D
f
L
2
0002637 0
µ
=
2
8936 0
f t
D
f
L
hL c
C .
C

=
r
f
f f
cD
C
kL
k w
F t = =
f
f f
r
kL
k w
C
t
=
s f
p
qB
kh .
s A =
µ
00708 0
TypeCurve Analysis:
Fractured Wells, Unknown k
1. Graph field data pressure change and pressure derivatives
2. Match field data to type curve
3. Find match point and matching stem
4. Calculate L
f
from time match point
5. Calculate k from pressure match point
6. Interpret matching stem value (wk
f
, s
f
, or C)
Interpreting Match Points,
Unknown Permeability
MP
D
p
p
h
qB .
k


.

\

A
=
µ 2 141
MP
D
f
L t
f
t
t
c
k .
L


.

\

A
=
µ
0002637 0
Type Curve Analysis:
Fractured Wells, Known k
1. Graph field data pressure change and pressure
derivatives
2. Calculate pressure match point from k
3. Match field data to type curve, using calculated
pressure match point
4. Find match point and matching stem
5. Calculate L
f
from time match point
6. Interpret matching stem value (wk
f
, s
f
, or C)
Interpreting Match Points
Known Permeability
( ) ( )
MP
D
MP
p
kh
qB
p
µ 2 . 141
= A
MP
D L t
f
f
t
t
c
k
L


.

\

A
=
µ
0002637 . 0
Cinco Type Curve
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
1E06 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
t
LfD
p
D
,
t
D
p
'
D
C
r
= 0.2
0.5
1
3
10
50
1000
Cinco Type Curve:
Interpreting C
r
Stem
r f f f
C kL k w
Choked Fracture Type Curve
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
1E06 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
t
LfD
p
D
,
t
D
p
'
D
s
f
= 1
0.3
0.1
0.03
0.01
0.003
0
Choked Fracture Type Curve:
Interpreting s
f
Stem
f s
s
kh .
qB
p
00708 0
BarkerRamey Type Curve
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
1E06 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
t
LfD
p
D
,
t
D
p
'
D
C
LfD
= 0
5x10
5
3x10
4
2x10
3
1.2x10
2
8x10
2
5x10
1
BarkerRamey Type Curve
Interpreting C
LfD
Stem
D
f
L
f t
C
.
hL c
C
8936 0
2
Limitations of
Type Curve Analysis
• Type curves are usually based on solutions for drawdown 
what about buildup tests?
– Shutin time
– Equivalent time (radial, linear, bilinear)
– Superposition type curves
• Type curves may ignore important behavior
– Variable WBS
– Boundaries
– NonDarcy flow
• Need independent estimate of permeability for best results
Pressure Transient
Analysis
for Horizontal Wells
Horizontal Well Analysis
• Describes unconventional and complex
reservoirs
• Defines effectiveness of completion technique
options
• Distinguishes between poor reservoir and
damaged wellbore
• Differentiates between completion success and
insitu reservoir quality
Complications in Analysis
• Threedimensional flow geometry, no radial
symmetry
• Several flow regimes contribute data
• Significant wellbore storage effects, difficult
interpretation
• Both vertical and horizontal dimensions affect
flow geometry
Steps to Evaluating Data
• Identify specific flow regimes in test data
• Apply proper analytical and graphical
procedures
• Evaluate uniqueness and sensitivity of results
to assumed properties
Step 1: Identify Flow Regimes
• Five major and distinct regimes possible
– may or may not even occur
– may or may not be obscured by wellbore storage
effects, end effects, or transition effects
• Estimate important reservoir properties
– Determine parameter groups from equations
– Expect complex iterative processes requiring use of
a computer
Step 2: Apply Procedures
• Expect nonunique results
– Simulate test to confirm that the analysis is
consistent with test data
– Use simulator to determine whether other sets of
formation properties will also lead to a fit of the
data
Step 3: Evaluate Results
Horizontal Well Flow Regimes
• Five possible flow regimes
(1) early radial
(2) hemiradial
(3) early linear
(4) late pseudoradial
(5) late linear
Calculate different
formation properties
from each period
Any flow regime may be absent from a plot
of test data because of geometry, wellbore
storage or other factors.
Well and Reservoir Geometry
y
a
h
z
0
0
x
b
L
w
h
Horizontal wellbore
Well and Reservoir Geometry
y
h
a
z
0
0
x
b
D
x
d
x
D
z
d
z
Tip of well
x
y
z
d
y
Flow Regimes
• Radial
Flow not affected by
reservoir boundaries
Flow Regimes
• Hemiradial
Flow affected by one
vertical boundary
Flow Regimes
• Early Linear
Flow affected by
vertical boundaries
Flow Regimes
• Early Linear
Flow effects not seen
at ends of wellbore
Flow Regimes
• Late Pseudoradial
Flow Regimes
• Late Linear
Flow Regimes/Drawdown
A p
p '
1
1
2
1
2
1
Log (Ap)
or
Log (p')
Wellbore
storage
Early
Radial
Flow
Early
Linear
Flow
Pseudoradial
Flow
Late
Linear
Flow
Log (time)
2
1
2
1
Required Permeabilities
Flow
Regime
Result
of
Analysis
Permeabilities
Required for Limit
Calculations
Permeabilities
Required to
Calculate Skin
Early Radial
k
x
k
z End  k
z
and k
y
k
x
k
z and k
x
/k
z
Hemiradial
k
x
k
z End  k
z
and k
y
k
x
k
z and k
x
/k
z
Early Linear
k
x
Start  k
z
End  k
y
k
x
and k
z
Late
Pseudoradial
k
h
k
x
k
y
=
Start  k
y
End  k
y
and k
x
k
x
, k
y
and k
z
Late Linear
k
x
Start  k
y
and k
z
End  k
x
k
x
and k
z
Note: We can use
k
h
k
x
k
y
=
in our analysis. In some cases, for simplicity,
we assume k
x
= k
y
= k
h
. This assumption may reduce analysis accuracy.
• Determines k
h
and k
z
• Determines properties useful in horizontal
test design (using an analytical or finite
difference simulator)
– Identifies likely flow regimes
– Estimates required test duration
– Identifies probable ambiguities
Pretesting a Vertical Section
Required Distances
Flow
Regime
Result
of
Calculation
Distances
Required for Limit
Calculations
Distances
Required to
Calculate
Skin
Early Radial L
w
End  d
z
and L
w
Hemiradial L
w
End  d
z
and L
w
Early Linear L
w
and h Start  D
z
End  L
w
L
w
and h
Late
Pseudoradial
h Start  L
w
End  d
y
, L
w
, and d
x
L
w
, h and d
z
Late Linear b and h Start  D
y
, L
w
, and
D
z
End  d
x
b, h and d
z
Early Radial Flow Regime
May be masked by
wellbore storage
effects
Similar to radial
flow near vertical
wells
End of Early Radial Flow
z
k
t
c
z
d
Erf
t
µ 
2
1800
=
Vertical
boundary
effects
:
y
k
t
c
w
L
Erf
t
µ 
2
125
=
Wellbore
end
effects
:
Early Radial Flow Pressure







.

\



.

\

+ ÷
+ ÷
= ÷
4
4
2
1
2
8686 0 2275 3
2
6 162
x
k
z
k
z
k
x
k
g o l
a
s . .
w
r
t
c
t
z
k
x
k
g o l
w
L
z
k
x
k
qB .
wf
p
i
p
µ
µ
Early Radial Flow/Drawdown
Semilog plot
Time
Ap
100 0.1
47
33
z
k
x
k
w
L
qB .
m
µ 6 162
=
Early Radial Flow/Drawdown
Semilog plot
Time
Ap
100 0.1
47
33
w
L m
qB .
z
k
x
k
µ 6 162
=
Skin in Early Radial Flow
¦
)
¦
`
¹
¦
¹
¦
´
¦
(
(
(
¸
(
¸



.

\

(
(
¸
(
¸


.

\

+


.

\


.

\

+
+ ÷
÷
=
4
4
2
1
log 2.3023
2275 3
2
1
1513 1
x
k
z
k
z
k
x
k
`
.
w
r
t
c
z
k
x
k
log
m
hr
p
i
p
.
a
s
µ 
Early Radial Flow Buildup Plot
Correct only if (t
p
+At)
and At appear
simultaneously
or if t
p
>> At.
Semilog plot
Horner Time Ratio
Ap
10 1,000
47
33
Early Radial Flow Buildup
Plot
Semilog plot
Time
Ap
100 0.1
47
33
(Equation same as in
drawdown tests)
z
k
x
k
w
L
qB .
m
µ 6 162
=
Early Radial Flow Buildup
Plot
Semilog plot
Time
Ap
100 0.1
47
33
(Equation same as in
drawdown tests)
w
L m
qB .
z
k
x
k
µ 6 162
=
Early Radial Flow/Buildup
¦
)
¦
`
¹
¦
¹
¦
´
¦
(
(
¸
(
¸


.

\

+


.

\


.

\

+
(
(
(
¸
(
¸
+



.

\

÷
÷
=
4 4
2
1
log 3023 2
2275 3
2
1
1513 1
x
z
z
x
k
k
k
k
.
.
w
r
t
c μ φ
z
k
x
k
g o l
m
f w
p
hr
p
.
a
s
Start of Hemiradial Flow
• Begins after closest vertical boundary (at
distance d
z
from wellbore) affects data
d
z
D
z
and before farthest boundary (at D
z
from
wellbore) affects the data.
Start of Hemiradial Flow
• Begins after closest vertical boundary (at
distance d
z
from wellbore) affects data
and before
furthest boundary (at D
z
from wellbore) affects
the data.
z
t z
Shrf
k
c d
t
2
1800
End of Hemiradial Flow
• Ends when furthest boundary (at distance
D
z
from wellbore) affects the data . . .
z
t z
Ehrf
k
c D
t
2
1800
d
z
D
z
End of Hemiradial Flow
• . . . or when effects are felt at ends of wellbore,
whichever comes first.
d
z
D
z
y
t w
Ehrf
k
c L
t
2
125
Hemiradial Flow/Drawdown
z
k
x
k
w
L
qB .
m
µ 2 325
=
'
Semilog plot
Time
Ap
100 0.1
47
33
Hemiradial Flow/Drawdown
Semilog plot
Time
Ap
100 0.1
47
33
z
k
x
k
w
L
qB .
m
µ 6 162
=
Radial flow
z
k
x
k
w
L
qB .
m
µ 2 325
=
'
Hemiradial flow
(
(
¸
(
¸


.

\

+ +
(
(
(
¸
(
¸
+



.

\

÷
'
÷
=
w
z
z
x
r
d
k
k
.
.
w
r
t
c
z
k
x
k
m
p
i
p
.
a
s
1 log 3026 2
2275 3
2
g o l
hr 1
3026 2
µ 
Hemiradial Flow/Drawdown
Early Linear Flow Regime
• Start
z
k
t
c
z
d
Slf
t
µ 
2
1800
=
Early Linear Flow Regime
• End
y
k
t
c L
Elf
t
w
µ 
2
160
=
Ap
Time
1/2
11
4
1 8
Cartesian plot
t
c h
w
L m
qB .
x
k

µ
' '
=
128 8
Early Linear Flow/Drawdown
c
s
qB .
w
L )
hr
p
i
p (
z
k
x
k
a
s ÷
÷
=
µ 2 141
1


.

\




.

\

+ =
h
z
d
sin
x
k
z
k
h
w
r
c
s
t
t
1
Early Linear Flow/Drawdown
Convergence skin
Early Linear Flow/Drawdown
Convergence skin
Flow converges from
total crosssection of
reservoir radially into small
area of wellbore
p,
psia
t t tp A ÷ A +
, hr
1/2
1400
600
1000
1800
18 22 34 30 26 38
Early Linear Flow/Buildup
t
c h
w
L m
qB .
x
k

µ
' '
=
128 8
c
s
qB .
w
L )
f w
p
hr
p (
z
k
x
k
a
s
2 141
1


.

\




.

\

+ =
h
z
d
sin
x
k
z
k
h
w
r
c
s
t
t
1
Early Linear Flow/Buildup
Late Pseudoradial Flow
45 0.
b
w
L
• Start
L
w
b
Late Pseudoradial Flow
y
k
t
c
w
L
Sprf
t
µ 
2
1480
=
• Start
Wellbore
end effects
Late Pseudoradial Flow
y
k
w
L
y
D
t
c
Eprf
t
2
4
2000


.

\

+
=
µ
Ends when
flow from beyond
the ends of the
wellbore hits a
boundary ...
Late Pseudoradial Flow
x
k
x
d
t
c
Eprf
t
2
1650 µ 
=
(whichever is reached first)
…or reach
end boundaries
of reservoir
Pseudoradial Flow/Drawdown
h m
qB .
y
k
x
k
' ' '
=
µ 6 162
Ap
Time
59
53
100 500
Semilog plot
400 300 200
Pseudoradial Flow/ Drawdown
c
s
.
w
L
t
c
y
k
g o l
m
hr
p
i
p
h
w
L
y
k
z
k
.
a
s ÷
+
÷
' ' '
÷
=




.

\




.

\

83 1
2
1
1513 1
µ 


.

\




.

\

+ =
h
z
d
sin
x
k
z
k
h
w
r
c
s
t
t
1
Pseudoradial Flow/Buildup
c
s
.
w
L
t
c
y
k
g o l
p
t
p
t
g o l
m
f w
p
hr
p
h
w
L
y
k
z
k
.
a
s ÷
+ ÷


.

\

+
+
' ' '
÷
=








.

\




.

\

83 1
2
1
1
1513 1
µ 


.

\




.

\

+ =
h
z
d
sin
x
k
z
k
h
w
r
c
s
t
t
1
Late Linear Flow
• Late Linear
Effects of pressure
reach boundaries in
y, z directions
Late Linear Flow
• Late Linear
Pseudosteadystate
flow in these directions
Late Linear Flow
y
k
) /
w
L
y
D (
t
c
Sllf
t
2
4 4800 +
=
µ 
Starts with
effects of end
boundaries . . .
Late Linear Flow
z
k
z
D
t
c
llf S
t
2
1800 µ 
=
. . . or
effects of
vertical
boundaries . . .
(whichever is reached last)
Late Linear Flow
• End
x
k
x
d
t
c
Ellf
t
2
1650 µ 
=
Late Linear/Drawdown
x
k
t
c h
iv
m
qB .
b

µ 128 8
=
t
c bh
iv
m
qB .
x
k

µ 128 8
=
Estimate k
x
Ap
Time
1/2
60
30
17
Cartesian plot
5
Late Linear Flow
• Calculate total skin, s
t
, including partial
penetration skin, s
p
(a complex function
from literature)
Late Linear Flow
• Calculate total skin, s
t
, including partial
penetration skin, s
p
µ qB .
b )
hr
p
i
p (
z
k
x
k
t
s
2 141
1
÷
=
p
s
t
s
a
s ÷ =
'
w
L
b
a
s
a
s =
'
Late Linear Flow
• Calculate total skin, s
t
, including partial
penetration skin, s
p
µ qB .
b )
hr
p
i
p (
z
k
x
k
t
s
2 141
1
÷
=



.

\

÷ ÷
A
=
c
s
p
s
qB .
b ) p (
z
k
x
k
b
w
L
a
s
hr
µ 2 141
1
Late Linear Flow/Buildup
• Pressure is plotted vs. ) t t
p
t ( A ÷ A +
Late Linear Flow/Buildup
t
iv
x
c bh m
B q .
k

µ 128 8
=
x t
iv
k c h m
B q .
b

µ 128 8
=
or
• From the slope, m
iv
we can calculate k
x
:
Late Linear Flow/Buildup
p
Horner Time
4,000
3,400
10,000
Semilog plot
1
Extrapolate semilog
straight line to infinite
shutin time to calculate p*
t
c bh
iv
m
qB .
x
k

µ 128 8
=
Late Linear Flow/Buildup
• Calculate total skin, s
t
, from
µ qB .
b )
f w
p
hr
p (
z
k
x
k
t
s
2 141
1
÷
=



.

\

÷ ÷
÷
=
c
s
p
s
qB .
b )
f w
p
hr
p (
z
k
x
k
b
w
L
a
s
µ 2 141
1
and skin due to altered permeability,
s
a
, from
Summary of Analysis Procedures
• Calculate k
x
– Early linear flow regime data: from effective
wellbore length, L
w
– Late linear flow regime: from reservoir length, b,
parallel to wellbore
Effective wellbore length, L
w
, can be
calculated from data in the early linear
flow regime if k
x
has been calculated.
Summary of Analysis Procedures
• Calculate k
x
– Early linear flow regime data: from effective
wellbore length, L
w
– Late linear flow regime: from reservoir length, b,
parallel to wellbore.
Length of the boundary, b, parallel to
wellbore can be calculated from data in
late linear flow regime if k
x
is known.
Summary of Analysis Procedures
• Calculate k
x
If data such as L
w
or b are unknown or if
flow regimes are missing, analysis is
iterative at best and will result in
nonunique results.
• Calculate k
z
from data in early radial or
hemiradial flow regimes
• Calculate k
y
from pseudoradial flow regime
Summary of Analysis Procedures
• Calculate k
x
• Calculate k
z
from data in early radial or
hemiradial flow regimes
• Calculate k
y
from pseudoradial flow regime
We can assume k
x
= k
y
= k
h
and often
simplify analysis, but validity is
questionable.
Summary of Analysis Procedures
• Calculate k
x
• Calculate k
z
from data in early radial or
hemiradial flow regimes
• Calculate k
y
from pseudoradial flow regime
• Check on expected durations of flow regimes
using tentative results from the analysis to
minimize ambiguity in results
Pressure Transient
Analysis
for Horizontal Wells
Using the Techniques
A p
p '
Log (Ap)
or
Log (p')
Log (time)
Drawdown Diagnostic Plot
Wellbore storage
unitslope line
Radial flow
horizontal derivative
Linear flow halfslope
line
Log (Ap)
or
Log (p')
Wellbore
storage
Early
Radial
flow
Early
Linear
Flow
Pseudoradial
Flow
Late
Linear
Flow
Log (time)
Drawdown Diagnostic Plot
Shapes may not
appear in build
up tests
(better chance
if t
p
>>At
max
)
BuildUp
Field Example: Well A
L
d
, ft 2,470
L
w
, ft 
r
w
, ft 0.25

, %
5
h, ft 150
q, STB/D 104
B
o
, RB/STB 1.40
µ
, cp
0.45
t
p
, hours 238
• Horizontal
exploration well
• Vertical tectonic
fracture
• Permeability
probably results
from fracture
Well A: Diagnostic Plot
1 100 10
t, hr
p
Log (Ap
or p' )
10,000
1000
100
10
Wellbore
storage
Radial flow?
p '
Horner Time
Semilog plot
24.69
100 1
2.4
Time
p
4,500
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,500
4,000
10
Well A: Horner Plot
m ~ 392.63
Test time too
short to
detect lower
boundary,
linear flow,
or anisotropy
k = 0.011
s = 2.9
Well A: Buildup History Match
1 100 10
t, hr
p
Log (Ap
or p' )
10,000
1000
100
10
Wellbore
storage
Radial flow
p '
k =0.027
s = 11.5
k = 0.011
s = 2.9
(from Horner plot)
Field Example: Well B
L
d
, ft 2,000
L
w
, ft 
r
w
, ft 0.30

, %
17
h, ft 75
q, STB/D 200
B
o
, RB/STB 1.60
µ
, cp
1.80
t
p
, hours 1,320
• Well in west Texas
carbonate
• Expected isotropic
k caused by
fracturing,
dissolution
1 10 1000 100
1000
100
10
Ap, psia
or p'
t, hr
Well B: Diagnostic Plot
Wellbore storage
Radial flow
Linear
flow
Well B: Horner Plot
p, psia
Horner time
10 100
3500
3400
3600
3800
3900
4000
13.33 146.67
t, hr
m = 336.4
k = 0.14
t
Erf
= 165 hr
k = 0.15
k = 0.14
1 10 1000 100
1000
100
10
Ap, psia
or p'
t, hr
Well B: Buildup History Match
k = 0.15 Good
agreement
k = 0.14
k = 0.15
Well B: TandemRoot Plot
p, psia
10 100
800
600
1000
1400
1600
1800
m = 39.6
h = 75 ft
Nearest boundary = 29 ft
t t tp A ÷ A +
, hr
1/2
Field Example C
L
d
, ft 1,400
L
w
, ft 484
r
w
, ft 0.41

, %
17
h, ft 54
q, STB/D 2,760
B
o
, RB/STB 1.10
µ
, cp
4.88
t
p
, hours 36
• Horizontal well
• Highk sandstone
• Extensive
underlying aquifer
Well C: Diagnostic Plot
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
1000
100
1
0.1
Ap, psia
or p'
t, hr
No apparent
wellbore storage
Radial, hemiradial,
or elliptical flow
Decline caused by
underlying aquifer
Well C: TypeCurve Match
p
p'
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
1000
100
1
0.1
Ap, psia
or p'
t, hr
p, psia
Horner time
t, hr
4000
3400
3800
3600
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
5.44 0.4949 0.0490 4.90E03
Well C: Horner Plot
k = 53
k ~ 48
(confirms validity of
earlier findings of
no wellbore storage)
Well C: Regression Match
p
p'
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
1000
100
1
0.1
Ap, psia
or p'
t, hr
Geometric average
of horizontal,
vertical k ~ 48
Horizontal Well Test Configuration
Measurements usually made
above horizontal wellbore
Tools may be too rigid to pass through curve
Conventional tools can be
used in horizontal well tests
Horizontal Well Test
Configuration
Wellbore storage inherent
in horizontal well testing
Horizontal Well Test
Configuration
Wellbore crossflow may
dominate test results
• Horizontal permeability (normal and
parallel to well trajectory)
• Vertical permeability
• Drilling damage
• Completion damage
• Producing interval that may be effectively
much less than drilled length
• Variations in standoff along length of well
Factors That Affect
Transient Response
• Multiple parameters frequently yield
inconclusive test analysis results
• Wellbore storage obscures effects of transient
behavior
• Middle and latetime response behavior may
require several hours, days, or months to
appear in transient data
Obstacles to Interpretation
• Estimate horizontal and vertical k from tests in
pilot hole before kicking off to horizontal
borehole segment
• Estimate standoff from directional drilling
survey
• Determine producing part of wellbore from
production log flow survey
• Flow wells in developed reservoirs long enough
to equilibrate pressures along the wellbore and
minimize crossflow
Ensuring Interpretable Data
Effects of Errors
in Input Data
Presentation Outline
• Introduction
• Sources of Error in Input Data
• Effects of Error on Results of Welltest
Interpretation
• Examples
• Summary
Problem 1
• Well ―A‖ estimates from PBU test
– Permeability, 10 md
– Skin factor, 0
– Distance to boundary, 250 ft
• Analysis assumed net pay 25 feet
If the net pay were actually 50 feet, how
would that affect our estimates of
permeability, skin factor, and distance to
the boundary?
Problem 2
• Seismic interpretation indicates
boundary 300 ft from Well ―B‖
• PBU test interpretation indicates
nearest boundary 900 ft away
Can these inconsistencies
possibly be resolved?
What could have caused this much
error in the distance estimate?
Sources of Input Data
• Log interpretation
• Fluid properties
• Reservoir and well properties
Data From Log Interpretation
• Porosity
• Water saturation
• Net pay thickness
Causes of Error in Log
Interpretation
• Failure to calibrate the logging tool
• Failure to make necessary environmental
corrections
• Failure to calibrate the logderived
properties against core measurements
• Failure to select appropriate cutoffs for net
pay estimation
Error in Log Interpretation Data
Parameter Deviation
Without With
correction correction
Porosity ±15 % ± 5 %
Water saturation ± 40 % ± 10 %
Net pay ±50 % ± 15 %
Fluid Properties Data
• Formation volume factor
• Compressibility
• Viscosity
Error in Fluid Properties Data
Parameter Deviation
B
g
from composition ± 1.1% to ± 5.8%
B
g
from composition ± 1.3 % to ± 7.3%
(as much as 27% if
impurities are ignored)
c
g
Negligible at low pressure
µ
g
± 2% to ± 4%, ¸
g
< 1
up to 20% low, ¸
g
> 1.5
From Gas Properties Correlations
Error in Fluid Properties Data
Parameter Deviation
B
o
,
p > p
b
± 10%
B
o
,
p s p
b
± 5%
c
o
, p > p
b
Up to 50% low at high pressure
Best near p
b
c
o
, p s p
b
± 10%, p > 500 psi
± 20%, p < 500 psi
µ
o
Order of magnitude only
From Oil Properties Correlations
Other Input Data
• Flow rate
• Wellbore radius
• Formation compressibility
• Total compressibility
Error in Well and Reservoir Data
Parameter Error
Flow rate Failure to record rate before BU test
Inaccuracy in estimates, averages
Wellbore radius Poor choice of measurement
Formation compressibility Estimation errors
Total compressibility Variations in fluid saturations
Abnormally pressured reservoir
Oil compressibility
From Measurement or Calculations
Total Compressibility
g g w w o o f t
c S c S c S c c + + + ÷
Each phase of fluid
times its compressibility
Formation
compressibility
Effects of Errors
• Vertical well
• Singlephase flow
• Homogeneous reservoir
• Boundary
– Noflow, linear constant pressure, closed
• Test
– Drawdown, buildup, injection, or falloff
– Duration long enough to identify boundary
Errors in Viscosity
• If µ
input
= 2 µ
true
• Then:
– k
calc
= 2 k
true
– Nothing else will be affected
Errors in Porosity
• If 
input
= 2 
true
,
• Then:
– s
calc
= s
true
+ 0.5ln(2)
– L
x calc
= L
x true
/sqrt(2)
– A
calc
= A
true
/2
Errors in Water Saturation
• Cause errors in calculating total
compressibility
Errors in Compressibility
• If c
t input
= 2 c
t true
• Then:
– s
calc
= s
true
+ 0.5ln(2)
– L
x calc
= L
x true
/sqrt(2)
– A
calc
= A
true
/2
Errors in Net Pay
• If h
input
= 2 h
true
• Then:
– k
calc
= k
true
/2
– s
calc
= s
true
+ 0.5ln(2)
– L
x calc
= L
x true
/sqrt(2)
– A
calc
= A
true
/2
Errors in Flow Rate
• If q
input
= 2 q
true
• Then:
– k
calc
= 2 k
true
– s
calc
= s
true
 0.5ln(2)
– L
x calc
= sqrt(2) L
x true
– A
calc
= 2 A
true
Errors in Formation Volume
Factor
• If B
input
= 2 B
true
• Then:
– k
calc
= 2 k
true
– s
calc
= s
true
 0.5ln(2)
– L
x calc
= sqrt(2) L
x true
– A
calc
= 2 A
true
Errors in Wellbore Radius
• If r
w input
= 2 r
w true
• Then:
– s
calc
= s
true
+ ln(2)
Solution to Problem 1
• Well ―A‖ estimates
– Permeability, 10 md
– Skin factor, 0
– Boundary, 250 ft
• Assumed net pay 25 ft
• Net pay50 ft
– Permeability, 5 md
– Skin factor, 0.35
– Boundary, 177 ft
Solution To Problem 2
• Seismic interpretation indicates
boundary 300 ft from Well ―B‖
• PBU test interpretation indicates
nearest boundary 900 ft away
Total compressibility
could be off by a factor
of 10
Boundary could be a
factor of 3 too far away
Summary
• Permeability is most affected by errors
in viscosity, net pay, and flow rate
• Distances to boundaries and drainage
area are most affected by errors in
compressibility
• Skin factor is not affected to a large
degree by any input variable
Bounded Reservoir
Behavior
Cautions
• Recognizing may be as important as analyzing
• Many reservoir models may produce similar
pressure responses
• Interpretation model must be consistent with
geological and geophysical interpretations
Characteristics
• Boundaries control pressure response
following middletime region
• Equivalent time functions apply rigorously
only to situations where either
– Producing and shutin times both lie within
middletime region
– Shutin time is much less than producing time
• Boundaries affect pressure responses of
drawdown and buildup tests differently
Shapes of curves
• Durations of flow regimes explain shape of
drawdown pressure responses
• Shape of buildup derivative type curve depends on
how the derivative is calculated and plotted
– Shutin time
– Equivalent time
– Superposition time
Superposition in space
Producing wells
Radial flow pattern
Apparent noflow boundary between wells
Producing well
Superposition in space
Real noflow boundary
Image well
Equal distances from
noflow boundary
Superposition in space
Producing well
Image well Image well
Noflow boundary
Producing well
Noflow boundary
Superposition in space
Superposition in space
Infiniteacting reservoir
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Drawdown Type Curve
Infiniteacting reservoir
No boundaries encountered
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shutin time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
8
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
5
Drawdown
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to shutin
time
Infiniteacting reservoir
Shape depends on duration of
production time prior to shutin
Dimensionless shutin time
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent
time
Infiniteacting reservoir
Not affected by producing time
100
10
1E+03
0.01
0.1
1
1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Dimensionless equivalent time
t
pD
=10
5
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
8
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time function
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
,10
6
,10
7
,10
8
Drawdown
Buildup Response
Derivative taken with respect to
equivalent time, plotted against
shutin time
Infiniteacting reservoir
Largest time on plot is not limited
to producing or shutin time
Linear noflow boundary
Noflow boundary
Producing well
(If so, far away….)
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Linear noflow boundary
Drawdown Type Curve
Hemiradial flow
Change in derivative from 0.5 to 1
Change occurs over about 1
2
/3 log cycles
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shutin time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
8
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
5
Drawdown
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to shutin time
Linear noflow boundary
The longer the equivalent time before shutin, the
longer the coincidence between buildup and drawdown
Dimensionless shutin time
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless equivalent time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
8
Drawdown
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent time
Linear noflow boundary
Derivative doubles over only a tiny fraction of a log
cycle for very short producing times prior to shutin
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time function
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
8
Drawdown
Linear noflow boundary
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to
equivalent time, plotted
against shutin time
Similar to drawdown response
Linear constantp boundary
Constantpressure boundary
Producing well
Possible injection,
waterflood, or gas/oil
contact causing
constantpressure
boundary
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Drawdown Type Curve
Linear constantp boundary
Slope can (and in this
case, does) reach 1
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shutin time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
8
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
5
Drawdown
Dimensionless shutin time
Linear constantp boundary
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to shut
in time
Slope steeper than drawdown slope for
very short producing times before shutin
Drawdown curve
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless equivalent time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
8
Drawdown
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent
time
Linear constantp boundary
Derivative falls sharply over tiny fraction of log cycle
for very short producing times prior to shutin
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time function
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
,10
6
t
pD
=10
7
Drawdown
t
pD
=10
8
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent time
shutin time
Linear constantp boundary
Derivative curves resemble
drawdown curve
Channel reservoir
Producing well
Noflow boundaries
(Effects
of ends
not felt )
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Drawdown Type Curve
Channel reservoir
Slope =
1
/2
Slope ÷
1
/2
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shutin time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
8
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
5
Drawdown
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to shut
in time
Dimensionless shutin time
Channel reservoir
Derivative reaches a
slope of 
1
/2 if shutin
time is much larger
than producing time
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless equivalent time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
8
Drawdown
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to
equivalent time, plotted against
dimensionless time
Channel reservoir
Radial equivalent
time not appropriate
in linear flow regime
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time function
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
8
Drawdown
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to
equivalent time, plotted
against shutin time
Channel reservoir
Derivative curve shape resembles
drawdown curve shape
Intersecting sealing faults
“Wedge” reservoir
Producing well
Noflow boundaries
u
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Drawdown Type Curve
Intersecting sealing faults
Derivative levels off at
(360/u) x (derivative of infiniteacting response)
The narrower the angle, the
longer to reach new horizontal
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shutin time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
8
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
5
Drawdown
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to shutin
time
Dimensionless shutin time
Intersecting sealing faults
Dramatic difference in curves
when shutin is greater than
producing time prior to shutin
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless equivalent time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
8
Drawdown
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to
equivalent time
Intersecting sealing faults
Derivative shape same as drawdown
response only when producing period
reaches fractional flow regime
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time function
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
7
t
pD
=10
8
Drawdown
Buildup Response
Derivative with respedt to
equivalent time, plotted against
shutin time
Intersecting sealing faults
Derivative, drawdown curves similar
Closed circular boundary
Producing well
Noflow boundary
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Drawdown Type Curve
Closed circular boundary
Both slopes approach unit
slope at late times
(pseudosteadystate flow)
Reservoir limits test yields
pore volume of interval
Unit slope may be seen
earlier if two zones with
different permeability
are present
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shutin time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
6
,10
7
,10
8
t
pD
=10
5
Drawdown
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to shut
in time
Dimensionless shutin time
Closed circular boundary
t
pD
=10
6,
10
7
,10
8
Derivative falls rapidly
for all combinations of
plotting functions
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless equivalent time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
7
,10
8
Drawdown
Closed circular boundary
t
pD
=10
7
,10
8
Slope drops sharply
for very small values
of producing time
before shutin
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to
equivalent time
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time function
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
Drawdown
t
pD
=10
6
,10
7
,10
8
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent
time, plotted against shutin time
Closed circular boundary
t
pD
= 10
6
, 10
7
, 10
8
Derivative, drawdown
type curves differ
fundamentally
Circular constantp boundary
Producing well
Constantpressure
boundary
Possibly strong aquifer
supporting pressure
equally from all directions
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
Drawdown Type Curve
Circular constantp boundary
Pressure approaches
constant value at late times
Derivative falls exponentially
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shutin time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
6
,10
7
,10
8
t
pD
=10
5
Drawdown
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to shutin
time
Dimensionless shutin time
Circular constantp boundary
Curve can be identical to
drawdown plot just seen
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless equivalent time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
7
,10
8
Drawdown
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to
equivalent time
Circular constantp boundary
Derivative falls off rapidly
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time function
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
5
t
pD
=10
6
t
pD
=10
7
,10
8
Drawdown
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent
time, plotted against shutin time
Circular constantp boundary
Results in somewhatchanged
curve on the plot
Radially composite reservoir
Producing well
Significant difference in permeability
near, farther from well
k
1
k
2
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
M
1
/M
2
= 0.05
M
1
/M
2
= 0.2
M
1
/M
2
= 1
M
1
/M
2
= 10
M
1
/M
2
= 100
Drawdown Type Curve
Varying M
1
/M
2
Radially composite reservoir
Responses resemble other tests
µ
k
m = (mobility)
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
S
1
/S
2
= 0.01
S
1
/S
2
= 100
0.05
1
10
Radially composite reservoir
Drawdown Type Curve
Varying S
1
/S
2
If s
1
/s
2
> 1, plot looks like closed circular drainage area
If S
1
/S
2
<<1, plot looks like closed linear flow
If M
1
/M
2
<<1, plot looks like constantp circular
boundary during transition
S (storativity) = c
t
h
Final comments
• Assuming a well is in an arbitrary point in a
closed, rectangular reservoir can lead to
apparent fit of test for many different
reservoirs
Arbitrary well position
L
W
d
y
d
x
Cautions
• Make sure the model is consistent with known
geology before using the model
• Two most dangerous models (because they
can fit so many tests inappropriately)
– Composite reservoir
– Well at arbitrary point in closed reservoir
Final comments
• Assuming a well is in an arbitrary point in a
closed, rectangular reservoir can lead to a poor
fit of test for many different reservoirs
Objectives
• Become familiar with time plotting
functions used with diagnostic plots for
buildup tests
• Become aware of the very different
shapes in the diagnostic plots of buildup
and drawdown tests as buildup tests
approach stabilization
TimePlotting Functions
• Shutin Time
• Horner Pseudoproducing Time
• Multirate Equivalent Time
• Superposition Time Function
Variable Rate History
t
q
q
1
q
2
q
n1
q
n
t
1
t
2
t
n2
t t
n1
At
0
Horner Pseudoproducing Time
1
24
÷
=
n
p
p
q
N
t
1
1
1
1
24
÷
÷
=
÷
÷
=
n
n
j
j j j
p
q
t t q
t
Cumulative
produced oil
Final rate
before
shutin
Expressed
another way...
Horner Pseudoproducing Time
1
24
÷
=
n
p
p
q
N
t
Cumulative
produced oil
Final rate
before
shutin
• Good results as long as last
producing time is at least 10x
maximum shutin time.
Multirate Equivalent Time
t
t t t
t t
t
n
j
n
q
n
q
j
q
j
q
j n
j n
e
A
(
(
(
(
¸
(
¸


.

\

÷ + A
÷
÷ A
÷
=


.

\

÷
÷
÷
÷
÷ ÷
÷ ÷
1
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
(Agarwal equation for radial flow)
Superposition Time Function
( )
( ) ( ) { }
( ) t
t t t q q
q q
n
j
j n j j
n n
A +
(
(
¸
(
¸
÷ + A ÷
÷
÷
¿
÷
=
÷ ÷ ÷
÷
ln
ln
1
STF
1
1
1 1 1
1
Pressure derivative for buildup calculated as
pressure derivative with respect to superposition
time function; plotted vs. shutin time
Some literature recommends . . .
Superposition Time Function
t ln
t t t
q q
q q
n
j
j n
n n
j j
A +
(
(
¸
(
¸
)
`
¹
¹
´
¦
÷ + A


.

\

÷
÷
÷
÷
=
÷ ÷
÷
÷
1
1
1 1
1
1
ln STF
(previous equation, rearranged)
Superposition Time Function




.

\

A
(
(
(
(
¸
(
¸


.

\

÷ + A
=


.

\

÷
÷
÷
÷
÷
=
÷ ÷
t
t t t
n
q
n
q
j
q
j
q
n
j
j n
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
ln STF
(previous equation, rearranged again
using properties of natural logarithm)
Superposition Time Function




.

\

A
(
(
(
(
¸
(
¸


.

\

÷
=


.

\

÷
÷
÷
÷
÷
=
÷ ÷
e
n
q
n
q
j
q
j
q
n
j
j n
t
t t
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
ln STF
e
t C A + = ln ln STF
Superposition Time Function
e
t C A + = ln ln STF
• Superposition time function is simply the
log of a constant plus the log of the
equivalent time.
Derivitive with respect to multirate equivalent time
= derivitive with respect to superposition time
Superposition Time Function
e
t C A + = ln ln STF
Pressure derivative for buildup calculated as
pressure derivative with respect to superposition
time function; plotted vs. shutin time
Some literature recommends . . .
Pressure derivative for buildup calculated as
pressure derivative with respect to equivalent time
function
Some literature recommends . . .
Superposition Time Function
e
t C A + = ln ln STF
Since the derivatives with respect to
multirate equivalent time and
superposition time are equal,
Conclusions
• Horner pseudoproducing time is adequate
when producing time is 10 times greater
than the maximum shutin time
Conclusions
• Derivatives with respect to time for the
superposition time function and radial
equivalent time are identical. They can be
plotted vs. shutin time, superposition time,
or equivalent time
Conclusions
• Some literature or software documentation
may specify the method of taking or
plotting the derivative, but any of these will
work for these situation.
Radial Flow
Approaching Stabilization
• Stabilization is the stage where pressure has
built up completely and is no longer
changing.
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+02 1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08
t
D
p
D
Drawdown
Buildup, t
pD
=10
5
Buildup
Drawdown
Stabilization In Radial System
Producing times must
be at least 10x
maximum shutin time
Linear Flow
0.1
1
10
100
1000
1E+00 1E+01 1E+02 1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06
t
D
p
D
Drawdown
t
pD
=10
3
Stabilization in Linear System
Derivative
response
slope = 1/2
(spherical flow may also
produce slope = 1/2)
Volumetric Behavior
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shutin time
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
t
pD
=10
6
Drawdown
Stabilization in Volumetric System
All boundaries have been felt
Drawdown response
feels boundary later than
buildup response
Conclusions
• Shapes of the buildup and drawdown
diagnostic plots are fundamentally different
as the reservoir approaches stabilization.
• Don’t expect to see the same shape on a
diagnostic plot for a build up test as for a
drawdown test.
Integrated Well Test
Interpretation
Integrating Test Interpretation
Geology
Geophysic
s
Petrophysic
s
Engineering
Data
Flow Regime
Identification
Model
Selection
Parameter
Estimation
Model
Validation
Well Test
Interpretation
Interpreting Integrated Data
• Importance of Model Selection
• Integrating Other Data
– Geological Data
– Geophysical Data
– Petrophysical Data
– Engineering Data
• Validating the Reservoir Model
• Common Errors and Misconceptions
Similar Model Responses
Well in a Wedge
Composite Reservoir
Multiple ‘Knobs’ Confuse
• Mobility ratio M
1
/M
2
• Storativity ratio S
1
/S
2
• Distance to boundary R
• Distance to wall D
1
Well in a Box
W
D
2
L
D
1
Composite Reservoir
M
2
,S
2
M
1
,S
1
• Distance to wall D
2
• Reservoir length L
• Reservoir width W
R
Models ‘Simplify’ Geology
Well A
• Interpretation model must be consistent
with (not identical to) geological model
• Have we oversimplified the geology?
Responses Differ With Test Type
Closed Reservoir  DD TC Const Pres Boundary  DD TC
Closed Reservoir  BU TC Const Pres Boundary  BU TC
Slight divergence;
Close match
Importance Of Model Selection
• Most major errors caused by use of wrong
model instead of wrong method
– Meaningless estimates
– Misleading estimates
• Two aspects of model selection
– Selecting reservoir geometry
– Identifying features of pressure response
Geology Offers Insights
• Depositional
environment
– Reservoir size
– Shape
– Orientation
• Reservoir
heterogeneity
– Layering
– Natural fractures
• Diagenesis
• Types of boundaries
– Faults
• Sealing
• Partially sealing
– Fluid contacts
• Gas/oil
• Oil/water
Geophysics and Petrophysics
• Structure
• Faults
– Location
– Size
• Reservoir
compartments
– Shape
– Orientation
• Net pay thickness
• Porosity
• Fluid saturations
• Fluid contacts
• Lithology
• Layering
• Evidence of natural
fractures
Engineering Data
• Drilling data—daily reports
• Production and flow test data
• Stimulation treatment results
– Fracture design halflength, conductivity
– Fracture treating pressure analysis results
– Problems during treatment—daily reports
• Data from offset wells
– Possible interference—production records
– Well test results
• Wellbore storage coefficient
• Skin factor
• Core permeability
• Pressure response during flow period
• Productivity index
• Average reservoir pressure
• Radius of investigation
• Distances to boundaries
• Independent estimates of model parameters
‘Reality Checks’ Validate Model
Wellbore Storage Coefficient
• WBS coefficient from test should be within
order of magnitude of estimate
• Phase segregation can cause smaller WBS
• WBS coefficient >100x estimated value
may indicate reservoir storage instead of
WBS
wb wb
c V C =
Fluidfilled wellbore Rising liquid level
g
g A
C
c
wb
wb
µ 615 . 5
144
=
Skin Factor
• Likely estimates by completion type
– Natural completion 0
– Acid treatment 1 to 3
– Fracture treatment 3 to 6
– Gravel pack +5 to +10
– Frac pack 2 to +2
• Local field experience may suggest more
appropriate values
• Skin factor < 6 very unlikely
Core Permeability
• Insitu permeability from well test
• Core permeability to air
– High—overburden and saturation
– Low—natural fractures
• Total kh from core adjusted to insitu value
less than kh from well test
– Fractures
– Missing core
• Most useful when entire interval cored
Production Period Pressure
• Must be consistent with shutin pressure
response
• Must ensure consistency
– Interpret flow periods independently
– Predict flow period pressures from results of
buildup
– Match flow and buildup periods simultaneously
Productivity Index
wf
p p
q
J
÷
=
Field Data
(
(
¸
(
¸
+ ÷


.

\

=
s
r C
A
B
kh
J
w A
4
3 06 . 10
ln
2
1
2 . 141
2
µ
Model Parameters
Correct model should give consistent values
Average Reservoir Pressure
• Compare average reservoir pressure from
test interpretation
– Material balance
– Analytical simulation
– Numerical simulation
• Results should be similar if same reservoir
model is used
Radius of Investigation
• Estimate radius of investigation
– Beginning of middletime region
– End of middletime region
• Unrealistically large r
i
may indicate selected
MTR is incorrect
• Very small r
i
may indicate wrong MTR or test
not measuring reservoir characteristics
t
i
c
kt
r
µ 948
=
t
e
i
c
t k
r
µ 948
A
=
Distance to Boundaries
• Reservoir size
– Production data
– Geological data
– Geophysical data
• Distances to boundaries
– Geological data
– Geophysical data
• Geoscience professionals should develop
common interpretation model
Independent Parameters
• Dual porosity from fracture width, spacing
– Storativity ratio e
– Interporosity flow coefficient ì
Independent Parameters
• Composite reservoir parameters for
waterfloodinjection well
– Radius of waterflooded zone
– Mobility ratio (k/µ)
1
/(k/µ)
2
– Storativity ratio (c
t
)
1
/ (c
t
)
2
• Dual porosity from fracture width, spacing
Independent Parameters
• Composite reservoir parameters for
waterfloodinjection well
• Dual porosity from fracture width, spacing
• Fracture properties from treatment design
– Fracture halflength l
f
– Fracture conductivity wk
f
Common Errors/Misconceptions
• Mostoftenmisused models
– Well between two sealing faults
– Well in a radially composite reservoir
– Well in a rectangular reservoir
• Common misconceptions
– Unitslope line indicates wellbore storage
– Peak in derivative indicates radial flow
– Strong aquifer acts as constantpressure boundary
Well Between Two Sealing
Faults
Angle between faults
Distance from well to 1
st
fault
Distance from well to 2
nd
fault
Well in a Wedge
Radially Composite Reservoir
Composite Reservoir
• Mobility ratio M
1
/M
2
• Storativity ratio S
1
/S
2
• Distance to boundary R
Rectangular Reservoir
• Distance to wall D
1
Well in a Box
W
D
2
L
D
1
• Distance to wall D
2
• Reservoir length L
• Reservoir width W
Unitslope line always
indicates wellbore storage
• Unitslope line may be caused by
– Pseudosteadystate flow
(drawdown test only)
– Recharge of highpermeability zone (either
drawdown or buildup test)
Peak in derivative implies radial flow
• Peak in derivative may be caused by a flow
restriction for any flow regime
Bilinear
Spherical
Radial
Linear
Strong aquifer acts as constant
pressure boundary
• Mobility of water must be much higher than
that of reservoir fluid to act as constant
pressure boundary
– Maybe, maybe not for oil
– Never for gas
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?