# Well Testing Analysis

Fall 2005
Mazher Ibrahim
Homework 20%
Examinations (3) 45%
Final Examination 25%
Class Participation/Pop Quizzes 10%
total = 100%
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 one-dimensional 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 in-situ conditions
– near-wellbore 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 half-length, etc).
• Reservoir pore volume (estimated using
long-term 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: Single-Well 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 porosity-compressibility 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 shut-in 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: Flow-After-Flow Tests
(referred to as gas backpressure or four-point 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: Single-Point Tests
• low-permeability 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 half-length, etc).
• Reservoir pore volume (estimated using
long-term 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)
– equation-of-state

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
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
r
w

Total Compressibility
g g w w o o f t
c S c S c S c c
Instructional Objectives
• State the Ei-function 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 Ei-function.
• 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
• Describe the effects of reservoir properties on the
h
r
r
w

Bulk
formation
Ei-Function 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
Ei-Function Graph
Log approximation
Ei-function
drops to zero
Short-Time Approximation for Ei-
Function Solution
i
p p
10
948
2
>
kt
r c
t

Applies when
Long-Time Approximation
to Ei-Function 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
<

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 for a
given time t:
t
i
c
kt
r
|µ 948
=
k
r c
t
i t
2
948|µ
=
• Time required to reach a given
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 infinite-conductivity 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
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 constant-rate drawdown test using semilog
analysis.
• Analyze a buildup test following a constant-rate flow
period using the Horner method.

0.001 100
-x
2
4
6
Ei-Function 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
(s=0)
• For r = r
w

Incorporating Skin into the
Ei-Function 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
Ei-Function
( )
(
(
¸
(

¸

+ ÷
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
÷ =
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
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

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

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

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

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 shut-in
of 0.
Rate after shut-in 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
|
|
.
|

\
|
A
A +
÷ =
t
t t
kh
qB
p p
p
i ws 10
log 6 . 162
µ
y = mx + b
Buildup Straight-Line
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

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,
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
– Pressure-Squared
– Pressure
• Non-Darcy 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
Pressure-Squared
• 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
Pressure-Squared 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
• Pressure-Squared - 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
( ) ( ) 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
a
a p
t
t t
HTR
A
A +
÷
Non-Darcy Flow
• Flow equations developed so far assume
Darcy flow
• For gas wells, velocity near wellbore is
high enough that Darcy’s law fails
• Non-Darcy behavior can often be
modeled as rate-dependent skin
Apparent Skin Factor
g
Dq s s + = '
Estimating Non-Darcy
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 Non-Darcy 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 afterflow
• Calculate wellbore storage (WBS)
coefficient for wellbore filled with a
singlephase fluid
• Calculate WBS coefficient for rising
liquid level
Fluid-Filled Wellbore -
Bottomhole
Rate
Surface Rate
Rate
Time
wb wb
sf
w
c V
B q q
dt
dp
24
÷
=
0
Ei-function solution
assumes constant
reservoir rate
Mass balance
equation resolves
problems
Fluid-Filled Wellbore -
Afterflow
Bottomhole
Rate
Rate
Time
wb wb
sf
w
c V
B q q
dt
dp
24
÷
=
Surface Rate
Bottomhole flow
continues after
shut-in
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
wellbore matches
pressure in formation
Wellbore Storage
wb wb
sf
w
c V
B q q
dt
dp
24
÷
= Fluid-filled 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
Fluid-filled
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
|
|
.
|

\
|
÷ ÷ =
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

÷
Dimensionless Variables
Skin
( )
µ qB
p p kh
p
i
D
2 . 141
÷
÷
2
0002637 . 0
w t
D
r c
kt
t

÷
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
• Infinite-acting homogeneous reservoir
• Single-phase, 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
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

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
( )
( )
(
(
¸
(

¸

+ ÷
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ ÷
(
(
¸
(

¸

+ ÷
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ + = ÷
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

A
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

A
µ

A
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

A
A
µ
Equivalent Time For PBU
Tests
(
(
¸
(

¸

+ ÷
|
|
.
|

\
|

+
|
|
.
|

\
|
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
( )
(
(
¸
(

¸

+ ÷
|
|
.
|

\
|

+ 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 ,
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

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 Log-Log
Analysis
Instructional Objectives
• To be able to manually estimate permeability and
skin factor from the log-log 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

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
Late-time
region
Early-time
region
Unit-slope
line
(wellbore storage)
Near-wellbore effects
The Diagnostic Plot
Elapsed time (At ), hrs
Middle-
time
region
Late-time
region
Early-time
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
Late-time
region
Early-time
region
Partial penetration,
phase redistribution,
fracture conductivity
Infinite-acting
behavior
Boundary
effects
Flow Regimes
• Common characteristic shapes of derivative
– Volumetric
– 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
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
Volumetric Behavior
Elapsed time (At ), hrs
Wellbore
storage
Wellbore
Wellbore
Fracture
Wellbore
(
¸
(

¸

+ ÷
|
|
.
|

\
|
= A s
r c
kt
kh
qB
p
w t
869 . 0 23 . 3 log
6 . 162
2

µ
Vertical Well
( ) b t m p + = A log
General Form
( ) 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
Elapsed time (At ), hrs
Pressure derivative
Pressure
Elapsed time (At ), hrs
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

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
Channel
2 1
064 . 4
|
|
.
|

\
|
= A
t f
c
kt
khL
qB
p

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
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
flow
Recharge?
Estimating
Average Reservoir
Pressure
Estimating Reservoir
Pressure
• Middle Time Region Methods
– Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek Method
– Ramey-Cobb Method
• Late Time Region Methods
– Modified Muskat Method
– Arps-Smith Method
Middle-Time Region Methods
• Based on extrapolation and correction of MTR
pressure trend
– Use only pressure data in the middle-time region
– Need accurate fluid property estimates
– Need to know drainage area shape, size, well
location within drainage area
– May be somewhat computationally involved
Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
Producing time prior to shut-in, 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
p
M
B
H
D
Curves for 2x1 Rectangle
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.01 0.1 1 10
t
p
M
B
H
D
Curves for 4x1 Rectangle
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
0.01 0.1 1 10
t
p
M
B
H
D
Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
2400
2450
2550
2650
2750
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6

Horner time ratio
Shut-in 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
|µ A c
kt
t
t
p

0002637 . 0
=
Step 3: Calculate dimensionless producing time
Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
Step 4: On appropriate MBH curve, find p
MBHD

Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.01 0.1 1 10
p
MBHD

t

t
= 0.35
2x1 rectangle
2.05
( )
( )
6 . 2665
05 . 2
303 . 2
7 . 26
4 . 2689
303 . 2
*
=
÷ =
÷ =
t p
m
p p ( )
t p
m
p p
303 . 2
*÷ =
Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
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
• Using the appropriate MBH chart for the drainage
area shape and well location, find p
MBHD

Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
• 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

• Calculate p
– Applies to wide variety of drainage area shapes, well
locations
– Uses only data in the middle-time region
– Can be used with both short and long producing
times
– Requires drainage area size, shape, well location
– Requires accurate fluid property data
Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
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

Ramey-Cobb
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 +
p
p
t C
t
t t
Ramey-Cobb
2400
2450
2550
2650
2750
1 10 10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
6

Horner time ratio
Shut-in wellbore
pressure, psia
Ramey-Cobb
8 . 2665 = p
HTR = 7.63
Ramey-Cobb
• Plot p
ws
vs (t
p
+At)/At on semilog coordinates
• Calculate the dimensionless producing time t
• Find the Dietz shape factor C
A
for the drainage
area shape and well location
• Calculate HTR
avg

• Extrapolate middle-time region on Horner plot to
HTR
avg

avg

– Applies to wide variety of drainage area shapes, well
locations
– Uses only data in the middle time region
– Requires drainage area size, shape, well location
– Requires accurate fluid property data
– Requires producing time long enough to reach
Ramey-Cobb
Late-Time Region Methods
• Based on extrapolation of post-middle-time
region pressure trend to infinite shut-in time
– 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
– Require post-middle-time-region pressure transient
data
Late-Time Region Data
k
r c
t
k
r c
e t e t
2 2
750 250
Late-Time 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 shut-in time
Modified Muskat Method
bt
ws
Ae p p
÷
bt A ln p p ln
ws
Average reservoir pressure
Shut-in 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
– Very simple to apply
– 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 middle-time
region
– Once middle-time region has ended, try to
straighten all data
– Expect best reliability for wells reasonably
centered in drainage areas
Modified Muskat Method
Arps-Smith Method
bt
ws
Ae p p
÷
bt
ws
Abe
dt
dp
÷
ws
ws
p p b
dt
dp
Arps-Smith Method
Step 1: Assume a value for average
pressure, accepting theory based on
empirical observation
ws
ws
p p b
dt
dp
Arps-Smith 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
the x-intercept
Arps-Smith 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
– Simple to apply
– Easily automated
– Requires data in late-time region, after all
boundaries have been felt
Arps-Smith 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

=
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
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
(Log-log plot)
(Too early for practical application)
D L fD
cD
D
f
t
F
p tq
2
=
Fracture Linear Flow
Time
(Log-log plot)
2
2
01 . 0
fD
cD
D L
F
t
f
q
s
Dimensionless
time
End of linear flow
Bilinear Flow
Low-conductivity fracture, C
f
< 100
Pressure transient moves down
fracture, into formation
Bilinear Flow
Low-conductivity fracture, C
f
< 100
Pressure transient has not reached end of fracture
Bilinear Flow
Time
(Log-log 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
(Log-log 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
Low-conductivity fracture, C
r
< 100
Data can yield fracture conductivity wk
f
if k
f
is known.
Bilinear Flow
Low-conductivity 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
3 >
D
f
L
t
(
(
¸
(

¸

+ ÷
|
|
.
|

\
|
= A s . .
r c
kt
log
kh
qB .
p
w t
869 0 23 3
6 162
2

µ
Depth Of Investigation
b
a
1
2
2
2
2
= +
b
y
a
x
2 2 2
b a L
f
÷ =
L
f

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 low-conductivity
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 half-length 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 high-conductivity
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

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 half-length from total skin factor

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

(
(
¸
(

¸

+
|
|
.
|

\
|
÷
÷
= 23 . 3 log 151 . 1
2
10
1
w t
wf hr
r c
k
m
p p
s

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
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
• Boundaries of reservoir may be encountered
• Long transition period between linear flow and
• 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

=
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
Type-Curve 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
=

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
=

0002637 . 0
Cinco Type Curve
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
1E-06 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
1E-06 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
Barker-Ramey Type Curve
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
1E-06 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
Barker-Ramey 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 -
– Shut-in time
– Equivalent time (radial, linear, bilinear)
– Superposition type curves
• Type curves may ignore important behavior
– Variable WBS
– Boundaries
– Non-Darcy 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
in-situ reservoir quality
Complications in Analysis
• Three-dimensional 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
(3) early linear
(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
Flow not affected by
reservoir boundaries
Flow Regimes
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
Flow Regimes
• Late Linear
Flow Regimes/Drawdown
A p
p '
1
1
2
1
2
1
Log (Ap)
or
Log (p')
Wellbore
storage
Early
Flow
Early
Linear
Flow
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
k
x
k
z End - k
z
and k
y
k
x
k
z and k
x
/k
z
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
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
w
End - d
z
and L
w
w
End - d
z
and L
w
Early Linear L
w
and h Start - D
z
End - L
w
L
w
and h
Late
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
wellbore storage
effects
flow near vertical
wells
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
:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ ÷
+ ÷
= ÷
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
Semilog plot
Time
Ap
100 0.1
47
33
z
k
x
k
w
L
qB .
m
µ 6 162
=
Semilog plot
Time
Ap
100 0.1
47
33
w
L m
qB .
z
k
x
k
µ 6 162
=
¦
)
¦
`
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 |
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
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
=
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
=
¦
)
¦
`
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
• 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.
• 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
• 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

• . . . 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
z
k
x
k
w
L
qB .
m
µ 2 325
=
'
Semilog plot
Time
Ap
100 0.1
47
33
Semilog plot
Time
Ap
100 0.1
47
33
z
k
x
k
w
L
qB .
m
µ 6 162
=
z
k
x
k
w
L
qB .
m
µ 2 325
=
'
(
(
¸
(

¸

|
|
.
|

\
|
+ +
(
(
(
¸
(

¸

+
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
÷
'
÷
=
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 |
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 cross-section of
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
45 0.
b
w
L
• Start

L
w

b
y
k
t
c
w
L
Sprf
t
µ |
2
1480
=
• Start

Wellbore
end effects
y
k
w
L
y
D
t
c
Eprf
t
2
4
2000
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
=

Ends when
flow from beyond
the ends of the
wellbore hits a
boundary ...
x
k
x
d
t
c
Eprf
t
2
1650 µ |
=
(whichever is reached first)
…or reach
end boundaries
of reservoir
h m
qB .
y
k
x
k
' ' '
=
µ 6 162
Ap
Time
59
53
100 500
Semilog plot
400 300 200
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
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
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
shut-in 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
• Calculate k
y

Summary of Analysis Procedures
• Calculate k
x
• Calculate k
z
from data in early radial or
• Calculate k
y

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
• Calculate k
y
• 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
unit-slope line
horizontal derivative
Linear flow halfslope
line
Log (Ap)
or
Log (p')
Wellbore
storage
Early
flow
Early
Linear
Flow
Flow
Late
Linear
Flow
Log (time)
Drawdown Diagnostic Plot
Shapes may not
appear in build-
up tests
(better chance
if t
p
>>At
max
)
Build-Up
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
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
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
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: Tandem-Root 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
• High-k 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
or elliptical flow
Decline caused by
underlying aquifer
Well C: Type-Curve 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 4.90E-03
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
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 late-time 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
• Fluid properties
• Reservoir and well properties
• 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 log-derived
properties against core measurements
• Failure to select appropriate cutoffs for net
pay estimation
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
• 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
• Single-phase flow
• Homogeneous reservoir
• Boundary
– No-flow, linear constant pressure, closed
• Test
– Drawdown, buildup, injection, or fall-off
– 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

• 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 middle-time region
• Equivalent time functions apply rigorously
only to situations where either
– Producing and shut-in times both lie within
middle-time region
– Shut-in 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
– Shut-in time
– Equivalent time
– Superposition time
Superposition in space
Producing wells
Apparent no-flow boundary between wells
Producing well
Superposition in space
Real no-flow boundary
Image well
Equal distances from
no-flow boundary
Superposition in space
Producing well
Image well Image well
No-flow boundary
Producing well
No-flow boundary
Superposition in space
Superposition in space
Infinite-acting 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
Infinite-acting 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 shut-in
time
Infinite-acting reservoir
Shape depends on duration of
production time prior to shut-in
Dimensionless shut-in time
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent
time
Infinite-acting 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
shut-in time
Infinite-acting reservoir
Largest time on plot is not limited
to producing or shut-in time
Linear no-flow boundary
No-flow 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 no-flow boundary
Drawdown Type Curve
Change in derivative from 0.5 to 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 shut-in time
Linear no-flow boundary
The longer the equivalent time before shut-in, the
longer the coincidence between buildup and drawdown
Dimensionless shut-in 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 no-flow boundary
Derivative doubles over only a tiny fraction of a log
cycle for very short producing times prior to shut-in
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 no-flow boundary
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to
equivalent time, plotted
against shut-in time
Similar to drawdown response
Linear constant-p boundary
Constant-pressure boundary
Producing well
Possible injection,
waterflood, or gas/oil
contact causing
constant-pressure
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 constant-p 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 shut-in time
Linear constant-p boundary
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to shut-
in time
Slope steeper than drawdown slope for
very short producing times before shut-in
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 constant-p 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
shut-in time
Linear constant-p boundary
Derivative curves resemble
drawdown curve
Channel reservoir
Producing well
No-flow 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 shut-in time
Channel reservoir
Derivative reaches a
slope of -
1
/2 if shut-in
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
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 shut-in time
Channel reservoir
Derivative curve shape resembles
drawdown curve shape
Intersecting sealing faults
“Wedge” reservoir
Producing well
No-flow 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 infinite-acting 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 shut-in
time
Dimensionless shut-in time
Intersecting sealing faults
Dramatic difference in curves
when shut-in is greater than
producing time prior to shut-in
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
shut-in time
Intersecting sealing faults
Derivative, drawdown curves similar
Closed circular boundary
Producing well
No-flow 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
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 shut-in 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 shut-in
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 shut-in time
Closed circular boundary
t
pD
= 10
6
, 10
7
, 10
8
Derivative, drawdown
type curves differ
fundamentally
Circular constant-p boundary
Producing well
Constant-pressure
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 constant-p 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 shut-in
time
Dimensionless shut-in time
Circular constant-p 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 constant-p 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 shut-in time
Circular constant-p boundary
Results in somewhat-changed
curve on the plot
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

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
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 constant-p circular
boundary during transition
S (storativity) = |c
t
h
• 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

• 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
Time-Plotting Functions
• Shut-in Time
• Horner Pseudoproducing Time
• Multirate Equivalent Time
• Superposition Time Function
Variable Rate History
t
q
q
1

q
2

q
n-1

q
n

t
1
t
2
t
n-2
t t
n-1

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
shut-in
Expressed
another way...
Horner Pseudoproducing Time
1
24
÷
=
n
p
p
q
N
t
Cumulative
produced oil
Final rate
before
shut-in
• Good results as long as last
producing time is at least 10x
maximum shut-in 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
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. shut-in 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. shut-in 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 shut-in time

Conclusions
• Derivatives with respect to time for the
equivalent time are identical. They can be
plotted vs. shut-in 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.
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
Producing times must
be at least 10x
maximum shut-in 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
build-up 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
– Meaningless 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 half-length, 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
• 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 =
Fluid-filled 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
• In-situ permeability from well test
• Core permeability to air
– High—overburden and saturation
– Low—natural fractures
• Total kh from core adjusted to in-situ value
less than kh from well test
– Fractures
– Missing core
• Most useful when entire interval cored
Production Period Pressure
• Must be consistent with shut-in 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
– Beginning of middle-time region
– End of middle-time 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
waterflood-injection well
– 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
waterflood-injection well
• Dual porosity from fracture width, spacing
• Fracture properties from treatment design
– Fracture half-length l
f

– Fracture conductivity wk
f

Common Errors/Misconceptions
• Most-often-misused models
– Well between two sealing faults
– Well in a radially composite reservoir
– Well in a rectangular reservoir
• Common misconceptions
– Unit-slope line indicates wellbore storage
– Peak in derivative indicates radial flow
– Strong aquifer acts as constant-pressure 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
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

Unit-slope line always
indicates wellbore storage
• Unit-slope line may be caused by
(drawdown test only)
– Recharge of high-permeability 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