Well Testing
John Lee
Professor of Petroleum Engineering
Texas A&M University
First Printing
Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
New York
1982
Dalias
Copyright 1982 by the American Institute of Mining,
Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers Inc. Printed in the
United States of America. AII rights reserved. This book, or parts
thereof, cannot be reproduced in any form without written consent of the publisher.
ISBN 0895203170
W. John Lee is professor of petroleum enginecri ng al Texas A&M U. Afier receiving a PhD degree from Georgia Inst. of Technology in 1963. he worked as a senior
research spccialist wilh Exxon Production Research Co. unlil 1968 . He was
associate profcsso r of pelroleurn engineering at Mississippi Slalc U. from 1968 10
1971 and tcch nical adviscr with Exxon Co. U.S.A . from 197 1 10 1977 . Lee has
been with Te xas A&M sincc 1977. He has beco faeu lly adviser 10 the SPE student
chapter during several school years .
Acknowledgments
Many individuals ha ve contributed to the completion of this textbook. The contributions of the following individuals have been particularly helpful: William D. McCain, Jr. who urged me to write the book and who,
having survived a similar experience, urged me to persist; members of the SPE Textbook Committee (particularly Weldon Winsauer, Robert C. Earlougher Jr., and James T. Smith), who provided thorough and
helpful reviews of early drafts; Georgeann Bilich, who effectively dealt with manuscript problems no author
has any right to intlict on a technical editor, and who did so in her characteristic gracious way; and Erin
Stewart, SPE Associate Editor, who successfully put it all together despite (at times) an almost total lack of
cooperation from anyone. To all of you and the many others who helpedthank you!
Publication of this first SPE Textbook
was funded in part by the
SPE
SPE Founda.tion
SPE Textbook Series
The Textbook Series of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME was established in 1972 by action of
the SPE Board of Directors. The Series is intended to ensure availability of highquality textbooks for use in
undergraduate courses in areas clearly identified as being within the petroleum engineering field. The work
is directed by the Society's Textbook Committee, one of more than 40 Societywide standing committees,
through a member designated as Textbook Coordinator. The Textbook Coordinator and the Textbook Committee provide technical evaluation of the book. Below is a listing of those who have been most closely involved in the final preparation of this book. Many others contributed as Textbook Committee members or
others involved with the book.
Textbook Coordinators
Weldon Winsauer, Exxon Co. U.S.A., Houston
James T. Smith, Texas Tech. U., Lubbock
Textbook Committee (1981)
Weldon Winsauer, chairman, Exxon Co. U.S.A., Houston
James T. Smith, Texas Tech. U., Lubbock
John L. Moore, Consolidated Natural Gas Services, Pittsburgh
H.M. Staggs, ARCO Inc., Dalias
Medhat Kamal, Amoco Production Co., Tulsa
Jack Evers, U. of Wyoming, Laramie
Contents
Introduction
1.
Fluid Flow in Porous Media
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
2.
Introduction
The Ideal Reservoir Model
Solutions to Diffusivity Equation
Radius of Investigation
PrincipIe of Superposition
Horner's Approximation
Pressure Buildup Tests
2. 1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Introduction
The Ideal Buildup Test
Actual Buildup Tests
Deviations From Assumptions
in Ideal Test Theory
2.5
Qualitative Behavior of Field Tests
2.6
Effects and Duration of Afterflow
2.7
Determination of Permeability
2.8
Well Damage and Stimulation
2.9
Pressure Level in Surrounding
Formation
2.10 Reservoir Limits Test
2.11 Modifications for Gases
2.12 Modifications for Multiphase Flow
3.
Flow Tests
3.1
3.2
3.3
4.
Analysis of Well Tests
Using Type Curves
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
5.
Introduction
Fundamentals of Type Curves
Ramey's Type Curves
McKinley's Type Curves
Gringarten el al. Type Curves
for Fractured Wells
3
13
15
18
21
21
21
23
24
26
27
29
30
35
41
44
45
50
50
50
55
63
63
63
64
68
71
Gas Well Testing
76
5. 1
5.2
76
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
6.
Introduction
Pressure Drawdown Tests
Multirate Tests
Introduction
Basic Theory of Gas Flow
in Reservoirs
FlowAfterFlow Tests
Isochronal Tests
Modified Isochronal Tests
Use of Pseudopressure in
Gas Well Test Analysis
76
77
79
83
85
Other Well Tests
89
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
89
89
91
97
98
Introduction
Interference Testing
Pulse Testing
Drillstem Tests
Wireline Formation Tests
Appendix A: Development of Differential
Equations for Flow
in Porous Media
Introduction
Continuity Equation for
ThreeDimensional Flow
100
100
100
Continuity Equation for Radial Flow
Flow Laws
SinglePhase Flow of Slightly
Compressible Fluids
SinglePhase Gas Flow
Simultaneous Flow of Oil, Water, and Gas
Appendix B: Dimensionless Variables
100
101
101
102
102
103
Introduction
103
Radial Flow of a Slightly Compressible Fluid 103
Radial Flow With Constant BHP
104
Appendix C: Van Everdingen and Hurst
Solutions to
Diffusivity Equations
Introduction
Constant Rate at Inner Boundary,
No Flow Across Outer Boundary
Constant Rate at Inner Boundary,
Constant Pressure at OUler Boundary
Constant Pressure al Inner Boundary,
No Flow Across Ouler Boundary
Appendix O: Rock and Fluid
Property Correlations
Introduction
Pseudocritical Temperature and
Pressure of Liquid Hydrocarbons
Bubblepoint Pressure 01' Crude Oil
Solution GOR
Oil Formation Volume Factor
Compressibility 01' Undersaturated Oil
Compressibility of Saturated Crude Oil
Oil V iscosity
Solubility of Gas in Water
Water Formation Volume Factor
Compressibility of Water in
Undersaturated Reservoirs
Compressibility of Water in
a Saturated Reservoir
Water Viscosity
Pseudocritical Properties of Gas
GasLaw Deviation Factor (zFactor)
and Gas Fornlation Volume Factor
Gas Compressibility
Gas Viscosity
Fonnation Compressibility
106
106
106
107
113
119
119
119
119
119
120
121
122
124
124
125
126
126
128
128
128
131
131
132
Appendix E: A General Theory
of Well Testing
134
Appendix F: Use of SI Units in
WellTesting Equations
138
Appendix G: Answers to
Selected Exercises
148
Nomenclature
Bibliography
Author Index
Subject Index
151
154
156
157
Introduction
This textbook explains how to use well pressures and
flow rates to evaluate the formation surrounding a
tested well. Basic to this discussion is an understanding of the theory of fluid flow in porous
media and of pressurevolumetemperature (PVT)
relations for fluid systems of practical interest. This
book contains a review of these fundamental concepts, largely in summary formo
One major purpose of well testing is to determine
the ability of a formation to produce reservoir fluids.
Further, it is important to determine the underlying
reason for a well's productivity. A properly designed,
executed, and analyzed well test usually can provide
information about formation permeability, extent of
wellbore damage or stimulation, reservoir pressure,
and (perhaps) reservoir boundaries and heterogeneities.
The basic test method is to create a pressure
drawdewn in the wellbore; this causes formation
fluids to enter the wellbore. If we measure the flow
rate and the pressure in the wellbore during
production or the pressure during a shutin period
following production, we usually will have sufficient
information to characterize the tested well.
This book begins with a discussion of basic
equations that describe the unsteadystate flow of
fluids in porous media. It then moves into
discussions of pressure buildup tests; pressure
drawdown tests; other flow tests; typecurve analysis;
gas well tests; interference and pulse tests; and
drillstem and wireline formation tests. Fundamental
principIes are emphasized in this discussion, and little
effort is made to bring the intended audienceundergraduate petroleum engineering students  to
the frontiers of the subject. This role is filled much
better by other publications, such as the Society of
Petroleum Engineers' monographs on well testing l ,2
and Alberta Energy Resources and Conservation
Board's gas well testing manual. 3
Basic equations and examples use engineering
units. However, to smooth the expected transition to
the Intl. System of Units (SI) in the petroleum industry, Appendix F discusses this unit system and
restates major equations in SI units. In addition,
answers to examples worked out in the text are given
in SI units in Appendix F.
References
1. Matthews, C.S. and Russell, D.G.: Pressure Buildup and Flow
Tests in Wells, Monograph Series, SPE, Dalias (1967) 1.
2. Earlougher, R.C. Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis,
Monograph Series, SPE, Dalias (1977) 5.
3. Theory and Practice of the Testing of Gas Wells, third edition,
Pub. ECRB7534, Energy Resources and Conservation Board,
Calgary, Alta. (1975).
Chapter 1
Fluid Flow in Porous Media
1.1 Introduction
In this initial chapter on fluid flow in porous media,
we begin with a discussion of the differential
equations that are used most often to model unsteadystate flow. Simple statements of these
equations are provided in the text; the more tedious
mathematical details are given in Appendix A for the
instructor or student who wishes to develop greater
understanding. The equations are followed by a
discussion of sorne of the most useful solutions to
these equations, with emphasis on the exponentialintegral solution describing radial, unsteadystate
flow. An appended discussion (Appendix B) of
dimensionless variables may be useful to sorne
readers at this point.
The chapter concludes with a discussion of the
radiusofinvestigation concept and of the principIe
of superposition. Superposition, illustrated in
multiwell infinite reservoirs, is used to simulate
simple reservoir boundaries and to simulate variable
rate production histories. An approximate alternative to superposition, Horner's "pseudoproduction time," completes this discussion.
1.2 The Ideal Reservoir Model
To develop analysis and design techniques for well
testing, we first must make several simplifying
assumptions about the well and reservo ir that we are
modeling. We naturally make no more simplifying
assumptions than are absolutely necessary to obtain
simple, useful solutions to equations describing our
situation  but we obviously can make no fewer
assumptions. These assumptions are introduced as
needed, to combine (l) the law of conservation of
mass, (2) Darcy' s law, and (3) equations of state to
achieve our objectives. This work is only outlined in
this chapter; detail is provided in Appendix A and the
References.
Consider radial flow toward a well in a circular
reservoir. If we combine the law of conservation of
mass and Darcy's law for the isothermal flow of
fluids of small and constant compressibility (a highly
satisfactory model for singlephase flow of reservoir
oil), we obtain a partial differential equation that
simplifies to
a2p 1 ap
CPJ.c
ap
ar 2 +; ar = 0.000264 k at' .......... (1.1)
if we assume that compressibility, c, is small and
independent of pressure; permeability, k, is constant
and isotropic; viscosity, J., is independent of
pressure; porosity, cp, is constant; and that certain
terms in the basic differential equation (involving
pressure gradients squared) are negligible. This
equation is called the diffusivity equation; the term
0.000264k/cpJ.c is called the hydraulic diffusivity and
frequently is given the symbol r.
Eq. 1.1 is written in terms of field units. Pressure,
p, is in pounds per square inch (psi); distance, r, is in
feet; porosity, cp, is a fraction; viscosity, J., is in
centipoise; compressibility, e, is in volume per
volume per psi [c= (11 p) (dp/dp) 1; permeability, k,
is in millidarcies; time, t, is in hours; and hydraulic
diffusivity, r, has units of square feet per hour.
A similar equation can be developed for the radial
flow of a nonideal gas:
1 a ( p
ap )
cp
a (p)
; ar .tZ r ar = 0.000264 k at
z ' .... (1.2)
where z is the gasIaw deviation factor.
For simultaneous flow of oil, gas, and water,
1 a ( ap )
cpc t
ap
; ar r ar = 0.000264 Al at' .......... (1.3)
where c l is the total system compressibility,
c l =Soco +Swcw +SgCg +c. . .......... (1.4)
and the total mobility Al is the sum of the mobilities
ofthe individual phases:
Al _(ko
J.o
+ ~ + kw) .. ............... (1.5)
J.g
J.w
In Eq. 1.4, So refers to oilphase saturation, Co to
oilphase compressibility, Sw and C w to water phase,
Sg and c~ to gas phase; and cl is the formation
FLUID FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
compressibility. In Eq. 1.5, ko is the effective permeability to oil in the presence of the other phases,
and /Jo is the oil viscosity; kg and /J g refer to the gas
phase; and kw and /Jw reler to the water phase.
Because the formaton is considered compressible
(Le., por e volume decreases as pressure decreases),
porosity is not a constant in Eq. 1.3 as it was assumed
to be in Eqs. 1.1 and 1.2.
1.3 Solutions to Diffusivity Equation
This secton deals wth useful solutions to the diffusivity equation (Section 1.2) describing the flow of
a slightly compressible liquid in a porous medium.
We also have sorne comments on solutions to Eqs.
1.2 and 1.3.
There are four solutions to Eq. 1.1 that are particularly useful in well testing: the solution for a
bounded cylindrical reservoir; the solution for an
infinite reservoir with a well considered to be a line
source with zero wellbore radius; the pseudosteadystate solution; and the solution that includes weIlbore
storage for a weIl in an infinite reservoir. Before we
discuss these solutions, however, we should summarize the assumptions that were necessary to
develop Eq. 1.1: homogeneous and isotropic porous
medium of uniform thickness; pressureindependent
rock and fluid properties; small pressure gradients;
radial flow; applicability of Darcy's law (sometimes
caIled laminar flow); and negligible gravity forces.
We will introduce further assumptions to obtain
solutions to Eq. 1.1.
and where JI and YI are Bessel functions. (Total
compressibility, Ct> is used in all equations in this
chapter because even formations that produce a
singlephase oil contain an immobile water phase and
have formation compressibility.)
The reader unfamiliar with Bessel functions should
not be alarmed at this equation. It will not be
necessary to use Eq. 1.6 in its complete form to
calculate numerical values of P w/; instead, we will
use limiting forms of the solutlOn in most computations. The most important fact about Eq. 1.6 is
that, under the assumptions made in its development,
it is an exact solution to Eq. 1.1. It sometimes is
caBed the van EverdingenHurst constantterminalrate solution. 2 Appendix e discusses this solution
more completely. Because it is exact, it serves as a
standard with which we may compare more useful
(but more approximate) solutions. One such approximate solution follows.
Infinite Cylindrical Reservoir With LineSource Well
Assume that (1) a well produces at a constant rate,
qB; (2) the well has zero radius; (3) the reservoir is at
uniform pressure, Pi' before production begins; and
(4) the well drains an infinite area (i.e., thatpp as
'(0). Under those conditions, the solution to Eq.
1.1 is
Bounded Cylindrical Reservoir
00
Solution of Eq. 1.1 requires that we specify two
boundary conditions and an initial condition. A
realistic and practical solution is obtained if we
as sume that (1) a well produces at constant rate, qB,
into the wellbore (q refers to flow rate in STB/D at
surface conditions, and B is the formation volume
factor in RB/STB); (2) the well, with wellbore radius
, w' is centered in a cylindrical reservoir of radius 'e'
and that there is no flow across this outer boundary;
and (3) before production begins, the reservoir is at
uniform pressure, Pi' The most useful form of the
desired solution relates flOwing pressure, Pwf' at the
sandface to time and to reservoir rock and fluid
properties. The solution is 1
qB/J [ 2tD
PWf=P141.2 2 +ln'eDkh
'eD
4
)
e ~tDJ2(
1 cxn'eD
00
"
+ 2n~
= 1 cx 2 [JI2 (cx
n
2'
n ' eD)  JI (cx n ) 1
.. (1.6)
where, for efficiency and convenience, we have
introduced the dimensionless variables
and
tD
u
~ ~du,
x
the Ei function or exponential integral.
Before we examine the properties and implications
of Eq. 1. 7, we must answer a logical question: Sin ce
Eq. 1.6 is an exact solution and Since Eq. 1.7 clearly
is based on idealized boundary conditions, when (if
ever) are pressures calculated at radius , w from Eq.
1.7 satisfactory approximations to pressures
calculated from Eq. 1.6? Analysis of these solutions
shows 3 that the Eifunction solution is an accurate
approximation to the more exact solution for time
3.79 x 10 5 cp/Jc t r;,lk<t<948 CP/JC t '; /k. For times
less than 3.79x 10 5 cp/Jct,;,lk, the assumption of
zero well size (i.e., assuming the well to be a Hne
source or sink) limits the accuracy of the equation; at
times greaier than 948 CP/Jc t re2 I k, the reservoir' s
boundaries begin to affect the pressure distribution
in the reservoir, so that the reservoir is no longer
infinite acting.
A further simplification of the solution to the flow
equation is possible: for x<O.02, Ei( x) can be
approximated with an error less than 0.60/0 by
where the CX n are the roots of
= O;
. ................ (1.8)
To evaluate the Ei function, we can use Table 1.1 for
10.9. For x~0.02, we use Eq. 1.8; and for
x> 10.9, Ei( x) can be considered zero for applications in well testing.
In practice, we find that most wells have reduced
permeability (damage) near the wellbore resulting
0.02<x~
0.000464 kt/ll>/Jct'~'
JI (cxn'eD) YI (cx n ) J 1(cx n ) YI (cxn'eD)
Ei( x) = 
Ei( x) =ln (1.781x).
'eD='el,w
,2)
qB/J .( 948 cp/Jc t
, ..... (1.7)
kh
kt
where the new symbols are p, the pressure (psi) at
distance , (feet) from the well at time t (hours), and
p=p +70.6 El
WELL TESTlNG
from drilling or completion operations. Many other
wells are stimulated by acidization or hydraulic
fracturing. Eq. 1.7 fails to model such wells properly;
its derivation holds the explicit assumption of
uniform permeability throughout the drainage area
of the well up to the wellbore. Hawkins 4 pointed out
that if the damaged or stimulated zone is considered
equivalent to an altered zone of uniform permeability
(k s) and outer radius (r s), the additiona/ pressure
drop across this zone (t.ps) can be modeled by the
steadystate radial fIow equation (see Fig. 1.1). Thus,
qB.t ( k
= 141.2kh
ks
1 ) ln(r Ir )
s
.... (1.9)
TABLE 1.1*  VALUES OFTHE EXPONENTIAL INTEGRAL,  Ei( x)
 Ei( x), 0.000<0.209, interval 0.001
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19
0.20
+ 00
4.038
3.355
2.959
2.681
2.468
2.295
2.151
2.027
1.919
1.823
1.737
1.660
1.589
1.524
1.464
1.409
1.358
1.310
1.265
1.223
6.332
3.944
3.307
2.927
2.658
2.449
2.279
2.138
2.015
1.909
1.814
1.729
1.652
1.582
1.518
1.459
1.404
1.353
1.305
1.261
1.219
5.639
3.858
3.261
2.897
2.634
2.431
2.264
2.125
2.004
1.899
1.805
1.721
1.645
1.576
1.512
1.453
1.399
1.348
1.301
1.256
1.215
5.235
3.779
3.218
2.867
2.612
2.413
2.249
2.112
1.993
1.889
1.796
1.713
1.638
1.569
1.506
1.447
1.393
1.343
1.296
1.252
1.210
 Ei( x), 0.00<x<2.09, interval =0.01
0.0
+00
4.038
3.335
2.959
0.1
1.823
1.660
1.589
1.737
0.2
1.223
1.110
1.183
1.145
0.3
0.906
0.882
0.858
0.836
0.4
0.702
0.686
0.670
0.655
0.5
0.560
0.548
0.536
0.525
0.6
0.454
0.445
0.437
0.428
0.7
0.374
0.367
0.360
0.353
0.8
0.311
0.305
0.300
0.295
0.9
0.260
0.256
0.251
0.247
0.219
1.0
0.216
0.212
0.209
1.1
0.186
0.183
0.180
0.177
1.2
0.158
0.156
0.153
0.151
1.3
0.135
0.133
0.131
0.129
1.4
0.116
0.114
0.113
0.111
1.5
0.1000 0.0985 0.0971 0.0957
1.6
0.0863 0.0851 0.0838 0.0826
1.7
0.0747 0.0736 0.0725 0.0715
1.8
0.0647 0.0638 0.0629 0.0620
1.9
0.0562 0.0554 0.0546 0.0539
2.0
0.0489 0.0482 0.0476 0.0469
4.948
3.705
3.176
2.838
2.590
2.395
2.235
2.099
1.982
1.879
1.788
1.705
1.631
1.562
1.500
1.442
1.388
1.338
1.291
1.248
1.206
5
4.726
3.637
3.137
2.810
2.568
2.377
2.220
2.087
1.971
1.869
1.779
1.697
1.623
1.556
1.494
1.436
1.383
1.333
1.287
1.243
1.202
6
4.545
3.574
3.098
2.783
2.547
2.360
2.206
2.074
1.960
1.860
1.770
1.689
1.616
1.549
1.488
1.431
1.378
1.329
1.282
1.239
1.198
4.392
3.514
3.062
2.756
2.527
2.344
2.192
2.062
1.950
1.850
1.762
1.682
1.609
1.543
1.482
1.425
1.373
1.324
1.278
1.235
1.195
8
4.259
3.458
3.026
2.731
2.507
2.327
2.178
2.050
1.939
1.841
1.754
1.674
1.603
1.537
1.476
1.420
1.368
1.319
1.274
1.231
1.191
9
4.142
3.405
2.992
2.706
2.487
2.311
2.164
2.039
1.929
1.832
1.745
1.667
1.596
1.530
1.470
1.415
1.363
1.314
1.269
1.227
1.187
2.681
1.524
1.076
0.815
0.640
0.514
0.420
0.347
0.289
0.243
0.205
0.174
0.149
0.127
0.109
0.0943
0.0814
0.Q705
0.0612
0.0531
0.0463
2.468
1.464
1.044
0.794
0.625
0.503
0.412
0.340
0.284
0.239
0.202
0.172
0.146
0.125
0.108
0.0929
0.0802
0.0695
0.0603
0.0524
0.0456
2.295
1.409
1.014
0.774
0.611
0.493
0.404
0.334
0.279
0.235
0.198
0.169
0.144
0.124
0.106
0.0915
0.0791
0.0685
0.0595
0.0517
0.0450
2.151
1.358
0.985
0.755
0.598
0.483
0.396
0.328
0.274
0.231
0.195
0.166
0.142
0.122
0.105
0.0902
0.0780
0.0675
0.0586
0.0510
0.0444
2.027
1.309
0.957
0.737
0.585
0.473
0.388
0.322
0.269
0.227
0.192
0.164
0.140
0.120
0.103
0.0889
0.0768
0.0666
0.0578
0.0503
0.0438
1.919
1.265
0.931
0.719
0.572
0.464
0.381
0.316
0.265
0.223
0.189
0.161
0.138
0.118
0.102
0.0876
0.0757
0.0656
0.0570
0.0496
0.0432
2.0 <x < 10.9, interval = 0.1
x
o
4.26x10 2
1.15x10 2
3.35x10 3
1.02x 10 3
3.21 X 10  4
1.03x 10 4
3.37x 10 5
1.11x10 5
3.73 X 10 6
2
3.72 X 10 2
1.01x10 2
2.97 X 10 3
9.08 X 10 4
2.86x10 4
9.22x10 5
3.02x10 5
9.99x 10 6
3.34x 10 6
3
3.25 X 10  2
8.94 X 10  3
2.64 X 10  3
8.09x10 4
2.55 X 10  4
8.24 X 10  5
2.70 X 10  5
8.95 X 10  6
3.00x 10 6
4 5 6 7 8
9
2.84x10 2 2.49x10 2 2.19x10 2 1.92x10 2 1.69x10 21.48x10 2
7.89x10 3 6.87x10 3 6.16x10 3 5.45x10 3 4.82x10 3 4.27x10 2
2.34x10 3 2.07x10 3 1.84x10 3 1.64x10 3 1.45x10 3 1.29x10 3
7.19x10 4 6.41 x10 4 5.71 x10 4 5.09x10 4 4.53x10 4 4.04x10 4
2.28x10 4 2.03x10 4 1.82x10 4 1.62x10 4 1.45x10 4 1.29x10 4
7.36x10 5 6.58x10 5 5.89x10 5 5.26x10 5 4.71x10 5 4.21x10 5
2.42x10 5 2.16x10 5 1.94x10 5 1.73x10 5 1.55x10 5 1.39x10 5
8.02x10 6 7.18x10 6 6.44x10 6 5.77x10 6 5.17x10 6 4.64x10 6
2.68x10 6 2.41 x10 6 2.16x10 6 1.94><10 6 1.74x10 6 1.56x10 6
'Adapted from Nisle, R.G.: "How lo Use lhe Exponentiallntegral," Peto Eng. (ug. 1956) 817",73.
FLUID FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
1
p
..
Fig. 1.1Schematic 01 pressure distribution near
wellbore.
Eq. 1.9 simply states that the pressure drop in the
altered zone is inversely proportional to k s rather
than to k and that a correction to the pressure drop in
this region (which assumed the same permeability, k,
as in the rest of the reservoir) must be made.
Combining Eqs. 1.7 and 1.9, we find that the total
pressure drop at the wellbore is
qBJl Ei (948
cPJlC I'~) + An
P 1'P W1= 70.6kh
kt
''f/s
= 
qBJl
cPJlC I'~)
70.6  [ El.(  948
'''
kh
kt
2( ~ 1) ln( 's )].
'w
ks
For
w' the argument of the Ei function is sufficientIy small after a short time that we can use the
logarithmic approximation; thus, the drawdown is
,=,
p Pwf=70.6
qBJl[1 (1,688cPJlCI'~\
n
kt
)
kh
2( ~ 1) ln( 's )].
'w
ks
It is convenient to define a skin factor, s, in terms of
the properties of the equivalent altered zone:
s= (kk
s
1) ln( 's). ................. (1.10)
'w
Thus, the drawdown is
._
=_706qBJl[1 (1,688cPJlCI'~)_2]
PI P wf
. kh
n
kt
s .
formation the damage extends, the larger the
numerical value of s. There is no upper limit for s.
Sorne newly drilled wells will not flow at all before
stimulation; for these wells, ks::::O and soo. If a
well is stimulated (k s >k), s will be negative, and the
deeper the stimulation, the greater the numerical
value of s. Rarely does a stimulated well have a skin
factor less than 7 or  8, and such skin factors
arise only for wells with deeply penetrating, highly
conductive hydraulic fractures. We should note
finally that, if a well is neither damaged nor
stimulated (k=k s )' s=O. We caution the reader that
Eq. 1.10 is best applied qualitatively; actual wells
rarely can be characterized exactly by such a simplified model.
Before leaving the discussion of skin factor, we
should point out that an altered zone near a particular well affects only the pressure near that well i.e., the pressure in the unaltered formation away
from the well is not affected by the existence of the
altered zone. Said another way, we use Eq. 1.11 to
calculate pressures at the sandface of a well with an
altered zone, but we use Eq. 1. 7 to calculate pressures
beyond the altered zone in the formation surrounding the well. We have presented no simple equations
that can be used to calculate pressures for radius, "
such that, w <,<'s' but this will offer no difficulties
in well test analysis.
Example 1.1  Calculation oi Pressures
Beyond the Wellbore Using
the EiFunction Solution
Problem. A well and reservoir have the following
characteristics: The well is producing only oil; it is
producing at a constant rate of 20 STB/D. Data
describing the well and formation are
Jl = 0.72 cp,
k = O.lmd,
cI
1.5xlO 5 psi 1
p
3,000 psi,
3,oooft,
0.5 ft,
Ba
1.475 RB/STB,
h
150 ft,
cP = 0.23, and
s = O.
'e
'w
Calculate the reservoir pressure at a radius of 1 ft
after 3 hours of production; then, calculate the
pressure at radii of 10 and 100 ft after 3 hours of
production.
Solution. The Ei function is not an accurate solution
to flow equations until t > 3.79 X 10 5 cPJlC I'~/ k. Here,
3.79 X 10 5 cPJlC ,2
5
k
I W = [(3.79X 10 )(0.23)(0.72)
..................... (1.11)
Eq. 1.10 provides sorne insight into the physical
significance of the sign of the skin factor. If a well is
damaged (k s <k), s will be positive, and the greater
the contrast between k s and k and the deeper into the
(1.5 x 10 5 )(0.5)2]/(0.1)
= 2.35
< t = 3 hours.
Thus, we can use Eq. 1.7 with satisfactory accuracy if
WELL TESTING
the reservoir is still infinite acting at this time. The
reservoir will act as an infinite reservoir until t > 948
~.,cr~ /k.
Here,
948 ~''c r 2
k ( e
of Eq. 1.6, which describes pressure behavior with
time for a well centered in a cylindrical reservo ir of
radius re. The limiting form of interest is that which
is valid for large times, so that the summation involving exponentials and Bessel functions is
negligible; after this time (t>948 ~,,ctr~/k),
= [(948)(0.23)(0.72)
. (1.5 X 10  5)(3,000)2]/0.3 = 211 ,900 hours.
Thus, for times less than 211,900 hours, we can use
Eq. 1. 7. At a radius of 1 ft,
qB., (21D
3)
Pwf=Pi 141.2 2 +lnreD   ,
kh reD
4
or
_
qB., [0.000527kt
PwfP 141.22
kh
~.,c{re
qB., .(  948 ~.,c{r2 )
P=Pi +70.6 El
kh
kt
=3,000+
(70.6)(20)(1.475)(0.72)
(0.1)(150)
+ln(
at
.[  (948)(0.23)(0.72)(1.5 x 10 5)(1)2 ]
(0.1)(3)
El
= 3,000+ (lOO)Ei(
At a radius of 10 ft,
p=3,000+ 100
.[  (948)(0.23)(0.72)(1.5 x 10  5 )(1O)2J
(0.1)(3)
= 3,000 + 100 Ei(  0.7849)
El 
=3,000+(100)( 0.318)
=2,968 psi.
In this calculaton, we find the value of the Ei
function from Table 1.1. Note, as indicated in the
table, that it is a negative quantity.
At a radius of 100 ft,
p=3,000+ 100
.[  (948)(0.23)(0.72)(1.5 x 10  5)(100)2J
(0.1)(3)
= 3,000 + 100 Ei( 78.49)
apwf
al
= _ 0.234 qB
c t Vp
................. (1.13)
Thus, during this time period, the rate of pressure
decline is inversely proportional to the liquidfilled
pore volume Vp . This result leads to a form of well
testing sometimes called reservoir limits testing,
which seeks to determine reservoir size from the rate
of pressure decline in a wellbore with time .
Another form of Eq. 1.12 is useful for sorne applications. It involves replacing original reservoir
pressure, Pi' with average pressure, p, within the
drainage volume of the well.
The volumetric average pressure within the
drainage volume of the well can be found from
material balance. The pressure decrease (Pi  p)
resulting from removal of qB RB/D of fluid for t
hours [a total volume removed of 5.615 qB(t/24) cu
ft] is
_ .1V 5.615 qB(t/24)
Pi P= c{ V
c{ (1I'r~h~)
0.0744 qBt
~c{hr~
Substituting in Eq. 1.12,
_ 0.0744 qBt
Pwf=P+
Here we note that for an argument of 78.49, the Ei
function is essentially zero.
PseudosteadyState Solution. We now discuss the
next solution to the radial diffusivity equation that
we will use extensively in this introduction to well test
analysis. Actually, this solution (the pseudosteadystate solution) is not new. It is simply a limiting form
then
El 
= 3,000 psi.
~cthre
Vp =1I'r~h~,
= 3,000 + (100)(  4.27)
= 2,573 psi.
Since the liquidfilled pore volume of the reservoir,
Vp (cubic feet), is
0.007849)
= 3,000 + 100 In [(1.781)(0.007849)]
)~J ................. (1.12)
4
Note that during this time period we find, by dfferentiating Eq. 1.12,
apwf __ 0.0744 qB
rw
................. (1.14)
0.0744 qBt
h 2
'l'c{ re
2
~cthr e
A.
qB., [ In (re)
141.2 3 ,
kh
rw
or
PP
qB.,~ (re)
1= 141.21n
 3J .
kh
rw
...... (1.15)
FLUID FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
Eqs. 1.12 and 1.15 become more useful in practice if
they include a skin factor to account for the fact that
most wells are either damaged or stimulated. For
example, in Eq. 1.15,
 P f=141.2 qBIl hn ('e)
Pw
Thr
'w  3 ] +(~)s'
qBIl ~ PPwf=
141.2ln
kh
and
('e) 'w
3 +s,
.... (1.16)
_
qBIl [0.000527 kt
Pi P wf141.22
kh
cf>IlCt'e
+ In (
,e ) 
'w
~ + s] .
= 141.2 qBllltn(
kh
.......... (1 .17)
'e )_~]
'w 4
L 'w
)
Solution.
1. To estimate productivity index, we use Eq.
1.19:
J= _q_ =
100
PPwf (2,0001,500)
=0.2 STB/psiD.
4
Further, we can define an average permeability, k j ,
such that
PPwf= 141.2 qBllltn(
kjh L
formation volume factor is 1.5 RB/STB.
l. Estmate the productivity index for the tested
well.
2. Estimate formation permeability from these
data.
3. Core data from the well indicate an effective
permeability to oil of 50 md. Does this imply that the
well is either damaged or stimulated? What is the
apparent skin factor?
2. We do not have sufficient information to
estimate formation permeability; we can calculate
average permeability, k j , only, which is not
necessarily a good approximation of formation
permeability, k. From Eq. 1.19,
141.2 JBIl[ln(
h
~ +s],
(141.2)(0.2)(1.5)(0.5) [ln( 1,000)  0.75 ]
0.25
from which,
kj=k lInCe)
'w
~]/llnCe) ~ +sJ .... (1.18)
4
'w 4
This average permeability, k j , proves to have
considerable value in well test analysis, as we shall see
later. Note that for a damaged well, the average
permeability k j is lower than the true, bulk formation permeability k; in fact, these quantities are
equal only when the skin factor s is zero. Since we
sometimes estimate the permeability of a well from
productivityindex (PI) measurements, and since the
productivity index J (STB/D/psi), of an oil well is
defined as
J= _q_
P  Pwf
kjh
141.2BIl[ln( 'e) _
'w
'e)  ~ ]
'w 4
kj =         
~]
, ... (1.19)
this method does not necessarily provide a good
estimate of formation permeability, k. Thus, there is
a need for a more complete means of characterizing a
producing well than exclusive use of PI information.
Example 1.2  Analysis of Well
From PI Test
Problem. A well produces 100 STB/D oil at a
measured flowing bottomhole pressure (BHP) of
1,500 psi. A recent pressure survey showed that
average reservoir pressure is 2,000 psi. Logs indicate
a net sand thickness of 10 ft. The well drains an area
with drainage radius, 'e' of 1,000 ft; the borehole
radius is 0.25 ft. Fluid samples indicate that, at
current reservoir pressure, oil viscosity is 0.5 cp and
10
= 16md.
3. Core data frequently provide a better estimate
of formation permeability than do permeabilities
derived from the productivity index, particularly for
a well that is badly damaged. Since cores indicate a
permeability of 50 md, we conclude that this well is
damaged. Eq. 1.18 provides a method for estimating
the skin factor s:
=c~ 1)[ln( 1~50)0.75]
= 16.
Flow Equations for Generalized Reservoir Geometry
Eq. 1.16 is limited to a well centered in a circular
drainage area. A similar equation 5 models pseudosteadystate flow in more general reservoir shapes:
qBIl [ 1 In ( 10.06 2A )  3 +s] ,
PPwf= 141.2kh 2
CA'w
4
........................... (1.20)
where
A = drainage area, sq ft, and
CA = shape factor for specific drainagearea
shape and well location, dimensionless.
Values of CA are given in Table 1.2; further explanation of the source of these CA values is given in
WELL TESTING
TRANSIENT
REGION
TRANSIENT
REGION
LATE  TRANSIENT
REGION
PSEUOOSTE,~OYSTATE
REGION
PSEUOOSTEAOYSTATE
REGION
log t
Fig. 1.2Flow regions on semilogarithmic paper.
Chap.2.
Productivity index, J, can be expressed for general
drainagearea geometry as
q
0.00708 kh
J=   =         PPwf
B.. In (1O.06A)   +5
[1
3 ]
CAr;
................................ (1.21)
Other numerical constants tabulated in Table 1.2
allow us to calculate (1) the maximum elapsed time
during which a reservoir is infinite acting (so that the
Eifunction solution can be used); (2) the time
required for the pseudosteadystate solution to
predict pressure drawdown within lOJo accuracy; and
(3) time required for the pseudosteadystate solution
to be exact.
For a given reservoir geometry, the maximum time
a reservoir is infinite acting can be determined using
the entry in the column "Use InfiniteSystem
Solution With Less Than lOJo Error for t DA <."
Since t DA =0.000264 ktj(jJ..ctA, this means that the
time in hours is calculated from
CP.tctAt DA
1 < 0.000264k'
Time required for the pseudosteadystate equation
to be accurate within 1OJo can be found from the entry
in the column headed "Less Than lOJo Error for
t DA >" and the relationship
cp..ctAtDA
t>
.
0.000264 k
Finally, time required for the pseudosteadystate
equation to be exact is found from the entry in the
column "Exact for t DA >."
At this point, it is helpful to depict graphically the
flow regimes that occur in different time ranges.
Figs. 1.2 and 1.3 show BHP, Pwf' in a well flowing at
constant rate, plotted as a function of time on both
logarithmic and linear scales.
In the transient region, the reservoir is infinite
acting, and is modeled by Eq. 1.11, which implies
that P wf is a linear function of log t. In the
Fig. 1.3Flow regions on Cartesiancoordinate graph.
pseudosteadystate region, the reservo ir is modeled
by Eq. 1.20 in the general case or Eqs. 1.15 and 1.12
for the special case of a well centered in a cylindrical
reservo ir. Eq. 1.12 shows the linear relationship
between Pyf an? t durin~ p~eudostea~ystate. Th~s
linear relatlOnshlp also eXIsts m generahzed reserVOlr
geometries.
At times between the end of the transient region
and the beginning of the pseudosteadystate region,
this is a transition region, sometimes called the latetransient region, as in Figs. 1.2 and 1.3. No simple
equation is available to predict the relationship
between BHP and time in this region. This region is
small (or, for practical purposes nonexistent) for a
well centered in a circular, square, or hexagonal
drainage area, as Table 1.2 indicates. However, for a
well offcenter in its drainage area, the latetransient
region can span a significant time region, as Table
1.2 also indicates.
Note that the determination of when the transient
region ends or when the pseudosteadystate region
begins is somewhat subjective. For example, the
limits on applicability of Eqs. 1. 7 and 1.12 (stated in
the text earlier) are not exactly the same as given in
Table 1.2  but the difference is slight. Other
authors 1 consider the deviation from Eq. 1. 7 to be
sufficient for 1>379 cp,,ctr~/k that a latetransient
region exists even for a well centered in a cylindrical
reservo ir between this lower limit and an upper limit
of 1,136 cp..c t r~ I k . These apparently contradictory
opinions are nothing more than different judgments
about when the slightly approximate solutions, Eqs.
1.7 and 1.12, can be considered to be identical to the
exact solution, Eq. 1.6.
These concepts are illustrated in Example 1.3.
Example 1.3  Flow Analysis in
Generalized Reservoir Geometry
Problem. 1. For each of the following reservoir geometries, calculate the time in hours for which (a) the
reservoir is infinite acting; (b) the pseudosteady state
FLUID FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
TABLE 1.2  SHAPE FACTORS FOR VARIOUS SINGLEWELL DRAINAGE AREAS10
( 2.2458)
0.51n  In Bounded Reservoirs
CA
In
CA
CA
Exact
for tOA>
Less Than
1 % Error
for tOA>
Use Infinite System
Solution With Less
Than 1 % Error
for tOA <
31.62
3.4538
1.3224
0.1
0.06
0.10
31.6
3.4532
1.3220
0.1
0.06
0.10
27.6
3.3178
1.2544
0.2
0.07
0.09
27.1
3.2995
1.2452
0.2
0.07
0.09
21.9
3.0865
1.1387
0.4
0.12
0.08
 2.3227
1.5659
0.9
0.60
0.015
30.8828
3.4302
1.3106
0.1
0.05
0.09
12.9851
2.5638
0.8774
0.7
0.25
0.03
4.5132
1.5070
0.3490
0.6
0.30
0.025
3.3351
1.2045
 0.1977
0.7
0.25
0.01
21.8369
3.0836
1.1373
0.3
0.15
0.025
10.8374
2.3830
0.7870
0.4
0.15
0.025
4.5141
1.5072
 0.3491
1.5
0.50
0.06
2.0769
0.7309
0.0391
1.7
0.50
0.02
3.1573
1.1497
 0.1703
0.4
0.15
0.005
1I3{~
,
'L~J
c:J
EE
EE
~
]1
0.098
I t
1I
I 1
11
mi
z
10
WELL TESTlNG
TABLE 1.2  SHAPE FACTORS FOR VARIOUS SINGLEWELL DRAINAGE AREAS10
( 2.2458)
0.51n  CA
Exact
for t DA >
Less Than
1 % Error
tor t DA >
Use Infinite System
Solution With Less
Than 1% Error
for tOA <
In Bounded Reservoirs
CA
In CA
EHEl
z
0.5813
 0.5425
0.6758
2.0
0.60
0.02
EEEEI
0.1109
2.1991
1.5041
3.0
0.60
0.005
1I
5.3790
1.6825
0.4367
0.8
0.30
0.01
JI
2.6896
0.9894
0.0902
0.8
0.30
0.01
JI
0.2318
1.4619
1.1355
4.0
2.00
0.03
0.1155
 2.1585
1.4838
4.0
2.00
0.01
2.3606
0.8589
0.0249
1.0
0.40
0.025
1&
'iI
In vertically fractured reservoirs: use (re/L,)2 in place of A/r~ for fractured systems
1
~
~
~
~
:x,/x e
2.6541
0.9761
0.0835
0.175
0.08
cannot use
2.0348
0.7104
0.0493
0.175
0.09
cannotuse
1.9886
0.6924
0.0583
0.175
0.09
cannotuse
......
1.6620
0.5080
0.1505
0.175
0.09
cannotuse
Ic=JI
+
1.3127
0.2721
0.2685
0.175
0.09
cannotuse
I~
0.7887
 0.2374
0.5232
0.175
0.09
cannotuse
..
&
.....
&
In waterdrive reservoirs
8
8
19.1
2.95
1.07
In reservoirs of unknown production character
25.0
3.22
1.20
FLUID FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
11
is exact; and (c) the pseudosteadystate equation is
accurate to within 1ltlo. (1) Well centered in circular
drainage area, (2) well centered in square drainage
area, and (3) well centered. in one quadrant of square
drainage area.
In each case,
10 6
A = 17.42 x
cf> = 0.2,
;.
1 cp,
sq ft (40 acres),
= 1 x 10 5 psi  1 , and
k = 100 md.
2. For each of the wells in Part 1, estimate PI and
stabilized production rate with p  Pwj= 500 psi, if
h = 10 ft,
5
3.0,
r w = 0.3 ft, and
B = 1.2 RB/STB.
3. For the well centered in one of the quadrants of
a square, write equations relating constant flow rate
and wellbore pressure drops at elapsed times of 30,
200, and 400 hours.
Solution. 1. We first calculate the group cf>;.
c(AIO.OOO264 k.
cf>;.c(A
(0.2)(1)(1 x 10 5)(17.42 X 10 6 )
(0.000264)(100)
= 1,320.
We then prepare the following table (values from
Table 1.2):
Infmite
P'IeUdmleact)'Slale
(Appro\lmate)
Solution
PseudmteadyState
(Exactl
~
Geometry
IDA
r (hOUPd
IDA
' (hourq
IDA
' (hour<.,)
79.2
0.1
132
66.0
0.1
132
0.6
792
Cir,:uJar
0.1
132
0.06
Squarecentered
Square
0.09
119
0.05
0.025
33
0.3
quadrant
396
For the offcenter well, the reduction in time for
which the infinitesystem solution is accurate and the
increase in time required to achieve pseudosteadystate flow are noteworthy.
2. To calculate PI and stabilized production rate,
we use the equations
0.00708 kh
J=
B;'l~/nC~:~t)
3. (a) For t
acting, and
J
(STB/Dpsi)
q
(STB/D)
31.62
30.88
4.513
0.526
0.526
0.484
263
263
242
30 hours, the reservo ir is infinite
(b) For t = 200 hours, the reservoir is no longer
infinite acting and the pseudosteadystate equation is
not yet accurate. Accordingly, no simple equation
can be written.
(c) For 1=400 hours, the pseudosteadystate
equation is accurate, and
qB;'[1 (10.06 A )
P:Pwj= 141.2 In
2
kh 2
CAr w
Radial Flow in Infinite Reservoir
With Wellbore Storage
The next solution to the radial diffusivity equation
includes a phenomenon causing variable flow rates
after production begins. This phenomenon is called
wellbore, as shown in Fig. 1.4, and assume there is
of wellbore storage before we can deal with the
solution to the flow equations that includes its effect.
Consider a shutin oil well in a reservoir with
uniform and unchanging pressure. Reservoir
pressure will support a column of liquid to sorne
equilibrium height in the wellbore. If we open a valve
at the surface and initiate flow, the first oil produced
will be that stored in the wellbore, and the initial flow
rate from the formation to the well will be zero. With
increasing flow time, at constant surface producing
rate, the downhole flow rate will approach the
surface rate, and the amount of liquid stored in the
wellbore will approach a constant value.
We now develop a mathematical relationship
between sandface (formation) and surface flow rates.
Consider a well with a liquid/ gas interface in the
wellbore, as shown in Table 1.4, and assume there is
sorne mechanism (a pump or gas lift) to deliver liquid
to the surface. Let the surface rate q be variable in
the general case.
From a mass balance in the wellbore, the rate of
liquid in is q sjB in RB/D; the rate of liquid out is q B
in RB/D; and the rate of liquid accumulation in the
well is
d (24 V wb ) _ 24 A wb dz
5.615  5.615 dt'
+5]
dI
(0.00708)( 100)( 1O)
=,6
1 ( 10.06)(17.42 x 10
(1.2)(1) [ In
2
2
CA (0.3)
1
J=5.9/(12.94 "llnC A ),
Circular
Squarecentered
Squarequadrant
CA
qB;.r (1,688cf>;.c(r~)
pPwj= 70.6 kh lln
kt
25.
c(
0.000264 k
Geometry
and
q=J(pPwj) = 500 J.
Thus, we can prepare the following tableo
3
] ,
4 +3.0
Then, assuming constant wellbore area, A wb' and
constant oil formation volume factor, B, the same at
the sandface and at the surface, the balance becomes
24
dz
  A wb   = (qsjq)B . ........... (1.22)
5.615
dI
For a well with surface pressure PI'
P w =p( +
pz
144 gc
, ................... (1.23)
Where p is the density of the liquid in the wellbore
(Ibm/cu ft) and glgc =lbfllbm. Then,
WELL TESTING
12
~
" AREA =
Awb (ft )
Lc~
+PW
Fig. 1.4Schematic of wellbore with moving liquid/gas
interface.
d(PwPt)
dt
g dz
144 gc dt
P
Fig. 1.5Schematic of wellbore containing singlephase
liquid or gas.
........... (1.24)
Substituting,
dp w
5.615p
;;
= 144 AWb
5.615p
0.000264 k dPD
2
1>;..cf r w dt D
............ (1.31)
............... (1.25)
gc
.Thus,
qsf=q
Define a wellbore storage constant, Cs:
s
0.00708 kh
d(p w Pt)
wb
dt
=(qsfq)B .
C
qB;..
~
dt
Thus,
(24)(144) gc A
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.26)
0.894 q Cs dp D
1>cthr~
dt '
D
........... (1.27)
For zero or unchanging surface pressure, Pt (a major
and not necessarily valid assumption),
................ (1.28)
To understand the solution to flow problems that
include wellbore storage, it is necessary to introduce
dimensionless variables, similar to those discussed in
Appendix B. Let q be the surface rate at t =O and
introduce the definitions of dimensionless time and
dimensionless pressure:
P D = 0.00708 kh (p  P w )
qB;..
(1.29)
............
(1 32)
.
If we define a dimensionless wellbore storage constant, C sD ' as
C sD =0.894 Cs/1>cfhr~,
Then,
24Cs d(PwPt)
qsf=q+ dt
Pw
.............. (1.33)
then
q sf = q
[:  C sD : ; ] .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . (1. 34)
For constantrate production [q(t) =q}, Eq. 1.34
becomes
!!.!l.. = 1
q
C sD dp D. . ................. (1.35)
dtD
Eq. 1.35 is the inner boundary condition for the
problem of constantrate flow of a slightly compressible liquid with wellbore storage. Note that, for
small C D or for small dPD/dtD' qsJ/q=. l (Le., the
effect oSf wellbore storage or sandface rate will be
negligible).
As a second example, consider a wellbore (Fig. 1.5)
that contains a singlephase fluid (liquid or gas) and
that is produced at sorne surface rate, q. If we let
V b be the volume of wellbore open to formation
(b~rrels) and C wb be the compressibility of th~. fluid
in the wellbore (evaluated at wellbore condltlOns),
the mas sbalance components are (1) rate of fluid
13
FLUID FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
in = qsjB, (2) rate of fluid out = qB, and (3) rate of
fluid accumulation in wellbore = 24 V wbc wb X
(dp w / dt). The balance becomes
(qsjq)B=24 Vwbcwb
d~tw,
.......... (1.36)
or
p
q .,=q+ 24 V wbcw d w . ............. (1.37)
SJ
B
dt
In this case, let Cs =cwb V wb' Then,
q .,= q+ 24 V wbcwb dp w . . .......... (1.37)
SJ
B
dt
Eq. 1.38 is identical to Eq.1.28; the wellbore storage
constant Cs simply has a different definition. Note,
however, that we are forced to make a significant
simplifying assumption: when we apply Eq. 1.38 to a
gas well, C wb is the compressibility of the gas in the
wellbore, and it is a strang function of pressure (as an
approximation, cwb = lIP wb)' Thus, the wellbore
storage "constant" for a gas well may be far fram
constant.
Since Eqs. 1.38 and 1.28 are identical, Eqs. 1.34
and 1.35 are also valid for a wellbore containing a
singlephase fluid.
The radial diffusivity equation, with the wellbore
storage equation (Eq. 1.35) as an inner boundary
condition, infinite drainage radius, uniform initial
formation pressure, and formation damage or
stimulation (characterized by skin factor, s), has been
solved both analytically and numerically in Refs. 6
and 7. The analytical solution is presented in Fig.
1.6. From this figure, values of P D (and thus P w ) can
be determined for a well in a formation with given
values of tD' C sD ' ands.
Two properties of this loglog graph require
special mention at this point.
Presence of UnitSlope Line
At earliest times for a given value of C sD ' and for
most values of s, a "unitslope line" (i.e., line with
45 slope) is present on the graph. This line appears
and remains as long as al! praduction comes fram the
wellbore and none comes fram the formation. Eq.
1.35 leads us to expect this lineo For qSj/q=O, the
equation becomes
lC
dPD
=O
sD dt
or
dt D =CsDdPD'
CsDPD=tD'
This observation is of major value in well test
analysis.
End of Wellbore Storage Distortion
When wellbore storage has ceased (i.e., when
q sj = q), we would expect t~e solution to t~e flow
equations to be the same as lf there had never been
any wellbore storage  i.e., the same as for C sD = O.
In Fig. 1.6, note that the solutions for finite C sD and
for C D = O do become identical after sufficient
elapsed time. One useful empirical observation is that
this time (called the "end of wellbore storage
distortion," t wbs occurs ~ppraximately one and. a
half log cycles after the dlsappearance of the umtslope lineo Another useful observation is that the
dimensionless time at which wellbore storage
distortion ceases is given by
t D =(60+ 3.5 s) C sD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.43)
These observations are also very useful in well test
analysis.
Linear Flow
Linear flow occurs in sorne petraleum reservoirs with
long, highly conductive vertical fractures. For that
reason it is of interest to review one of the fundamen~al equations describing linear flow in a
reservoir. Consider a situation with linear flow (in
the x direction, for convenience) of a slightly
compressible fluid in an infinite, homogen~o~s
reservoir, initially at uniform pressure, P . FlUid IS
produced at constant rate qB over an area A j (square
feet). [If the area Aj r~presents a vertical fracture
with two equalIength wmgs of length Lj (feet) and
height h (feet), A j = 4 hL j' with flow entering both
sides of each wing of the fracture.]
This situation is modeled by the diffusivity
equation in the form
2
4>.tc t
ap.. ............. (1.44)
0.000264 k at
For the conditions stated. the solution 8 to this
equation at x = Ois
ap _
ax2
qB ( .tt )Y2
pP wj=16.26  k
'
..................... (1.39)
Integr~ting fram t D = (where P D = O) to t D and P D'
the result is
CsDPD = 1. ........................ (1.42)
tD
....................... (1.40)
Taking logarithms of both sides of the equation,
log C sD +logPD =log tD'
............. (1.41)
Thus, as long as q sj = 0, theory leads us to expect that
a graph of log P D vS. log t D will have a slope of
unity; it al so leads us to expect that any point
(PD,tD) on this unitslope line must satisfy the
relation
....... (1.45)
Aj
4>c t
For linear flow into vertical fractures, A j = 4 hL j'
and
qB ( .tt )Y2
P P w14064
.
hLj k4>c
......... (1.46)
1.4 Radius of Investigation
The radiusofinvestigation concept is of both
quantitative and qualitative value in well test design
and analysis. By radius of investigation, ', we mean
the distance that a pressure transient has moved into
a formation following arate change in a well. We
will show that this distance is related to formation
rock and fluid praperties and time elapsed since the
rate change.
14
WELL TESTING
Fig. 1.6Dimensionless pressure solutions with wellbore
storage, ski n factor. (After Earlougher. 10)
Before we develop a quantitative means of
calculating ri' however, we will examine pressure
distributions at everincreasing times to develop a
feel for the movement of transients into a formation.
Fig. 1.7 shows pressure as a function of radius for'
0.1, 1.0, 10, and 100 hours after a well begins to
produce from a formation originally at 2,000 psi.
These pressure distributions were calculated using the
Eifunction solution to the diffusivity equation for a
well and a formation with these characteristics.
B
k
h
177 STB/D,
1 cp,
1.2 RB/STB,
lOmd,
150 ft,
cp
0.15,
p,
70.3xlO 6 psi,
3,oooft,
O.lft,and
el
re
rw
s
o.
Two observations are particularly important:
1. The pressure in the wellbore (at r=r w)
decreases steadily with increasing flow time; likewise,
pressures at other fixed values of r also decrease with
increasing flow time.
2. The pressure disturbance (or pressure transient)
caused by producing the well moves further into the
reservoir as flow time increases. For the range of
flow times shown, there is always a point beyond
which the drawdown in pressure from the original
value is negligible.
Now consider a well into which we instantaneously
inject a volume of liquido This injection introduces a
pressure disturbance into the formation; the
2000
o::
::J
(j)
(f)
\~,
t950
\,,,"0
\~,
\o"~
1900
O~'
\0
o::
Q..
WELL AND RESERV01R PROPERTIES
1850
el'" 7.03x!<J6pS!1
q "l77STB/D
p " 1.0cp
fe '" 3000 ft
rw " O. r ft
8 " 1.2 RS/STB
k " 10 md
1800
s " O
Pi = 2000ps
h = 150ft
<1>' 0.15
'" 'w
01
KlO
10
1000
RADIUS, ft
Fig. 1.7  Pressure distribution in formation near
producing welL
disturbance at radius ' will reach its maximum at
time 1m after introduction of the fluid volume. We
seek the relationship between r and t m . From the
solution to the diffusivity equation for an instantaneous line source in an infinite medium, 9
pp'=
1
e  r /4 nt
",
where e is a constant, related to the strength of the
instantaneous source. We find the time, 1m' at which
the pressure disturbance is a maximum at ' by
differentiating and setting equal to zero:
dp _ el e r2 / 4 1/t + er
dI 
41/1 3
12
e
r2 4
/ 1/t
=0.
15
FLUID FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
Thus,
t m =rt 141] =9481>/Jctrt Ik.
Stated another way, in time 1, a pressure disturbance reaches a distance r, which we shall call radius
of investigation, as given by the equation
kl
Yi
r ( 9481>/JC )" .................. (1.47)
t
The radius of investigation given by Eq. 1.47 also
pro ves to be the distance a significant pressure
disturbance is propagated by production or injection
at a constant rate. For example, for the formation
with pressure distributions shown in Fig. 1.7, application of Eq. 1.47 yields the following results.
t
(hours)
(ft)
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
32
100
316
1,000
Comparison of these results with the pressure
distributions plotted shows that r as calculated from
Eq. 1.47 is near the point at which the drawdown in
reservoir pressure caused by producing the well
beco mes negligible.
We also use Eq. 1.47 to calculate the radius of
investigation achieved at any time after any rate
change in a well. This is significant because the
distance a transient has moved into a formation is
approximately the distance from the well at which
formation properties are being investigated at a
particular time in a well test.
The radius of investigation has several uses in
pressure transient test analysis and designo A
qualitative use is to help explain the shape of a
pressure buildup or pressure drawdown curve. For
example, a buildup curve may have a difficulttointerpret shape or slope at earliest times when the
radius of investigation i'S in the zone of altered
permeability, k s ' nearest the wellbore. Or, more
commonly, a pressure buildup curve may change
shape at long times when the radius of investigation
reaches the general vicinity of a reservoir boundary
(such as a sealing fault) or sorne massive reservoir
heterogeneity. (In practice, we find that a
heterogeneity or boundary influences pressure
response in a well when the calculated radius of
investigation is of the order of twice the distance to
the heterogeneity.)
The radiusofinvestigation concept provides a
guide for well test designo For example, we may want
to sample reservoir properties at least 500 ft from a
tested well. How long a test shall be run? Six hours?
Twentyfour hours? We are not forced to guess  or
to run a test for an arbitrary length of time that could
be either too short or too long. Instead, we can use
the radiusofinvestigation concept to estimate the
time required to test to the desired depth in the
formation.
The radiusofinvestigation equation also provides
a means of estimating the length of time required to
achieve "stabilized" flow (Le., the time required for
a pressure transient to reach the boundaries of a
tested reservoir). For example, if a well is centered in
a cylindrical drainage area of radius re' then, setting
r =re , the time required for stabilization, ls' is
found to be
ls 9481>/Jctr~/k. . .................. (1.48)
It is no coincidence that this is the time at which
pseudosteadystate flow begins (i.e., the time at
which Eq. 1.12 becomes an accurate approximation
of the exact solution to the diffusivity equation). A
word of caution: For other drainagearea shapes,
time to stabilize can be quite different, as illustrated
in Example 1.3.
Useful as the radiusofinvestigation concept is, we
must caution the reader that it is no panacea. First,
we note that it is exactly correct only for a
homogeneous, isotropic, cylindrical reservoir
reservoir heterogeneities will decrease the accuracy of
Eq. 1.47. Further, Eq. 1.47 is exact only for
describing the time the maximum pressure disturbance reaches radius r following an instantaneous
burst of injection into or production from a well.
Exact location of the radius of investigation becomes
less well defined for continuous injection or
production at constant rate following a change in
rate. Limitations kept in mind, though, the radiusofinvestigation concept can serve us well.
Example 1.4  Calculaton 01 Radus
01 Investigaton
Problem. We wish to run a flow test on an exploratory well for sufficiently long to ensure that the
well will drain a cylinder of more than 1,OOOft
radius. Preliminary well and fluid data anallsis su
gests that k= 100 md, 1>=0.2, c t =2x 10 psi ,
and /t = 0.5 cp. What length flow test appears advisable? What flow rate do you suggest?
r
Solution. The minimum length flow test would
propagate a pressure transient approximately 2,000 ft
from the well (twice the minimum radius of investigation for safety). Time required is
1
9481>/Jctrt /k
(948)(0.2)(O.5){2 x 10
5 )(2,000)2
100
75.8 hours.
In principie, any flow rate would suffice  time
required to achieve a particular radius of investigation is independent of flow rate. In practice,
we require a flow rate sufficiently large that pressure
change with time can be recorded with sufficient
precision to be useful for analysis. What constitutes
sufficient precision depends on the particular
pressure gauge used in the test.
1.5 Principie of Superposition
At this point, the most useful solution to the flow
equation, the Eifunction solution, appears to be
applicable only for describing the pressure
WELL TESTING
16
Actual
Well
Image
Well
Well A
q
rAB
rAe
Well
Well B
Fig. 1.8Multiplewell system in infinite reservoir.
distribution in an infinite reservoir, caused by the
production of a single well in the reservoir, and, most
restrictive of aH, production of the well at constant
rate beginning at time zero. In this section, we
demonstrate how application of the principIe of
superposition can remove sorne of these restrictions,
and we conclude with examination of an approximation that greatly simplifies modeling a
variablerate well.
For our purposes, we state the principIe of
superposition in the following way: The total
pressure drop at any point in a reservoir is the sum of
the pressure drops at that point caused by flow in
each of the wells in the reservoir. The simplest
illustration of this principie is the case of more than
one well in an infinite reservoir. As an example,
consider three wells, Wells A, B, and e, that start to
produce at the same time from an infinite reservoir
(Fig. 1.8). Application of the principie of superposition shows that
(Pi Pwj) total at WellA
= (PP)duetoWellA
+ (pp) dueto Well B
+ (PiP)duetoWellC'
In terms of E functions and logarithmic ap
proximations,
(Pi  Pwj) total at Well A
=
qABJl [ (1,688 cPJlctr wA
70.6  In
kt
2)  2sA ]
No Flow
Boundary
Fig. 1.9Well near noflow boundary illustrating use of
imaging.
produces; qs, Well B; and qc, Well C. Note that this
equation includes a skin factor for Well A, but does
not include skin factors for Wells B and C. Because
most wells have a nonzero skin factor and beca use we
are modeling pressure inside the zone of altered
permeability near Well A, we must include its skin
factor. However, the presence of nonzero skin
factors for Wells B and e affects pressure only inside
their zones of altered permeability and has no influence on pressure at Well A if Well A is not within
the altered zone of either Well B or Well C.
Using this method, we can treat any number of
wells flowing at constant rate in an infiniteacting
reservoir. Thus, we can modeI socalled interference
tests, which basically are designed to determine
reservo ir properties from the observed response in
one well (such as Well A) to production from one or
more other wells (such as Well B or Well C) in a
reservoir. A relativeIy modern method of conducting
interference tests, caBed pulse testing, is based on
these ideas. 10
Our next application of the principIe of superposition is to simulate pressure behavior in bounded
reservoirs. Consider the well in Fig. 1.9 a distance, L,
from a single noflow boundary (such as a sealing
fault). Mathematically, this problem is identical to
the problem of a well a distance 2L from an "image"
well (i.e., a well that has the same production history
as the actual well). The reason this twowell system
simulates the behavior of a well near a boundary is
that a line equidistant between the two wells can be
shown to be a noflow boundary i.e., along this line
the pressure gradient is zero, which means that there
can be no flow. Thus, this is a simple twowellinaninfinitereservoir problem:
qBJl( 1,688cPJlctr~
)
  In
2s
P I'P w1= 70 6 kh
kt
qcBJl .(948cPJlCtrAC2)
70.6  El
kt
' .. (l.49)
where qA refers to the rate at which Well A
_70.6 qBJl E( 948 cPJlCt(2L)2).
kh
kt
.......................... (l.50)
FLUID FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
17
(LlJ)
ct 2
ct
q3
I
q l~qIt2
ti
t+
Well
(q2  q I )
(pPwj)
1,688 rP,tCtr~)
[In (
M B
= 70.6
kt
kh
]
2s .
Starting at time t , the new total rate is q2. We introduce a We1l2, producing at rate (q2 q) starting
al time t , so that the total rate after t is the
required q2. Note that total elapsed time since this
well started producing is (t  (); note further that
this well is still inside a zone of altered permeability.
Thus, the contribution of Well 2 to drawdown of
reservoir pressure is
Well 2
1,688 rP,tCtr~]
f[
In
k(tt)
]
2s .
Similarly, the contribution of a third well is
,t(q3  q2)B
(LlJh =(PPwjh = 70.6
kh
Fig. 1.10Production schedule tor variablerate well.
Here again, note that whether the image well has a
nonzero skin factor is immaterial. Its influence
out si de its zone of altered permeability is independent of whether this zone exists.
Extensions of the imaging technique also can be
used, for example, to model (1) pressure distribution
for a well between two boundaries intersecting at
90; (2) the pressure behavior of a well between two
parallel boundaries; and (3) pressure behavior for
wells in various locations completely surrounded by
noflow boundaries in rectangularshaped reservoirs.
This last case has been studied quite completely; the
study by Matthews el al. 11 is one of the methods
most frequently used to estimate average drainagearea pressure from pressure buildup tests.
Our final and most important application of the
superposition principIe will be to model variablerate
producing wells. To illustrate this application,
consider the case (Fig. 1.10) in which a well produces
at rate q t from time O to time ti; at ti' the rate is
changed to q 2; and at time t 2' the rate is changed to
q3. The problem that we wish to solve is this: At
sorne time t> t 2' what is the pressure at the sandface
of the well? To solve this problem, we will use
superposition as before, but, in this case, each well
that contributes to the total pressure drawdown will
be at the same position in the reservoir  the wells
simply will be "turned on" at different times.
The first contribution to a drawdown in reservo ir
pressure is by a well producing at rate ql starting at
t = O. This well, in general, will be inside a zone of
altered permeability; thus, its contribution to
drawdown of reservoir pressure is
1,688rP,tCtr~J 2s] .
f[
In
k(t(2)
Thus, the total drawdown for the well with two
changes in rate is
p Pwj= (LlJ)
=
+ (LlJ) 2 + (LlJh
_70.6,t~~B [ln( 1,688~,tCtr~)_2SJ
.\ln[ 1,688 rP,tCtr~J 2sI .
k(tt 2 )
..... (1.51)
Proceeding in a similar way, we can model an
actual well with dozens of rate changes in its history;
we also can model the rate history for a well with a
continuously changing rate (with a sequence of
constantrate periods at the average rate during the
period)  but, in many such cases, this use of
superposition yields a lengthy equation, tedious to
use in hand calculations. Note, however, that such an
equation is valid only if Eq. 1.11 is valid for the total
time elapsed since the well began to flow at its initial
rate  i.e., for time t, r must be ~ re.
18
WELL TESTING
Example 1.5  Use 01 Superposition
Problem. A flowing well is completed in a reservoir
that has the following properties.
pseudoproducing time:
tp(hours)=
24
p = 2,500 psia,
B = 1.32 RB/STB,
p = 0.44 cp,
0.16.
Solution. We must superimpose the contributions of
two wells because of the rate change:
_ 70.6 pB \ El'(  948 cPpc t,2 )
kh Lq !
kt
Now,
948 cPpc ,2
k t
= [(948){0.16)(0.44)(1.8 x 10  5)
. (500)2 ]/25
12.01.
Then,
pp= 
_P= _ 70.6 Mlast B Ei( 948 cPpc t
kh
What will the pressure drop be in a shutin well 500 ft
from the flowing well when the flowing well has been
shut in for 1 day following a flow period of 5 days at
300STB/D?
pp
most recen! rate, qlast(STB/D)
. (1.52)
Then, to model pressure behavior at any point in a
reservoir, we can use the simple equation
k = 25md,
h = 43 fL
Ct = 18 x 10  6 psi  ! , and
cP
cumulative production from well, Np(STB)
(70.6){0.44)(1.32)
(25)(43)
12.01 ]
.[ (300) Ei [ (6)(24)
+ (O  300) Ei[_12_.0_1 ]1
(1)(24)
,2).
(1.53)
ktp
Two questions arise logically at this point: (1) What
is the basis for this approximation? (2) Under what
conditions is it applicable?
The basis for the approximation is not rigorous,
but intuitive, and is founded on two criteria: (1) If we
use a single rate in the approximation, the clear
choice is the most recent rate; such arate, maintained
for any significant period, determines the pressure
distribution nearest the wellbore and approximately
out to the radius of investigation achieved with that
rateo (2) Given the single rate to use, intuition
suggests that we choose an effective production time
such that the product of the rate and the production
time results in the correct cumulative production. In
this way, material balances will be maintained accurately.
But when is the approximation adequate? If we
maintain a mostrecent rate for too brief a time
interval, previous rates will playa more important
role in determining the pressure distribution in a
tested reservoir. We can offer two helpful guidelines.
First, if the most recent rate is maintained sufficiently long for the radius of investigation achieved
at this rate to reach the drainage radius of the tested
well, then Horner's approximation is always sufficiently accurate. This rule is quite conservative,
however. Second, we find that, for a new well that
undergoes a series of rather rapid rate changes, it is
usually sufficient to establish the last constant rate
for at least twice as long as the previous rateo When
there is any doubt about whether these guidelines are
satisfied, the safe approach is to use superposition to
model the production history of the well.
11.44[ Ei( 0.0834)+Ei( 0.5)]
11.44 (1.989  0.560)
16.35 psi.
1.6 Horner's Approximation
In 1951, Horner!2 reported an approximation that
can be used in many cases to avoid the use of
superposition in modeling the production history of a
variablerate well. With this approximation, we can
replace the sequence of Ei functions, reflecting rate
changes, with a single Ei function that contains a
single producing time and a single producing rateo
The single rate is the most recent nonzero rate at
which the well was produced; we call this rate qlast
for now. The single producing time is found by
dividing cumulative production from the well by the
most recent rate; we call this producing time t p' or
Example 1.6  Application 01
H orner's Approximation
Problem. Following completion, a well is produced
for a short time and then shut in for a buildup test.
The production history was as follows.
Production Time
(hours)
25
12
Total Production
(STB)
52
O
26
46
72
68
1. Calculate the pseudoproducing time, tP'
2. Is Horner's approximation adequate for this
case? If not, how should the production history for
this well be simulated?
FLUID FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
19
Solution.
1.
68 STB
72 hours
24 hours
day
= 22.7 STB/D.
Then,
= 24 (cumulative production, STB)
q'ast' STB/D
(24)(166)
(22.7) = 176 hours.
2. In this case,
..:ltl ast
""=..:lt nexttoIast
= 72 = 2.77 > 2.
26
Thus, Horner's approximation is probably
adequate for this case. It should not be necessary to
use superposition, which is required when Horner'~
approximation is not adequate.
Exercises
1.1 Compare values of El (x) and In (1.781x)
for the following values of x: 0.01, 0.02, 0.1, and 1.
What do you conclude about the accuracy of the
logarithmic approximation? About its range of
applicability?
1.2 A well has flowed for 10 days at arate of 350
STB/D. Rock and fluid properties include B = 1.13
RB/STB; p=3,000 psia; ;.=0.5 cp; k 25 md
(uniform to wellbore i.e.. s = O); h 50 ft;
c t =2xl0 5 psi I ; <1>=0.16; and rw=0.333 ft.
Calculate pressures at radii of 0.333, 1, 10, 100,
1,000, and 3,160 ft, and plot the results as pressure
vs. the logarithm of radius. What minimum drainage
radius have you assumed in this calculation?
1.3 For the well described in Exercise 1.2, plot
pressure in the wellbore vs. logarithm of time at times
of 0.1, 1, and 10 days. What minimum drainage
radius have you assumed in this calculation?
1.4 Calculate (a) elapsed time required for the Eifunction solution to be valid for the conditions
described in Exercise 1.2; (b) time required for the
logarithmic approximation of the El function to
apply for calculations at the wellbore; and (c) time
required for the logarithmic approximation to apply
for calculations at a radius of 1,000 ft. Is the
logarithmic approximation valid by the time the Ei
function itself is a valid solution to the flow equation
at the wellbore? At a radius of 1,000 ft?
1.5 Estimate the radis of investigation achieved
after 10 days flow time for the reservoir described in
Exercise 1.2. Compare this estimate with the extrapolation to 3,000 psi of the straight Hne passing
through radii of 0.333 and 100 ft on the plot of
pressure vs. logarithm of radius.
On this plot, how far into the formation has a
significant pressure disturbance been propagated?
What is the size of the pressure disturbance at the
radius of investigation calculated from Eq. 1.47?
1.6 If the drainage radius of the well described in
Exercise 1.2 were 3,160 ft, and if the flow [ate at the
well suddenly was changed from 350 to 500 STB/D,
how long would it take for the well to stabilize at the
new rate?
1.7 Suppose the well described in Exercise 1.2
flowed at arate of 700 STB/D for 10 days. Prepare a
plot of pressure vs. logarithm of radius for this
situation on the same graph as the plot developed for
arate of 350 STB/D. Is the radius of investigation
calculated from Eq. 1.47 affected by change in flow
rate? Does the extrapolation of the straight line
referred to in Exercise 1.5 change? What is the effect
of increased rate?
1.8 Write an equation similar to Eq. 1.49 for the
case in which Wells, A, B, and C begin to produce at
different times from one another. What do you
assume about the location of reservoir boundaries
when you write this equation?
1.9 (a) Suppose a well is 250 ft due west of a northsouth trending fault. From pressure transient tests,
the skin factor, s, of this well has been found to be
5.0. Suppose further that the well has been flowing
for 8 days at 350 BID; reservoir and well properties
are those given in Exercise 1.2. Calculate pressure at
the flowing well.
(b) Suppose there is a shutin well 500 ft due north
of the producing well. Calculate the pressure at the
shutin well at the end of 8 days.
1.10 A reservoir has the following properties.
p
B
;.
k
h
= 2,500 psia,
= 1.32 RB/STB,
= 0.44 cp,
= 25 md,
= 43ft,
= 18 x 10  6 psi  1 , and
<1> = 0.16.
In this reservoir, a well is opened to flow at 250
STB/D for 1 day. The second day its flow is increased to 450 BID and the third to 500 BID. What is
the pressure in a shutin well 660 ft away after the
third day?
1.11 In Example 1.6, Application of Horner's
Approximation, what influence did the 12hour shutin time have on the calculation? How would the
influence of this shutin period have changed had the
shutin period been 120 hours? How do you suggest
that the calculation procedure be modified to take
into account long shutin periods prior to producing
at the final rate?
1.12 Consider a well and formation with the
following properties.
Ct
B
;.
h
k
<1>
p
= 1.0 RB/STB,
= 1.0 cp,
= 10 ft,
= 25 md,
= 0.2,
= 3,000 p~~, '1
c t = lOxlO
pSI
,
s = O,and
r w = 1.0 ft.
The well produced 100 STB/D for 3.0 days, was
shutin for the next 1.0 day, produced 150 STB/D for
the next 2.0 days, produced 50 STB/D for the next
1.0 day, and produced 200 STB/D for next 2.0 days.
WELL TESTING
20
(a) Calculate the pseudoproducing time, tP'
Compare this with the actual total producing time.
(b) Calculate and pIot the pressure distribution in
the reservoir at the end of 9 days using Horner's
approximation.
(c) On the same graph, plot the pressure
distribution at the end of 9 days using superposition.
(d) What do you concIude about the adequacy of
Horner's approximation in this particular case?
1.13 A weIl and reservoir have the foIlowing
properties.
A
1>
,t
et
k
h
'wB
17.42 X 106 sq ft (40 acres),
0.2,
1 cp,
lOx 10 6 psi
100md,
10 ft,
3.0,'
0.3 ft, and
1.2 RB/STB.
For each of the drainage areas in Table 1.2, determine (a) the time (hours) up to which the reservoir is
infiniteacting; (b) the time (hours) beyond which the
pseudosteadystate solution is an adequate approximation; (c) PI of the weII; and (d) stabilized
production rate with 500psi drawdown.
References
1. Matthews, e.s. and Russell, D.G.: Pressure Buildup and
Flow Tests in Wells, Monograph Series, SPE, Dalias (1967) 1.
2. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: "The Application ofthe
Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs,"
Trans., AlME (1949) 186, 305324.
3. Slider, H.C.: Practical Petroleum Reservoir Engineering
Methods, Petroleum Publishing Co., Tulsa (1976) 70.
4. Hawkins, M.F. Jr.: "A Note on the Skin Effect," Trans.,
Al ME (1956) 207,356357.
5. Odeh, A.S.: "PseudosteadyState Flow Equation and
Productivity lndex for a Well With Noncircular Drainage
Area, " J. Peto Tech. (Nov. 1978) 16301632.
6. Agarwal, R.G., AlHussainy, R., and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "An
lnvestigation of Wellbore Storage and Ski n Effect in Unsteady
Liquid Flow 1. Analytical Treatment," Soco Peto Eng. J.
(Sept. 1970) 279290; Trans., Al ME, 249.
7. Wattenbarger, R.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "An Investgation
of Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady Liqud
Flow 11. FiniteDfference Treatment," Soco Peto Eng. J.
(Sept. 1970) 291297; Trans., AIME, 249.
8. Katz, D.L. et al.: Handbook 01 Natural Gas Engneering,
McGrawHll Book CO. lnc., New York (1959) 411.
9. Carslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J.e.: Conduction 01 Heat in
Solids, second ed., Oxford at the Clarendon Press (1959) 258.
10. Earlougher, R.e. Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analyss,
Monograph Series, SPE, Dalias (1977) S.
11. Matthews, e.S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek, P.: "A Method
for Determnation of Average Pressure in a Bounded
Reservoir," Trans., AIME (1954) 201,182191.
12. Horner, D.R.: "Pressure BuldUp in Wells," Proc., Third
World Pet. Cong., The Hague (1951) Sec.ll, 503523.
Chapter 2
Pressure Buildup Tests
2.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the most frequently used
pressure transient test, the pressure buildup test.
Basically, the test is conducted by producing a well at
constant rate for sorne time, shutting the well in
(usually at the surface), allowing the pressure to build
up in the wellbore, and recording the pressure
(usually downhole) in the wellbore as a function of
time. From these data, it is frequently possible to
estimate formation permeability and current
drainagearea pressure, and to characterize damage
or stimulation and reservoir heterogeneities or
boundaries.
The analysis method discussed in this chapter is
based largely on a plotting procedure suggested by
Horner. 1 While this procedure is strictly correct only
for infiniteacting reservoirs, these plots also can be
interpreted correctly for finite reservoirs, 2 so only
this plotting method is emphasized. Another important analysis technique for buildup tests, using
type curves, is discussed in Chapo 4.
The chapter begins with a derivation of the Horner
plotting technique and the equation for calculating
skin factor. Differences in actual and idealized test
behavior then are discussed, followed by comments
on dealing with deviations from assumptions made in
developing the Horner plotting technique. We then
examine qualitatively the behavior of actual tests in
common reservoir situations. The chapter next
develops in detail a systematic analysis procedure for
buildup tests: (1) effects and duration of afterflow
(continued production into the wellbore following
surface shutin), (2) determination of permeability,
(3) well damage and stimulation, (4) determination of
pressure level in the surrounding formation, and (5)
reservoir limits tests.
Up to this point, the analysis procedure discussed
is applicable only to singlephase flow of a slightly
compressible liquido The chapter concludes with a
discussion of how the procedure can be modified to
analyze tests in gas wells and in wells with two or
three phases flowing simultaneously.
2.2 The Ideal Buildup Test
In this section we derive an equation describing an
ideal pressure buildup test. By ideal test we mean a
test in an infinite, homogeneous, isotropic reservoir
containing a slightly compressible, singlephase fluid
with constant fluid properties. Any wellbore damage
or stimulation is considered to be concentrated in a
skin of zero thickness at the wellbore; at the instant
of shutin, flow into the wellbore ceases totally. No
actual buildup test is modeled exactly by this
idealized description, but the analysis methods
developed for this case prove useful for more realistic
situations if we recognize the effect of deviation from
sorne of these assumptions on actual test behavior.
Assume that (1) a well is producing from an infiniteacting reservoir (one in which no boundary
effects are felt during the entire flow and later shutin
period), (2) the formation and fluids have uniform
properties, so that the Ei function (and, thus, its
logarithmic approximation) applies, and (3) that
Horner's pseudoproducing time approximation is
applicable. If the well has produced for a time t(1 at
rate q before shutin, and if we call time elapsed smce
shutin ilt, then, using superposition (Fig. 2.1), we
find that following shutin
._
PI
P ws
= 70.6 qB. ln[ 1,688 cp'Ctr~] _ 2 si
kh
k(t +ilt)
P.
70.6 (  q) B. [ln( 1,688 cp'Ctr~) _ 2
kh
kilt
which becomes
s]
'
qB.
P ws =p 70.6 kh ln[ (t p + ilt) / ilt],
or
qB.
P ws =p  162.6; log[ (tp
+ ilt) / iltJ. ... (2.1)
The form of Eq. 2.1 suggests that shutin BHP, P ws '
recorded during a pressure buildup test should plot as
a straightline function of log [ (tp + ilt) / ilt l.
Further, the slope m of this straight line should be
qB.
m= 162.6; .
lt is convenient to use the absolute value of m in test
WELL TESTlNG
22
/'
, ,/
.".
p.
"
i( .....
~m
~ ~.tp~.,~~8t
a::
1000
100
10
8t = O
TIME
Fig. 2.1  Rate history lor ideal pressure buildup test.
Fig. 2.2  Plotting technique for pressure buildup test.
analysis; accordingly, in this text we will use the
convention that m is considered a positive number
and that
qB;,
=162.6
...................... (2.2)
kh
Thus, formation permeability, k, can be determined
from a buildup test by measuring the slope m. In
addition, if we extrapolate this straight line to infinite
shutin time [Le., (tp + Al) / Al = 1] the pressure at
this time will be the original formation pressure p.
Conventional practice in the industry is to plot P ws
vs. (tp + Al) / Al (Fig. 2.2) on semilogarithmic paper
with values of (tp + Al) / Al decreasing from left to
right. The slope m on such a plot is found by simply
subtracting the pressures at any two points on the
straight line that are one cycle (Le., a factor of 10)
apart on the semilog paper.
We also can determine skin factor s from the data
available in the idealized pressure buildup test. At the
instant a well is shut in, the flowing BHP, P wj' is
m
qB;,[ (l,688cf:;'Ctr~)
P Wj=p+70.6 In
kh
ktp
2s]
. [log ( 1,688 cf>;,c tr~) 0.869s]
ktp
=p+m [ log
]
0.869s.
( 1,688cf>;'Ct~)
kt
p
At shutin time Al in the buildup test,
P ws
=P 
m log [ (tp
+ Al) / At] .
Combining these equations and solving for the skin
factor s, we have
+ 1.15110g ( lp+At) . .. ............ (2.3)
tp
lt is conventional practice in the petroleum industry
to choose a fixed shutin time, At, of 1 hour and the
corresponding shutin pressure, PI hro to use in this
equation (although any shutin time and the
corresponding pressure would work just as well). The
pressure, PI hr' must be on the straight line or its
extrapolation. We usually can as sume further that
log (tl? + At) / t p is negligible. With these simplificatlOns,
s= 1.151 [ (PI
hr Pwj)
log(~) + 3.23].
m
cf:;,ctr w
...................... (2.4)
Note again that the slope m is considered to be a
positive number in this equation.
In summary, from the ideal buildup test, we can
determine formation permeability (from the slope m
of the plotted test results), original reservoir
pressure, Pi' and skin factor, s, which is a measure of
damage or stimulation.
Example 2.1 Analysis oi Ideal
Pressure Buildup Test
Problem. A new oil well produced 500 STB/D for 3
days; it then was shut in for a pressure buildup test,
during which the data in Table 2.1 were recorded.
For this well, net sand thickness, h, is 22 ft; formation volume factor, B o ' is 1.3 RB/STB; porosity,
cf>, is 0.2; total compressibility, et> is 20 x 10 6; oil
viscosity, ;'O' is 1.0 cp; and wellbore radus, r w' is 0.3
ft. From these data, estmate formation permeability, k, initial reservoir pressure, Pi' and skin
factor, s.
23
PRESSURE BUILDUP TESTS
TABLE 2.2  BUILDUP TEST DATA
FOR HORNER PLOT
TABLE 2.1 IDEAL PRESSURE
BUILDUP DATA
Time After
Shulln I:.t
(hours)
I:.t
o
2
4
Pws
(psig)
(hours)
1,150
1,794
2
4
1,823
24
48
24
48
EARLY
TIMES
2000
1960
O'
37.0
19.0
10.0
5.5
4.0
2.5
8
16
1,850
1,876
1,890
1,910
8
16
Pws
(psig)
1,794
1,823
1,850
1,876
1,890
1,910
MIDDLE
TIMES
LATE
TIMES
1920
.~
..
leBO
(/)
o.!
,.40
IBOO
1760
10
100
log
Fig. 2.3 Ideal pressure buildup test graph.
Fig. 2.4  Actual buildup test graph.
Solution. To estimate permeability, original reservoir
pressure, and skin factor, we must plot shutin BHP,
P ws' vs. log (t p + t:.t) / t:.t; meas~re the slope. r:z and
use Eq. 2.2 to calculate formatlOn permeabllIty, k;
extrapolate the curve to [( t p + t:.t) / t:.t] 1 and read
original reservoir pressure, Pi; and use Eq. 2.4 to
calculate the ski n factor s. (See Fig. 2.3.)
Producing time, t , is given to be 3 days, or 72
hours (in this case, Horner's approximation is exact
because the well was produced at constant rate since
time zero). Thus, we develop Table 2.2.
We plot these data, and they fall along a straight
line suggested by ideal theory. The slope m of the
straight line is 1,950 1,850= 100 psi (units are
actually psi/cycle). The formation permeability k is
_
qB/l _ (162.6)(500)(1.3)(1.0) = 48 md
(100)(22)
k162.6 mh 
From extrapolation of the buildup curve to
[(t + t:.t) / t:.t] = 1, Pi = 1,950 psig. The skin factor s
is f6und from Eq. 2.4:
s= 1.151 [ (PlhrPwj)
m
t p + .1t
.1t
IOg(~)+3.23].
ct>/lctr w
The value for P ws is PI hr on the ideal straight line at
(t + t:.t)/t:.t = (72 + 1)/1 =73; this value is PI hr =
1,764 psig. Thus,
(1,764  1,150)
s= 1.151 [
(100)
)]
log (0.2)(1.0)(2 X 10 5)(0.3)2 + 3.23
= 1.43.
This means the well has a flow restriction.
2.3 Actual Buildup Tests
Encouraged by the simplicity and ease of application
of the ideal buildup test theory, we may test an actual
well and obtain a most discouraging resu1t: Instead
of a single straight line for all times, we obtain a
curve with a complicated shape. To explain what
went wrong, the radiusofinvestigation concept is
useful. Based on this concept, we logically can divide
a buildup curve into three regions (Fig. 2.4): (1) an
earlytime region during which a pressure transient is
moving through the formation nearest the wellbore;
(2) a middletime region during which the pressure
transient has moved away from the wellbore and into
the bulk formation; and (3) a latetime region, in
which the radius of investigation has reached the
well's drainage boundaries. Let us examine each
region in more detail.
EarlyTime Region
As we have noted, most wells have altered permeability near the wellbore. Until the pressure
transient caused by shutting in the well for the
buildup test moves through this regio n of altered
24
permeability, there is no reason to expect a straightline slope that is related to formation permeability.
(We should note that the ideal buildup curve  i.e.,
one with a single straight line over virtually all time is possible for a damaged well only when the damage
is concentrated in a very thin skin at the sandface.)
There is another complication at earliest times in a
pressure buildup test. Continued movement of fluid
into a wellbore (afterflow, a form of wellbore
storage) following the usual surface shutin compresses the fluids (gas, oil, and water) in the wellbore.
Why should this affect the character of a buildup
curve at earliest times? Perhaps the clearest answer
lies in the observation that the idealized theory
leading to the equation Pws =p m log
[( t p + t) / Llt] explicitly assumed that, at t = 0, flow
rate abruptly changed from q to zero. In practice, q
declines toward zero but, at the instant of surface
shutin, the downhole rate is, in fact, still q. (See Fig.
2.5.) Thus, one of the assumptions we made in
deriving the buildup equation is violated in the actual
test, and another question arises. Does afterflow ever
diminish to such an extent that data obtained in a
pressure buildup test can be analyzed as in the ideal
test? The answer is yes, fortunately, but the important problem of finding the point at which afterflow ceases distorting buildup data remains. This
is the point at which the earlytime region usually
ends, because afterflow frequently lasts longer than
the time required for a transient to move through the
altered zone near a well. We will deal with this
problem more completely when we discuss a
systematic analysis procedure for pressure buildup
tests.
MiddleTime Region
When the radius of investigation has moved beyond
the influence of the altered zone near the tested well,
and when afterflow has ceased distorting the pressure
buildup test data, we usually observe the ideal
straight line whose slope is related to formation
permeability. This straight line ordinarily will
continue until the radius of investigation reaches one
or more reservoir boundaries, massive heterogeneities, or a fluid/fluid contact.
Systematic analysis of a pressure buildup test using
the Horner method of plotting (Pws vs. log
(t p + Llt) / Llt] requires that we recognize this middletime line and that, in particular, we do not confuse it
with false straight lines in the early and latetime
regions. As we have seen, determination of reservoir
permeability and skin factor depends on recognition
of the middletime line; estimation of average
drainagearea pressure for a well in a developed field
also requires that this line be defined.
LateTime Region
Given enough time, the radius of investigation
eventually will reach the drainage boundaries of a
well. In this latetime region pressure behavior is
influenced by boundary configuration, interference
from nearby wells, significant reservoir heterogeneities, and fluid/fluid contacts.
WELL TESTING
a:::
~t=O
~
TIME
Fig. 2.5  Rate history lor actual pressure buildup test.
2.4 Deviations From Assumptions
in Ideal Test Theory
In suggesting that tests logically can be divided into
early, middle, and latetime regions, we have
recognized that several assumptions made in
developing the theory of ideal buildup test behavior
are not valid for actual tests. In this section, we
examine further the implications of three overidealized assumptions: (1) the infinitereservoir
assumption; (2) the singlephase liquid assumption;
and (3) the homogeneous reservoir assumption.
Infinite Reservoir Assumption
In developing the equation suggesting the Horner
plot, we assumed that the reservoir was infinite
acting during both the production period preceding
the buildup test and the buildup test itself.
Frequently, the reservoir is at pseudosteadystate
before shutin; if so, neither the Eifunction solution
nor its logarithmic approximation should be used to
describe the pressure drawdown caused by the
producing well:
qB;.
(p  Pwf) prod well ;zt 70.6;
. [ In [ 1,688 cp;'Ctr~] 2s.
k(tp +Llt)
Instead, if the well is centered in a cylindrical
reservoir,
(re) 3]
0.000527 k(tp +Llt)
2
+In   .
CP;.ctre
rw
4
Thus, we must conclude that in principIe, the Horner
plot is incorrect when the reservoir is not infinite
acting during the flow period preceding the buildup
test. Boundaries become important as r  re'
The problem is compounded when r  re after
shutin. Then, too, the Horner plot is incorrect in
principIe.
This difficulty is resolved in different ways by
.[
25
PRESSURE BUILDUP TESTS
log t p + ~t
log
~t
t p + ~t
~t
Fig. 2.6  Buildup test with no afterflow: (1) without
wellbore damage and (2) with wellbore damage.
Fig. 2.7  Buildup test with formation damage: (1) without
afterflow and (2) with afterflow.
different analysts. In this text, we will use a method
supported by the research of Cobb and Smith. 2 We
will use the Horner plot for all tests (even when the
reservoir has reached pseudosteadystate during the
production period preceding the test) for the
following reasons.
l. This method of plotting is correct theoretically
for an infiniteacting reservoir (i.e., one for which, at
time ti!. + !:J.t, r <re)'
2. The Horner plot offers a convenient means of
extrapolating to !:J.t 00 not found in sorne other
plots; the pressure at this shutin time is a useful
checkpoint for the test analyst.
3. For finiteacting reservoirs, formation permeability can be determined accurately from the
slope of the Horner plot at even greater shutin times
than from a plotting method developed specifically
for reservoirs at pseudosteady state at shutin. 2 The
curve will begin to deviate from the ideal slope before
r during shutin reaches reservoir boundaries.
However, the middletime regio n still can be identified, except for long earlytime regions.
Other analysis methods for finiteacting reservoirs
are discussed by Miller, Dyes, and Hutchinson 3
(MDH) and Slider. 4 Many analysts use the dataplotting method suggested by MDH because it is
simpler than the Horner method. Consider a buildup
test with a middletime region described by Eq. 2.1:
SinglePhase Liquid Assumption
p ws =Pm log (t p + !:J.t) I !:J.t
=P m log (tp +!:J.t) + m log !:J.t.
If tp ~!:J.t during the range of shutin time values
examined, then log (tp + !:J.t) ==log tp =constant, and
P ws
:=
constant + m log !:J.t.
This leads to the plotting technique suggested by
MDH: P ws vs. log !:J.t. lt has the same slope m as the
Horner plot (in the time range of applicability).
Further insight into this plotting technique is
provided by Exercise 2.2.
The assumption that a petroleum reservo ir contains
only a singlephase liquid must be modified. Even
reservoirs in which only oil f/ows contain an immobile water saturation; many also contain an
immobile gas saturation. Also, in many cases,
compressibility of the formation cannot be ignored.
These factors are taken into account if we use total
compressibility, cl' in solutions to flow equations:
c( =coS o +cwS w +cgSg +cf' ........... (1.4)
Even in singlephase flow, when Sg ;:0, evaluation of
oil compressibility, C o' and water compressibility,
C w' are somewhat complicated:
Co
= =!. dB o +!!..L dR s .
Bo
=!.
dp
c =
dBw
w Bw dp
Bo
+ !!.L
Bw
dp
. . . . . . . . . . . . (2.5)
dR sw . . .......... (2.6)
dp
These compressibility relationships allow us to model
singlephase flow of oi!. Later sections in this chapter
discuss modifications to the flow equations required
for (1) singlephase gas flow and (2) simultaneous
flow of two or three phases. Appendix D summarizes
correlations useful for calculating compressibilities
and other fluid properties needed in analysis of well
tests.
Homogeneous Reservoir Assumption
No reservoir is homogeneous, yet solutions to the
flow equations are valid only for homogeneous
reservoirs. The solutions prove to be adequate for
most real reservoirs, particularly early in time while
conditions nearest the tested well dominate test
behavior. Rate of pressure change is dominated by
average rock and fluid properties. When massive
heterogeneities are encountered (particularly in a
localized portion of the reservoir), the simple
solutions to flow equations lose accuracy. Examples
include changes of depositional environment, with
WELL TESTING
26
..... MTR I LTR
MTR LTR+
log
t p + ~t
~t
Fig. 2.8  Buildup test in hydraulically fractured well.
Fig. 2.9  Boundary effects in pressure buildup test: (1) well
centered in drainage area and (2) well offcenter
in drainage area.
resultant changes in permeability or thickness, and
sorne fluid/fluid contacts. The longer a test is run,
the higher the probability that a significant
heterogeneity will be encompassed within the radius
of investigation and thus influence the test.
Modifications to the simple reservoir models have
been developed for sorne important reservoir
heterogeneities. Still, in actual heterogeneous
reservoirs, the test analyst must be aware constantly
of the possibility of an unknown or improperly
modeled heterogeneity. These heterogeneities make
analysis of latetime data in transient tests more
difficult  reservoirs are rarely uniform cylinders or
paraIlelepipeds, and the analysis technique that is
based on these assumptions for treatment of latetime data can be difficult to apply without ambiguity.
What is the test analyst to do with latetime data?
Opinions vary. One frequent approach is to use
analysis techniques suggested by published simple
models  but to try to find other models that also fit
the observed data. One then chooses the most
probable reservoir description, and recognizes that
the analysis may be absolutely incorrecto
Fig. 2.6 illustrates the ideal buildup test, in which
the MTR spans almost the entire range of the plotted
data. Such a curve is possible for an undamaged weIl
(Curve 1, with the level of Pwf' the flowing pressure
at shutin, is shown for reference) and for a damaged
weIl with an altered zone concentrated at the
wellbore. This latter situation, shown in Curve 2, is
indicated by a rapid rise in pressure from flowing
pressure at shutin to the pressures along the MTR.
Neither case is observed often in practice with a
surface shutin because afterflow usuaIly distorts the
early data that would faIl on the straight lineo
Fig. 2.7 illustrates the pressure buildup test obtained for a damaged weIl. Curve 1 would be obtained with a shutin near the perforations
(minimizing the duration of afterflow); Curve 2
would be obtained with the more conventional
surface shutin. Note in this figure that the flowing
BHP at shutin, Pwf' is the same for either case, but
that the afterflow that appears with the surface shutin (1) completely obscures information reflecting
nearwell conditions in the ETR and (2) delays the
beginning of the MTR. A further complication introduced by afterflow is that several apparent
straight lines appear on the buildup curve. The
question arises, how do we find the straight line (the
MTR line) whose slope is related to formation
permeability? We will deal with this question shortly.
Fig. 2.8 shows characteristic behavior of a buildup
test for a fractured weIl without afterflow. For such a
weIl, the pressure builds up slowly at first; the MTR
develops only when the pressure transient has moved
beyond the region influenced by the fracture. In a
buildup test for a fractured weIl, there is a possibility
that boundary effects will appear before the ETR has
ended (i.e., that there will be no MTR at aIl).
Fig. 2.9 illustrates two different types of behavior
in the LTR of a buildup test plot. Curve 1 iIlustrates
middle and latetime behavior for a weIl reasonably
2.5 Qualitative Behavior of Field Tests
We now have developed the background required to
understand the qualitative behavior of commonly
occurring pressure buildup curves. There is an important reason for this examination of behavior. It
provides a convenient mean s of introducing sorne
factors that influence these curves and that can
obscure interpretation unless they are recognized. In
the figures that foIlow, the early, middle, and latetime regions are designated by ET R, MTR, and LTR,
respectively. In these curves, the most important
region is the MTR. Interpretation of the test using
the Horner plot [P ws vS. log (t[1 + L\t) / L\t] is usually
impossible unless the MTR can be recognized.
PRESSURE BUILDUP TESTS
27
buildup test alone is not sufficient to indicate the
presence or absence of afterflow  it is merely a elue
that sometimes indicates presence of afterflow.
A loglog graph of pressure change, P ws  Pwj' in a
buildup test vs. shutin time, ~t, is an even more
diagnostic indicator of the end of afterflow
distortion. Fig. 1.6, based on solutions to the flow
equations for constantrate production with wellbore
storage distortion, describes pressure buildup tests,
as we discuss in sorne detail in Chapo 4. For use of
this figure for buildup tests, dimensionless pressure,
P D' is defined as
_ 0.00708 kh(p ws Pwj)
~ws
PD 
log
t p + ~t
~t
Fig. 2.10  Characteristic influence of afterflow on Horner
graph.
centered in its drainage area; Curve 2 illustrates
behavior for a well highly off center in its drainage
area. For simplicity, the ETR is not shown in either
case.
Many curve shapes other than those discussed
aboye appear in practice, of course. Still, these few
examples illustrate the need for a systematic analysis
procedure that allows us to determine the end of the
ETR (usually, the time at which afterflow ceases
distorting the test data) and the beginning of the
LTR.
Without this procedure, there is a high probability
of choosing the incorrect straightline segment and
using it to estimate permeability and skin factor.
2.6 Effects and Duration of Afterflow
In our discussion thus far, we have noted several
problems that afterflow causes the buildup test
analyst. Summarizing, these problems inelude (1)
delay in the beginning of the, MTR, making its
recognition more difficult; (2) total lack of
development of the MTR in sorne cases, with
relatively long periods of afterflow and relatively
early onset of boundary effects; and (3) development
of several false straight lines, any one of which could
be mistaken for the MTR lineo We note further that
recognition of the middletime line is essential for
successful buildup curve analysis based on the
Horner plotting method [P ws vS. log [(tp +~t)
I ~t 11, beca use the line must be identified to estimate
reservoir permeability, to calculate skin factor, and
to estimate static drainagearea pressure. The need
for methods to determine when (if ever) afterflow
ceased distorting a buildup test is elear; this section
fills that need.
The characteristic influence of afterflow on a
pressure buildup test plot is a lazy Sshape at early
times, as shown in Fig. 2.10. In sorne tests, parts of
the Sshape may be missing in the time range during
which data have been recorded  e.g., data before
Time A may be missing, or data for times greater
than Time B may be absent. Thus, the shape of the
........... (2.7)
qBJl
Dimensionless time, t D' and dimensionless wellbore
storage constant, C sD' are defined essentially as for
constantrate production:
0.000264 k~te
tD =
2 ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.8)
~JlCtr w
C sD =
0.894 Cs
2'
~JlCtrw
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.9)
where
A
Cs=25.65~
p
for a well with a rising liquid/ gas interface in the
wellbore, and
C s =cwb V wb
for a wellbore containing only singlephase fluid
(liquid or gas;.
We define
Me
= ~t/(1 + ~tltp)'
................. (2.10)
As noted in Chapo 1, wellbore storage distortion
(afterflow in the case of a buildup test) has ceased
when the graphed solutions for finite C sD become
identical to those for C sD = O. Also, a line with unit
slope (45 line) appears at early times for most values
of C sD and S. The meaning of this line in a bui1dup
test is that the rate of afterflow is identical to the flow
rate just before shutin.
If the un'tslope line is present, the end of afterflow distortion occurs at approximately one and a
half log cyeles after the disappearance of the unitslope lineo Regardless of whether the unitslope line is
present, the end of afterflow distortion can be
determined by overlaying the loglog plot of the test
data onto the Ramey solution (Fig. 1.6)  plotted on
graph or tracing paper with a scale identical in size to
the Ramey graph  finding any preplotted curve that
matches the test data, and noting when the preplotted
curve for finite value of C sD becomes identical to the
curve for C sD = O. This point, on the actual data
plot, is the end of afterflow or wellbore storage
distortion.
If the unitslope line is present, we can use a
relationship developed in Chap~ 1 to establish the
value of CsD that characterizes the actual test. There,
0
WELL TESTING
28
TABLE 2.3  OILWELL PRESSURE BUILDUP TEST DATA
M
(hours)
tp+M
M
Me =/lt/(1
~
)
t
p
Pws
Pws Pwl
(hours)
(psia)
(psia)
0.15
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
1
2
4
6
7
8
12
16
20
24
29.9
39.9
49.8
59.7
71.6
3,534
3,680
3,723
3,800
3,866
3,920
4,103
4,250
4,320
4,340
4,344
4,350
4,364
4,373
4,379
4,384
4,393
4,398
4,402
4,405
4,407
146
189
266
332
386
569
716
786
806
810
816
830
839
845
850
859
864
868
871
873
O
0.15
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
1
2
4
6
7
8
12
16
20
24
30
40
50
60
72
90,900
68,200
45,400
34,100
27,300
13,600
6,860
3,410
2,270
1,950
1,710
1,140
853
683
569
455
342
274
228
190
we noted that any point on the unitslope line must
satisfy the relationship
rJI'4431+2m
CsDPD
 =
ID
4437 +2(70)
which, in terms of variables with dimensions, leads to
qB dI
where dI and t:..p are values read from a point on the
unitslope lineo If we can establish C s in this way (a
less acceptable alternative is to use the actual
mechanical properties of the well e.g., C s = 25.65
A wb / P wb for a well with a rising liquid/ gas interface), we then can establish C sD from Eq. 2.9 and
thus determine the proper curve on Fig. 1.6 on which
to attempt a curve match. (It is difficult to interpolate between values of C sD on this curve; accordingly, many test analysts prefer to find a match
with the preplotted value of CsD closest in value to
the calculated value.) With C sD established, and
permeability, k, and skin factor, s, determined from
complete analysis of the test, we can use the empirical relationships below to verify the time, I wbs'
marking the end of wellbore storage distortion.
=50 CsDeO.14s,
.............
el!
42
Id'
Fig. 2.11  Semilog graph of example buildup test data.
a solution to the flow equations for an infiniteacting, homogeneous reservoir; when, in an actual
reservo ir , a pressure transient reaches a boundary or
important heterogeneity, the actual test data plot will
deviate from Fig. 1.6. This characteristic of curve
matching is illustrated in Example 2.2.
Example 2.2 Finding the End
of Wellbore Storage Distortion
eO. 14s
C
=170,000
(kh/;)
44
Q.
~ . . . . . (2.12)
or
I wbs
"l
(f)
C S =24t:..p' ....................... (2.11)
ID
4'17 PSI
1, ........................ (1.42)
.............. (2.13)
We will illustrate (1) the application of the basic
curvematching procedure in Example 2.2; (2) the
check provided by Eq. 2.13 in Example 2.4; and (3)
complete, quantitative curvematching procedures in
Chap.4.
In this discussion of the qualitative application of
curve matching, we also should note that appearance
of boundary effects or the effects of heterogeneities
frequently can be verified from the curves. Fig. 1.6 is
Problem. The data in Table 2.3 were obtained in a
pressure buildup test on an oil well producing aboye
the bubble point.
The well was produced for an effective time of 13,630
hours at the final rate (i.e., Ip = 13,630 hours). Other
data include the following.
qo = 250 STB/D,
JJ. o = 0.8 cp,
el> = 0.039,
B = l.l36 RB/STB,
PRESSURE BUILDUP TESTS
29
17 x 10 6 psi 1 ,
Then, fram Eq. 2.9,
rw == 0.198 ft,
re
1,489 ft (well is centered in square
drainage area, 2,640 x 2,640 ft; re is
radius of circle with same area),
Po
53 Ibm/cu ft,
A wb
0.0218 sq ft,
h
69 ft, and
rising liquid level in well during shutin.
A semilog graph [Pws vs. log (t +.:lt) / .:lt] of
these data is shown in Fig. 2.11, and : logIog graph
(p ws  P wf vs . .:lt e ) in Fig. 2.12. Fram these graphs
answer the following questions.
'
l. At what shutin time (.:lt) does afterflow cease
distorting the pressure buildup test data?
2. At what shutin time (.:lt) do boundary effects
appear?
Solution. Fram the semilog graph (Fig. 2.11), it
seems plausible that afterflow distortion disappears
at (t p +.:lt) /.:lt == 2,270 or .:lt = 6 hours because of the
end of the characteristic lazySshaped curve.
However, other reservoir features can lead to this
same shape, so we confirm the result with the logIog
graph. After plotting .:lp =P ws  P wf vs.
M e =.:lt/(1+.:lt/tp ) on loglog paper, we find that
the actual data fit well * curves for s 5 for several
values of C sD (e.g., C sD == 10 3 ,10 4 , and10 5). In each
case, the curve fitting the earliest data coincides with
the C sD == O curve for s = 5 at Me = M 4 to 6 hours.
This, then, is the end of wellbore effects: t wbs == 6
hours. The data begin to deviate fram the semilog
straight line at (t p + .:lt) / .:lt == 274 or .:lt = 50 hours.
On the loglog graph, data begin falling below the
fitting curve at .:lt = M e == 40 hours, consistent with
the semilog graph.
In summary, basing our quantitative judgment on
the more sensitive semilog graph, we say that the
MTR spans the time range of M = 6 hours to.:lt 50
hours. This judgment is verified qualitatively by the
logIog graph curve matching. Even though the
semilog graph is more sensitive (i.e., can be read with
greater accuracy), it alone is not sufficient to
determine the beginning and end of the MTR:
matching Ramey's solution is a criticalIy important
part of the analysis.
The loglog curvematching analysis was performed without knowledge of C sD ' Note that C D
can be established in this case, at least ;ppraximately: fram the curve match, we note that the
data are near the unitslope line on the graph of
Ramey's solution; the point .:lp= 100, M=O.l is
essentially on this lineo Thus, fram Eq. 2.11,
qB .:lt _ (250)(1.136) (0.1)
Cs

24 .:lp
24
0.0118 bbl/psi.
(100)
Alternatively (and, in general, les s accurately),
Cs
25.65 AWb
(25.65)(0.0218)
53
0.0106 bbl/psi.
'Dala are plotted on 3 x 5 cycle 10glog graph paper (11 x 16% in.) and matched
wlth Ihe Ramey solullon (such as provided in the SPE Iypecurve package)
plotted on the same size scale.
C sD =
0.894 C s
~
cj>cthr~
_
(0.894)(0.0118)
 (0.039)(1.7 X 10 5)(69)(0.198)2 =5,880.
Thus, matchin should be attempted in the range
10 3 <CsD < 10 .
2.7 Determination of Permeability
In this section, we examine techniques for the next
step in the systematic analysis of a pressure buildup
or f~l~off test: determining bulkformation permeablhty. Because bulkformation permeability is
obtained from the slope of the MTR line, correct
select!~n of this region is critica!. Average permeablhty, k J, also can be estimated fram information available in buildup tests.
The first problem is identification of the MTR.
This region cannot begin until afterflow ceas es
distorting the data; indeed, cessation of afterflow
effects usua//y determines the beginning of the MTR.
If the altered zone is unusually deep (as with a
hydraulic fracture), passage of the transient through
the regio n of the drainage are a influenced by the
fracture will determine the beginning of the MTR.
Predicting the time at which the MTR ends is more
difficult than predicting when it begins. BasicaIly, the
middletime Une ends when the radius of investigation begins to detect drainage boundaries of
the tested well; at this time, the pressure buildup
curve begins to bend. The prablem is that the time at
which the middle region ends depends on (1) the
distance fram the tested welI to the reservoir
boundaries, (2) the geometry of the area drained by
the well, and (3) the duration of the flow ~eriod as
well as the shutin periodo Cobb and Smith present
charts that aIlow the analyst to predict the shutin
time .:lt at which the MTR should end if drainageare a geometry and praducing time are known. If this
information is available and if the reservoir is sufficiently homogeneous that, until the L TR begins, it
behaves in the ideal way required by Cobb and
Smith' s theory, their charts can be used to check
results.
One useful generalization can be made fram their
results. If a weIl was at pseudosteadystate before
shutin, the time .:lt at which the L TR begins * is
approximately .:lt ft ==: 38 cj>;,c tA / k for a weIl centered
in a square or circular drainage area. In the equation,
A (sq ft) is the drainage area of the tested well. If the
well was not at pseudosteadystate, .:lt ft is larger than
c~lculated by the rule aboye. In many cases, we
slmply as sume that the straight line spanning the
times between the end of afterflow distortion and a
later bend of the Horner plot constitutes the MTR.
Use of the loglog graph and curve matching, as in
Example 2.2, can help confirm this assumption.
The caIculated radius of investigation (r) at the
assumed end of the MTR provides a qualitative
'Choice 01 lime at which LTR begins is somewhal arbilrary. The rule staled is
based on a 10% deviation in slope 01 the Horner plot lrom the true MTR.
30
WELL TESTING
estimate only of the radius of the infiniteacting
drainage area in the reservoir.
In summary, the procedure for determining bulkformation permeability is as follows.
1. Determine the probable beginning of the MTR
by estimating when afterflow effects disappear.
2. Assume that the probable end of the MTR
occurs when the Horner plot becomes nonlinear,
verified by a deviation from a curve fitting early and
middletime data on a loglog graph using the curvematching technique.
3. If there is an apparent linear MTR, calculate
the slope of the middletime line, and estimate
permeability from
k= 162.6 qB;. .
Thus, at llt = 6 hours,
(7.65)(6)
r = [(948)(0.039)(0.8)(1. 7 x 10 
5)]
1f2
= 302 ft,
and, at 1lt = 50 hours,
50 1f2
r =302(
= 872 ft.
6)
mh
4. Radiusofinvestigation estimates at the
beginning and end of the assumed MTR may help
establish its plausibility but should be viewed as
qualitative only.
5. If there is no clearcut MTR or if it is so short
that its slope cannot be determined with confidence,
bulkformation permeability estimates from
quantitative typecurve analysis (i.e., curvematching) can be used and probably are essential.
It can be helpful in MTR analysis to calculate
average permeability, k j , from data obtained in a
buildup test. From Eq. 1.19, which is valid only if
pseudosteadystate is reached during the production
period,
1]
141.2qB;.[ln (re1rw)
kJ=h(pPwj)
For a well that is neither damaged nor stimulated,
kj should equal bulkformation permeability, k,
determined from the slope of the MTR; for a
damaged well, kJ <k; and for a stimulated well,
kj >k. Average permeability is valuable in checking
consistency in buildup test analysis. If k and kJ do
not bear the proper relationship to each other,
something is wrong  possibly an incorrect analysis
due to incorrect choice of MTR.
Example 2.3  Estimating Formation
Permeability
Problem. For the test discussed in Example 2.2,
determine formation permeability.
Solution. In Example 2.2, we established that the
MTR spans the time range of llt::::: 6 hours to llt == 50
hours [2,270 ;::: (tp + 1lt) I llt;::: 274] . From Fig. 2.11,
note that the slope m of this straight line is
m = 4,437  4,367 = 70 psi/cycle.
Then,
k= 162.6 qB;. = (162.6)(250)(1.136)(0.8)
mh
reservoir sampled during the MTR; that regio n is
given roughly by the radius of investigation achieved
by the shutin transient at the start and end of the
MTR. From Eq. 1.47,
kt
1f2
r 1 = ( 948 rf>;.c t )
(70)(69)
Thus, a significant fraction of the well's drainage
area has been sampled; its permeability is 7.65 md.
2.8 Well Damage and Stimulation
This section shows how to use data available in a
buildup or falloff test to estimate damage or
stimulation quantitatively. The basic technique when
analyzing data from a plot of P ws vs. (tp + llt) 11lt is
called the skin factor method. It involves calculating
the skin factor and translating it into a more easily
visualized characterization of a well. We will deal
with another method of analyzing damage or
stimulation in a later chapter  a method using typecurve analysis.
Before we examine the skin factor method, it is
useful to consider briefly the physical reasons for
damage or stimulation of a well. Wellbore damage is
a descriptive term applied when permeability is
reduced near a wellbore. This permeability reduction
usually occurs during drilling or completion
operations. Causes include plugging of pores with
fine material in the drilling fluid and reaction of the
formation with filtrate from the drilling fluid (e.g.,
swelling of clays in the formation resulting from
contact with lowsalinity filtrate). Completion fluids
can cause similar permeability reduction as they enter
the formation.
Stimulation usually results from deliberate attempts to improve a well's productivity. Common
techniques include acidization and hydraulic fracturing. Acidization is dissolving plugging material s
and the formation near the wellbore with acid injection through the perforations. Hydraulic fracturing is creating seams in the formation with highpressure injection of special fluids, usually accompanied by sand or sorne other agent that will
prop the fracture open when the pressure creating the
fracture is removed.
Eq. 2.4 shows how we can calculate skin factor, s,
once the MTR is identified and bulkformation
permeability is estimated:
P
S=1.151[ (P1hr wj)
m
=7.65 md.
It is of iriterest to determine the portion of the
We recall that PI
hr
log(~)+3.23].
rf>;.ctr w
................. (2.4)
is the value of P ws at shutin
PRESSURE BUILDUP TESTS
31
o
(/)
.::::::;: 
1000
o..
...........
BEGINNING OF
BOUNOARV EFFECTS
[). t
= I hr
log t p + .lt
10
01
~
He' hr
Fig. 2.12  Loglog graph 01 example buildup test data
Fig. 2.13  Determination 01 P1
time llt of 1 hour on the middletime line, or its
extrapolation as shown in Fig. 2.13. It is not possible
to calculate the skin factor until the middletime line
has been established because values of k, m, and
PI hr are found from this lineo If an accurate skin
factor is to be calculated from a buildup test, the
flowing pressure PwJ must be measured before shutin.
Interpretation of a given numerical value of the
skin factor can be summarized as follows.
1. A positive skin factor indicates a flow
restriction (e.g., wellbore damage); the larger the
skin factor, the more severe the restriction.
2. A negative skin factor indicates stimulation; the
larger the absolute value of the skin factor, the more
effective the stimulation.
3. Conditions other than wellbore damage can
cause an apparent skin factor. The reason is that any
deviation from purely radial flow near a well, which
results in total well production squeezing through a
smaller vertical thickness near the well than away
from the well, increases the pressure drop near the
well. This is precisely the same effect that wellbore
damage has; damage also results in an increased
pressure drop near the well. The basic equation used
in constructing our theory of pressure buildup and
falloff test behavior, Eq. 1.7, is based on the
assumption that flow is radial throughout the
drainage area of the well up to the sandface; a
deviation from this assumption invalidates the
equation, but Eqs. 1.11 and 1.16 are usually excellent
approximations when the nonradial flow occurs near
the wellbore only.
Conditions leading to nonradial flow near the
wellbore inelude (1) when the well does not completely penetrate the productive interval, and (2)
when the well is perforated only in a portion of the
interval (e.g., the top 10 ft of a 50ft sand). In these
cases, the analyst will calculate a positive skin factor
even for an undamaged well. (In addition, the
perforations themselves  their size, spacing, and
depth  also can affect the skin factor.) We will
examine results of this nonradial flow after com
pleting our consideration of skin factor solely caused
by formation damage or stimulation.
We now turn our attention to methods for translating values of s into less abstract characterizations
of the wellbore. We consider three methods:
estimation of effective wellbore radius, r wa;
calculation of additional pressure drop near the
wellbore; and calculation of flow efficiency.
hr'
Estimation of Effective WelIbore Radius
The effective wellbore radius r wa is defined as
r wa =r wes. . ...................... (2.14)
To understand the significance of this quantity,
note that from Eq. 1.11,
qBIl[In (1,688cf>I.tCtr~)
p._p .,= 70.61
WJ
kh
kt
2s]
qBIl [ (1,688 cf>IlCtr~)
= 70.6In
kh
kt
+ In (e 2S )]
qBIl [ (1,688 cf>IlCtr~e2S)]
=70.6 In
kh
kt
qBIl (1,688 cf>IlCtr~a)
=70.6ln
.
kh
kt
This shows that the effect of s on total pressure
drawdown is the same as that of a well with no
altered zone but with a wellbore radius of r wa'
Calculation of effective wellbore radius is of
special value for analyzing wells with vertical
fractures. Model studies have shown that for highly
conductive vertical fractures with two equalIength
wings oflength L J'
LJ=2rwa' ......................... (2.15)
Thus, calculation of skin factor from a pressure
WELL TESTING
32
buildup or falloff test can lead to an estimate of
fracture length  useful in a post fracture analysis.
However, this analysis technique for a fractured well
is frequently oversimplified; more complete methods
are discussed later.
Calculation of Additional Pressure Drop
Near Wellbore
We defined additional pressure drop (~) s across the
altered zone in Eq. 1.9 in terms of the ski n factor s:
(~) s
= 141.2
qBj)
Th s.
In terms of the slope m of the middletime line,
(~) s
=0.869 m (s).
. ................ (2.16)
Calculation of this additional pressure drop across
the altered zone can be a meaningful way of translating the abstract skin factor into a concrete
characterization of the tested well. For example, a
well may be producing 100 STB/D oil with a
drawdown of 1,000 psi. Analysis of a buildup test
might show that (~) s is 900 psi and, thus, that 900
psi of the total drawdown occurs across the altered
zone. This implies that if the damage were removed,
the well could produce much more fluid with the
same drawdown or, alternatively, could produce the
same 100 STB/D with a much smaller drawdown.
Calculation of Flow Efficiency
The final method that we will examine for translating
s into a physically meaningful characterization of a
well is by calculation of the flow efficiency, E. We
define flow efficiency as the ratio of actual or observed PI of a tested well to its ideal PI (i.e., the PI it
would have if the permeability were unaltered all the
way to the sandface of the well). In mathematical
terms,
producing about twice as much fluid with a given
pressure drawdown as it would had the well not been
stimulated.
Use of the skin factor method is illustrated in
Example 2.4.
Example 2.4  Damage Analysis
Problem. Consider the buildup test described in
Examples 2.2 and 2.3. Make the following
calculations with those data.
1. Calculate the skin factor for the tested well.
2. Calculate the effective wellbore radius r wa'
3. Calculate the additional pressure drop near the
wellbore caused by the damage that is present.
4. Calculate the flow efficiency.
5. Verify the end of wellbore storage distortion
using Eq. 2.13.
Solution.
l. Skin Factor. In the skin factor equation,
we need PI hr from extrapolation of the middletime
line to a shutin time of 1 hour. At .:1t = 1
hour, (t p +.:1t) l.:1t = 13,631. From an extrapolation
(Fig. 2.11) of the middletime line to this time PI hr
= 4,295 psi. (Note how different this is from the
actual pressure at .:1t = 1 hour: 4,103 psi.) Then,
because kl<f>j)c( = 1.442 x 10 7 ,
s= 1.151 [ (PI
hr  Pwf)
IOg(~) + 3.23]
cjJj)c(r W
= 1. 151 (4,295  3,534)
(
70
7
1.442 x 10 ]
)
Iog (0.198)2 . +3.23) =6.37.
In Example 2.2, we found from curve matching that
E= Jactual
s == 5, which is good agreement.
Jideal
2. Effective Wellbore Radius. From Eq. 2.14,
................ (2.17)
PPwf
For rapid analysis of a pressure buildup or falloff
test, Eq. 2.17 can be written in approximate form as
_ p* Pwf (~) s
EP*Pwf
, ................ (2.18)
where p*, the extrapolation of the middletime line to
(t p +.:1t) l.:1t = 1, is found more readily than p, which
can require lengthy analysis. Flow efficiency is actually time dependent unless a well reaches
pseudosteady state during the producing period (only
then is P Pwf in Eq. 2.17 constant).
Flow efficency is unity for a well that is neither
damaged nor stimulated. For a damaged well, flow
efficiency is les s than one; for a stimulated well, flow
efficiency is greater than one. A damaged well with a
calculated flow efficiency of 0.1 is producing about
10070 as much fluid with a given pressure drawdown
as it would if the damage were removed; a stimulated
well with a calculated flow efficiency of two is
rwa=rw e  S
=(O. 198)e  6.37
= 0.00034 ft.
The physical interpretation of this result is that the
tested well is producing 250 STB/D oil with the same
pressure drawdown as would a well with a wellbore
radius of 0.00034 ft and permeability unaltered up to
the sandface.
3. Additional Pressure Drop Near the Wellbore.
From Eq. 2.16,
(~) s
0.869 m(s)
(0.869)(70)( 6.37)
387 psi.
Thus, of the total drawdown of approximately
4,420  3,534 886 psi, about 387 psi is caused by
damage. Much of this additional drawdown could be
PRESSURE BUILDUP TESTS
33
avoided if the skin resulted from formation damage
(rather than from part al penetraton, for example)
and if the well were stimulated.
4. Flow Efficieney. To calculate flow efficiency,
we need p., the value of P ws on the middletime line
at (t p +!J.t) /!J.t = 1. We cannot extrapolate directly
on our plot because there are no values of
(t p + !J.t) /!J.t less than 100, but we note that the
pressure increases by 70 psi over each cycle; thus, we
can add 2 (70) psi to the value of P at
(t p +!J.t) / !J.t = lO:
p. = 4,437 + 2 (70) = 4,577 psi.
Example 2.5  Incompletely
Perforated Interval
Problem. A well with disappointing productivity is
perforated in 10ft of a total formation thickness of
50 ft. Vertical and horizontal permeabilities are
believed to be equal. A pressure buildup test was run
on the well; results and basic properties are summarized as follows.
Pwf = 1,190 ps~,
PI hr = 1,940 pSI,
cp = 0.20,
m = 50 psi/cycle,
Then, from Eq. 2.18,
;, =
E= p. Pwf (!J.p) s
p. Pwf
Tw
0.5 cp,
= 0.25 ft,
et = 15 x 10  6 psi  1 , and
k = 3.35 md.
Calculate s, sd' and sp; on the basis of these results,
determine whether die productivity problem results
from formation damage or from other causes.
4,577  3,534  387
4,577  3,534
=0.629.
Solution. From Eq. 2.4,
This means that the well is producing about 62070 as
much fluid with the given drawdown as an undamaged well in a completely perforated interval
would produce.
s= 1.151 [PI
5. End of We/lbore Storage Distortion. From Eq.
2.13 and Examples 2.2 and 2.3,
= 1.151 [
hr
Pwf
m
log(~) + 3.23]
c/>;'CtT w
(1,9401,190)
50
170,000 CseO.14S
 ''
wbs 
)]
3.35
log ( (0.2)(0.5)(1.5 x 10 5)(0.25)2 + 3.23
kh/p.
(170,000)(0.0118)e(O.14)(6.37)
(7.65)(69)/0.8
= 7.42 hours.
This agrees closely with the results of Example 2.2.
Effect of Incompletely Perforated Interval
When the completed interval is less than total formation thickness, the pressure drop near the well is
increased and the apparent skin factor becomes
increasingly positive. In a review of technology in
this area, Saidikowski 6 found that total skin factor,
s, determined from a pressure transient test is related
to true skin factor, sd' caused by formation damage
and apparent skin factor, s p' caused by an incompletely perforated interval. The relationship
between these skin factors is
ht
hp
where h t is total interval height (ft) and h p is the
s= sd+sp' ...................... (2.19)
perforated interval (ft).
Saidikowski al so verified that sp can be estimated
from the equation
1)[ln(~J
sp=(ht
k )2], ..... (2.20)
hp
rw
kv
where k H is horizontal permeability (md) and k v is
vertical permeability (md). Use of these equations is
best illustrated with an example.
= 12.3.
The contribution of an incompletely perforated
interval to the total skin factor is, from Eq. 2.20,
sp=(ht _1)[ln(ht
hp
rw
=(50
10
=
1)[ln(~J
0.25
k H )2]
kv
3.35 )2J
3.35
13.2.
Rearranging Eq. 2.19, skin factor, sd' resulting from
formation damage is
h
Sd='.:J!..(SSp)
ht
10
= 50 (12.3  13.2)
= 0.18.
As a practical matter, the well is neither damaged nor
stimulated. The observed productivity problem is
caused entirely by the effects of an incompletely
perforated interval.
Analysis of Hydraulically Fractured Wells
Type curves provide a general method of analyzing
hydraulically fractured wells  particularly because
WELL TESTING
34
~MAXIMLM SLOPE
OF CURVE,
rrmax
///
,/
FRtCTURE
BOUNOARY
EFFECTS FELT
TABLE 2.4  BUILDUP TEST SLOPES FOR
HYDRAULICALLY FRACTURED WELLS
DOMINATES
CURVE SHAPE
Llr e
mmax1mtrue
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
1.0
0.87
0.70
0.46
0.32
0.28
UNE WITH SlOPE OF
"TRUE" MIOOLE TIME
UNE, mtrue
Fig. 2.14  Buildup curve lor hydraulically fractured well,
bounded reservoir.
finite condt,ictivity can be considered. Sorne conventional methods are al so of value for infiniteconductivity fractures. This section summarizes sorne
of the use fuI conventional methods.
When fractures are highly conductive (i.e., when
there is liule pressure drop in the fracture itself) and
when there is uniform flux of fluid into the fracture
linear flow theory describes well behavior at earlies~
times in a buildup test. (Uniform flux means identical flow rates of formation fluid into the fracture
per unit crosssectional area at all points along the
fracture.) From Eq. 1.46, for constantrate
production,
qB (.tI Yz
pP wj=4.064   )
hLj kepc,
For a buildup test, for Ip :Il>.::lt,
mL
qB (.t.::lt Yz
)
hLj kepc t
of ap ws vs . ..; plot is
qB (.t Yz
=4064
.
hLj
kepc() . . . . . . . . . . . .. (221)
.
From measurements of this slope, fracture length,
L j' can be estimated. This procedure requires that an
independent estimate of permeability be availablefrom a prefracture pressure buildup test on the well,
for example.
When linear flow cannot be recognized (i.e., when
there is no early straightline relationship between
P ws and ~), .w,e can use t~e observation that Lj
= 2 r wa for mflOltely conductlve fractures to estimate
fracture length. Rather than calculate s directly, we
can note that
S=l.151[ (PlhrPwj)
IOg(~)+3.23];
ep.tc(rW
and, because
r wa = ~
=r w es '
2
then
s = ln( !::.L) =
2rw
 2.303 log(
 210g(
~)
!::.L ) 210g~2 210g( rw
2rw
_ (PlhrPwj)  l og ( k )
m
cfJ.tc(
210g( ~ )+3.23.
rw
This simplifies to
10g(Lj ) =
~[(PWj;lhr)
l. ..........
P ws P wj=4.064
Thus, the slope m L
Thus,
!::.L ).
2rw
+ log ,/.. k  2. 63
(2.22)
'f'.tc t
Using Eq. 2.22, fracture length, L/, can be estimated
ifthe MTR can be recognized, whlch allows m,p hf'
and k to be determined.
In buildup tests from sorne hydraulically fractured
wells, the true middletime line does not appear, as
ilIustrated in Fig. 2.14. (Afterflow can cause the same
c,urve shape.) This situation arises because, at earliest
times, the depth of investigation is in a region
dominated by the fracture; at later times, the depth
of investigation reaches a point dominated by
boundary effects. (See Fig. 2.14.) When the length Lj
of a vertical fracture is greater than onetenth of the
drain~ge radius re of a well centered in its drainage
area, It has. been found 7 that boundary effects begin
before the IOfluence of the fracture disappears. For a
given drainage radius, the greater the fracture length,
the greater the discrepancy between the maximum
slope achieved on a buildup test and the slope of the
true middletime lineo Table 2.4 summarizes the ratio
of the maximum slope attained in a buildup test to
the slope of the true middletime line (from the work
of Russell and Truitt 7) for infinitely conductive
fractures.
The implication is that if the test analyst simply
does the best he can, and finds the maximum slope
on a buildup test from a hydraulicalIy fractured well
and assumes that this maximum slope is an adequate
approximation to the slope of the true middletime
PRESSURE BUILDUP TESTS
35
ETR
MTR
Fig. 2.15  Buildup test graph lor inliniteacting reservoir,
line, then the permeability, skin factor, and fracture
estimates will be in error, with the error growing as
fracture length increases.
Correlation of reservoir model results by Russell
and Truitt 7 showed that an equation similar to Eq.
2.22 can be used to estimate true fracture length even
whenLf >O.l re'
We again emphasize that all methods in this
section as sume highly conductive, vertical fractures
with two equalIength wings. When fracture conductivity is not high, fracture length estimated by
these methods will be too small.
2.9 Pressure Level in
Surrounding Formation
A pressure buildup test can be used to determine
average drainagearea pressure in the formation
surrounding a tested well. We have seen that ideal
pressure buildup theory suggests a method for
estimating original reservoir pressure in an infiniteacting reservoir  that is, extrapolating the buildup
test to infinite shutin time [(tp+At)/At=11 and
reading the pressure there. For wells with partial
pressure depletion, extrapolation of a buildup test to
infinite shutin time provides an estimate of p*,
which is related to, but is not equal to, current
average drainagearea pressure. In this section, we
will examine methods for estimating original and
current average drainagearea pressures.
Original Reservoir Pressure
For a well with an uncomplicated drainage area,
original reservoir pressure, Pi' is found as suggested
by ideal theory. We simply identify the middletime
line, extrapolate it to infinite shutin time, and read
the pressure, which is original reservoir pressure (Fig.
2.15). This technique is possible only for a well in a
new reservoir (i.e., one in which there has been
negligible pressure depletion). Strictly speaking, this
is true only for tests in which the radius of investigation does not encounter any reservoir
boundary during production.
PI
"
ETR
tp + .lt
Iog   .lt
LTR/
log t p + .lt
.lt
Fig. 2.16  Buildup test graph lor well
limit(s),
near reservoir
For a reservoir with one or more boundaries
relatively near a tested well (and encountered by the
radius of investigation during the production
period), the latetime line must be extrapolated (Fig.
2.16). (This can be quite complex for multiple
boundaries near a well.) Note that our discussion is
still restricted to reservoirs in which there has been
negligible pressure depletion. Thus, even in the case
under .consideration, the well must be relatively far
from boundaries in at least one direction.
Static DrainageArea Pressure
For a well in a reservoir in which there has been sorne
pressure depletion, we do not obtain an estimate of
original reservo ir pressure from extrapolation of a
buildup curve. Our usual objective is to estimate the
average pressure in the drainage area of the well; we
will call this pressure static drainagearea pressure.
We will examine two useful methods for making
these estimates: (1) the MatthewsBronsHazebroek
(MBH)8 p* method and (2) the modified Muskat
method. 9
The p* method was developed by Matthews et al.
by computing buildup curves for wells at various
positions in drainage areas of various shapes and
then, from the plotted buildup curves, comparing the
pressure (p*) on an extrapolated middletime line
with the static drainagearea pressure (jJ), Vfhich is
the value at which the pressure will stabilize given
sufficient shutin time. The buildup curves were computed using imaging techniques and the principIe of
superposition. The results of the investigation are
summarized in a series of plots of kh (p*  jJ) 170.6
qp.B vs. 0.000264 kt p !c/>p.c ,A. [Note that kh (p*  jJ)
170.6 qp.B can be written more compactly as 2.303
(p*  jJ) 1m. Also, the group 0.000264 ktp !c/>p.c ,A is
a dimensionless time and is symbolized by t DA' The
group kh(p jJ)170.6 qp.B is a dimensionless
pressure and is given the symbol p D MBH1. The only
new symbol in these expressions is the drainage area,
A, of the tested well expressed in square feet. Figs.
2.17 A through 2.17G (reproduced from the Mat
WELL TESTING
36
7
L.I
t
U .. 1
P*  P
70.6q.LB/kh
6
HEXAGON
I II
SQ~~RE~
EQUILATERAL
TRIANGL
~~ I"V
~::::
ANO CI RCLE
~~
E~
'"
1\ ~~
h ~
~ "
~~ ~V
./
RHOMBUS
RIGHT
TRIANGLE
k? ~V
v
~~
o
.01
11.02
.03 04
.06
.2
0.1
3.4
.6
10
O.000264kt
"'.LeA
Fig. 2.17A  MBH pressure function for well in center of equilateral figures.
thews and Russell monograph lO) summarize the
results.
The steps in application of this method are as
follows.
(1) Extrapolate the middletime line to (1
+ Al) / Al = 1, and read the extrapolated pressure,
(2) Estimate the drainage are a shape, which is
frequently reasonably symmetrical, particularly for a
well in a field developed on regular spacing. *
(3) Choose the proper curve from Figs. 2.17 A
through 2.17 G for the drainagearea shape of the
tested well.
(4) Estimate 0.000264 kl /cI>J1c t A, and find
2.303(p*  p) / m =p D MBH' ('f is essential that tp
used in this calculation be the same used in the
Horner pIOL)
(5) Calculatep=p mp DMBH I2.303.
The advantages of the p* method for estimating
static drainagearea pressure are that it does not
require data beyond the MTR and that it is applicable
to a wide variety of drainagearea shapes. Its
disadvantages are that it requires knowledge of
drainagearea size and shape and estimates of
reservoir and fluid properties such as c t and cp, which
are not always known with great accuracy. We will
compare these advantages and disadvantages with
those of the modified Muskat method. First, we
present an example illustrating application of the p*
method.
pI'.
Example 2.6p* Method To Calculate
Average Pressure in Drainage Area
Problem. Consider the buildup test described in
Examples 2.2 and 2.3. Estimate the average pressure
Ref. 10 explains a method lor estimating drainagearea size and shape for use
when the symmetricaldrainagearea assumption is inadequate. The method
can be tedious beca use it can involve verilying by trialanderror planimetering
that drainage volumes are proportional to flow rates in individual wells.
in the well's drainage area using the p* method.
Solution. In our use of the p* method, we assume
that the well is centered in a square drainage area;
thus, Fig. 2.17 A applies. To use this figure, we first
calculate the group
0.000264 ktp
</>J1c t A
= [(0.000264)(1.442 x 107)
. (1. 363 X 10 4 )]/(2 x 1,320)2
=7.44.
From Fig. 2.17 A,
2.303(p* p)
m
5.45.
Therefore,
5.45
p=p* 2.303 =4,577
(5.45)(70)
2.303
= 4,411 psi.
Accuracy of the p. method may be improved by
using tpss' producing time required to achieve
pseudosteady state, in the Horner plot and in the
abscissa in the MBH figures.!! In principie, results
should be identical for any t p > t pss; in practice, use
of the smallest possible l p may reduce the error
arising from a lengthy extrapolation. Time to reach
pseudosteady state can be calculated after formation
permeability, k, has been established, given drainagearea size and shape. Values are given in Table 1.2 for
common drainage areas. As an example, for conditions in Example 2.6, in the column "Exact for
t DA ," we read 0.1 for a well centered in a square
drainage area. This means that
PRESSURE BUILDUP TESTS
37
r~~
,
! ,: '!i
,
I
1
,
I ,
1,
,[
I
.03
.04
.06.08
VV
Icm
V
,/
../
'
,
.02
1m
Vv
i I V / /,
f ,
.01
vrtJ. V
V
I~
f"
1/
!!
I
' ,I
,!
VV
II
:i
i
,
r~,r
11
'1;,
'11I'
.2
0.1
.3.4
.6.8
10
0.000264 kt
<pp.cA
Fig. 2.178  MBH pressure function
IDA
0.000264 kt pss
1>llc(A
for different well
general drainagearea shapes follow equations of the
form
=0.1,
or, for this case (with A
locations in a square boundary,
= 160 acres =6.97 x 10 6
_
qBIl11 (10.06 A )
PPwf=
141.2 ~ In
2
kh 2
CAr w
sq
fO.,
t pss = 183 hours.
3 ]
 +s ,
4
................... (1.20)
The reader can verify that use of t ss in the Horner
plot and in the p* method leads to tbe same results as
in Examples 2.3 and 2.6.
after pseudosteady state flow is achieved. Values for
the shape factor CA can be derived from the P D MBH
vs. t DA charts for the various reservoir geometries in
Figs. 2.17A through 2.170. Note that the definition
of p* implies that
Shape Factors for Reservoirs
Brons and Miller 12 observed that reservoirs with
*I
l
..
70.6q.LB/kh

f
r 1
1

~
,

~
,

~ v~..V
> ~v:~
/' .. V
~
VV
/.
.01
Ie02
.03 04
l/Y
VV
V"
V
VV
VV
V
i"
k:s:' V
~~
_i.06
0.1
.2
10
0.000264 kt
"'.LeA
Fig. 2.17C  MBH pressure function
for differenl well locations in a 2:1 rectangular boundary
WELL TESTING
38
._. , .
I ' I
p*  ji
70.6 qflB/kh
.,
'1
I
!
~'~Tl
'
'.
:
1:
: . :'
I! i
v"" .v
1
'.1
~HILi+++',~II*'+~~:""'JI'+"'*i41+YHv~:ktl:/~4~I
I
!1!i~11
'V
'1
0.2
0304
06
.2
01
3.4
10
0.000264kl
4>flCA
Fig. 2.170  MBH
pressure lunction lor different well
locations in a 4:1 rectangular boundary.
qBp.
p* P ws =70.6; ln(tp +~t) / ~t,
In (
and that, at the instant of shutin (~t = O),
qB
P*Pwj=70.6
P.[ln( 1,688c/>p.c(rW
kt p
2)+2s].
kh
qBp. ( 0.000264 kt p CA)
=70.61n
kh
c/>p.c(A
These relationships result fram replacing Pi with p*
in Eqs. 1.11 and 2.1, which are valid for infiniteacting reservoirs only.
Eliminatingpwj between equations,
p* _ jJ = 70.6 qBp. [ln(
kh
kt p
)
1,688 c/>p.ctr~
 .......
~.
or
11 .;t\7[/'"
I
ce
II :;,
o
0.1~
/,/
j. ._ .......
,,
r
.c
'0.1
i
I
,
,~ 2
.~
1 . !III
; ,
Il[li
'
jI\1 rr t\
,"

10.06 A )
2
+ 1.5 ]
CAr w
+'i +t+++++++i
14

.,
.' ... :: . ;;.
.I
+
+lHC+H+++~
..
02
r 11 . ir 
l '
rr++:++,+H+++
iJ
o'
'+++l+H+~
03
04
06
De
01
..  ''+++++1oi
I
j3
0.000264 kt
Fig. 2.17E  MBH
pressure lunction
q,p.cA
lor rectangles 01
various shapes.
10
39
PRESSURE BUILDUP TESTS
WELL
1/8
OF'
MEIGHT
AWAY
FROM
SIDE
Ir
WElL
1/8
OF
HEIGHT
AWAY
fROM
SIOE
.~~.~.Ll I/.~
OF
I ~~~GT.H ~~rAY
..
1.1.:
"~:O,M .SIO~,
"
01
001
0.000264 kt
10
100
<p;.cA
Fig. 2.17F  MBH pressure funct"lon in a square and in 2:1 rectangles.
p*jJ
PDMBH =
=
70.6 qBp./kh
ln( CAlDA) .
This equation implies a linear relationship between
determine CA' For example, consider a circular
drainage area with a centered well.
From Fig. 2.17A, for
0.000264 kt p
IDA =
= 1,
cjJp.ctA
P D MBH and t DA after pseudosteady state flow has
been achieved. Indeed, inspection of the curves in
Figs. 2.17 A through 2.170 shows that, for sufficiently large t DA' a linear relation does develop.
Further, any point on this straight Hne can be used to
p*  jJ
= 3.454.
70.6 qBp./ kh
Thus, In [CA (1)] =3.454 or CA = 31.6essentially
PDMBH
4,,
3
1 WELL '/'6 OF LENGTH AWAY FROM SIDE
1 WELL '/4 OF AL TITUDE AWAY FROM APEX
2
.c:
.><
,a. "ID
,.,'::1.
~
0.",
....
O~""""~'~~
1
2
01
10
10
100
0000264kt
'/LeA
Fig. 2.17G  MBH pressure function on a 2:1 rectangle and equilateral triangle.
40
WELL TESTING
TABLE 2.5  APPLlCATlON OF MODIFIED MUSKAT METHOD
M
Pws
(hours)
(psi)
~~
PPws (psi)
p=4,412
p = 4,422
15
19
29
10
6
14
10
24
20
17
15
p=4,408
~~
30
40
4,393
4,398
4,402
4,405
4,407
50
60
72
the value given in Table 1.2. Note also that the linear
relationship between p D MBH and t DA begins at
t DA == 0.1; in Table 1.2, this is the value at which the
pseudosteadystate flow equation becomes exact (in
the column "Exact for t DA > ").
Modified Muskat Method
The modified Muskat method is based on a limiting
form of Eq. 1.6, which is a solution to the flow
equations for a well producing from a closed,
cylindrical reservoir at constant rateo Using superposition to simulate a buildup following stabilized
flow (depth of investigation has reached reservoir
boundaries) and noting that, once boundary effects
are felt in the buildup, the equation can be approximated as
qB;.
jJ  Pws = 118.6
ex p(  0.00388 kllt/cl>;,ctr~).
Th
................... (2.23)
For analysis of buildup tests, we usually express this
equation as
_
(qB..) 0.00168 kllt
2.
kh
cf>;.ctr e
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.24)
10g(jJpws) =log 118.6~ 
Approximations used in developing this equation are
valid in the shutin time range
250 cf>''Ctr~
750 cf>,,ctr~
~~=....::. ~ Ilt ~ _:......::.
Note that Eq. 2.24 has the form
10g(jJpws) =A +Bllt,
where A and B are constants. This form of the
equation suggests how it is applied. We assume a
value for jJ and plot log (jJ  p ws) vs. Ilt until a
straight line results; when it does, the correct value of
jJ (the static drainagearea pressure of the tested well)
has been found. Experience with the method indicates that it is quite sensitive. An assumed value of
jJ that is too low produces a plot of 10g(jJ  Pws) vs.
Ilt that has a noticeable downward curvature for data
in the time range
250 cf>,,ctr~
750 cf>;,ctr~
~~=....::. ~ Ilt ~ _:......::.
k
k
An assumed value of jJ that is too high produces a
noticeable upward curvature in this same time range.
The correct assumed value of jJ produces a straight
line in (and only in) the proper time range. (See Fig.
2.18.)
~ /Ai5~MED
~HIGH
ASSUMED
j5
CORRECT
ASSUMED P
TOO LOO
~t
Fig. 2.18  Schematic graph lor modilied Muskat method.
The modified Muskat method has two important
advantages over the p. method: (1) it requires no
estimates of reservo ir properties when it is used to
establish jJ (except to choose the correct portion of
data for analysis); and (2) it has been found to
provide satisfactory jJ estimates for hydraulically
fractured wells and for wells with layers of different
permeability that communicate only at the wellbore.
In these cases, the p. method fails. The Muskat
method has serious disadvantages, too: (1) it fails
when the tested well is not reasonably centered in its
drainage area (although the drainage area need not
be cylindrical, as implied in derivation of this
method); and (2) the required shutin times of (250
cf>;,ctr~)/k to (750 cf>;,ctr~)/k are frequently impractically long, particularly in lowpermeability
reservoirs .
We now illustrate this method with an example.
Example 2.7  Modified
Muskat Method To Calculate
Average Pressure in Drainage Area
Problem. Consider the buildup test described in
Examples 2.2 and 2.3. Estimate the average pressure
in the well's drainage area by using the modified
Muskat method.
Solution. The data that can be examined by this
method are those in the range Ilt = (250 cf>..c t r~)/ k to
Ilt= (750 cf>,,ctr~)/k. In this case we are fortunate to
have estimates of k and re' so we can eliminate data
outside the time range of interest. Often, of course,
we do not have these estimates  a situation that does
not limit the applicability of the method, but one that
slightly complicates the trialanderror nature of the
calculations. Here,
250 cf>;.c tr~ (250)(1,320)2
k
= (1.442 x 107) =30.2hours,
and
750 cf>;'Ctr~
~~'=. = 90.6 hours.
k
Thus, we can examine data from Ilt=30 hours until
PRESSURE BUILDUP TESTS
41
TABLE 2.6  BUILDUP DATA FOR WELL NEAR BOUNDARY
flt
Pws
flt
(hours)
(psi a)
(hours)
3,103
3,488
3,673
3,780
3,861
3,936
3,996
8
10
12
14
16
20
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
flt
Pws
(psia)
(hours)
(psia)
4,085
4,172
4,240
4,298
4,353
4,435
4,520
30
36
42
48
54
60
66
4,614
4,700
4,770
4,827
4,882
4,931
4,975
P ws
we stop recording pressures at M=72 hours.
We make Table 2.5 for three trial values of p.
From plots of (pPws)' we see thatp=4,412 psi is
clearly the best choice; we also note the sensitivity of
this method. There is a noticeable curvature for
p=4,408 psi andp = 4,422 psi (Fig. 2.19).
This example application of the modified Muskat
method is in tended to illustrate only the mechanics of
using the method. The pressure had built up to within
5 psi of its static value at a shutin time of 72 hours;
in such a case, there is little value in applying either
this method or the MBH p* method. Both methods
are of value only when the final pressure is a
significant distance from stabilization.
2.10 Reservoir Limits Test
In this section, we deal briefly with techniques for
estimating reservo ir size and distance to boundaries.
These comments are introductory only, and de al only
with the simplest cases. The intent is to illustrate an
approach to these problems rather than the state of
the art. The techniques presented are based on
builduptest data analysis. Much technology based
on drawdown test analysis has been developed and is
summarized by Earlougher. 13
We demonstrate that a single boundary near a well
causes the slope of a buildup curve to double, and
then develop a method for estimating distance from a
tested well to a single boundary.
In Chapo 1, when we illustrated application of the
superposition principIe, we showed that the flowing
pressure in a well a distance L from a noflow
boundary (such as a sealing fault) is given by Eq.
1.50. Rearranged, it becomes
qBp.. [In
P 1p w1= 70.6kh
(1 ,688 cf>p..Ctr~)  2 s]
ktp
qBp.. .[ 948 cf>p..c t (2L) 2 ]
70.6EI
.
kh
kt p
We can develop an equation describing a buildup test
for such a well. Note that
p.p
1
ws
qBp..~ [1,688cf>p..Ctr~J 2s
= 70.6ln
kh
k(t p + !:J.t)
70.6 (q) Bp..
 [In (1,688 cf>p..Ctr~) 2s]
kh
k!:J.t
100
(j)
o...~
1
lo...
10
IL~
________
p.
4412
p.
4408
________
00
j t
~~
ro
. hr
Fig. 2.19  Modified Muskat method applied to example
buildup test.
2
qBp.. .[  3,792 cf>p..c L ]
70.6 El      't kh
kU p +!:J.t)
Bp.. (3,792cf>p..CtL2)
70.6 (q) kh Ei
k!:J.t
.
..................... (2.25)
For a shutin time sufficiently large that the
logarithmic approximation is accurate for the Ei
functions, the equation becomes
qBp.. [In (t~
+!:J.t) +ln (t~
+!:J.t)]
pPws=70.6:
qBp.. In (tp+!:J.t) .
= 141.2kh
!:J.t
This can be written as
qBp..
Pws =p  325.2log[(tp +!:J.t) / !:J.t]. .. (2.26)
kh
Two observations can be made: (1) for a well near a
single boundary, such as a sealing fault, Eq. 2.26
shows that the slope of a buildup curve will eventually double (compare Eq. 2.26 with Eq. 2.1) and (2)
the time required for the slope to double can be
long  specifically, 3,792 cf>p..c tL 2 / k!:J.t < 0.02, or
!:J.t> 1.9 x 10 5 cf>p..c t L 2 /k. For large values of L or
small values of permeability, shutin time required
for the logarithmic approximation to be valid can be
longer than the time ordinarily available for a
buildup test. For this reason, awaiting a doubling in
slope on a buildup test is not necessarily a
42
WELL TESTING
satisfactory method of identifying a noflow
boundary near a welI and estimating distance from
the welI to the boundary. Consequently, sorne
analysts prefer to use Eq. 2.25 more directly, noting
that for t p ~ lit it may be rearranged as
WS
qB. [1011 (t~
+ lit )
=p162.6kh
lit
MTR
_ 0.434 Ei(  3,792 <I>.c t L2 )]
ktp
qB.
.(  3,792 <I>.c t L2 )
kh
klit
 70.6EI
. . .. (2.27)
Reasons for arranging the equation in this form are
as follows.
1. The term 162.6 (qBI'./kh) Ilog[ (tp +lit)/lit]
 0.434 Ei (  3,792 <I>.c tL 2 / kt p ) 1J determines the
position of the middletime line. Note that the Ei
function is a constant; thus, it affects only the
position of the MTR and has no effect on slope.
2. At earliest shutin times in a buildup test, Ei
(3,792 <I>.c t L 2 /klit) is negligible. Physically, this
means that the radius of investigation has not yet
encountered the noflow boundary and, mathematicalIy, that the latetime region in the buildup
test has not yet begun.
These observations suggest a method for analyzing
the buildup test (Fig. 2.20):
1. Plotpws vs.log (t +lit)/lit.
2. Establish the middletime region.
3. Extrapolate the MTR into the LTR.
4. Tabulate the differences, f1p~s' between the
buildup curve and extrapolated MTR for several
points (f1p~s =Pws PMT)'
5. Estimate L from the relationship implied by Eq.
2.28:
qB. [
70.6El.(  3,792 <I>.c t L2 )] .
kh
klit
................... (2.28)
L is the only unknown in this equation, so it can be
solved directly. Remember, though, that accuracy of
this equation requires that lit ~ t p; when this condition is not satisfied, a computer history match
using Eq. 2.25 in its complete form is required to
determine L.
This calculation implied in Eq. 2.28 should be
made for several values of lit. If the apparent value
of L tends to increase or to de crease systematically
with time, there is a strong indication that the model
does not describe the reservoir adequately (i.e., the
well is not behaving as if it were in a reservoir of
uniform thickness and porosity, and much nearer
one boundary than any others).
The following example illustrates this computational technique.
Example 2.8  Estimating Distance
to a NoFlow Boundary
Problem. Geologists suspect a fault near a newly
Iog
tp + ~t
~t
Fig. 2.20  Buildup test graph lor well
boundary.
near reservoir
drilled well. To confirm this fault and to estimate
distance from it, we run a pressure buildup test. Data
from the test are given in Table 2.6. Well and
reservoir data include the following.
<1>
= 0.15,
0.6 cp,
17 x 10  6 psi  1 ,
r w = 0.5 ft,
A wb = 0.00545 sq ft,
Po
54.8 Ibm/cu ft,
qo
1,221 STB/D,
Bo
1.310 RB/STB, and
h
8 ft.
=
Ct =
'o
The well produced only oil and dissolved gas. Before
shutin, a total of 14,206 STB oil had been produced.
Analysis of these data show that afterflow distorts
none of the data recorded at shutin times of 1 hour
or more. Based on the slope (650 psilcycle) of the
earliest straight line, permeability, k, appears to be
30 md. Depth of investigation at a shutin time of 1
hour is 144 ft, lending confidence to the choice of the
middletime lineo Pseudoproducing time, t p' is 279.2
hours.
From these data, determine whether the buildup
test data indicate that the welI is behaving as if it were
near a single fault and estimate distan ce to an apparent fault from buildup data at several times in the
LTR.
Solution. Our attack is to plot pws vS. (tp + lit) / lit;
extrapolate the middletime line on into the L TR;
read pressures, PMT' from this extrapolated line;
subtract those pressures from observed values of P ws
in the LTR (f1p~s =Pws PMT ); estimate values of
L from Eq. 2.28; and as sume that, if calculated
values of L are fairly constant, the well is indeed near
a single sealing fault.
From Fig. 2.21, we obtain the data in Table 2.7.
We now estimate L from Eq. 2.28. Note that
43
PRESSURE BUILDUP TESTS
3,792 cf>,,c t
(3,792)(0.15)(0.6)(1.7 x 10 5 )
30
= 1. 934 x 10 
!:l.p* =52= 70.6 qB ., Ei( 3,792cf>''CtL2)
kh
kM
 (70.6)(1,221 )(1.310)(0.6)
=(30)(8)
PMT
(Pws PMT)
(psi)
(psi)
(psi)
3,996
4,085
4,172
4,240
4,298
4,353
4,435
4,520
4,614
4,700
4,770
4,827
4,882
4,931
4,975
3,980
4,051
4,120
4,170
4,210
4,250
4,300
4,355
4,410
4,455
4,495
4,525
4,552
4,578
4,600
16
34
52
70
Pws
(hours) (lp+.:lt)/M
4.
We first estimate L at t:.t = 10 hours, which assumes
that the approximation t p =:: t p + M is adequate in
this case.
ws
TABLE 2.7  ANAL YSIS OF DATA FROM
WELL NEAR BOUNDARY
6
8
47.5
35.9
28.9
24.3
20.9
18.5
15.0
12.6
10.3
8.76
7.65
6.82
6.17
5.65
5.23
10
12
14
16
20
24
30
36
42
48
54
60
66
=.:lP;'s
88
103
135
165
204
245
275
302
330
353
375
II
Ei (
L2=
 1. 934 x 10 10
(1.107)(10)
1.934 x 10 4
L )
=0.184.
= 5.72 X 104 ,
5800
(j")
a.
5000
or
L=239 ft.
For larger values of shutin time, the approximation
tp =:: t fJ + t:.t beco mes decreasingly accurate, and no
terms in Eq. 2.25 can be neglected, but L =:: 240 ft
satisfies the equation for all values of shutin time.
For the case m WhlCh the slope of the buildup test
has time to double, estimation of distance from well
to boundary is easier. From the buildup tests plot, we
find the time, t:.t x' at which the two straight~line
sections intersect (Fig. 2.22). Gray 14 suggests that the
distance L from the well to the fault can be calculated
from
4200
3400L~OO~~,O~~
Fig. 2.21  Estimating distance to a noflow boundary.
L=J
0.000148 kt:.t x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.29)
cf>,,c t
In Fig. 2.21, the slope did double, and the figure
shows that (t p + t:.t x) / M x = 17, from which
t:.t x = 17.45 hours. Eq. 2.29 then shows that L =:: 225
ft, in reasonable agreement with our previous
calculation.
The results of pressure buildup tests sometimes can
be used to estimate reservoir size. The basic idea is to
compare average static reservoir pressure before and
after production of a known quantity of fluid from a
closed, volumetric reservoir, with constant compressibility, e t. If VR is the reservo ir volume
(barreis), t:.Np is the stocktan k barreis of oil
produced between Times 1 and 2, and PI and P2 are
the average reservoir pressures before and after oil
production, then a material balance on the reservoir
shows that
log
t p + ~t
~t
Fig. 2.22  Distance to boundary from slope doubling.
44
WELL TESTlNG
or
VR
(t.Np ) (Ba)
(PI 
h)ctcp
................. (2.30)
Example 2.9  Estimating Reservoir Size
Problem. Two pressure buildup tests are run on the
only well in a closed reservoir. The first test indicates
an average pressure of 3,000 psi, the second indicates
2,100 psi. The well produced an average of 150
STB/D of oil in the year between tests. Average oil
formation volume factor, B a , is 1.3 RB/STB; total
compressibility, Cf' is 10 x 10  6 psi  I ; porosity, cP,
is 22%; and average sand thickness, h, is 10 ft.
Estimate area, A R' of the reservoir in acres.
Solution. From Eq. 2.30,
VR =
t.NpBa
"'=
(PI  P2)c t CP
(150 STB/D)(365 days)(1.3 RB/STB)
= (3,000  2, lOO)psi (10 x 10  6 psi 1 )(0.22) .
pressed in thousands of standard cubic feet per day
(MscflD), and gas formation volume factor, B g , is
then expressed in reservoir barreis per thousand
standard cubic feet (RB/Mscf), so that the product
qgBg is in reservoir barreis per day (RB/D) as in the
analogous equation for slightly compressible liquids.
2. All gas properties (B g , It, and C ) are evaluated
at original reservoir pressure, Pi' (;jore generally,
these properties should be evaluated at the uniform
pressure in the reservoir before initiation of flow.) In
Eq.2.31,
178.1zT,p
Bg =
I
se (RB/Mscf),
pTsc
Ct =cgSg +cwS w +cf:::::.cgSg.
3. The factor D is a measure of nonDarcy or
turbulent pressure loss (i.e., a pressure drop in addition to that predicted by Darcy's law). It cannot be
calculated separately from the skin factor from a
single buildup or drawdown test; thus, the concept of
apparent skin factor, s' =s+Dqg' is sometimes
convenient since it can be determined from a single
test.
For many cases at pressures below 2,000 psi, flow
in an infinite acting reservoir can be modeled by
2 _ 2 1,637 qgltzT
PwfP +
kh
Thus,
VR =35.9x 10 6 bbl
.1 1og ( 1,688 CPltCt)_
kt p
43,560A R h
and
A
(35.9x
bbl)(5.615 cu ft/bbl)
 ,..R (10 ft)(43.56 x 10 3 sq ft/acre)
Using these basic drawdown equations, we can use
superposition to develop equations describing a
buildup test for gas wells.
For P > 3,000 psi,
_
qgBgIt[ (tp+t)]
P ws Pi 162.6 kh
log
t
,
=463 acres.
2.11 Modifications for Gases
This section presents modifications of the basic
drawdown and buildup equations so that they can be
applied to analysis of gas reservoirs. These
modifications are based on results obtained with the
gas pseudopressure,15 although a more complete
discussion of that subject is left to Chapo 5.
Wattenbarger and Ramey l6 have shown that for
sorne gases at pressures aboye 3,000 psi, flow in an
infiniteacting reservoir can be modeled accurately by
the equation
_
162.6 qgBglt [ (1,688 CPItC t)
PwfP+
log
kh
ktp
(S~~~g)] .
..
(2.33)
and
s'
=s + D ( q g ) = 1.151 [ (p I hr;;; P wf )
log(
k 2) + 3.23
cpltctrw
For P < 2,000 psi,
J. .......... (2.34)
P 2ws =P~_1637qgltZTIog(tp+t)
l '
kh
t ' ... (2.35)
and
s' =s+D(q ) =1.151[
_
J.
..................... (2.32)
5.615
10 6
(s+Dqg)
1.151
(PthrP~f)
m"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.31)
This equation has the same form as the equation for
a slightly compressible liquid, but there are sorne
important di[;erences:
1. Gas production rate, q g' is conveniently ex
IOg(
k 2)+3.23], .......... (2.36)
cpltctr w
where m" is the slope of the plot p~s vS.
log[(tp +t) / I], which is 1,637 qgltz T/kh.
45
PRESSURE BUllDUP TESTS
An obvious question S, what technique should be
used to analyze gas reservoirs with pressures in the
range 2,OOO<p<3,OOO psi? One approach is to use
equations written in terms of the gas pseudopressure
instead of either pressure or pressure squared. This is
at least somewhat inconvenient, so an alternative
approach is to use equations written in terms of
either P ws or P~s and accept the resultant inaccuracies, which, in real, heterogeneous reservoirs,
may be far from the most significant oversimplification on which the test analysis procedure is
based. The smaller the pressure drawdown during the
test, the less the inaccuracy in this approach.
C t
==<.cgSg =(3.44 x 10 4 )(0.7)
= 2.41 x 10  4 psi and
s' =s+ D(qg)
=1.151 [
Example 2.10 Gas Well Buildup
Test Analysis
Problem. A gas well is shut in for a pressure buildup
test. Test data inelude the following.
Most of the test data fall in the intermediate pressure
range, 2,000 <P < 3,000 psia. On a pIot of P ws vs. log
Up +!l/)/!ll, the MTR had a slope, m, of 81
pSl/cycle; on this plot, PI hr was found to be 2,525
psia. Alternatively, on a plot of P~s vs. 10g
(t p. +!lt) / !ll, the MTR had a sloI'e of 0.48 x 10
pS12/cyeleandphr of7.29x 106 psi 2 .
From these data, estimate apparent values of k and
s' (1) based on characteristics of the P ws plot and (2)
based on characteristics of the P~s plOL
Solution. From results of the Pws plot, for standard
conditions of 14.7 psia and 60F,
zT,p
Bg=178.1~
pTsc
(178.1)(0.85)(641)(14.7)
(2,906)(520)
= 0.944 RB/Mscf,
k= 162.6
q B
g
./J..
gtr
mh
(162.6)(5,256)(0.944)(0.028)
(81)(28)
==9.96md,
= 1.151 [ (PI hr:; Pwf)
(2,5251,801)
81
Iog [        9.96
,;; ]
(0.18)(0.028)(2.41 x 10 4)(0.3)2
qg = 5,256 MscflD,
T = 181 F=641 R,
h = 28 ft,
f.1 = 0.028 cp,
Sw = 0.3,
cf> = 0.18,
z = 0.85,
rw = 0.3 ft,
cg = 0.344 X 10 3 psi 1,
p = 2,906 psia, and
Pwf = 1,801 psia.
I,
+3.23}
4.84.
From results of the P~s plot,
k= 1 637 qgf.1z T
m"h
,
(1,637)(5,256)(0.028)(0.85)(641)
(4.8 x 10 5 )(28)
=9.77 md,
and
s' = 1.151 [ (PI hr 
p~f)
m"
=1.151 [
[7.29x 106 (1,801)2]
4.8x 10
I}
9.77
Iog [ (0.18)(0.028)(2.41 x 10 4)(0.3)2 + 3.23
=4.27.
Neither set of results (k and s') is necessarily more
accurate than the other in the general case; as in this
partcular case: use of an analysis procedure based on
gas pseudopressure can be used to improve accuracy
if disagreement in results from P ws and P~s plots is
unacceptably arge.
2.12 Modifications for MuItiphase Flow
Basic buildup and drawdown equations can be
modified to model multiphase flow. 17 18 For an
infiniteacting reservoir, the drawdown equation
becomes
qRt [
Pwf=P + 162.6 log
At h
 1.:51
(1,688 cf>Ctr~)
At l
J, ..................... (2.37)
46
WELL TESTING
and the buildup equation beco mes
q Rt
( t p + Ilt)
log
. . ..... (2.38)
Ath
Ilt
In these equations, the total flow rate q Rt is in
reservoir barreis per day (neglecting solution gas
liberated from produced water),
_
._
P ws PI
162.6
qRt =qoBo
+ ( qg 
qoRs)
1,000
Bg +qwBw'
...................... (2.39)
and total mobility, At , is
"( = ko + kw + ~.
1\
fto
ftw
(2.40)
ft g
. Total compressibility, c (, was defined in Eq. 1.4.
These equations imply that it is possible to
determine A( from the slope m of a buildup test run
on a well that produces two or three phases
simultaneously:
162.6 qR(. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.41)
mh
Perrine 17 has shown that it is also possible to
estimate the permeability to each phase flowing from
the same slope, m:
k
= 162.6 qoBofto
mh
................. (2.42)
Example 2.12  Multiphase Buildup
Test Analysis
Problem. A buildup test is run in a well that produces
oil, water, and gas simultaneously. Well, rock, and
fluid properties evaluated at average reservoir
pressure during the test include the following.
So = 0.58,
Sg = 0.08,
Sw = 0.34,
Cw = 3.6 x 10  6 psi  1 ,
cf = 3.5 x 10  6 psi  I ,
cg = 0.39xlO 3 psi l ,
fto = 1.5ep,
ftw = 0.7 cp,
ftg = 0.03 cp,
Bo
1.3 RB/STB,
Bw
1.02 RB/STB,
Bg
1.480 RB/Mscf,
Rs
685 scflSTB,
4>
0.17,
rw = 0.3 ft, and
h = 38 ft.
From plots of Bo vs. P and Rs vs. P at average
pressure in the buildup test,
dR
_s
dp
and
dB
=0.0776 seflSTB/psi,
= 2.48 x 10  6 RB/STB/psi.
dp
The produetion rates prior to the buildup test were
qo 245 STB/D, qw =38 STB/D, and qg =489
Mscf/D .
A plot of P ws vs. 10g(t~+llt)/llt shows that the
slope of the MTR, m, IS 78 psilcycle and that
PI hr = 2,466 psia. Flowing pressure, PWf' at the instant of shutin was 2,028 psia.
From these data, estimate Al' k o ' k w ' k g , and s.
__
o
and
kw
= 162.6 qwBwftw
mh
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.44)
The term (q q o R s /l,OOO)B g , which appears in
Eqs. 2.39 and 2.43, is the free gas flow rate in the
reservoir. It is found by subtracting the dissolved gas
rate (qoRs/l,OOO) from the total surface gas rate
(qg) and converting to a reservoircondition basis.
simultaneous solution of Eqs. 2.37 and 2.38 results in the following expression for the skin factor s.
s= 1.151 [PI
hr Pwf
IOg( ~) + 3.23].
Solution. Permeabilities to eaeh phase ean be
determined from the slope m of the MTR:
k
= 162.6 qoBofto
mh
4>c(rW
.................. (2.45)
Static drainagearea pressure, p, is calcuIated just
as for a singIephase reservoir. In use of the MBH
charts to determine p (and in the Horner pIot itself),
the effective production time tp is best estimated by
dividing cumuIative oi! production by the oi!
production rate just before shutin.
An important assumption required for accurate
use of these equations for multiphase flow analysis is
that saturations of each phase remain essentially
uniform throughout the drainage area of the tested
well.
(162.6)(245)(1.5)(1.3)
=26.2 md
(78)(38)
,
(162.6)(38)(0.7)(1.02)
(78)(38)
=1.49md ,
PRESSURE BUILDUP TESTS
47
Exercises
489  (245)(685) ](1.480)(0.03)
[
= 162.6
(1,000)
(78)(38)
=0.782md.
To calculate total mobility,
flow rate, qRt:
qRt =qoBo
+ ( qg 
"t' we first need total
qoRs )
   Bg +qwBw
1,000
= (245)(1.3) + [489 _ (245)(685)]
1,000
. (1.480) + (38)(1.02)
=833 RB/D.
Then,
" = 162.6 qRt = (162.6)(833)
mh
(78)(38)
=45.7 md/cp.
To calculate skin factor, s, we first need C o and C t :
= ~ dR s _ ~ dB o
Bo dp
cf> =
Ji. =
Ct =
0.14,
0.55 cp,
16 x 10  6 psi  1 ,
r w = 0.5 ft,
Awb = 0.0218 sq ft,
re
1,320 ft (well centered in cylindrical
drainage area),
p = 54.8 lbm/cu ft,
q = 988 STB/D,
B = 1.126 RB/STB, and
h = 7 f1.
Bo dp
(1.480 RB/Mscf)(0.0776 scf)
= (1.3 RB/STB)(STBpsi)
1 Mscf
(2.48 x 10 6)
1,000 scf
1.3 (psi)
86.4 x 10  6 psi  I
Then,
c t =Soco +SgC g +Swcw +Cj
= (0.58)(86.4 x 10 6) + (0.08)(0.39 x 10  3)
+ (0.34)(3.6 x 10 6) + 3.5 x 10 6
= 86.0 x 10 6 psi 1,
and
s= 1.l51[PI hr~PWj
= 1.151[
2,466  2,028
78
45.7
]
log [ (0.17)(86.0xlO 6 )(0.3)2 +3.23
=
2.1. In Example 2.1, what error arises because we
used Eq. 2.4 to calculate skin factor instead of the
more exact Eq. 2.3? What difference would it have
made in the value of s had we used a shutin time of
10 hours in Eq. 2.3 and the corresponding value of
Pws? What assumption have we made about distan ce
from tested well to reservoir boundaries in Example
2.1?
2.2. Prove that the slope of a plot of shutin BHP
vs. log (tp + ~t) / Al is, as asserted in the text, the
difference in pressure at two points one cycle apart.
AIso prove that, for ~t ~ t p' we obtain the same slope
on a plot of P ws vs. log At. Finally, prove that on a
plot of P ws vs. log ~t, we obtain the same slope
regardless of the units used for shutin time, ~t, on
the plot (i.e., that ~t can be expressed in minutes,
hours, or days without affecting the slope of the
plot).
2.3. A well producing only oil and dissolved gas
has produced 12,173 STB. The well has not been
stimulated, nor is there any reason to believe that
there is a significant amount of formation damage. A
pressure buildup test is run with the primary objective of estimating static drainagearea pressure.
During buildup, there is a rising liquid level in the
wellbore. Well and reservoir data are:
1.50.
Data recorded during the buildup test are given in
Table 2.8. Plot P ws vs. (tp+Al)/~t on semilog
paper and (Pws Pwj) vs. ~te on logIog paper, and
estimate the time at which afterflow ceased distorting
the buildup test data.
2.4. Consider the buildup test described in
Problem 2.3. Locate the MTR and estimate formation permeability.
2.5. Consider the buildup test described in
Problems 2.3 and 2.4. Calculate skin factor, s;
pressure drop across the altered zone, (.:lp)s; flow
efficiency, E; and effective wellbore radius, r wa.
2.6. Prove that in a buildup test for a well near a
single fault, the technique suggested in the text
(extrapolating the latetime line to infinite shutin
time) is the proper method for estimating original
reservoir pressure. Comment on the possible errors in
original reservoir pressure estimates in these cases:
(1) sorne LTR data were obtained, but final straight
line was not established; and (2) no LTR data were
obtained.
2.7. Consider the buildup test described in
Problems 2.3 and 2.4. Estimate static drainagearea
pressure for this well (1) using the p. method, and (2)
48
WELL TESTlNG
TABLE 2.8  PRESSURE BUILDUP TEST
[).f
(hours)

O
1.97
2.95
3.94
4.92
5.91
7.88
9.86
14.8
[).f
Pws
(hours)
(psia)
Pws
(psia)
DATA


19.7
24.6
29.6
34.5
39.4
44.4
49.3
59.1
4,198
4,245
4,279
4,306
4,327
4,343
4,356
4,375
709
3,169
3,508
3,672
3,772
3,873
3,963
4,026
4,133
using the modified Muskat method.
2.8. In Example 2.7, explain how we could have
applied the modified Muskat method to estimate
static drainagearea pressure if we had not had
estimates of k / <p/,e { or re'
2.9. Estimate formation permeability and ski n
factor from the following data available from a gas
well pressure buildup test.
199F 659R,
34 ft,
0.023 cp,
0.33 (water is immobile),
0.000315 psi 1,
0.22,
0.87, and
r w = 0.3 ft.
=
h =
/'i =
Sw =
eg =
<P =
z =
The well produced 6,068 McflD before the test. A
plot of BHP, P ws ' vs. log (tp+At)/AI .gave a
middletime line with a slope of 66 pSI/cyele.
Analysis of the buildup curve showed that static
drainagearea pressure, p, was 3,171 psia. Pressure
on the middletime line at Al = 1 hour, PI hr' was
2,745 psia; flowing pressure at shutin, Pwf' was
2,486 psia.
2.10. Estimate total mobility, Al' oil, water and
gas permeabilities, and skin factor for a well that
produced oil, water, and gas simultaneously before a
pressure buildup test. Production rates before the
test were qo =276 STB/O, qw =68 STB/D, and
qg = 689 McflO. A plot of P ws vs. log (tp + Al) / Al
snowed that the slope m of the middletime line was
59 psilcycle. Flowing pressure at shutin, Pwf' was
1,581 psia; the pressure on the middletime straight
line at Al = 1 hour, PI hr> was 1,744 psia. Plots of Bo
vs. P and Rs vs. P showed that dR s /dp=0.263
scflSTB/psi and that dBo/dp 0.248 x 10 3
RB/STB/psi. Rock, fluid, and well properties inelude the following.
So = 0.56,
Sg
0.09,
Sw = 0.35,
e w = 3.5xlO 6 psi I ,
ef = 3.5 x 10  6 psi  1 ,
eg = 0.48xl0 3 psi 1
/'0 = 1.1 cp,
Jiw = 0.6 cp,
/'g = 0.026 cp,
Bo
1.28 RB/STB,
Bw
1.022 RB/STB,
Bg
1.122 RB/Mscf,
TABLE 2.9  BUILDUP TEST DATA
FOR WELL NEAR FAULT
.::.t
(hours)

20
30
40
50
100
200
Pws
[).f
(psi)
(hours)
1,373
1,467
1,533
1,585
1,752
1,940
Pws
(psi)


500
800
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,225
2,360
2,434
2,545
2,616
748 scflSTB,
= 0.18,
r w = 0.3 ft, and
h = 33 ft.
Rs
<P
2.11. A pressure buildup test was run on an oil
well believed to be near a sealing fault in an otherwise
infiniteacting reservoir. Estimate the distance to the
fault, given the well, rock, and fluid properties below
and the buildup data in Table 2.9.
q =
Ji =
<P =
el
h
Pi
Np
Bo
=
=
=
=
t wbs <
940 STB/D,
50 cp,
0.2,
78x 10 6 psi
195 ft,
2,945 psi,
84,500 STB,
1.11 RB/STB, and
20 hours.
2.12 .. A well flowed for 10 days at 350 STB/O; it
was then shut in for a pressure buildup test. Rock,
"fluid, and well properties include the following.
Bo = 1.13 RB/STB,
Pi = 3,000 psi,
/' = 0.5 cp,
k = 25 md,
s = O,
h = 50 ft,
el = 20 x 10  6 psi  1 ,
<P
= 0.16, and
r w = 0.333 ft.
(a) Determine and plot the pressure distribution in
the reservoir for shutin times of O, 0.1, 1, and 10
days. (Assume an infinite acting reservoir.)
(b) Calculate the radius of investigation at 0.1, 1,
and 10 days. Compare r with the depth to which the
transient appears to have moved on the plots
prepared in Pan a.
2.13. In Example 2.6, p was determined to be
4,411 psi. Both the Horner plot and the abscissa of
the MBH chart used tp = 13,630 hours. lt can be
shown that for a well centered in a square drainage
area, the time required to reach semisteady state is
tpss =(<p/,e{A/0.OOO264 ~)(tD~)pss. and that
(t DA ) pss = 0.1. Show that If t pss IS used mstead of t p
in both the Horner plot and in the abscissa of die
MBH chart, the resulting estimate of p is essentially
unchanged. Buildup data (from the MTR only) are
given in Table 2.10. Other data include:
49
PRESSURE BUILDUP TESTS
TABLE 2.11  PRESSURE BUILDUP TEST DATA
TABLE 2.10 MTR DATA
FROM BUILDUP TEST
M
(hours)

8
12
16
20
24
q
B
tt
h
cjJ
et
Te
P ws
(psi)
4,354
4,366
4,376
4,382
4,388
250 STB/D,
1.136 RB/STB,
0.8 cp,
69 ft,
0.039,
17 x 10  6 psi  1 ,
1,320 ft, and
7.65 md.
0.17,
0.6 cp,
18 x 10  6 psi  1
1,320 ft, well centered in square drainage
area (160 acres),
0.5 ft,
0.036 sq ft,
54.8 lbm/cu ft,
1,135 STB/D (stabilized for several days),
1.214 bbl/STB, and
28 ft.
When the well was shut in for the buildup test, the
liquid level rose in the wellbore as pressure increased.
Data recorded during the buildup test are given in
Table 2.11.
Determine (a) time at which afterflow distortion
ceased; (b) time at which boundary effects begin; (c)
formation permeability; (d) radius of investigation at
beginning and end of MTR; (e) skin factor, AtJ s ' and
flow efficiency; (f) jJ using the MBH p. method; and
(g) jJ using the modified Muskat method.
!1t
(hours)
3.
4.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
References
17.
18.
Pws
(psi a)



._
O
0.3
0.5
2,752
3,464
3,640
3,852
4,055
4,153
4,207
4,244
4,251
4,263
10
12
14
16
20
24
30
36
42
50
4,272
4,280
4,287
4,297
4,303
4,308
4,313
4,317
4,320
4,322
16.
1. Horner, D.R.: "Pressure Buildup in Wells," Proc., Third
World Pet. Cong., The Hague (1951) Seco n, 503523; also'
Pressure Analysis Methods, Reprint Series, SPE, Dalias
(1967) 9, 2543.
2. Cobb, W.M. and Smith, J.T.: "An Investigation of PressureBuildup Tests in Bounded Reservoirs," paper SPE 5133
Pws
(psia)
2
3
4
5
6
8
5.
2.14. A well producing only oil and dissolved gas
has produced 13,220 STB. To characterize the severe
damage believed present, the well is shut in for a
buildup test. Well and reservoir data are given below.
::,t
(hours)
presented at the SPEAIME 49th Annual Fall Meeting,
Houston, Oet. 69, 1974. An abridged version appears in J.
Peto Tech. (Aug. 1975) 991996; Trans., AIME, 259.
MiIler, c.c., Oyes, A.B., and Hutehinson, C.A. Jr.:
"Estimation of Permeability and Reservoir Pressure From
BottomHole Pressure BuildUp Characteristics," Trans.,
Al ME (1950) 189,91104.
Slider, H.C.: "A Simplified Method of Pressure Buildup
Analysis for a Stabilized Well," J. Peto Tech. (Sept. 1971)
11551160; Trans., AIME, 271.
Agarwal, R.G.: "A New Method To Aecount for ProdueingTime Effeets When Drawdown Type Curves Are Used To
Analyze Pressure Buildup and Other Test Data," paper SPE
9289 presented at the SPE 55th Annual Teehnical Conferenee
and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 2124, 1980.
Saidikowski, R.M.: "Numerieal Simulations ofthe Combined
Effeets of Wellbore Damage and Partial Penetration," paper
SPE 8204 presented at the SPEAIME 54th Annual Teehnical
Conferenee and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 2326, 1979.
Russell, D.G. and Truitt, N.E.: "Transient Pressure Behavior
in Vertieally Fraetured Reservoirs," J. Peto Tech. (Oel. 1964)
11591170; Trans., AIME, 231.
Matthews, C.S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek, P.: "A Method
for Determination of Average Pressure in a Bounded
Reservoir," Trans., Al ME (1954) 201,182191.
Larson, V.C.: "Understanding the Muskat Method of
Analyzing Pressure Buildup Curves," J. Cdn. Peto Tech. (Fall
1963) 2,136141.
Matthews, C.S. and Russell, D.G.: Pressure Buildup and
Flow Tests in Wells, Monograph Series, SPE, Dalias (1967) 1.
Pinson, A.E. JI'.: "Coneerning the Value of Producing Time
Used in Average Pressure Determinations From Pressure
Buildup Analysis," J. Peto Tech. (Nov. 1972) 13691370.
Brons, F. and MiIler, W.c.: "A Simple Method for
Correeting Spot Pressure Readings," J. Peto Tech. (Aug.
1961) 803805; Trans., AIME, 222.
Earlougher, R.C. JI'.: Advances in Well Test Analysis,
Monograph Series, SPE, Dalias (1977) 5.
Gray, K.E.: "Approximating WelltoFault Distance From
Pressure Buildup Tests," J. Peto Tech. (July 1965)761767.
A1Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Crawford, P.B.: "The
Flow of Real Gases Through Porous Media," J. Peto Tech.
(May 1966) 624636; Trans., AIME, 237.
Wattenbarger, R.A., Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Gas Well Testing
With Turbulenee, Damage, and Wellbore Storage," J. Peto
Tech. (Aug. 1968) 877887; Trans., AIME, 243.
Perrine, R.L.: "Analysis of Pressure Buildup Curves," Drill.
and Prod. Prac., API, Dallas (1956) 482509.
Martin, J.C.: "Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Orive
Reservoirs and the Theoretieal Foundation of Multiphase
Pressure Buildup Analyses," J. Peto Tech. (OeL 1959) 309311; Trans., AIME, 216.
Chapter 3
Flow Tests
3.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses flow tests in wells, including
constantrate drawdown tests, continuously
decliningrate drawdown tests, and multirate tests in
infiniteacting reservoirs. The more general (and
more complex) case of multirate tests in bounded
reservoirs is discussed in Appendix E.
3.2 Pressure Drawdown Tests
A pressure drawdown test is conducted by producing
a well, starting ideally with uniform pressure in the
reservoir. Rate and pressure are recorded as functions of time.
The objectives of a drawdown test usually include
estimates of permeability, skin factor, and, on occasion, reservoir volume. These tests are particularly
applicable to (1) new wells, (2) wells that have been
shut in sufficiently long to allow the pressure to
stabilize, and (3) wells in which loss of revenue incurred in a buildup test would be difficult to accept.
Exploratory wells are frequent candidates for lengthy
drawdown tests, with a common objective of
determining minimum or total volume being drained
by the well.
An idealized constantrate drawdown test in an
infiniteacting reservoir is modeled by the logarithme approximation to the Eifunction solution:
QB'[1 (1,688CP'Ctr~)
= . 1626
Pwf PI +
. kh og
kt
0.869S] .
..................... (3.1)
Like buildup tests, drawdown tests are more
complex than suggested by simple equations such as
Eq. 3.1. The usual test has an ETR, an MTR, and an
LTR. The ETR usually is dominated by wellbore
unloading: the rate at wheh fluid is removed from
the wellbore exceeds the rate at which fluid enters the
wellbore until, finally, equilibrium is established.
Until that time, the constant flow rate at the sandface
required by Eq. 3.1 is not achieved, and the straightline plot of Pwf vs. log t suggested by Eq. 3.1 is not
achieved. Duration of wellbore unloading can be
estimated by qualitative comparison of a loglog plot
of (Pi  Pwf) vs. t with the solution of Fig. 1.6 or
with the empirical equation based on that figure,
t D ;?:(60+3.5s) C sD ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.43)
or the equivalent form,
t wbs
(200,000+ 12,ooos)Cs
kh/.
.......... (3.2)
If the effective radius of the zone of altered permeability is unusually large (e.g., in a hydrauleally
fractured well), the duration of the ETR may depend
on the time required for the radius of investigation to
exceed the fracture halflength. (More exactly, for an
infiniteconductivity vertical fracture with halflength L f , shutin time must exceed 1,260 cp.ctL}/k
or r must exceed 1.15 Lf'
The MTR begins when the ETR ends (unless
boundaries or important heterogeneities are
unusually near the well). In the MTR, a plot of Pwf
vs. log t is a straight line with slope, m, given by
qB.
m= 162.6; ....................... (3.3)
Thus, effective formation permeability, k, can be
estimated from this slope:
k =162.6 qB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3.4)
mh
After the MTR is identified, skin factor, s, can be
determined. The usual equation results from solving
Eq. 3.1 for s. Setting t= 1 hour, and letting Pwf=
PI hr be the pressure on the MTR line at lhour flow
time, the result is
.................. (3.5)
The LTR begins when the radius of investigation
reaches a portion of the reservoir influenced by
FLOWTESTS
51
TABLE 3.1  CONSTANTRATE DRAWDOWN TEST DATA
t (hours)
O
0.12
1.94
2.79
4.01
4.82
5.78
6.94
8.32
9.99
PPwl
Pwl (psia)
4,412
3,812
3,699
3,653
3,636
3,616
3,607
3,600
3,593
3,586
(psia)
O
600
713
759
776
796
805
812
819
826
t (hours)
14.4
17.3
20.7
24.9
29.8
35.8
43.0
51.5
61.8
74.2
P,Pwl
Pwl (psia)
3,573
3,567
3,561
3,555
3,549
3,544
3,537
3,532
3,526
3,521
(psia)
t (hours)
839
845
851
857
863
868
875
880
886
891
89.1
107
128
154
185
222
266
319
383
460
PPwl
Pwl (psi~
3,515
3,509
3,503
3,497
3,490
3,481
3,472
3,460
3,446
3,429
(psia)
897
903
909
915
922
931
940
952
966
983
reservoir boundaries or mas si ve heterogeneities. For
a well centered in a square or circular drainage area,
this occurs at a time given approximately by
380 cf>;,c(A
ter=:::
k
, ..................... (3.6)
where A is the drainage area of the tested well. For
more general drainagearea shapes, (e t can be
calculated from the number in the column "Use
lnfinite System Solution With Less Than IOJo Error
for (DA <" in Table 1.2. 1 The dimensionIess time
(DA is defined as
0.OOO264kt
log l
Fig. 3.1  Typical constantrate drawdown test graph.
For this more general case, then,
(e t =:::
3,800 cf>;,ctAtDA
k
. . ............... (3.7)
Thus, the typical constantrate drawdown test plot
has the shape shown in Fig. 3.1. To analyze the
typical test, the following steps are suggested.
1. Plot flowing BHP, Pwl' vs. flowing time, 1, on
semilog paper as shown in Flg. 3.1.
2. Estimate t wbs from qualitative curve matching
(with a fullsize version of Fig. 1.6); this usually
marks the beginning of the MTR (except for fractured wells).
3. Estimate the beginning of the LTR, t ft' using
deviation from a match with Fig. 1.6 to confirm
deviation from an apparent semilog straight lineo We
must be cautious in drawdown test analysis, though.
Even small rate changes can cause a drawdown curve
to bend just as boundaries do (a method of analyzing
this possibility is presented later).
4. Determine the slope m of the most probable
MTR, and estimate formation permeability from Eq.
3.4.
5. Estimate the skin factor s from Eq. 3.5.
Example 3.1  ConstantRate Drawdown
Test Analysis
Problem. The data in Table 3.1 were recorded during
a constantrate pressure drawdown test. The wellbore
had a falling liquid/gas interface throughout the
drawdown test. Other pertinent data inelude the
following.
~OOIL~~~~
1 0 0 0
FLOWING TIME. hr
Fig. 3.2  Semilog graph 01 example constantrate
drawdown test.
ci.10
100
t.hr
Fig. 3.3  Loglog graph 01 example constantrate
drawdown test.
52
WELL TESTING
q = 250 STB/D,
B = 1.136 bbl/STB,
.t = 0.8 cp,
rw = 0.198ft,
h = 69 ft,
cf> = 0.039, and
c ( = 17 x 10  6 psi  1 .
At the end of the MTR (l::= 150 hours),
= 1,510 ft.
The tubing areas is 0.0218 sq ft; the density of the
liquid in the wellbore is 53 lbm/ cu ft. Determine the
formation permeability and skin factor.
Solution. We first plot flowing BHP,Pwf' vs. time, l,
on semilog paper and (p  Pwf) vs. l on loglog
paper. Then we determine when wellbore effects
ceased distorting the curve. From the shape of the
semilog graph (Fig. 3.2), this appears to be at about
12 hours; however, we can check this assumption
with the loglog graph, Fig. 3.3. For several values of
C D (e.g., 10 3 to 104 ), the graph shows a good fit
with Fig. 1.6 for s = 5; wellbore storage distortion
ends at Al = 5 hours, in approximate agreement with
the more sensitive semilog graph.
We have no information about the location of
boundaries; therefore, we assume that boundary
effects begin when the drawdown curve begins to
deviate from the established straight line on the
semilog graph at a flowing time of 150 hours. This is
confirmed qualitatively on the less sensitive loglog
graph by noticeable deviation beginning at l == 260
hours. The slope of the middletime line is
m = 3,652  3,582
=
=1(1.521 x 10 4 )(150)
A substantial amount of formation has been sampled; thus, we can be more confident that the permeability of 7.65 md is representative.
We next calculate the ski n factor s.
S=1.151[PPlhr log( ~)+3.23]
m
cf>.tc(r w
1.151 [
.
log
4,4123,652
70
(1.442 x 10 7 )
]
2
+3.23
(0.198)
=6.37.
We now can verify more closely the expected end of
wellbore storage distortion from Eq. 3.2, using
25.65 AWb
Cs =="""P
=0.0106 bbl/psi.
(200,000 + 12,000 s) C s
l b  '
70 psi/ cycle.
kh/.t
s
Thus, the permeability of the formation is
[200,000 + (12,000)(6.37)](0.0106)
k= 162.6 qB.t
mh
(7.65)(69)10.8
(162.6)(250)(1.136)(0.8)
(70)(69)
=7.65 md.
We now check the radius of investigation at the
beginning and end of the apparent middletime line
to ensure that we are sampling a representative
portion of the formation.
At the beginning (t = 12 hours),
k
(7.65)
948 cf>.tc(  (948)(0.039)(0.8)(1.7 x 10 5 )
= 1.521
10 4 ,
= 4.44 hours.
This closely agrees with the result from the loglog
curve fit.
Another use of drawdown tests is to estimate
reservoir pore volume, Vp ' This is possible when the
radius of investigation reaches all boundaries during
a test so that pseudosteadystate flow is achieved.
Eqs. 1.12 and 1.13 showed that, in pseudosteadys~ate flow, flowing BHP, P wf, is related linearly to
tIme and that the rate of change in Pwf with time is
related to the reservoir pore volume. From Eq. 1.13,
this relationship is
0.234 qB
V =
and, from Eq. 1.23,
r.
1
=J
kl
948 cf>.tc(
=1(1.521 x 10 4 )(12)
=
427ft.
p wf )
(a
( al
where apwf/al is simply the slope of the straightline
Pwf vs. l plot on ordinary Cartesian graph paper.
Even though Eqs. 1.12 and 1.13 were derived for a
cylindrical reservoir centered at the wellbore of the
tested well, the principIes derived from them apply to
all closed reservoir shapes. The graph of Pwf vs. lis a
FLOWTESTS
53
the test  results obtained using those techniques can
lead to interpretations that are seriously in error. An
analysis method that leads to proper interpretation is
available, but it can be used only if the producing
rate is changing slowly and smoothly. Abrupt rate
changes will make the drawdown test data impossible
to interpret using either the method discussed earlier
or this new method.
Winestock and Colpitts 2 show that when rate is
changing slowly and smoothly, the equation
modeling the MTR of the drawdown test becomes
o
200
400
pPwj
;,B[log (1,688<P;'Ctr~)
''''' = 162.6 q
kh
kt
FLONING TIME, hr
+ 0.869 s] + negligible terms 2
Fig. 3.4  Cartesiancoordinate graph of example
constantrate drawdown test.
straight line once pseudosteadystate flow is
achieved; the volume of the reservoir can be found
from Eq. 1.13. It is important to remember,
however, that these equations apply only to closed,
or volumetric, reservoirs (Le., they are not valid if
there is water influx or gascap expansion). Further,
they are limited to reservoirs in which total compressibility, C t, is constant (and, specifically, independent of pressure).
We will illustrate porevolume estimates with an
example.
Solution. The first step is to plot Pwf vs. t (Fig. 3.4).
The slope of this curve is constant for t> 130 hours;
this slope, apwj/at, is
apwj
at
;,B
kh= 162.6  ,
m'
and, finally, calculate s from
s = 1.151 [( P  P wj )
1,
q
hr m
log(~)+3.23] .............. (3.9)
4>;,c t r w
In Eq. 3.8, [(pPwj)/q] hr is the value of this
quantity on the middletime line or its extrapolaton
at a flowing time of 1 hour.
We will illustrate use of this method with an
example.
= 3,5313,420
0 500
=  0.222 psi/hr.
Thus,
0.234qB
V =P
C (apWj)
t
at
( 0.234)(250)(1.136)
= (1.7 x 10 5 )(0.222)
(3.8)
The analysis technique is to plot (p  P wj) / q vs. t
on semilog paper; identify the middletime straight
line; measure the slope m' in psi/STB/D/cycle;
calculate kh from
Example 3.2  Estimatan a1 Pare Valume
Problem. Estimate the pore volume of the reservoir
with drawdown data reported in Example 3.1.
..
17.61
106 cu ft
= 3.14 x 106 res bbl.
The method of permeability determination
outlined aboye applies only to drawdown tests
conducted at a strictly constant rateo If rate varies
during a test  e.g., if rate declines slowly throughout
Example 3.3  A n alysis al Drawdawn Test
With Varying Rate
Problem. The data in Table 3.2 were obtained in a
drawdown test in which the rate q was measured as a
function of time. Other data include the following
B
;,
h
p
AWb
<p
ct
rw
= 1.136 bbl/STB,
= 0.8 cp,
69 ft,
53 Ib/cu ft,
0.0218 sq ft,
0.039,
17 x 10  6 psi 0.198ft.
and
Determine formation permeability and skin factor.
Solution. We note immediately that conventional
drawdown test analysis, using an average rate, would
Veriflcation of thls method is incomplete In cases with severe we!lbore
storage effects. A nonexhaustive numerlcal simulation study by thls author has
shown that the method ylelds essentially correet permeabillty and ski n factor
even in these cases .
"The same analysls technlque. but far a dlfferent appllcatlon (anaIYZln~
wellborestoragedominated data) was suggested earlier by Gladlelter et al.
and Ramey. 4
54
WELL TESTING
TABLE 3.3 DATA FOR PLOTTING FROM
VARIABLERATE DRAWDOWN TEST
TABLE 3.2  VARIABLERATE DRAWDOWN TEST DATA
t (hours)
Pwl(pSi)
q(STBID)
t(hours)
!I..(PSI)
q(STBID)
250
180
177
174
172
169
166
163
161
158
155
152
150
8.32
9.99
14.4
20.7
29.8
43.0
61.8
74.2
89.1
107
128
154
185
3,927
3,928
3,931
3,934
3,937
3,941
3,944
3,946
3,948
3,950
3,952
3,954
3,956
147
145
143
140
137
134
132
130
129
127
126
125
123
~._
O
0.105
0.151
0.217
0.313
0.450
0.648
0.934
1.34
1.94
2.79
4.01
5.78
4,412
4,332
4,302
4,264
4,216
4,160
4,099
4,039
3,987
3,952
3,933
3,926
3,926
be futile. Pressures for flow times greater than about
6 hours are increasing even though production
continues for another 179 hours and even though the
rate decline from this time to the end of the test is
only 27 STB/D (from 150 to 123 STB/D).
Thus, we must use the variablerate analysis
technique; the first step is to tabuIate (Pi  P wf) / q,
as in Table 3.3. These data are plotted in Fig. 3.5. On
the basis of curve shape, wellbore storage appears to
end at approximately 6 hours; we will check this
assumption with Eq. 3.2 when k and s have been
estimated.
There is no deviation from the straight Une for t > 6
hours; accordingly, we assume the MTR spans the
time range 6 hours < t < 185 hours.
From the pIot, m' =3.6163.328=0.288
psilSTB/D/cycle. Then,
t (hours)
t (hours)
(Pi Pwl )/q
0.444
0.621
0.851
1.140
1,491
1.886
2.288
2.640
2.911
3.090
3.197
3.240
8.32
9.99
14,4
20.7
29.8
43.0
61.8
74.2
89.1
107
128
154
185
3.299
3.338
3.364
3,414
3,467
3.515
3.545
3.585
3.597
3.638
3.651
3.664
3.707
3.04
=1151[
.
0.288
7.44
]
log [ (0.039)(0.8)(17 x 106)(0.198)2
+3.23J
=6.02.
Since Cs ::0.0106 bbl/psi, as in Example 3.1,
(200,000 + 12,000 s) Cs
t
k= 162.6 ..B
m'h
::="'kh/..
wbs 
(162.6)(0.8)(1.136)
=(0.288)(69)
=7.44md,
(pPwl)/q
0.105
0.151
0.217
0.313
0,450
0.648
0.934
1.34
1.94
2.79
4.01
5.78
(200,000 + 12,000)(6.02)(0.0106)
(7.44)(69)/0.8
=4.5 hours.
This qualitatively confirms the choice of wellbore
storage distortion end.
and
I
I
I
o
t FLOvVING TIME. hr
Fig. 3.5  Example variablerate drawdown test.
Fig. 3.6  Rate history for multirate test.
55
FLOWTESTS
3.3 Multirate Tests
We will develop a general theory for behavior of
multirate tests in infiniteacting reservoirs for slightly
compressible liquids. In Appendix E, we extend this
general theory to reservoirs in which boundary effects may become important before the test ends.
Consider a well with n rate changes during its'
production history, as indicated in Fig. 3.6. Our
objective is to determine the wellbore pressure of a
well producing with this schedule. We will use
superposition of the logarithmic approximation to
the Eifunction solution; to simplify the algebra, we
will write the solution as
,_
PI
P wj
tq
t
= 162.6 qBJ1 rlo (1,688 cf>J1C tr~)
kh t g
kl
Fig. 3.7  Rate history tor singlerate drawdown test
0.869 s]
qBJ1~log l+lpg2
k
= 162.6kh
cf>J1Ctrw
 3.23 + 0.869
s)
=m' q(log I+S),
where
J1B
m' = 162.6 kh '
and
k
s=log2 3.23+0.869s.
cf>J1c t r w
With this nomenclature for n rates and for t> 1n  1 ,
application of superposition (as in the discussion
leading to Eq. 1.27) leads to
p pwj=m' ql (log I+S) +m' (q2 ql)
..
Fig. 3.8  Rate history for buildup test foliowing single
flow rateo
. [log (tII)+S] +m' (q3 q2)
q2
. (log (I1 2 )+S] + ...
+ m' (q n 
qn 
1 ) [log
(t  1n i ) +
51
This can be written more compactly as
pPwj =m'
qn
(qjqjI)
j=1
qn
q,
I
,
I
rl p1 ,l.
1
log (t  tj
1) + m' S, q n
~O
.. (3.10)
In Eq. 3.10, we define qo =0 and lo =0. In terms of
more fundamental quantities, Eq. 3.10 becomes
pPwj =m'
qn
j=1
log (II j
(qjqjI)
qn
1)+m'[IOg(~)
cf>J1c r w
t
3.23+0.869S] ............ (3.11)
lP2
L1 t+
t2
II
t+
Fig. 3.9  Rate history tor buildup test following two
different flow rates,
56
WELL TESTlNG
For the special case qn = O(a pressure buildup test),
p P ws =m' ql (log t+5) +m' (q2 ql)
. [log(t  tI) + 51 + . . . + m' (q n  1
Let tt 2 =.::lt, tl=t pl ' t2=t pl +tp 2' and ttI =tp2 +.::lt. Then,
B
p _ P = 162.6 q2 P. ['IlIOgCP + t p2 + .::lt)
ws
kh
q2
t p2 +.::lt
t n 2)+51 m 'qn1
qn2)[log (t
+.::lt)] . . .......... (3.15)
+ log ( tp2:':1t
. [log (t  t n  1) + sl
=162.6P.B
(q)q) 1)
kh )=1
log (tt) 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3.12)
Eqs. 3.11 and 3.12 can be used to model several
special cases of practical importance, but we must
remember that they have an important limitation: the
reservoir must be infinite acting for the total time
elapsed t since the well began producing at rate q .
Appendix E suggests a more general method of
modeling tests in which boundaries have been
reached.
Pressure Drawdown Test
From Eq. 3.11, for n 1 (Fig. 3.7),
pPwJ
p.B(
k
= 162.6  log t+log2
q
kh
cf>p.ctrw
 3.23 + 0.869
s). . .......... (3.13)
Pressure Buildup Test Preceded by
ConstantRate Production
From Eq. 3.12 for n = 2 (Fig.3.8),
Eq. 3.15 has this application: when the producing
rate is changed a short time before a buildup test
begins, so that there is not sufficient time for
Horner's approximation to be valid, we frequently
can consider all production before time tito have
been at rate q 1 for time 1pI and production just
before the test to have been at rate q2 for time t p2
To analyze such a test, we plot
'Il og ( tpI + t p2 + :':1! ) + log ( (p2 + :':1( )] .
q2
(p2 +:':1(
:':1(
The slope m of this plot is related to formation
permeability by the equation
B
m = 162.6 q2 P.
P ws vs. [
kh
Extrapolation of the plot to :':1(=00 gives Pws=p
because, at :':1( = 00, the plotting function is zero.
Note that semilog paper is not to be used; instead, the
sum of two logarithms is plotted on an ordinary
Cartesian axis.
To calculate skin factor, s, note that at the end of
the flow period just before shutin,
(/pl +t p2 )
P I._P ws =162.6q2Bp.['Il
kh
og
q2
t p2
p.B
pP ws =162.6 kh [qllogtqllog (tt l )]
+ log(tp2)
=
ql LB log ( t ) . . ..... (3.14)
162.6kh
tt l
If we let ql =q, tt l =M, and tI t , the familiar
equation that serves as the basis for the Horner plot
results:
._
PI
P ws 162.6
+5],
or
P  P wJ = m [ ql
 log
q2
(t p 1 + tp..~ )+ log (t p2) + ]
t p2
The equation of the MTR line on the buildup test
plot is
qBL
(tp+.::ll)
log
.
kh
.::lt
Pressure Buildup Test Preceded by
Two Different Flow Rates
From Eq. 3.12 (Fig. 3.9),
p P ws =m' [ql log t+ (q2  ql) log (tt l )
Subtracting,
(tpl +tp 2)(tp 2 +.::lt)
P ws pwf=m [ql log[
(tpl +t p2 +.::lt) (tp2)
q2
q2 10 g (tt 2 )]
This can be written as
B
p P ws = 162.6 q2 P. ['Il Iog (
kh
q2
tt l
_t_)
+IOg(~)].
tt2
Assume t pl +t p2 +.::lt:=tpl +t 2 and t p2 +.::lt:=t p2
for small.::lt (e.g., :':1t= 1 hour). Then,
FLOWTESTS
57
deliverability contracts), all significant rates are
considered. Improvement in accuracy when using
this approach is questionable; further, the fundamental assumption on which Eq. 3.16 is based
(that for t=tpl +t p2 + ... +fpn  I +.1t the
reservoir is infimte acting) rarely wI be valid for
large values of t. Nevertheless, when Eq. 3.16 is used
to model a buildup test, the following analysis
procedure can be used.
l. Write a computer program to calculate the
plotting function,
<tI
I
I
I
_t_) +
[ ~log(
qn
tt
m=162.6 qn B,
kh
P ws pwj=m(log .1t+s).
hr
(on the MTR
4. Calculate the skin factor 5 from the equation
5= 1.151 [ (p
s= PI hrPwj
hr Pwj)
log( ~) + 3.23].
c/>,ctrw
(The derivation and assumptions implicit in this
equation closely parallel those used for a buildup test
preceded by two different flow rates.)
5. The original formation pressme Pi is the value
of P ws on the MTR line extrapolated to X = O.
k
=10g2 3.23,
c/>,ctr w
or
5=1.151 (
tt n _
2. Plot P ws vs. X on ordinary (Cartesian coordinate) graph papero
3. Determine the slope m of the plot and relate to
the formation permeability by the equation
Fig. 3.10  Rate history lor tworate Ilow test.
If we choose .1t= 1 hour, P ws =PI
line) and, for tp 2 ~ 1,
... +log( ttn2)] =X.
PI hr Pwj
k
)
log2 +3.23 ,
m
c/>,ctrw
as before.
We also note that duration of wellbore storage
distortion is calculated as in the previous analysis for
buildup tests.
TwoRate Flow Test
From Eq. 3.11, this test (Fig. 3.10) can be modeled 5
by
qB2 ' [q11 t
162 . 6 PiPwj  og + (q2 q)
kh
q2
q2
Iog (t  ti) + log( ~)
Pressure Buildup Test Preceded
by (n  1) Different Flow Rates
From Eq. 3.12,
c/>,ctr w
3.23+0.8695]
ql
(t)
PiP ws =162.6 qn_I,B[ log
kh
qnI
tt l
............ (3.17)
If we rearrange and introduce specialized nomenclature, t=t pl and ttp=.1t', then Eq. 3.17
becomes
q2B, [log (  k 2 ) 3.23
PWj=Pi162.6kh
cjJ,ctr w
.Iog ( tt n
3) + log (ttn2
tt n 2
)].
t~_I
+0.8695] 162.6 qlB.t [IOg( t pl +.1t')
kh
.1t'
.......................... (3.16)
Although we introduce no specialized nomenclature
for this situation, note that t  t n _ I = .1t (time
elapsed since shutin) and that q n 1 is the
production rate just before shutin.
Applications of Eq. 3.16 in which more than three
terms are needed are probably rare; sometimes,
though, to satisfy precise legal contracts (e.g., gas
+ q2 10g(.1t') J.
ql
................ (3.18)
This type of test can be used when estimates of
permeability, skin factor, or reservoir pressure are
needed but when the well cannot be shut iri because
loss of income cannot be tolerated. This test shares a
58
WELL TESTING
_____ /~hr

Pws
I09
tp
14
+ ~t
16
18
~t
20
22
24
t tL''
log ( PI,
6t
1. PlotPwjvs. [log (
O
0,105
0,151
0,217
0,313
0.450
0.648
0.934
1,344
1,936
2.788
4.01
5.78
Pwf
(psi)
3,490
3,543
3,564
3,592
3,627
3,669
3,717
3,766
3,810
3,846
3,868
3,882
3,891
M' (hours)
8.32
12,0
17.3
24,9
35.8
51.5
74.2
89,1
107
128
154
184.7
(psi)
3,897
3,903
3,908
3,912
3,915
3,918
3,919
3,918
3,917
3,916
3,913
3,910
~Iog
ql
(6t')
t i +.::lt')
p
M'
q2
]
+ Qlog(M')
.
2. Determine the slope m from the plot and use it
to calculate permeability, k, froID the relationship
k= 162.6 qBIl.
mh
3. Calculate the skin factor, s, from the equation
S=1.151[
q
(PhrPW!1)
(q q2)
m
IOg(~) + 3.23].
CPllc(r w
. ........... (3.19)
In Eq. 3.19, PI hr is the flowing pressure at .::lt' = 1
hour on the MTR line and P wj1 is the flowing
pressure at the time the rate is changed (M' = O).
(Eq. 3.19 was derived by simultaneous solution of
Eqs. 3.18 and the drawdown equation for a single
rate applied at t = tp , at which time P wj =P wj1 .)
4. Pi (or, more gene rally , p*) is obtamed by
solving for Pi (p*) from the drawdown equation
written to model conditions at the time of the rate
change. (lt is implied that s and m are known at this
point.)
TABLE 3.4  TWORATE FLOW TEST DATA
M' (hours)
)t
2,8
Fig. 3.12  Example tworate flow test.
Fig. 3.11  Buildup test with pressure humping.
fundamental analysis problem with the conventional
drawdown test. The second rate must be kept strictly
constant or the test interpretation may be substantially in error.
Eq. 3.18 is rigorously correct only when the
reservoir is infinite acting for time (tp + .::lt') [just as
the Horner plot is rigorous only wnen a reservoir is
infinite acting for time (t p + .::lt) ]. Nevertheless,
application of the plotting and analysis technique
suggested by Eq. 3.18 allows identification of the
MTR and determination of formation permeability
in a finiteacting reservoir.
The tworate flow test does not reduce the duration
of wellbore storage distortion  the duration of this
distortion is essentially the same as in any buildup or
drawdown test. However, the test procedure may
minimize the effects of phase segregation in the
wellbore, an extreme form of which is "pressure
humping",6 where highpressure gas trapped in a
wellbore in poor communication with a formation
may lead to pressures in the wellbore higher than
formation pressures (Fig. 3.11). A buildup test with
this humping is, at best, difficult to interpret; thus, a
test procedure that can minimize these phasesegregation effects can be of value.
The following method of analysis can be used for
tworate flow tests.
26
TABLE 3.5  DATA FOR PLOTTING
FROM TWORATE FLOW TEST
Pwf
.:.t'
(hours)
Pwf
.:.t'
PF
(psi)
(hours)
PF
(psi)
2.756
2.677
2.599
2.519
2.441
2.362
2.283
2.206
2.127
2.050
1.974
1.899
3,490
3,543
3,564
3,592
3,627
3,669
3,717
3,766
3,810
3,846
3,868
3,882
3,891
8.32
12.0
17.3
24.9
35.8
51.5
74.2
89.1
107
128
154
184.7
1,826
1.754
1.686
1.623
1,566
1.517
1.478
1.462
1.450
1.442
1.436
1.434
3,897
3,903
3,908
3,912
3,915
3,918
3,919
3,918
3,917
3,916
3,913
3,910
o
0.105
0,151
0.217
0.313
0.450
0.648
0.934
1.34
1.94
2.79
4.01
5.78
Pwf
59
FLOWTESTS
4. Determine p .
p=P wj1 +m[IOg( ~ )3.23+0.869S].
e/>.,tc t , w
p. =P wj1 +m[IOg( ~ )3.23+0.869sJ
e/>.,tc t , w
.............. (3.20)
3,490 + 70[log[(7 .65)(184. 7)/(0.039)(0.8)
Example 3.4  TwoRate Flow Test
(17x 1O 6)(0.198)2J
Problem. A tworate flow test was run on a well with
properties given below. From these properties and
the data in Table 3.4, determine k, s, andp.
 3.23 + (0.869)(6.32)]
ql = 250 STB/D,
q2 = 125 STB/D,
.,t = 0.8 cp,
B = 1.136 RB/STB,
p = 4,412 psi,
Ct = 17 x 10  6 psi  1 ,
Awb = 0.0218 sq ft,
, w = 0.198 ft,
h = 69 ft,
p = 53lb/cu ft,
e/> = 0.039, and
t pl = 184.7 hours.
=4,407 psi.
5. We then check on wellborestorage duration.
For this well, C s =25.65 A wb lp=(25.65) (0.0218) /
53 = 0.0106 bbl/psi. Then,
(200,000+ 12,000s) es
I
="wbskhl.,t
[200,000 + (12,000)(6.32)]0.0106
(7.65)(69)/0.8
=
Solution.
1. We first tabulate the plotting function (PF),
PF= [log( tpI~~t')+
;~ 10g(.:lt')J,
and plotPwj vs. PF. Note that I pl = 184.7 hours and
q2/ql = 125/250=0.5 (Table 3.5). The data are
plotted in Fig. 3.12.
2. Next, we determine permeability. Assume that
the MTR spans the time range 1.5 < PF < 1. 9 (50
hours>.:l/' >6 hours). Then the slope m=(3,9273,857)/(1.4  2.4) = 70 psilcycle and
qIB
k=162.6
.,t
mh
=4.4 hours.
At this time, the plotting function is approximately
1.9; this confirms our choice of the start of the MTR.
nRate Flow Test
From Eq. 3.11, an nrate flow test is modeled by
p Pwj = 162.6 .,tB
qn
kh
)=1
(q) q)I)
qn
. [log(~) 3.23 +0.869S].
e/>fJCt'w
= (162.6)(250)(1.136)(0.8)
(70)(69)
lt
This equation suggests a plot of
=7.65 md.
3. We determine skin factor,
s = 1.151 [
q1
(p 1 hr  P wj1 )
(ql q2)
log(~)+3.23],
e/>.,tc , w
t
at .:l/' = 1 hour, PF= log(184.7 + 1)/1 +0.5 log(l) =
2.269, andPI hr = 3,869 psi (on the MTR line):
(3,869  3,490)
250
s= 1.151 [
(250  125)
70
7.65
]
I
log [ (0.039)(0.8)(17 x 10 6)(0.198)2 + 3.23 j
=6.32.
Permeability is related to the slope m' of such a plot:
.,tB
k=162.6.
m'h
If we let b' be the value of (pPwj)/qn when the
plotting function is zero, then
b' =m' [log(~)  3.23 +0.869s],
e/>.,tc t , w
or
b'
s= 1.151 [, IOg(2 )+3.23
e/>.,tct,w
m
J. .... (3.21)
Note that use of Eq. 3.21 and of the proposed
60
WELL TESTING
TABLE 3.7  DATA FOR PLOTTING MULTlRATE FLOW TEST
TABLE 3.6  MULTIRATE FLOW
TEST DATA
t
(hours)
~~
O
0.333
0.667
1.0
2.0
2.333
2.667
3.0
Pwf
(psia)
_.3,000
999
857
778.5
1,378.5
2,043
2,067.5
2,094
t (hours)
qn (STB/O)
P, Pwf (psia)
qn
Iog (t  t _ ,)
~~
0.333
0.667
1.0
2.0
2.333
2.667
3.0
478.5
478.5
478.5
319.0
159.5
159.5
159.5
2,001
2.143
2,221.5
1,621.5
957
923.5
906
Example 3. 6  Multirate Flow Test A n a Iysis
Problem. Odeh and Jones 7 present data from a 3hour drawdown test on an oil well; in this test, the
rate during the first hour averaged 478.5 STB/D;
during the second hour, 319 STB/D; and during the
third hour, 159.5 STB/D. Reservoir fluid viscosity is
0.6 cp; initial pressure is 3,000 psia; formation
volume factor, B, is considered to be 1.0; and the
reservoir is assumed to be infinite acting for the
entire test. Assume that wellbore storage distortion is
minimal at all times during the test. Pressures (Pwf)
at various flow times are given in Table 3.6. From
these data, determine the permeability /thickness
product of the tested well.
t = 0.333 hour. Here,
qn =ql =478.5 STB/D,
 0.478
0.176
O
0.452
1.459
1.232
1.130
tj = 1.0 hour,
(Pi Pwf) Iqn = (3,000 778.5)1478.5 = 4.64, and
n
I:
j=l
(478.5  O)
478.5 log(1.00)=0.
t = 3.0 hours. Here,
(Pi Pwf) Iqn =(3,000  2,094)/159.5 = 5.68, and
n
I:
j=l
1
= 159.5 [478.510g(3.00)+(319478.5)
log(3.01.0) + (159.5  319)
log(3.0  2.0)]
Solution. We first prepare the data for plotting  i.e.,
at each time, we must determine (Pi  Pwf) Iqn and
(qjqjl)l (t  l
)
og n J  l '
qn
4.18
4.48
4.64
5.08
6.00
5.79
5.68
qn =478.5 STB/D,
I:
j=l
plotting method implies that Pi is known from independent measurements.
Odeh and Jones 7 discussed this analysis technique.
They pointed out that it can be applied to the analysis
of multirate flow tests commonly run on gas wells
and oil wells. In these applications of the technique,
it is essential to remember the assumption that the
reservo ir is infinite acting to the total elapsed time t
for all flow rates combined. Further, note that the
technique ignores any wellbore storage distortion
created by any discrete rate changes.
~I Pwf ( psia )
qn
'RB/O
q q1
I:
= 1.130.
Calculations at these and other times are summarized
in Table 3.7.
We next estimate the permeability/thickness
product. From Fig. 3.13,
(6.04.2)
m' = [1.459( 0.452)] =0.942.
Then,
t n =0.333 hour,
(Pi Pwf)!qn = (3,000 999)/478.5 =4.18, and
kh = 162.6 ;.B = (162.6)(0.6)(1.0)
m'
0.942
= 104 mdft.
I:
j=l
=
(478.5 O)
478.5
t = 1.0 hour. Here,
log(0.333  O) =  0.478
Odeh and Jones do not state values for h, q;, c I '
and r w used to construct these example test data.
To illustrate skinfactor calculation, assume that
h = 10 ft and, thus, that k = 10.4 md. Also assume
that kN;,clr~= 4.81 X 10 7 . Then, since the graph
indicated that b' =4.63 lb' is the value of (PiPwf) I q n when the plotting function is zero] ,
FLOWTESTS
61
b'
s= 1.151 [,
6.~~,
IOg(~
cPJJc,
1.15lr 4.63 log(4.8x 107 ) +3.23]
lO.942
=0.53.
Exercises
3.1. A constantrate drawdown test was run in a
well with the following characteristics:
500 STB/D (constant),
0.2,
JJ0.8cp,
Ct
10 x 10  6 psi  I ,
rw
0.3 ft,
h
56 ft,
Ba
1.2 RB/STB,
Awb
0.022 sq ft,
p
50 lb/cu ft, and
liquid/gas interface is in well.
q
cP
From the test data in Table 3.8, estimate formation
permeability, skin factor, and area (in acres)
drained by the well.
3.2. A drawdown test in which the rate decreased
continuously throughout the test was run in a well
with the following characteristics.
cP
0.2,
1.0 cp,
Ct
10 x 10  6 psi  I ,
rw
0.25 ft,
h
100 ft,
Ba
1.3 RB/STB,
AWb
0.0218 sq ft,
P = 55 Ib/cu ft, and
liquid/gas interface is in well
JJ
Fig. 3.13  Example multirate flow test.
TABLE 3.8  DATA FOR EXAMPLE
CONSTANTRATE DRAWDOWN TEST
t(hours)
o
0.0109
0.0164
0.0218
0.0273
0.0328
0.0382
0.0437
0.0491
0.0546
0.109
0.164
0.218
0.273
0.328
0.437
t(hours)
Pwl(psi)
t(hours)
Pwl (psi)
3,000
2,976
2,964
2,953
2,942
2,930
2,919
2,908
2,897
2,886
2,785
2,693
2,611
2,536
2,469
2,352
0,491
0.546
1.09
1.64
2.18
2.73
3.28
3.82
4.37
4.91
5,46
6.55
8.74
10.9
16.4
27.3
2,302
2,256
1.952
1.828
1.768
1,734
1,712
1,696
1,684
1,674
1,665
1,651
1,630
1,587
1,568
1.554
32.8
38.2
43.7
49.1
54.6
65.5
87.4
109.2
163.8
218.4
273.0
327.6
1,543
1,533
1,525
1,517
1,511
1,500
1,482
1,468
1,440
1,416
1,393
1,370
TABLE 3.9  DATA FOR EXAMPLE
VARIABLERATE DRAWDOWN TEST
t (hours)
From the test data in Table 3.9, estimate formation
permeability and skin factor.
3.3. A constantrate drawdown test was run on the
well described in Problem 3.2. Rate was held constant at 600 STB/D. After 96.9 hours, the surface
rate was changed abruptly to 300 STB/D. Data for
the tests before and after the rate change are given in
Table 3.10. From the data obtained with q == 600
STB/D, estimate k, s, and area of the reservoir.
From the data obtained in the tworate flow test after
q changed to 300 STB/D, confirm the estimates of k
and s, and calculate the current value of p*.
3.4. For the multirate flow test described in
Example 3.6, (a) calculate the value of the plotting
function at (=0.5, 1.5, and 2.5 hours, and (b)
calculate the flowing bottomhole pressure at (= 3.5
hours, assuming that there is no change in rate for 3
hours < ( < 4 hours.
Pwf(psi)
o
0.114
0.136
0.164
0.197
0.236
0.283
0.340
0.408
0.490
0.587
0.705
0.846
1.02
1.22
1.46
1.75
2.11
2.53
Pwl (psi)
q (STBID)
t (hours)
Pw/(psi)
q(STBID)
5,000
4,927
4,917
4,905
4,893
4.881
4,868
4.856
4,844
4,833
4,823
4,815
4,809
4,804
4.801
4,799
4.798
4,797
4,797
200
145
143
142
141
140
138
137
136
135
133
132
131
129
128
127
126
124
123
3.03
3.64
4.37
5.24
6.29
7.54
9.05
10.9
13.0
15.6
18.8
22.5
27.0
32.4
38.9
46.7
56.1
67.3
80.7
96.9
4,797
4,797
4,798
4,798
4,798
4,799
4,799
4,800
4,801
4.801
4,802
4,803
4.803
4,804
4.805
4.806
4,807
4,807
4,808
4,809
122
121
119
118
117
116
114
113
112
110
109
108
107
105
104
103
102
100
99
98
62
WELL TESTING
TABLE 3.10 DATA FOR EXAMPLETWORATEFLOWTEST
Pwl
t (hours)
O
0.114
0.136
0.164
0.197
0.236
0.283
0.340
0.408
0.490
0.587
0.705
0.846
1.02
1.22
1.46
1.75
2.11
2.53
at
Pwl
at
600STB/O
(psi)
300STB/O
(pSi)
5,000
4,710
4,665
4,616
4,563
4,507
4,449
4,390
4,332
4,277
4,227
4,182
4,144
4,112
4,087
4,067
4,050
4,036
4,024
3,833
3,978
4,000
4,025
4,051
4,079
4,108
4,138
4,167
4,194
4,219
4,242
4,261
4,276
4,289
4,299
4,307
4,314
4,319
Pwl
at
Pwl
at
t (hours)
600STBfO
(psi)
300STBfO
(psi)
3.03
3.64
4.37
5.24
6.29
7.54
9.05
10.9
13.0
15.6
18.8
22.5
27.0
32.4
38.9
46.7
56.1
67.3
80.7
96.9
4,012
4,002
3,992
3,982
3,972
3,963
3,953
3,944
3,935
3,926
3,918
3,909
3,900
3,891
3,883
3,874
3,865
3,855
3,845
3,833
4,324
4,330
4,334
4,339
4,343
4,346
4,350
4,353
4,356
4,359
4,361
4,363
4,364
4,365
4,365
4,364
4,362
4,359
4,354
4,349
References
1. Earlougher, R.e. Jr.: Advances in Welf Test Analysis,
Monograph Series, SPE, DaBas (1977) 5.
2. Winestock, A.G. and Colptts, G.P.: "Advances in Estimating
Gas WeB Deliverability," J. Cdn. Peto Tech. (JulySept. 1965)
111119. AIso, Gas Technalagy, Reprint Series, SPE, DaBas
(1977) 13,122130.
3. Gladfelter, R.E., Tracy, G.W., and Wilsey, L.E.: "Selecting
WeBs Which WiB Respond to ProductionStimulation
Treatment," Drilf. and Prado Prac., API, DaBas (1955) 1l7129.
4. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "NonDarcy Flow and Wellbore Storage
Effects on Pressure Buildup and Drawdown of Gas Wells," J.
Peto Tech. (Feb. 1965) 223233; Trans., AIME, 234.
5. Russell, D.G.: "Determination of Formation Characteristics
From TwoRate Flow Tests," 1. Peto Tech. (Dec. 1963) 13471355; Trans., AIME, 228.
6. Stegemeier, G.L. and Matthews, e.S.: "A Study of
Anomalous Pressure Buildup Behavior," Trans., AIME (1958)
213,4450.
7. Odeh, A.S. and Jones, L.G.: "Pressure Drawdown Analysis,
VariableRate Case," J. Peto Tech. (Aug. 1965) 960964;
Trans., AIME, 234.
Chapter 4
Analysis of Well Tests
U sing Type Curves
4.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the quantitative use of type
curves in well test analysis. The objective of this
chapter is limited basically to illustrating how a
representative sample of type curves can be used as
analysis aids. Other major type curves in use toda
are discussed in the SPE well testing monograph.
However, type curves for specialized situations are
appearing frequently in the literature, and even that
monograph is not completely current. We hope that
the fundamentals of typecurve use presented in this
chapter will allow the reader to understand and to
apply newer type curves as they appear in the
literature.
Specific type curves discussed include (1) Rameyel
al. 's type curves 24 for buildup and constantrate
drawdown tests; (2) McKinley's type curves 5 ,6 for
the same applications; and (3) Gringarten el al. 's 7
type curves for vertically fractured wells with
uniform flux.
4.2 Fundamentals of Type Curves
Many type curves commonly are used to determine
formation permeability and to characterize damage
and stimulation of the tested well. Further, sorne are
used to determine the beginning of the MTR for a
Horner analysis. Most of these curves were generated
by simulating constantrate pressure drawdown (or
injection) tests; however, most also can be applied to
buildup (or falloff) tests if an equivalent shutin
time 8 is used as the time variable on the graph.
Conventional test analysis techniques (such as the
Horner method for buildup tests) share these objectives. However, type curves are advantageous
because they may allow test interpretation even when
wellbore storage distorts most or all of the test data;
in that case, conventional methods fail.
The use of type curves for fractured wells has a
further advantage. In a single analytical technique,
type curves combine the linear flow that occurs at
early times in many fractured reservoirs, the radial
flow that may occur later after the radius of investigation has moved beyond the region influenced
by the fracture, and the effects of reservoir boundaries that may appear before a true MTR line is
established in a pressure transient test on a fractured
well.
Fundamentally, a type curve is a preplotted family
of pressure drawdown curves. The most fundamental
of these curves (Ramey's2) is a plot of dimensionless
pressure change, P D' vs. dimensionless time change,
l D' This curve, reproduced in Fig. 4.1 (identical to
Fig. 1.6), has two parameters that distinguish the
curves fram one another: the skin factor s and a
dimensionless wellbore starage constant, C sD ' For
an infiniteacting reservoir, specification of C sD and
s uniquely determines the value of P D at a given value
of l D' Praof of this follows fram application of the
techniques discussed in Appendix B. If we put the
differential equation describing a flow test in
dimensionless form (along with its initial and
boundary conditions), then the solution, P D' is
determined uniquely by specification of the independent variables (in this case, l D and r D)' of all
dimensionless parameters that appear in the
equation, and of initial and boundary conditions (in
this case, s and C sD )' Further, in most such
solutions, we are interested in wellbore pressures of a
tested well; here, dimensionless radius, rD=r/r w '
has a fixed value of unityand thus does not appear as
a parameter in the solution.
Thus, type curves are generated by obtaining
solutions to the flow equations (e.g., the diffusivity
equation) with specified initial and boundary conditions. Sorne of these solutions are analytical; others
are based on finitedifference approximations
generated by computer reservoir simulators. For
example, Ramey's type curves were generated fram
analytical solutions to the diffusivity equation, with
the initial condition that the reservo ir be at uniform
pressure befare the drawdown test, and with
boundary conditions of (1) infinitely large outer
drainage radius and (2) constant surface withdrawal
rate combined with wellbore storage, which results in
variable sandface withdrawal rateo A skin factor, s, is
used to characterize wellbore damage or stimulation;
as we have seen, this causes an additional pressure
drop, tlp s' which is proportional to the instantaneous sandface flow rate (which changes with
64
WELL TESTING
Fg. 4.1  Type curves lor constant production rate, in;liniteacting reservoir (Ramey).
time while wellbore storage is a dominant influence).
Dimensionless pressure drawdown at the wellbore,
p D' predicted by these solutions thus can be plotted
as a function of elapsed time, tD' for fixed values of
C sD and s. When curves are drawn for the range of s
and C sD of greatest practical importance, the type
curve results (Fig. 4.1).
To use a type curve to analyze an actual drawdown
test, the analyst plots pressure change, Pi  P wf vs.
flow time, 1, on the same size graph paper as the type
curve. Then one finds the preplotted curve that most
nearly has the same shape as the actual test data plot.
When the match is found, s, C sD ' and corresponding
values of [p D' (Pi  P wf ) 1and (t D' t) will have been
established, and k then can be determined. These
sentences summarize the principie  but the practice
differs in detail from the principie and is not
necessarily as straightforward as this brief discussion
implies.
note later in this chapter. Of major importance is
that the curves can be used for buildup tests and for
gas well tests.) The result of Ramey's work is shown
in Fig. 4,1.
Sorne important properties of these curves follow.
1. Examination of the analytical solution on
which the type curves are based shows that, at earliest
times when wellbore unloading is responsible for
100070 of the flow in a drawdown test (or afterflow
rate equals rate before shutin in a buildup test), IIp is
a linear function of M (llp is pressure change since
the test began and M is time elapsed since the test
began). Thus, the log IIpIog~t curve is also linear
with a slope of unity (a 45 line) and the weJlbore
storage constant C s can be determined from any
point (~l, IIp) on this line (Fig. 4.2) from the relation
4.3 Ramey's Type Curves
Note that, in a well with a liquid/gas interface in the
wellbore,
Ramey's2 type curves were generated for the
situation of a constantrate pressure drawdown test
in a reservoir with slightly compressible, singlephase
liquid flowing; sufficient homogeneity such that the
radial diffusivity equation adequately models flow in
the reservoir; uniform pressure in the drainage area
of the well before production; infiniteacting
reservoir (no boundary effects during the flow period
of interest for test analysis purposes); constant
withdrawal rate at the surface; and wellbore storage
and concentrated wellbore damage or stimulation
characterized by a skin factor, s. This list of
assumptions is tedious, but it is al so important.
When one or more of these assumptions is not valid
in a specific case, there is no assurance that use of the
type curves can lead to a valid test interpretation.
(Sorne of these limitations can be removed, as we will
=::
Cs
qB (~t)
24
IIp unitslope line
25.65
p
AWb
bbllpsi, ............... (4.1)
and for a wellbore filled with a singlephase liquid or
with gas,
Cs == e wb V wb bbllpsi,
, .......... , ..... (4.2)
and
C sD ==0.894 Cs!c/>cthr~.
. .............. (4.3)
Successful application of Ramey's type curves for
quantitative analysis depends significantly on our
ability to establish the correct value of CsD to be used
for curve matching  type curves for a given value of
s and for different values of CsD have very similar
shapes, so it is difficult to find the best fit without
prior knowledge of C sD ' Direct calculation of CS'
ANAL YSIS OF WELL TESTS USING TYPE CURVES
/
//
log 6 P ________ ,< E
//
65
UNE WITH SLOPE
= I CYCLE/CYCLE
ANY POINT U1l,P)
,7f~~
UNE TO CALCULATE Cs
:
MATCH POINT
log 6t
~~
,o
/~
c.o' ',.9 C50 C50
?
,SY/Q
'&
END OF WELL BORE
STORAGE DISTORTION
(CURVES IDENTICAL TO
S~O
Fig. 4.3  Use of type curves to determine end of wellbore
storage distortion.
and thus C D' from known values of A wb and p or
and V sb does not characterize test conditions as
w~ll as thtvalue of C s determined from actual test
performance as reflected in the unitslope lines. 9
2. Wellbore storage has cea sed distorting the
. pressure transient test data when the type curve for
the value of C sD characterizing the test ?ecomes
identical to the type curve for C sD = O (Flg. 4.3).
(This usually occurs about one and a half to two
cycles from the end of the unitslope line.) Thus,
these type curves can be used to determine how ~uch
data (if any) can be analyzed by conventlOnal
methods such as the Horner pIot for buildup tests.
3. The type curves, which were developed for
drawdown tests, also can be used for buildup test
analysis if an equivalent shutin time,
Ilt e =Ilt/(l + Ilt/t ), is used as the time variable. An
intuitive proof ofthis assertion for small Ilt (where
Ilt:::::llt e ) follows.
The equation of the MTR in a drawdown test can
be expressed as
C b
Pi pwj=m log t+ Cl'
The equation of the MTR in a buildup test is
Pi  P ws
;;]
CURVE FOR C.o'OI
= m log[(tp + Ilt) / Ilt]
Fig. 4.2  Use of unit slope line to calculate wellbore
storage constant.
U
L
D:.? ""
'1
/'
t"V
t,hr
I
J
Fig. 4.4  Horizontal and vertical shifting lo fnd position of
fit and match points.
(p i
P wj ) drawdown  (p ws  P wj ) buildup'
and
tdrawdown Iltbuildup'
If these analogies can be used for the larger values
of Ilt in the MTR, then we would expect intuitively
that the approximation used to develop them would
be even better for the smaller values of Ilt in the
ETR.
The practical implication of this analysis is this.
For use with type curves, we plot actual drawdown
test data as (p  P wj) vs. t and buildup test data as
(P ws Pwj) vs. Ilt, but we must remember that Ilt e
must be used instead of Mwhenever M>O.l t p '
4. A loglog plot of P D vs. t D differs from a loglog plot of (Pi Pwj) vs. t (for a drawdown .test)
only by a shift in the origin of the coordmate
system  i.e., log t D differs from log t by a constant
and log P D differs from log (Pi  P wj) by another
constant. To show this, we note that
0.OOO264kt
tD =
2
<pJictr w
and
=m log(tp +Ilt) m log Ilt.
If log (tfJ + Ilt) ~ log tp (an adequate assumption for
Ilt max sO.1 tp )'
Pi P ws
~m
~
Thus,
log tp m log M
(Pi Pwj) m log IltC l
or
and
kh
logPD=log (pPwj) +log 141.2qBJi'
(P ws Pwj) ~m log M+C j
Thus, the equations for MTR's in drawdown and
buildup test plots have similar form if we use the
analogies
The significance of this result is that the plot of an
actual drawdown test (log t vs. log IIp) should have a
shape identical to that of a plot of log t D vs. log P D'
but we have to displace both the horizontal and
66
WELL TESTING
vertical axes (i.e., shift the origin of the plot) to find
the position of best fit (Fig. 4.4).
Once a fit is found by vertical and horizontal
shifting, we choose a match point to determine the
relationship between actual time and dimensionless
time and between actual pressure drawdown and
dimensionless pressure for the test being analyzed.
Any point 00 the graph paper will suffice as a match
point (i.e., the result is independent of the choice of
match point). For the match point chosen, we
determine the corresponding values of (t, ID) and
[(pPwj), PD1. Then, from definition of PD and
k= 141.2 qBJt (
PD
)
, ............ (4.4)
h
pPwj MP
and
'/"C
RB/Mscf ............... (4.11)
Thus, when Jtzlp = constant, we can plot (pPwj) for typecurve use just as for a slightly compressible liquido Matchpoint interpretation is
k=141.2
c/>Cti=
qg
JtB g (
PD
)
, ........ (4.12)
h
pPwj MP
0.0002~4k ( ~)
Jtrw
ID'
'1'
Bg =5.04
= 0.000264 k ( ~ )
2
Ww
(4.5)
tD MP
5. Although the type curves were developed from
solutions to flow equations for slightly compressible
liquids, they also can be used to analyze gas well
tests. Transformation of the flow equations to model
gas flow in terms of the pseudopressure 10 f (p) and
comparison of these solutions expressed in terms of
dimensionless pseudopressure, f D' with solutions
P D for slightly compressible liquids, 11 show that, as
a highorderaccuracy approximation for transient
flow,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.13)
ID MP
Note that all gas properties are to be evaluated at
original reservoir pressure for a test in an infiniteacting reservoir (or, more generally, at the uniform
reservoir pressure preceding the drawdown test or at
the current average reservoir pressure for a buildup
test).
In sorne other situations, JtZ is constant (e.g., in
many cases for p<2,OOO psia); as a result, Eq. 4.7
can be replaced by the definition
_ kh (P7  P~j)
PD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.14)
1,422 qgJtzT
Thus, when JtZ = constant, we can plot (PT  P~j)
for typecurve use. Matchpoint interpretation
becomes
k=I,422
qg
2 2) , ....... (4.15)
PD
JtZT(
h
p Pwj MP
fD (tD,rD's' ,CsD ) =PD (tD,rD's,CsD ) '
where, for gases,
0.000264 kl
ID=
2 '
c/>Jtcgr w
s' =s+Dlqg
c/>C t =
.................
(4.6)
1, ....................... (4.8)
p~
Jt(p)z(p)
dp.
. ............ (4.9)
To use this result as stated would require that we
(1) prepare atable or graph of values of f(p) vs. P
from Eq. 4.9 based on the properties of the specific
gas in the well being tested; (2) plot [ f (p ) f(Pwj) 1 vs. ton loglog paper; and (3) find the best
fit just as for a slightly compressible liquid (with the
values of s providing the best fit being interpreted for
the gas well as s+ Dlqg 1).
Steps 1 and 2 can be simplified in sorne cases.
When JtZ is directly proportional to pressure (for
p>3,OOO psia for sorne gases), Eq. 4.7 can be
replaced by the definition
_ kh(p Pwj)
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4.10)
PD 141.2 qgJtBg
where
Jtrw
............. (4.16)
tD MP
Determination of whether either approximation
= constant or JtZ = constant) is valid must be
based on plots or tabulations using the properties of
the specific gas in the reservoir being tested.
(Jtzlp
and
f(p) =2
0.0002~4 k ( ~ )
Use of Ramey's Type Curves
The theory of Ramey's type curves leads to the
following procedure for using the curves for test
analysis. The procedure is given for a slightly
compressiblc liquid; Eqs. 4.6 through 4.16 show the
changes necessary when a gas well test is analyzed.
1. Plot (Pi  Pwj) vS. I (drawdown test) or (P ws P wj) vS. t:.1 e =t:.II(1 + t:.11 I p) (buildup test) on loglog paper the same size as Ramey's type curve.
Caution: Unless a type curve undistorted in the
reproduction process is used, it will not have the
same dimensions as commercially available graph
paper and finding a fit may be misleading or impossible. The best solution is to use an undistorted
type curve; an acceptable alternative is to plot test
data on tracing paper, using the grid on the distorted
type curve as a plotting aid.
2. If the test has a uniformslope region (45 line
at earliest times), choose any point [1, (p  Pwj) 1 or
[t:.I, (P ws  Pwj) 1on the unitslope line and caIculate
the wellbore storage constant C s :
0
.~
Cs=qB(
24 PI
)
Pwj unitslope line
ANAL YSIS OF WELL TESTS USING TYPE CURVES
67
TABLE4.2 DRAWDOWN DATA TABULATED
FOR PLOTTING
TABLE4.1CONSTANTRATE DRAWDOWN
TEST DATA
t(hours)
Pwf (psi)
t(hours)
Pwf (psi)
t(hours)
Pwf (psi)
2.18
2.73
3.28
3.82
4.37
4.91
5.46
6.55
8.74
10.9
16.4
1,768
1,734
1,712
1,696
1,684
1,674
1,665
1,651
1,630
1,614
1,587
~."''
0.0109
0.0164
0.0218
0.0273
0.0328
0.0382
0.0437
0.0491
0.0546
0.109
0.164
0.218
0.273
0.328
0.382
0.437
0.491
0.546
1.09
1.64
2,976
2,964
2,953
2,942
2,930
2,919
2,908
2,897
2,886
2,785
2,693
2,611
2,536
2,469
2,408
2,352
2,302
2,256
1.952
1,828
Then calculate the dimensionless wellbore storage
constant:
0.894 C s
CsD
<pct hr w
Note that estimates of <p and C tare required at this
point  with implications that are discussed latero
If a unitslope line is not present, Cs and C sD must
be calculated from wellbore properties, and inaccuracies may result if these properties do not describe
actual test behavior. 9
3. Using type curves with C sD as calculated in
Step 2, find the curve that most nearly fits an the
plotted data. This curve will be characterized by
sorne skin factor, s; record its value. Interpolation
between curves should improve the precision of the
analysis, but may prove difficult. Even for fixed CsD
from the unitslope curve, the analyst may experience
difficulty in determining that one value of s provides
a better fit than another, particularly if all data are
distorted by wellbore storage or if the "scatter" or
"noise" that characterizes much actual field data is
present. If C sD is not known with certainty, the
possible ambiguity in finding the best fit is even more
pronounced.
4. With the actual test data plot placed in the
position of best fit, record corresponding values of
(p i  P wj' P D) and (1, ID) from any convenient
match point.
5. Calculate k and <pCt (Eqs. 4.4 and 4.5):
k= 141.2 qB/1 ( PD )
,
h
pPwj MP
<pCt =
0.000264 k ( I )
2
Ww
.
ID MP
Eq. 4.5 does not establish <pCt based on test performance unless it is possible to establish CsD
without assuming values for <pc t  it simply
reproduces those values assumed in Step 2.
In summary, the procedure outlined in Steps 1
through 5 provides estimates of k, s, and Cs'
Problem. Determine k, s, and Cs from the data
below and in Table 4.1, which were obtained in a
pressure drawdown test on an oil well.
P,Pwf
(psi)
t (hours)
(psi)
t (hours)
(psi)
0.0109
0.0164
0.0218
0.0273
0.0328
0.0382
0.0437
0.0491
0.0546
0.109
24
36
47
58
70
81
92
103
114
215
0.164
0.218
0.273
0.328
0.382
0.437
0.491
0.546
1.09
1.64
307
389
464
531
592
648
698
744
1,048
1,172
2.18
2.73
3.28
3.82
4.37
4.91
5.46
6.55
8.74
10.9
16.4
1,232
1,266
1,288
1,304
1,316
1,326
1,335
1,349
1,370
1,386
1,413
q = 500 STB/D,
<p = 0.2,
/1 = 0.8 cp,
Ct = 10 x 10 6 psi  1 ,
rw = 0.3ft,
h = 56 n,
B o = 1.2 RB/STB, and
Pi = 3,000 psia.
Solution. We must first prepare the data for plotting
(Table 4.2). The data are plotted in Fig. 4.5.
From the unitslope line (on which the data lie for
1:50.0218 hour) ,
= qB [
24
(Pi  Pwj) point on unitslope line
(500)(1.2)
(24)
(0.0218)
x(47)
=0.0116 RB/psi.
Then,
(0.894)(0.0116)
(0.2)(1 x 10  5 )(56)(0.3)2
= 1.03 X 10 3
For C sD = 10 3 , the bestfitting type curve is for s= 5.
A time match point is 1= 1 hour when
ID = 1.93 x 10 4 . A pressure match point is (p i Pwj) = 100 psi, whenPD =0.85.
From the match, we also note that wellbore storage
distortion ends at t ~ 5.0 hours (i.e., the type curve
for C sD = 10 3 becomes identical to the type curve for
C sD =0).
From the pressure match p0int,
k=141.2
QB
h
Example 4.1 Drawdown Test Analysis
Using Ramey's Type Curves
PPwf
P,Pwf
t(hours)
/1(
PD
)
PiPwj MP
= (141.2)(500)(1.2)(0.8) (0,85)
(56)
100
=10.3 md.
68
WELL TESTING
~~~~

(NO OP" W'ELLBORE
S~AGEDISTORTl~
lJIIlT SLOPE UNE
..
ON UHIT SUJPE
UN: USEO ro CAUlJLATE
e.
T!~ MATCH ~NT
t o l93dl
t 'tllJ
'~~~a~,~~o~oo
FLON TIME. hr
Fig. 4.5  Drawdown
curve.
test analysis with
Ramey's type
From the time match point,
_ 0.000264 k ( t )
cf>c t 2
Ww
t D MP
=
(0.000264)(10.3) (
1
)
(0.8)(0.3)2
1.93 X 10 4
= 1. 96 x 10  6 psi  1
Compare those with values used to determine C sD
from Cs:
cf>c(
= (0.2)(1 x 10  5)
=
2 x 10
values out.
6 ...
values in
4.4 McKinley's Type Curves
McKinley 5 proposed type curves with the primary
objective of chara=terizing damage or stimulation in
a drawdown or buildup test in which wellbore storage
distorts most or all of the data, thus making this
characterization possible with relatively shortterm
tests.
In constructing his type curves, McKinley observed
that the ratio of pressure change, ).J, to flow rate
causing the change, qB, is a function of several
dimensionless quanti ties:
).J = (kht:.t ~ re dt)
f p.C , cf>p.ctr2" rw t .
qB
w
p
s
Type curves with this many parameters would be
difficult, if not impossible, to use. Accordingly,
McKinley simplified the problem in the following
way.
l. He assumed that the well has produced sufficiently long (essentially to stabilization) that the last
group, dt!t p , is not important.
2. He ignored boundary effects except approximately and, thus, ignored re1rw in the basic
logic used to construct the type curves.
3. His analysis of simulated buildup and
drawdown curves showed that, during the wellborestoragedominated portion of a test, the parameter
khdt I p.Cs was much more important in determining
).JlqB than was the parameter kdtlcf>p.ctr~. Accordingly, he let klcf>p.ctr~= 10 X 10 6 mdpsi/cpsq ft
(an average value) for all his type curves. It is important to emphasize that even when klcf>p.c(r~varies
from this average value by one or two orders of
magnitude, the shape of the type curves is not affected significantly. The reason for this approximation was McKinley's judgment that the loss
of accuracy is more than offset by the gain in sensitivity in the type curves  i.e., that the shape of each
curve is distinctly different at earliest times (Fig. 4.6).
4. To take into account the remaining parameters
that do have a significant influence on test results,
McKinley plotted his type curves as t:.t (ordinate) vs.
5.615 Cs).JlqB (abscissa), with the single parameter
kh/5.615 Csp.. A smallscale version of McKinley's
curves is shown in Fig. 4.6.
5. Note that the skin factor s does not appear as a
parameter in the McKinley curves. Instead,
McKinley's curves assess damage or stimulation by
noting that the earliest wellborestoragedistorted
data are dominated by the effective nearwell
transmissibility (kh/p.) wb; thus, a typecurve match
of the earliest data in a test should allow calculation
of this quantity. Later, after wellbore storage
distortion has diminished, the pressure/time
behavior is governed by the transmissibility in the
formation, kh/ p.; this quantity also can be estimated
from a typecurve match  but for the later data only.
6. McKinley approximated boundary effects by
plotting the simulatorgenerated type curves for
about onefifth log cycle beyond the end of wellbore
storage distortion (where the curve has the same
shape as for C s = O) and then making the curves
vertical. This step roughly simulates drainage
conditions of 40acre spacing. Note that this gives the
curves early, middle, and latetime regions  but
remember that the curves were designed to be used
primarily to analyze earlytime data. When the
curves are applied to drawdown tests, they must be
applied to earlytime data only; they do not properly
simulate boundary effects in drawdown tests.
Use of McKinley's Type Curves
Before providing a stepbystep procedure for using
McKinley's type curves, we note that he actually
prepared three different curves: one for the time
range 0.01 to 10 minutes; one for 1 to 1,000 minutes;
and one for 10 3 to 106 minutes. The curve for the
time range 1 to 1,000 minutes is by far the most
useful; accordingly, it is the only one provided with
this text. The complete set is provided with Ref. l.
The steps for using McKinley's curves follow.
1. Plot dt (minutes) as ordinate vs. ).J=p Pwf
(or P ws  P wf) as abscissa on 3 x 5 cyc1e loglog
paper the same size as McKinley's type curve if
undistorted type curves are used. Otherwise, use
tracing paper for actual test data plotting. The time
range on the axis should correspond exactly to one of
the type curves (e.g., it should span the time range of
69
ANAL YSIS OF WELL TESTS USING TYPE CURVES
8o
8
o
8
o'
.,o
"
"o
.,..o'
O
O
.;
..
O
O
O
.,
.,
.,
O
~
.,
"~
W
l
.,~~I~'
....
,
.;
10'
U>
W
...:J
z:
W
l;
lO'
.:.:J
1:
U>
10
3"
lO'
31"
l'
~.6146 6p
qB
,..
e,
10 10 10'
10'1
PRESSURE 8UILDUP GRDUP,
1t:3 doy
'

Fig. 4.6  McKinley's type curve,
1 to 1,000 minutes or 0.01 to 10 minutes or 10 3 to 10 6
minutes).
2. Match the time axis of the test data plot with
one of McKinley's. Move the data along the plot
horizontally (no vertical shifting allowed) until the
earliest data fall along one of the type curves.
3. Record the parameter value (kh/.t)/5.615 C s
for the correct type curve.
4. Choose a data match point (any t1p from the
test graph paper and the corresponding value of
5.615 t1pCs /qB from the type curve).
5. Determine the wellbore storage constant C s
from
values of t:J.P=t:J.PMP
and 5.615
t1pCs /qB= (5.615 t1pCs /qB) MP at the ma.ch point:
(5.615 t1pCs /qB) MP
qB
x.
t1pMP
5.615
6. Calculate nearwell transmissibility, (kh/.t) wb'
from the parameter value recorded in Step 3 and the
wellbore storage constant determined in Step 5:
Cs =
(kh/.t) wb = (
kh/.t
5.615 C s wb
transmissibility), shift the data plot horizontally to
find another type curve that better fits the later data.
A shift to a higher value of (kh/.t)/5.615 C s indicates damage; a shift to a lower value indicates
stimulation.
8. Calculate formation transmissibility:
(kh!.t)j= (
kh/.t
x(5.615 C s )Step5'
Note that we do not find a new pressure match point
to re determine Cs; C s is found once and for all in
Step 5. In fact, if only data reflecting formation
transmissibility (after wellbore storage distortion has
disappeared) are analyzed, error will result using the
McKinley method. (However, conventional methods
work here, so no problem arises.) The match point
must be found with early, wellborestoragedistorted
data (Figs. 4.7 and 4.8).
Flow efficiency also can be estimated fairly directly
from the data plotted for use with McKinley's type
curves. 6 The definition of flow efficiency, E, is
x 5.615 Cs'
7. If the data trend away from the type curve
providing the earliest fit (indicating that formation
transmissibility is different from effective nearwell
5.615Cs Step7
E=::.P*P wjt1ps
p* Pwj
= t1p*t1ps.
t1p*
The quantities t1p* and t1ps can be estimated from
70
WELL TESTING
.:1t
k h/~ )
5.615C s w
the McKinIey type curves in the following manner
(Fig.4.9):
l. tlp* is the vertical asymptote approached by tlp
in the McKinley pIot.
2. tlps can be calculated from tlpd' the time at
which the actual test data depart from the earliestfitting type curve. Picking a time of departure is
subjective, so no great accuracy is assured for this
reason alone.
McKinley 6 states that tlp s and tlp d are related by
tlps
= (1 kWb)
tlpd'
k
f
3. Thus, E can be calculated:
E::::. tlp*tlps.
tlp*
Fig. 4.7  Early data fit on McKinley's type curve.
Example 4.2  Drawdown Test Analysis
Using McKinley's Type Curves
Problem. Estimate nearwell and formation permeability and flow efficiency using the data
presented in Example 4.1 from a drawdown test on
an oil well .
.:1t
kh/J;! )
(
5.615C S f
Solution. We first prepare those data, most of which
lie in the time range 1 minute < t < 1,000 minutes for
plotting as tlt (minutes) vs. tlp =p  Pwf (Table 4.3).
From the data plot (Fig. 4.10) and the match with the
bestfitting McKinley curve for the early data,
x
(kh)
;,
wb
1
=5,000.
5.615 Cs
We also note that the data depart from the bestfitting curve (early time) at tlt d ::::.100 minutes; here,
tlp d ::::. 1, 180 psi.
A match point for the early fit is tlpMP = 107 psi
when 5.615 tl pCs /qB=O.OlO. The best fit of the
later data is for (kh/;')f(l/5.615 Cs) ::::.10,000.
Thus, from the matchpoint data,
Fig. 4.8  Later data fit on McKinley's type curve.
C
s
tlpC s )
(~) x ~
qB
MP tlp MP
5.615
615
.:1t
IJp*
= (0.010)( _1 )( 500 x l.2 )
107
5.615
LlPd 1
I
= 0.01 RB/psi
The nearwell transmissibility and apparent permeability, k wL . are then
Fig. 4.9  Data for flow efficiency
McKinley's type curve.
calculation
from
=(
(kh)
;,
wb
kh/;,
5.615 C s
)
wb
(5.615Cs )
= (5,000)(5.615)(0.010)
=281 mdft/cp.
Then,
k wb
(281)(0.8)
(56)
= 4.01 md.
ANAL YSIS OF WELL TESTS USING TYPE CURVES
71
kh/~
(5615C/ 10,000
DEPARTURE FROM ORIGINAL_'\')
TYPECURVE MATCH
Atd ' 100 MIN
AP d 1180 PSI
100
E
w
TABLE 4.3 DRAWDOWN DATA FOR
McKINLEY CURVE ANAL YSIS
~
~
10
~
O
(minutes)
P,Pwl
(psi)
:,/
(minutes)
pPw(
(psi)
.:;t
(minutes)
PPwl
(psi)
1.31
1.64
1.97
2.29
2.62
2.95
3.28
6.54
9.84
13,1
47
58
70
81
92
103
114
215
307
389
16.4
19.7
22.9
26.2
29.5
32.8
65.4
98.4
131
164
464
531
592
648
698
744
1,048
1,172
1,232
1,266
197
229
262
295
328
393
524
654
984
1,288
1,304
1,316
1,326
1,335
1,349
1,370
1,386
1,413
:,/

.J
LL
MATCH POINT 5.615APC, .001
qB
~~= I07p&1
10
00
1000
IQOOO
Pi  ~f . psi
Fig. 4.10  Drawdown test analysis with McKinley's type
curve.
The formation transmissibility and permeability are
(kh) = (khl;,X5.615Cs ) x(kh)
;,
(khl/1x5.615C s )wb
/1 wb
10,000
=x281
5,000
=
562 mdft/cp,
and
;,
k= ( kh)
x;,
h
0.8 )
=(562) ( 56
=8.03 md.
Flow efficiency beco mes
tlp*
tlps
=1,500 psi (Fig. 4.10),
= (1 
k;b) tlpd
4.01)
8.03
tlps= ( 1   (l,180)=590psl,
fractures with two equalIength wings were created.
The curves discussed in this section as sume uniform
flux into the fracture (same flow rate per unit crosssectional are a of fracture from wellbore to fracture
tip). High fracture conductivity is required to achieve
uniform flux, but this is not identical to an infinitely
conductive fracture (no pressure drop from fracture
tip to wellbore), as Gringarten et al. demonstrated. 7
The study was made for finite reservoirs (Le.,
boundary effects become important at later times in
the test). The reservoir is assumed to be at uniform
pressure, Pi' initially. The type curve (Fig. 4.11),
developed for a constantrate drawdown test for a
slight1y compressible liquid, also can be used for
buildup tests (for ..:lt max ::sO. 1 lp) and for gas wells
using the modifications discussed earlier. Wellbore
storage effects are ignored.
All the dimensionless variables and parameters
considered important are taken into account in Fig.
4.11, which is a loglog plot of P D vs. t Dr~ L} with
parameter x e I L . In these parameters, L is the
fracture halfIength and x e is the distance from the
well to the si de of the square drainage area in which it
is assumed to be centered. Dimensionless pressure
has the usual definition,
kh(ppw)
pD
(drawdown test),
141.2 qB;,
and
tDr~
L} =
1,500 590
E=
=0.607.
1,500
4.5 Gringarten et al. 7 Type Curves
for Fractured Wells
Gringarten el al. 7 developed type curves for
hydraulically fractured wells in which vertical
0.000264 kt
tDL' ............
(4.17)
Several features of Fig. 4.11 are of interest:
l. The slope of the loglog plot is 1/2 up to
t DL =0.16 for XeIL> 1. This is linear flow. We
hale shown that, in linear flow,
"Thls statement may be an overslmpllflcal!On. ~ome ~as we!!s exhlbt tIme
dependen! nonDarcy flow In the fracture. unllke Ilqu1ds. 2
72
WELL TESTING
10
'eLt = 0.0002637"
</>p.c, Lt'
Fig. 4.11  Gringarten et al. tyP curve for vertically fractured well centered in closed square, no wellbore storage,
uniform flux.
t (drawdown
test) or Ilt e (buildup test) on the abscissa on a 3 x 5
cyele loglog paper if an undistorted version of the
type curve is available. Otherwise, use tracing paper.
2. Se\ect the best match by sliding the actual test
data plot both horizontalIy and verticalIy.
3. Note the value of the match points [(PD)MP'
(pPwj)MP] and [(tDLf)MP' t MP ]'
4. Estimate formation permeability from the
pressure match point:
Pwf) (buildup test) on the ordinate vs.
or
I
PD=e tDLf
\I
Then,
10gPD =Iog e'
+ 11210g tDLf'
2. AIthough not apparent on a loglog plot, a
semilog plot of the data in Fig. 4.11 (p D vs. log
t DL ) is a straight line, signifying radial flow when,
f
for x e /L>5, t DL ==2. The straightline terminates,
of course, when b6undary effects become important,
but a match of actual test data with Fig. 4.11 can
show the amount of data in the radial flow region
(and, thus, can be analyzed for permeability by the
conventional P w/ vs. log t or Horner plots). Fig. 4.11
thus combines, 10 a single graph, the linear flow and
radial flow regions (and a region with neither),
boundary effects, and the effect of various fracture
lengths. /1 fracture conductivity is high and constant
throughout the test and if wellbore storage has
negligible effect on earliest data, then this figure
allows a rather complete analysis of a hydraulically
fractured well specifically, estimation of fracture
length, L, and formation permeability, k. The
method is frequently superior to the nontypecurve
methods discussed in Chapo 2.
Steps in use of Fig. 4.11 as a type curve for test
analysis inelude the following.
1. Plot (pPw) (drawdown test) or (P ws 
k=141.2 QB /l
(PD)MP
h (Pi P w) MP
5. Estimate fracture length from the time match
point:
L= [
0.000264 kt MP ] Y2
<P/le t (t DLf ) MP
........... (4.18)
Three useful check s are sometimes possible:
l. If a halfslope (linear flow) regio n appears on
the test data plot, replot data from the region as P w
(or P ws ) vs . ., (or ..,;); from the slope mL and
linear flow theory,
. r;:
4.064 QB
Lvk=
r;
hmL
..J~,
<pet
which should agree with the result from the typecurve analysis.
2. If a radial flow regio n appears (before boundary effects become important  that is, before the
data deviate from the x e / L= 00 curve), a plot ofp w
ANAL YSIS OF WELL TESTS USING TYPE CURVES
73
1000
en
Q.
~
CL
I
TYPE CURVE
Fo.R Xe/L f =
CL
lO.
TABLE 4.4  FRACTURED WELL BUILDUP
TEST DATA
(psi)
M(ho.urs)
~
(psi) ..89
100
100
100
114
136
159
181
206
218
TIME MATCH POINT
~_
0.75
0.833
0.917
1.00
1.25
2.00
2.50
4.00
4.75
6.00
31
43
54
66
66
72
78
83
0.0833
0.167
0.250
0.330
0.417
0.500
0.583
0.667
::::
P ws  Pwt
Pws Pwt
Llt (ho.urs)
00
vs. log t [Jws vs. log D.t or log (tp + D.t) / D.t] should
show that k= 162.6 qBJIJmh, in agreement with typecurve analysis.
3. If a well proves to be in a finiteacting reservoir,
it may be possible to estimate x e from a matching
parameter, xe/L, to compare with the known (or
assumed) value of x e to check the quality of the
match.
Example 4.3  Buildup Test Analysis
for a Vertically Fractured Well
Problem. Gringarten et al. 13 presented buildup test
data for a well believed to be fractured vertically.
From these data, presented below and in Table 4.4,
estimate fracture length and formation permeability.
Producing time, t(!' was significantIy greater than
maximum shutin tlme, so that t.t == D.t e'
t OL =0.0.1
fl t f =0.0.62 hr
PRESSURE MATCH POINT
Po =01
10.~~0.~.I___Pu=~~R=~~=_15_0_~_i__~____________~10
LH, hr
Fig. 4.12  Buildup test analysis lor verticallylractured
well with Gringarten type curve.
q =
=
B =
h =
2,750 STB/D,
0.23 cp,
1.76 RB/STB,
230 ft,
cp = 0.3, and
'1
el = 30 x 10 6 p S
I.
.t
Solution. Fig. 4.12 is a plot of t.p=P ws P w vs. D.t.
An adequate fit is characterized by the match points
(t=0.062 hour, tDL =0.01) and (t.p= 15.2 psi,
P D = 0.1). From the pfessure match point,
k=141.2 qB.t (PD)MP
h (D.p) MP
(141.2)(2,750)(1.76)(0.23)(0.1)
(230)( 15 .2)
=4.5md.
TABLE 4.5  CONSTANTRATE DRAWDOWN TEST DATA
t (hours)
Pwt (psi)
t(ho.urs)
Pw/ (psi)
t (hours)
Pwt (psi)
t (hours)
0.0109
0.0164
0.0218
0.0273
0.0328
0.0382
0.0437
0.0491
0.0546
0.109
0.164
2,976
2,964
2,953
2,942
2,930
2,919
2,908
2,897
2,886
2,785
2,693
0.218
0.273
0.328
0.382
0.437
0.491
0.546
1.09
1.64
2.18
2.73
2,611
2,536
2,469
2,408
2,352
2,302
2,256
1,952
1,828
1,768
1,734
3.28
3.82
4.37
4.91
5.46
6.55
8.74
10.9
16.4
21.8
27.3
1,712
1,696
1,684
1,674
1,665
1,651
1,630
1,614
1,587
1,568
1,554
32.8
38.2
43.7
49.1
54.6
65.5
87.4
109.2
163.8
218.4
273.0
327.6
J!.~t (psi)
1,543
1,533
1,525
1,517
1,511
1,500
1,482
1,468
1,440
1,416
1,393
1,370
74
WELL TESTING
TABLE 4.6  BUILDUP TEST DATA
M(hours)
Pws (psi)
M(hours)
Pws (psi)
M(hours)
Pws (psi)
M (hours)
P ws (psi)
0.0
0.109
0.164
0.218
0.273
0.328
0.382
0.437
0.491
1,370
1,586
1,677
1,760
1,834
1,901
1,963
2,018
2,068
0.546
1.09
1.64
2.18
2.73
3.28
3.82
4.37
4.91
2,114
2,418
2,542
2,602
2,635
2,657
2,673
2,685
2,695
5.46
6.55
8.74
10.9
16.4
21.8
27.3
32.8
38.2
2,703
2,717
2,737
2,752
2,777
2,793
2,805
2,814
2,822
43.7
49.1
54.6
65.5
87.4
109.2
163.8
218.4
2,828
2,833
2,837
2,844
2,853
2,858
2,863
2,864
From the time match point,
Lj
=(
0.000264 k.ltMP
) V2
cf;p.c t (t DL) MP
(0.000264)(4.5)(0.062)
] V2
= [ (0.3)(0.23)(3 x 10  5)(0.01)
= 59.7 ft.
Exercises
Examples 4.1 and 4.2 were based on a portion of the
following data for a drawdown test followed by a
pressure buildup test.
q = 500 STB/D (constant),
cf; = 0.2,
p. = 0.8 cp,
= 10 x 10  6
Ct
psi 
1,
Pi = 3,000 psi,
rw
0.3 ft,
56 ft,
Bo
1.2 RB/STB,
AWb
0.022 sq ft,
P
50 Ibm/cu ft,
singlephase liquid,
liquid/gas interface in wellbore, and
well centered in a cylindrical drainage area with
h
re
= 1,ooOft.
The drawdown test data are presented in Table 4.5;
buildup test data (tp = 327.6 hours) are given in
Table 4.6.
4.1 Using conventional analysis techniques (Pwj
vs. log t plot in ETR and MTR, Pwj vs. t plot in
LTR), estimate k, s, E, t wbs ' Vp ' re (assume
cylindrical reservoir), and ri at the beginning and end
of the MTR for the drawdown test.
4.2 Analyze the drawdown test data as completely
as possible using Ramey's type curves. Can data in
the LTR be analyzed with these curves? Why?
4.3 Analyze the drawdown test data using
McKinley' s type curves. Estimate k, k wb' and E. Can
the data in the LTR be analyzed with these curves?
Why?
4.4 Analyze the buildup test using the Horner
plotting technique. Estimate (1) k, s, E, t wbs' and r
at the beginning and end of the MTR, (2) jj from the
MBH and modfied Muskat techniques, and (3)
reservoir pore volume (using jj before and after the
drawdown test).
4.5 Analyze the buildup test as completely as
possible using Ramey's type curves. Is there a shutin
time, .lt max' beyond which the typecurve technique
should not be used? Why?
4.6 Analyze the buildup test using McKinley's
type curves. Estimate k wb' k, and E. Is there a shutin time beyond which the typecurve technique
should not be used? Why?
4.7 In the buildup test analyzed in Example 4.3,
does a linear flow region appear? If so, analyze the
data using the conventional equations for linear flow
in a reservoir. Does a radial flow region appear? If
so, analyze the data using conventional methods.
4.8 A drawdown test was run in a vertically
fractured oil well; the results are given in Table 4.7.
Using the Grngarten et al. type curve, estimate
fracture length and formation permeability. Identify
linear flow and radial flow regions and verify the
typecurve analysis with conventional analysis of
these regions. As part of the conventional analysis of
the radial flow regon, estimate r at the beginning
and end of the MTR and estimate fracture length
from skinfactor calculation. The test data were as
follows.
TABLE 4.7  FRACTURED WELL DRAWDOWN
TEST DATA
t (hours)


Pwl (psi)
t (hours)
0.15
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.8
1.0
4,000
3,982
3,978
3,975
3,969
3,965
3,960
3,957
3,950
1.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
8.0
10
15
Pwl (psi)
_.
3,932
3,922
3,907
3,896
3,886
3,879
3,866
3,856
3,837
t (hours)
Pwl (psi)
20
30
40
50
60
80
100
3,823
3,803
3,789
3,778
3,768
3,755
3,744
_ _ _ o
ANAL YSIS OF WELL TESTS USING TYPE CURVES
q
B
h
e!>
J.l
et
200 STB/D (constant),
1.288 RB/STB,
12 ft,
0.1,
0.5 cp,
20 x 10  6 psi  I , and
wellbore unloading distortion negligible at all
times.
References
1. Earlougher, R.C Jr.: Advances in Wel/ Test Ana/ysis,
Monograph Series, SPE, Dalias (1977) 5.
2. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "ShortTime Well Test Data Interpretation
in the Presence of Ski n Effect and Wellbore Storage," J. Peto
Tech. (Jan. 1970) 97104; Trans., AIME, 249.
3. Agarwal, R.G., AIHussainy, R., and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "An
Investigation of Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady
Liquid Flow: 1. Analytical Treatment," Soco Peto Eng. J.
(Sept. 1970) 279290; Trans., AIME, 249.
4. Wattenbarger, R.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "An Investigation
of Wellbore Storage and Ski n Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow:
II. FiniteDifference Treatment," Soco Peto Eng. J. (SepL
1970) 291297; Trans., AIME, 249.
5. McKinley, R.M.: "Wellbore Transmissibility From AfterflowDominated Pressure Buildup Data," J. Peto Tech.
(July 1971) 863872; Trans., AIME, 251.
75
6. McKinley, R.M.: "Estimating Flow Efficiency From AfterflowDistorted Pressure Buildup Data," J. Peto Tech.
(June 1974) 696697.
7. Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Raghavan, R.:
"UnsteadyState Pressure Distributions Created by a Well
With a Single InfiniteConductivity Vertical Fracture," Soco
Peto Eng. J. (Aug. 1974) 347360; Trans., AIME, 257.
8. Agarwal, R.G.: "A New Method To Account for Producing
Time Effects When Drawdown Type Curves are Used to
Analyze Pressure Buildup and Other Test Data," paper SPE
9289 presented at the SPE 55th Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, held in Dalias, Sept. 2124,1980.
9. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Practical Use of Modern Well Test
Analysis," paper SPE 5878 presented at the SPEAIME 51st
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
OCL 36, 1976.
10. AlHussainy, R., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Crawford, P.B.: "The
Flow of Real Gases Through Porous Media," J. Peto Tech.
(May 1966) 624636; Trans., Al ME, 237.
11. Wattenbarger, R.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Gas Well Testing
With Turbulence, Damage, and Wellbore Storage," Trans.,
AIME, (1960) 243, 877887.
12. Holditch, S.A. and Morse, R.A.: "The Effects of NonDarcy
Flow on the Behavior of Hydraulically Fractured Gas Wells,"
J. Peto Tech. (OCL 1976) 11691178.
13. Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Raghavan, R.:
"Pressure Analysis for Fractured Wells," paper SPE 4051
presented at the SPEAIME 47th Annual Fall Meeting, San
Antonio, OcL 811,1972.
Chapter5
Gas Well Testing
5.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses deliverability tests of gas wells.
The discussion includes basic theory of transient and
pseudosteadystate flow of gases, expressed in terms
of the pseudopressure t{;(p) and of approximations
to the pseudopressure approach that are valid at high
and low pressures. This is followed by an
examination of flowafterflow, isochronal, and
modified isochronal deliverability tests. The chapter
concludes with an introduction to the application of
pseudopressure in gas well test analysis.
5.2 Basic Theory of Gas Flow in Reservoirs
Investigations 1,2 have shown that gas flow in infiniteacting reservoirs can be expressed by an
equation similar to that for flow of slightly compressible liquids if pseudopressure t{;(p) is used
instead of pressure:
t{;(Pwf) =t{;(p) +50,300
PsC g
q T[1.l51
T sc kh
w
log ( 1,688 ~1lCtr
kt
2)  (s+D 1q g I)J,
..................... (5.1)
where the pseudopressure is defined by the integral
t{;(p) =2
J
P{J
t{;(jJ)  50,300
0.75 +s+Dlqg
1]. ........... (5.3)
Eqs. 5.1 and 5.3 provide the basis for analysis of
gas well tests. As noted in Seco 2.11, for P > 3,000 psi,
these equations assume a simpler form (in terms of
pressure, p); for p < 2,000 fsi, they as sume another
simple form (in terms of p ). Thus, we can develop
procedures for analyzing gas well tests with equations
in terms of t{; (p), p, and p2 . In most of this chapter,
our equations will be written in terms of p2  not
because p2 is more generally applicable or more
accurate (the e~uations in t{; best fit this role), but
because the p equations illustrate the general
method and permit easier comparison with older
methods of gas well test analysis that still are used
widely.
Before developing the equations, let us generalize
Eq. 5.1 to model a drawdown test starting from any
uniform drainagearea pressure (jJ) that may be
much lower than initial pressure (Pi) after years of
production:
t{;(Pwf) =t{;(jJ) +50,300
P
dp ............. ....... (5.2)
IlZ
The term Dlq I reflects a nonDarcy flow pressure
lossi.e., it dkes into account the fact that, at high
velocities near the producing well (characteristic of
large gas production rates), Darcy's law does not
predict correctly the relationship between flow rate
and pressure drop. As a first approximation, this
additional pressure drop can be added to the Darcy's
law pressure drop, just as pressure drop across the
altered zone is, and D can be considered constant.
The absolute value of qg' Iq 1, is used so that the
term Dlqg I is positive for either production or injection.
For stabilized flow 3 (r ~ re) ,
Psc
qg T[ln(
)
T sc kh
rw
Psc g
q T[1.l51
T sc kh
.10g( 1,688 ~~1CtjrW2)_ (s+Dlqg
1) J.
..................... (5.4)
where p=jJ for all r at tp =0. For p<2,000 psia,
IlZ g ==constant == IljJZjJg for most gases; in this case,
2)
2 (p2
t{;(p)=_ _ PL .
2
2
Substituting into Eq. 5.4,
IljJZjJg
P wf
2 = 2
+ 1 637 qgllpZpg T[l
p,
kh
og
(1,688 ~llpCtj)
kt
p
GA~
77
WELL TESTING
 (s+Dlqg I
1.151
For stabilized flow,
)J................. (5.5)
<t4
q
T
2= 2_1422 g l'pZpg l (~)
P wf
P,
kh
Ln r w
0.75 +s+Dlqg
IJ. ............. (5.6)
Eq. 5.6 is a complete d$!liverability equation. Given a
value of flowing BHP, P wf' corresponding to a given
pipeline or backpressure, we can estimate the rate qg
at which the well will deliver gas. However, certain
parameters must be determined before the equation
can be used in this way:
1. The well flowed at rate q until r ;::: re
(stabilized flow). In this case, note ttat Eq. 5.6 has
the form
............... (5.7)
where
~ )0.75+SJ,
T
p
a=1,422I' zpg
ln(
kh
rw
.... (5.8)
<t2
qg
<tI
I
ti
t2
5.3 FlowAfterFlow Tests
In this testing method, a well flows at a selected
constant rate until pressure stabilizes  i.e.,
pseudosteady state is reached. The stabilized rate and
pressure are recorded; rate is then changed and the
t4
Pwf
D . ................... (5.9)
The constants a and b can be determined from
flow tests for at least two rates in which q g and the
corresponding value of Pwf are measured; jJ also
must be known.
2. The well flowed for times such that r S. re
(transient flow). In this case, we will need to estimate
kh, s, and D from transient tests (drawdown or
buildup) modeled by Eq. 5.5 (or sorne adaptation of
it using superposition); these parameters then can be
combined with known (or assumed) values of jJ and
re in Eq. 5.6 to provide deliverability estimates.
The gas flow rate q g' used in Eqs. 5.1 through 5.7,
should include all suostances that are flowing in the
vapor phase in the reservoir, with their volumes
expressed at standard conditions. These substances
include the gas produced as such at the surface, and
condensate and liquid water produced at the surface
that existed in the vapor phase in the reservo ir .
Calculation of the vapor equivalent of condensate is
discussed in Appendix A of Ref. 4. Craft and
Hawkins 5 summarize the calculation of the vapor
equivalent of producedfresh (nonformation) water.
Most of the remainder of this chapter provides
detailed information on testing procedures that lead
to estimates of the parameters required to provide
deliverability estimates. This discussion is based on
recommendations in the ERCB gas well testing
manual. 4
t3
ti
I'Z T
and
b=I,422 p pg
kh
<t3
t2
t3
l4
lo
Fig. 5.1  Rates and pressures in flowafterflow test.
i'1 _______ STABILlZED
:I
p2
wf
rr+f'+1
~__'_'=...J
DELlVERABILlTY
CURVE
_ABSOLUTE OPEN
FLOW POTENTIAL (AOF)
qgFig. 5.2  Emprical deliverability plot for flowafterflow
test.
78
WELL TESTING
TABLE 5.2  STABI LlZED FLOW TeST ANAL YSIS
TABLE 5.1  STABILlZED FLOW
TeST DATA
Test
Pw/ (psia)
qg (MMscflD)
1
2
403.1
394.0
378.5
362.6
4.288
9.265
15.552
20.177
3
4
well flows until the pressure stabilizes again at the
new rateo The process is repeated for a total of three
or four rates.
Rates and pressures in a typicaI test follow the
pattern indicated in Fig. 5.1. Two fundamentally
different techniques can be used to anaIyze these test
data.
Empirical Method
An empiricaI observation  with a rather tenuous
theoretical basis  is that a pIot of t1p2 = p2  Pwi
vs. qg (Fig. 5.2) on IogIog paper is approximately a
straight line for many wells in which the
pseudosteady state is reached at each rate in a flowafterflow test sequence. The equation of the line in
this pIot is
qg =C(p2 pwi)n . ................. (5.10)
This plot is an empiricaI correlation of field data.
As in any other empirical correlation, there is substantial risk of error in extrapolating the plot a large
distance beyond the region in which data were obtained. UnfortunateIy, such an extrapolation is
frequently required. To estimate the absolute open
flow potentiaI (AOF)  the theoretical rate at which
the weIl would produce if the flowing pressure Pw
were atmospheric  it may be necessary to extrapolate the curve far beyond the range of test data.
An AOF determined from such a Iengthy extrapolation may be incorrect.
The constants C and n in Eq. 5.10 are not constants at aH. They depend on fluid properties that are
pressure (and, thus, time) dependent. Accordingly, if
this type of deliverability curve is used, periodic
retesting of the weH wilI show changes in C and
perhaps in n.
We must emphasize that deIiverability estimates
based on this plot as sume that pressures were
stabilized (r ?:.re ) during the testing period used to
construct the plot. If this is not the case, stabilized
deliverability estimates from the curve can be highIy
misleading.
Theoretical Method
Eq. 5.7 suggests that we pIot (p2 Pwi)/qg vS. qg;
the result (for pseudosteadystate jZow) should be a
straight line with slope b and intercept a. Because this
line has a sounder theoretical basis than the log
t1p2 log qg pIot, t should be possible to extrapolate
it to determine AOF with Iess error and to correct
deliverability estimates for changes in IIp. Zpg. etc.,
more readily.
P w/
qg
p2 Pw/2
(psia)
408.2
403.1
394.0
378.5
362.6
14.7
(MMscflD)
(psia 2 )
(psia 2 IMMscflD)
4,138
11,391
23,365
35,148
166,411
964.9
1,229
1,502
1,742
4.288
9.265
15.552
20.177
AOF
(p2 _ p2w/) /qg
Example 5.1  Stabilized Flo w Test A nalysis
Problem. The data in Table 5.1 were reported for a
flowafterflow (or fourpoint) test in Ref. 6. At each
rate, pseudosteady state was reached. Intial (Le.,
before the test) shutin BHP, p, was determined to be
408.2 psia. Estimate the AOF of the tested welI using
(1) the empirical pIot and (2) the theoretical flow
equation. In addition, plot deliverabilities estimated
using the theoretical equation on the empirical curve
plot.
Solution. We prepare atable of data (Table 5.2) to be
plotted for both empirical and theoretical analyses.
1. Emprical Method. From a plot of (jJ2 Pw/)
vS. qg on loglog paper, and extrapolation of this
I to P2 Pwf 2 =166,411 (where Pw=O psig or
pot
14.7 psia), AOF"",60 MMscflD.
The slope of the curve, 11 n, is
1In = log (p2  p wi}z  log (p2  p wi)
log qg,2  log qg,l
1.449.
Thus, n = 0.690. Then,
C=
qg
(p2pwi)n
Thus, the empirical deliverability equation is
qg =0.01508(jJ2 Pwi)0.690.
These data are plotted in Fig. 5.3.
2. Theoretical Method. The theoretical deliverability equation is
(p2 Pwi)/qg =a+bqg'
Fig. 5.4 is a plot of (jJ2 Pwi)/qg vs. qg for the test
data. Two points on the best straight line through the
data are (2.7; 900) and (23.9; 1,900). Thus,
79
GAS WELL TESTING
lL:
,J
(f)
~
~
""
<r
o....
Q.
O'l
N
4
cJ=
C\J
4
1600
(f)
lo....
~1200
Id
I
N
lo....
''
EMPIRICAL
EMPIRiCAL
900
1,900
a+2.7 b,
a+23.9 b.
Solving for a and b, we find that a = 773 and
b = 47.17. Thus, the theoretical deliverability
equation is
We can solve this quadratic equation for the AOF:
47.17 q/ +773 qg 166,411 =0.
The solution is
qg =AOF = 51.8 MMscflD.
We also can determine points on the dcliverability
curve as calculated from the theoretical equation:
p2
47.17 qg 2 +773 qg' See Table 5.3. These
results are plotted III Fig. 5.3. The plot is almost
linear, but there is sufficient curvature to cause a
15.8070 error in calculated AOF.
Pw/
5.4 Isochronal Tests
The objective of isochronal testing 7 is to obtain data
to establish a stabilized deliverability curve for a gas
well without flowing the well for sufficiently long to
achieve stabilized conditions (' :::::'e) at each (or, in
sorne cases, any) rate. This procedure is needed for
12
16
20
24
qg ,MMSCF/D
qg ,MMSCF/D
Fig. 5.3  Stabilized gas well deliverability test.
Fig. 5.4
Stabilized deliverability test, theoretical flow
equation, constan! determination.
lowerpermeability reservoirs, where it frequently is
impractical to achieve,
during the test. An
isochronal test is conducted by flowing a well at a
fixed rate, then shutting it in until the pressure builds
up to an unchanging (or almost unchanging) value,
p. The well then is flowed at a second rate for the
same length of time, followed by another shutin,
etc. If possible, the final flow period should be long
enough to achieve stabilized flow. If this is impossible or impractical, it is still possible to predict
the stabilized deliverability characteristics (with
increased potential for error, of course).
In obtaining data in this testing program, it is
essential to record flowing BHP, P wf, as a function
of time at each flow rate.
Fig. 5.5 illustrates rate and pressures in an
isochronal testing sequence. This figure illustrates the
following important points about the isochronal
testing sequence.
l. Flow periods, excepting the final one, are of
equallength [i.e., t =(t3 t2)=(t5 t4)~(t7 (6)]'
2. Shutin periods have the objective of letting
P =::: P rather than the objective of equallength. Thus,
in general, (12 t)~ (14 t3)~ (16 (5)'
3. A final flow period in which the well stabilizes
(i.e., ' reaches 'e at time h) is desirable but not
essential.
The most general theory of isochronal tests is
based on equations using pseudopressure. However,
we will once again present the theory in terms of the
lowpressure approximations to these equations (p2
'e
WELL TESTING
80
qz
qg
ti
TABLE 5.3  THEORETlCAL DELlVERABILlTlES
p2 Pw,2
qg
Pwf
(psia 2 )
4,182
11,210
23,430
34,800
65,640
106,400
166,600
(MMsc/D)
4.288
9.265
15.552
20.177
30
40
49.8=AOF
t.
tFig. 5.5
equations) because (1) they are somewhat simpler
and less abstract than equations in pseudopressure
and (2) they allow direct comparison with more
conventional analysis methods 7 based on plots of
(jJ2  P
vs. q on loglog paper.
Eqs. 5.5 and ~.6 provide the basic method for
interpreting isochronal tests.
For transient flow (r <re)'
JlZP wf 2 = jJ2 + 1'637
r:E:JZE. Tq
kh
g
w/)
Pwf
2 = 2 1 422
P,
.[
~ In (1,6881>JlpCtpr w
2
'? re)'
JlpZpg Tqg
1)
J ...........
2
)
kt
 (s+Dlqg
kh
0.75 + (s+Dlqg
Rates and pressures in isochronal test.
points (q , jJ2  P w/ ) obtained at that time at
several dlfferent rates, and a truly stabilized
deliverability curve can be drawn when r '?re .
These assertions can be made more quantitative if
we note that for flowing time t, at each rate, there
corresponds a drainage radius, rd =cr, that is independent of rateo Admittedly anticipating a convenient result, we let r d 1.585 r (but the P vS. log r
plot constructed in the solution to Problem 1.2 shows
that su eh an r d approximates quite closely the point
beyond which no appreciable fluid is being drained).
At time t,
JlZ2
r:E:JZE. T,q
P WJ,,2 =p + 1'422
kh
g
..................... (5.5)
For stabilized flow (r
tz t3
1)
Because
(5.6)
In addition to the flow equations, an important
theoretical consideraton in understanding isochronal tests s the radiusofinvestigation concept.
We observed previously that the radius of investigation achieved at a given time in a flow test is
independent of flow rate and, thus, should be the
same at a given time for each flow rate in an
isochronal test. Further, the radius of investigation at
a given time can be considered to be proportional to a
drainage radius at that time, because it is near (but
slightly less than) the point beyond which there has
been no appreciable drawdown in reservo ir pressure
and thus no fluid drainage. Accordingly, at a given
time, the same portion of the reservoir is being
drained at each rate and, as a good approximation,
stabilized flow conditions exist to a point just beyond
r=r. Thus, a deliverability curve can be drawn at
each fixed time (hence, the name isochronal) through
(1. 585)2 kt
9481>Jlp ctp
kt
='
3771>Jl.li Ctli '
we may write the transient flow equation as
Pw/ =jJ2 1,422
JlpZ!~Tqg [ln(:: )
0.75 + (s+Dlqg
1)
Compare with the stabilized deliverability equation:
Pwf
=p
2 1 422 Jl.pZjJb Tqg
,
kh
[1
(!.L)
rw
81
GAS WELL TESTING
TABLE 5.4  ISOCH RONAl TEST DATA
Pwt
Duration
(hours)
Test



48
12
15
12
17
12
18
12
Initial shutin
First flow
First shutn
Second flow
Second shutn
Thrd flow
Third shutin
Fourth flow
Extended flow (stabilized)
Final shutin
(\J
lo....
72
100
orpws
(psia)
1,952
1,761
1,952
1,694
1,952
1,510
1,952
1,320
1,151
1,952
qg
(MMscflD)

2.6
3.3
5.0
6.3
6.0
01
O
TABLE 5.5 ISOCHRONAl TEST ANAL YSIS
qg
p2 _ Pwt2
(p2 _ Pwt 2 ) Iqg
(MMscflD)
(psia 2 )
709,000
941,000
1,530,000
2,070,000
(psia 2 /M Mscf/D)

2.6
3.3
5.0
6.3
Fig. 5.6  Empirical deliverability plot for Isochronal test.
0.75 + (s+Dlqg
1)
The equations are identical in form because we have
defined a timedependent drainage radius, 'd' as
kt
Y2
'd =
CP.tpC tp )
(377
Thus, we conclude that, at each fixed time t , an
analysis of different rates used in an isochronal test
should be possible just as it is for a stabilized test except, of course, the data will not yield a truly
stabilized deliverability curve. This is possible only if
stabilized data are available or if they can be
estimated.
273,000
285,000
306,000
328,200
stabilized flow and transient flow written in the form
below. For stabilized flow,
P2 Pwf 2 =aqg + b qg 2 ,
............... (5.7)
where
a=1,422.tpZpgT[ln( ~ )0.75+SJ, .... (5.8)
kh
'w
and
.tz TD
b= 1,422 p %71
................... (5.9)
For transient flow,
P2 Pwf 2 atqg+ bqg 2 , .............. (5 . 11)
Analysis of Test Data:
One Rate Continued to Stabilization
Experience 7 shows that reasonably satisfactory
results can be obtained with the emprical method
using the following procedure.
1. The best straight line is drawn through the
ponts (jJ2  Pwi, qg) obtained at a fixed value of
time with the dfferent rates used in the isochronal
testing programo The data are plotted on loglog
paper, just as when analyzing a stabilized
deliverability curve.
2. Lines should be drawn for several values of
time t, and the slope 1/n should be established for
each isochronal deliverability curve.
3. A line with the slope 1/n determined from the
nonstabilized, fixedtime curves then is drawn
through the single stabilized point, (qg' p2 Pwi).
This establishes the stabilized deliverability curve.
Once the stabilized deliverability curve is determined,
AOF is established in the usual way, as indicated in
Fig.5.6.
The theoretical method for analyzing isochronal
test data is based on the theoretical equations for
where b has the same meaning as for stabilized flow
and where a t' a function of time, is given by
=1,422.tpZjJgT[~
kh
ln(
kt
1,688 CP.tpc tp , w2
)+sJ.
.................... (5.12)
Thus,
p2pwi=a t qg+bqg2"<'e, ........ (5.11)
and
}  Pw/ = aqg +bqg 2 , ' ?:'e' .......... (5.7)
An analysis method of isochronal tests consistent
with the theoretical equations follows.
1. For afixed value of t, determine b from a plot
of(jJ2 Pw/)/qg vS. qJr
2. Using the stabihzed data point [qgs' (jJ2_
P
)s], determine a from
w/
WELL TESTING
82
~~,.,~~"'~'''~:
en
C\I~
i[
(f)
STABILlZED
a.
DELI5~~ILlTY
Ir:!
<r:
(f)
o....
C\I
a..
TRANSIENT
DELlVERABILlTY
CURVE(t~12hr)
:,'
()l
:
:
,,
i
:
a.
'
"
a'
.:::::,.
N
'+
AOF
8 6 MMSCF/D
105 L ~~~~~~~>'LIO
100
~r
.~
K
IQ,.
2.4
4.0
3.2
qg' MMSCF/D
Fig. 5.7 Isochronal deliverability test analysis.
a= [(jJ2  Pw/)s  bqgs 2]jqgs.
3. The stabilized deliverability curve uses the
constants determined in Steps 1 and 2:
jJ2 _ P w/
=aqg +bqg 2.
This equation can be used to calculate the AOF, for
example:
AOF =
5.6
4.8
~
6.4
qg' MMSCF/D
Fig. 5.8 Isochronal delverability test analysis,
theoretical flow equaton, constant
determination.
306,000 =
a12
+ 5.0 b,
328,000=aI2 +6.3 b.
Solving, we find that b = 17,080.
From the stabilized test, qth= 6.0 MMscflD and
 2, 485 , 000 pSIa.
. 2
P 2  Pwf 2 us,
2
2)
b
2
a= ( P P
s qgs
w[
qgs
a+./a 2 +4b(jJ2 14.7 2 )
=~~
2b
Example 5.2  Isochronal Gas Well
Test Analysis
Problem. Determine the stabilized deliverability
curve and AOF from the test data in Table 5.4
(adapted from data given in Ref. 4) using (1) the
empirical method and (2) the theoretical method. For
simplicity, data at only a single flow time are
reported.
Solution. 1. Empirical Method. Data from the 12hour flow tests are analyzed first to determine the
slope of the deliverability curve (Table 5.5). We also
note that at stabilized rate qf{ =6.0 MMscflD,
jJ2  P",/:f/ = 2,485,000 psia 2 and that when qg =
AOF,p pw/=3,81O,OOOpsia 2 .
The data are plotted in Fig. 5.7; from the plot,
AOF =:: 8.6 MMscflD.
2. Theoretical Method. We first determine b,
using a plot of (jJ2 Pw/)/qg vs. q$ from the 12hour test data. The line drawn (Flg. 5.8) passes
through the points with greatest pressure drawdown
and, thusileast potential error: ~q&. ~ 5.0 MMscflD,
(jJ2 Pwf )/q.8_=306,000 _fsia !~MscflD]
and
[q$=6.3 MMscflD, (jJ Pwf )/qg=328,OOO
pSla 2 /MMscflD]. Thus,
2,485,000  (17,080)(6.0)2
6.0
=311,700.
Thus, the stabilized deliverability curve is
jJ2 _ P w/ = 311,700 q g
+ 17,080 q g 2 .
Solving for AOF, we find that it is equal to 8.38
MMscflD. This value is quite c10se to the value
established using the empirical method. This is at
least partIy because the extrapolation of the empirical curve is not far beyond the observed data.
Analysis of Test Data:
No Stabilized Flow AUained
In very lowpermeability reservoirs, stabilized f10w
cannot be achieved in a reasonable length of time. In
such cases, a satisfactory determination of the
stabilized deliverability curve can be based on use of
the theoretical equations for transient flow (Eq. 5.5)
and stabilized f10w (Eq. 5.6). We have noted that the
stabilized equation can be expressed as
............... (5.7)
GAS WELL TESTING
83
q4
q
EXTENDED
FLOW PERIOD
S'
~SI=S
P ..PlollSL ___________________ _
P.WS2
f?WS3
Pv.,f2
Pwfs(STABLE)
TIME
Fig. 5.9  Skin factor determination.
where
a=1,422~P~~gTlln( ;: )0.75+S]' .... (5.8)
and
b= 1, 422 ~pZpg
kh TD
................... (5.9)
We also noted that the transient equation has the
form
P2 P w/ 2 atqg+ b qg 2 , .............. (5.11)
where
at
f?WS4
Fig. 5.10  Rates and pressures in modified isochronal
test.
drawdown tests run at different rates or buildup tests
following drawdown tests at different rates. We can
then plot s' vs. qg; extrapolation to q =0 provides
an estimate of true skin factor, s (see ~ig. 5.9). The
drainage radius re must be estimated from expected
well spacing (or knowledge of reservoir geometry in a
small or irregular reservoir).
The constants a and b determined in this way then
can be substituted into the stabilized deliverability
equation, Eq. 5.7. If a plot of log (jJ2  pwr 2 ) vs. log
qg also is desired, data points to be plotied can be
determined from the equation.
5.5 Modified Isochronal Tests
= 1 422 ~pZjJg Tl ~
,
kh
In(
kt
) +s]
1,688 <p~pCtpr w 2
..................... (5.8)
The objective of determining the stabilized flow
equation can be achieved if the constants a and b can
be determined. We note that the constant b can be
determined from the isochronal test data as
illustrated [by plotting (jJ2
)/qr; vs. qg for
fixed value of f and determiningthe slope, b, of the
resulting best straight line). Constant a, however, is
more troublesome: The only satisfactory means of
determining a is through knowledge of each term in
the defining equation for this quantity. Thus, we
need estimates of kh, s, and re' (Other quantities in
Eq. 5.8 are usually available.)
Since an isochronal test consists of a series of
drawdown and buildup tests, kh and s usually can be
determined from them. Determination of kh is
straightforward in principIe; determination of s is
less straightforward. Recall that a single test provides
only an estimate of s' =s+Diqgl. Accordingly, to
determine s, we must analyze at least two tests: either
Pv./
The objective of modified isochronal tests is to
obtain the same data as in an isochronal test without
using the sometimes lengthy shutin periods required
for pressure to stabilize completely before each flow
test is run.
In the modified isochronal test (Fig. 5.10), shutin
periods of the same duration as the flow periods are
used, and the final shutin BHP (Pws) before the
beginning of a new flow period is used as an approximation to jJ in the test analysis procedure. For
examfle, for the first flow period, use (jJ2_
2
PwJ;1 )=(Pws}f w/,1 \
for the second flow
penod, use. (Pws,2  P w/,2 ). Otherwise, t~e analysis
procedure IS the same as for the "true" lsochronal
test.
Note that the modified isochronal procedure uses
approximations. Isochronal tests are modeled exactly
by rigorous theory (if reservoir and fluid properties
cooperate); modified isochronal tests are not.
However, modified isochronal tests are used widely
because they conserve time and money and because
they have proved to be excellent approximations to
true isochronal tests.
84
WELL TESTING
TABLE 5.6  MODIFIED ISOCHRONAL TEST DATA
Pwl
Test
Pretest shutin
First flow
First shutin
Second flow
Second shutin
Third flow
Third shutin
Fourth flow
Extended flow (stabilized)
Final shutin
Duration
(hours)
or Pws
(psia)
1,948
1,784
1,927
1,680
1,911
1,546
1,887
1,355
1,233
1,948
20
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
81
120
qg
(MMscflD)
4.50
TABLE 5.8  THEORETICAL STABILlZED
DELlVERABILlTIES
5.60
6.85
qg
(MMscflD)
4.5
5.6
6.85
8.0
10.8
8.25
8.00
TABLE 5.7  MODIFIED ISOCHRONAL TEST ANALYSIS
2
qg
Pws
Pwl
(MMscflD)
(psia)
(psia)
4.50
5.60
6.85
8.25
8.00
(stabilized)
1,948
1,927
1,911
1,887
1,784
1,680
1,546
1,355
612,048
890,929
1,261,805
1,724,744
1,948'
1,233
2,274,415
Pws
P w 1
(J2  P , 2
(psia!!')
972,000
1,330,000
1,794,000
2,274,000
3,660,000
(psia 2 )
~_
..
(Pws 2~v;12)/!:J1
136,011
159,094
184,205
209,060
Note that p, the true current reservoir pressure. fS used for the stablllzed
test analysls.
L;::
(j)
'
'4
(j)
o...
CJ'l
o'
::::::::.
N
;l
'+
~
I
C\J
Nlf)
<!
(f)
o....
Fig. 5.12  Modified isochronal test analysis, theoretical
flow equation, constant determination.
STABllIZED
DElIVERABILITY
TRANSIENT
DELlVERABILITY
ACF
108 MMSCF/D
105''::"'c:!
I
10
100
qg' MMSCF/D
Fig. 5.11  Modified isochronal test analysis.
this value is AOF = 10.8 MMscflD.
For the theoretical method, we establish the
constant b from the slope of a plot of (Pws 2 Pw/)lqg vs. qg; in this case,
243,000  48,000
b=
= 19,500,
10
using data from Fig. 5.12. Then,
2)
b 2
( 2
a= P Pwf s qgs
qgs
Example 5.3  Modified Isochronal
Test Analysis
Problem. Estimate the AOF from the data in Table
5.6 obtained in a modified isochronal test, 4 using
both empirical and theoretical methods.
Solution. We first prepare the data for plotting
(Table 5.7). Fig. 5.11 shows the data lot for the
empirical method. This is a plot of (Pws Pw/) vs.
qg on loglog paper. The transient points are used to
establish the slope of the curve, and a line with the
same slope is drawn through the single stabilized
point. The AOF is the value of qg when P ws 2  Pwi
= jJ2pw/ = 1,948 2 14.7 2 = 3,790,OOOpsia 2 ;
2,274,415  (19,500)(8.0)2
8.0
= 128,300.
Thus, the equation of the stabilized deliverability
curveis
jJ2  P w/
= 128,300 qg + 19,500 qg2.
Solving this equation for the AOF (q g when jJ2 P w/ =3,790,(00), we find that it is equal to 1l.0
MMscflD.
It is also of interest to calculate points on the
stabilized deliverability curve and to plot them on the
85
GAS WELL TESTING
TABLE~10PSEUDOPRESSURE
TABLE 5.9  GAS PROPERTlES
FOR EXAMPLE 5.4
Ilg
(psia)
150
300
450
600
750
900
1,050
1,200
1,350
1,500
1,650
1,800
1,950
2,100
2,250
2,400
2,550
2,700
2,850
3,000
3,150
0.01238
0.01254
0.01274
0.01303
0.01329
0.01360
0.01387
0.01428
0.01451
0.01485
0.01520
0.01554
0.01589
0.01630
0.01676
0.01721
0.01767
0.01813
0.01862
0.01911
0.01961
FOR EXAMPLE 5.4
J/;(P)
PIp.Z
(psia/cp)
p(psia)
(psia 2 /cp)
0.9856
0.9717
0.9582
0.9453
0.9332
0.9218
0.9112
0.9016
0.8931
0.8857
0.8795
0.8745
0.8708
0.8684
0.8671
0.8671
0.8683
0.8705
0.8738
0.8780
0.8830
12,290
24,620
36,860
48,710
60,470
71,790
83,080
93,205
104,200
114,000
123,400
132,500
140,900
148,400
154,800
160,800
166,200
171,100
175,200
178,800
181,900
150
300
450
600
750
900
1,050
1,200
1,350
1,500
1,650
1,800
1,950
2,100
2,250
2,400
2,550
2,700
2,850
3,000
3,150
1.844 x 10 6
7.381 x 106
1.660x 107
2.944 x 10 7
4.582 x 107
6.566 x 10 7
8.888 x 10 7
1.154 x 108
1.451 x 108
1.779 x 10 8
2.135x 10 8
2.518x108
2.929x 10 8
3.363 x 108
3.817x 108
4.291 x 108
4.781 x 108
5.287 x 108
5.807 x 108
6.338 x 108
6.879 x 108

empirical data plot. The values are given in Table
5.8. These data are plotted in Fig. 5.11.
For p
150 psia,
5.6 Use of Pseudopressure
in Gas Well Test Analysis
Accuracy of gas well test analysis can be improved in
sorne cases if the pseudopressure 1/; (p) is used instead
of approximations written in terms of pressure or
pressure squared. In this section, we discuss the
calculation of pseudopressure and provide an introduction to direct use of this quantity in gaswell
drawdown test analysis. Detailed discussion, including systematic development of working
equations and application to drawdown, buildup,
and deliverability tests, is provided in Ref. 4.
Calculation of Pseudopressure
Gas pseudopressure, 1/; (p) , is defined by the integral
1/;(p) =2 )
2[0 + 12,290]
2
(150)
1.844 X 10 6 psia 2 /cp.
For p = 300 psia,
1/;(300) "" 1.844 x 10 6
dp, . .................. (5.2)
,z
where P/3 fs13 sorne arbitrary low base pressure. To
evaluate 1/; (p) at sorne value of p, we can evaluate the
integral in Eq. 5.2 numerically, using values for ,
and z for the specific gas under consideration,
evaluated at reservoir temperature. An example will
illustrate this calculation.
Example 5.4  Calculation of Gas
Pseudopressure
Problem. Calculate the gas pseudopressure 1/;(p) for
a reservoir containing 0.7 gravity gas at 200F as a
function of pressure in the range 150 to 3,150 psia.
Gas properties as functions of pressure are given in
Table 5.9.
Solution. We will select P/3 = O and use the fact that,
as P/3 O, pI ,zO. We will use the trapezoidal rule
for our numerical integration.
+ 2(
12,290 + 24,620)
2
(300  150)
Proceeding in a similar way, we can construct Table
5.10. These results are plotted in Fig. 5.13.
Drawdown Test Analysis Using Pseudopressure
Transient flow at a constant rate from an infiniteacting gas reservoir is modeled by Eq. 5.1.
1/;(pw} =1/;(p) +50,300 Psc qgT
T sc kh
JI 15110g[1 688 CP'c t, w 2
l .
,
kl
86
WELL TESTING
TABLE 5.12  DRAWDOWN TEST DATA
FOR CURVE MATCHING
TABLE 5.11  DRAWDOWN TEST DATA
>j;(Pwl)
t (hours)
O
0.024
0.096
0.244
0.686
2.015
6.00
17.96
53.82
161.
281
401
521
641
761
881
Pwl (psia)
3,000
2,964
2,920
2,890
2,866
2,848
2,833
2,817
2,802
2,786
2,777
2,771
2,766
2,763
2,760
2,757
 (S+Dlqg
1)
(psia 2 /cp)
>j;(P,)  (Pwl)
6.338 x 108
6.210 X 10 8
6.055 X 10 8
5.947 X 10 8
5.864 X 108
5.801 X 10 8
5.747 X 108
5.693 X 108
5.640 X 108
5.585 X 108
5.553 X 108
5.532 X 108
5.517 X 108
5.505 X 10 8
5.494 X 108
5.485 X 10 8
lJ .............
(5.1)
This equation describes the MTR in a gas well test,
just as Eq. 3.1 describes flow of a slightly compressible liquido In general, of course, drawdown
tests in gas wells also have ETR's (usually dominated
by wellbore storage distortion) and L TR's (in which
boundary effects become important). Analysis of a
gas well test using pseudopressure as the dependent
variable is illustrated in Example 5.5.
t (hours)
(psia 2 /cp)
0.024
0.096
0.244
0.686
2.015
6.00
17.96
53.82
161
281
401
521
641
761
881
0.128x10 8
0.283 X 10 8
0.391 X 10 8
0.474 X 108
0.537 X 108
0.591 X 108
0.645 X 108
0.698 X 108
0.753 X 10 8
0.785 X 108
0.806 X 108
0.821 X 108
0.833 X 108
0.844 X 108
0.853 X 10 8
Example 5.5  A nalysis of Gas Well
Drawdown Test Using Pseudopressures
Problem. A constantrate drawdown test was run on
a gas well with the properties given below; results are
shown in Table 5.11.
Pi
3,000 psia,
cf> = 0.19,
Swi = 0.211,
V w = 286 cu ft,
10 ft,
T = 200F,
r w = 0.365 ft,
.ti = 0.01911 cp,
qg = 1,000 MscflD,
rg
0.235 X 10 3 psi [,
drainage area = 640 acres (square), and
well centered in drainage area.
ro
b
x
~
= 0.7,
cti =
This gas is the same as that analyzed in Example 5.4;
6
"<t
roI
O
(f)
~4
><
~
64
o....
.....
N"
(f)
o....
~
'+
cP
56
::t001
1000
2000
01
10
10
3000
FLOWING TIME, hr
PRESSURE, PSIA
Fig. 5.13  Pseudopressure vs. pressure.
Fig. 5.14  Drawdown test analysis using pseudO
pressures.
KJOO
GAS WELL TESTING
87
TABLE 5.13  STABILlZED
DELlVERABILITY TEST DATA
Test
initial buildup
1
2
3
4
Rate
(MMscflD)
3.710
5.980
8.191
14.290
Pwf
(psia)

3,127
3,087
3,059
3,035
2,942
TABLE 5.15  GAS WELL
BUILDUPTEST DATA
TABLE 5.14 ISOCHRONAL DELlVERABILlTY
TEST DATA
q(MscflD)
(J (psia)
983
977
970
965
2,631
2,588
2,533
2,500
3,654
3,565
3,453
3,390
4,782
4,625
4,438
4,318
352.4
351.0
349.5
0.001883
0.003392
0.005738
0.009959
0.01903
0.04287
0.1144
0.3289
0.9724
2.903
7.903
12.90
17.90
22.90
27.90
32.90
37.90
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
accordingly, we can determine l/;(Pwf) for eachpwf'
These values are included in Table 5.11. From these
data, determine formation permeability and apparent skin factor.
Solution. The first step in the analysis procedure is to
plot l/;(Pwf} vs.log t. This plot is shown in Fig. 5.14.
The curve shape suggests wellbore storage distortion
up to t::::: 1 hour, and boundary effects starting at
about 200 hours. A loglog plot of fll/; = [l/; (p i )
l/;(Pwf) 1 is useful to confirm this suspicion. Thus,
we tabulate (Table 5.12) and plot fll/; vs. t.
Qualitative curve matching of log fll/; vs. log t with
Ramey's type curve (not shown) indicates an end to
wellbore storage distortion at about 1 hour for skin
factors in the range O to 5 regardless of C sD ' confirming the indication on the l/; (p wf) vs. log t plot.
The absolute value of the slope of the MTR line is
s'
s'=1.151 [
6.338 x 10 8
5.833
108
11.18 x 10 6
0.21
The well is apparently slightly stimulated.
Radius of investigation at the beginning and end of
the MTR is found from Eq. 1.25:
kt
'
= (948 <P1lC t)
Y2
520 R,
QgT
mh
hr)
I [
9.66
 og (0.19)(0.01911)(2.35 x 10 4)(0.365)2
m 50,3OO PsC q g T(1.151).
Tsc kh
=9.66md.
:<PI
= 1.151[l/;(P)
+3.23J
Eq. 5.1 shows that the proper interpretation of this
slope is
k=I,637
(11.18 x 10 6 )(10)
Thus,
= 11.18 X 10 6 psia 2 /cpcycle.
Thus, for P sc = 14.7 psia and T sc
(1,637)(1,000)(660)
From Eq. 5.1, we see that the apparent skin factor,
s' =s+Dlqgj,is
5.497) x 10 8 ]/4
m= [(5.944
(psia)
2,430
2,542
2,600
2,650
2,692
2,726
2,756
2,785
2,814
2,843
2,872
2,896
2,907
2,913
2,917
2,920
2,921
2,922
Pws
t (hours)
(psia)
344.7
342.4
339.5
337.6
329.5
322.9
315.4
310.5
318.7
309.5
298.6
291.9
305.5
293.6
279.6
270.5
Pwf
352.3
M(days)
Y2
(9.66)(1)
[ (948)(0.19)(0.01911)(2.35xlO 4)
WELL TESTING
88
109 ft at start of MTR (t::= 1 hour),
and
200 lIz
ri=(109)( 1 )
1,550 ft at end of MTR.
The distance x e from the well to the edge of the
640acre square in which it is centered is 2,640 ft;
thus, the time at whieh the observed deviation from
the MTR occurs agrees qualitatively with the time at
whieh boundary effeets should begin to appear.
Exercises
5.1. The data in Table 5.13 (from Ref. 6) were
obtained on a well believed to be stabilized at each
rateo Using equations in p2 (strictly speaking, not
applicable in this pressure range), estimate the AOF
using (a) the empirical method and (b) the theoretical
method.
AIso, do the following: (e) plot the theoretical
deliverability curve on the same graph paper as the
empirical curve; (d) since p2 equations are not aeeurate at this pressure level, develop and outline a
theoretieal method based on equations in p; and (e)
apply equations in p to these data; in particular,
ealculate the AOF.
5.2. Cullender 7 presented data from an
isoehronal test and from an earlier, longer test that
led to approximate stabilization in 214 hours test
time.
In the 214hour test, the rate was 1,156 MscflD,
the shutin pressure was 441.6 psia, and the flowing
BHP was 401.4 psia. Using the data in Table 5.14, (a)
determine the AOF with both empirical and
theoretical methods, and (b) establish plots (on the
same graph paper) of the empirical and theoretical
stabilized deliverability curves.
5.3. Confirm I/;(p) results stated in Example 5.4
for pressures in the range 450 $P $ 3, 150 psia.
5.4. The well discussed in Example 5.5 was
produeed at 2,000 MseflD for 90 days and then shut
in for a pressure buildup test. Data obtained in the
buildup test are given in Table 5.15. Determine
formation permeability and apparent skin factor
using an analysis procedure based on equations
written in terms of pseudopressure, 1/; (p) .
References
1. AlHussainy, R., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Crawford, P.B.: "The
Flow of Real Gases Through Porous Media," J. Pel. Tech.
(May 1966) 624636; Trans., AIME, 237.
2. Wattenbarger, R.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Gas Well Testing
With Turbulence, Damage, and Wellbore Storage," J. Pel.
Tech. (Aug. 1968) 877887; Trans., AIME, 243.
3. Dake, L.P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier
Scientific Pub1ishing CO., Amsterdam (1978).
4. Theory and Praclice of the Tesling of Gas Wells, third edition,
Pub. ECRB7534, Energy Resources and Conservation Board,
Calgary, Alta. (1975).
5. Craft, B.e. and Hawkins, M.F. Jr.: Applied Petroleum
Reservoir Engineering, PrenticeHall Book CO., Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1959).
6. Back Pressure Test for Natural Gas Wells, Revised edition,
Railroad Commission of Texas (1951).
7. Cullender, M.H.: "The Isochronal Performance Method of
Determining the Flow Characteristics of Gas Wells," Trans.,
AIME (1955) 204,137142.
Chapter6
Other Well Tests
6.1 Introduction
This concluding chapter surveys four welltesting
techniques not yet discussed in the text: interference
tests; pulse tests; drillstem tests; and wireline formation tests. These tests and others covered in
previous chapters by no mean s exhaust the subject;
however, the comprehensive treatment needed by the
practitioner is provided by SPE monographs 1,2 and
the Canadian gas well testing manual. 3
6.2 Interference Testing
Interference tests have two major objectives. They
are used (1) to determine whether two or more wells
are in pressure communication (i.e., in the same
reservoir) and (2) when communication exists, to
provide estimates of permeability k and porosity /compressibility product, 1>c l ' in the vicinity of
the tested wells.
An interference test is conducted by producing
from or injecting into at least one well (the active
well) and by observing the pressure response in at
least one other well (the observation well). Fig. 6.1
indicates the typical test program with one active well
and one observation well.
As the figure indicates, an active welI starts
producing from a reservoir at uniform pressure at
Time O. Pressure in an observation well, a distance r
away, begins to respond after some time lag (related
to the time for the radius of investigation
corresponding to the rate change at the active well to
reach the observation well). The pressure in the active
well bcgins to decline immediately, of course. The
magnitude and timing of the deviation in pressure
response at the observation well depends on reservoir
rock and fluid properties in the vicinity of the active
and observation wells.
Vela and McKinley 4 showed that these properties
are values from the area investigated in the test  a
rectangle with sides of length 2r and 2r +r (see Fig.
6.2). In Fig. 6.2, r is the radius of investigation
achieved by the active well during (he test and r is the
distance between active and observation weJls. The
essential point is that the region investigated is much
greater than some small area between wells, as intuition might suggest.
In an infiniteacting, homogeneous, isotropic
reservoir, the simple Eifunction solution to the
diffusivity equation describes the pressure change at
the observation well as a function of time:
qB/1
,(
1>/1c{r2 )
pP r =70.6;El 948 kt
. . . . (6.1)
This is simply a restatement of a familiar result.
The pressure drawdown at radius r (i.e., the observation well) resulting from production from the
active well at rate q, starting from a reservoir initially
at uniform pressure Pi' is given by the Eifunction
solution. Eq. 6.1 assumes that the skin factor of the
active weJl does not affect the drawdown at the observation well. Wellbore storage effects also are
assumed negligible at both the active and observation
wells when Eq. 6.1 is used to model an interference
test. Jargon 5 shows that both these assumptions can
lead to error in test analysis in some cases.
A convenient analysis technique for interference
tests is the use of type curves. Fig. 6.3 is a type curve
presented by Earlougher; 1 it is simply the Ei function
expressed as a function of its usual argument in flow
problems, 948 1>/1('/r2 /kf. Note that Eq. 6.1 can be
expressed completely in terms of dimensionless
variables:
pP r
(141.2 qB/1)
.
kh
1>/1c,r w
,( O.000264kf)(
21
rw) ,
or
PD
=  :2
Ei
( 4t D ),
where
PD=
14I.2qB/1
rD =r/r w'
................. (6.2)
WELL TESTING
90
BOTTOMHOLE t  : r    _ J
PRESSURE
\ , TIME LAG
and
OBSERVATION WELL
tD
"'___ fACTIVE WELL

0.000264 kt
2
CP;.C Ir w
Fig. 6.3 can be used in the following way to analyze
interference tests.
1. Plot pressure drawdown in an observation well,
D.p = P i  P T' vs. elapsed time t on the same size loglog paper as the fullscale, typecurve version of Fig.
6.3 using an undistorted curve (the reader can
prepare such a curve easily).
2. Slide the plotted test data over the type curve
until a match is found. (Horizontal and vertical
sliding both are required.)
3. Record pressure and time match points,
(PD)MP' D.pMP and [(tD/rB)MP' t MP ]'
4. Calculate permeability k in the test region from
the pressure match point:
RATE AT
q
ACTIVE WELLr"
TIME   Fig. 6.1  Pressure response in interference test.
k= 141.2 qB;. (PD) MP .
h
(b.p) MP
5. Calculate cpc l from the time match point:
1
2 r
+ r ..
Example 6.1 Interference Test
in Water Sand
Problem. An interference test was run in a shallowwater sand. The active well, Well 13, produced 466
STB/D water. Pressure response in shutin Well 14,
which was 99 ft from Well 13, was measured as a
function of time elapsed since the drawdown in Well
13 began. Estimated rock and fluid properties inelude ;'w = 1.0 cp, Bw = 1.0 RB/STB, h = 9 ft, r w = 3
in., and cp=0.3. Total compressibility is unknown.
Pressure readings in Well 14 were as given in Table
6.1. Estimate formation permeability and total
compressibility.
Fig. 6.2  Region investigated in interference test.
loltO"==~10=':J:::==10=6====:=:::i10=7==~IO~8~_1,09
Solution. We assume that the aquifer is
homogeneous, isotropic, and infiniteacting; we use
the Eifunction type curves to estimate k and el' Data
to be plotted are presented in Table 6.2. The data fit
the Eifunction type curve well. A pair of match
points are (b.t= 128 minutes, tD/rB= 10) and
(b.p = 5.1 psi, P D = 1.0). (See Fig. 6.4.) Thus,
k= 141.2 qB;.
h
,0.,.0..:'',....0,02"::,0':'',0
(PD) MP
(b.p) MP
(141.2)(466)(1.0)(1.0) (1.0)
(9.0)
(5.1)
= 1,433 md,
Fig. 6.3 Exponential integral solution.
and
c
0.000264 k
cpr 2
;.
(tMP/60)
(tD/rb)MP
OTHER WELL TESTS
91
TABLE 6.1  PRESSURE/TIME DATA
FROMINTERFERENCETEST
(0.000264)( 1,433)( 128/60)
(0.3)(99)2(1.0)(10)
=2.74xlO 5 psil.
::.t
P ws
(minutes)
(psia)
O
5
25
40
50
100
200
300
400
580
6.3 Pulse Testing
Pulse tests 6 have the same objectives as conventional
interference tests  to determine whether well pairs
are in pressure communication and to estimate k and
t:/>c t in the area of the tested wells. The tests are
conducted by sending a coded signal or pulse
sequence from an active well (producer or injector) to
a shutin observation well. The pulse sequence is
created by producing from (or injecting into) the
active well, then shutting it in, and repeating that
sequen ce in a regular pattern. An example is indicated in Fig. 6.5.
The reason for the sequence of pressure pulses is
that we readily can determine the effect of an active
well on an observation well amid the established
trend in reservoir pressure and random perturbations
(noise) to that trend. Highly sensitive pressure gauges
usually are required to detect these small coded
pulses, which may have magnitudes of less than 0.1
psi.
Pulse testing has several advantages over conventional interference tests:
l. It disrupts normal operations much les s than
interference testing does. It lasts a minimum time,
which may range from a few hours to a few days.
2. There are fewer interpretation problems caused
by random noise and by trends in reservoir pressure
as they affect pressure response at observation wells.
3. Pulse test analysis usually can be based on
simple solutions to the flow equations  specifically,
superposition of Eifunction solutions, which assume
infiniteacting, homogeneous reservoirs. In many
cases, longer interference tests require that boundaries be taken into account.
Analysis techniques for pulse tests usually are
based on simulating the pressure response in an
observation well with the familiar Eifunction
solution to the diffusivity equation, using superposition to mode! the rate changes in the pulsing
sequence. From the simulations of pulse tests, charts
relating key characteristics of the tests to reservoir
properties have be en developed. 7 Before we discuss
these charts (Figs. 6.7 through 6.14) and their application, it will be useful to introduce nomenclature
used in pulse test analysis, using the system of
Earlougher l (and his schematic pulsetest rate and
pressureresponse history).
Fig. 6.6 illustrates the time lag t L which is the time
elapsed between the end of a pulse and the pressure
peak caused by the pulse. The radiusofinvestigation
concept prepares us to expect a time lag. A finite
period of time is required for a pulse caused by
producing an active well to move to a responding
well, and the subsequent transient created by a shut. in period also requires a finite time period to affect
pressure response.
The amplitude tlp of a pulse can be represented
148.92
148.92
144.91
143.72
143.18
141.47
139.72
138.70
137.99
137.12
TABLE 6.2 INTERFERENCE TEST DATA
FOR LOGLOG PLOT
Al
(minutes)
O
5
25
40
50
100
200
300
400
580
::'P=P, Pwf
(psia)
O
O
4.01
5.20
5.74
7.45
9.20
10.22
10.93
11.80
IOO~'
o
Cf)
Cl..
10
rMATCH POI NT
Po = 1.0
6P = 5.1 psi
lo
Z= 10
ro
6l = 128,min
'+
ci...11
D
<J
1.0
0.1
10
100
6.t,mln.
Fig. 6.4 Interference test data from water reservoir.
1000
92
WELL TESTING
RATE IN
ACTIVE
,}L
,}L
,..L
WELL
PULSE NUMBER
2
3
4
RATE IN
ACTIVE
WELL
TIME
TIME
Fig. 6.5  Typical rate schedule in pulse test.
conveniently as the vertical distance between two
adjacent peaks (or valleys) and a line parallel to this
through the valley (or peak), as illustrated in Fig. 6.6.
The length of the pulse period and total cycle
length (including both shutin and flow periods) are
represented by tlt p and tlt c ' respectively.
Analysis of simulated pulse tests shows that Pulse
1 (the first odd pulse) and Pulse 2 (the first even
pulse) have characteristics that differ from all
subsequent pulses; beyond these initial responses, aH
odd pulses have similar characteristics and all even
pulses also have similar characteristics.
We now define dimensionless variables that are
used in Figs. 6.7 through 6.14, which were designed
for quantitative analysis of pulse tests: dimensionless
time lag, (t L) D = 0.000264 kt L I epJl.C tr;; dimensionless distance between active and observation
wells, rD=rlrw; and dimensionless pressureresponse amplitude, tlp D = khtlp/141.2 qBJI. (with
sign convention that tlplq is always positive).
Figs. 6.7 through 6.14 provide the correlations to
be used in pulse test analysis. Figs. 6.7 and 6.8 are to
be used for the first odd (i.e., first) pulse; Figs. 6.9
and 6.10 for the first even (i.e., second) pulse; Figs.
6.11 and 6.12 for all other oddnumbered pulses
(third, fifth, etc.); and Figs. 6.13 and 6.14 for all
other evennumbered pulses (fourth, sixth, etc.). The
figures use the ratios (1) F' = pulse length (tlt p) to
cycle length (tlt c) and (2) time lag (t d to cycle
length (tl/c )' The figures appropriate for a given
pulse number are .used to obtain values of
tlp D (t L I tl/ c ) 2 and [(t d DlrbL which are then
used to provide estimates of k and epc t.
qB;.tlp D (t L I tl/ c ) 2
k= 141.2
2
'
htlp(tL I tl/ c )
Fig. 6.6  Pressure response in pulse test.
was 26 ft; and porosity, ep, was 0.08. In the test
following rate stabilization, the active weH was shut
in for 2 hours, then produced for 2 hours, shut in for
2 hours, etc. Production rate, q, was 425 STB/D and
formation volume factor, B, was 1.26 RB/STB. The
amplitude tlp of the four/h pulse (Fig. 6.15) was
0.629 psi, and the time lag was 0.4 hour. From these
data, estimate k and epc t.
Solution. To analyze the fourth pulse, we use Figs.
6.13 and 6.14. Using Fig. 6.13 first to determine
tlp D (t L I tlt c)2 , and thus k, we note that
F' =tl/pltl/ c
2/(2+2)=0.5,
tLltl/ c =0.4/4=0.1.
Then, from Fig. 6.13,
and
k= 141.2 qB;. tlpD (tLI tl/ c ) 2
hl::.p (t L I tl/ c ) 2
(141.2)(425)(1.26)(0.8)(0.00221)
= ~(26)(0.629)(0.1 )2
=817md.
From Fig. 6.14,
(tL) D1rb =0.091.
Thus,
epc t =
0.000264 ktL
2
2 .
W [(td DlrD]
Example 6.2 llustrates how these figures are applied.
_ (0.000264)(817)(0.4)
 (0.8)(933)2(0.091)
Example 6.2  Pulse Test Analysis
Problem. A pulse test was run in a reservoir in which
the distan ce between wells, r, was 933 ft. Formation
fluid viscosity, ;., was 0.8 cp; formation thickness, h,
= 1.36 x 10 6
Then,
93
OTHER WELL TESTS
'(3
<i
0.0030 MHr~=
'"..::...
.J
&
o.o02~~H~
<l
O
::l
~
Q.
~
W
(/)
O
Q.
(1)
r:t
(/)
.J
::l
Q.
8 !I
10 1
(TIME LAGl/(CYCLE LENGTH), tL/tC
Fig. 6.7  Relation between time lag and response ampltude tor first odd pulse. 1
0.200
NO
0.17~
...
"
.J
O.I~O
6
~
0.12~
~
(/)
0.100
(/)
.J
(/)
O.O~O
10 1
(TIME LAGl/(CYCLE LENGTH), tL/tC
Fig. 6.8  Relation between time lag and cycle length tor first odd pulse. 1
WELL TESTlNG
94
::. FIRST EVEN PULSE! . . : :vlj~~~r.:::>
:L. ~'F: :,~'=' "O::3::UI.~>;;:,:~t;;;
lJ
~
~...J
0.0040 ..... ..... ""
"I::'~'
>1
~r::~:
"""'' '"
a.
<l
.......
.:::::;.;. "j:
2
7 8 9
8 9
10 1
(TIME LAG)/(CYCLE LENGTH). tL/lHC
Fig. 6.9  Relation between time lag and response amplitudes lor lirst even pulse. 1
..
NO
.........
.E
..
...J
0.150
C)
...J
w
~
:
VI
VI
...J
Q
VI
w
~
3456789
Fig. 6.10 Relation between time lag and cycle length lor lirst even pulse. 1
OTHER WELL TESTS
95
0.0035
,....,
~lla~
..
~
O
.J
..::..
O
Q.
<3
ILI
O
::J
f
n.
~
el:
ILI
I/l
n.
I/l
ILI
Q:
ILI
0.0005
~
o
3456189
10 1
(TIME lAGI/(CYClE lENGTHI, tL/~tC
Fig. 6.11  Relation between time lag and response amplitude lor all odd pulses
.after the lirst. 1
C>
el:
.J
ILI
~
::
I/l
I/l
ILI
.J
Q
I/l
2
ILI
~
10 1
(TIME lAGl/(CYClE lENGTHI, tL/~tC
Fig. 6.12 Relation between time lag and cycle length lor lall odd pulses alter
the lirst. 1
96
WELL TESTING
,.....,
20.0040
.J
W
Q
~
<J
loJ
O
:l
1
~
~
<l
loJ
Ul
Ul
loJ
Ir
loJ
10 1
(TIME LAG>!(CYCLE LENGTH), tL/~tC
Fig. 6.13 Relation between time lag and response amplitude lor all even
pulses alter the lirst. 1
..
.J
~
...J
loJ
~
::
Ul
Ul
W
...J
Z
O
Ul
loJ
~
56789
789
10 1
(TIME LAG>!(CYCLE LENGTH), tL/~tc
Fig. 6.14 Relation between time lag and cycle length lor lall even pulses alter
the lirst. 1
OTHER WELL TESTS
97
~~
8:ALK~
t
Fig. 6.15  Schematic 01 pressure response in pulse test.
ct =
1.36x 10 6
0.08
= 17 X 10 6 psi  1 .
6.4 Drillstem Tests
A drillstem test (DST)8,9 provides a means of
estimating formation and fluid properties before
completion of a well. Basically, a DST is a temporary
completion of a well. The DST tool is an
arrangement of packers and val ves placed on the end
of the drillpipe. This arrangement can be used to
isolate a zone of interest and to let it produce into the
drillpipe or drillstem. A fluid sample is obtained in
the test; thus, the test can tell us the types of fluids
the well will produce if it is completed in the tested
formation.
With the surfaceactuated val ves on a DST device,
it is possible to have a sequence of flow periods
followed by shutin periods. A pressure recorder on
the DST device can record pressures during the flow
and shutin periods. The pressures recorded during
the shutin periods can be particularly valuable for
estimating formation characteristics such as permeability/thickness product and skin factor. These
data al so can be used to determine possible pressure
depletion during the test.
To illustrate how a typical DST is performed, we
will examine a schematic chart (Fig. 6.16) of pressure
vs. time from a test with two flow periods and two
shutin periods.
At Point A, the tool is lowered into the hole.
Between Points A and B, the everincreasing mudcolumn pressure is recorded; at Point B, the tool is
on bottom. When the packers are set, the mud
column is compressed and a still higher pressure is
recorded at Point C. The tool is opened for an initial
flow period, and the pressure drops to Point D as
shown. As fluid accumulates in the drillstem aboye
the pressure gauge, the pressure rises. Finally, at
Point E, the well is shut in for an initial pressure
buildup test. After a suitable shutin period, the well
is reopened for a second final flow period, from
Point G to Point H. This final flow period is
followed by a final shutin period (from Point H to
Point 1). The packers are then released, and the
hydrostatic pressure of the mud column is again
TIMEFig. 6.16  Schematic 01 drillstem test pressure chart.
imposed on the pressure gauge. The testing device is
then removed from the hole (Point J to Point K).
The initial flow period is usually brief (5 to 10
minutes); its purpose is to draw down the pressure
slightly near the wellbore (perhaps letting any mudfiltrateinvaded zone bleed back to or below static
reservoir pressure). The initial shutin period, often
30 to 60 minutes, is designed to let the pressure build
back to true static formation pressure. This initial
shutin pressure on a DST may be the best
measurement made of static reservoir pressure.
The second flow period is designed to capture a
large sample of formation fluid and to draw down
the pressure in the formation to the maximum
distance and extent possible within the time that is
possiblc to allow for the DST  frequently 30 minutes
to several hours. The second shutin period is
designed to obtain good pressure buildup data so that
formation properties can be estimated. In addition,
comparison of the final (or extrapolated) pressure
from the second shutin period to the initial shutin
pressure can indicate that pressure depletion has
occurred during the DST and that the well thus has
been tested in a small, noncommercial reservo ir . The
desired length of the second shutin period varies
from equal to the second flow period (for highpermeability formations) to twice the length of the
second flow period (for lowpermeability formations).
Theory much like that used for an ordinary
pressure buildup test following production at constant rate is used for analyzing the shutin periods on
a DST. This is true even though the flow rate
preceding a shutin period in a DST usually decreases
continuously. Usually, the average production rate
can be used as a good approximation in buildup test
analyses; this average rate of production is determined by dividing the fluid recovery by the length of
the flow periodo
To analyze the buildup test, we plot Pws vS. log
(tp + flt) / flt, where t p is now the actual flowing time
at the average rate q. The permeability/thickness
product is found from the relationship kh = 162.6
qBIJ,fm. Usually, a fluid sample will not yet have
been analyzed in the laboratory; accordingly,
correlations (Appendix D) relating p and B to
produced fluid properties must be used.
98
WELL TESTING
TABLE 6.3  DRILLSTEM TEST DATA
.:;(
(minutes)
"
O
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Pws
(psi)
350
965
1,215
1,405
1,590
1,685
1,725
1,740
1,753
1,765
Static reservoir pressure is found by extrapolating
the buildup tests to infinite shutin time. In a dual
shutin test, we have the opportunity to extrapolate
both buildup tests to infinite shutin time and to
compare the estimated static rescrvoir pressure. If the
static reservoir pressure from the final shutin period
is significantly lower than that from the initial shutin
period, it is possible that the reservoir was partially
pressure depleted even during the relatively short
DST, implying that the formation tested is probably
noncommercial.
Skin factor is calculated from the conventional
skinfactor equation:
Iog (
~ ) + 3.23 J. ............. (2.4)
CP.tct'w
There is a further complication in DST analysis. At
the time of the test, reservo ir rock and fluid
properties that appear in Eq. 2.4 may not yet be
known accurately. This is particularly true of
porosity, cp, and total compressibility, Ct . Accordingly, one may be forced to use the best available
estimates and to recognize that skinfactor and
radiusofinvestigation calculations, which also
depend on these properties, may be subject to
considerable uncertainty. Use of Eq. 2.3 instead of
Eq. 2.4 [Eq. 2.3 ineludes the sometimes important
term log (t p +.:lt) I t pl to calculate s may be justified
in sorne cases if other data in the equation are known
with unusual accuracy.
6.5 Wireline Formation Tests
In many areas, hole conditions prohibit use of DST's
as temporary wellbore completions. In these areas,
and in others where the costs of the required numbers
of DST's for complete evaluation are prohibitive,
wireline formation tests lO, 11 frequently are used in
formation evaluation work.
A wireline formation tester is, in effect, a sample
chamber of up to several galJons capaeity eombined
with pressure gauges. The test ehambers are foreed
against the borehole wall in a sealing pad, and the
formation is perforated by firing a shaped eharge.
The signal to fire the charge is transmitted on logging
cable. Fluid is eollected during sampling, and
pressure is reeorded. Following sample eollection,
shutin pressures are reeorded as they build up with
time.
Flow into the sample ehamber is probably approximately spherieal (i.e., into a point rather than
spread uniformly across an entire productive interval). For this reason, the shutin test eannot be
analyzed as in a DST, although theory based on
steadystate spherical flow may explain wireline test
buildp pressure satisfaetorily in sorne cases. 11 The
device is useful for obtaining samples of formation
fluid and estimating initia! formation pressure;
extensive use of the device for this !atter application
has been reported in the literature. 11
Exercises
6.1 Determine the duraton of an interference test
required to achieve a pressure drawdown of 25 psig at
the observation well for the reservoir described in
Example 6.1 if the active well produces 500 STB/D
throughout the test. What will be the radius of investigation at this time? If the skin factor in the
active well is 2.0, what will be the drawdown in the
active well?
6.2 For the pulse test deseribed in Example 6.2,
given the results of the test analysis of the fourth
pulse, determine the time lag and pressure response
for (a) the first odd pulse; (b) the first even pulse; (e)
the third pulse; (d) the fifth pulse; and (e) the sixth
pulse.
6.3 JohnstonSchlumberger 9 reports data below
from a DST:
initial flow period =
initial shutin period =
final flow period =
final shutin period =
5 minutes,
30 minutes,
60 minutes, and
45 minutes.
Data obtained in the final shut in period were as
given in Table 6.3. In the initial shutin period, the
pressure reached and remained stable at 1,910 psi.
Total fluid reeovered in both initial and final flow
periods filled 300 ft of 2 V2in.ID drill eollars (0.0061
bbl/ft) and 300 ft of 4V2in. drillpipe (0.0142 bbl/ft).
The produeed fluid was 35 API oi! with a measured
gas rate of 47 Msef/D at the surfaee (assumed
solution gas). Formation temperature was measured
at 120 o F. Porosity is estimated to be 10070; total
compressibility is 8.4 x 10  6 psi  1 ; wellbore radius
is 4.5 in; and formation thickness is 10 ft.
Estimate formation permeability, skin factor, flow
efficiency, and radius of investigation achieved in the
test.
6.4 Smolen and Litseyll propose that "boreho!eeorrected," steadystate, spherica! flow into the
wireline formation tester can be modeled by
0
k = 3,300 q.t l.:lp ,
where
k
q
.t
.:lp
permeability, md,
flow rate, cm 3 /s (reservoir conditions),
fluid viscosity (usually mud filtrate), ep,
and
drawdown from formation pressure, psi.
OTHEA WELL TESTS
A test showed that formation pressure was 3,850 psi.
Pressure was drawn down in the sample chamber to
an apRroximately constant 1,850 psi by withdrawing
10 cm 3 of filtrate (..t=0.5 cp) from the formation in
16 seconds.
Estimate formation permeability from the test
data.
Derive an equation for steadystate spherical flow
and show that it has the form k = constant x qB..t/[r
(Pi
Pwj)}' State the assumptions required for the
equation to model a wireline formation tester flow
test.
References
l. Earlougher. R.e. Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis,
Monograph Series, SPE, Dallas (1977) 5.
2. Matthews, e.S. and Russell, D.G.: Pressure Buildup and
Flow Tests in Wells, Monograph Series, SPE, Dallas (1967) 1.
3. Theory and Practice oj the Testing oj Gas We/ls, third edition,
Pub. ERCB  7534, Energy Resourees and Conservation
Board, Calgary, Alta. (1975).
99
4. Vela, S. and McKinley, R.M.: "How Areal Heterogeneities
Affeet PulseTest Results," Soco Peto Eng. J. (June 1970) 181191; Trans., AIME, 249.
5. largon, J.R.: "Effeet of Wellbore Storage and Wellbore
Damage at the Active Well on Interference Test Analysis," J.
Peto Tech. (Aug. 1976) 851858.
6. Johnson, e.R., Greenkorn, R.A., and Woods, E.G.: "PulseTestng: A New Method for Describing Reservoir Flow
Properties Between Wells," J. Peto Tech. (Dec. 1966) 15991604; Trans., AIME, 237.
7. Kamal, M. and Brigham, W.E.: "PulseTesting Response for
Unequal Pulse and ShutIn Periods," Soco Peto Eng. J. (Oc\.
1975) 399410; Trans., AIME, 259.
8. Edwards, A.G. and Winn, R.H.: "A Summary of Modern
Tools and Techniques Used in Drillstem Testing," Pub. T4069, Halliburton Co., Duncan, OK (Sep\. 1973).
9. "Review of Basie Formation Evaluation," Form J328,
JohnstonSchlumberger, Houston (1976).
10. Schultz, A.L., Bell, W.T., and Urbanosky, H.J.: "Advancements in UncasedHole, Wireline FormationTester
Teehniques," J. Peto Tech. (Nov. 1975) 13311336.
11. Smolen, J.J. and Litsey, L.R.: "Formation Evaluation Using
Wreline Formation Tester Pressure Data," J. Peto Tech.
(Jan. 1979) 2532.
AppendixA
Development of Differential
Equations for Flow in Porous Media
Introduction
In this appendix, we develop sorne of the basic
differential equations that describe the flow of fluids
in porous media. Results presented include equations
for threedimensional flow of slightly compressible
liquids, and for radial flow of slightly compressible
liquids, gases, and simultaneous flow of oil, water,
and gas. In developing these equations, we start with
continuity equations (mass balances); then we introduce flow laws (such as Darcy's law) and appropriate equations of state for the fluid considered.
Continuity Equation for
ThreeDimensional Flow
To develop continuity equations, we use a mass
balance on a small element of porous material. The
balance has the following formo
(rate of mass flow into element)  (rate of mass
flow out of element) = (rate of accumulation of
mass within element)o
Our element is shown in Fig. Al. It has dimensions LU', ~y, and Iiz, in the x, y, and z coordinate
system; for convenience, the coordinate system is
oriented such that gravitational forces are in the (  )z
direction. We denote the components of the
volumetric rate of flow per unit crosssectional area
(cubic feet per hoursquare feet or feet per hour are
typical engineering units) by u X' u Y' and u z
The rate at which mass enters the element in the x
direction is pu x~yliz (lbm/cu ft x ft/hr x sq ft =
lbm/hr); the rate at which the mass lea ves the
element in the x direction is [pux+~(pux)l~yliz.
Similar expressions describe rates of mass entering
and leaving in the y and z directions. The result of
adding these expressions is
(rate of mass flow into element)
 (rate of mass flow out of element)
= pux~yliz+ pUyLU'liz+ PUzLU'~y  [pu x
+ ~ (pu x) J~YIiz  rPUy + ~ (pu y) JLU'1iz
[pu z +~(puz) JLU'~y
=
~ (pu x) ~yliz  ~ (pu y) LU'1iz  ~ (pu
z)
.LU'~y.
To determine the rate at which fluid accumulates
within the element, we first note that the mass within
the element (of porosity rf at a given time is
prf>LU'~yliz (lbm/cu ft x cu ft = lbm). Thus, the rate at
which this mass changes over a time interval ~l is
(prf>11+ ~t  prf>lt)
'
LU'~yliz,
~l
where time, 1, is in hours. Accordingly, the mass
balance becomes
 ~ (pu x) ~yliz  ~ (pu y) LU'1iz  ~ (pu z ) LU'~y
= prf>lt+~t prf>lt LU'~
~l
Iiz.
lf we divide each term by LU'~yliz and take the limit
as ~1,LU',~y, and IizO, the result is
a(pu x )
+
a(pu y )
ax
ay
a(pu )
az
al
z
+=(Prf.
............................ (A.!)
Continuity Equation for Radial Flow
From a mass balance similar to that used to develop
Eq. A.!, the continuity equation for onedimensional, radial flow can be shown to be
1
  (rpu r )
r ar
a (rf>p),
= 
al
.............. (A.2)
DEVELOPMENT OF DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS FOR FLOW IN POROUS MEDIA
101
introduce additional assumptions. First, we restrict
our analysis to slightly compressible liquids  those
with constant compressibility, c, where e is defined
by the equation
ldV
ldp
c=
.................. (A.6)
V dp
p dp
For constant compressibility c, integraton of Eq.
A.6 gves
)y
p=Po'(pP,,} , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(A.7)
Fig. A1  Element of porous medium used for mas s
balance.
where u r is the volumetrc tlow rate per unit crosssection area in the radial direction. Eq. A.2 is less
general than Eq. A.l; in particular, radial tlow only
is assumed (i.e., there is no tlow in the z or
"direction" in a cylindrical (r,z,O) coordinate
system].
where
Po
s the value of p at sorne reference pressure
Po' Eq. A.7 describes most singlephase Iiquids
adequately.
If we now introduce Eq. A.7 nto Eq. A.4 and
assume that (1) kx=ky=kz=constant, (2)
gravitational forces are neghgible, (3) cp = constant,
and (4) .t = constant, Eq. A.4 beco mes

a [e(.(pp,,) ap )+ a IeC(pp,,} ap )
ax
ax
ay
ay
Flow Laws
Liquid tlow usually is described by Darcy's law. This
law, when applied in the coordinate system orientaton we have chosen to describe threedimensional
tlow, becomes, in field units,
kx ap
u x =O.OOl127  ,
k ap
ay
.t
(a p +0.00694p,)
U = 0.001127 k
~
z
az
.t
+ c [(
.... . (A.3)
The k are the permeabilites in direction i and p
denotes pressure (psi). In Eq. A.3, we have assumed
that the x and y drections are horzontal, so that
gravity acts only in the z drection.
After substituting these equations into the continuity equation, the result is
p
kxP a ) +
(~ ap )
!.. (
ax
!..
aX
.t
ay
.t
ay
+ !..[ k zP (a + 0.00694p))
az .t ,az
= 0.000264
al
r ar
J1.
ar
)=
a (pcp).
al
+( : )
ap
al
c[(~)2 +(~~/ +(:)2)
is negligible compared with other terms in the
equation (which requires either small C or smaJl
pressure gradients, or both), then
..... (A.S)
For radial tlow, the corresponding equation is
(cpp). (A.4)
0.000264
:~ )
If we further assume that
a ( ap )
~ ar r ar
For radial tlow, the result is
!..(rpk r ap
1
+(
cpJ1.C
=0.000264 k
~/
a2p a2p a2p
CP.tc
ap
ax2 + ay2 + az2 = 0.000264 k al
al
a2p a2p a2p
 +az2
ax2+ay2
u =O.OOI127:.:.l,
y
a [eC(PPo}].
CP.t
0.000264 k
Simplifying,
ax
.t
..... (A.S)
SinglePhase Flow of Slightly
Compressible Fluids
To solve Eqs. A.4 and A.S analyticaJly, we must
CP.tc
0.000264 k
ap
al
.......... (A.9)
Eqs. A.S and A.9 are diffusivity equations.
Analytical solutions to Eq. A.9 are known for several
simple boundary conditions; these solutions are used
for most well test analysis. We must remember that
Eqs. A.S and A.9 are nOI general; instead, they are
based on several important assumptions, including
(1) the singlephase liquid tlowing has smaJl and
constant compressibility; (2) k is constant and the
same in all directions (isotropic); (3) cp is constant;
and (4) pressure gradients are smal\.
102
WELL TESTING
SinglePhase Gas Flow
For gas flow characterized by Darcy's law and for a
gas described by the equation of state,
Mp
RT ~'
p=
Eq. A.4 becomes, for constant cjJ and k and negligible
gravitational forces,
a ( p ap )
a ( p ap )
a ( p ap )
ax !J.Zg ax + ay !J.Zg ay + az !J.Zg az
~( P).
cjJ
0.000264 k al Zg
. ........... (A. lO)
In this section only, we use Zg lO denote the real gas
law compressibility factor so that we can continue to
use the symbol Z for one of the space variables. For
gases, !J. and Zg are functions of pressure and cannot
be assumed constant except in special cases. To
reduce Eq. A.lO to a form similar to Eq. A.8, we
define a pseudopressure, 1 l/; (p) , as follows:
l/;(p)
Pi!
to Eqs. A.8 and A.9 prove to be accurate approximate solutions of Eqs. A.12 and A.l3.
Simultaneous Flow of Oil,
Water, and Gas
In this section, we outline a detailed derivaton of an
equation describing radial, smultaneous flow of oil,
gas, and water. More complete dscussions and more
general equations are given by Matthews and
Russe1l 2 and Martin. 3
We assume that a porous medium contains oil,
water, and gas, and that each phase has saturationdependent effective permeablity (k o ' k w ' and kg);
timedependent saturation (So' Sw'
and S);
pressuredependent formation volume factor io,
Bw, and B ); and pressuredependent viscosity (!J.o'
!J.w' and !J.g1. When gravitatonal forces and capillary
pressures are negligible, the differential equation
describing this type of flow is
l a ( ap )
cjJc
ap
~ ar r ar = 0.000264 Al al' ......... (A.14)
where
..!!. dp,
!J.Zg
................. (A.II)
AI
kw
= ko
 + ~ +,
................ (A.15)
CI
=Soc o +Swcw +SgCg +c, .......... (A.16)
!J.o
!J.g
!J. w
wherep3 is a low base pressure. Now,
a p
al ( Zg )
d(: )
= dP~g
ap
and
__ ~ dBo
f!..g dR s ............ (A.17)
+
Bo dp
Bo dp
Note n Eq. A.17 that effective ol compressibility
depends not only on the usual change in liquid
volume with pressure but also on the change with
pressure of the dissolved OOR, Rs'
A similar expression can be written for water
compressibility:
co 
since
=
~ dp = ~ d(
p
dp
t)
dp
Also note that
al/;
al
and
al/;
al/; ap
ap al
2p ap
al'
= !J.Zg
Cw
= __1_ dBw + f!..g
Bw dp
Bw
dR sw
dp
.......
(A.18)
Exercises
=
2p ap
ax !J.Zg ax
Similar expressions apply for al/;/ay and al/;/az.
Thus, Eq. A.lO becomes
a (al/;)
a (al/;)
a (al/;)
ax ax + ay ay + az az
cjJ!J.cg
al/;
................ (A.12)
0.000264 k al
For radial flow, the equivalent of Eq. A.12 is
=
~ ~ (r al/;) _
cjJ!J.c g
al/; ........... (A.l3)
r ar ar
0.000264 k al
Eqs. A.12 and A.13 are similar in form to Eqs. A.8
and A.9, but there is one important difference. The
coefficient cjJ!J.c/0.000264 k is constant in Eqs. A.8
and A.9; in Eqs. A.12 and A.13, it is a function of
pressure. Despite this complication, many solutions
A.l Derive Eq. A.2; state the assumptions
required in this derivation.
A.2 Derive Eq. A.5; state the assumptions
required in this derivaton.
A.3 Derive Eq. A.9; state the assumptions
required in this derivation.
A.4 Derive Eq. A.l3; state the assumptions
required in this derivation. Compare the assumptions
required to derive Eq. A.9 with those required to
derive Eq. A.l3.
References
1. AIHussany, R., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Crawford, P.B.: "The
Flow of Real Gases Through Porous Meda," 1. Pel. Tech.
(May 1966) 624636; Trans., AIME, 237.
2. Matthews, e.S. and Russell, D.G.: Pressure Buildup and Flow
TesIs In Iflls, Monograph Series, SPE, Dalias (1967) 1.
3. Martn, J.e.: "Simplified Equatons 01' Flow in Gas Orive
Reservoirs and the Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase
Pressure Buildup Analysis," Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 309311.
AppendixB
Dimensionless Variables
Introduction
It is convenient and customary to present graphical
or tabulated solutions to flow equations, such as Eq.
A.9, in terms of dimensionless variables. In this way,
it is possible to present compactly solutions for a
wide range of parameters C/>, Jl, c, and k, and
variables r, p, and t.
In this appendix, we show how many of the
dimensionless variables that appear in the welltesting literature arise logically and directly in the
differential equations (and in their initial and
boundary conditions) that describe flow in porous
media.
Radial Flow of a Slightly
Compressible Fluid
In this section, we identify the dimensionless
variables and parameters required to characterize the
solutions to the equations describing radial flow of a
slightly compressible liquid in a reservoir. We as sume
that Eq. A.9 adequately models this flow.
Specifically, we analyze the situation in which (1)
pressure throughout the reservoir is uniform before
production; (2) fluid is produced at a constant rate
from a single well of radius r w centered in the
reservoir; and (3) there is no flow across .the outer
boundary (with radius re) of the reservOlr. Stated
mathematically, the differential equation, and initial
and boundary conditions are
1 a ( ap )
c/>JlC
ap
~ ar r ar = 0.000264 k
at '
........................ (B.1)
att=O,p=p forallr,
at r=re , q=O for t>O, .................. (B.2)
or
ap I =0,
ar ,
.......................... (B.3)
at r = r
w'
q=
 0.001127 (21rr w h ) k ap I f
O
 or t>
B
Jl ar ,
w
or
ap I
ar ,
qBJl
    o .............. (B.4)
0.00708 khr w
This boundary condition arises from Darcy's law in
the form similar to that used in Eq. A.3:
k, ap
qB
u =  0.001127   = .
,
Jl ar
27rhr
Our objective in this analysis is to restate the
differential equation, and initial and boundary
conditions in dimensionless form so we can determine the dimensionless variables and parameters that
characterize this flow situation and that can be used
to characterize solutions. These dimensionless
parameters and variables are not unique (i.e., more
than one choice can be made for each). Further, we
want to emphasize that these dimensionless variables
are defined rather than derived quantities. These
ideas will become clearer as we proceerl.
We define a dimensionless radius, rD =r/r w (any
other convenient reference length, such as re' could
have been used). From the form of the differential
equation, we also note that a convenient definition of
dimensionless time is t D = 0.000264 kt/c/>Jlcr ~.
The initial and boundary conditions suggest that a
convenient definition of dimensionless pressure is
0.00708 kh (p p)
PD=
qBJl
With this definition, the boundary condition (Eq.
B.4) becomes
qBJl
apD I
0.00708 khr w ar D 'D~ I
or simply
qBJl
0.00708 khr w
'
apD I
= 1.
arD rD~1
Expressed in terms of dimensionless variables, the
differential equation and its initial and boundary
conditions become
104
WELL TESTING
PD
O for all rD at ID =0,
............. (B.6)
and compressibility has the fundamental units
Compressibility =::. [Lt 2 /m).
apD
ar D i O for ID> O,
.......... (B.7)
Then,
0.000264 kr
ro= reir ;. = ! Oe
apD
arDI
(j)/Lcr w
=lforlD>O .
[L 2](tl
mz2  
[1]1
............... (B.8)
Lt
1I
Lt
 [1].
m I[L )
r/)= I
The implication is that any solution, PD' of Eq. B.5
is a unique function of rD and ID for fixed rDe; no
other dimensionless variables appear in either the
dimensionless differential equation or in the
dimensionless initial or boundary conditions
describing this particular problem. Thus, if we wish
to present solutions to Eq. B.S, we could do so
compactly either by tabulating or by plotting PD at
rD= 1 (r=rw) as a function ofthe variable rD with
the parameter r De' In fact, such tables and graphs
have been prepared and presented; this problem is
precisely the well known van Everdingen and Hurst
constant terminalrate problem* for which they
present solutions as functions of {D and r De'
We have implied that the groups of parameters and
variables that arise from the differential equation
and its initial and boundary conditions are dimensionless. We will now provide the proof for the case
just considered.
Dimensionless variables are
rD
PD=
(j).;.CT w2
and
0.00708kh (pp)
qB.;.
Obviously, rD is dimensionless. To show that 'D and
P D are dimensionless, we introduce the symbol [ ],
which denotes "has units of." Let m denote mass, L,
length, and t, time. The quantities that appear in
and P D have the foIlowing basic units:
'D
[L ](LJI
L3
1t
[L 2],
I
[t],
(j)
[1] (i.e., dimensionless),
.;.
[m/Lt],
e  [Lt 2 /m],
rw
[L],
h [Lj,
P
[m/Lt 2 j,
q
[L 3 /t], and
B
[1].
A comment on the units of pressure, P, and
compressibility, e (which has the units psi  1 ) may be
helpful: Pressure is defined as force per unit area.
From Newton's second law, force is mass times
acceleration; thus, force has the fundamental units
Thus, pressure has the fundamental units
Pressure =::. [mLlt 2 L 2J or [m/Lt 2 j,
'See Appendix C.
tS I
[1].
m
1[1)1 Lt 1
Thus, P D also is dimensionless.
Again, we stress the reason for introduction of
somewhat unnatural dimensionless quantities. They
allow solutions for wide ranges of k, h, c, " re' r w' q,
.;., and B to be presented compactly (tables or graphs)
as functions of a minimum number of variables and
parameters. Such tabulations and graphs are in
widespread use in well test analysis.
To illustrate further how the choice of appropriate
dimensionless variables depends on the specific
differential equation, and initial and boundary
conditions, we now determine appropriate dimensionless variables for radial f10w of a slightly
compressible liquid through a wellbore of radius r w
from a reservoir of radius re' There is no flow across
the outer boundary (at r=r e ); initial pressure,p, is
uniform before production; and f10wing BHP in the
wellbore, P w!' is held constant once production
begins. The mathematical problem is then
a(
l
ap
r ar r ar )
(j).;.c
ap
al' ........... (B.9)
p=p at 1=0 for all r,
................ (B. 10)
Force=::. [mLlt 2 ].
0.00708 kh (p p)
qB.;.
Radial Flow With Constant BHP
rlr w'
0.000264 kl
PD=
Thus, ! D has units of unity, or, more plainly, is
dimensionless. Similarly,
= 0.000264 k
P=Pw{ at r=r w for all, >0,
........... (B.I])
ap I = O for alll >0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (B.12)
ar
r,>
As before,
parameters
differential
conditions.
rD
'D
our approach will be to eliminate all
and variables with dimensions from the
equation, and initial and boundary
The appropriate definition of r D is again
rlrw; for ID' it is
0.000264 kl
2
(j).;.CT w
These definitions will eliminate all parameters from
Eq. B.9. The appropriate definition of PD for this
situation is
105
DIMENSIONLESS VARIABLES
PD
pPwj
With these definitions, the mathematical statement
of the problem becomes.
1
a (
apD'
apD
 a rDa)=a'
rD rD
rD
tD
............ (B.13)
PD
OattD=OforaIlrD' ............. (B.14)
PD
latrD=lforaIlt D >O, .......... (B.15)
apD I
ar
D
,_
=OforalltD>O . ....... (B.16)
Dre1rwrDe
Thus, dimensionless pressure P D is a function of
dimensionless time, t D, and dimensionless radius rD
for a given value of the dimensionless parameter reD
since no other variables or parameters appear in the
differential equation, or initial or boundary conditions. However, the appropriate definition of
dimensionless pressure is different in this constantpressure case from the constantrate case  with the
appropriate definition dictated by the boundary
conditions.
Because this constantpressure case is of considerable practical importance, we proceed further
with our analysis. It is of interest to determine instantaneous production rate and cumulative
produced volume for this case. Instantaneous
production rate q is
q
_0.001127(27rr wh)kap
B
p, ar
,
l
.......
rI
Qp = 24 J
qdt . ..................... (B.18)
Then,
apD I
qD=1
arD 'DI
..................... (B.19)
We al so define a dimensionless cumulative produced
volume, QpD'
= 1.119 Q;chr; (~ Pwj)
QpD'
...... (B.20)
The implication of our analysis is that cumulative
production, Q (stocktank barreis), can be determined from dfmensionless cumulative production,
QpD' which is based on solutions to Eqs. B.13
through B.16. Since QpD is based on these solutions,
it is a function of t D and r De only (for r D = 1); thus,
it appears possible that QpD could be tabulated (or
plotted) as a function of t D for selected values of
rDe' In fact, this has been done by van Everdingen
and Hurst; this problem is their well known constantpressure case.
The QpD values also can be interpreted as
dimensionless cumulative water influx from a radial
aquifer into a reservoir if r w is interpreted as the
reservo ir radius and re as the aquifer radius.
Exercise
B.I Consider the radial flow of a gas expressed in
terms of the pseudopressure, 1/;, by Eq. A.13. Define
dimensionless pseudopressure as
1/; D
kh T sc
= 50 , 300 qgp
sc
T ( 1/; i 1/; ) ,
dimensionless time as
0.000264 kt
2
Q;p,cgrw
'
rD =rlr w'
lt is convenient to define a dimensionless production
rate,qD:
qBp,
qD=
.
0.00708 kh (p Pwj)
QpD
Qp
and
ID
Therefore,
tD=
'w
0.000264 k ) ~ I
2
qdt.
Q;p,cr w
o
(B.17)
and cumulative production Qp is
1
.(
Bp,
D
qD dt = 0.00708 kh (Pi Pwj)
T= reservoir temperature, R,
standardcondition temperature, o R,
standardcondition pressure, psia,
gas flow rate, MscflD,
gas viscosity evaluated at original
reservoir pressure, cp, and
gas compressibility evaluated at original
reservoir pressure, psi !
The cylindrical reservoir is initially at uniform
pressure, P ; there is no flOW across the outer
boundary of radius re; and flow rate into the
wellbore of radius r w is constant (expressed at
standard conditions).
Write the differential equation, and initial and
boundary conditions in dimensional form; then
rewrite them in dimensionless formo
AppendixC
Van Everdingen and Hurst Solutions to
Diffusivity Equations
Jntroduction
In Appendix B, we showed that solutions to differential equations describing flow in a petroleum
reservoir for given initial and boundary conditions
can be expressed compactly using dimensionless
variables and parameters. In this appendix, we
examine four of these solutions that are important in
reservoir engineering applications.
Constant Rate at Jnner Boundary,
No Flow Across Outer Boundary
This solution of the diffusivity equation models
radial flow of a slightly compressible liquid in a
homogeneous reservoir of uniform thickness;
reservo ir at uniform pressure p before production;
no flow across the outer boundary (at r = re); and
production at constant rate q from the single well
(centered in the reservo ir) with wellbore radius r w'
The solution  pressure as a function of time and
radius for fixed values of re' r w' and rock and fluid
properties  is expressed most conveniently in terms
of dimensionless variables and parameters:
PD=jUD,rD,reD)'
.................. (C.l)
where
0.00708 kh(p p)
PD=
tD
qB,t
0.000264kt
2'
1>,tcr w
rD=r/r w '
and
Eq. C.I states that P D 'is a function of the variables
ID and r D for a fixed value of the parameter reD' The
most important solution is that for pressure at the
wellbore radius (r= r w or rD = 1):
PDlrD=1 =jUD' reD)'
When expressed in terms of dimensionless pressure
evaluated at rD = 1, Eq. 1.6 shows the functional
form of j( I D,reD)  an infinite series of exponentials
and Bessel functions. This series has been evaluated 1
for several values of reD over a wide range of values
of t D' Chatas 2 tabulated these solutions; a
modification of Chatas' tabulation is presented in
Tables C.1 and C.2.
Sorne important characteristics of this tabulation
include the following.
1. Table C.I presents values of P D in the range
ID < 1,000 for an infiniteacting reservoir. For
ID <0.01, PD can be approximated by the relation
PD ==2..Jt D /1r . ....................... (C.2)
2. Table C.l is valid for finite reservoirs with
r~D'
3. For 100 <ID <0.25 r~D' Table C.I can be
extended by use of the equation
ID <0.25
PD =0.5(ln t D +0.80907) ............... (C.3)
(This equation is identical to Eq. 1.10 for s=O. It
begins to become slightly less accurate at ID ==0.0625
r~D' but there is no simple approximation between
this value and ID ==0.25 r~D' Fortunately, this slight
loss in accuracy is not of sufficient magnitude to
cause problems in most practical applications.)
4. Table C.2 presents P D as a function of t D for
1.5 <reD < 10.
(a) For values of t D smaller than the value listed
for a given reD' the reservoir is infinite acting, and
Table C.I should be used to determine P D'
(b) For values of t D larger than the largest value
listed for a given reD (or, more correctly, for 25 < ID
and 0.25 r~D <ID),PD can be calculated from 2
PD==
2(tD +0.25)
2
reD 1
(3r:D  4r:D In reD 2
2
4(r eD 1)
2r~D  1)
.....
(C.4)
(c) A special case of Eq. C.4 arises when r~D ~ 1;
then,
VAN EVERDINGEN AND HURST SOLUTIONS TO DIFFUSIVITY EQUATIONS
107
TABLE C.1  Po VS. fo INFINITE RADIAL SYSTEM,
CONSTANT RATE AT INNER BOUNDARY
Estimate the pressure on the inner boundary of the
sandpack at times of 0.001,0.01, and 0.1 hour.
to
O
0.0005
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
Solution. We first calculate ID and reD:
fo
Po
O
0.0250
0.0352
0.0495
0.0603
0.0694
0.0774
0.0845
0.0911
0.0971
0.1028
0.1081
0.1312
0.1503
0.1669
0.1818
0.2077
0.2301
0.2500
0.2680
0.2845
0.2999
0.3144
0.15
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.2
1.4
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
0.3750
0.4241
0.5024
0.5645
0.6167
0.6622
0.7024
0.7387
0.7716
0.8019
0.8672
0.9160
1.0195
1.1665
1.2750
1.3625
1.4362
1.4997
1.5557
1.6057
1.6509
1.8294
1.9601
2.1470
2.2824
2.3884
to
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
450.0
500.0
550.0
600.0
650.0
700.0
750.0
800.0
850.0
900.0
950.0
1,000.0
2.4758
2.5501
2.6147
2.6718
2.7233
2.9212
3.0636
3.1726
3.2630
3.3394
3.4057
3.4641
3.5164
3.5643
3.6076
3.6476
3.6842
3.7184
3.7505
3.7805
3.8088
3.8355
3.8584
Notes: For fO < 0.1, Po '" 2, tO/t..
Far 100</0<0.25 r~0,PO",O.5 (In tO+ 0.80907).
reD = 10/1 10,
0.000264 kl
tD =
2
c/>p,ctrw
(0.000264)(1,000)
3
(0.3)(2)(0.11 x 103)(1) t=4x 10 t.
Then, the following data resul1.
t
(hour)
!.JL .!!.JL
0.001
1.275
0.01
0.1
2.401
9.6751
40
400
Note that for tD =400, t D >0.25 r~D =:: (0.25)(10)2
=:: 25; thus, Eq. C.4 is used to calculatePD'
2(t D +0.25)
PD=
2
reD
(3r:D
21 D
PD::::: 2+ln reD  %. . .............. (C.5)
reD
5. The PD solutions in Tables C.l and C.2 also
apply to a reservo ir of radius r w surrounded by an
aquifer of radius re when there is a constant rate of
water influx from the aquifer into the reservoir. For
this case, values of reD in the range 1.5 to 10.0, as in
Table C.2, are of practical importance. For most well
problems, reD is larger than 10.0, and the aQproximations given by Eq. C.3 for loo<I D <0.25 r~D and
Eq. C.5 for 0.25 r~D <ID are the really useful results
of the van Everdingen and Hurst analysis.
6. When analyzing a variablerate problem with
the P D solution, we use superposition just as we did
with the Eifunction solution in Seco 1.5.
Example C.l  Use oJ PD Solutions
Jor NoFlow Boundary
Problem. In a large laboratory flow experiment,
fluid was produced into a lftradius perforated
cylinder from a sandpacked model with a radius of
10 f1. No fluid flowed across the external radius of
the model. Properties of the sandpack and produced
fluid include the following.
k = 1 darcy,
h = 0.5 ft,
Pi = 15 psia,
p, = 2 cp,
q = 1.0 STB/D,
B = 1.0 RB/STB,
c/> = 0.3, and
Ct = 0.11 x 10  3 psi  I
SourceofPD
Table C.l (reservoir
infinite acting)
Table C.2 (reD 10)
Eq. C.4
=::
4r:D In reD  2r~D  1)
4(r~D  1)2
9.6751.
A rearrangement of the definition of P D results in
qBp,
p=p141.2;PD
15
(141.2)(1.0)(1.0)(2)
P
(1000)(0.5)
D
=150.565PD
Thus, we have these values:
I (hour)
P (psia)
0.001
0.01
0.1
14.28
13.64
9.53
Constant Rate at Inner Boundary,
Constant Pressure at Outer Boundary
This solution of the diffusivity equation models
radial flow of a slightly compressible liquid in a
homogeneous reservoir of uniform thickness;
reservoir at uniform pressure p before production;
unchanging pressure, also Pi' at the outer boundary
(at r=re); and production at constant rate q from the
single well (centered in the reservoir) with wellbore
radius r w' The solutions, P D (evaluated at 'D = 1), as
a function of ID for fixed values of 'eD in the range
1.5 <'eD <3,000, are given in Table C.3. The
dimensionless variables P D' ID' 'D' and reD have the
same definitions as in the previous section.
108
WELL TESTING
TABLE C.2  Po VS. fo  FINITE RADIAL SYSTEM WITH CLOSED EXTERIOR BOUNDARY,
CONSTANTRATEATINNERBOUNDARY
r eo=1.5
'3JL
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.251
0.288
0.322
0.355
0.387
0.420
0.452
0.484
0.516
0.548
0.580
0.612
0.644
0.724
0.804
0.884
0.964
1.044
1.124
1.204
1.284
1.364
1.444
reo =4.5
to
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
reo = 2.0
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.30
0.32
0.34
0.36
0.38
0.40
0.42
0.44
0.46
0.48
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.0
2.0
3.0
5.0
reo
Po
0.443
0.459
0.476
0.492
0.507
0.522
0.536
0.551
0.565
0.579
0.593
0.607
0.621
0.634
0.648
0.715
0.782
0.849
0.915
0.982
1.649
2.316
3.649
0.40
0.42
0.44
0.46
0.48
0.50
0.52
0.54
0.56
0.58
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0.565
0.576
0.587
0.598
0.608
0.618
0.628
0.638
0.647
0.657
0.666
0.688
0.710
0.731
0.752
0.772
0.792
0.812
0.832
1.215
1.506
1.977
2.398
=6.0
reo = 5.0
~
1.023
1.040
1.056
1.702
1.087
1.102
1.116
1.130
1.144
1.158
1.171
1.197
1.222
1.246
1.269
1.292
1.349
1.403
1.457
1.510
1.615
1.719
1.823
1.927
2.031
2.135
2.239
2.343
2.447
~
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
2.5
to
~
1.167
1.180
1.192
1.204
1.215
1.227
1.238
1.249
1.259
1.270
1.281
1.301
1.321
1.340
1.360
1.378
1.424
1.469
1.513
1.556
1.598
1.641
1.725
1.808
1.892
1.975
2.059
2.142
2.225
Po
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
1.275
1.322
1.364
1.404
1.441
1.477
1.511
1.544
1.576
1.607
1.638
1.668
1.698
1.757
1.815
1.873
1.931
1.988
2.045
2.103
2.160
2.217
2.274
2.560
2.846
reo = 3.0
~
0.52
0.54
0.56
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
~
0.627
0.636
0.645
0.662
0.683
0.703
0.721
0.740
0.758
0.776
0.791
0.806
0.865
0.920
0.973
1.076
1.328
1.578
1.828
Po
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.802
0.830
0.857
0.882
0.906
0.929
0.951
0.973
0.994
1.014
1.034
1.083
1.130
1.176
1.221
1.401
1.579
1.757
=8.0
reo = 7.0
~
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
22.0
24.0
26.0
28.0
30.0
reo = 3.5
to
Po
to
Po
1.436
1.470
1.501
1.531
1.559
1.586
1.613
1.638
1.663
1.711
1.757
1.810
1.845
1.888
1.931
1.974
2.016
2.058
2.100
2.184
2.267
2.351
2.434
2.517
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
13.5
14.0
14.5
15.0
17.0
19.0
21.0
23.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
1.556
1.582
1.607
1.631
1.653
1.675
1.697
1.717
1.737
1.757
1.776
1.795
1.813
1.831
1.849
1.919
1.986
2.051
2.116
2.180
2.340
2.499
2.658
2.817
Notes' For tD smaller than values Usted in this table far a gven 'eO' reservoir 15 Infinite acting.
Find Po In Table C.1.
For 25< lO and lO larger than values in table,
('/, + 2( 0)
3r~0  4r~O
Po "'r ~O 1) 
O"
In
Far Wells in bounded reservOlrS with
r~o .. 1.
PO"' 2!.O+lnr eo'
r~o
%.
reO  2r~o
4(;1[;::"1)7
= 4.0
reo
to
~
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
reO =9.0
to
~
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
13.5
14.0
14.5
15.0
15.5
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
22.0
24.0
26.0
28.0
30.0
34.0
38.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
1.651
1.673
1.693
1.713
1.732
1.750
1.768
1.786
1.803
1.819
1.835
1.851
1.867
1.897
1.926
1.955
1.983
2.037
2.096
2.142
2.193
2.244
2.345
2.446
2.496
2.621
2.746
2.996
3.246
0.927
0.948
0.968
0.988
1.007
1.025
1.059
1.092
1.123
1.154
1.184
1.255
1.324
1.392
1.460
1.527
1.594
1.660
1.727
1.861
1.994
2.127
=10.0
~
12.0
12.5
13.0
13.5
14.0
14.5
15.0
15.5
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
22.0
24.0
26.0
28.0
30.0
32.0
34.0
36.0
38.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
~
1.732
1.750
1.768
1.784
1.801
1.817
1.832
1.847
1.862
1.890
1.917
1.943
1.968
2.017
2.063
2.108
2.151
2.194
2.236
2.278
2.319
2.360
2.401
2.604
2.806
3.008
3.210
3.412
3.614
109
VAN EVEROINGEN ANO HURST SOLUTIONS TO OIFFUSIVITY EQUATIONS
TABLE C.3  Po VS. t o  FINITE RADIAL SYSTEM WITH FIXED CONSTANT PRESSURE
AT EXTERIOR BOUNDARY, CONSTANT RATE AT INNER BOUNDARY
r eo=1.5
~
0.050
0.055
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.090
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
reD
~
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
22.0
24.0
26.0
28.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
= 2.0
reD
J3.L ~ J3.L
0.230
0.240
0.249
0.266
0.282
0.292
0.307
0.328
0.344
0.356
0.367
0.375
0.381
0.386
0.390
0.393
0.396
0.400
0.402
0.404
0.405
0.405
0.405
0.405
= 8.0
Po
1.499
1.527
1.554
1.580
1.604
1.627
1.648
1.724
1.786
1.837
1.879
1.914
1.943
1.967
1.986
2.002
2.016
2.040
2.055
2.064
2.070
2.076
2.078
2.079
0.20
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.5
3.0
reD
0.424
0.441
0.457
0.472
0.485
0.498
0.527
0.552
0.573
0.591
0.606
0.619
0.630
0.639
0.647
0.654
0.660
0.665
0.669
0.673
0.682
0.688
0.690
0.692
0.692
0.693
0.693
= 10.0
~
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
110.0
120.0
130.0
140.0
160.0
2.5
reD
tD
reD
reO
0.502
0.535
0.564
0.591
0.616
0.638
0.659
0.696
0.728
0.755
0.778
0.815
0.842
0.861
0.876
0.887
0.895
0.900
0.905
0.908
0.910
0.913
0.915
0.916
0.916
0.916
0.916
=15.0
20.0
22.0
24.0
26.0
28.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
220.0
240.0
260.0
280.0
300.0
1.960
2.003
2.043
2.080
2.114
2.146
2.218
2.279
2.332
2.379
2.455
2.513
2.558
2.592
2.619
2.655
2.677
2.689
2.697
2.701
2.704
2.706
2.707
2.707
2.708
0.617
0.640
0.662
0.702
0.738
0.770
0.799
0.850
0.892
0.927
0.955
0.980
1.000
1.016
1.030
1.042
1.051
1.069
1.080
1.087
1.091
1.094
1.096
1.097
1.097
1.098
1.099
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
8.0
10.0
reD
= 20.0
to
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
105.0
110.0
115.0
120.0
125.0
130.0
135.0
140.0
145.0
150.0
160.0
180.0
200.0
240.0
280.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.5
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
reD
J3.L ~
2.148
2.219
2.282
2.338
2.388
2.475
2.547
2.609
2.658
2.707
2.728
2.747
2.764
2.781
2.796
2.810
2.823
2.835
2.846
2.857
2.876
2.906
2.929
2.958
2.975
2.980
2.992
2.995
InreD
0.620
0.665
0.705
0.741
0.774
0.804
0.858
0.904
0.945
0.981
1.013
1.041
1.065
1.087
1.106
1.123
1.153
1.183
1.225
1.232
1.242
1.247
1.250
1.251
1.252
1.253
1.253
=4.0
reD
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.4
3.8
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
=25.0
PD
50.0 2.389
55.0 2.434
60.0 2.476
65.0 2.514
70.0 2.550
75.0 2.583
80.0 2.614
85.0 2.643
90.0 2.671
95.0 2.697
100.0 2.721
120.0 2.807
140.0 2.878
160.0 2.936
180.0 2.984
200.0 3.024
220.0 3.057
240.0 3.085
260.0 3.107
280.0 3.126
300.0 3.142
350.0 3.171
400.0 3.189
450.0 3.200
500.0 3.207
600.0 3.214
700.0 3.217
800.0 3.218
900.0 3.219
Notes: For ID sma!ler than values Usted In thls 1able tor a given reD reservoir is lnfinite acting. Find
For ID larger than values listed in thls table. Po
= 3.5
J3.L ~ J3.L ~ J3.L ~ J3.L
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
J3.L ~ J3.L
1.651
1.730
1.798
1.856
1.907
1.952
2.043
2.111
2.160
2.197
2.224
2.245
2.260
2.271
2.279
2.285
2.290
2.293
2.297
2.300
2.301
2.302
2.302
2.302
2.303
= 3.0
reD
reD
0.802
0.857
0.905
0.947
0.986
1.020
1.052
1.080
1.106
1.130
1.152
1.190
1.232
1.266
1.290
1.309
1.325
1.347
1.361
1.370
1.376
1.382
1.385
1.386
1.386
=30.0
PD
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
22.0
24.0
26.0
28.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
50.0
reD
_to_
J3.L ~
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
165.0
170.0
175.0
180.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
450.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
800.0
900.0
1,000
1,200
1,400
2.551
2.615
2.672
2.723
2.812
2.886
2.950
2.965
2.979
2.992
3.006
3.054
3.150
3.219
3.269
3.306
3.332
3.351
3.375
3.387
3.394
3.397
3.399
3.401
3.401
Po in Table C.1.
= 6.0
reD
tD
1.275
1.320
1.361
1.398
1.432
1.462
1.490
1.516
1.539
1.561
1.580
1.615
1.667
1.704
1.730
1.749
1.762
1.771
1.777
1.781
1.784
1.787
1.789
1.791
1.792
=40.0
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
800
900
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
2,500
PD
2.813
2.888
2.953
3.011
3.063
3.109
3.152
3.191
3.226
3.259
3.331
3.391
3.440
3.482
3.516
3.545
3.568
3.588
3.619
3.640
3.655
3.672
3.681
3.685
3.687
3.688
3.689
WELL TESTING
110
TABLE C.3  CONTINUED
reo = 50.0
to
Po
_ _ _o
200
220
240
260
280
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
2,200
2,400
2,600
2,800
3.064
3.111
3.154
3.193
3.229
3.263
3.339
3.405
3.461
3.512
3.556
3.595
3.630
3.661
3.688
3.713
3.735
3.754
3.771
3.787
3.833
3.862
3.881
3.892
3.900
3.904
3.907
3.909
3.910
reo = 60.0
to
Po
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
3.257
3.401
3.512
3.602
3.676
3.739
3.792
3.832
3.908
3.959
3.996
4.023
4.043
4.071
4.084
4.090
4.092
4.093
4.094
4.094
reo = 70.0
to
~
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
6,000
6,500
7,000
7,500
8,000
3.512
3.603
3.680
3.746
3.803
3.854
3.937
4.003
4.054
4.095
4.127
4.181
4.211
4.228
4.237
4.242
4.245
4.247
4.247
4.248
4.248
4.248
4.248
reo = 80.0
Po
~
reo = 90.0
_to
_
~
3.603
3.680
3.747
3.805
3.857
3.946
4.019
4.051
4.080
4.130
4.171
4.248
4.297
4.328
4.347
4.360
4.368
4.376
4.380
4.381
4.382
4.382
11,000 4.382
800
900
1,000
1,200
1,300
1,400
1,500
1,800
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
14,000
600
700
800
900
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,500
1,600
1,800
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
3.747
3.806
3.858
3.949
3.988
4.025
4.058
4.144
4.192
4.285
4.349
4.394
4.426
4.448
4.464
4.482
4.491
4.496
4.498
4.499
4.499
4.500
4.500
reO = 100.0
Po
~
reo = 200.0
Po
~
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
6,000
6,500
7,000
7,500
8,000
9,000
10,000
12,500
15,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
3.859
3.949
4.026
4.092
4.150
4.200
4.303
4.379
4.434
4.478
4.510
4.534
4.552
4.565
4.579
4.583
4.588
4.593
4.598
4.601
4.604
4.605
= 300.0
to
PD
6,000 4.754
8,000 4.898
10,000 5.010
12,000 5.101
14,000 5.177
16,000 5.242
18,000 5.299
20,000 5.348
24,000 5.429
28,000 5.491
30,000 5.517
40,000 5.606
50,000 5.652
60,000 5.676
70,000 5.690
80,000 5.696
90,000 5.700
100,000 5.702
120,000 5.703
140,000 5.704
150,000 5.704
fo
Po
15,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
110,000
120,000
125,000
130,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
240,000
260,000
5.212
5.356
5.556
5.689
5.781
5.845
5.889
5.920
5.942
5.957
5.967
5.975
5.977
5.980
5.983
5.988
5.990
5.991
5.991
5.991
to
Po
20,000 5.365
25,000 5.468
30,000 5.559
35,000 5.636
40,000 5.702
45,000 5.759
50,000 5.810
60,000 5.894
70,000 5.960
80,000 6.013
90,000 6.055
100,000 6.088
120,000 6.135
140,000 6.164
160,000 6.183
180,000 6.195
200,000 6.202
250,000 6.211
300,000 6.213
350,000 6.214
400,000 6.214
Po
40,000
45,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
5.703
5.762
5.814
5.904
5.979
6.041
6.094
6.139
6.210
6.262
6.299
6.326
6.345
6.374
6.387
6.392
6.395
6.397
6.397
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
5.814
5.905
5.982
6.048
6.105
6.156
6.239
6.305
6.357
6.398
6.430
6.484
6.514
6.530
6.540
6.545
6.548
6.550
6.551
6.551
4.061
4.205
4.317
4.498
4.485
4.552
4.663
4.754
4.829
4.834
4.949
4.996
5.072
5.129
5.171
5.203
5.227
5.264
5.282
5.290
5.294
reO =800.0
to
Po
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
550,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
1,000,000
5.983
6.049
6.108
6.160
6.249
6.322
6.382
6.432
6.474
6.551
6.599
6.630
6.650
6.663
6.671
6.676
6.679
6.682
6.684
6.684
VAN EVEROINGEN ANO HURST SOLUTIONS TO OIFFUSIVITY EQUATlONS
111
TABLE C.3  CONTINUED
reo
=900.0
fo
8.0(10 4 )
9.0(10 4 )
1.0(10 5 )
1.2(105 )
1.4(105 )
1.6(10 5 )
1.8(10 5 )
2.0(10 5 )
2.5(10 5 )
3.0(10 5 )
4.0(10 5 )
4.5(10 5 )
5.0(10 5 )
5.5(10 5 )
6.0(10 5 )
7.0(10 5 )
80(10 5 )
9.0(10 5 )
1.0(10 6 )
reo
Po
6.049
6.108
6.161
6.251
6.327
6.392
6.447
6.494
6.587
6.652
6.729
6.751
6.766
6.777
6.785
6.794
6.798
6.800
6.801
=2,000.0
ID
4.0(10 5 )
5.0(10 5 )
6.0(10 5 )
7.0(10 5 )
8.0(10 5 )
9.0(10 5 )
1.0(10 6 )
1.2(106 )
1.4(106 )
1.6(106 )
1.8(106 )
2.0(10 6 )
2.5(10 6 )
3.0(10 6 )
3.5(10 6 )
4.0(10 6 )
5.0(10 6 )
6.0(10 6 )
6.4(10 6 )
~
6.854
6.966
7.056
7.132
7.196
7.251
7.298
7.374
7.431
7.474
7.506
7.530
7.566
7.584
7.593
7.597
7.600
7.601
7.601
reO
=1,000.0_
fo
1.0(10 5 )
1.2(105 )
1.4(105 )
1.6(10 5 )
1.8(105 )
2.0(10 5 )
2.5(10 5 )
3.0(10 5 )
3.5(10 5 )
4.0(10 5 )
4.5(10 5 )
5.0(10 5 )
5.5(10 5 )
6.0(10 5 )
7.0(10 5 )
8.0(10 5 )
9.0(10 5 )
1.0(10 6 )
1.2(106 )
reo
~
6.161
6.252
6.329
6.395
6.452
6.503
6.605
6.681
6.738
6.781
6.813
6.837
6.854
6.868
6.885
6.895
6.901
6.904
6.907
reo
=2,200.0
ID
5.0(10 5 )
5.5(10 5 )
6.0(10 5 )
6.5(10 5 )
7.0(10 5 )
7.5(10 5 )
8.0(10 5 )
8.5(10 5 )
9.0(10 5 )
1.0(106 )
1.2(106 )
1.6(106 )
2.0(10 6 )
2.5(10 6 )
3.0(10 6 )
3.5(10 6 )
4.0(10 6 )
5.0(10 6 )
6.0(10 6 )
7.0(10 6 )
8.0(106 )
~6.966
7.013
7.057
7.097
7.133
7.167
7.199
7.229
7.256
7.307
7.390
7.507
7.579
7.631
7.661
7.677
7.686
7.693
7.695
7.696
7.696
=1,200.0
fo
2.0(10 5 )
3.0(10 5 )
4.0(10 5 )
5.0(10 5 )
6.0(10 5 )
7.0(10 5 )
8.0(10 5 )
9.0(10 5 )
1.0(106 )
1.2(106 )
1.4(106 )
1.6(10 6 )
1.8(106 )
1.9(10 6 )
2.0(10 6 )
2.1(10 6 )
2.2(10 6 )
2.3(10 6 )
2.4(10 6 )
reO
~
6.507
6.704
6.833
6.918
6.975
7.013
7.038
7.056
7.067
7.080
7.085
7.088
7.089
7.089
7.090
7.090
7.090
7.090
7.090
=2,400.0
ID
6.0(10 5 )
7.0(10 5 )
8.0(10 5 )
9.0(10 5 )
1.0(106 )
1.2(106 )
1.6(106 )
2.0(10 6 )
2.4(10 6 )
2.8(10 6 )
3.0(10 6 )
3.5(10 6 )
4.0(10 6 )
5.0(10 6 )
6.0(10 6 )
7.0(10 6 )
8.0(10 6 )
9.0(10 6 )
9.5(10 6 )
'?L
7.057
7.134
7.200
7.259
7.310
7.398
7.526
7.611
7.668
7.706
7.720
7.745
7.760
7.775
7.780
7.782
7.783
7.783
7.783
Sorne important properties of these tabulated
solutions include the following:
1. For values of ID smaller than the smallest value
listed for a given reD' the reservoir is infinite acting,
and Table C.1 should be used to determine P D'
2. For values of ID larger than the largest value
listed for a given reD (or for I D >r~D)'
PD ::::ln reD'
...... " ......... " ..... (C.6)
Example C.2  Use ojPD Solutions
jor ConstantPressure Boundary
Problem. An oil well is producing 300 STB/D from a
waterdrive reservoir that maintains pressure at the
original oil/water contact at a constant 3,000 psia.
Distance from the well to the oil/water contact is 900
ft. Well and reservoir properties include the
following.
<P = 0.21,
k = 80 md,
=1,400.0
reo
lo
2.0(10 5 )
2.5(10 5 )
3.0(10 5 )
3.5(10 5 )
4.0(10 5 )
5.0(10 5 )
6.0(10 5 )
7.0(10 5 )
8.0(10 5 )
9.0(10 5 )
1.0(106 )
1.5(106 )
2.0(10 6 )
2.5(10 6 )
3.0(10 6 )
3.1(10 6 )
3.2(10 6 )
3.3(10 6 )
Po
6.507
6.619
6.709
6.785
6.849
6.950
7.026
7.082
7.123
7.154
7.177
7.229
7.241
7.243
7.244
7.244
7.244
7.244
=2,600.0
reo
ID
7.0(10 5 )
8.0(10 5 )
9.0(10 5 )
1.0(10 6 )
1.2(10 6 )
1.4(106 )
1.6(106 )
1.8(10 6 )
2.0(10 6 )
2.4(10 6 )
2.8(10 6 )
3.0(10 6 )
3.5(10 6 )
4.0(10 6 )
5.0(10 6 )
6.0(10 6 )
7.0(10 6 )
8.0(10 6 )
9.0(10 6 )
1.0(10 7 )
Ct =
rw =
;. =
h =
B =
Po
7.134
7.201
7.259
7.312
7.401
7.475
7.536
7.588
7.631
7.699
7.746
7.765
7.799
7.821
7.845
7.856
7.860
7.862
7.863
7.863
_ reo
=1,600.0
lo
2.5(10 5 )
3.0(10 5 )
3.5(10 5 )
4.0(10 5 )
5.0(10 5 )
6.0(10 5 )
7.0(10 5 )
8.0(10 5 )
9.0(10 5 )
1.0(106 )
1.5(106 )
2.0(10 6 )
2.5(10 6 )
3.0(10 6 )
3.5(10 6 )
4.0(10 6 )
4.2(10 6 )
4.4(10 6 )
reO
~
6.619
6.710
6.787
6.853
6.962
7.046
7.114
7.167
7.210
7.244
7.334
7.364
7.373
7.376
7.377
7.378
7.378
7.378
=2,800.0
lo
8.0(10 5 )
9.0(10 5 )
1.0(106 )
1.2(106 )
1.6(10 6 )
2.0(10 6 )
2.4(10 6 )
2.8(10 6 )
3.0(10 6 )
3.5(10 6 )
4.0(10 6 )
5.0(10 6 )
6.0(10 6 )
7.0(10 6 )
8.0(10 6 )
9.0(10 6 )
1.0(10 7 )
1.2(107 )
1.3(10 7 )
20 x 10  6 psi 0.45 ft,
0.8 cp,
12 ft, and
1.25 RB/STB.
~
7.201
7.260
7.312
7.403
7.542
7.644
7.719
7.775
7.797
7.840
7.870
7.905
7.922
7.930
7.934
7.936
7.937
7.937
7.937
reo
=1,800.0
lo
3.0(10 5 )
4.0(10 5 )
5.0(10 5 )
6.0(10 5 )
7.0(10 5 )
8.0(10 5 )
9.0(10 5 )
1.0(106 )
1.5(106 )
2.0(10 6 )
3.0(10 6 )
4.0(10 6 )
5.0(10 6 )
5.1(10 6 )
5.2(10 6 )
5.3(10 6 )
5.4(10 6 )
5.6(10 6 )
reo
~
6.710
6.854
6.965
7.054
7.120
7.183
7.238
7.280
7.407
7.459
7.489
7.495
7.495
7.495
7.495
7.495
7.495
7.495
=3,000.0
to
1.0(10 6 )
1.2(106 )
1.4(106 )
1.6(106 )
1.8(10 6 )
2.0(10 6 )
2.4(10 6 )
2.8(10 6 )
3.0(10 6 )
3.5(10 6 )
4.0(10 6 )
4.5(106 )
5.0(10 6 )
6.0(10 6 )
7.0(106 )
8.0(10 6 )
9.0(10 6 )
1.0(107 )
1.2(10 7 )
1.5(10 7 )
~
7.312
7.403
7.480
7.545
7.602
7.651
7.732
7.794
7.820
7.871
7.908
7.935
7.955
7.979
7.992
7.999
8.002
8.004
8.006
8.006
1,
Calculate pressure in the wellbore for production
after 0.1, 1.0, and 100.0 days.
Solution. Since ID =0.000264 kl!<P;.ctr ~
hours), then
(0.000264)(80)(24) t days
t D  (0.21)(0.8)(20 x 10 6)(0.45)2
=7.45 x 10 5 t.
Also,
re
900
reD =  ==2,000.
rw
0.45
Thus, we obtain the following.
(t in
WELL TESTING
112
TABlE C.4  QPD
VS.
t D INFINITE RADIAL SYSTEM, CONSTANT PRESSURE AT INNER BOUNDARY
Dimension
less
Time
Dimension
less
Cumulative
Production
Dimension
less
Time
ID
__ 9po_
ID
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
0.000
0.112
0.278
0.404
0.520
0.606
0.689
0.758
0898
1.020
1.140
1.251
1.359
1469
1.569
2.447
3.202
3.893
4.539
5.153
5.743
6.314
6.869
7.411
7.940
8.457
8.964
9.461
9.949
10.434
10913
11.386
11.855
12319
12.778
13.233
13.684
14.131
14.573
15013
15.450
15.883
16.313
16.742
17.167
17.590
18.011
18.429
18.845
19.259
19.671
20.080
20.488
20.894
21.298
21.701
22.101
22.500
22.897
23.291
23.684
24.076
24.466
24.855
25.244
25.633
26.020
26.406
26.791
27.174
27.555
27.935
28.314
28.691
29.068
29.443
98
99
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
225
230
235
240
245
250
255
260
265
270
275
280
285
290
295
300
305
310
315
320
325
330
335
340
345
350
355
360
365
370
375
380
385
390
395
400
405
410
415
420
425
430
435
440
445
450
455
460
465
Dimension
less
Cumulative
Production
__ QpO.
Notes: For 1D < 0.01. Q pO = 2, O;. .
For 1D ~ 200, QpD
4~29881= 20256610
In ID
42.433
42.781
43.129
44.858
46.574
48.277
49.968
51.648
53.317
54.976
56.625
58.265
59.895
61.517
63.131
64.737
66.336
67.928
69.512
71.090
72.661
74.226
75.785
77.338
78.886
80.428
81.965
83.497
85.023
86.545
88.062
89.575
91.084
92.589
94090
95.588
97.081
98.571
100.057
101.540
103.019
104.495
105.968
107.437
108.904
110.367
111.827
113.284
114.738
116.189
117.638
119.083
120.526
121.966
123.403
124.838
126.270
127.699
129.126
130.550
131.972
133.391
134.808
136.223
137.635
139.045
140.453
141.859
143.262
144.664
146.064
147.461
148.856
150.249
151.460
153.029
Dimension
less
Time
ID
740
750
760
770
775
780
790
800
810
820
825
830
840
850
860
870
875
880
890
900
910
920
925
930
940
950
960
970
975
980
990
1,000
1,010
1,020
1,025
1,030
1,040
1,050
1,060
1,070
1,075
1,080
1,090
1,100
1,110
1,120
1.125
1,130
1,140
1,150
1,160
1.170
1,175
1,180
1,190
1,200
1,210
1,220
1,225
1,230
1,240
1.250
1,260
1,270
1,275
1,280
1,290
1,300
1,310
1,320
1,325
1,330
1,340
1,350
1,360
1,370
Dimension
less
Cumulative
Production
Dimension
less
Time
__ 9R __ _.!.226.904
229.514
232.120
234.721
236.020
237.318
239912
242.501
245.086
247.668
248.957
250.245
252.819
255.388
257.953
260.515
261.795
263.073
265.629
268.181
270.729
273.274
274.545
275.815
278.353
280.888
283.420
285.948
287.211
288.473
290995
293.514
296.030
298.543
299.799
301.053
303.560
306.065
308.567
311.066
312.314
313.562
316.055
318.545
321.032
323.517
324.760
326.000
328.480
330.958
333.433
335.906
337.142
338.376
340.843
343.308
345.770
348.230
349.460
350.688
353.144
355.597
358.048
360.496
361.720
362.942
365.386
367.828
370.267
372.704
373.922
375.139
377.572
380.003
382.432
384.859
1,975
2,000
2,025
2,050
2,075
2,100
2,125
2,150
2,175
2,200
2,225
2,250
2,275
2,300
2,325
2,350
2,375
2,400
2,425
2,450
2,475
2,500
2,550
2,600
2,650
2,700
2,750
2.800
2,850
2,900
2,950
3,000
3,050
3,100
3,150
3,200
3,250
3,300
3,350
3,400
3,450
3,500
3,550
3,600
3,650
3,700
3,750
3,800
3,850
3,900
3,950
4,000
4,050
4,100
4,150
4,200
4,250
4,300
4,350
4,400
4,450
4,500
4,550
4,600
4,650
4,700
4,750
4,800
4,850
4,900
4,950
5,000
5,100
5,200
5,300
5,400
Dimension
less
Cumulative
Production
Dimension
less
Time
Dimension
less
Cumulative
Production
_.~
ID.  _
Q~
528.337
534.145
539.945
545.737
551.522
557.299
563.068
568.830
574.585
580.332
586.072
591.086
597.532
603.252
608.965
614.672
620.372
626066
631.755
637.437
643.113
648.781
660.093
671.379
682.640
693.877
705.090
716.280
727.449
738.598
749.725
760.833
771.922
782.992
794.042
805.075
816.090
827.088
838.067
849.028
859.974
870.903
881.816
892.712
903.594
914.459
926.309
936.144
946.966
957.773
968.566
979.344
990.108
1,000.858
1,011.595
1,022.318
1,033.028
1,043.724
1,054.409
1,065.082
1,075.743
1,086.390
1,097.024
1,107.646
1,118.257
1,128.854
1,139.439
1,150.012
1,160.574
1,171.125
1,181.666
1,192.198
1,213.222
1,234.203
1,255.141
1,276.037
8,900
9,000
9,100
9,200
9,300
9,400
9,500
9,600
9,700
9,800
9,900
10,000
12,500
15,000
17,500
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
75,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
125,000
1.5(10 5)
2.0(10 5)
25(10 5)
3.0(10 5)
40(10 5)
5.0(10 5)
60(10 5)
7.0(10 5)
8.0(10 5)
90(10 5)
1.0(10 6)
1.5(10 6 )
20(10 6 )
25(10 6)
3.0(10 6)
40(10 6)
5.0(10 6 )
60(10 6 )
7.0(10 6)
8.0(10 6)
9.0(10 6)
1.0(10 7 )
1.5(10 7 )
2.0(10 7 )
2.5(10 7 )
3.0(10 7 )
40(10 7 )
5.0(10 7 )
6.0(10 7)
7.0(10 7 )
80(10 7 )
90(10 7 )
1.0(10 8)
1.5(10 8 )
20(10 8)
2.5(10 8)
3.0(10 8)
4.0(10 8)
50(10 8 )
6.0(10 8 )
7.0(10 8 )
8.0(10 8 )
9.0(10 8 )
1.0(10 9 )
15(10 9 )
20(10 9 )
2.5(10 9)
3.0(10 9 )
1,986.796
2,006.628
2,026.438
2,046.227
2,065.996
2,085.744
2,105.473
2,125.184
2,144.878
2,164.555
2,184.216
2,203.861
2,688.967
3,164.780
3,633.368
4,095.800
5,005.726
5,899.508
6,780.247
7,650.096
9,363.099
11,047.299
12,708.358
13,531.457
14,350.121
15,975.389
17,586.284
21,560.732
2.538(10 4 )
3.308(10 4 )
4.066(10 4 )
4.817(10 4 )
6.267(10 4 )
7699(10 4 )
9.113(10 4 )
1.051(10 5)
1.189(10 5)
1.326(10 5)
1.462(10 5)
2.126(10 5)
2.781(10 5)
3.427(10 5)
4.064(10 5)
5.313(10 5)
6.544(10 5)
7.761(10 5)
8.965(10 5)
1016(10 6)
1.134(10 6)
1.252(10 6)
1.828(10 6)
2.398(10 6)
2961(10 6 )
3.517(10 6 )
4.610(10 6)
5.689(10 6)
6.758(10 6)
7.816(10 6)
8.866(10 6)
9.911(10 6)
1.095(10 7 )
1.604(10 7 )
2.108(10 7 )
2.607(10 7 )
3.100(10 7 )
4.071(10 7 )
5.03 (10 7 )
5.98 (10 7)
6.928(10 7 )
7.865(10 7 )
8.797(10 7 )
9.725(10 7 )
1.429(10 8)
1.880(10 8 )
2.328(10 8)
2.771(10 8)
VAN EVEADINGEN AND HUAST SOLUTIONS TO DIFFUSIVITY EQUATIONS
113
TABLE C.4  CONTlNUED
Dimension
less
Time
ID
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
Dimension
less
Dimension
Cumulative
less
Productlon
Time
O~_
29818
30.192
30565
30.937
31.308
31.679
32.048
32,417
32.785
33.151
33.517
33.883
34.247
34.611
34.974
35.336
35.697
36.058
36.418
36.777
37.136
37,494
37.851
38.207
38.563
38.919
39.272
39.626
39.979
40.331
40.684
41.034
41.385
41.735
42084
470
475
480
485
490
495
500
510
520
525
530
540
550
560
570
580
590
600
610
620
625
630
640
650
660
670
675
680
690
700
710
720
725
730
Dimenslon
less
Cumulative
Production
Opo
Dimension
less
Time
ID
154.416
155.801
157.184
158.565
159.945
161.322
162.698
165.444
168.183
169.549
170.914
173.639
176.357
179.069
181.774
184.473
187.166
189.852
192.533
195.208
196.544
197.878
200.542
203.201
205.854
208.502
209.825
211.145
213.784
216.417
219046
221.670
222.980
224.289
1,375
1.380
1,390
1,400
1.410
1,420
1,425
1,430
1,440
1,450
1,460
1,470
1,475
1,480
1,490
1,500
1,525
1.550
1,575
1,600
1.625
1,650
1,675
1.700
1.725
1,750
1,775
1,800
1,825
1,850
1,875
1,900
1,925
1,950
Pwf
(days)
0.1
1.0
100.0
7.45 x 10 4
7.45 x 10 5
7.45 X 10 7
J!JL
6.015
7.161
7.601
Source
0.5 (In ID
+0.80907)
Table C.3
In reD
(psia)
2,735
2,684
2,665
Note that for reD = 2,000, the reservoir is infinite
acting at ID = 7.45 X 10 4 This means that Table C.I
rather than Table C.3 is to be used to determine P D;
however, for this (D' Eq. C.3, which "extends"
Table C.l, is appropriate. For ID = 7.45 X 10 5 , P D is
found in Table C.3; for tD =7.45 X 107 , PD is
calculated from Eq. C.6. Note also that
qBp.
Dlmension
less
Cumulalive
Produclion
opo
Dimension
less
Time
ID
386.070
387.283
389.705
392.125
394543
396.959
398.167
399.373
401.786
404.197
406.606
409013
410.214
411.418
413.820
416.220
422.214
428.196
434.168
440.128
446.077
452.016
457.945
463.863
469771
475.669
481.558
487.437
493.307
499.167
505.019
510.861
516.695
522.520
5,500
5,600
5,700
5,800
5,900
6,000
6,100
6,200
6,300
6,400
6,500
6,600
6,700
6.800
6,900
7,000
7,100
7.200
7.300
7,400
7,500
7,600
7,700
7,800
7,900
8,000
8,100
8,200
8,300
8,400
8,500
8,600
8,700
8,800
Dimension
less
Cumulative
Production
Opo
1,296.893
1,317.709
1,338.486
1,359.225
1,379.927
1,400.593
1,421.224
1,441.820
1,462.383
1,482.912
1,503.408
1,523.872
1,544.305
1,564.706
1,585.077
1,605.418
1,625729
1,646.011
1,666.265
1,686.490
1,706.688
1.726859
1,747.002
1,767.120
1,787.212
1,807.278
1,827.319
1,847.336
1,867.329
1,887.298
1,907.243
1,927.166
1,947.065
1,966.942
Dlmension
less
Time
ID
4.0(10 9)
5.0(10 9 )
60(10 9 )
7.0(10 9 )
8.0(10 9 )
90(10 9 )
10(10 1d )
1.5(10 1 )
2.0(10 1)
2.5(10 10)
3.0(10 1)
4.0(10 1 )
5.0(10 1 )
60(10 1)
70(10 1 )
8.0(10 1 )
9.0(10 1)
1.0(10 11 )
1.5(10 11 )
20(10 11)
2.5(10 11 )
3.0(10 11 )
4.0(10 11 )
5.0(10 11 )
60(10 11 )
7.0(10 11 )
8.0(10 11 )
90(10 11 )
1.0(10 12 )
1.5(10 12 )
2.0(10 12 )
Dimension
less
Cumulative
Production
Opo
3.645(10 8 )
4.510(10 8 )
5.368(10 8 )
6.220(10 8 )
7.066(10 8 )
7.909(10 8 )
8.747(10 8 )
1.288(10 9 )
1.697(10 9 )
2.103(10 9 )
2505(10 9 )
3.299(10 9 )
4.087(10 9 )
4.868(10 9 )
5.643(10 9 )
6.414(10 9 )
7.183(10 9 )
7.948(10 9 )
1.17(10 1)
155(10 1)
192(10 1)
229(10 1)
3.02(10 1 )
3.75(10 1 )
4.47(10 1)
5.19(10 1)
5.89(10 1)
6.58(10 1)
7.28(10 1 )
1.08(10 11 )
1,42(10 11 )
no flow across the outer boundary (at r=r e ); and
constant BHP Pwf at the single producing well
(centered in the reservoir) with wellbore radius r w'
The solution  pressure as a function of time and
radius for fixed values of re' r W' and rock and fluid
properties  is expressed most conveniently in terms
of dimensionless variables and parameters:
PD =f(tD,rD,reD)'
where
PD
tD
0.000264 kt
2
<!>p.ctr w
rD =r/r w'
(300)(1.25)(0.8)
= 3,000 (0.00708)(80)(l2/ D
=3,00044.14PD
Constant Pressure at Inner Boundary,
No Flow Across Outer Boundary
This solution of the diffusivity equation models
radial flow of a slightly compressible liquid in a
homogeneous reservoir of uniform thickness;
reservoir at uniform pressure Pi before production;
For this problem, instantaneous rate q and
cumulative production Qp are of more practical
importance than P D, and these quantities can be
derived from the fundamental solutions, P D' In
Appendix B, we showed that a dimensionless
production rate, q D, and dimensionless cumulative
production, QpD' can be defined as
qD
qBp.
= 
0.00708 kh (Pi  Pwf) ,
114
WELL TESTING
For reD =
as 3
and
00
and t D 2: 200, q D can be approximated
(  4.29881 + 2.02566 t D)
QpD=
Dimensionless cumulative production, QpD' is
presented in Tables CA and C.5. Table C.4 is for
infiniteacting reservoirs, and Table C.5 is for finite
reservoirs with 1.5 ~ reD ~ 1 X 10 6 . For reD 2: 20,
values for both qD and Q D are given. In Table C.5,
for values of ID smaller tban the smallest value for a
given reD' the reservoir is infiniteacting and Table
CA should be used. For values of ID larger than
those in the table for a given value of reD, the
reservoir has reached steady state, and
IntD
Since both q D and QpD are based on solutions
(PD) that, for rD 1 (r=r w ), depend only on ID
and reD' q D and QRD also should depend only on t D
and reD' Table C.5 confirms this expectation. For
given reD and ID' QpD is determined uniquely.
A1though the QpD solutions can be used to model
individual well problems, they more often are used to
model water influx from an aquifer of radius re into
a petroleum reservoir of radius r w for a fixed
reservoir pressure, Pwf' Superposition is used to
model a variable pressure history, as illustrated in
Example CA.
Example C.3  Use oi QpD Solutions
Problem. An oil well is produced with a constant
TABLE C.S  Opo
VS.
fo  FINITE RADIAL SYSTEM WITH CLOSED EXTERIOR BOUNDARY,
CONSTANTPRESSUREATINNERBOUNDARY
r e o=1.5
to
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19
0.20
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.28
0.30
0.32
0.34
0.36
0.38
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
reD
= 2.0
~ ~ ~
0.276
0.304
0.330
0.354
0.375
0.395
0.414
0.431
0.446
0.461
0.474
0.486
0.497
0.507
0.517
0.525
0.533
0.541
0.548
0.554
0.559
0.565
0.574
0.582
0.588
0.594
0.599
0.603
0.606
0.613
0.617
0.621
0.623
0.624
0.05
0.278
0.075 0.345
0.10
0.404
0.125 0.458
0.150 0.507
0.175 0.553
0.200 0.597
0.225 0.638
0.250 0.678
0.275 0.715
0.300 0.751
0.325 0.785
0.350 0.817
0.375 0.848
0.400 0.877
0.425 0.905
0.450 0.932
0.475 0.958
0.500 0.983
0.550 1.028
0.600 1.070
0.650 1.108
0.700 1.143
0.750 1.174
0.800 1.203
0.900 1.253
1.000 1.295
1.1
1.330
1.2
1.358
1.3
1.382
1.4
1.402
1.6
1.432
1.7
1.444
1.8
1.453
2.0
1.468
2.5
1.487
3.0
1.495
4.0
1.499
5.0
1.500
reD
= 2.5
to
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.4
3.8
4.2
4.6
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
0.408
0.509
0.599
0.681
0.758
0.829
0.897
0.962
1.024
1.083
1.140
1.195
1.248
1.299
1.348
1.395
1.440
1.484
1.526
1.605
1.679
1.747
1.811
1.870
1.924
1.975
2.022
2.106
2.178
2.241
2.294
2.340
2.380
2.444
2.491
2.525
2.551
2.570
2.599
2.613
2.619
2.622
2.624
=3.0
reD
to
~
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
20.00
22.00
24.00
0.755
0.895
1.023
1.143
1.256
1.363
1.465
1.563
1.791
1.997
2.184
2.353
2.507
2.646
2.772
2.886
2.990
3.084
3.170
3.247
3.317
3.381
3.439
3.491
3.581
3.656
3.717
3.767
3.809
3.843
3.894
3.928
3.951
3.967
3.985
3.993
3.997
3.999
3.999
4.000
reD
to
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
25
30
35
40
=3.5
reD
=4.0
to
1.571
1.761
1.940
2.111
2.273
2.427
2.574
2.715
2.849
2.976
3.098
3.242
3.379
3.507
3.628
3.742
3.850
3.951
4.047
4.222
4.378
4.516
4.639
4.749
4.846
4.932
5.009
5.078
5.138
5.241
5.321
5.385
5.435
5.476
5.506
5.531
5.551
5.579
5.611
5.621
5.624
5.625
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
22
24
26
30
34
38
42
46
50
2.442
2.598
2.748
2.893
3.034
3.170
3.334
3.493
3.645
3.792
3.932
4.068
4.198
4.323
4.560
4.779
4.982
5.169
5.343
5.504
5.653
5.790
5.917
6.035
6.246
6.425
6.580
6.712
6.825
6.922
7.004
7.076
7.189
7.272
7.332
7.377
7.434
7.464
7.481
7.490
7.494
7.497
115
VAN EVEROINGEN ANO HURST SOLUTIONS TO OIFFUSIVITY EQUATIONS
BHP of 2,000 psi a for 1.0 hour from a reservoir
initially at 2,500 psia. The reservoir is finite; there is
no flow across the outer boundary. Other rock, fluid,
and well properties include the following.
B = 1.2 RB/STB,
J1. = 1 cp,
k = 0.294md,
r w = 0.5 ft,
h = 15 ft,
<P = 0.15,
c t = 20x 10 6 psi
re = 1,000ft.
1,000
r D= =2,000.
e
0.5
There is no entry in Table C.5 at this t D' Thus, the
reservoir is infinite acting, and from Table C.4,
QpD =44.3. Then,
Qp = 1.119 <pcthr; (Pi Pwj) QpD/ B
= (1.119)(0.15)(20 X 10 6)( 15)(0. 5)2
1,
and
(2,500
Calculate the cumulative production, Qp. in barreis.
=0.233 STB.
Solution. We will calculate t D and reD and read QpD
from either Table C.4 or Table C.5.
0.000264 kt
tD =
<pJ1.c t r;
(0.000264)(0.294)(1)
(0.15)(1)(20 x 10 6)(0.5)2
2,000)(44.3)/1.2
103,
Example C. 4  Analysis oi Variable
Pressure History With QpD Solution
Problem. A well is completed in a reservoir with an
initial pressure of 6,000 psi. The well can be considered centered in the cylindrical reservoir; there is
no flow across the outer boundary. Reservoir, fluid,
and well properties include the following.
TABLE e.5  eONTlNUED
=4.5
~
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
55
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
34
38
42
46
50
60
70
80
90
100
reO =5.0
reO =6.0
.9..eJL
2.835
3.196
3.537
3.859
4.165
4.454
4.727
4.986
5.231
5.464
5.684
5.892
6.089
6.276
6.453
6.621
6.930
7.208
7.457
7.680
7.880
8.060
8.365
8.611
8.809
8.968
9.097
9.200
9.283
9.404
9.481
9.532
9.565
9.586
9.612
9.621
9.623
9.624
9.625
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
34
38
42
46
50
60
70
80
90
100
120
3.195
3.542
3.875
4.193
4.499
4.792
5.074
5.345
5.605
5.854
6.094
6.325
6.547
6.760
6.965
7.350
7.706
8.035
8.339
8.620
8.879
9.338
9.731
10.07
10.35
10.59
10.80
10.98
11.26
11.46
11.61
11.71
11.79
11.91
11.96
11.98
11.99
12.00
12.00
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
24
25
31
35
39
51
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
180
200
220
5.148
5.440
5.724
6.002
6.273
6.537
6.795
7.047
7.293
7.533
7.767
8.220
8.651
9.063
9.456
9.829
10.19
10.53
10.85
11.16
11.74
12.26
12.50
13.74
14.40
14.93
16.05
16.56
16.91
17.41
17.27
17.36
17.41
17.45
17.46
17.48
17.49
17.49
17.50
17.50
17.50
reo = 7.0
to
9.00
9.50
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
24
26
28
30
35
40
45
50
60
70
80
90
100
120
140
160
180
200
500
6.861
7.127
7.389
7.902
8.397
8.876
9.341
9.791
10.23
10.65
11.06
11.46
11.85
12.58
13.27
13.92
14.53
15.11
16.39
17.49
18.43
19.24
20.51
21.45
22.13
22.63
23.00
23.47
23.71
23.85
23.92
23.96
24.00
=8.0
to
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
24
26
28
30
34
38
40
45
50
55
60
70
80
90
100
120
140
160
180
200
240
280
320
360
400
500
~
6.861
7.398
7.920
8.431
8.930
9.418
9.895
10.361
10.82
11.26
11.70
12.13
12.95
13.74
14.50
15.23
15.92
17.22
18.41
18.97
20.26
21.42
22.46
23.40
24.98
26.26
27.28
28.11
29.31
30.08
30.58
30.91
31.12
31.34
31.43
31.47
31.49
31.50
31.50
reO =9.0
fo
7.417
10
15
9.945
20 12.26
22 13.13
24 13.98
26 14.79
28 15.59
30 16.35
32 17.10
34 17.82
36 18.52
38 19.19
40 19.85
42 20.48
44 21.09
46 21.69
48 22.26
50 22.82
52 23.36
54 23.89
56 24.39
58 24.88
60 25.36
65 26.48
70 27.52
75 28.48
80 29.36
85 30.18
90 30.93
95 31.63
100 32.27
120 34.39
140 35.92
160 37.04
180 37.85
200 38.44
240 39.17
280 39.56
320 39.77
360 39.88
400 39.94
440 39.97
480 39.98
reo
10.0

fo
15
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
120
140
160
180
200
240
280
320
360
400
440
480
~
9.965
12.32
13.22
14.09
14.95
15.78
16.59
17.38
18.16
18.91
19.65
20.37
21.07
21.76
22.42
23.07
23.71
24.33
24.94
25.53
26.11
26.67
28.02
29.29
30.49
31.61
32.67
33.66
34.60
35.48
38.51
40.89
42.75
44.21
45.36
46.95
47.94
48.54
48.91
49.14
49.28
49.36
116
WELL TESTING
k = 31.6 md,
c/J = 0.21,
from three wells, each beginning to produce when
Pwf is changed and each producing with pressure
rw
0.33 ft,
3,300 ft,
1.25 RB/STB,
h
20 ft,
Jlo = 0.8 cp, and
c l = 20xl0 6 psi 1 .
drawdown equal to the difference in pressures before
and after the change:
re
Bo
Well I produces for (18  O) 18 months
with (PPwfl) 6,0005,500=500psi.
We1l2 produces for (186) = 12 months
with (Pwf 1  Pwf2) = 5,5004,500 = 1,000 psi.
The well produced for 6 months with flowing BHP
Pwj of 5,500 psi, for 6 more months withP wf=4,500
pSI, and for 6 more months with Pwf= 5,000 psi.
Calculate cumulative production after 18 months of
production from this well.
Well 3 produces for (18  12) = 6 months
with (Pwf2 Pwj3)=4,5005,000= 500psi.
For this well, reD = 3,30010.33 = 10,000.
0.000264 kl
Solution. Superposition is required to solve this
problem. We can calculate the cumulative
production by adding the cumulative production
qo and Opo
'eo
~
100
130
160
200
240
300
400
500
600
700
800
1,000
1,300
1,600
2,000
3,000
VS.
.~
42.91
52.76
61.98
73.38
83.83
97.91
117.7
133.6
146.4
156.7
165.1
177.1
187.8
193.4
196.9
199.2
600
800
1,000
1,300
1,600
2,000
2,400
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
8,000
1 X 104
1.3x10 4
1.6x104
2 X 104
2.4 X 10 4
3 X 10 4
=200
1 X 10 4
1.3 X 10 4
1.6x10 4
2 X 10 4
2.4 X 10 4
3 X 10 4
4 X 10 4
5 X 10 4
6 X 104
8 X 10 4
1 X 10 5
1.3 X 10 5
1.6x 105
2 X 10 5
2.4 X 10 5
3 X 10 5
4 X 105
5 X 10 5
0.1943
0.1860
0.1820
0.1742
0.1668
0.1562
0.1401
0.1236
0.1126
0.0905
0.0728
0.0524
0.0378
0.0244
0.0138
0.0082
0.0028
0.0009
2
c/JJlclr w
=50
0.3394
0.3174
0.2975
0.2728
0.2502
0.2197
0.1770
0.1426
0.1148
0.0925
0.0745
0.0483
0.0483
0.0132
0.0056
0.0006
_'tL
TABLE C5  (CONTINUED)
fo  FINITE RADIAL SYSTEM WITH CLOSED EXTERIOR BOUNDARYCONSTANTPRESSUREATINNERBOUNDARY
=20
lo
ID
feO
= 100
lo
~
0.2652
0.2915
0.2393
0.2220
0.2060
0.1865
0.1682
0.1543
0.1133
0.0833
0.0682
0.0418
0.0254
0.0120
0.0056
0.0021
0.0006
0.0002
189.0
241
290
359
473
502
573
667
795
895
974
1,082
1,148
1,201
1,227
1,241
1,246
1,249
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
8,000
1 X 10 4
1.3 X 10 4
1.6 X 10 4
2 X 10 4
2.4 X 104
3 X 104
4 X 104
5 X 10 4
6x 104
8 X 104
1 X 10 5
1.1 X 10 5
0.2304
0.2179
0.2070
0.1967
0.1869
0.1686
0.1536
0.1304
0.1118
0.0910
0.0741
0.0645
0.0326
0.0195
0.0117
0.0042
0.0015
0.0009
532
757
969
1,171
1,363
1,718
2,000
2.46x10 3
2.82 X 10 3
3.23 X 10 3
3.56 X 10 3
3.94 X 10 3
4.37 X 10 3
4.62 X 10 3
4.77 X 103
4.92 X 103
4.97 X 10 3
4.98 X 10 3
=500
2.19x10 3
2.77 X 10 3
3.33 X 10 3
4.04 X 10 3
4.72 X 103
5.69 X 10 3
7.17x10 3
8.50 X 10 3
9.68 X 103
1.17 X 10 4
1.33x10 4
1.52 X 10 4
1.65 X 104
1.78 X 10 4
1.86 X 10 4
1.92 X 10 4
1.97x104
1.99x10 4
lo
1 X 10 5
1.3x 10 5
1.6x10 5
2 X 10 5
2.4 X 105
3 X 10 5
4 X 10 5
5 X 10 5
6 X 105
8 X 10 5
1 X 106
1.3x10 6
1.6x106
2 X 10 6
2.4 X 10 6
3 X 10 6
4 X 106
5 X 10 6
0.1566
0.1498
0.1435
0.1354
0.1277
0.1170
0.1012
0.0875
0.0756
0.0565
0.0422
0.0273
0.0176
0.0098
0.0055
0.0023
0.0005
0.0001
1.75x 10 4
2.21 X 10 4
2.65 X 10 4
3.21 X 10 4
3.73x 10 4
4.47 X 10 4
5.56 X 10 4
6.50 X 10 4
7.31 X 104
8.62 X 10 4
9.60 X 104
1.06x 10 5
1.13x105
1.18 X 10 5
1.21 X 10 5
1.23 X 10 5
1.25 X 10 5
1.25x 10 5
lo
3 X 10 4
4 X 104
5 X 10 4
1 X 10 5
2x 10 5
3 X 10 5
4x 10 5
5 X 10 5
6x 10 5
7 X 10 5
8 X 10 5
9 X 10 5
1 X 106
1.4x10 6
2x 10 6
2.4 X 106
3x 106
4 X 10 6
5x 10 6
7 X 106
8.4x 106
1 X 10 7
Notes: 1. For lO smaller than values listed in this table far a given reD, reservoir is infinife acting. Fnd QpD
2. For lO larger than values Ilsted in ths table. OpO ((eO)2 1/2,
3. For lO larger than values listed in this table. qo 0.0.
In
Table CA.
1.4X10 7
2 X 10 7
3 X 10 7
0.1773
0.1729
0.1697
0.1604
0.1518
0.1464
0.1416
0.1371
0.1327
0.1285
0.1244
0.1204
0.1166
0.1024
0.0844
0.0741
0.0610
0.0442
0.0320
0.0167
0.0106
0.0063
0.0017
0.0004
0.0000
e o
5.89 X 103
7.64 X 103
9.35 X 10 3
1.76x 10 4
3.32 X 10 4
4.80 X 10 4
6.24 X 10 4
7.64 X 10 4
8.98 X 104
1.03 X 10 5
1.16x 10 5
1.23 X 10 5
1.40 X 105
1.83 X 10 5
2.39 X 10 5
2.71 X 10 5
3.11x10 5
3.63 X 10 5
4.01 X 10 5
4.48 X 10 5
4.67 X 10 5
4.80 X 10 5
4.95 X 10 5
4.99 X 10 5
5.00 X 10 5
117
VAN EVEROINGEN ANO HURST SOLUTIONS TO OIFFUSIVITY EQUATIONS
QpD = 1.06 X 10 7 ,
(0.000264)(31.6)(730 hr /month)(t months)
(0.21)(0.8)(2 X 10 5 )(0.33)2
1.664 X 10 7 (t months).
= 0.434 X 105.
Then
ForWelll, t D =(1.664x 10 7 )(18)=3.0x 10 8 .
Qp =Qpl
From Table C.5,
7
QpD =2.54 X 10 ,
Exercises
= (1.119)(0.21)(2 x 10  5 )(20)(0.33)2
C.1 An oil well is producing from a reservo ir
900 ft) with no fluid crossing the outer boundary of the reservoir. Initial reservoir pressure is
3,000 psia. Pressure in the wellbore is maintained at
2,000 psia. Well and reservoir properties include the
following:
cp = 0.21,
k = 80md,
el = 20 x 10  6 psi  1,
r w = 0.45 ft,
;, = 0.8 cp,
h = 12 ft, and
B = 1.2 RB/STB.
(r e
. (Pi  Pwj) QpD/ 1.25
=8.19x 10 6 (pPwj)QpD
= (8.19 x 10  6)(500)(2.54 x 107 )
1.04 X 105 STB.
For We1l2, t D = (1.664 x 10 7 )(12) = 2.0 X 10 8 .
7
QpD = 1.89 X 10 ,
Qp =(8.19x 10 6 )(1,000)(1.89 X 10 7 )
=
+ Qp2 + Qp3
1.04 X 105 + 1.55 X 10 5  0.434 X 105
= 2.16 X 105 STB.
Qp = 1.119 cpclhr~ (p  Pwj) QpD/ B
500)(1.06 X 10 7 )
Qp =(8.19 X 10 6)(
1.55 X 105 STB.
Calculate instantaneous rate and cumulative production after 1.0 day of production.
For We1l3, t D = (1.664 x 10 7 )(6) = 1.0 X 10 8
TABLE C.S (CONTINUED)
reD
fo
1 X 10 5
2 X 10 5
3x 10 5
4 X 10 5
5 X 10 5
6x 105
7 X 105
8x 10 5
9x 10 5
1 X 10 6
1.3 X 106
1.6x 106
2 X 106
2.4 X 106
3 X 10 6
4x 106
5x 106
7 X 106
1 X 10 7
1.3x10 7
1.7x10 7
2x 10 7
2.4 X 10 7
3 X 10 7
4 X 10 7
5 X 10 7
7x 10 7
1 X 10 8
1.3x108
= 2,000
0.1604
0.1520
0.1475
0.1445
0.1422
0.1404
0.1389
0.1375
0.1363
0.1352
0.1320
0.1291
0.1254
0.1216
0.1166
0.1084
0.1008
0.0872
0.0701
0.0563
0.0421
0.0339
0.0253
0.0164
0.0079
0.0038
0.0009
0.0001
0.0000
reD
Qg.o
6.27 X 10 4
7.70 X 10 4
9.11x10 4
1.05x 10 5
1.19 X 10 5
1.33x10 5
1.46 X 10 5
1.86 X 10 5
2.25 X 10 5
2.76 X 10 5
3.26 X 10 5
3.97 X 10 5
5.10 X 10 5
6.14x10 5
8.02 X 10 5
1.04 X 10 6
1.23 X 106
1.42 X 106
1.53 X 106
1.65 X 10 6
1.78 X 10 6
1.89 X 10 6
1.95x106
1.99x10 6
2.00 X 106
2.00 X 10 6
= 4,000
fo
qo
9x 105
1 X 106
1.3 X 10 6
1.6x10 6
2 X 10 6
2.4 X 106
3x 106
4 X 10 6
5 X 106
6 X 106
8x 10 6
1 X 10 7
1.2x10 7
1.4X10 7
0.1366
0.1356
0.1333
0.1315
0.1296
0.1280
0.1262
0.1237
0.1215
0.1194
0.1155
0.1118
0.1081
0.1046
0.1012
0.0979
0.0948
0.0902
0.0803
0.0681
0.0577
0.0415
0.0352
0.0298
0.0252
0.0181
0.0130
0.0079
0.0048
0.0029
0.0018
0.0009
0.0002
0.0000
1.6x 10 7
18x107
2x 107
2.3 X 10 7
3 X 10 7
4 X 10 7
5 X 10 7
7x 10 7
8 X 10 7
9 X 10 7
1 X 10 8
1.2 X 10 8
1.4x 108
1.7x108
2 X 10 8
2.3 X 10 8
2.6 X 10 8
3x 108
4x 108
5 X 10 8
reD
Qg.o
2.26 X 10 5
2.78 X 10 5
3.30 X 105
4.06 X 10 5
5.31 X 10 5
6.54 X 10 5
7.74x 105
1.01 X 10 6
1.24x10 6
1.46 X 106
1.67 X 106
1.87 X 10 6
2.07 X 106
2.27 X 106
2.54 X 106
3.14 X 10 6
3.88 X 106
4.51 X 106
5.49 X 106
5.87 X 106
6.20 X 106
6.47 X 106
6.90 X 10 6
7.21 X 106
7.52 X 106
7.71 X 10 6
7.82 X 10 6
7.89 X 10 6
7.94 X 106
7.99 X 106
8.00 X 10 6
Notes: 1. For ID smaller than values listed in this table for a given 'eo reservoir is inftnite acting. Find
2. For ID larger than values listed in this table. Opo ~ ('eo)2 1/2.
3. For ID larger than values listed in this table.
qo"' 0.0.
1.0 (10 4 )
fo
qo
Qe o
3x 106
4 X 106
5 X 10 6
6 X 10 6
8 X 10 6
1 X 107
1.2 X 10 7
1.4x10 7
1.6 X 10 7
1.8x10 7
2 X 10 7
2.4 X 10 7
3 X 10 7
4 X 10 7
5 X 10 7
7 X 10 7
8x 107
9 X 10 7
1 X 10 8
1.2 X 10 8
1.4 X 108
1.7x108
2x 10 8
2.4 X 108
3x 10 8
4 X 10 8
5x 108
6x 108
7 X 108
8x 10 8
1 X 10 9
1.4 X 109
2 X 109
3 X 10 9
0.1263
0.1240
0.1222
0.1210
0.1188
0.1174
0.1162
0.1152
0.1143
0.1135
0.1128
0.1115
0.1098
0.1071
0.1050
0.0998
0.0975
0.0952
0.0930
0.0887
0.0846
0.Q788
0.0734
0.0668
0.0580
0.0458
0.0362
0.0286
0.0226
0.0178
0.0111
0.0043
0.0011
0.0001
4.06 X 10 5
5.31 X 10 5
6.76 X 10 5
7.76 X 10 5
1.02 X 10 6
1.25 X 106
1.49 X 106
1.72 X 10 6
1.95 X 10 6
2.17 X 106
2.40 X 10 6
2.85 X 106
3.51 X 106
4.60 X 106
5.66 X 10 6
7.70 X 106
8.69 X 106
9.65x 106
1.06x10 7
1.24x107
1.41x107
1.66x10 7
1.89x10 7
2.17x10 7
2.54 X 10 7
3.06 X 10 7
3.47 X 10 7
3.79 X 107
4.04 X 10 7
4.24 X 10 7
4.53 X 10 7
4.82 X 107
4.96 X 10 7
5.00 X 10 7
Opo tn Table C.4.
118
WELL TESTING
C.2 A single oil well is producing in the center of a
circular, full waterdrive reservoir. The pressure at
the oil/water contact is constant at 3,340 psia and the
radial distance to the oil/water contact is 1,500 ft.
The well produced for the first 15 days at arate of
500 STB/D, the next 14 days at 300 STB/D, and the
last day at 200 STB/D. Calculate the cumulative
production and wellbore pressure at the end of 30
days.
cjJ
0.20,
75md,
k
17.5 x 10  6 psi  I ,
0.5 ft,
0.75 cp,
15ft,and
1.2 RB/STB.
C.3 An oil reservoir is initially at a pressure, Pi' of
2,734 psia. If the boundary pressure is suddenly
lowered to 2,724 psia and held there, calculate the
cumulative water influx into the reservoir after 100,
200, 400, and 800 days. Reservoir and aquifer
properties include the following.
cjJ = 0.2,
k = 83 md,
8 x 10 6 psi I ,
rw
3000 ft (reservo ir radius),
re
30,000 ft (aquifer radius),
J1., ::= 0.62 cp, and
h = 40 ft.
el
C.4 If, in Exercise C.3, the reservoir boundary
pressure suddenly dropped to 2,704 psia at the end of
100 days, calculate the total water influx at 400 days
total elapsed time.
References
l. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: "The Application of the
Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs,"
Trans., AIME (1949) 186, 305324.
2. Chatas, A.T.: "A Practical Treatment of NonsteadyState
Flow Problems in Reservoir Systems," Pel. Eng. (Aug. 1953)
844 through 856.
3. Edwardson, M.J. el al.: "Calcu1ation of Formation Temperature Disturbances Caused by Mud Circulation," J. Peto
Tech. (AprilI962) 416426; Trans., AIME, 225.
TABLE C.S  (CONTlNUED)
'eo =2.5(10
ID
qo
3 X 10 7
4 x 10 7
6 X 10 7
7x 10 7
8 x 10 7
9 x 10 7
1 X 10 8
1.4 X 10 8
2 x 10 8
2.6x 108
3x 10 8
3.3 X 108
3.6 X 108
4 X 10 8
4.4 X 10 8
5x 10 8
5.4 X 10 8
6 X 10 8
6.4 X 10 8
7x 10 8
7.4 x 10 8
8 X 10 8
8.4 x 108
9 X 10 B
1 X 10 9
1.3 x 109
1.6 X 10 9
2 X 10 9
2.4 x 10 9
3 X 10 9
4 X 10 9
5 X 109
6 X 10 9
8 X 10 9
1 X 10 10
1.4 X 10 10
2 x 10 10
3x10 1O
0.1103
0.1086
0.1064
0.1054
0.1047
0.1041
0.1035
0.1016
0.0993
0.0973
0.0960
0.0950
0.0940
0.0927
0.0915
0.0896
0.0804
0.0866
0.0855
0.0837
0.0826
0.0809
0.0798
0.0782
0.0756
0.0683
0.0616
0.0538
0.0469
0.0382
0.0272
0.0193
0.0138
0.0070
0.0035
0.0009
0.0001
0.0000
'eo = 2.5(10 5 )
'eo = 1.0(10 5 )
OpD
6.77x10 6
7.83 x 106
8.86x10 6
9.93 x 10 7
1.10x 10 7
1.51x10 7
2.11 x 10 7
2.70 X 10 7
3.09x 10 7
3.37x10 7
3.66 X 10 7
4.03x10 7
4.40 x 10 7
4.94x10 7
5.30 X 10 7
5.82 X 10 7
6.17x10 7
6.67x10 7
7.01 x 10 7
7.50x10 7
7.82x 10 7
8.29x10 7
9.06x10 7
1.12x108
1.32 x lO B
1.55 x 10 8
1.75x lO B
2.00 X 10 B
2.33 x lO B
2.56 x 108
2.72 X 10 8
2.92 X 10 8
3.02 x 108
3.10x10 8
3.12 x 10 8
3.12x 108
ID
qo
1.4x10 8
2 X 10 8
2.4 X 10 8
3 X 108
3.5x10 8
4 X 10 8
5x 10 8
6x 10 8
7 X 10 8
8x 108
8.4 X 10 8
9 X 108
1 x 10 9
1.4x10 9
2 X 10 9
3 X 10 9
4 X 10 9
5 X 10 9
6 x 10 9
7 x 10 9
8 X 10 9
9 x 10 9
1 x 10 10
1.3x10 1O
1.6x10 1O
2 x 10 10
2.4 X 10 10
3 X 10 10
4 x 10 10
5 X 10 10
6 X 10 10
7 X 10 10
8 X 10 10
9 X 10 10
1 X 10 11
1.3x10 11
1.6x10 11
2 X 10 11
2.4 X 10 11
3x 10 11
3.4 X 10 11
4 X 10 11
0.1017
0.1000
0.0990
0.0980
0.0971
0.0966
0.0956
0.0948
0.0941
0.0935
0.0933
0.0930
0.0925
0.0911
0.0896
0.0877
0.0861
0.0845
0.0829
0.0814
0.0799
0.0784
0.0770
0.0728
0.0689
0.0639
0.0594
0.0531
0.0441
0.0366
0.0304
0.0253
0.0210
0.0174
0.0145
0.0083
0.0048
0.0023
0.0011
0.0004
0.0002
0.0001
0E.o
3.10x107
3.59 x 10 7
4.07 x 10 7
5.03 X 10 7
5.98 X 10 7
6.93 X 10 7
7.87 X 10 7
8.24 X 10 7
8.80 X 10 7
9.73 X 10 7
1.34 X 10 8
1.80x 10 8
2.77 X 10 8
3.64 X 10 8
4.49 X 10 8
5.33 x 108
6.15x10 B
6.95 x 10 8
7.75 x 10 8
8.52 x 10B
1.08x109
1.29x10 9
1.56x109
1.80 x 10 9
2.14x10 9
2.62 X 10 9
3.03 x 10 9
3.36 X 109
3.64 X 109
3.87 X 10 9
4.06 X 10 9
4.22 X 109
4.55 X 10 9
4.74 X 10 9
4.88 x 109
4.94 X 109
4.98 X 10 9
4.99 X 109
5.00 x 109
2 For,o larger than values IIsted in this table,
3. For lO larger than values listed in this table,
0po" (r e O)2 11/2.
qo" 0.0.
0E.o
ID
qo
2 x 10 9
3 x 10 9
4 x 10 9
5x 109
6 X 109
7 X 10 9
8x 10 9
1 X 10 10
1.4x10 1O
2 X 10 10
3 X 10 10
4 X 10 10
4.4 X 10 10
4.7 X 10 10
5 x 10 10
5.4 X 10 10
6 X 10 10
7x10 1O
7.4x 10 10
8 x 10 10
8.4 X 10 10
9 X 10 10
1 X 10 11
1.1 x 10 11
1.3x10 11
1.6x 10 11
2 X 10 11
2.4x10 11
3x 10 11
4 X 10 11
5x 10 11
7 X 10 11
1 X 10 12
1.3x10 12
1.6x10 12
2 X 10 12
0.0897
0.0881
0.0870
0.0861
0.0854
0.0849
0.0844
0.0836
0.0824
0.0809
0.0787
0.0766
0.0757
0.0751
0.0745
0.0737
0.0725
0.0705
0.0698
0.0686
0.0679
0.0668
0.0658
0.0632
0.0593
0.0551
0.0494
0.0443
0.0376
0.0286
0.0217
0.0126
0.0055
0.0024
0.0011
0.0004
Notes: 1. For ID smalter than values listed in this table for a given reD. reservoir is infinite acling. Find
'eo=1.0(10 6 )
4.51 x 108
5.37 x 10 8
6.22 x 10 8
7.07 x 108
8.75 x 108
1.21x10 9
1.70 x 10 9
2.49 x 10 9
3.27 X 10 9
3.58 x 10 9
3.80 X 10 9
4.03 X 109
4.32 X 10 9
4.76 X 10 9
5.48 X 10 9
5.76 x 10 9
6.17x10 9
6.42 X 10 9
6.85 X 10 9
7.51 x 109
8.15 x 10 9
9.38 x 10 9
1.11 x 10 10
1.32x10 1O
1.51x10 1O
1.75x10 1O
2.08x 10 10
2.33 X 10 10
2.67 X 10 10
2.92 X 10 10
3.04 X 10 10
3.09 X 10 10
3.11x10 1O
Opo in Table C.4.
ID
2 x 1010
3 X 10 10
4 x 10 10
6 X 10 10
8 X 10 10
1 X 10 11
1.3 X 10 11
1.6x10 11
2 x 10 11
2.4 X 10 11
3 X 10 11
4 X 10 11
5x 10 11
6 X 10 11
7 X 10 11
8x 10 11
1 X 10 12
1.2 X 10 12
1.4 X 10 12
1.5x10 12
0E.o
0.0813
0.0800
0.0791
0.0778
0.0770
0.0763
0.0756
0.0750
0.0743
0.0737
0.0730
0.0719
0.0709
0.0697
0.0686
0.0676
0.0656
0.0636
0.0617
0.0607
7.95 x 10 10
1.02 x 10 10
1.25x10 1O
1.55x10 1O
1.84x10 1O
2.28x 10 10
3.21 X 10 10
3.72 X 10 10
4.42 X 10 10
5.11x10 1O
6.32 X 10 10
7.13 X 10 10
8.42 X 10 10
9.67 x 10 10
1.03x10 12
>1.5x10 12 notdetermined.
AppendixD
Rock and Fluid Property Correlations
Introduction
Pressure transient test analysis requires knowledge of
reservoir fluid properties such as viscosities, compressibilities, and formation volume factors. In
addition, formation compressibility is a rock
property frequently required for test analysis. For
most of these properties, laboratory analysis
provides the most accurate answer; however, in many
cases, laboratory results are not available, and the
test analyst must use empirical correlations of experimental data.
This appendix pro vides a summary of correlations
that have proved useful for test analysis. These
correlations are selected from those presented by
Earlougher; 1 his collection of correlations is
probably the best and the most complete in print at
the time of this writing. We assume that the reader of
this text has completed a study of the fundamentals
of reservoir fluid properties. Such studies provide
detail on the meaning, origin, and applicability of
these correlations. Readers not familiar with this
basis are referred to texts by Amyx et al. 2 and
McCain. 3 In this appendix, we simply reproduce
figures from Earlougher's collection and illustrate
the use of each with an example.
Tp'c' and pressure, PiJe' of an undersaturated crude
011 with gravity of 30 API (specific gravity = 0.876 at
60F).
Solution:
Dl,
T pc =1160oR
and
The test analyst may need to estimate the saturation
or bubblepoint pressure of a crude oil in sorne
circumstances  e.g., to determine whether a
reservoir is saturated or undersaturated at a certain
pressure. Standing's correlation 5 is useful for this
estimate; Fig. D2 shows this correlation.
To use Standing's correlation, one must know
solution GOR, gas gravity, stocktan k oil gravity,
and reservoir temperature. Example D.2 illustrates
use of this correlation.
a:
.JO
~
1300
Q.
Pseudocritical Temperature and
Pressure of Liquid Hydrocarbons
Pseudocritical temperature (Tpc ) and pressure (Ppc)
of undersaturated crude oils can be estimated from
an approximate correlation developed by Trube 4 and
presented in Fig. Dl. These pseudocritical properties
are required to estimate compressibility of an undersaturated crude oil, as illustrated by Example D.5.
To use Trube's correlation, one must know the
specific gravity of the undersaturated reservoir liquid
corrected to 60F. Example D.l illustrates use of the
correlation.
01 1000
ir
ol:!
o;)
PSEUDOCRITICAL
TEMPERA TURE
1100
;)e{
::: ffi
900
800
Q.Q.
I&J
1
700
e{
.Jiii
e{ Q.
600
PSEUDOCRITICAL
PRESSURE
500
~ 400
~ j
g~
~c
Problem: Estimate the pseudocritical temperature,
Fig.
BubblePoint Pressure of Crude OH
11 1200
Example D.l Estimation 01
Pseudocritical Temperature and Pressure
lor Undersaturated Crude Gil
From
P pc = 285 psia.
l:!
300
200
~"
SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF UNDERSATURATED RESERVOIR
el. LlQUID AT RESERVOIR PRESSURE CORRECTED TO 600F
Fig. 01  Approximate correlation 01 liquid pseudocritical
pressure and temperature with specilic gravity.1
120
WELL TESTING
Example D.2  Estimation of
BubblePoint of Crude Oil
Problem. Estimate the bubblepoint pressure of a
crude oi) from a reservoir praducing at a GOR of 350
scflSTB (believed to be solution gas only) with gas
gravity 0.75 and oH gravity 30 API from a reservoir
with temperature 200F.
Solution. On Fig. D2, we start on the left by extending a horizontal tine fram the assumed GOR of
350 scf/STB to the line for a gas gravity of 0.75;
fram this point, we draw a vertical line that terminates at the line for a stocktank oil gravity of 30
API; we then draw a horizontal line from that point
that terminates at the intersection with the 200F
reservo ir temperature lineo Finally, we draw a vertical line from this point that intersects the bubblepoint pressure scale at 1,930 psia. Thus, the
estimated bubblepoint or saturation pressure of the
crude oil is 1,930 psia.
Solution GOR
Frequently, the saturation pressure of a reservoir oil
is known, but solution GOR at saturaton pressure
(required for sorne test analyses) is unknown. Fig. D2 also can be used for this estimate.
To determine solution GOR, one must know
bubblepont pressure, reservoir temperature, stocktank ol gravity, and gas gravity. Example D.3
illustrates use of Standing's5 correlation for
estimating solution GOR.
Example D.3  Estimation of Solution GOR
Problem. Estimate the solution GOR of a crude oil
fram a reservoir with bubblepoint pressure 1,930
psia, temperature 200F, ol gravity 30 API, and gas
gravity 0.75.
Solution. In Fig. D2, we start at the lower right by
extending a vertical line fram the bubblepoint
pressure to the 200F reservoirtemperature lineo We
next draw a horizontalline to the left that terminates
at the intersection with the tine for tankoil gravity of
30 APl. We then draw a verticalline fram this point
to intersect the 0.75 gasgravity lineo Finally, we draw
a horizontalline fram that point to the GOR scale on
the left and read the GOR to be 350 scflSTB.
Oil Formation Volume Factor
Fig. D3 can be used to estimate the formation
EXAMPLE
nCQl,/lRCO
8ubbl.. polltf U'UWJ># 41 200:'
liquid MV",,. Q. t4' o'; rGlt6 of
.J5O CFB, Q 90' prOIl")'
0.75, rlnd
el ",,,Ir QJI 9,QVlIy oF JO APt,
0'
O;
or
PROCCOI,/RC
SIQI'fill9 0.1 11t~ 1.(1 ~d. 01 "..
ch4'1. pl'Ocud "'1"1101110.11)' 0./0119 fl.
CF8..". lo
.150
9'U fJl'Qlldy of O. 75 FrOIJl
#114 poiM dl"Op rl""lco.IJy lo Nw XrAPI
li".. Prot'Hd ho"'~Mfolly J'iQIft HI.
lan" 011 V"G"'fy "4/' ., Hw ;ooF
Iin.. TJt. r.qUlr. P"J.Vf" "
I"ouItd lo Iw !).JO P$IA.
Copyright 1952
Chevron ResearCh Compony
Reprinted by Permisslon
Fig. 02  Bubblepoint pressure or dissolved GOR of oil. 1
121
ROCK ANO FLUID PROPERTY CORRELA TlONS
EXAMPLE
REQU/RED.
Formo'lion vo!l./m, al' 200"F o;
Q.
blJbbl, poi"f liqu/d hO'o'IJ")9 Q gaso/I
rafio or J.50 CF8, "9'U grG..vify of 0.75.
Q"d
fonJe
oil gravdy oF ,JO API.
PROCEDURE:
S;arh"9 al M, I,ff
SI(/'
of ti"
,,!lar'!
proc(II, ho,.iron tal/y 0.10"9 fh, J50 eF8'
li", ro a. gas gravd''y oF O. 75. From fhis
PO'''; drop I/,rl/cal/y ro f!J, JO API II/'It
Proc,.d horIzontal/y fro," M. fank ()il
gl"'avify $cc/, lo fll, 200F in,.
r,qv,.,d rormo.;'on vol"m~ 1$ rovnd fa b,
barrel pe" barl,,1 of 'Id"k 01/.
TI,.
/. ce
Copyright 1952
Chevron Reseorch Compony
Reprinted by Permission
FORMAT/ON
VOLUME of 8U88LE POINT L/QUID
Fig. 03  Oil formation volume factor. 1
volume factor Bo of saturated crude oi!. For this
estimate, one must know solution GOR, gas gravity,
stocktank oi! gravity, and reservoir temperature.
Example D.4 illustrates use of this correlation, which
also was developed by Standing.
lO I
" '\
PSEUOOREOUCEO rEMPERArURE. rpr 
'\
!\
t
VI
[!l102
a::
IL
:!
O
lIJ
:>
lIJ
a::
O
O
:>
i"'r
r.... rJ
rK
1\ 1\
"
 
Example DA  Estimation 01 Gil
Formation Volume Factor
,'\
"
....
~ 10~
IL
)..
Problem. Estimate the formation volume factor of a
saturated crude oil from a reservoir with solution
GOR of 350 scflSTB, gas gravity of 0.75, tank oil
gravity of 30 API, and reservoir temperature of
" "
'
200F.
1.10
.......
t~ rI"
"'
"..1""
~,I\ /.00
"\. 1\1\ 0.95
~~
[\
0.90
1\
0.80
1
0.70
8
6
"
0.60
1'"
2
488
0.50
0.40
4611
10
102
Solution. In Fig. 03, we start at the upper left and
extend a horizontalline from a solution GOR of 350
scflSTB to intersect the line for gas gravity of 0.75.
We then extend a vertical line from this point to
intersect the 30 API tankoilgravity line. From this
point of intersection, we draw a horizontal line to
intersect the line for a reservoir temperature of
200F. FinalIy, we draw a vertical line from that
point to the formationvolumefactor scale at the
lower right and read Bo 1.22 RB/STB.
PSEUOOREDUCED PRESSURE,Ppr
Fig. 04  Correlation of pseudoreduced compressibility
tor an undersaturated oil. 1
Compressibility of Undersaturated Oil
The correlation in Fig. 04, developed by Trube, 4
can be used to estimate the compressibility, c o ' of an
122
WELL TESTING
10
8
6
V'
al
1
.3
~
U
10I
IJ)
1
11
1/
le
200
500
11
'='
PRESSURE,
PSIA
i
1000
'
2000
3000
1// 4000
,.oVA
V
~ 101
~~
~
L V/
V
/
V V~
/
V'
1000
fff
1// l//~
V"" IoIV~ W
~ t' II... ~
...;..;
~ ~~
1/'/ r//
l/~
6
4
(OR
RS
apSJT = (0.83p + 21.75)
103
4
10
102
103
3
1.0
i
4
6 104
Fig. 05  Change of gas in solution in oil with pressure vs.
gas in solution. 1
undersaturated erude oil.
The basie information required to use this figure is
speeifie gravity of the undersaturated erude oil,
reservoir temperature, and reservoir pressure. Given
these values, we can estimate pseudoeritical temperature (Tpc ) and pressure (Ppc)' pseudoreduced
temperature (Tpr = T!Tpc ) and pressure (Ppr =
plp c) and, thus, pseudoreduced compressioility
(ep,), which leads to oil compressibility (c o) from
the definition
Co =Cprlp pc '
Example 0.5 illustrates this sequence of calculations.
Example D.5  Estimaton oi
Undersaturated Gil Compressibility
Problem. Estimate the compressibility, co ' of an
undersaturated crude oil with 30 API gravity (0.876
specific gravity) at a reservoir temperature of 200F
and pressure of 5,000 psia.
Solution. In Example 0.1, we found that the
pseudocritical temperature of a 30 API oil was
Tpc = 1180 R and that the pseudocritical pressure
wasppc =275 psia. Thus,
0
T!Tpc =(200+460)/1,160
and
Ppr =plppc =5,000/285 = 17.5.
From Fig. 04, then,
cpr
0.001.
0.569,
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
OIL FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR,
Bo. RES BBLISTB
GAS IN SOLUTION. R s. SCF/STB
Tpr
Fig. 06  Change of oi I formation volume factor with gas
in solution vs. oil formation volume factor.'
By definition, Co =cprlp pc ' so
C =0.0011285 = 3.51 X 10 6 psi 1.
o
Compressibility of Saturated Crude OH
The apparent compressibility of saturated crude oil is
significantly higher than that of undersaturated oil.
The reason is that a pressure drop results in evolution
of gas from the oil; the total volume of oil remaining
actually decreases with pressure decline (although the
density of the remaining liquid oil actually decreases
slightly). The net result is that the total volume of oil
and evolved gas becomes greater as pressure drops,
leading to an apparent compressibility of the system
that is appreciably higher than that of liquid oil
alone. In equation form,
~ dB o
dR s ........... (0.1)
Bo dp
Bo dp
The first term accounts for the volume change in the
liquid caused by (1) vaporization of sorne of the
liquid and (2) increase in density of the remainder of
the liquido The derivative dB o I dp is a positive
number, so vaporization dominates. The second term
accounts for the volume occupied by gas evolved as
pressure decreases (or dissolved as pressure increases). The derivative dRsldp is positive, so this
term is positive. Further, its numerical value is
greater than that of the term (liBo) (dBoldp).
Ramey 6 proposed correlations that lead to an
estimate of C o for a saturated oil; these correlations
are given in Figs. 05 and 06. To use these
correlations, we must note that Eq. 0.1 can be
written as
C
o= 
+!!L
ROCK ANO FLUID PROPERty CORRELATlONS
1 dR s (B g _
Bo dp
123
dBo ) ............. (D.2)
dR s
Fig. D5 provides an estimate of dRs/dp; Fig. D6
estimates dBo/dR s '
To estimate c o ' one needs values of reservoir
pressure, p, solution GOR, Rs (which, in turn, can be
estimated from Fig. D2), tankoil specific gravity
('Yo) and gas gravity ('Y g ), oil formation volume
factor, Bo (which can be estimated from Fig. D3),
and gas formation volume factor, Bg. (B g can be
calculated from reservoir temperature, pressure, and
gas gravity, which leads to the realgasIaw deviation
factor z: Bg =0.00504 Tz/p RB/scf.) Example D.6
illustrates use of these correlations.
Example D. 6  Estimation of Saturated
Oil Compressibility
Problem. Pressure in an oil reservoir has dropped
below the initial bubble point to 2,500 psia. Reservoir
fluid characteristics inc\ude the following:
'Yo
0.825 (40 API),
'Yg
0.7,
T
200F = 660 R, and
0
0.851.
Estimate the apparent compressibility of this oil at its
current saturation pressure of 2,500 psia.
Solution. To evaluate c o ' we must determine each
term in Eq. D.2.
O
Bg
F ANO ATMOSPHERtC PRESSUR[
Fig. D7  Oead oH viscosity at reservoir temperature and
atmospheric pressure.'
~ dR s (B _
g
Bo dp
dBo ).
dR s
From knowledge of p, 'Y g' 'Yo' and T, we can
estimate Rs from Fig. D2, as in Example D.3; the
result is Rs =640 scflSTB. From knowledge of R s '
'Yg, 'Yo' and T, we can estimate Bo from Fig. D3, as
in Example D.4; the result is Bo = 1.36 RB/STB.
We can calculate Bg since T, p, and z are known:
C
OIL GRAVITY, API AT 60
0.00504 Tz/p
dBo
dR s
'Yo
10 4 = 5.6.
'Y g
Thus,
dBo
:::;:5.6 x 10
dR s
4J
'Yg
'Yo
(0.00504)(660)(0.851)12,500
0.001132 RB/scf.
From the inset in Fig. D5,
dR s
Rs
:::
dp
(0.83p + 21. 75)
640
:::;:[(0.83)(2,500) + 21.75]
=0.3052 scflSTBpsi.
(This result also could be read from the curves
plotted in Fig. D5.)
From Fig. D6,
(5.6 x 10
4
ro:7
)..,j .825
=0.516x 10 3 RB/scf.
We now can calculate e o :
e :::;: ~ dR s lB o B o dp
g
dBo
dR s
.1
= (_1_)(0.3052)(0.001132 1.36
=0.138x 10 3 psi I
0.000516)
124
WELL TESTING
100
SAME TEMPERATURE.
PROCEOURE: LOCATE 1.50 CP ON THE OEAO OIL VISCOSITY
SCALE (ABSCISSAI ANO GO UP VERTICALLY TO THE 600
GAS/OIL RATIO LINE. THEN GO LEFT HORIZONTALLY TO
OIL VISCOSITY
:::J
SCALE
a:
.iQ
O~
8~
~ I/l
/./
/
:::Jo
~~
I
/ 1/ /
a:
a:~
CI'IW
~
el :::J
f
l...0 V
jW
./
~ '/ ~ ~
Of
~;
LO
a:
I/l
./
a:
f
./
L/
~~
;/'
/
V
1/
V./
"'"
V/ :/1" ",.
1/.
./ ./
lh
~ ~ ~;..
l'
./
I~OO
1/
/
/
" 1'1
"'l
,~
LJ1
V
,00
,r
/'
./
.00
~V//
l'
== 1:::r
6 00
",'
SOLI.JTION GAS/OIL RArlO
SCF/IIIIL
~oOl
",'
000
1
"
1/
/ V
V
/. V V V V ,.
f ~
./
V ~ ~ '/~
,. 11.
:;
V'
1/
a:
'o"
. / 1/
f
V ~V
10
(OROINATE l.
11.11.
Z
1/
REAO THE ANSWER. 0.58 CP. ON THE GASSATURATEO
I/l
I/l
1/
CU FT I BBL ANO OEAO OIL VISCOSITY OF 1.50 CP. ALL
AT THE
a:
olll
EXAMPLE:
PROBLEM: FINO THE GASSATURATEO VISCOSITY OF
A CRUOE OIL HAVING A SOLUTION GAS/OIL RATIO OF 600
:t=t
"
OO
4l/: ~ ~~.; ~ V"':II
~
...
V V" ~~~
~~
O .1
5
0.3
... 1600
/.JI1
1""
E~A"~LEI
.,
..
1.0
10
100
VISCOSITY OF OEAO OIL. CP
( AT RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE ANO ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE)
Fig. 08  Viscosity of gassaturated crude oH at reservoir temperature and pressure. Dead oil
viscosity from laboratory data or from Fig. D7. 1
OH Viscosity
Viscosity of saturated crude oil can be estimated
from Beal's correlation 7 (Fig. D7) combined with
Chew and Connally's data 8 (Fig. D8). Viscosity
estimates for undersaturated oH require the same
figures plus an additional correlation of Beal's, Fig.
D9. Fig. D7 provides an estimate of dead (gasfree)
oil viscosity, 110d; Fig. D8 provides an estimate of
gassaturated oil viscosity, 110b' at saturation
pressure; and Fig. D9 provides an estimate of
viscosity in crease aboye bubblepoint pressure.
These viscosity estimates require knowledge of
reservoir temperature, oil gravity, solution GOR,
and, in the case of an undersaturated oil, bubblepoint and reservoir pressures. Example D.7
illustrates this estimation procedure.
Example D. 7  Estimation 01 Gil Viscosity
Problem. Estimate the viscosity of an undersaturated
oil at a reservoir pressure of 5,000 psia and at the
oil's saturation pressure of 1,930 psia. So!ution GOR
is 350 scflSTB, oil gravity is 30 API, and reservoir
temperature is 200F.
Solution. From Fig. D7, the dead oi! viscosity, 110d'
is 2.15 cp. From Fig. D8, the viscosity of gassaturated oil (l1ob) at the bubb!e point is 1.0 cp.
Finally, using data from Fig. D9, the viscosity of the
undersaturated oil (110) at a pressure of 5,000 psi is
110
= 1 + (0.067) (
5,000 1,930)
= 1.21 cp.
1,000
Solubility of Gas in Water
Solubility of natural gas in water can be estimated
from correlations of Dodson and Standing, 9
presented in Figs. DlO and D1l. Fig. DlO gives the
solubility of natural gas in pure (nonsaline) water;
Fig. D11 provides a means of correcting solubility in
pure water for brine salinity.
To estimate solubility of gas in water, one must
know reservoir temperature and pressure and total
ROCK AND F'LUID PROPERTY CORRELATIONS
125
...J
ID
ID
201~~~~
~~~~~~
::J
J 16r~~~~~~::::J:::~~~~~~
a::
10 2
a::
~ 12~~Jc~~~__~~~~~~~~
:::>
I&J
o..
1Z
6
o..
I&J
...J
10
~;
:::>0..
IDO
~o
02
cr'
11.0..
UJ
(/)
<t
I&J
cr
>
10 I
(/)
O
O
>
1
(/)
10
.2V
Fig. 010  Solubility 01 natural gas in pure water, 1
/V
2 I&J
 a::
1I&J
o!5
:7
~CO:'R:R~E:C~T.~/O~N~Fo.~R~8~RIN~E~S.~:4~L~/N~/~T~r~;;~~
~ 2 2 0.9
a::
10 1 2
1.0
10
10 2
VISCOSITY OF GASSATURATEO CRUOE
AT BUBBLE POINT PRESSURE, CP
J ~
rl ;
0,8 L....I..I..L.........l.I.....J...I..L...........I.J........L.I::__.....:..I...J
10
20
30
TOTAL SOLIOS IN BRINE.
40
10!
Fig. 09  Rate 01 increase in oil viscosity aboye bubble
poi nt pressure. 1
Fig. 011  Correction 01 natural
dissolved solids, 1
solids content of the water. Example D.8 illustrates
this estimation procedure.
Dl1. This estimate requires the same information
used to estimate the solubility of gas in water
(reservoir temperature and pressure and total solids
content of the water). Example D.9 illustrates the
estimation procedure.
Example D.8Estimation of
Gas Solubility in Water
Problem. Estimate the solubility of natural gas in a
formation water with 20,000 ppm dissolved solids,
reservoir temperature of 200F, and reservoir
pressure of 5,000 psia.
Solution. From Fig. D10, the solubility (R swp) of
natural gas in pure water at 200F and 5,000 psia is
20.2 scflSTB. From Fig. D11, the correction factor
(RswIRswp) for 20,000ppm salinity at 200F is 0.92.
Thus,
R sw
= (R swp ) (RswIRswp)
= (20.2)(0.92)
= 18.6 scflSTB.
Water Formation Volume Factor
The formation volume factor Bw can be estimated by
using Fig. D12, an additional correlation developed
by Dodson and Standing, 9 along with Figs. DlO and
gas
ppm x
solubility
lor
Example D.9Estimation of Water
Formation Volume Factor
Problem. Estimate the formation volume factor of
brine with 20,000 ppm dissolved solids at a temperature of 200F and pressure of 5,000 psia.
Solution. From Fig. D12, the formation volume
factor of pure water is 1.021 RB/STB; for gassaturated pure water, it is 1.030 RB/STB. Brine with
20,000 ppm dissolved solids contains les s dissolved
gas than pure water; from Fig. Dll, the ratio of
solubility in brine to that in pure water is 0.92. Using
this value to interpolate between volume factors for
pure and gassaturated water, then,
Bw = 1.021 + (1.0301.021)(0.92)
= 1.029 RB/STB.
126
WELL TESTING
""i:.. 4,0 ,......,rTrr...,..."T"'rrr1rT~r...,..."T"'''T''""".r1,
lr
~
"
~,o'._
~
ri
a::
1,03
:>
~g
2,4 L.....l...J......J.....J.....L....JLL.L......L...L...J......L.....JL....JLL.L.....l...l
60
100
140
180
220
260
TEMPERATURE. F
Fig. 013  Compressibility of gasfree water,1
1.02
> 1.3 ....,........,rT""\''''''''T"""T"rrr..,....,rr"T"'T...,...,....,.rT""T"'TI
1>
:Jt:
CORRECTION FOR GAS IN SOLUTION
jj;d
1.01
ID
" ~ ; 1.2~+++t:;.",.,.~
~~
IQ.a::
a::
w
~
....a.oc::::+t:,
(/)
PURE WATER
WATER PLUS NATURAL GAS
ID 1.04
~
"
>
t:
.J 3,2
a::
Z
O
3.6 t+t++~1
iD
1.05
ID
~~Q.
Ito:::!
u
O I I ~+t..,::.++l
ZU'
1.00
Oa::
::w
0,99
O
3ti
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
PRESSURE. P. PSIA
Fig. 012
Formation volume factor for pure water, gasfree and gassaturated, 1
~ ~ LO ~...iJL...J....I....l.l....J.....J.L..J.....iJ...L......... ' ........ ' ........~
O
5
10
15
20
25
GASWATER RATIO, CU FT IBBL
Fig. 014 Effect of dissolved
pressibility.1
gas
on
water
como
Compressibility of Water
in U ndersaturated Reservoirs
5,000 psia. Oil in the reservo ir has a saturation
pressure of 1,930 psia.
The formation water that occurs in an undersaturated oil reservoir will not release gas as
pressure is decreased; this would lead to formation of
or increase in a gas saturation in the reservoir. In
such a case. we will assume that the formation water
is saturated with gas at reservoir pressure. One
implication of this is that, as gas is released from
solution in the water, it is assumed to be redissolved
in the undersaturated oil.
For this assumed system behavior, Dodson and
Standing's9 correlations (given in Figs. D13 and D14) can be used to estimate the compressibility of
water in an undersaturated oil reservoir.
These watercompressibility estimates require
knowledge of reservo ir temperature and pressure and
formationwater salinity. Example D.lO illustrates
the calculation procedure.
Solution. We found in Example D.8 that solubility of
gas in water at the stated conditions is 18.6 scflSTB.
From Fig. D13, the compressibility (e wp) of pure
(gasfree) water is 2.96 x 10  6 psi l. At a gas/water
ratio of 18.6 scflSTB, the correction factor for gas in
solution is 1.16 (Fig. D14). Thus,
Example D.] 0 Estimation oi Water
CompressibUity in an Undersaturated
Reservoir
Problem. Estimate the compressibility of a formation water containing 20,000 ppm dissolved solids in
a reservoir with temperature 200F and pressure
ew
e wp (e w/ e wp )
(2.96 x 10 6 )(1.16)
3.43 x 10 
psi 
Compressibility of Water
in a Saturated Reservoir
In a saturated reservoir, gas reIeased from solution in
the formation water either will begin to form or will
increase a gas saturation as reservoir pressure is
lowered; as R amey 6 pointed out, this dramatically
increases the apparent water compressibility. In this
case, the water compressibility is calculated from
1 dBw
~ dR sw
 +
  ........... (D.3)
Bw dp
Bw dp
The term  (1/ B w ) (dB w/ dp) is still determined
ew
ROCK ANO FLUID PROPERTY CORRELATIONS
127
using Fig. D13 (for gasfree water) and Fig. D14 (to
correct for the effect of gas in solution). Ramey's
correlation,6 presented in Fig. D15, is used to
estimate dRsw/dp for fresh water, and Fig. DIl is
used to correct for the effect of salinity on dR sw / dp.
This compressibility estimate requires knowledge
of formationwater salinity, reservoir temperature
and pressure, and formation volume factor of the gas
dissolved in the water. Example D.11 illustrates this
estimation procedure.
0.008
0.006
..J
ID
ID
0004
(J)
1
~ll
~ ~
Q.
0.002
AVERAGE ERROR FOR I!SO: ro I6QOI" I!I
9.!S9I;, MAXIMUM ERROR. 1/11"
Example D. J J  Estimation 01 Water
Compressibility in a Saturated Reservoir
Problem. Estmate the apparent compressibility of
formation water containing 30,000 ppm dissolved
solids in an undersaturated oil reservoir at 200F and
1000
TEUP
120o~212
o..
212 '400
4000
'.~
______________  ,
ERRO"
fl4
.Oc _ 120.
(,)
3000
1 12
I /.
~I.
10
1
%
10
.10
::1.
IIJ
n:
:::l
(1)
(1)
IIJ
n:
o..
2
1 02
n:
IIJ
1:
o..
(1)
::E
lo
o
z
12
PRESSUR[
fOR WATER
PRESUll(O
1.1
HOY
T,'
CORRtCTION 'ACTOR
vS
(f
T.'
APPLICA8l[ TO tRINES .Uf
COHnRYfO [IP[liU .. [NTAllT
IIJ
n:
:::l
lo
n:
IIJ
o..
VISCOStTY
1.0
A'!' ELEvArEO "U.SSuttl
~P,T ~T
'p,T
0.9
::E
IIJ
lo
0.8
n:
g
n:
0.7
V1SCOS,TY
IIJ
(1)
IIJ
n:
!;(
>lo
o(,)
0.6
aT
(fL*)
SaTu~&T10H
Al I AT" 'RESSUR( lELO. 2'12 1
.R(5Su"(
O, nR UOY[ 21to.
0.5
0.4
(1)
:;
0.3
02
0.1
O.OL__~__~__~__~__..J____~__~__~__~~~~~~~~~~~~__~~~~~~~
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1000
Fig. 015  Change of natural gas in solution in formation
water with pressure vs. pressure. 1
20
ESTlfIj!AT(O
2000
PRESSURE, PSIA
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
TEMPERATURE, F
Fig. 016  Water viscosity at various salinities and temperatures. 1
340
360
380
400
128
WELL TESTING
...J<
Example D.l2  Estimation oi
Water Viscosity
t:a.
Problem. Estimate the viscosity of water containing
20,000 ppm (2070) dissolved solids at 200F and 5,000
psia.
700
Q.
cr
()W
g~
600
::J(/)
111(/)
f111
g:
550
Solution. From Fig. D16, the viscosity Jl.. T * of water
with 2070 NaCl at 200F and atmospheric pressure is
0.32 cp. The correction factor f for 5,000psia
pressure is 1.016 (inset at upper right of figure).
Thus,
500
Jl..w
Jl..T*f=(0.32)(1.016) =0.33 cp.
Pseudocritical Properties of Gas
300
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.8
GAS GRAVITY,
1.0
1.1
1.2
YIP (AIR. I
Fig. 017  Correlation of pseudocritical properties of
condensate well fluids and miscellaneous
natural gases with fluid gravity.1
2,500 psia. Formation volume factor of the 0.7gravity gas is 0.001132 RB/scf.
Solution.
From
Fig.
D15,
for
fresh
water,
dR sw /dp=0.0033. The correction factor for the
effect of salinity (Fig. Dl1) is 0.875; thus, for brine,
dRsw/dp = (0.0033)(0.875) = 0.0029 scflSTBpsi.
From Fig. D12, using procedures outlined in
Example D.9, Bw 1.033 RB/STB. From Figs. D13'
and D14, using procedures of Example D.lO,
 
1 dB
Bw
_w
=(3.13 x
1O 6 )(l.l1)
dp
Pseudocritical temperature, T pc ' and pressure, PPC'
are useful quantities that allow application of
generalized correlations of gas properties needed in
applications. The most accurate values of these
quantities are calculated from compositions of
natural gas mixtures. 2,3 Approximate values can be
determined from a correlation developed by Brown
el al. 11 This correlation, presented in Fig. D17, is
based on gas gravity, 'Y g; values of critical properties
depend on whether the gas is from a gas condensate
reservoir (the "condensate weIl fluids" curve) or
from a relatively dry gas reservoir (the
"miscellaneous gases" curve). Example D.l3
illustrates use of this correlation.
Example D.l3  Estimation oi
Pseudocritical Gas Properties
Problem. Estimate T pc and Ppc for a dry gas of
gravity ('Y g ) 0.7.
Solution. From
Ppc = 665 psia.
Fig.
D17,
T pc =390oR
and
GasLaw Deviation Factor (zFactor)
and Gas Formation Volume Factor
Application of the real gas law,
pV=znRT, ......................... (D.4)
Thus,
= __1_ dBw + !!...L
e
w
Bw
dp
Bw
dR sw
dp
to relate pressure, volume, and temperature for gases
requires values of the deviation factor z. One application of particular importance is in calculating
gas formation volume factor, Bg , from
Bg
= 3.47 x 10
+ _(0_.00_11_3_2)_(0_.0_0_29_)
(1.033)
=6.65 X 10 6 psi l.
0.00504 Tz/p (RB/scf) ............. (D.5)
Fig. D18, developed by Standing and Katz,12 can
be used to estimate z. One must know pseudoreduced
pressure, Ppro and pseudoreduced temperature, T pro
to determine z. By definiton,
Ppr =p/ppc ......................... (D.6)
Water Viscosity
Fig. D16, first presented in the literature by Matthews and Russell,IO allows estimates of water
viscosity as a function of reservo ir temperature,
salinity, and reservoir pressure. Example D.12
illustrates use of this correlation.
and
T pr
T/TpC'
....................... (D.7)
In these definitions, pressures must be expressed n
psa (psig + 14.7) and temperatures in degrees
Rankne CF +460).
To use this correlaton, one must know reservor
129
ROCK ANO FLUID PROPERTY CORRELATIONS
1.1
1.1
PSEIJOO  REOIJCEO
rEMPERArIJRE, rp,
i~
2.
2.6
2.4
1.0.
2.2
.~
>.
~ 1.8
..:J
i'.~.
1.7"
.. b!':'
;.~!
~~
l.
0.6
.~
1.0
0.0
1.4
~
:>
IJ
O
Ul
\
l
Z
O
1.7
0.7
o::
tt
f+
~~
1.0
~.::"t
r+!6
O
\.~
.;~.
0.9
"\.~;'
<t
C>
,g
..J
<t
IJ
o::
+1
0.4
~
I.a
2.4
2.6
....~.O
1.2
0.3
.~
'f.~O.
1.1
2,8
a Bf
1.1
~~
[, . It:~.
~, ~
1.0
1.0
1./
; ..
/.05
I~ ~",'.4
0.9 JIRT
7
O.,
I.~
10
11
12
13
14
10
PSEUOOREOUCEO PRESSURE. Ppr
Fig. 018  Gaslaw deviation factor for natural gases as a function of pseudoreduced pressure and temperature.'
WELL TESTING
130
..
..
Q.
,:
ID
!I
.,:
,~
~
r
\
~'\./
.'\fv
VI
VI
l&J
\
3
1\ \
l&J
::)
O
l&J
a: e
::)
l&J
VI
O
O
~
1\
l&J
a:
O
O
I\"\~
Q.
r~.
'"
::1.
'"
Ilt
Q.
::t
....;...
0.00 9
."
Vi
o
0.00
>
0.00
>
.,
8~
=~
U
1/1
+.
0.00
No;
~:r
,....
11+ fl, JO
HfW. + i
,0010 h ["112~~
6~ ~>.OO05
h
ff
0.00 S
Be
hTt I
10
.. ..
u>
"' .000
"'o
S"
10
5
MOL % HZ
O~
O
15
5
MOL
10
COI
..J
~
~ 1'"
.'o~
10
MOL
I I T".,
20
"4
Hz'
.~
:::t'
I.~
,0
30
15
40
,.o
0. 6
f
0.00 4
e ".001
"
F"'
~...
~.
:t
"'1::
H S
0015
7~:
"'8 ..
0.6
.".0:;:,....
::;+
COz
.0015
ou
"'000".
.,"
c Ou
S
0.01 O
~\o
u"' >
"'o .
'o"
~~
.... .o
1/1
ti
O
O
0.01 I
/,\~
Nz
e u .0010
..
38
' j 'LJ
t+ !_u'
p~
=1.000)'
0.01 2
a:
15
10
.0015
30
~i
0.01 3
(AIR
J'
t:f
~\
~~\
PRESSURE,
20
l'
1"\'\
Fig. 019B  Correlation 01 pseudoreduced compressibility
lor natural gases. 1
Q.
PSEUDOREDUCED
15
0.014
OOI~
[\
GAS GRAVITY.
10
tI
1\
\~~
~~\~
a
7
Fig. 019A  Correlation 01 pseudoreduced compressibility
lor natural gases. 1
05
1\
vl.6
PSEUDOREDUCED PRESSURE, Ppr
0016
~ 1\
1\ \
l&J
VI
O
V 2 .1.8
V lI /.7
~ ~\\ \
1\
:>
\~~ ~
1\ \
1\ \ \ ~ ~~~V
\\
'O'= ....~ \lO,
1\ ~r\~
i, \
\ \
1\
1\ 1\
,,\\ \
/4
\ \
::)
\\ \
i~
1\1\
\\
~\
1\'\
1\
, I( ~""
121\~\
l&J
1.7
t\L1.6\/1.5
1\ r\ 1\
'"
1.8
~~
I\r\
1,11.$
1.4
Q.
l:
1\
2.0
1.05
:E
\ "\ ~
Q.
2.G
,\
a:
/1.6
\ \
:lE
rr
PSEUDOREDUCED
rEMPERArURE, 7p,
~~
~'"
1\ 1\.
ID
~ ~/.71.8
'.
1.3
1.4
1.$
~t'..
1.2
'1. '\.
1
...... lo.
~ ~
rEMPERAruRE, rp,
1\
\ 1\
Li PSEUDOREDUCED
H,,"
VI
VI
l&J
g:
'.
1
Li
1\
50
eo
MOLECULAR
WEIGHT.
70
Fig. 020  Viscosity 01 natural gases at 1 atm. 1
80
80
100
ROCK ANO FLUID PROPERTY CORRELATIONS
131
temperature and pressure and pseudocritical temperature and pressure (from either composition or
gas gravity). Example D.14 illustrates use of this
correlation.
Example D.14Estimation oiGasLaw
Deviation Factor and Gas Formation
Volume Factor
Problem. Estmate z for 0.7gravity gas in a reservoir
with temperature 200F and pressure 2,500 psia. Use
this value of z to determine the gas formation volume
factor Bg.
Solution. In Example D.13, we
o
T pe =390 R andp pc =665 psia. Then,
found
that
T pr = TI T pe = (200 + 460)/390 = 1.69,
and
TO
~'"
8.0
~
<r
~
P pr =plppe =2,500/665 = 3.76.
;
o
";;'"
&.0
From Fig. D18, z=0.851. Then,
PSEuOOREDuCED
PRESSURE, Pp,
Bg =0.00504 Tzlp
40
= (0.00504)(660)(0.851)/2,500
=0.001132 RB/scf.
Gas Compressibility
Figs. D19A and D19B (developed by Trube 13 ) lead
to estimates of gas compressibility, Cg' In these
figures (which cover different ranges of the independent variables), pseudoreduced compressibility, C r' is plotted as a function of
pseudoreduced pressure, PPf' with the parameter
pseudoreduced temperature, Tpr ' Pseudoreduced
compressibility is defined as Cpr = CgP pe; thus, gas
compressibility is found from the relaton
c g =cpr/ppC'
....................... (D.8)
Use of Figs. D19A and D19B requires knowledge
of reservoir temperature and pressure and
pseudocritical temperature and pressure of the gas
(from either composition or gravity). Example D.15
illustrates use of this correlation.
Example D.15  Estimation oi Gas
Compressibility
Problem. Estimate the compressibility of a 0.7gravity gas at a reservoir temperature of 200F and
pressure of 2,500 psia.
Solution.
In
Example D.14, we found that
and ppc=665 psia for these
condltlOns. From Flg. D19A, Cpr = 0.26. Thus,
Tpr~~.69, p pr =3.,16,
c g = c pr IPpe =0.26/665
= 0.00039 psi 
Gas Viscosity
Figs. D20, D21A, and D21B (from the work of
Carr el al. 14) can be used to estmate gas viscosity at
<'0
<'0
'.0
PSEUDOREOUCED
TEMf=)ERATURE, Tpr
Fig. D21A  Effect of temperature and pressure on gas
viscosity.1
reservoir conditions. From knowledge of reservoir
temperature and gas gravity (or its equivalent,
molecular weight), we can estimate the viscosity of a
hydrocarbon gas, Ilgl' at atmospheric pressure.
Insets in Fig. D20 allow corrections to this viscosity
for nonhydrocarbon components of the gas. Figs. D21A and D21B (two different ways of plotting the
same data) permit calculation of gas viscosity at
reservoir temperature and pressure, given viscosity at
atmospheric pressure, pseudoreduced temperature,
Tpf' and pseudoreduced pressure, P pr ' Example
D.16 illustrates application of these figures.
Example D.16Estimation oiGas
Viscosity
Problem. Estimate the viscosity of a 0.7gravity
hydrocarbon gas (no H 2 S, N 2 , or CO 2 ) at 200F and
2,500 psia.
Solution. From Fig. D20, the viscosity Il g 1 of 0.7gravity gas [molecular weight = 0.7 x 28.Y7 = 20.3
lbm/(lbmmole)] at 200F and atmospheric pressure
132
WELL TESTING
~tl
7,.roO
1=1.,0
v
"'
~lI
..J.
tt
'
,.
1"
\.
00
IJ,~
QI
QI
4.0
:t
IJ,"
IJ,'
~
Q:
>
1
'+ ,"
(f)
5>
~
.~
3.0 +7'
...
111 ~,~
,.,H ,'.:'.)
L~
f:i:i:
'''';~::Tr:.:;.+'..J
e;..;~~~
....
~.
:r;.,. .'
. .,..
.IJ ."
2.0
1.0
2
1.0
..
SI
10
PSEUDOREDUCED
70
PRESSURE, Ppr
Fig. 021 B  Effect of pressure and temperature on gas viscosity.'
is 0.01225 cp. In Example D.14, we found that, at
these conditions, Tpr = 1.69 and P pr = 3.76. Thus,
from Fig. D21A or D21B, Jtg/Jtgl = 1.45. At 200F
and 2,500 psia, gas viscosity is
Jt g
= (Jtg/Jtgl)Jtgl
= (0.01225)(1.45)
=0.0178cp.
Formation Compressibility
Formation compressibility, el' is defined as
1_( OVop
el= __
Vp
...............
where Vp = pore volume of porous medium.
(D.9)
Formation compressibility is a complex function
of rock type, porosity, por e pressure, overburden
pressure, and, in general, the stresses in different
directions in the formation. No reliable correlation
of this quantity with the controlling variables has
been presented in the literature; indeed, laboratory
determinations of el are difficult, and many reported
values of this quantity are doubtless erroneous
because conditions in the field were not duplicated in
the laboratory. A muchused correlation, developed
by Hall, 15 is presented in Fig. D22. This correlation
relates el to a single variable  porosity. As reported
by Earlougher, 1 this correlation is known to be
incorrect by an order of magnitude or more in
specific situations. Thus, while the correlation is easy
to use, the result may be seriously in error for any
given application.
133
ROCK ANO FLUID PROPERTY CORRELA TlONS
Use of this correlation is illustrated in Example
D.17. The result may be of no greater accuracy than
simply assuming Cf == 4 x 10  6 psi  I , since only one
of the many variables affecting Cf has been taken into
account.
10
E~I
t~
r1_ 4
1 1r r1
1 ;
I~
",r
~
 =
~
 .. ~ ::;:
 5 r
Example D.17  Estimation 01
Formation Compressibility
.e
Problem. Estimate the formation compressibi!ity Cf
for a reservoir with 20070 porosity.
e!
,+  ~~
~ ~~~
~t~ o~
."
.,
4'
Solution. From Fig. D22, cf= 3.6 x 10 6 psi  l .
.
o
Exercises
Results of pressure transient test analysis sometimes
are combined with rock and fluid properties to
calculate the following quantities:
10
~.
x! .I
ls e
i; I.i
..
d~ e:"
1
.:
.~
"4
12'
14
16
..
LIIIIUTO_' IA"DITOtI(
r
I I
20
22
24
POROSITY PERCENT
Fig. 022  Formation compressibility.15
Total reservoir flow rate,
qRt =qoBo +qwBw + (qg R s qo/l,OOO)B g .
Total mobility,
At =ko/;'o +kw/;'w +kg/;'g.
Total compressibility,
c t =coS o +cwS w +cgS g +cf
The following exercises require calculation of q Rt'
Al> and ct for two cases.
D.lo Calculate qRt> At , and c t for an undersaturated oil reservoir with the following properties.
100 STB/D,
20 STB/D,
qoRs (reservoir produces dissolved gas
only),
Reservoir pressure = 4,000 psia,
Reservoir temperature = 220F,
Rs
400 scflSTB,
"Ig = 0.7,
"In = 0.85,
qo
qw
qg
Water salinity = 25,000 ppm (2.5070 NaCl),
ko
20md,
kw
0.93 md,
kg
O (no freegas saturation),
cp
So
Sw
Sg
0.18,
0.65,
0.35, and
o.
D.2. Calculate qRI> Al> and ct for a saturated oil
reservoir with the following properties:
qo
100 STB/D,
qw = 5 STB/D,
qg = 250 MscflD,
Oi! gravity = 38 API,
Gas gravity = 0.8,
Reservoir pressure = 2,000 psia,
Reservoir temperature = 200F,
ko
100 md,
kw
3.3 md,
kfl
7.25 md,
Water salinity
Sw
0.25,
Sg
0.05,
0.70, and
So
cp
27,500 ppm,
0.18.
References
1. Earlougher, R.e. Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis,
Monograph Series, SPE, Dalias (1977) 5.
2. Arnyx, J.W., Bass, D.M. Jr., and Whiting, R.L.: Pelroleum
Reservoir Engineering: Physical Properties, McGrawHill
Book Co., Inc., New York City (1960).
3. McCain, W.D. Jr.: The Properties of Pelroleum Fluids,
Petroleum Publishing Co., Tulsa (1973).
4. Trube, A.S.: "Compressibility of Undersaturated
Hydrocarbon Reservoir Fluids," Trans., AIME (1957) 210,
341344.
5. Standing, M.B.: Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Gil Field
Hydrocarbon Systems, Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York
City (1952).
6. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Rapid Methods for Estimating Reservoir
Compressibilities," J. Peto Tech. (April 1964) 447454;
Trans., AIME, 231.
7. Beal, C.: "The Viscosity of Air, Water, Natural Gas, Crude
Oil and Its Associated Gases at OilField Temperatures and
Pressur~s," Trans., AIME (1946) 165, 94115.
8. Chew, J. and Connally, e.A. Jr.: "A Viscosity Correlation
for GasSaturated Crude Oils," Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 2325.
9. Dodson, e.R. and Standing, M.B.: "PressureVolumeTemperature and Solubility Relations for NaturalGasWater
Mixtures," Dril/. and Prod. Prac., API (1944) 173179.
lO. Matthews, e.S. and Russell, D.G.: Pressure Buildup and
Flow Tests in Wells, Monograph Series, SPE, Dalias (1967) 1,
AppendixG.
11. Brown, G.G., Katz, D.L., Oberfell, G.G., and Alden, R.e.:
Natural Gasoline and the Volatile Hydrocarbons, Natural
Gasoline Assn. of America, Tulsa (1948).
12. Standing, M.B. and Katz, D.L.: "Density of Natural Gases,"
Trans., AIME (1942) 146,140149.
13. Trube, A.S.: "Compressibility of Natural Gases," Trans.,
Al ME (1957) 210,355357.
14. Carr, N.L., Kobayashi, R., and Burrows, D.B.: "Viscosity of
Hydrocarbon Gases Under Pressure," Trans., Al ME (1954)
201,264272.
15. Hall, H.N.: "Compressibility of Reservoir Rocks," Trans.,
AIME (1953) 198, 309311.
AppendixE
A General Theory of Well Testing
The purpose of this appendix is to summarize an
approach to well test analysis that is not limited
either to wells in infiniteacting reservoirs or to wells
centered in cylindrical reservoirs. This theory is
stated more clearly in terms of dimensionless
variables, which we have largely avoided in the text
because they are abstract and thus are less easily
understood than other approaches. For sorne applications, though, use of dimensionless variables is
essential and general theory is such an area.
We have seen that for t:5948 cjJ.tct'e2lk (infiniteacting reservoir) and for constantrate flow for a well
centered in a cylindrical reservoir,
2
qB.t[ (1,688cjJ.tC t'w ) 2s]
P IPj=70.6ln
w
kh
kt
'
.......................... (1.11)
and for t > 948 cjJ.tc t , / I k (pseudosteady state),
_
_
qB.t [0.000527 kt
PI P wj141.2
2
kh
cjJ.tCt'e
+In( ~ )0.75+S].
(1.l2modified)
'w
We can generalize by writing these equations in terms
of dimensionless variables:
0.00708 kh (Pi Pwj)
qB.t
= ~ (In 0.000264 kt
cjJ.tc t 'w 2
+0.809)+s,
or
0.00708 kh (Pi Pwj)
qB.t
= ~ (In t D +0.809) +s
2
or
0.00708 kh (Pi Pwj) =
qB.t
2tD
)
( 2 + In 'De 0.75 +s
'De
=PD+s, tD>0.25'D/
........... (E.2)
Even more generally, we can write
0.00708 kh (Pi Pwj)
'.:..:.<
qB.t
=PD(tD) +s . ..... (E.3)
Thus, given a value tD' there exists a rule for
determining P D for a well centered in a cylindrical
reservoir  either Eq. E.l or Eq. E.2. Thus, this
general expression includes transient flow and
pseudosteadystate flow as special cases.
The value of this generalization becomes clearer if
now we reconsider a subject we introduced in Chapo
3  n changes in rate in the producing history of a
well (Fig. El).
The total pressure drawdown at the well, expressed
in terms of dimensionless variables, is found by
superposition, as we showed in Chapo 3 for the
special case of transient flow. Here, note that rate q 1
acts for time, t; (q2 ql) for time (tt l ), ... ; and
(qnqnI) for time (tt n  I ) Thus, we write, in
general,
0.00708 kh [Pi Pwj(tD)]
B.t
= (ql
O)[PD (tD O)
+s] +(q2 ql)[PD (tD tDl)+s] +
=P D +s, t D :50.25 'D/'
........... (E.l)
+ (qn qnI)(PD (tD tD,nI)+S],
and
0.00708kh (PiPwj) _[
qB.t
2
(re/'w)
or, more compactly,
2
0.00708kh [PiPwj(tD)] __ [
B.t
. ( 0.OOO264kt)
2
+ In ('e)
 3
cjJ.tCt'w
'w
+ s] ,
PD(tDt D)) J+qnS'
.f.
i.J
fl.q)
)=1
.............. (E.4)
A GENERAL THEORY OF WELL TESTlNG
135
where
tlqj
= qj 
qj
(and qo =0),
tDO =0.
Eq. E.4 is generali.e., it applies to a reservoir in
which, for sorne values of t D  t Dj' P D can be the
pseudosteadystate solution,and, for other values of
t D  t Dj' P D can be the transient solution.
As an example, consider a pressure buildup test in
a cylindrical reservoir. Let ql =q; q2 =0;
t Dl = t pD + tlt D ; and t D2  tDI = tlt D . Then,
0.00708 kh (p  P ws )
Bp.
=qPD (tpD + tlt D )
qPD(M D )
 2. [In (tD+tltD)
If and only if flow is transient for total time
t pD + tlt D' then
0.00708kh(pp ws )
1 [
Bp.
= 2. q In (tpD+tltD )
+ 0.809] 
Fig. E1  n rate changes in well's producing history.
~ q(ln tlt D +0.809)
+0.809]+PD(tD+tltDl.
............................. (E.6)
Now, for sorne small values of tltD :S tltDs ,
In (t D + tlt D) ::::dn (t D ) and P D (t D + tlt D) :::::
PD(tD)'
For tlt D :S tlt Ds' then,
0.00708 kh (Pi  P ws )
1 ( t+ tlt)
''~= =  In   +p (t )
qBp.
2
tlt
D D
or
._
=70.6 qBJl ln (t pD +tlt D )
PI P ws
kh
tlt
D
=162.6qBP.lo (tp+tlt).
kh
g
tlt
In fact, the arguments leading to Eq. EA understate its generality. For constantrate flow in
cylindrical reservoirs, P D can be calculated for all t D
from simple equations  but the method is not
restricted to cylindrical reservoirs. It applies to any
drainage configuration for which P D can be
calculated as a function of t D (using finitedifference
simulation or any other convenient means).
We now examine a useful method 13 for determining P D as a function of t D for more general
reservoir shapes; this method uses the MatthewsBronsHazebroek functions 4 developed for use in
determining average reservoir pressure. We start by
noting that for a pressure buildup test in a reservo ir
of general shape,
0.00708 kh (Pi  P ws )
=PD(tD+tltD)qB p.
PD(tltD)'
...................... (E.5)
For tlt D sufficiently small (e.g., tltD :s0.25 rD/ in a
cylindrical reservoir), flow will be transient regardless of drainagearea configuration, and P D ~tlt D)
= 1/2(1n tlt D +0.809). If we now add and subtract
1/2 In (t D + tlt D) on the right si de of Eq. E.5 written
at these sufficiently small values of tlt D' the result is
0.00708kh (pP ws )
qBp.
=~
In(t+tlt)
2
tlt
 2. [In (2.246 tD)]
+ tlt) + constant .
= 2.1 In (t;
. . . . . . (E.7)
The implication of Eq. E.7 is simply that for sufficiently small tlt, a plot of P ws vs. In [(t + tlt) / tlt] or
log [( t + tlt) / tlt] will be linear and will have a slope,
m, related to permeability. This linear relationship
exists, of course, only for sufficiently small values of
tlt. Once we have established the linear relationship,
though, we can extrapolate it to larger times. In
particular, we can extrapolate P ws to (t + tlt) / tlt = 1.
Matthews et al. 4 did this and chose to call the extrapolated pressure p* . Eq. E.7 shows that
0.00708 kh
1
qBp.
(pP*)=PDU D )  2. In (2.246 t D )
............................... (E.8)
A material balance shows that
c t Vp (pjJ) =5.615 qBt/24
=ctAhe/>(pjJ), .......... (E.9)
where A is the area drained by a well (square feet).
(Eq. E.9 is valid regardless of drainagearea shape.)
Now define tDA as 0.000264 kt/cf>p.ctA. Substituting for t from Eq. E.9 gives
_ 0.000264 kt
tDA cf>p.ctA
(0.000264)(kh)(24)(p  jJ)
0.00708kh (pjJ)
=
(5.615)(qBp.)
136
WELL TESTING
or
27f't DA
0.00708kh (pjJ)
= ''
......... (E. 10)
qB.L
Then, using Eqs. E.8 and E.I0,
0.00708kh (pP*)
qB.L
0.OO708kh (pjJ)
+'qB.L
been used to determine the values in Table 1.1 in the
column "Use Infinite System Solution With Less
than 1070 Error for t DA <," thus praviding us with a
means of determining the upper limit of applicability
of the relationship P D (t D) = 1/2 (In t D + 0.809) in
reservoirs of general drainagearea configuration.
Now we turn our attention to developing a method
for determining P D (t D ) after pseudosteadystate
conditions have been established. Brons and Miller 5
pointed out that, at pseudosteady state,
P DMBH (t DA )
Simplifying,
= In (CA t DA )
=lnCA+lnt DA ,
(p*  jJ)
   =47f'tDA +In (2.246 tD) 2PD(tD)
70.6 qB.L
=P DMBH (t DA ).
. ...........
(E.ll)
Note that the left side of Eq. E.ll is the ordinate of
the MBH plots (thus, we give it the name PDMBH)'
Note also that t DA = 0.000264 kt / cj:J.LC fA is the abscissa of the MBH plots.
Eq. E.ll allows liS to use the MBH charts to
determine P D (t D ) for the drainagearea configurations considered in constructing the charts. To
understand why this is so, note that Eq. E.ll can be
put in the form
(E.14)
where CA is a shape factor whose value depends on
the specific drainage area configuration. This
equation implies a linear relationship between
P DMBH and In t DA' with intercept In CA varying
fram case to case. The MBH charts (Fig. 2.12) show
that this linear relationship does exist and that the
intercept does depend on the specific drainagearea
configuration. Further, the time at which P DMBH
becomes a linear function of In t DA establishes the
beginning of pseudosteadystate flow.
The task at hand is to show that Eq. E.14 leads to a
method for determining P D (t D) for general
drainagearea shape for pseudosteadystate flow. If
we substitute the value of PDMBH (IDA) fram Eq.
E.14 into Eq. E.12, the result is
PD (tD)
 PDMBH (tDA)' . . . . . . . . . .
........
= 27f'tDA + 1/2 In (2.246 t D)
 1/2 In (CA t DA
(E.12)
For time, t D' sufficiently small that no boundary
effects have appeared (transient flow),
or
PD (ID)
= 2 In (2.246 tD), tD <t DB
For tD <tDB' then,
1
P D (t D)
Thus, we have established a rule by which PD (tD)
can be established for general drainage shape in
pseudosteadystate flow. Table 1.1 gives the times
("Exact for t DA <" and "Less Than 1070 Error for
t DA <") at which Eq. E.15 can be applied.
Finally, there is the problem of how to establish
P D (t D ) for general drainagearea configuration
when there is a gap between the upper limit of applicability of the transient solution and the lower
limit of applicability of the pseudosteadystate
solution. Eq. E.12, which applies at al! times, can be
used to fill this gap:
= 21n (2.246 t D )
=27f'tDA
2 In (2.246 t D )
or
PDMBH (tDA) = 47f'tDA
PD(tD)
(p*  jJ)
==,
70.6 qB.L
tD
< t DB'
....
(E.13)
Eq. E.13 shows that in transient flow (infiniteacting reservoir), P DMBH is a linear function of t DA'
Thus, in principie, a plot of P DMBH vs. t DA could be
used to determine the time t DA up to which a
reservo ir of general shape is infinite acting (by observing the time at which a deviation from linearity
occurs). In principie, then, this technique could have
=27f't DA + 1/2 In (2.246 t D )
 1/2 P DMBH (t DA
).
To avoid both t DA and t D on the right side of the
same working equation, we can rewrite this result as
PD (tD)
= 27f'tDA + 1/2 In (2.246 tDAA/r w2 )
l/2PDMBH (tDA)'
........
(E.16)
Thus, values of P DMBH could be read from their
charts at a desired value of t DA , and P D (t p) could
137
A GENERAL THEORY OF WELL TESTlNG
be ca1culated for use in subsequent reservoir analysis.
Earlougher provides values of P D (t D) for general
drainagearea shapes in Ref. 6 Appendix C. For
applications, the reader should find the desired P D
values in that reference.
In summary, this appendix has shown that well test
analysis techniques are not limited to wells centered
in cylindrical reservoirs or to infiniteacting reservoirs. One can derive or find in the literature
dimensionlesspressure values for general drainagearea shapes; one can combine these values (using
superposition) to take into account any arbitrary rate
history before and during the test. Thus, the title of
the appendix: A General Theory of Well Testing.
References
1. Ramey, H.J. lr. and Cobb, W.M.: HA General Pressure
Buildup Theory for a Well in a Closed Drainage Area," J. Peto
Tech. (Dec. 1971) 14931505; Trans., AIME, 251.
2. Cobb, W.M. and Dowdle, W.L.: HA Simple Method for
Determining Well Pressure in Closed Rectangular Reservoirs,"
J. Peto Tech. (Nov. 1973) 13051306.
3. Dake, L.P.: Fundamentals oi Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam (1978).
4. Matthews, e.S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek, P.: HA Method for
Determination of Average Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir,"
Trans., Al ME (1954) 201, 182191.
5. Brons, F. and Miller, W.C.: HA Simple Method for Correcting
Spot Pressure Readings," Trans., AIME (1961) 222,803805.
6. Earlougher, R.e. lr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis,
Monograph Series, SPE, Dalias (1977) 5.
AppendixF
Use of SI Units
in WellTesting Equations
This Appendix summarizes the changes required to
solve the equations stated in the text by using International System (SI) metric units. To show the
necessary changes and to allow the interested reader
to apply the SI unit system to typical welltesting
problems, this Appendix has four major parts: (1)
conversion factors from "oilfield units" to SI units
are tabulated in Table FI for the units used in the
text; (2) a summary of preferred SI units for major
variables is given in Table F2; (3) major equations in
the text are restated in Table F3, with constants
given in both oilfield and SI units; and (4) answers to
all examples in the tex! are given in SI units. In
addition, in the Nomenclature, preferred SI units are
given (in parentheses) for each quantity used in the
texto
TABLE FI  CONVERSION FACTORS
To Convert
From
acres
bbl
cp
cp
cu ft
ft
md
psi
R
sq ft
To
m2
m'
mPas
Pa 's
m'
m
mm:!
kPa
K
m2
Multiply By
4.047 E+03
1.590 E 01
1.0
1.0 E+03
2.832 E 02
3.048 E 01
9.869 E 01
6.895
5.555 E 01
9.290 E 02
Inverse
2.471
6.290
1.0
1.0 E
3.532
3.281
1.013
1.450
1.80
1.076
E  04
03
E + 01
E  01
E + 01
A more complete table of conversion factors, emphasizing application to welltesting problems, is
given by Earlougher. I
Table F2 summarizes oilfield (customary) and
preferred SI units (practical) for single variables and
groups of variables of major imponance in well test
analysis.
TABLE F2
CUSTOMARY AND METRIC UNITS
FOR MAJOR VARIABLES IN EQUA TIONS
CompressibililY, e[
Densily, p
Gas flow rale, qg
Gas viscosity, g
Liquid flow rale, q" and q"
Liquid viscosilY, 1'"."
Permeability, k
Pressure,p
Pseudopressure, ,; (p)
Radius, r
Slope, m
TemperalUre, T
Thickness, h
Time, I
Volume, V
Wellbore slorage conslant, C,
Customary
Unit
Practical
Metric Unil
psi I
Ibm/cu fl
kPa I
kg/m)
Mscf/D
m)/d
cp
BID
cp
md
psi
psi 2/cp
Pa's
ft
psi/cycle
R
ft
hr
bbl
bbl/psi
m)/d
mPas
md
kPa
MPa 2/Pas
m
kPa/cycle
K
m
h
m)
m)/kPa
139
USE OF SI UNITS IN WELLTESTING EQUATIONS
TABLEF3  MAJOR EQUATIONS WITH CONSTANT VALUES IN CUSTOMARY AND SI METRIC
Nllmerical Value of Constants
in Order of Appearance
Eqllation
Nllmber
in Text
(cl,c2,e3 . . . )
Cllstomary
SI
1.1
0.000264
3.557 x 10 6
1.6
141.2
1.866 x 103
1.7
70.6
9.33
948
7.036 X 10 4
141.2
1.866 X 10 3
70.6
9.33 X 10 2
1,688
1.253 X 10 5
141.2
1.866 X 10 3
0.000527
7.1xlO 6
0.234
4.168 X 10 2
141.2
1.866 x 10 3
141.2
1.866 X 10 3
0.000527
7.1xlO 6
141.2
1.866 x 10 3
141.2
1.866 X 10 3
1.21
0.00708
5.356xlO 4
1.26
25.65
101.98
1.29
0.00708
5.356 x 10 4
1.46
4.064
6.236
1.47
948
7.036xl0 4
1.9
Equation
qB;.
Ilps =c  ( k  1) In
kh
ks
(r s )
1.12
apwj
at
= _ cqB
c( Vp
1.16
_
qB;.\ (re)
pp
. =cln
 3
 +5
wJ
kh
.rw
4
1.17
c2 kt
c qB;.
 2 +In ( )  3 +s I
Pi p wjkh A..
4
'I';.c(r
rw
e
1.19
1.20
10 2
rw
1.11
1.13
_
=c qB;. ~ In( 10.06 A )
p Pwj
kh
2
e r2
A w
WELL TESTING
140
TABLEF3  MAJOR EQUATIONS WITH CONSTANT VALUES IN CUSTOMARY ANO SI METRIC(Contd.)
Numerical Value of Constants
in Order of Appearance
Equation
Number
in Text
(cI,c2,c3 ... )
Customary
SI
1.48
948
7.036 x 10 4
1.52
24
24
162.6
2.149 x 10 3
162.6
2.149x 10 3
+ 3.23
5.10
0.00708
5.356 x 10 4
0.000264
3.557xlO 6
0.894
0.159
24
24
170,000
2.247 X 10 6
4.064
6.236
2.63
4.497
Equation
qBJJ1
=P i  C Ti:
log [ (t p + t:.t) / t:.t
2.1
P ws
2.2
m C
2.4
2.7
PD
2.8
ID
2.9
C sD =
2.10
t:.t e
2.11
Cs
2.12
ID
qBJJkh
1.151\ (p I
hr ~ P wf)
cl kh(p ws Pwl)
qBJJCI kt:.t e
2
cf>p.cfr W
cl C s
cf>crhr~
= t:.l/ (1 + t:.l/ I p )
qB t:.1
cI t:.p
50 C sD eO. 14s
Cs eO. 14s
2.13
I wbs =cI
2.14
rwa =rw e  s
2.15
Lf=2r wa
2.16
(t:.p) s =0.869 m(s)
2.17
E = J actual
(kh/p.)
= P p wl (t:.p) s
PPwf
Jideal
2.18
E= p'  P wl  (t:.p) s
p' Pwf
hf
sd+sp
hp
2.19
2.20
sp
2.21
mL=C()
2.22
1og(Lf ) = 1 [
(ht
hp
1)[ln(~J
rw
qB
JJ
hLf
k
)21
kv
V2
kcf>c f
(P wl PI hr ) +logk cI 1
cf>JJc f
USE OF SI UNITS IN WELLTESTlNG EQUATIONS
141
TABLEF3  MAJOR EQUATIONS WITH CONSTANT VALUES IN CUSTOMARY AND SI METRIC(Contd.)
Equation
Number
in Text
Numerical Value af Constants
in Order af Appearance
(c,c2,c3 ... )
Custamary
SI
Equatian
118.6
227.37
0.00168
0.8385
70.6
9.33 x 10 2
1,688
1.253 x 10 5
3,792
2.814 x 10 5
70.6
9.33 X 10 2
3,792
2.814 X 10 5
0.000148
1.944 X 10 6
162.6
2.149
1,688
11.638
1,637
1.508
1,688
11.638
2.33
162.6
2.149
2.34
3.23
2.10
1,637
1.508
2.36
3.23
2.10
2.37
162.6
2.149 x 10 3
1,688
1.253 x 10 5
162.6
2.149 x 10 3
2.28
=J
k1t x
r/>JLc[
2.29
2.30
_ (11Vp ) (B o )
V R  "'(P2P)c[r/>
2.31
P Wj
2.32
2.35
2.38
2.39
2.40
=p. +c qgBgJLi !log( C2r/>.tC[i) _ (s+Dqg)
1
kh
kt p
1.151
_
PwjPi
2 _
P ws p.1
CqgJLiZTll ( C2 r/>.tC t i ) (s+Dqg)
kh
og  k t p
1.151
qg.tzT
lag
kh
(f p +1t)
1t
(t 1t)
ws
+
=pc qRt lag ~
1
" [ h
1t
142
WELL TESTING
TABLEF3
MAJOR EQUATIONS WITH CONSTANT VALUES IN CUSTOMARY ANO SI METRIC(Contd.)
Numerical Value of Coostaots
io Order of Appearaoce
Equation
Number
io Text
(c,c2,c3 ... )
Equatioo
qRt
"t=c
Customary
SI
162.6
2.149xl0 3
2.42
162.6
2.149x 10 3
2.43
162.6
2.149
1,000
1.000
2.44
162.6
2.149 x 10 3
2.45
3.23
5.10
3.1
162.6
2.149 X 10 3
1,688
1.253 X 10 5
200,000
2.644 X 10 6
12,000
1.586 X 10 5
162.6
2.149 x 10 3
3.23
5.10
3,800
2.82 X 10 5
162.6
2.149x 10 3
1,688
1.253 x 10 5
3.9
3.23
5.10
3.11
162.6
2.149 X 10 3
3.23
5.10
3.12
162.6
2.149x 10 3
3.15
162.6
2.149 X 10 3
3.18
162.6
2.149 X 10 3
3.23
5.10
2.41
mh
3.2
3.4
qBJ1
k=c
3.5
s=1.151[ (PPhr) log(
mh
m
c cf>J1C t AtDA
3.7
tu:::::'
3.8
Pi  P w! =c
~)+CJ
<l>J1c t r w
~ [log( c2cf>J1Ctr~) + 0.869sJ
kh
kt
143
USE OF SI UNITS IN WELLTESTING EQUATIONS
TABLEF3  MAJOR EQUATlONS WlTH CONSTANT VALUES IN CUSTOMARY AND SI METRIC(Contd.)
Numerical Value of Constants
in Order of Appearance
Equation
Number
in Text
(c, e2' c3 . . . )
Equation
1.151 [
q
(p hr Pwf! ) log( ~) +c
(q q2)
m
1J/tc r w
3.19
S=
3.20
p =Pwf! +m[log(
3.21
~ )C +0.869sJ
1J/tc r w
b'
1J/tc(rW
S=1.151[, IOg(2 )+c
4.1
c Awb
C s
4.2
C s =cwb V wb
4.3
4.4
k=c qB/t (
PD
)
h
p Pwj MP
4.5
1Jc(
4.6
tD
4.7
.1.
'IID
4.9
c k
Wa
(~)
ID
Customary
SI
3.23
5.10
3.23
5.10
3.23
5.10
25.65
101.98
0.894
0.159
141.2
1.866 X 10 3
0.000264
3.557 X 10 6
0.000264
3.557 X 10 3
50,300
3.733
141.2
1.866
5.04
0.351
141.2
1.866
0.000264
3.557xlO 3
1,422
1.309
1,422
1.309
0.000264
3.557 X 10 3
MP
ckt
2
1J/tcgr w
kh T sc [1/;(p) 1/;(P wj)
cpscqg T
1/;(p)
rP
P
dp
/t(p) Z (p)
PJ
kh(p Pwj)
= "'
.:......:.:.'
4.10
PD
4.11
B .=e
4.12
k=c qg/tBgi (
PD
)
pPwj MP
h
4.13
1Jc t =
c qg/tBg
gl
zT
_1_
c~ (~)
t D MP
/trw
kh(pfp
1)
4.14
PD=
w_
C qg/tzT
4.15
qg/tZT(
PD
)
k el
2
2
h
p Pwj MP
4.16
1Jc(=
/lr w
(t)
tD MP
WELL TESTING
144
TABLEF3  MAJOR EQUATIONS WITH CONSTANT VALUES IN CUSTOMARY ANO SI METRIC(Contd.)
Equation
Number
in Text
Numerical Value of Constants
in Order of Appearance
(c,c2,c3 ... )
Customary
SI
Equation
4.17
C kt
tDL= cf;JLctL}
0.000264
3.557xlO 6
4.18
ck
t MP
[Y2
Lf [  cf;JLC 1 (t DL ) MP
0.000264
3.557x 10 6
5.1
1/; {Pwf} =1/;{p} +c Psc
Tsc kh
50,300
3.733
1,688
125.3
50,300
3.733
50,300
3.733
1,688
125.3
1,637
1.508
1,688
11.638
1,422
1.309
1,422
1.309
1,422
1.309
1,422
1.309
1,688
125.3
70.6
9.33 X 102
948
7.036 X 10 4
qgTI1.15110g(C2cf;JLiClr~)
 (s+Dlqg
5.2
I/;{p} =2
kt
J) 1
rP
P dp
JLZ
p~
Tl
5.3
1/; {Pwf } = 1/;{p} c Pse qg ln ( .!i... ) 0.75 +s+Dlqg 11
T sc kh 1
rw
5.4
1/; {Pwf} =1/;{p} +C
 (s+ Dlqg
5.5
Pwf
2= 2
P +
q::11.15110g(C2cf;JLP;li/w2)
se
1) ]
C qgJLpZJgTI Io (C2cf;JLpCIP)_(S+Dl qg l)]
kh
g
kt
1.151
p
5.6
5.8
a=c JLpZpgTlln(.!i... )0.75+S]
kh
rw
5.9
bc
5. 11
P2  P wf2 = al q g
5.12
a c JLZp pg TllIn (
1
HZ T
rp pg
kh
kh
+ b q g2
kt
) +s 1
C2cf;JLpCtprw2
6.1
a
at
(pcf;)
145
USE OF SI UNITS IN WELLTESTING EQUATIONS
TABLEF~
 MAJOR EQUATIONS WITH CONSTANT VALUES IN CUSTOMARY AND SI METRIC(Contd.)
Equation
Number
in Text
Equation
A.2
(rpu )=(p<p)
r ar
r
al
A.4
a (kxp
ap)+ ~
~ ax
ay
ax
1
= CI
A.5
A.8
A.9
A.13
A.14
A.15
Numerical Value of Constants
in Order of Appearance
(cl' c2' c3 . . . )
Customary
SI
(~
p p
ap)+ ~ [k z (a +0.00694p)J
~ ay
az ~ az
a(
ap )
cf>~c ap
~ ar r ar = C l k al
! ~(/..;)= cf>~Cg a..;
l
0.000264
3.553 X 10
0.000264
3.553 X 10 6
0.000264
3.553 X 10
0.000264
3.553 X 10
0.000264
3.553 X 10
~Cpkr ap )=..!.. ~ (pcf
r ar
3.553 X 10
al (pcf
r ar
~
ar
cl al
2
2
2
<p~C ap
a p
a p
a p
++2
ax2
ay2
az  cl k al
l
0.000264
ar
cl k
a(
al
ap )
<pc t ap
ar r ar = el
al
"l
"1 = ka + ~ + kw
~a
~g
~w
A.16
=_
A.17
A.18
0.5
Bg=CI
a
w
l dBo
Bo dp
= __1_ dBw
Bw dp
+ l!..E. dRs
Bo dp
+!!L dR sw
Bw dp
Tz
0.00504
0.351
0.00708
5.356 X 10 4
0.809
1.062
0.00708
5.356x 10 4
E.3
0.00708
5.356xlO 4
E.4
0.00708
5.356x 10 4
E.5
0.00708
5.356x 10 4
E.I
E.2
clkh(pPwj)
B
q J1.
l (
= 2
)
In/D+c2 +s
clkh(pPwj) _( 2tD
  2  +ln rDe
q B J1.
rDe
0.75 +s
=PD +S, tD >0.25 rDe 2
WELL TESTING
146
TABLEF3  MAJOR EQUATIONS WITH CONSTANT VALUES IN CUSTOMARY AND SI METRIC(Contd.)
Numerical Value of Constants
in Order of Appearance
Equation
Number
in Text
(cI,c2,c3 ... )
Equation
CI
kh (p  P ws )
qB.t
t +t.t ) = 1 In ( 
Customary
1 [ In (t D + t.t D) + 0.809 ]
2 .
SI
0.00708
5.356 x 10
0.00708
5.356 x 10
0.00708
5.356x 10 4
0.2339
4.167x 10 2
E.lO
0.00708
3.975 x 10
E.ll
70.6
9.33 x 10 2
70.6
41.25
E.6
"'=
t.t
+PD(tD+t.t D )
E.7
CI
kh (p  P ws )
qB.t
t + t.t )
1[
]
= 21 In ( ;;+P D (t D)  2 In(2.246t D)
= 1 In (t+t.t)
  + constant
2
t.t
E.8
clkh(pp*)
''=P D (t D) 
E.9
c I Vp (p jJ)
qB.t
ln(2.246 t D)
2
cI qBt=cIAhcf>(p jJ)
=PDMBH (tDA)
E.12
E.13
PD(tD)
=27rI DA +0.5In(2.246 ID)
PDMBH (IDA) =47rt DA
(p*  jJ)
clqB.t
0.5PDMBH (tDA)
, t D <t DB
E.14
E.15
E.16
Answers to Examples Expressed in SI Units
Chap.l
Example 1.1. p = 17740 kPa, Pi
P lO = 20 684 kPa.
Example 1.2. J
md, s = 16.
= 4.612x
10 3
= 20464 kPa,
m 3 /kPad,
k]
2
= _ 933 qB.t ln ( 1.253 x 105 cf>.tC Ir w ) 
~l
= 16
Infinite
P<;eudosteadystate
Pseudosteady<;tate
(Approximale)
(Exact)
_.
Geomelry
'DA,
t(hours)
.!..I}fL
l(hours~
.!J2il.
t(hours)
Circular
Squarecentered
Squarequadranl
0,10
0.09
0.025
132
119
l3
0.06
0.05
0.30
79,2
66,0
0.1
0.1
132
132
396,0
0,6
792
Geometry
Circular
Squarecentered
Squarequadrant
_C:!L
31.62
30.88
4.513
(m 3 /d,
kPa)
~o=z
1.213x 10 2
1.116xlO 2
(m 3/d)
41.81
41.81
38.47
~.
= 200 hours: no simple equation can be written.
= 4oohours:pp wf
Example 1.3.
Solution
= 30hours:pP wf
= 1.866 x 10 3 qB.t
kh
l~
In(
10.06~
CAr w
Example 1.4. t = 75.8 hours.
Example 1.5. tlp
Example 1.6. t p
=
=
112.73 kPa.
176 hours.
) 
~ +sl.
4
USE OF SI UNITS IN WELLTESTING EQUATIONS
147
Chap.2
Example 2.1. k = 48 md, Pi = l3 445 kPa, s = 1.43.
Chap.6
Exam~le
Example 2.2. !:i.t = 6 hours, !:i.t = 50 hours.
3.974 X 10 4
1433 md, cl
6.1. k
kPa .
Example 2.3. k = 7.65 md.
Example 6.2. k
817 md, 4>c l
kPa I,c f =2.465xlO 6 kPa 1 .
Example 2.4. s = 6.37, r wa = 1.036 x 10  4 m,
(!:i.p) s = 2668 kPa, E = 0.629, t wbs
7.42 hours.
Appendix C
Example c.1.
Example2.5.s = 12.3,sp
l3.2,sd
t (hour)
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.18.
Example 2.6. p = 30 413 kPa.
Example 2.7. P = 30 420 kPa.
1.973 x 10 7
P (kPa)
98.46
94.04
65.71
Example C.2.
t (days)
0.1
1.0
100.0
Example 2.8. L = 72.8 m.
Example 2.9. Ar = 5.707 X 10 6 m 2 .
Example 2.10. k = 9.96 md, s' = 4.84; k
md, s' = 4.27.
9.77
Example 2.11. Al = 0.0457 mdlPas, ka = 26.2 md,
kw = 1.49 md, kg = 0.782 md, s = 1.50.
Pwj (kPa)
18 857
18 506
18375
Example C.3. Qp ::: 0.0370 m 3 .
Example C.4. Qp
= 3.975 X 10 4
m3 .
AppendixD
Example D.1. Tpc ::: 644 K, Ppc
Chap.3
Example 3.1. k = 7.65 md, s = 6.37.
= 1965 kPa.
Example D.2. P bwb ::: 13 307 kPa.
Example D.3. GOR = 62.34 m3 1m 3 .
Example 3.2. Vp = 4.992 X 10 5 res m 3 .
Example D.4. Ba ::: 1.22 m 3 1m 3
Example 3.3. k = 7.44 md, s = 6.02.
Example 3.4. k = 7.65 md, s = 6.32, p.
kPa.
30385
Example 3.5. kh = 31.7 md m.
Example D.5. ca
5.09 X 10
Example D.6.
2 X 10 
Ca
Example D.7. tia
kPa l.
kPa l.
1.21 mPas.
Example D.8. R sw ::: 3.313 m 3 1m 3 .
Chap.4
Example 4.1. k = 10.3 md, s = 5.0,
X 10 4 m 3 /kPa.
Example D.9. Bw
= 1.029
ExampleD.10.c w
= 5.076xl0 7 kPa l
Example 4.2. kWb = 4.01 md, kj = 8.03 md, E
0.607.
Example D.11. C w
= 0.957 X 10 6 kPa 1.
Example 4.3. L j = 18.2 m, k = 4.5 md.
Example D.12. tiw
= 0.33 mPa s.
es
= 2.675
Example D.13. T pc
Chap.5
Example5.1.qg = AOF
1.47x106
Example 5.2. qg = AOF
2.373 x 10 5 m 3 Id.
Example5.3.qg = AOF
3.115x10 5 m 3 /d.
Example D.14. Bg
m 3 /d.
Example 5.4. Results are tabulated in Table 5.10 and
are plotted in Fig. 5.13.
Example D.15.
= 216.6 K,p pc = 4585 kPa.
= 6.355 X 10 3
:=
m 3 1m 3 .
5.656 X 10 4 kPa  l .
Example D.16. tig
= 17.8 tiPa s.
ExampleD.17,cj
= 5.22xlO
kPa
l.
Reference
1. Earlougher,
Example 5.5. k = 9.66 md, s' =  0.21.
m 3 1m 3 .
R.e. Jr.: Advances in Hell Tesl Analyss,
Monograph Series, SPE, Dalias (19~) 5.
AppendixG
Answers to Selected Exercises
Chap.l.
Assumptions: SufficientIy far from each wel\ that Eifunction solution can be used for each well.
Exercise 1.1.
x
0.01
0.02
0.1
1.0
ln( 1.78Ix)
Ei(x)
4.038
3.355
1.823
0.219
4.028
3.335
1.725
0.5772
Exercise 1.9. (a) p,,=2,680 psi; (b)
psi.
Pshutin
=2,961
Exercise 1.10. p=2,486 psi.
Exercise 1.2.
r (ft)
P (psi)
0.333
1.0
10
100
1,000
3,160
2,812
2,837
2,888
2,940
2,988
3,000
Exercise 1.11. No influence.
Ignore production before long shutin in
calculating t p .
Exercise 1.12. (a) fp=126 hours; t=192 hours (actual
total producing time); (b)
p (psi)
re = 1,989 ft.
r (ft)
Exercise 1.3. re> 1,989 ft.
10
100
1,000
2,000
Exercise 1.4. (a) t>9.68 seconds; (b) t,? 1.21 seconds;
(c) t,? 18 weeks.
Exercise 1.5. r = 1,989 ft; r= 1,490 ft; .::lp =2.45 psi.
Superposition
2,239
2,499
2,760
2,972
2,996
Homer
Approximation
2,224
2,484
2,744
2,974
2,993
Exercise 1.3.
Exercise 1.6. t, =25.2 days.
Exercise 1.7. r unchanged, double drawdown at
each r.
Exercise 1.8. (p i  P "1) total at A
InfiniteActing
pss
(hours)
(hours)
J
(STBlDlpsi)
(STBID)
13,2
7.92
0,5262
263,1
C)
13,2
7.92
0,5262
263,1
11.9
9,24
0.5230
261.5
11.9
9.24
0,5225
261,3
10.6
15.84
0,5177
258.9
79.2
0.4184
209.2
6.6
0.5256
262.8
33.0
0.5061
253.0
Shape
z
Vl{~
.
.\].
c:J
EE
1.98
11.9
3.96
ANSWERS TO SELECTED EXERCISES
149
Chap.2
Chap.4
Pws = 1,150 psi; (e) re
Exercise 2.1. (a) error=0.00689; (b) no differenee,
> 1,233 ft.
Exercise 4.1. k=9.68 md; 5=4.59; E=0.636;
(whs =7.3 hours; VI' =34.2 x 10 6 cu ft; re =986 ft
eaIculated; ri =226 ft (begnning of MTR); ri = 1,010 ft
Exercise2.3. (",hs=7.85 hours.
(endofMTR).
hours; k=24.5
Exercise 4.2. s=5.0 (for C sD=10 3 ); (",hs~5 hours;
k= 10.3 md; C, =0.0116 RB/psi.
Exercise 2.5. 5=0.064; (6.p) , =32 psi; E=0.992;
r wa =0.469 ft.
Exercise 4.3. C, =0.01 RB/psi; klt'h =4.01 md;
k=8.03 md; E=0.606.
Exercise 2.7. ,8=4,308 psi (p*method); ,8~4,405 psi.
(modified Muskat method).
Exercise 4.4. (1) k= 10, 1 md, s=5.05, E=0.594,
(Wh5=6.9 hours; (2) ,8=2,854 psia (p* method),
,8=2,864 psia (modified Muskat method); (3)
VR =3.01x10 7 resbbl.
Exercise 2.4. MTR begins at
md.
~7.85
Exercise 2.9. k=9.20 md; 5+Dqg
=0.952.
Exercise 2.10. k" =32.5 md; kw =3.48 md; kg = 1.18
md; Al =80.52 md/ep; 5= 2.15.
Exercise 4.5. CS D =10 3 ; 5=5; k=9,92 md;
V R =3.01 X 10 7 res bbl.
Exercise 2.11. L = 64 ft.
Exercise 4.6. C s =0.0103; k wh =4.13 md; k=8.26
md; E=0.607.
Exercise 2.12. (a) in psi:
Al (days)
r (ft)
l.O
O2.837
2.862
2.888
2,914
2.939
2,965
2.988
3.000
10
!O:
JO'
10"
10'
6
10
JO
(b)
0.1
2,948
2.948
2.948
2,949
2.951
2,965
2,988
3.000
6.t (days)
1.0
10
2.973
2.973
2,973
2.973
2.973
2,976
2,988
3.000
2.992
2.992
2,992
2,992
2,992
2.993
2.994
3,000
ri (ft)
O
0,1
1.0
10
200
629
1,989
Exercise 2.13. ,8=4,418 psi (using (ps,); ,8=4,411 psi
(using (1').
Exercise 2.14. t\lhs:::: 5 hours; k=48 md; ri =371 ft (at
beginning). ri =813 ft (at end); 5= 10.93, 6.ps =950 psi,
E=0.430;,8 =4,325 psi (MBH p* method); ,8=4,325 psi
(modified Muskat method).
Exercise 4.8. Typeeurve analysis: L=2oo ft; k= 15.2
md. Conventional analyss: k= 15.4 md; L= 144 ft.
Square root analysis: L=232 ft.
Chap.5
Exercise 5.1. (a) AOF= 107.0
AOF= 100.0 MMscf/D.
Exercise 3.1. k =9.55 md; 5=4.45; A =67.9 acres.
Exercise 3.2. k= 11.1 md; 5=4.14.
Exercise 3.3. k= 12.52 md: 5=4.71: p*~4,380 psi.
Exercise 3.4. (a)
(hours)
0.5
1.5
2.5
Plotting
Funetion
0.301
0.428
1.331
Exercise 5.4. k 10.3 md; 5 '=0.533.
Chap.6
Exercise 6.1. t=851 hours; ri=12,51O ft; 6.p=68.6
psi.
Exercise 6.3. k= 101 md; s= 2.10; E= 1.46;
ri =290 ft.
Exercise 6.4. k =0.52 md.
1a
Exercise A.1. (rpu r )
r r
Exercise A.2.
Exercise A.3.
a
at
 (pcp).
a (rpk r ap )
; ar
J.a;:  0.000264 a( (pt1 .
a ( r ap)   CP.te
ap
; ar a;:  0.OOO264k
a;'
1
1
r
a ( ral/;)
Wg
al/; .
 =
ar ar 0.000264k a(
Exerclse A.4.  (b) P"f=2, 105 psi.
(b)
Exercise 5.2. (a) AOF=6.6 MMscf/D (empirieal
method); (b) AOF=5.6 MMseflD (theoretieal method).
Appendix A
Chap.3
MMseflD;
WELL TESTING
150
Exercise C.3.
AppendixB
Exercise B.l. Dimensional fonn:
a ( al/;)
rp.te g
al/;
; ar ra; = 0.000264k at ;
t (days)
100
200
400
800
Dimensionless fonn:
1 a ( al/;D) al/;D
;;; arD rD arD = ato'
Cumulative
Water
Influx
(res bbl)
3.278 x 10 4
5.377XI0 4
8.959x 10 4
14.68 x 10 4
Exercise C.4. Cumulatve water influx =2.342 x 10 5
res bbl.
AppendixC
Exercise C.l.
Appendix D
q" =979 STB/D.
Exercise D.1. qR=145 RBID, A=35.0 md/cp,
e, =9.55 x 10 6 psi I
MV p = 1,056 STB.
Exercise C.2. p "f= 3,150 psia; N p = II ,900 STB.
Exercise D.2. q R =414 RBID, A
el = 1. 74 x 10 4 psi  I .
655 md/cp,
Nomenclature
a =
1,422J.(pZpgT[ln(~)0.75+SJ
kh
rw
A = dminage area of well, sq ft (m 2 )
A = fracture area, sq ft (m 2)
A R = reservoir area, acres (m 2 )
Awb
= wellbore area,
b = 1,422
ge =
h =
, =
J.(Z TD
'actual
kh
'ideal
p pg
(m 3 /m 3 )
B ?i = gas formation volume factor evaluated
at Pi, RB/Mscf (m 3 1m 3 )
Bo = oil formation volume factor, RB/STB
(m 3 /m 3 )
B 1\ = water formation volume factor, RB/STB
(m 3 /m 3 )
compressibility, psi  I (kPa 1)
= formation compressibility, psi 1 (kPa 1 )
C g = gas compressibility, psi 1 (kPa 1 )
C gl = gas compressibility evaluated at original
reservoir pressure, psi  I (kPa 1 )
cgl\ = compressibility of gas in wellbore, psi 1
(kPa 1)
e o = oil compressibility, psi I (kPa  I )
C pr = pseudoreduced compressibility
e = Soeo+Swcw+SgCg+C
=total compressibility, psi  I (kPa 1 )
e i = total compressibility evaluated at P ,
psi  I (kPa  I )
e p = total compressibility evaluated at fJ, psi I
(kPa 1)
e w = water compressibility, psi  I (kPa  I )
C wb = compressibility of liquid in wellbore,
psi  I (kPa  I )
e I\p = compressibility of pure (gasfree) water,
psi  I (kPa  I )
C = performance coefficient in gaswell
deliverability equation
CA = shape constant or factor
C s = wellbore stomge constant, bbl/psi
(m 3 /kPa)
C sD = 0.894 Cslc/>chd =dimensionless
wellbore storage constant
D = nonDarcy flow constant, D/Mscf (di m 3)
E = flow efficiency, dimensionless
C =
Ei(x)
sq ft (m 2 )
interceptof(pPw)/qn plot, psi/STBD
(kPa/m 3 /d)
B = formation volume factor,
res voJlsurface vol
B g = gas formation volume factor, RB/Mscf
b'
= ~
00
(eUlu)du
= the exponential integral
F' = Al piAl e = ratio of pulse length to
cycle length
'g =
'1 ==
k
k =
kg =
kH =
kJ =
ko =
ks =
kv =
kw =
k wb =
L =
L =
acceleration of gravity, ft/sec 2 (m/s 2 )
gravitational units conversion factor,
32.17 (lbm/ft)!(lbfs 2 ), dimensionless
net formation thickness, ft (m)
productivity index, STBIDpsi
(m 3 /d'kPa)
actual or observed well productivity
index, STBIDpsi (m 3 Id kPa)
productivity index with permeability
unaltered to sandface, STB!Dpsi
(m 3 /d'kPa)
gaswell productivity index, McflDpsi
(m 3 !d'kPa)
Bessel function
reservoir rock permeability, md
formation permeability
(McKinley method), md
permeability to gas, md
horizontal permeablity, md
reservoir rock permeability (based on
PI test), md
permeability to oil, md
permeability of altered zone
(skn effect), md
vertical permeablity, md
permeability to water, md
nearwell effective permeability
(McKinley method), md
distance from well to noflow
boundary, ft (m)
length of one wing of vertical fracture, ft
(m)
m = 162.2 qBJ.(lkh=absolute value of slope of
middletime line, psi/cycle (kPa cycle)
m' = 162.6 BJ.(lkh=slope of dmwdown curve
with (Pi pw)!q as abscissa,
psi!STB!Dcycle (kPa/m 3 Id . cycle)
m" = slope of p~s or P~ plot for gas well,
psi a 2 !cycle (kPa' cycle)
m L = slope of linear flow graph, psi/hr '/,
(kPa'h Y,)
m max = maximum slope on buildup curve of
fmctured well, psi! cycle (kPa' cycle)
mtrue = true slope on buildup curve uninfluenced
by fracture, psi!cycle (kPa' cycle)
M = molecular weight of gas
n = inverse slope of empirical gaswell
delivembility curve
p = pressure, psi (kPa)
fJ = volumetric average or static drainagearea
pressure, psi (kPa)
p* = MTR pressure trend extrapolated to
infinite shutin time, psi (kPa)
PD = 0.00708 kh(pi p)lqBJ.(=
dimensionless pressure as defined for
constantrate problems
WELL TESTING
152
PDMBH = 2.303(p* p)/m, dimensionless
P = original reservoir pressure, psi (kPa)
PMT = pressure on extrapolated MTR, psi (kPa)
Po =
=
=
=
=
P pe
P pr
Pr
P se
Pl1f =
Pws
P hr =
q =
qD =
qg =
q gt =
Qp =
arbitral)' reference pressure, psia (kPa)
pseudocritical pressure, psia (kPa)
pseudoreduced pressure
pressure at radius r, psi (kPa)
standardcondition pressure, psia (kPa)
(frequently, 14.7 psia)
flowing BHP, psi (kPa)
shutin BHP, psi (kPa)
pressure at lhour shut in (or flow)
time on middletime line (or its
extrapolation), psi (kPa)
flow rate, STB/D (m 3 Id)
dimensionless instantaneous flow rate at
constant BHP
gas flow rate, MscflD (m 3 /d)
total gas flow rate from oil well, Mscf/D
(m 3 Id)
cumulative production at constant BHP,
STB (m 3 )
BQp
1.119 <1>c t hr;,(p P"f)
=dimensionless cumulative production
R = universal gas constant
R5 = dissolved GOR, scf gas/STB oil (m 3 /m 3 )
R sw = dissolved gas/water ratio,
scf gas/STB water (m 3 /m 3 )
R swp = solubility of gas in pure (gasfree) water,
scf gas/STB water (m 3 1m 3)
r = distance from center of wellbore, ft (m)
r dt = transient drainage radius, ft (m)
rd = radius of drainage, ft (m)
re = external drainage radius, ft (m)
reD = reir",
r = radius of investigation, ft (m)
r s = radius of altered zone (skin effect), ft (m)
r", = wellbore radius, ft (m)
r 1m = effective wellbore radius, ft (m)
s = ski n factor, dimensionless
s' = s + Dq g = apparent ski n factor from
gaswell buildup test, dimensionless
s* = log (k/<1>.tc t r;')3.23+0.869s
S = log(
2) 3.23+0.869s
k
<1>.tc rr w
Sg = gas saturation, fraction of pore volume
So = oil saturation, fraction of pore volume
S", = water saturation, fraction of pore volume
t = elapsed time, hours
tD = 0.000264 kt/<1>.tc t r;'
=dimensionless time
tDA = 0.000264 ktl<1>.tc[A
= dimensionless time based on drainage
area, A
2
t DL = 0.000264 ktl<1>.tc tL
=dimensionless time based on fracture
halfIength
t end = end of MTR in drawdown test, hours
t Pt = time at which latetime region begins,
hours
= lag time in pulse test, hours
t p = cumulative production/most recent
production rate = pseudoproducing time,
hours
t pss = time required to achieve pseudosteady
state, hours
l s = time for well to stabilize, hours
t wbs = wellbore storage duration, hours
T = reservoir temperature, R (OK)
Tpe = pseudocritical temperature, R (OK)
T pr = pseudoreduced temperature
T sc = standard condition temperature, R (OK)
(usually 520 R)
u = flow rate per unit area (volumetric
velocity), RBIDsq ft (m 3 /d'm 2 )
V p = reservoir pore volume, cu ft (m 3)
V R = reservoir volume, bbl (m 3)
V w = wellbore volume, bbl (m 3 )
x = distance coordinate used in linear flow
analysis, ft (m)
y = Bessel function
Z = gasIaw deviation factor, dimensionless
Z = gasIaw deviation factor evaluated at
pressure Pi, dimensionless
Zpg = gasIaw deviation factor evaluated at p,
dimensionless
OI n = roots of equation JI (OInr eD)Y (OI n )
J (OIn)Y (OInr eD)=O
"Y g = gas gravity (air= 1.0)
"Yo = oil gravity (water= 1.0)
!:1Np = oil production during a time interval, STB
0
(m 3 )
ap* = P*Pw, psi (kPa)
(!:lP)d = pressure change at departure (McKinley
method), psi (kPa)
141.2 qB.t(s)/kh=0.869 ms=additional
pressure drop across altered zone, psi
(kPa)
(!:lp) s
!:lp,!s = p",s PMT =difference between pressure
!:ll =
!:lt' =
!:lt c
!:lt d =
!:llend =
!:lt p =
!:lt x =
on buildup curve and extrapolated
MTR, psi (kPa)
time elapsed since shutin, hours
time elapsed since rate change in tworate
flow test, hours
cyc1e length (flow plus shutin) in pulse
test, hours
time at departure (McKinley method),
hours
time MTR ends, hours
pulseperiod length, hours
time at which middle and latetime
straight lines intersect, hours
1/ = 0.000264 k/<1>.tc= hydraulic diffusivity,
sq ft/hr (m 2 /h)
153
NOMENCLATURE
'Al
JJJJ g
JJ i
JJo
JJp
JJw
= (ko/JJo +kg/JJg +kw/JJw)
=
=
=
=
=
=
=total mobility, md/cp (md/Pa S)
viscosity, cp (Pa S)
gas viscosity, cp (Pa s)
gas viscosity evaluated at Pi, cp (Pa s)
oil viscosity, cp (Pa s)
gas viscosity evaluated at ji, cp (Pa s)
water viscosity, cp (Pas)
p = density of liquid in wellbore, lbm/cu ft
(kg/m 3 )
cp = porosity of reservoir rock, dimensionless
t/;(P) = 2
Po
~dp
JJZ
= gas pseudopressure, psia 2 Icp
(kPa 2 IPa s)
Bibliography
A
Agarwal, R.G.: "A New Method To Account for ProducingTime
Effects When Drawdown Type Curves Are Used To Analyze
Pressure Buildup and Other Test Data," paper SPE 9289
presented at the SPE 55th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 2124,1980.
Agarwal, R.G., AlHussainy, R., and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "An
Investigation of Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady
Liquid Flow 1. Analytical Treatment," Soco Peto Eng. J.
(Sept. 1970) 279290; Trans., AIME, 249.
AlHussainy, R., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Crawford, P.B.: "The
Flow of Real Gases Through Porous Media," J. Peto Tech.
(May 1966) 624636; Trans., AIME, 237.
Arnyx, J.W., Bass, D.M. Jr., and Whiting, R.L.: Petroleum
Reservoir Engineering: Physical Properties, McGrawHill Book
Co., Inc., New York City (1960).
B
Back Pressure Test for Natural Gas Wells, Revised edition,
Railroad Commission ofTexas (1951).
Beal, Carlton: "The Viscosity of Air, Water, Natural Gas, Crude
Oil and Its Associated Gases at OilField Temperatures and
Pressures," Trans., AIME (1946) 165,94115.
Brons, F. and Miller, W.C.: "A Simple Method for Correcting
Spot Pressure Readings," J. Peto Tech. (Aug. 1961) 803805;
Trans., AIME, 222.
Brown, George G., Katz, Donald L., Oberfell, George G., and
Alden, Richard e.: Natural Gasoline and the Volatile
Hydrocarbons, Natural Gas Assn. of Amcrica, Tulsa (1948).
e
Carr, Norman L., Kobayashi, Riki, and Burrows, David B.:
"Viscosity of Hydrocarbon Gases Under Pressure," Trans.,
AIME (1954) 201, 264272.
Carslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J .e.: Conduclion of Heal in Solids,
second edition, Oxford at the Clarendon Press (1959) 258.
Chatas, A.T.: "A Practical Treatment of NonsteadyState Flow
Problems in Reservoir Systems," Pelo Eng. (Aug. 1953) B44B56.
Chew, JuNam and Connally, Carl A. Jr.: "A Viscosity
Correlation for GasSaturated Crude Oils," Trans., AIME
(1959) 216, 2325.
Cobb, W.M. and Dowdle, W.L.: "A Simple Method for
Determining Well Pressure in Closed Rectangular Reservoirs,"
J. Peto Tech. (Nov. 1973) 13051306.
Cobb, W.M. and Smith, J.T.: "An Investigation of PressureBuildup Tests in Bounded Reservoirs," paper SPE 5133
presented at the SPEAIME 49th Annual Meeting, Houston,
Oct. 69, 1974. An abridged version appears in J. Peto Tech.
(Aug. 1975) 991996; Trans., AIME, 259.
Craft, B.e. and Hawkins, M.F. Jr.: Applied Petroleum Reservoir
Engineering, PrenticeHall Book Co., Ine., Englewood Cliffs,
NJ (1959).
Cullender, M.H.: "The Isochronal Performance Method of
Determining the Flow Characteristics of Gas Wells," Trans.,
Al ME (1955) 204,137142.
E
Earlougher, R.e. Jr.: Advances in Well Tesl Ana{ysis,
Monograph Series, SPE, Dalias (1977) 5.
Edwards, A.G. and Winn, R.H.: "A Summary of Modern Tools
and Techniques Used in Drillstem Testing," Pub. T4069,
Halliburton CO., Duncan, OK (Sept. 1973).
Edwardson, M.J. el al.: "Calculation of Formation Temperature
Disturbances Caused by Mud Circulation," J. Peto Tech. (April
1962) 416426; Trans., AIME, 225.
G
Gladfelter, R.E., Tracy, G.W., and Wilsey, L.E.: "Selecting
Wells Which WilI Respond to ProductionStimulation Treatment," Dril/. and Prod. Prac., API, Dalias (1955) 117129.
Gray, K.E.: "Approximating WelltoFault Distance From
Pressure Buildup Tests," J. Peto Tech. (July 1965)761767.
Gringarten, A.e., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Raghavan, R.: "Pressure
Analysis for Fractured Wells," paper SPE 4051 presented at the
SPEAIME 47th Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Del. 8ll,
1972.
Gringarten, A.e., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Raghavan, R.: "UnsteadyState Pressure Distributions Created by a Well With a
Single InfiniteConductivity Vertical Fracture," Soco Peto Eng.
1. (Aug. 1974) 347360; Trans., AIME, 257.
H
Hall, Howard N.: "Compressibility of Reservoir Rocks," Trans.,
AIME (1953) 198, 309311.
Hawkins, M.F. Jr.: "A Note on the Skin Effect," Trans., AIME
(1956) 207, 356357.
Holditch, S.A. and Morse, R.A.: "The Effects of NonDarcy
Flow on the Behavior of Hydraulically Fractured Gas Wells," J.
Peto Tech. (OCI. 1976) 11691178.
Horner, D.R.: "Pressure Buildup in Wells," Proc., Third World
Pet. Cong., The Hague (1951) Seco 11, 503523; also Pressure
Analysis Methods, Reprint Series, SPE, Dalias (1967) 9, 2543.
J
Jargon, J.R.: "Effect of Wellbore Storage and Wellbore Damage
at the Active Well on lnterference Test Analysis," J. Peto Tech.
(Aug. 1976) 851858.
Johnson, C.R., Greenkorn, R.A., and Woods, E.G.: "PulseTesting: A New Method for Describing Reservoir Flow
Properties Between Wells," J. Peto Tech. (Dee. 1966) 15991604; Trans., AlME, 237.
K
Kamal, M. and Brigham, W.E.: "PulseTesting Response for
Unequal Pulse and ShutIn Periods," Soco Peto Eng. J. (Del.
1975) 399410; Trans., AlME, 259.
Katz, D.L. et al.: Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering,
McGrawHilI Book CO. lnc., New York (1959) 411.
D
Dake, L.P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, EIsevier
Scientific Publishing CO., Amsterdam (1978).
Dodson, C.R. and Standing, M.B.: "PressureVolumeTemperature and Solubility Relations for NaturalGasWater
Mixtures," Dril/. and Prod. Prac., API (1944) 173179.
L
Larson, V.e.: "Understanding the Muskat Method of Ana1yzing
Pressure Buildup Curves," J. Cdn. Peto Tech. (Fall 1963) 2,
136141.
BIBLlOGRAPHY
155
M
Martin, 1.C.: "Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Drive
Reservoirs and the Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase
Pressure Buildup Analysis," Trans., Al ME (1959) 216, 309311.
Matthews, C.S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek, P.: "A Method for
Determination of Average Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir,"
Trans., AlME (1954) 201,182191.
Matthews, C.S. and Russell, D.G.: Pressure Buildup and F/ow
Tests in Wells, Monograph Series, SPE, Dalias (1967) 1.
McCain, W.D. lr.: The Properties 01 Petro/eum F/uids,
Petroleum Publishing Co., Tulsa (1973).
McKinley, R.M.: "Estimating Flow Efficiency From AfterflowDistorted Pressure Buildup Data," J. Peto Tech. (lune 1974)
696697.
McKinley, R.M.: "Wellbore Transmissibility From AfterflowDominated Pressure Buildup Data," J. Peto Tech. (July 1971)
863872; Trans., AlME, 251.
Miller, C.C., Dyes, A.B., and Hutchinson, C.A. lr.: "Estimation
of Permeability and Reservoir Pressure From BottomHole
Pressure BuildUp Characteristics," Trans., AIME (1950) 189,
91104.
o
Odeh, A.S.: "PseudosteadyState Flow Equation and Productivity lndex for a Well With Noncircular Drainage Area," J.
Peto Tech. (Nov. 1978) 16301632.
Odeh, A.S. and lones, L.G.: "Pressure Drawdown Analysis,
VariableRate Case," J. Peto Tech. (Aug. 1965) 960964;
Trans., AIME, 234.
p
Perrine, R.L.: "Analysis of Pressure Buildup Curves," Drill. and
Prado Prac., API, Dalias (1956) 482509.
Pinson, A.E. lr.: "Concerning the Value of Producing Time Used
in Average Pressure Determinations From Pressure Buildup
Analysis," 1. Peto Tech. (Nov. 1972) 13691370.
s
Saidikowski, R.M.: "Numerical Simulations of the Combined
Effects of Wellbore Damage and Partal Penetration," paper
SPE 8204 presented at the SPEAIME 54th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 2326,1979.
SchuJtz, A.L., Bell, W.T., and Urbanosky, H.J.: "Advancements
in UncasedHole, Wireline FormationTester Techniques," J.
Peto Tech. (Nov. 1975) 13311336.
Slider, H.C.: HA Simplifed Method of Pressure Buildup Analysis
for a Stabilized WeIl," Trans., Al ME (1971) 271, 11551160.
Slider, H.C.: Practica/ Petro/eum Reservoir Engineering Methods,
Petroleum Publishing CO., Tulsa (1976) 70.
Smolen, J.J. and Litsey, L.R.: "Formation Evaluation Using
Wireline Formation Tester Pressure Data," J. Peto Tech. (Jan.
1979) 2532.
Standing, M.B.: Vo/umetric and Phase Behavior 01 Gil Fie/d
Hydrocarbon Systems, Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York
(1952).
Standing, Marshall B. and Katz, Donald L.: "Density of Natural
Gases," Trans., AIME(1942) 146, 140149.
Stegemeier, G.L. and Matthews, C.S.: "A Study of Anomalous
Pressure Buildup Behavior," Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 4450.
T
Theory and Practice 01 the Testing 01 Gas Wells, third edition,
Pub. ECRB7534, Energy Resources and Conservation Board,
Calgary (1975).
Trube, Albert S.: "Compressibility of Natural Gases," Trans.,
AIME (1957) 210, 355357.
Trube, Albert S.: "Compressibility of Undersaturated
Hydrocarbon Reservoir Fluids," Trans., Al ME (1957) 210, 341344.
R
Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "NonDarcy Flow and Wellbore Storage Effects
on Pressure Buildup and Drawdown of Gas Wells," J. Peto
Tech. (Feb. 1965) 223233; Trans., AIME, 234.
Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Practical Use of Modern Well Test Analysis,"
paper SPE 5878 presented at the SPEAlME 51st Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Del. 36,
1976.
Ramey, H. J. J r.: "Rapid Methods for Estimating Reservoir
Compressibilities," J. Peto Tech. (April 1964) 447454; Trans.,
AIME,231.
Ramey. H.J. Jr.: "ShortTime Well Test Data Interpretation in
the Presence of Skin Effect and Wellbore Storage," J. Peto
Tech. (Jan. 1970) 97104; Trans., AIME, 249.
Ramey, H.J. Jr. and Cobb, W.M.: "A General Pressure Buildup
Theory for a Well in a Closed Circular Drainage Area," J. Peto
Tech. (Dee. 1971) 14931505; Trans., AIME, 251.
"Review of Basic Formation Evaluation," Form J328, JohnstonSchlumberger, Houston (1976).
Russell, D. G.: "Determination of Formation Characteristics
From TwoRate Flow Tests," J. Peto Tech. (Dee. 1963) 13471355; Trans., AIME, 228.
Russell, D.G. and Truitt, N.E.: "Transient Pressure Behavior in
Vertically Fractured Reservoirs," J. Peto Tech. (Del. 1%4)
11591170; Trans., A1ME, 231.
V
van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.F.: "The Application of the
Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs,"
Trans., Al ME (1 949} 186, 305324.
Vela, S. and McKinley, R.M.: "How Areal Heterogeneities Affeet
PulseTest Results," Soco Peto Eng. J. (June 1970) 181191;
Trans., AIME, 249.
W
Wattenbarger, R.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "An Investigation of
Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow  11.
FiniteDifference Treatment," Soco Peto Eng. J.(Sept. 1970)
291297; Trans., AIME, 249.
Wattenbarger, R.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Gas Well Testing
With Turbulence, Damage, and Wellbore Storage," J. Peto
Tech. (Aug. 1968) 877887; Trans., AIME, 243.
Winestock, A.G. and Colpitts, G.P.: "Advances in Estimating
Gas Well Deliverability," J. Cdn. Pel. Tech. (JulySept. 1965)
111119. Also, Gas Techn%gy, Reprint Series, SPE, Dalias
(l977) 13, 122130.
Author Index
H
AgalWal, R.O., 20, 49, 75
Alden, R.C., 133
AIHussainy, R., 20, 49, 75, 88, 102
Amyx, J.W., 119, 133
B
Bass, D.M. Jr., 133
Beal, c., 124, 133
Bell, W.T., 99
Brigham, W.E., 99
Brons, F., 20, 3539,41,46,48,49,74,
135137
Brown, G.O., 128, 133
Burrows, D.B., 133
Hall, H.N., 132,133
Hawkins, M.F. Jr., 4, 20, 77, 88,
Hazebroek, P., 20,3539,41,46,48,49,
74, 135137
Holditch, S.A., 75
Homer, D.R., 2, 1821,2327,29,30,36,
37,46,48,49,56,58,63,65,72
Hurst, W., 3,20, 118
Hutchinson, C.A. Jr., 25, 49
J
Jaeger, J.C., 20
Jargon, J.R., 89, 99
Jones, L.G., 60, 62
Johnson, C.R., 99
Odeh, A.S., 20, 60, 62
p
Perrine, R.L., 46, 49
Pinson, A.E. Jr., 49
R
Raghavan, R., 75
Ramey, H.J. Jr., 20, 27, 29, 44, 49, 53,
6264,6668,74,75, 87, 88, 102, 122,
126, 127, 133, 137
Russell, D.G., 1,20,3436,49,62,99,
102, 128, 133
K
Carr, N.L., 131, 133
Carslaw, H.C., 20
Chatas, A.T., 106, 118
Chew, J., 124, 133
Cobb, W.M., 25, 29, 49, 137
Colpitts, G.P., 53, 62
Connally, C.A. Jr., 124, 133
Craft, B.C., 77, 88
Crawford, P.B., 75, 88, 102
Cullender, M.H., 88
Kamal, M., 99
Katz, D.L., 20, 128, 133
Kobayashi, R., 133
L
Larson, V.C., 49
Litsey, L.R., 98, 99
T
M
D
Dake, L.P., 88, 137
Dodson, C.R., 124126, 133
Dowdle, W.L., 137
Oyes, A.B., 25,49
E
Earlougher, R.C. Jr., 1, 14,20,41,49,62,
75,89,91,99, 119, 132, 133, 137
Edwards, A.G., 99
Edwardson, M.J., 118
Saidikowski, R.M., 33, 49
Schultz, A.L., 99
Slider, H.C., 20, 25, 49
Smith, J.T., 25, 29, 49
Smolen, 1.1., 98, 99
Standing, M.B., 119121, 124126,
128, 133
Stegemeier, O.L., 62
Martin, J.C., 49, 102
Matthews, C.S., 1, 17,20,3539,41,46,
48, 49, 62, 74, 99, 102, 128, 133,
135137
McCain, W.D. Jr., 119, 133
McKinley, R.M., 63, 6871, 74, 75, 89, 99
Miller, C.C., 25, 37,49
Miller, W.C., 49, 136, 137
Morse, R.A., 75
Muskat, M., 35, 36, 40, 41, 48, 49,74
Tracy, G.W., 62
Trube, A.S., 119, 121, 131, 133
Truitt, N.E., 34, 35,49
u
Urbanosky, H.J., 99
v
van Everdingen, A.F., 3, 20, 118
Vela, S., 89,99
w
N
Nisle, R.O., 4
Gladfelter, R.E., 53, 62
Oray, K.E., 43, 49
Greenkom, R.A., 99
Oringarten, A.C., 63, 7175
o
Oberfell, 0.0., 133
Wattenbarger, R.A., 20, 44, 49, 75, 88
Whiting, R.L., 133
Wilsey, L.E., 62
Winestock, A.O., 53, 62
Winn, R.H., 99
Woods, E.O., 99
Subject Index
A
Absolute open flow, 7779, 82, 84, 85
Acidization, 4, 30
Afterflow:
buildup test, with or without, 25, 27, 64
definition, 24
distortion, 29, 42
duration, 21, 26, 30
Alberta Energy Resource and Conservation
Board, 1,77,88,99
Analysis by/of:
See also Calculation/estimation of
Analysis by/of (examples):
buildup test for vertically fractured well,
73,74
constantrate drawdown test, 51, 52
damage near wellbore, 32, 33
drawdown test using McKinley's type
curves, 70, 71
drawdown test usng Ramey's type
curves, 67, 68
drawdown test with varying rate, 53, 54
flow in generalized reservoir
geometry, 8,11
gas well buildup test, 45
gas well drawdown test using
pseudopressures, 8688
Horner's approximation, 18, 19
ideal pressure buildup test, 22, 23
incompletely perforated interval, 33
interference test in water sand, 90, 91
isochronal gas well test, 82
modfied isochronal test, 84, 85
multiphase buildup test, 46
multirate flow test, 60, 61
nrate flow test, 59,60
pulse test, 9297
stablzed flow test, 78, 79
tworate flow test, 59
use of Po solutions for constantpressure
boundary, 1111 J3
use of Po solutons for noflow
boundary, 107
use of Qpo
solutions, 114, 115
use of superpostion, 18
variable pressure history with Qpo
solutions, 115117
well from PI test, 7, 11
Assumptions, idealzed:
homogeneous reservoir, 25, 26
infinite reservor, 24
snglephase lquid, 25
B
Bessel functions, 3, 6
Biblography, 154
Bounded reservoir:
cylindrical, 3
pressure behavor, 16
shape factors for singlewell drainage
areas, 9,10
Bubblepont pressure correlaton, 119, 120
Buildup test:
See Pressure buildup test
C
Calculation/estimation of:
See also Analyss by lof
Calculation/estmatio~ of (examples):
additional pressure drop. 32
average pressure in drainage area. 36, 37,
40,41
bubblepoint of erude oil, 119
distance to nflow boundary, 42
effectve wellbore radius, 32
end of wellbore storage
distortion, 28, 29, 33
flow efficiency, 33
formaton compressblity, 133
formation permeabilty, 30
gas compressiblty, 31
gas formation volume factor, 131
gasIaw devation factor, 131
gas pseudopressure, 85, 86
gas solubility n water, 125
gas viscosity, 131, 132
ol formation volume factor, 121
ol vseosty, 124, 125
pore volume, 53
pressures beyond the wellbore, 5, 6
pseudocritical gas propertes, 128
pseudocritieal temperature and pressure for
undersaturated crude oil, 119
radus of nvestigation, 15
reservoir size, 44
saturated o! compressiblity, 123
skn factor, 32, 33
soluton aOR, 120
undersaturated ol compressbility, 122
water compressibility in a saturated
reservoir, 127, 128
water compressblity in an undersaturated
reservor, 126
water formaton volume factor, 125
water viscosity, 128
Canadian gas well testng manual, 89
Compressibility, total system, 2, 46
Compressibility correlations:
crude oil, saturated, 122, 123
crude ol, undersaturated, 121, 122
formation, 132, 133
gas, 128!31
water, saturated reservoir, 126128
water, uridersaturated reservoir, 126
Conservation of mass, law of, 2
Constantrate production, 12, 34, 56, 64
Continuity equation:
for radial flow, 100, 101
for threedimensional flow, 100
Correlations:
empirical, of field data, 78
n pulse test analysis, 9296
relating !l and B to produced
fluid propertes, 97
rock and flud properties, 119133
D
Darcy's law:
applicability of, 3, 76
isothermal flow of fluids of small and
constant compressibility, 2
pressure drop, 76
Deliverability:
empirical plot, 81
equation, 7779
isochronal curve, 81, 82, 86
modified isochronal curve, 84
stabilized curve, 77, 7982, 84, 85
stabilized equation, 80, 83
stabilized, estimates, 78
tests, gas wells, 76, 79
transient curve, 82, 84
Differential equations:
describing a flow test, 63
for flow n porous media,
development, 100102
radal flow of nondeal gas, 2
snglephase flow of reservoir ol, 2
smultaneous flow of ol, gas and water, 2
to model unsteadystate flow, 2
Dffusivity equaton:
defintion of, 2
for bounded cylindrical reservoir, 3
for infinite cylindrical reservo ir with
lnesource well, 36
for pseudosteadystate soluton, 611
for radal flow n nfinte reservoir with
wellbore storage, 11 J3, 64
solutions to, 315, 63, 91
Van EverdngenHurst solutions, 106118
Dimensionless:
pressure solutions, 14
tme lag, 9397
variables, 3,27,35,51,63,66,68,71,
92, 103105
wellbore storage constant, 12
Dranage area:
average pressure, 24, 35, 36, 40
circular, 711, 29, 39, 51
geometry, 29
hexagonal, 8, 9
infiniteacting, 30
off center, 911, 27
pressure, 21, 64, 76
shape, 36
square, 811, 29, 36, 51, 71, 72
static pressure, 35, 36, 40, 46
Drainage area shape factors:
for reservoirs, 3740
n bounded reservors, 9, 10
n vertically fractured reservoirs, 10
n waterdrive reservors, 10
Drawdown test:
See Pressure drawdown test
Drillstem tests, 1, 97, 98
E
Earlytme region, buildup curve, 2327, 30,
35,50,51,65,68,86
Ei function:
See Exponential ntegral
Empirical method for analyzing gas flow test
data, 78, 82, 84, 85
Exercses:
analysis of well tests using type
curves, 74, 75
development of dfferential equatons for
fluid flow in porous meda, 102
dimensionless variables, 103
drillstem, interference, pulse, wirelne
tests, 98, 99
flow tests, 61, 62
flud flow in porous media, 19, 20
gas well testing, 88
pressure buildup tests, 4749
rock and flud propertes correlations, 133
van Everdingen and Hurst solutions 10
diffusvity equations, 117, 118
Exponential ntegral:
argument of, 5
constant, 42
definiton of, 3
sequence of, 18
solution, 2,58,1416,24,41,50,55.
89,91
Iype curves, 90
values of, 4
158
WELL TESTING
F
Falloff tests: 29. 3032. 63
Field tests. qualitative behavior oL 26. 27
Flow efficiency:
calculation of. 32. 33. 6971
definition. 32
Flow laws. 101
Flow tests. 5062. 7780
Flowafterflow tests. 7779
Formation permeability:
bulk.29
determined from buildup test, 22. 29. 30
determined from drawdown test.
52. 70. 87
effective. 50. 52. 56. 58. 59
estimation of, 7. 21. 23. 30, 36. 90
for infiniteacting reservoir. 25
from tworate flow tests. 59
from type curves, 63. 7073
infiniteacting reservoir. 58
information about. 1
relation to slope. m. 56
relation to straightline slope. 24. 26
Formation volume factor correlation:
gas. 128131
oil. 120. 121
water. 125. 126
Fractured well:
See Hydraulic fractures and
Hydraulically fractured well
G
Gas deliverability contracts. 57
Gas flow in reservoirs. 76. 77
Gas pseudopressure, 45. 128
Gas saturation, immobile. 25
Gas well tests. l. 21, 45. 7688
Gas well test data:
analysis of one rate continued to
stabilization. 81. 82
analysis when no stabilized flow
attained. 82
GasIaw deviation factor. 128. 129. 131
Gringarten el al. type curves. 7174
H
Heterogeneities. l. 15. 21. 25. 26. 28, 51
Homogeneous reservoir assumption. 25, 26
Homer plot of buildup test, 2427, 29, 30,
36,37,46,56,58,65, 72
Homer's approximation. 18, 19.23, 56
Hydraulic diffusivity. definition of, 2
Hydraulic fracturing. 4, 30
Hydraulically fractured well. 3335, 40, 50
27,29,35.42,43.50,51,68.86
Linear flow into fractures. 13, 34, 63.
71,72
M
Match points, pressure and time. 6574. 90
Material balances. 18.43
MBH pressure function, 3639.41
for different well locations in a 2: 1
rectangular boundary. 37
for different well locations in a 4: I
rectangular boundary. 38
for different well locations in a square
boundary, 37
for rectangles of various shapes, 38
for well in center of equilateral figures, 36
in a square and in 2: 1 rectangles. 39
on a 2: 1 rectangle and equilateral
triangle, 39
McKinley's type curves. 6871
Middletime line. 3236, 42, 52. 53, 58, 63
Middletime region. buildup curve, 2327.
29, 30, 3436. 42, 43. 46. 5053. 56,
58. 59. 63. 65. 68. 8688
Mobility. total. 2, 46. 47
Model:
buildup test, 57
drawdown equation. 58.
drawdown test. 76
equation for MTR of drawdown test. 53
flow in the reservoir. 64
gas flow in term of pseudopressure, 66
ideal reservoir. 2
infinileacting reservoir. 44
interference tests. 16. 89
nrate flow test. 59
pressure behavior at any point
in reservoir, 18
production history of variable rate well. 18
rate history. well with continuously
changing rate, 17
reservoir. correlation of, 35
singlephase flow of oil. 25
steadystate radial for eguation. 4
variablerate well. 16
Modified isochronal tests. 8385
Modified Muskal method. 40, 41
Multiphase flow. modifications foro 4547
Multirate flow tests, 5561
nrale flow test, 59. 60
N
Nomenclature. 151
nonDarcy flow in fracture, 71
p
Ideal buildup test, 2124, 26
Ideal reservoir model, 2
Imaging, use of, 16, 17
Infinite conductivity fractures, 34, 35
Infinite reservoir:
acting, 35, 38, 44, 45, 50, 55. 56, 60, 64.
66, 74, 86, 89, 90
assumption. 24
cylindrical, with linesource well, 3
multiple well system. 16
with wellbore storage, radial flow in, 11
Interference tests, 1, 16,8991
Intemational System of Units, 1
Isochronal tests, 7983
L
Latetime line, 35
Latetime region, buildup curve. 23, 24, 26,
Perforated interval. incomplete. 33
Permeabilily:
altered near wellbore, 3. 23, 50
apparent. 70
average. eguation for, 7. 30
damage.3
formation. 1.7.2126,29.30.36.50,
52. 56. 58, 59. 63. 7073
nearwell. 70
permeability/thickness product. 60. 83, 97
Pore volume. estimation of. 53
Porosity/compressibility product, 8992
Pressure buildup test. 2149
actual graph, 23
analysis for vertically fractured
well. 73. 74
boundary effects. 26
determination of Plhr' 31
distance from slope doubling, 43
distance to noflow boundary. 43
example, logIog graph. 31
example, semlog graph, 28
extrapolating to infinite shutin time, 98
following drawdown test at different
rates, 83
for gas well, 45. 77
for infiniteactng reservor, 35
for well near reservoir boundary, 42
for well near reservoir limit(s). 35
ideal graph. 23
in drillstem testing, 97
in hydraulcally fractured well, 26, 34
influence of afterflow on Homer graph. 27
multiphase, 46
plotting technique, 22
preceded by constant rate production, 56
preceded by (n1) different flow rates, 57
preceded by two different flow rates, 56
rate history for actual system, 24
rate history for ideal system. 22
shape of, 15
type curves. 6374
vertically fractured well, 73, 74
wireline, 97. 98
with formation damage, 25
with no afterflow, 25
wth pressure humping, 58
Pressure drawdown test:
analyss development. 41
constant rate, 5153, 61, 63, 64, 67,
71. 73
conventional, 58
declining rate, 50
dimensionless, 64
Eifunction solution, 24
estimation of reservoir pore volume, 52
gas well analysis. 85, 86
idealized constant rate, 50
in an observation well. 89, 90
model of, 76, 77
modifications of eguation for gas. 44, 45
multirate, 50
shape of. 15
total. 17. 31, 32
type curves, 6374
variablerate. 53. 54, 61, 83
Pressure falloff test:
See Falloff test
Pressure humping, 58
Pressure level in surrounding
formation.3541
Pressure loss, nonDarcy, 44, 76
Pressure response, 9092. 97
pressure transient test:
See Pressure drawdown test and Pressure
buildup test
Problem examples:
See Calculation/estimation of and
Analysis by/of
Productivity index:
calculation, 11
flow efficiency calculation, 32
for general drainagearea geometry, 8
test. analysis of wells from. 7
Pseudocritical temperature and pressure
correlation:
crude o1, 119. 120
gas. 128
Pseudopressure, 66. 76, 79, 80. 85
Pseudoproduction time, 2, 18,21,30.42
Pseudosteadystate flow. 15,25,32,36,37,
39,40,52.53,767'(,
Pseudosteadystate flow equaton:
See Pseudosteadystate solution
Pseudosteadystate solution, 611
Pulse response amplitude. 9397
Pulse tests, 1. 16,9197
159
SUBJECT INDEX
R
Radial diffusivity equation. 1113,64
Radial flow:
continuity equation foro lOO, 101
in fractured reservoir, 63, 72
of a nonideal gas, 2
of a slightly compressible fluid, 103, 104
with constant BHP, 104, 105
Radius of investigation, 2, 1315, 18,23,
24, 29, 30, 35, 42, 52, 63, 80, 87, 89,
91, 98
Railroad Commission of Texas, 88
Ramey solution, 27. 29
Ramey's type curves, 6468, 87
Rate history:
for actual pressure buildup test, 24
for buildup test following single
flow rate. 55
for buildup test following two different
flow rates. 55
for ideal pressure buildup test, 22
for multirate test. 54
for singlerate drawdown test, 55
for tworate flow test. 57
References:
analysis of "'eH tests using type curves, 75
development of differential equations for
fluid flo'" in porous media, 102
drillstem. interference, pulse, wireline
tests. 99
flow tests. 62
fluid flo", In porous media, 20
gas ",eH testing. 88
general theory of wel! testing, 137
introduction to wel! testing, I
pressure buildup test, 49
rock and fluid property correlations, 133
van Everdingen and Hurst solutions to
diffusivity equations, 118
Reservolr limits testing, 6, 21, 4144
Reservoir sizc. estimating, 44
s
Sealing fault. 41, 42
Shape factors. singlewell drainage. 9. 10
Simultaneous flow of oil, gas. and water, 2.
102
Singlephase flow:
of gas, 102
of reservoir oil, 2, 25
of slightly compressible fluid, 21, 101
Skin factor:
apparent, 33, 87
calculation/estimation of, 23, 27, 28,
3032,35,47,5052,5660.97
definition of, 5
dependence on recognition of MTR. 24
dimensionless pressure solutions, 14
equation, 16,21,98
for damaged or stimulated wel!s, 7. 13,
22,30
for gas wells. 83
of type curves, 67, 68
used to characterize wellbore damage, 63
Solubility of gas in water correlation, \24,
\25. 127
Solution GOR correlaton, 119, 120
SPE monographs on wen testing. 1, 89
Stabilized flow, 7683
Stabilized production rate, 11
Steady slate radial flow equation, 4
Stimulation, wellbore. 1. 13,21,30,3\,33.
63, 64. 68, 69
Superposition:
principIes of, 2, \517. 35, 41
use of, \8,40,44,55.77.91
T
Transmissibility:
formation. 69. 71
nearwell, 6870
Turbulent pressure loss, 44
Tworate flow test, 5659
Theoretical method for analyzing gas flow
test data, 78, 79. 82. 84
Typecurves:
anatysis. 1, 6375, 89
fundamentals, 63. 64
Gringarten el al . 7174
McKinleys.687\
Ramey's, 6468
U
Unitstope tine, 13. 2729, 6468
v
van EverdingenHurst solutions, 3. 106118
Vapor equivalent of produced fresh
water. 77
Variablerate well. production schedule foro
17. 18
Viscosity correlations:
gas. 130132
oil. 124, 125
water. 127, 128
Volumetric average pressure, 6
w
Water saturation. immobile. 25
Well testing:
general theory, 134137
purpose, 1
SPE Monographs. l. 89
using type curves. 6375
Wellbore:
calculation of pressures beyond. 5. 6
damage. 1.21.3034,63,64
dimensionless pressure solution. 14
effective radius. definition. 31. 32
pressure drop near. 32
schematic of pressure distribution near. 5
schematic containing singlephase liquid
or gas. 12
schematic with moving liquid/gas
interface. 12
stimulation. l. 13.21.30.31.33.63.64.
68, 69
storage. 11. 89
storage constant. 12. 13. 6369
storage distortion. 13.2729.3133.52.
54. 57, 58. 60. 63. 65. 6769. 86. 87
temporary completons. 98
unloading, 50
Wireline formatlon tests. l. 98. 99