'¥'<, ~ (!,~ t



Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in Wells

C. S. Matthews
Manager of Exploitation Engineering , Shell Oil Company


D. G. Russell
StafJExploitation Engineer

Shell Oil Company

..""""'~~:::"~~.:.' !
." \




". ~ 1

, c' ,""



Henry L. Doherty Memorial Society of Petroleum
New York

Fund of AIME
" ,,'.. """

Engineers of AIME


1. Introduction 1 5. ~re Drawdown Analysis 48 49 50 51 52 53 56 58 58 60 61 62 62 67 67 67 68 69 70 72 72

1.1 Use~of ~ressureInformation in Petroleum EngIneenng 1 1.2 Early History of PressureMeasurements 1 1.3 Types of PressureInformation 1 1.4 Early History of Pressure Analysis Methods 2 1.5 Objectivesof Monograph 2 1.6 Organizationof Monograph 2 2. Mathematical Basis Analysis Methods for Pressure 4 4; 5

5.1 PressureDrawdown Analysis for TransientConditions 5.2 PressureDrawdownAnalysis for Late TransientConditions 5.3 PressureDrawdown Analysis for Semi-Steady State Conditions 5.4 Exampleof Application of Pressure DrawdownAnalysis Methods 5.5 OperationalConsiderations with Pressure DrawdownTests 5.6 Behaviorin Non-Ideal Cases /M:6r..ultiple-Rate Flow Test Analysis

2.1 Basic Assumptions 2.2 The Continuity Equation 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

Single-Phase Liquid Flow 6 Single-Phase Gas Flow 7 Multiphase Flow 8 Solutions for Radial Flow of Fluid of Small and ConstantCompressibility 10 2.7 Conceptsof Transient,Semi-Steady State, and Steady-State Flow Behavior 12 2.8 The Principle of Superposition and Approximation of Variable-Rate PressureHistories 14 2.9 Units -Field Unit and Darcy Unit Systems 16 / ~ressure Buildup Analysis 3.1 Basic Method 3.2 Skin Effect, Skin Factor, and Flow Efficiency 3.3 BoundedReservoirs 3.4 PressureBuildup for Two- or Three3 5 PhaseFlow .Pressure Buildup in Gas Wells 3.6 Effects of Wellbore Fillup and Pha Redistribution se 3.7 Effect of Partial Penetration

6.1 General Equations for Analysis of Flowing Well Tests with Variable Rate 6.2 Two-Rate Flow Test Analysis Method 6.3 Two-Rate Flow Test Analysis in Non-Ideal Cases 6.4 Elimination of Wellbore Effects with Two-Rate Flow Tests 6.5 Tran~ien~ Analysis of Gas-Well Multi-PoInt Open-FlowPotentialTests '7 / IV

A I .
7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5

na YSIS 0f

Wenter II I

f erence Tests

18 18 19 21 22 24 27 29 30 30 ~ Y

Reasons InterferenceTests for Equations for PressureInterference ExampleCalculation,InterferenceTest Least-Squares Methods Other Methods for Computing Interference Analysis in Injection We/ls


8.1 PressureFall-Off Analysis in Unit-Mobility, Liquid-Filled Reservoirs 8.2 Pr~ssureFall-O~ Af!alysis
Pnor to ReservoIr ... Fillup

Production Rate Variation 3.9 Alternative Methodsof Pressure Buildup Analysis 4/ Determi!1ation of Average





8.3 Two-Rate Injection Test AnalysIs 8.4 Gas Injection Wells Drillstem Test Pressure Analysis

81 81 84 84

Reservoir Pressure 35 4.1 Usesof Average ReservoirPressure Data 35
4.2 Determining Drainage Volumes of Wells 35

9.1 PressureBehavioron DST's 9.2 Oper~t~onal Considerations in


~etermining Avera~e Reservoir Pressure In Bounded (Depletion-Type) Reservoirs 39

9.Use 3

on DST Data

. of PressureBuildup Theory







4.4 Water-Drive Reservoirs


9.na A I YSIS DST Flow Penod 4 .. of Pressure Data


9.5 Multiple-Rate DST's 9.6 Practical Considerationsin DST Interpretation 9.7 Wireline Formation Tests 10, t Effect of Reservoir Heterogeneities on Pressure Behavior 10.1 PressureBehaviorNear Faults or Other ImpermeableBarriers 10.2 Effect of Lateral Changesin Hydraulic Diffusivity on PressureBehavior
, 10.3 Pressure BehavIor

88 88 88

Appendix A: Solutions for Radial Flow of Fluids of Small and Constant Compressibility 130 ConstantRate,Infinite ReservoirCase 130 Constant Rate, BoundedCircular ReservoirCase ConstantRate, ConstantPressure Outer BoundaryCase Appendix B: Example Pressure Buildup
Above Bubble

131 133 for 134

92 92 95

Calculations Analysis

10 4 P B h ' . N II .ressure e aVlor m atura y Fractured Formations

, m Layered


.Reservoir 97


ReservoirBelow Bubble Point Gas Reservoir " " Appendix C: Example Calculation Average Pressure Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek Method Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson Method Append1x D: Example Calculations Pressure Drawdown Analysis TransientAnalysis Late TransientAnalysis Semi-Steady L Iml tT est) State Analysis (Reservolr ' . .
D '. ISCUSSlon

136 138 for 140 140 141 for 142 142 144 145

.: , '1

10.5 PressureBehavior in Hydraulically Fractured Wells 103 10.6 PressureBehavior in Non-Symmetrical DrainageAreas 10.7 Effect of Pressure-Dependent Rock Properties 10.8 ConcludingComments II, Practical Analysis Aspects of Pressure 114 114 114

109 110 110

.., 11.1 ChoIce ofTestsm FlowmgWells 11.2 Choice of Testsin Injection Wells
11.3 Tests in Pumping Wells

11.4 Required Closed-InTimes 11.5 Radiusof Investigation 11.6 Notes on Fractured and Other Heterogeneous Reservoirs
11.7 Correction of Pressure to a Datum

115 116 117 117~ 118 119 119 122

Appendix E: Example Calculations for Multiple-Rate Flow Test Analysis Two-Rate Flow Test . M uI tl- Point 0 pen- Fl ow P otentla I T est . '

147 147

J ~

11.8 Well Stabilization 11.9 Other Considerations Well Tests in 11,10 MeasuringInstruments 11.11 Qualitative Interpretation of Buildup Curves

Appendix F: Example Calculations for Injection Well Analysis 150~ Pressure. Fall-~~ AnalY,sis, Liquid-Filled Case, UnIt MobIlity Ratio Pressure Fall-Off Analysis Prior to Reservoir Fillup, Unit Mobility Ratio Pressure Fall-Off Analysis,Non-Unit Mobility Ratio Two-Rate Injection Test " " Appendix G: Charts and Correlations~.. for Use in Pressu~e Buildup and Flow Test AnalysIs lograp hy B I' bl " Subject-Author Index 150 152 152 153~

12 C

onc us Ion



124 125 126 126 128

12.1 The Stateof the Art 12.2 Current Problemsand Areas for Further Investigation 12.3 Value of Pressure Analysis Methods to the Petroleum Industry 12.4 .Where Do We Go From Here? 1 Nomenclature

155 164 168~



utilizing floats or sonic echos. 1. called transient pressure testing. Indicate ~he pressure m permeable. In this type.2 Early History of Pressure Measurements Instruments for measuring maximum pressures in wells were developed and applied in the United States during the early 1920'S.These data. This qualitative observation was an important step in developing an understanding of well pressure behavior. the pressure variation with time is recorded after the flow rate of the well is changed.3 Types of Pressure Information .5 One of the first field-wide applications of subsurface pressuresoccurred in the East Texas field. By 1933 there were some 10 different kinds of instruments in use. the usual type of pressure measurement m ea~ly days was a so-called. thus. A year later Pierce and Rawlins3 reported on a study of a relation betweenbottom-hole pressure and potential production rate. Information obtained from periodic surveys in key wells was used to control allowables. the longer the time required for the pressure in a well to equalize at the prevailing reservoir pressure. It is this type of measurement which is used in modem pressure tests of wells and. However. 1. Chapter 1 Introduction 1. bottom. This extensive literature has evolved because the pressure behavior of a well is both a readily measurable and a highly useful quantity. afford the means to estimate the original oil in place and the recovery which may be expected from the reservoir under various modes of exploitation. the need for and successof a well stimulation treatment. Other devices were developed to measure liquid levels in wells. is the type with which we shall mainly be concemed in this Monograph.4 Humble 'References given at end of chapter. equalizing rate of oil off-take with rate of water influx. .pressure. high-productiVIty reservoIrs. a pressure-measunng deVIcewas lowered to the. when combined with hydrocarbon and water production data and with laboratory data on fluid and rock properties. such as 24 to 72 hours. Pressure data from wells are used to define local and average reservoir pressures."static': measurement. sufficed ~o. This understanding led to the other basic type of measurement. In this type. The pressure measured ~t this time was called a "stati~" . Another early application was made in Kansas where liquid levels were measured in wells while pumping. Several hundred technical papers have been published over the past 35 years dealing with the important subject of pressure tests in oil and gas wells. It is the purpose of this Monograph to present the subject of pressure tests of wells as a coherent whole using published techniques as a basis and adding new information and techniques where needed. of a well which had been closed for a penod of time.1 ~- Uses of Pressure Information in Petroleum Engineering and MacDonald gauges.Except for such liquid-level measuremelltsin pum~mg wells. engineers soon recognized that in most formations the static pressure measurements were very much functions of closed-in time..1One early device was simply a Bourdon gauge with a stylus which marked on a blackened face. engineers realized very early that the rapidity with which pressure buildup occurred when a well was closed in was a reflection of the permeability of the reservoir rock around that well. the degree of connectivity to other wells and many other items. Sclater and Stephenson2discussed an application of pressure measurements from such early devices in a gas-oil ratio study in 1928. These measurementswere used in prorating wells. These st~tic measurementS. The utility of early bottom-hole pressure instruments was greatly increased by the development of continuously recording instruments such as the Amerada. This method eliminated installation of special high-capacity pumps to "potential" wells and was an early step in analyzing well behavior. The lower the permeability. the general type of well treatment desirable. Pressuredata from wells may be used to estimate how efficiently the well is completed. Thus.

and We will not trace the hIStOry of pressure ~nalysis analysis. 1. a transient pressure is created by putting a closed-in well on production.K. Most of this treatment has been placed in appendices. interference tests multiple-rate tests.however. API (1961). we hope that every reader -even those who are not particularly well-versed in advanced mathematics-will browse through this section to enhance his basic understanding of the various pressure analysis methods. pressure drawdown. H. 2. R. and "Can I extrapolate data to a static pressure?". reservoir heterogeneities and on the practical aspects of bottom-hole pressure measurement. Dyes and Hutchinson9 in 1950. C. 1: as well as the many refer~ncesm later chapt~rs of this ~onograph: sh~uld furnIsh adequate matenal for those Interested m thIS aspect. V. Review of S~ bsur f ace Pressure I nstruments . RI 2929 and 2930. such as the treatment of water drive by Moore. R. . In each case illustrative exampIes using actual field data are presented. 1.2 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS A stimulus for developing a quantitative interpretation of pressure data came with the introduction of the material-balance method6 of calculating original oil in place in a reservoir.. 11. In this Monograph we will attempt to incorporate these refinements into the earlier basic methods.see Ref. E. History of Petroleum Engineering.AIME (1931)92. mathematically.: "Measurements B.* Subsequentpapers have brought a multitude of refinements and a deeper understanding of this subject. will be made in subsequent chapters of ural Gas Wells". In a well which has been producing at a constant flow rate for some period of time and has reached a pseudo steady-state behavior. Among we shall con- are included on drillstem test analysis. and in some casespresented also.. 40. Trans. These two papers still furnish the fundamental basis for the modem theory and analysis of oilwell pressure behavior. 4. In a sensethis was true. C.AIME (1928)82. Pierce. a method for extrapolating the measured well pressure to a true static pressure.5 Objectives of Monograph In our treatment we shall concern ourselves almost entirely with the subject of creating and analyzing the transient pressure responsein a well.4 Early History of Pressure Analysis Methods wells and pressure fall-off in injection wells. Alternative methods will usually be discussed and referenced. We have tried to provide in this Monograph an upto-date treatment for the benefit of engineerswho want to re-educate themselves on the subject of pressure tests. It is not essentialthat a reader master this chapter to be able to understand and apply the methods discussed in the remainder of the book. To provide meaningful data for this method. By transient pressure response. and Stephenson. Discussions further.. and Sidwell. and Rawlins. Temperature.7 increased the need for a method for quantitatively treating pressure data. we mean the pressure response which results from a change in a well's production rate. V. --~ ---~ - . L. however it is not feasible to . Subsequentsections are devoted to pressure buildup.and Gas-Oil Ratio in Oil Sands". For those who are more mathematically inclined. Millikan. 011 and Gas J. we have also presented a rather complete treatment of the mathematical basis. The next chapter presentsthe mathematicalbasis for pressureanalysis methods. (April 20. by changing the producing the types of transient pressure behavior rate. 5. Development of other analytical methods of analyzing reservoir performance. 1. engineers began to seek answersto questions such as: "How long should I shut in a well to get the required pressuresfor this method?". Trans. so that the Monograph's readibility will not be impaired. rather completely. We hope that the manner of presentation will make the Monograph both readable and yet practical as a guide for day-to-day use. We shall also treat pressureresponseduring multiple-rate tests in both producing wells and injection wells. The first comprehensive treatment of pressure behavior in oil wells to include the effects of compressibility was that of Miller...~iiiL~__'~ . We have stressedexample applications particularly. However. The following year Hornero presented a somewhat different treatment. Sclater. For a review of Russian pressure buildup methods. alternatively. References some of the to French methods this Monograph.: "The Study of a Fundamental Basis for Controlling and Gauging Nat- sider are pressure buildup and drawdown in producing *Some different approaches have beenused by Russian and French authors. The general plan has been to present. of Original Pressure.: "Bottom-holePressuresin Oil Wells". 1933) 16.. . a pressure transient is created by closing in the well or. pressure fall-off.. USBM (1929).8 He deduced. 3. The references should provide a guide to the alternative procedures.C. References 1.6 Organization of Monograph At this point some comments on the organization of the Monograph are in order. For instance. Ref. Hawthor~: D. since this method did not take into account the important aspectof fluid compressibility. 119-136. Schilthuis and Hurst. a preferred method for each type of pressure The first effort to present an extrapolation theory and to relate the change in pressure with time to the parameters of the reservoir was presented in 1937 by Muskat.".The paper ends with a discussion of problems yet unsolved in pressurebehavior. Because of S pace limitations . G. presentcomplete discussionsof all methods of pressure analysis. 194-205. Muskat stated at the time that his method had only a qualitative application.

2.. and those who are interested in the fundamen.. ~- .=--k"a' u.II. the most significant quantity conservedis mass and the conservation statement is simply (referring to an arbitrary re- where z is the height above and Po is the pressure in an arbitrary datum plane. Hubbert' has studied Darcy's law and its implications quite extensively.II.1) .II.= --.1 Basic Assumptions I d f fl 'd fl ' A h mat ematica escnption 0 UI ow m a porous medium can be obtained from the following physical principles: (1) the Law of Conservation of Mass.11. the viscosis ity of the fluid. The law is valid for laminar flow at low Reynolds numbers. ax ' gion) put) .l and its mathematical expressionis* \lit! . The minus sign in the above equation denotes that flow occurs in the direction of decreasingpotential.---~ .II. 0 -:fJY (2. k. respectively. heat. electricity) . = --. one can better understand the implications of pressure analysis theories.2) ' I U.. (2) Darcy's law (or other flow law). y and z directions are --~ U.k z~ . Darcy's law can be expressedas op U. y or z) denotes the volumetric rate of flow per unit cross-sectionalarea in the . In fluid flow in a porous medium.II. The forms of Eq. .k ~ .. \l it! is the gradIent of the potential in the direction of flow.~1"'\. By beginning with the underlying physical principles and considering the differential equations and the solutions of interest. (2. sectional area. oz Thus. "' . - ' Mathematical Basis For Pressure :"'.Chapter 2 . ~ u. i. where u is the volumetric rate of flow per unit crossU = -~ *See the Nomenclatureon page 128. k is the permeability of the medium (a constant) and p is the density of the fluid.talconsiderations concerning this law are referred to hISwork.p "fJit! of mass outu. k. it! is the potential. and (3) Equation(s) of State. Darcy's law expresses the fact that the volumetric rate of flow per unit cross-sectionalarea at any point in a uniform porous medium is proportional to the gradient in potential in the direction of flow at that point. Hubbert showed that p it!= J !!!!-+ po p' gz In flow phenomena of any type (fluids. This is simply a statement that some physical quantity is conserved. y and z directions. 2. [-az-+ pg] OP I In these equations... . Analysis Methods The pressure analysis techniques to be discussed in this Monograph have been derived from solutions of the partial differential equations describing flow of fluids through porous media for various boundary conditions. one of the most useful statementsis a conservation principle.1 for flow in the x. y (amount of mass mput)-(amount + and sinks) of mass introduced by sources (net amount = (increase in mass content of the region). for flow in the x. .= -~ k .e" neither created nor destroyed. Ui (i=x.

or In the case of flow at high velocities. we ~hall derive the continuity equatio.lI. y P.. In the x. Darcy's law is no longer valid.~ ":~ Similar expressions can be written for the y and z directions./ 1. It has been found that a quadratic velocity correction term can be added to modify Darcy's law. y and z directions are denoted by u". In the pU" ~y ~z . T e mat ematica consl eratlons In t s c ap-. The reader who is interested in so-called non- 2.. an appropna e equa on 0 s a e WI e . depending on the actual fluid(s) ti' f t t .. neglecting gravity. h I d hi h 'T h Ramey.. We first consider the three-dimensional case and choose as our arbitrary volume the rectangular parallelepiped shown in Fig./ / Ie y //. Assuming no mass is generated or lost in the element. Throughout this Monograph isothermal flow is assumed so that the equation of state will depend only on pressure. w~e~e ~(pu.) . . These .1 Volume elementfor derivation of continuity equation: (A) in three space dimensions. ./. Th 1 t t f fl ' e vo ume nc I t Darcy . Thus. In this case the flow law becomes k.! -".flux that. we can derive a family of differential equations which describes various flow situations.. +4./. .. and (B) for radial flow.. y -/ 0. The symbols k".y) . or. UII and . An equation of state specifiesthe dependence of fluid density p bn the fluid pressure p and temperature T. s 0 ow In t 0 th e e 1 emen t Various equations of state are used in deriving the I . We begin by considering a single fluid flowing through a porous medium of porosity cf>. 0" where Dl is a constant that is a function of the pore structure of the porous medium and 0"is the direction of flow.1A.lI. the papers ' by ' Houpeurt . 11 b chosen t ' t presen . IS referred to . flow .+4(p. we should point out that a differential equation describes only the physical law or laws which apply to a situation. The mass flow rate . 1. but also the boundary and initial conditions that characterize the particular situation of interest..)/ ~ ""f" \ 4y P. . To obtain a solution to a specific flow problem. . . Since our primary interest in this Monograph is in ra~ial flow.~ I. x-direction out of the element IS ~y ~z [pu" + ~ ~pu.2 The Continuity Equation In this section we will develop a mathematical statement of the continuity principle.. cp --~ = U + D1u2.. respectively.)].!!. the mass flow rate into the element in the x-direction is u"./ ~J" .+4(0. For radial flow. .. )-r p. ~ / / . . flow equations. The net flow r~te In the x-direction (amount-In less the amount-out) IS -~y ~z ~ (pu.I MATHEMATICALBASIS FOR PRESSURE ANALYSIS METHODS 5 i ! t direction i. .) poy'4(p.! ".) is the change in mass..// B A Fig. ky and k" are the permeabilities of the rock in the indicated directions. occ~rs within th~ element. ter are b ase d on fl h' h b D ' 1 ow w IC 0 eys arcy saw. Darcy's law becomes k 0 Ur = -~ --. '8 . are volumetnc flow rates per componen .?apphcable for radial flow as well as the more general. Before presenting the differential equations for flow through porous media. the amount of net mass change in the element t P. choose an arbitrary We volume element within the flow region and apply the continuity statementpresented in the previous section. 2. 2. By subsequentcombination of the continuity equation with Darcy's law and equations of state./ /.-. urnt of cross-sectional area./. Thus. one must have not only the differential equation. three-dimensional case. // /.

rd ( pUr) ]--~ -A rdr ..) -8rh = cpph8rdr -cpph8r.--!. in the context of this Monograph. .c + ~ ~ ~ = T ot k.(2. 2."aT dY] BUILDUP -.!:. substitution of Eq.change ] t+dt dZ dt Proceeding to the limit as dx. .. ( k. is the equation for isothermal flow of fluids of small and constant compressibility. 2. OP ) -0 -ar--(i/>p) = i/>pdX dZ -i/>pdX dy dZ I .I. If c is constant then the above relationship can be This equation is the continuity equation (in Cartesian form) for flow of a fluid in a porous mediurn. .3) 0 0 0 0 c= --. 2.I. ..p = .6 and 2. or 1 oV ..5) IN WELLS in a time increment dt can be expressedas -dt [d(pU. . 6) where pois the value of p at some referencepressure Po.~ + kz""'J"Z2 C k" ax 2 + k" ( ay ) 2 OP a2p 02P + ) [ ( ) ox ox ~..3a) " ~ r ~(rpu.c-+J..!!-!:-~ + ~oz [~J...An dY t+dt I I I 2.7) ) * ~ "P =cpp.+ -F. if the permeability is constant and isotropic.6 into Eq.p -a-i" = ..I.. assume the viscosity is constant and neglect loop gravity forces.(pUz)= -ar(i/>p) . . If we consider the elementalvolume as shown on Fig.(2.'/' ~ [ pu..3 yields . oy oz =~ at (i/>p) . This particular equation of state applies rather well to most liquids. then (since -~ = c~) p uX uX { -dt 8(r+dr) h(pu.. if the porosity is constant and if it is assumed that the pressure gradients involved are small so that th: gradient squared terms may be neglected.2 into Eq. the foregOIngreduces to ~!!:!-~= ~~ ax2 + oy2 + OZ2 k ot . ~ ox ) )] (~ ~) + ~oy ( .. dY. For the radial flow case we obtain in similar manner: -~ ~-~- cpp. This may also be written c = p 1 ~ ap ...I. The most Important of these.... DIVIding the equation by dX dY dZ dt YIelds sIngle-phaseflow..we must.~ ' 02p OP + k. . 2. .. The continuity equation for radial flow follows from a similar development.. az oz . or ot If c is small. 5 yields (viscosity constant) ~~ +~~~+C 2 F ( r~ ) or (~ ) or r or k. ct ' *To establishthis relationship we have made use of a op o.-o(pu.UIty pnncIple.) = -~ (cpp).4. ox J.ppCat+ Pat .) dY dZ + d(pUI/) dZ dx + d(pUz)dX 1 0 ( rpk. com Ination 0f Eqs..pp) op o.) +ay(pUI/) +az.) I I . 2. .(2. " (2.ot and SInced(pUr)/dr~ 0 + k z -Foz ~t ( ) 2 ] + ( -F.(~ +pg J. .3 Single-Phase Liquid Flow important class of fl?w equations results for ~his IS S!~p!y a dIrect application of the cOntin..+d(pU. dZ and dt approach zero gives ax(pU.4) d ' I fl b" or ra Ia ow. Eq. .(2.pat + Pat (.6 PRESSURE .. For the three-dimensional case. T d ' diff ' I 'd ' 0 enve erentia equations f or fl UI fl ow In a p~rous mediu~.[~~ dx + ~~+ dY !::. If we introduce the equation of state of Eq.V op . (2. 2..IB.-"aT AND FLOW TESTS . The compressibility of a fluid is defined as the relative in fluid volume per unit change in pressure.! at 0 ok oY oY + -F--!.lr t+dt' This reduces to [ ] } pU.I.!!!!-~= (i/>p) -(i/>p) t . The final differential equation which will result from this equa~on depends on the fluid and the equation of state of Interest.4 represents a general form for the combination of the continuity equation and Darcy's law.dr . or or Eq. then the following mass balance can be written: integratedto yield P -eC(p-po) -po .. . next combine Darcy'~ law WIth the continuIty equations. 2.ok 0 ok a -. 2.)/or . (28) .3a is the continuity equation for radial flow.

constant rock properties. Equations of this general type are known as the diffusivity equation.-~. op I/>p. the above equation becomes ( ) 1 0 --rr or This ( .(2.. the viscosity of an ideal gas depends only upon temperature. The equation of state for an ideal gas is given by the ideal gas law as m pV = MRT. The reader should keep these assumptions in mind since solutions to this particular equation form the foundation of pressure~~ ~hniques. 2. and neglecting gravity. z op t .then ~.10) ~ This equation can be simplified somewhat by noting that ~= ox ~~ cp (and ax similarly for y and z).~.4 Single-Phase Gas Flow An important class of single-fluid flow equations is that describing flow of gas through a porous medium.(2. an t at -IS ar negligibly small.9 are called diffusivity equations ~~ . flow equations are different than those for liquid flow in that the equations of state which are used are quite different in functional form from those for liquids. we can further refine Eq. used in a2p a2p a2p -I/>p.13) 2..1 al/> I/> P permeability are pressure-dependent.In cases in which the gradient squared terms can be neglected. 2. in this case is V M p = liT p . Lord Kelvin called a corresponding constant in the heat-conduction equation the thermal diffusivity. and the constant.15) at-a-p-~' If we rearrange Eq. -+ [( ap a2p a2p a2p n + 32 + T2 + C a x y z x ~ k (2. ( ( ~ ( ~) ~\. If we assume constant viscosity.] Z [ ~ax ~ + ~ay ~ay + ~oz ~az ] = ~k ox . 2.14) ~ ! ) 2 + ( op ) ay 2 ( ap) 2 + -:e-. --aZ2 = k~" ap (2. [ CP] 2 ) -I/>p. but for the case of pressure-dependentporosity and permeability.16) ar2 r or k ot kp ot Either of the two right-hand forms is often used. Equations similar to Eq.10 it now becomes x ( 02P 02p F2-+n+~ x y a2p + z ) ( 1 ak c+Ta p ) ([ ap] a x " 2 r ap ] 2 + ay In the case of radial flow Eq. Eq.11 is expressed for radial flow it becomes a2 1 a 1 ak a 2 a -& +r-!r+ ( c +Ta)( fr) = ~ (c + Cf)-ft.. 2. cond h ap 2. --Gas Eq. 2. Thus.c ap r or most often can be reduced to (29) petroleum k at'. 2.12) equation ~+az+T2-T(c+Cf)a' x y engineering-the equation for radial flow of a fluid of small and constant compressibility. This equation is nonlinear and has been solved mainly by numerical methods. ~ + !:-. and 01/> -~ op This equation can be rewritten as 02p2 c2p2 a::t2 + ~+ 02p2 21/>p. 2. R is the gas law constant and T is the absolute temperature. 2. at ax cz k . and a fluid of small and constant com- If Eq. op2 -+ --= --=~. where V is the volume occupied by the mass m of gas of molecular weight M. ' b' li stant and small compressl I ty.4 becomes 3ax p ~ ) +~oy p oy) + 3. at k at ..MATHEMATICAL BASIS FOR PRESSURE ANALYSIS METHODS 7 If we assume constant permeability and porosity.11 d h b th th ' were Cf = -a' an were 0 e porosl ty an d h op ) -o2p --+ or ar2 is one of the 1 op -I/>p. It is quite important to not~ that small p~essure gradients. op -M ap ot RT ot .15 becomes 02p2 1 cp2 21/>p. for isothermal variations in pressure. .11) . If we wish to obtain the differential equation for flow of a fluid of small and constant compressibility. Since the density. (2.p oz =~~.7.8 and Eq. we obtain . 2. p = ~. From kinetic theory. Eq.(2. for constant gas viscosity and constant rock properties.8 also arise in the study of diffusion and electrical potential distribution. p pressibility must be assumed to obtain this equation from the original nonlinear equation with which we began. + -a-z -T(C I op + Cf) at (2. isotropic permeability and neglect gravity. IS called the hydraulIc dlffusi~y~iStOrlCaTiy~-th1sequation first arose in the study of heat conduction.

In reality. watervolume (standardconditions) If we assume laminar flow. T e relative perb l ti t h phase are defined as the ratIo 0f t he mea 11 es 0 eac b1 y t 0 a phase at preVaI mg saturation conlit . Similarly. 2. 2. as obtained by differential vaporization.17) In Eq. .nction substitute for the more rIgorous Eq. .-~ot (~Z ) ~ ox ILZox ILZoY oW k (2. All hydrocarbon liquid which is present at atmospheric conditions.. It has been found that for of fluid commonly the rock encountered conditions the to each phase is independent permeability of bulk + ~ r ~ or = ~ k ~ P ~ at (~ Z ) . These volume factors are defined for each phase as B = oil and dissolved volume (reservoirconditions)... when reduced to standard conditions. and is a fu f h fl d h 0 t e UI saturations only.8 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS In the case of flow of a non-ideal gas. When th~ee immiscible 'flUIds (e. of course.. k ko (So. and any or all of these fluids may occur at saturation levels such that simultaneous flow will take place. 2. . In addition to these quantities. S + S + S = 1 .18 The approach which we take in this section will be much less rigorous. .or three-phaserelative permeability. a gas solubility factor for water can be defined and representedby Rsw. At any instant an element of the reservoir will contain certain volumes of oil. The use of a formation volume factor to allow for the changesin volume which occur in each phase upon transition from reservoir to standard surface conditions of temperature and pressureis a well known procedure.17 can be expressedas -T r . for oil. gas and water which. . Thus. for isothermal conditions. 2. ..4 becomes.. and we consider the solubility of gas in the oil and water phases. 011.~ ) + ow(~ILZ~ ) = . For the purposes of our derivations. krtO= kiD(So. we shall consider simply that these are physically meaningful quantities which can be measured on a rock sample in the laboratory.. 2. It is essentialto an understanding of pressure analysis methods that some basic facts about multiphase flow be developed. In this volume there is a mass of oil given by cf> So ~Pos . 0 to g It is beyond the scope of this Monograph to present a definitive discussionof two.18 in which higher-order terms are neglected can also be derived. This equation is ~ or2 to each flowing phase depends on the interfacial tensions betweenthe fluids and the contact angles between the rock and the fluids.ust be introduced. the concept of relative pe~meability m. 2. then Eq. gas and water) flow sImultaneously through a porous medium. gas 0 oil volume (standardconditions) gasvolume (reservoirconditions) Bg = gasvolume (standardconditions)' -water anddissolved volume(reservoir gas conditions) Bto --. For radial flow Eq. the permeability of the rock 1 C r (p -r /LZ -:ar aP ) = cf> '0 kat ( P z ) . gas and water.. M I h FI 2. the gas deviation factor z is introduced into the equation of state to give p =:r ~.18 can lead to serIous errors m gas-well performance predictions for .SiD) kro = k ' k rg where = kg (So. 0 and a mass of water given by cf> SiD B.Sto).(2. without regard to its composition. The brief section which follows is devoted to this. .. The gas phase we refer to simply as gas. The equations for flow of a single fluid which are essentialto this Monograph have now been developed. the pore space of a reservoir is occupied by more than one fluid.!.1 ditions to the single-phase permeability of the rock..5. Ptos .SiD) k ' .17 we have used the symbol W for the Z coordinate to avoid confusion with the gas deviation factor z. z of gas liberated from a volume of oil to the oil volum~ (all referred to standard conditions) is the gas solubility factor Rs.permea low-permeability gas reservoIrs. we refer to as oil.as a .(2. ~(~ ~ )+ ~oy(!!..ave 11 4 h properties and of flow rate (for laminar flow)... neglect gravity and assume constant rock properties. . Consider a unit volume of the reservoir.g. will be modified as a result of gas solubility in the oil and water and the compressibility of each phase.19) 19 shown that use 0f Eq.. The ratio of the volume Russe et a1. Our derivation will be for radial flow only.18) A version of Eq.5 u tip ase ow A completely rigorous formulation of the equations for multiphase flow should consider the spatial distribution of each component in the hydrocarbon-water systemas a function of time. .

(2.~ R k apo --a. +~~ ktD -~~ + Cf' and the quantity (klp.... baSIS pressu:e.3.wStD Su)] =-cJ>-++ Bo ot Bw Bu 0 [ r ~p.21 and 2. . gas and water through a *Capillary forces are not completelyneglectedbecause effectivepermeabilityterms are affectedby capillarity. 2. . The differential become the folloWIng.28) This set of equations has beenstudied extensively by Perrine. [ ( )~] =~ot [ (~+~ Bo cJ> Bu )] ] ( cJ> ) ~ BtD . . = 1 .oBo or [ ( R..27) (2 21) Gas.and pw.wBtD or ot where So+S.e. for mt~rpretati~npro~e~ures multiphasecases.20 through 2.24 and 2.23 constitutethe equationsfor simultaneousflow of oil.are oil and water densitiesat standard conditions. P S tD quantitiesin Eqs.Su.Swand p.22) and .B.. .!.multiphaseflow in equation medium can be ~th a pressure-dep~ndent diffus~vity coefficient.)t is the sum of the mobilities (kip.ar ' ~ opo Bo op BtD op ~ + ~ Bo op Bu op ~ -~ BtD op (2.!-.20. (2.(2.This IS dism cussed m detail m later chapters of the Monograph. Oil: Tar For the sake of completeness.MATHEMATICAL BASIS FOR PR. -.L **The term c.ESSURE ANALYSIS METHODS 9 wherepo. then a continuity equation for eachphasecanbe written as in Eq.) of the fluids.0 PU' ar -PUB B:.So.. 2. .w k k . PU'SO + cJ>R. theseequations canbe combinedmathematically yield to .22.7Wellersand West et aV4 by means of numerical solutionsobtainedon digital computers.24) p.+Sw=1 . .II. . Comparison Eqs.w.. In the same reservoir unit there is a massof free gas S ~ PUB Bu and a massof dissolved gas .Bu or . (2. . This Impo~ant fact proVl~esthe..- ( -=k ) p.0 p. 2. equations 1 0 [r ~ar ko OP -0 ] -at Gas: Oil: ~~ r or -.wBw jJ.. 2.StD p.20) gas-oil flow are ~resented.25)** ~ and for water PtD = -~ Uroo For gas. R porous mediumunder conditionsof neglectof gravity forcesandcapillarypressure differences between phases. ~ or Bo .. terms can be neglected in the expansion of the ~ (r ~ or ) = !!:!!--+ ~~ or = (-k ) ~ or2 r "". was added to Martin's equationsto ac-. . They representa simultaneousset of four nonlinear equationsdescribingfour unknowns. Th e se t 0 f equa ti' ons f 0 II ows.23) Eqs.26) -PUB~Bw ~ ~or ' jJ.(2.9 showsthat under of the assumed describedby the diffusivitya porous conditions.the count for formation compressibility. (2.l. 2.o B PU' B B' where Ct is the total systemcompressibilitygiven by ce =.-~ r or .. e ~ ot' u 0 tD By use of Darcy's law we can expressthe radial massflux of oil as -ko po uro --p. .ij.U' S B 0 + -lo R 'I'.u p. . So+ s.w If we neglect capillary pressuredifferences in the * systemand neglectgravity. ( So ) cJ> ~..oBo Water: ~ ~ [r~ ~ =~ r or IJ. k op.(2. .~ r ~+~ r or p. --u Pu uru ---. simplified forms the of the precedingequationsin the case of two-phase. 'I' P . -- . Martin6 has shown that in the casewhere higherorder B' 0 tD so that the total massof gas per unit volumeof reservoir is + f/>R. This complexsystemcan be solvedonly by numerical means.-!.i.!-. ) ~ ] r or [ r p.+ ~ ) .oBo ~ ]=~ot ( cJ> ) ..So R.a r ' fJpw pw.-(~+~+~ IJ. -~ B0 po.11. e ( ~k + -!.

9 are summarized as fonows: Radial flow into wen opened over entire thickness of formation. Others may be found in Carslaw and Jaeger9or in the paper by Rowan and Clegg. 2. Again.2 Schematic drawingof geometryand boundaryconditionsfor radial flow.J =0 re I I-r ~ I W I .8 and its form for radial flow. . The specific application of each of these caseswin become apparent in the later sections of this Monograph. . 2. demonstrated their practical value. r r Ghe solutions of this equation of interest to us in the developmentof pressure analysis methods are those for the case of flow into a centrally located wen at a constant volumetric rate of production. the equation is 02 1 0P . Uniform thickness of the medium..9 are needed.) The geometry and boundary conditions for these three casesare indicated schematically on Fig. 2. but application of these solutions to reservoir conditions has. . Constant fluid viscosity. (2) Bounded Cylindrical Reservoir-the case in which the wen is assumed to be located in the center of a cylindrical reservoir with no flow across the exterior boundary. however.9. Negligible graVIty forces. 2. =:j : I:=I I I Fig. 2. and (3) Constant Pressure Outer Boundary -the case in which the wen is situated in the center of a cylindrical area with constant pressure along the outer boundary. these equations have become the fundamental basIs for the commonly used pressure analysis techniques. P.. and . Eqs. q) As win be mentioned later in this chapter. To INFINITE RESERVOIR CASE tions which were developed are nonlinear and not easily solved. Small pressuregradients. as we shan see presently. Homogeneous and isotropic porous medium. the basic solutions for constant rate can be combined by the principle of superposition to yield solutions for arbitrary rate histories. all the equa- .. three basic solutions of Eq.I.PiAS rCONSTANT PRESSURE CASE OUTER BOUNDARY P = p.C p ¥ + -3 = ~at .8 and 2. 2. Because of this utility and simp~icity. constant-rate cases.15 The assumptions made in the development of Eq.9. These are presented in the section which fonows. Not only can they be solved.10 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS 2. 2. Porosity and permeability constant (independent of pressure). over the years. Eq.2.6 Solutions for Radial Flow of Fluid of Small and Constant Compressibility Thus far in the presentation of the math:matical basis for pressure analysis methods. we have discussed the physical laws which govern fluid flow in a porous medium and the combination of these laws into differential equations which describe the various flow ti f Eq W h th regimes which may occur. Fluid of small and constant compressibility. AT r = r co Ie"" / /' 0 '" BOUNDED CIRCULAR RESERVOIR CASE ~ Ire or "" -. are linear and can be solved analyticany for boundary conditions of interest. (Three basic casesare of interest: (1) Infinite Reservoir -the case in which the wen is assumed to be situated in a porous medium of infinite radial extent. O P 'f'JJ. For the development of the pressure analysis theories discussed in this Monograph. It e excep on o.

"tD~112(anreD)[11(an)Yo(anrD)-Y1(a. 2.e. -2.cr 41Tkh w k ]. (2. -E. + -In 41Tkh ( yf/Jp. t) = P. assumptionof initial uniform pressureis adequate.. p(r. In this regard. if we require a constant rate at the well. and is based on the assumption of a vanishingly small wellbore radius.isuniformly pressured.36 take on monotonically ~ . Bounded Circular Reservoir p(r. + 2 00 {~+ 2tow 1nreD-4 3 For x < 0. the exact form of the mathematical expressions for the solutions of the foregoing problems depends on the approach taken in the analytical treatment.)lo(anrD)] a. (In all caseswe require that at t = 0 (i.32) The expression for pressure at the wellbore (i.36) ) n=l an [J1 (anreD) -J1 (an)] The an values in Eq.. or r~ Thus.khqp. we have chosen to utilize in each of the three casesthat solution most convenient to the needs of this Monograph. it yields almost identical results with the lesstractable finite-wellbore solution. More information on this approximation can be found in Appendix A. Line Source Well p(r. ( - 1 .29) or r~ 21Tkhrw (For no flow across an exterior boundary. -2."tD.kh" qp. These solutions are. t) = P. (2.78.I..l1 or CarslawandJaeger. 2.80907 or Pwf = P. we may write from Darcy's law ( r ~ . the pressure gradient must be zero.. = P. for the casewhere re > > rw.'t' 2 E. at r = rw) is qp.reservoi. (- ( 1) x) ~ -In ( x) = In -y --05772 x'.S Homer.r.cr2 4kt' ) + 0. ~ e-a.!!!!:-~.33) The solution we have presented for the infinite reservoir case is an approximation to the actual finitewellbore infinite reservoir case.01. quite well known and have been incorporated into this Appendix solely for the sake of completeness...) OP -Pwf a -0 (2.Thus.30) r r. initially) ~h~.31) where -E. The reader who is interested in a variety of these solutions is referred to Muskat. 21Tkh { reD2-1 (4rD2 + 2 tDw - ) reD2 rD (3reD'-4reD' In reD-2reD2-1) In 00 ~-=T4(reD2 -1)2 + 1Tn=l e-a.. Pwf.34) where r rD = -.t)=pi qp. (2. when it is evaluated at practical values of radius and time (including normal wellbore radius values). r C 4 kt ) 2 ~ and the an values are the roots of .34 can be written . -~ [ln~f/Jp.e. qp. r = re.(2.80907 ] . (2. However. -41Tkh [ 1n~ kt . rw re reD= -tDw rw ' = kt f/JpocrfD2 ' I . for our purposes the or qp. z 00 Pwf = P. + 4:.lO van Everdingen and Hurst.(2. q = ~ p.MATHEMATICAL BASIS FOR PRESSURE ANALYSIS METHODS 11 expressthe condition for constant flow rate at the wellbore (i. we must have zero flow velocity.)t = P...at a value Pi)~he ffiitial condition could also be specified as a function of radius from the well. at r = rw). p( r .. As is usually the case.[112 (anreD)-112(an)] } (2. J1 (anreD)Y 1 (an) -J1 (an) Y 1 (anreD) = O. p.crw2 4kt' ) + 0.9 The mathematical solutions for each case are listed in the section of the text which follows. several slightly different solutions of th~ problems in w~ch we are interested have ap'pearedm the petroleum literature. Eq.e. The mathematical statement of the boundary conditions and development of the mathematical solutions for each of these cases is presented in Appendix A.kh In ( ) ( yf/Jp. impose the following condition on the pressure gradient at the well: ( ~ ) = --. then we ) The symbol Y is Euler's constant and is equal to 1. 4kt for ~ > 100. J 2 ( ar ~ 2 2 1 2"'eD } . (-x) = f e-U udu. however.35) For the pressure at the wellbore. Rather than attempting to present all of these solutions and an accompanying critique. Infinite Reservoir. therefore. of course.

8.30 Constant Pressure Outer Boundary In this case we present only the solution for the pressure behavior at the well..36 becomes PtD/ Pi -~ = 2t [~+ 11' reD In reD-4] 3 . 2. Here.8.8"reD) = o. This expressionis Pw/ = Pi -2 kh qp.1 ~ tvw = cf>p.8tD~ (a r D) 112 + 4 ~ 2[1 2 ( ) 1 "2e ( )] n=l a" 1 a"reD 1 an . Thus. This may be seen from the behavior of the reD = 10 curve which breaks away from infinite reservoir behavior at tvw= 16.4 that the larger-size reservoirs follow infinite reservoir behavior for a longer time than the smaller ones. ::Ll. Semi-Steady State and Steady-State Flow Behavior A form of Eq.3 Solutionsof the infinite and boundedcircular reservoir cases.8"reD) -Y kt } .8. 2. the solutions are identical until the effect of the boundary is felt. for a given value of tDw.) -102 (.38) a.") 20 . the summation term in the solution approaches zero and Eq.36a) 11' t where ycf>lJ.CrtD2 . i.2[112(. the terms for large n become progressivelysmaller.8" is a root of 11(.. 2. all the terms of the summation become negligibly small. the Bessel Function portion of the terms of the seriesbecomesless as n increases. the flow system reaches an equilibrium condition (steady state) and the pressure at the well becomes constant. Values for ~PD are obtained by evaluating the terms within the braces in Eqs.(2.8. This is in contrast to the bounded reservoir solution.] The solutions which have been presented and the forms resulting from them will be used later in the text to develop the various pressure analysis methods. Since in this casea constant pressureis being maintained at the outer boundary.7 Concepts of Transient. (2.C" C\J ~ II 2. show the deviation from the "infinite reservoir behavior" which results as the effect -~ ~ 1. ~P D. Thus. 2. the steady-statevalue of Pi -Pw/ is proportional to log reD'The specific pressure behavior during the various flow regimes will be discussedin greater detail in the section which follows. 2.. In that case no fluid enters the flow system and the pressure in the well and throughout the reservoir declines with time as a result of the depletion of mass from the system. The results.80 24 tow Fig. Note in Fig.36 which is convenient for use in pressure buildup analysis and determination of average reservoir pressure is obtained by adding and subtracting a term In( ycf>p. <. Also. 2.the exponentials decrease monotonically (e-at'tD~ > e-a22tD~ > ).3. On Fig.. For tDwsufficiently large.8"reD)] where re reD = ~' and .'tD~102(.crw2 to obtain /4kt) 2 Pw/ = Pi +~[ln~Y (t)].31 and 2. 11' { In reD-2 00 ~ n=l 2.90 ! 1. 2. when plotted as in Fig. 2. for sufficiently large tvw..37) of the limited drainage area manifests itself. there is a period of time in which all terms but the first in the summation can be neglected. .0 1(.36. 2..Thus. (After van Everdingen and Hurst. ci.Crw2 4tvw 2 (In reD -4)3 Y(t) = In 4~+ 72+ eD 00 e-a. Until the time of boundary interference in the solutions the pressure behaviors for both casesare identical.12 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS increasing values as n increases.c I ~ 2. as tDw becomes large. This period will be referred to later in the Monograph as the "late transient" period. A comparison of the dimensionlesspressure drop for an infinite reservoir with that for the constant-pressure outer-boundary case is shown on Fig. at the well for the infinite reservoir and bounded cylindrical reservoir cases are shown. a1 < a2 < as "". Further.(2.3 the solutions for the dimensionlesspressure drop. however. The curves for reD= 6 and reD= 8 had broken away earlier.4. constantrate.) YO(.e.20 e-P.) 10 (. Prior to this tDwvalue. again.8"reD) .If we consider a hypothetical example in which the 2.

II c- ~ a. spoken names semi-steady condition usually")vpreclude In steady-state occurrence at constant Row literature. which The.37 gives (puring the the pressure first by behavior behavior Eq./ V --qt P -Pi -'lTre2cf>ch. in 2.. 1S constant.0 reo=300 2.6 3.4 Solutions of the infinite and (After constant-pressure van Everdingen outer and boundary Hurst. EQ.l. then by period C Thu~. 2.P te reservo1r case from the reservoir. anu ~ even stea d y - state -TRANSIENT p: I FLOW ITRANSITIONAL PERIOO I (LATE TRANSIENT) 14 SEMI-STEADY STATE FLOW some. q Pw! (2.8 IxI03 3 5 8 IxI04 3 5 8 IxI05 3 5 8 56. . early producing behavior can 2.36 -. drainage volumetric of the well is - .MATHEMATICAL BASIS FOR PRESSURE ANALYSIS METHODS 13 4 0 .5.LFrom ofby pressure decline Eq.6 .#.ansient{~ wellbore the 1S constant.S prevailing the flow natural of reservoir steadyrate. It st q ua s1 -ea9Y d . nfini e 1 mass pressure decline of . constant Fig.) index of the well is defined as productivity as If there is no more producing t es flow across the drainage time elapses the pressure boundary. behavior debe- V 1 = --.41) . assump~on~ the denvation fulfilled.0 5. h .4~ !m~lies index flow ~at during semi-steady ) d. 2..o-Q Thus. the = ~ [ pressures 1n reD -4 3 ] .31 during and this be time of practical described quite Eq. at 2. 'lTre decline pore volume) is inversely This fact ~~t~~e (2. I .40) pressure will be as the well schematically Substitution -qp. ) that the -between interesting reservoir con~tant factls difference flowing state average pressure and the during semi-steady The volume wePbore flow) This pressure.2 r eo=400 6.8 IxI02 3 5 8 IxI03 reo=200 3. tional b~is the to for t opw! -q --. well.~ in state flow the larger becomes occurs. because of (As time the this l Eq. 2. pletion comes voir regime state occur ~ steadv and that steady fr of om fluid th . constant rate.6. P -Pw! of Eq. - has also been call~~dos ta t e.4 3. plot of reservOIr.re is 1S easlly within the so-called "reservolimiiiest?' a-w~ll. closely.2. established. 2. 2. 2. pressure p~s~e ~~-~~ then flow regarding of the the rate the formation and foregoing solutions behavior depicted of fluid are made in suitably for a on . interest.5 bounded Sche~tIc cIrcular t .2 3.2. floWing Since the difference betwee? the average reservolf and is--ess~~~-same-astliatill-an is described as t.31 I- EQ. ~ I~ - 3. of for When as this reserflow productiVity (The systems state flow. behavior) in the -:=.37.. <] a tow Fig.(2.39) P wf LINEAR PRESSURE DECLINE d Pwf -q rate the of pressure proporis the /dl --~ fluid-filled ~~~~~~~~f (Another the average ?ressu. prc.-t\J a. 2..4 3 a.40 into Eq.(2..:ssure decline constant-rate at the case."C 2. Fig..=' state trans1ent the rate state the throughout time.8 .37 the flow is it well can be during shown semi- EQ.42) deVla .33.") reservoir cases. a linear it is Many function commonly other con9jr~.8 6.

.45) In the second equation above.6. Eqs. ~p(t) t < t . 2.. however.T~e solutions to the flow problems presented earh~r In thIS chapter were for the case of a constant volumetric rate of flow at flowing bottom-hole conditions.(2... braces isin simply 2. the first term is the pressure drop from flow at the first rate.2.. The material in this chapter was meant to be an introduction to these concepts. steadyif there is no mass depletion in the flow system. 2.. 2.larger . The second term is the incremental pressure drop caused by increasing the producing rate by an increment (q2-q1). 2. El (q2-q1)p.kii~PD(t). in mathematical In some reservoIr .p. the 2. consider ~PD as defined by Eq." !~. In this case the well has produced at rate q1 until time ft and was then changed to rate q2' The resulting pressure behavior is shown.36 the terms contained At tim .* sum of or 2.31.kii ~PD(t) ~PD(t-tJ In the chapters of the Monograph which follow.36 and 2.6. the dimensionless q2 r.38 are written for r=r. We obtain at two PRODUCT'DN RATE shown on Fig./21Tkh ~p(t) for -~ 2 Ei .crw2 -4k(t-t) 1 ) . amount (q2 -q1).38.31 the function in the braces must be evaluated at r=r. 21Tkh time is so slight that it is practically undetectable. rate the Suppose hist?ry haVIor. . = 2. e ft th e pro d uction. = 2. This increase in P roduction causes an additional pressure drop as shown on Fi g. In such cases the ass~ption of steady-state flow is sometimes warranted. The pressure behavior during the period from time ft onward can be calculated by adding to the pressure drop caused by rate q1 an additional pressure dro p caused Pwf 1 ADDITIONAL PRESSURE. we wish to d~rive case IS shown the pressu~e be- an understanding simple case of on FIg. further ~scussion of the various flow regimes and the flow times at which they occur will be presented.) \ at the well is given Ap(t) where = Pi -Pw! is simply by q1Jl.~.6 Production and pressu~ history of a well which has produced at two rates.38 reduces to PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS by production ward Thus.21T q1Jl. For these situations we make use of a very powerful mathematical technique commonly referred to as the 'principle possIble the for arbitrary constant-rate To develop of su~erposition. in the This Eqs.. DROP CAUSEDINCREASING 8Y PRODuCTION RATE AMOUNT q.44) pressure : I " I (q2-q.!~ 4kt ) ... During havior the first time interval the pressure drop beq q. 2. ) be given by pressure analysis techniques to be discussed involve the use of pressure data obtained at more than one flow rate. some of the ( -~~4kt.. 1 -. which its solutions.7. a well stant rate throughout will not have produced at conits life. In other words. superposition we flows shall and gain the as consider rates ' = t < t would 1- Ap(t) -~Ei 41Tkh -4 ( -. ' ~PD = In this case Pi-Pw!= qp. 2.. This prin.43) pressure c hange WIt h to of tim~ Eq.ciple makes generation of pressure behaVIor solutions producing-rate schedules from the basic pressure of a well behavior of use. ~p(t) = ~ kh ~PD(t) + (q2 -qJp. These expressions are valid regardless of whether q2 is or smaller than q1' To illustrate the use of relationbi1ips such as those of Eqs.45. i! ~ : :' ~PD(t) I drop at the well for the applicable outer boundary condition. in time for at a rate (q2 -q1) beginning at time forthe this case for large time and can be shown by numerical t1.8 Principle of Superposition of Variable-Rate Pressure and Approximation Histories (2. Further. which. 2. kh 1T we have ( q. solution flow we continue at rate the pre-t1 from solution past t1 and add to it (or (q2 -q1)we have terms superpose) ft onward. O<t<ft. This now that a more complex the principle for.l AN (q2I I 'I t *In Eq. 2.. In general. 2.31.: . --. however. the . -~ 1n reD sys tems (2.) .PRODUCTION IS rate Increased by an PRESSURE CAUSED DROP 8Y AT RATE q " . ~trictly state flow can only occur occurring at any point speaking.14 pressure evaluation is independent to simplify q Pw! = P. Fig.

For example.t)] -~ /::::..1~o2l!:. --~ .k1i" /::::.-/::::.e. 61 f or an appI Icat Ion 0f the pr1nclp Ie 0f superposition similar to that given by Eq. ~PD( t . 2.. It is important that the reader understand the principle of superposition and its application to stepwise rate sequences.p(t) -~ /::::. The principle of superposition can also be ex- Fig. (2. /::::. the pressure drop during the nth period is given by = -& /::::. ~y the incremental ra~e change (qs -q2). ..46) * + + (qs -Q2)p. This additional pressure drop IS given by ~~.PD(tti-l) ] . We see. we start as before. 21Tkh .t"-l ) + . (q2-qJp. then the pressure behavior (pressure buildup) during this period is given by Pi -PWB = ~ qlp. *8 8 t ee ec Ion. Eq./::::.46a) P. The pressure history for an arbitrary rate history is the sum of the pressure histories for incremental rates of production.PD(t"-l + /::::.MATHEMATICAL BASIS FOR PRESSURE ANALYSIS METHODS 15 pressure behavior again by simply superposing the basic solutions. .PD(t) + 2 kh /::::.PD(t-t1) As before.PD(t) .. 2~.PD -t2) (t Thus./::::. Although we have illustrated application of this method with a monotonically increasing rate sequence.p(t) -2.(q" 1T 1T At time t2 the rate changes from Q2to qs. then. 1T t [/::::.I I I I : I tI I I I I :2 t 13 t where tn-l is the total elapsed producing time prior to shut-in and /::::.PD(t-t1) /::::. This is nothing more than reapplication at each rate change of the basic principle which we illustrat d . 21Tkh /::::. the method andequations are applicable to arbitrary stepwise rate variations..kh ditional pressure drop ~aused.PD(t-t2) -q"-l)p.p(t) = 2".PD(t) + (qS-q2)p.7 Production and pressure history of a well with . /::::. /::::. the pressure drop during the initial time period is t :5: t1 : q1Jl. if the rate during the nth period is zero..PD(t-t2) 21Tkh.PD(t)+ J~~~!!:. 2. qi -qi-l ql Eq.t) .46 is the general form of the principle of superposition for the case of generation of pressure behavior for stepwise rate histories. ./::::. For each r~te change the bas~c pnnclple 1~ alv:ays the continue the old solution forward In time and add to it (or superpose on it) t~e adQitional pressure drop caused by the latest change In rate.p(t) q1Jl.tis the closed-in time measured from the instant of shut-in.(2. 2. .." stepwise IncreasIng rate history.. 2.PD(t-t1) .. for the second period t1 :5: t :5:t2 : -Q1Jl. /::::.PD(t) + i=2 . that for a sequence of n rates. each of which becomes operative at the time each new rate begins.46.46 is completely valid also if one or more of the producing rates is zero (well closed in). l /::::. .t) + n-1 ~ i=2 qi -qi-l ql /::::. so we must add to the solution for the second period an ador -q1Jl. h 21Tk . The majority of the pressure analysis techniques which are presented later in the text q qI : I tit : I I 2 I I I t3 PRESSURE employ superposition methods. /::::.PD(/::::. + (q2 -ql)p. .PD (t"-l -ti-l I + /::::.p(t) = ~/::::. i. This equation expresses the pressure behavior of a closed-in well which has produced prior to shut-in with a variable-rate history. For the case shown on Fi. during the third period t2 :5: t :5: ts : PRODUCTION RATE q 4 .same: the two-rate example.

q ~ ma ematica. . New York (1949).. . a ows practical umts to be used m application. mam?u ~tions. Prentice-Hall. 2. or . In this case the summation can be written as an integral of the form -1 ql Th'e time group. This dual set-up is quite handy.. Everdingen. .. qp. Hildebrand. Trans. B.46 that the rate and time steps are taken to be infinitesimally small.46 becomes 6Pt = .cr 102 ciple and those who are interested in a discussionof its th ti ma ema . Suppose or stepwise form we have as with thus the discrete in Eq.. Hubbert. val}. W. . Frequent reference will be made it. . . we employ a systemof units commonly referred to as Darc umts Th ' th ti 1 d ti. b 11 . 2' 'l'JA. It prevents the occurrence of cumbersome numerical constants in th th 1 1 . and h t e umts ' systems we . AIME (1956) 207 222-239. References ~ I.o. 2. Eq. . li I n gener. th ' . F.000264....47) pi-p1O=10-3./41Tkhin Darcy units is 70. ung b I t 1 negra. tion of the Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs".q1JL [ 6Pn(t) 2 kh 1T 1 + -ql t J dq(or) d 0 .Variable y . and Hurst. ' 2. t ' al 1 IS so th Fal we have .. tD is called IDe. can e app e to so utions 0 near erenti equa-.Inc. -162. field as "Oilfield Units".6 qp.6 qp. we must set forth the system of units to be employed in the text. Pouille and SeguierI9 have introduced a method of allowing for bl t hi h 1 ki 'th h L I vana e ra es w c mvo ves wor ng WI t e ap ace transforms of the pressure and rate histories.and when re is substituted. f This concludes the mathematical concep~ portion 0 the Monograph.B/kh in practical units.. UNITSFOR PARAMETERS VARIABLES AND USED CHAPTER IN 2 Parameter or DarcyUnits PracticalUnits* vol/vol/atm vol/vol/psi rI> fraction fraction h cm ft k darcies md JL cp c~ p atm / pSI (subsurface (stock-tank conditions) conditions) r cm ft t sec hr * "Practical Units" are also referredto as "Practical OilUnits" and also I . pnn! 162. no significant advantages over the classical superposition technique.10 Units-Field Unit and Darcy Unit Systems Before discussing the pressure analysis methods in detail. es are re f erre d t 0 C ars 1 aw an d . own Ii 12 I as n D th u e con 1.1. tnw = 0. of the ] 6Pn(t -or )dor . (2. F.000264 kt + 0.AIME (1949) 186. Trans. and eliminates the stepwise superposition procedure This method IS difficult to apply computationally and offers pressure analysis methods are based. . .Cr1O2 [ kt ] ]. . . For the purpose of the mathematical derivations contained herein. que the 0 f thi umts s ty pe systems. e superposItion f li diff nncip tec ' al hni e -..crw The quantity qp.351 </>JA.23. Two sets of units are used. I n presenting al prope rti . ame tin .1 shows the units in the two systems . we will employ a system of practical oilfield units. M.. quantities made no attempt . 305324. the m text of this Monograph as dimensionless time. equIvalently. c Jaeger f t 9 or tl requen y W kn y e. 2.: Advanced Calculus for Engineers. . are re f Readers erre d t 0 Interested R e f S. tn = ~' kt. .B [log 0. King: "Darcy's Law and the Field Equations of the Flow of Underground Fluids". When rw is substituted for r.c sente us ar m e report employ this system. ut.: "The ApplicaA. 1 al .6 Pi -Pro! -kh or. 5 an m a presentation d 13 .B kh g </>p.. t J dq(or) kt d or 6Pn(t -or )dor' 0 where oris the variable of integration corresponding to ti-l in the discrete form. For application to field data of the various mathematical expressions.46 IS quite adequate to handle the effects caused by variable flow rates. . Using these conversions as a basis. IS referred to .. particularly to the basic assumptions and limitasolutions tions of the mathematical upon which the For most well-test analysIs applications Eq.to . Barenblatt18 and Chaumet. Table 2. superposItion . 3. Eq. for example. 2. It serves as the foundation for the methods to follow. s uous P ' ' f orm e or .In practical units. '" This IS the continuous form . Numencal examples are given with the practical equations to make clear the correct units.33 of the text becomes. theIr to start WIth the basIc and then to h 1 dimensIons.16 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS pressed in continuous formdealtopposed to far. tD is called tD. tions obtained for constant boundary conditions to generate solutions for time-varying boundary conditions d . TABLE I-DARCY ANDPRACTICAL 2." h ave emp 1 oye physIcal develop d . cc sec B/D . e ma ema ca enva ons pred th f th .. 2.

?(Q{'t :~.4 in practical oilfield units of psi. . In this case **See Section2.' .4.1 shows a plot of data from a new well in an oil iservoir. ~ressu.'" 3.Crro2 ) . as may be seen f1lom Eq.. Therefore* * * kh = 162.\~.B m or P. -Pw.31) for one well in an infinite reservoir."!.uB kh (I+ ~I ~t ) .(1J )!"'.. 1T ~I In these equations we have used Pw..6qp.:. As may be seen. one-well reservoir containing a fluid of small and constant compressibility.303 qp/4trkh.5) Extrapolation of the straight-line section to an infinite shut-in time. Modifications necessary for application of this equation to other cases will be discussedlater in this chapter..u1 ( 2 ) ( ycf>p..al logarithm. 2. -Pw."'. I + ~I .10 for derivation of the factor 162. absolute value of the slope of the curve m is equal to the coefficient of the logarithm term in Eq. This is true in all uses of the slope throughout the Monograph. (3. = (pressure drop caused by rate q for time t + ~t) + (pressure drop caused by rate change -q for time ~t).q I Chapter 3 . -4kii qp.4'"' Pressure Buildup Analysis ~. 3.2) * In drop is 4k t q... We begin with the "line source" solution (Eq.". we should obtain a straight line.dJ(.4)..4a) so that the pressure P. as P.crw + 4.fIJtA . cp. I!'ii\i\\.' ..ucrw2) This equatio~ tells us tha~ if we plot the pressure Pw-. it is a solution for an infinite. "In" will refer to the natur. 3. qp.8. we obtam the. As might be expected.:a:Y!!~~os~perioa vs the iOgarithni ~f + ~t) I ~t. a ~{'r'.enow ~lose m our w~ll for a time ~t.(!iMJJM .3) 2 (3. which was presented by Homer1 in 1951. This equation indicates that after a well has produced at rate q for time t. to designatethe ( ) *Throughout this Monograph.. the bottom-hole flowing well pressure P"'f will be given by 2 ( -~ ) . homogeneous. i'..e.~c::( ff'1t'{ ::"JltMl'J ::'c"!i. 1n. + ~Ei 41Tkh 4kt which at times of interest reduces to -q}l.. = P. Eq. j.ill:'!. Pwf -P.(>OE . Pro.1) Pwf = P.4.. ycf>p.'~. ---q. 3 .'\"~~. 3. (3. As discussedin the previous chapter.i.kJi1 n n 4k(t + ~t) ( Ycf>.6-log + _ kh 4 1T ( yCP}l... Pig.6. well pressure after shut-in and Prof to designate the pressure during the production period before closing in. after ~roducmg for ti~e ~.._.4a. ***Only the magnitude (not the + or -sign) of the slope should be used in this equation.crw ) 4k~t (3..redrop ~t time ~t by the pnncIple of superposItion discussed m Section 2.. [(t + ~t)1 ~t] ~~y~s a pressure we will call p* throughout this Monograph. Note that the slope is also given by m = 2. will be our basic equation for pressure buildup analysis.!~':j':'~~::~ . md and ft. i~'r . = P. 3.. note th at the 1 . 3.u -4.(t If ". When we express Eq. while "log" will refer to the base 10 logarIthm.jiJi --q.(3. . T 0 ana1yze the curve m PIg.1 Basic Method In the previous chapter we developed the basic equations for describing the pressure behavior in an oil reservoir.J. BID.k"h Pwf 1n 4kt' . -162. ({. the theory and practice ~gree very well in this case. this factor is also discussedin the Nomenclature. it becomes** Pro. the equation applies quite well without modification to newly completed wells in oil reservoirs above the bubble point. and -4. o~~. In this chapter we will show how these are applied in analyzing pressure buildup curves.(3.

As will be discussedlater. partial well penetration.7) Here-s is called the skin IaC"fOf. one should. Additional pressure buildups will usually be made to obtain values for kh and wellbore damageafter a well is completed and "cleans up". 3.To account for the fact that the production rate of a well may vary considerably over its life.1 Pressurebuildup in a nearly ideal reservoir. In the idealized case shown there. the order of magnitude of the skin effect can be estimated from the difference between the pressure before shut-in and that shortly after. 3. theoretically. The slope of the curve will be the same (though reversed in sign) whether Pro.41 3. Section 3.. ~P. In the case of one well in an infinite reservoir. qp.an e 5 d th e resu lti. the effect of a reduction in permeability near the well can be taken into account as an additional pressure drop ~p proportional to the rate of production q. 3.een cumulative well production smce completion production rate just before closing in wellbore damage. In finite reservoirs and even in infinite reservoirs containing more than one well. but usually slightly greater than.2 Skin Effect. Thus. the drillstem test values usually need only be approximate. ng e ff e ct a " skin effect". Determination of kh and p* in this manner forms two of the basic steps in pressure buildup analysis. To calculate the skin factor.p1at Pro. Invasion by drilling fluids. Skin Factor. vs ~!E=~o~ be ex_tra~la!ed to p *in a ~im~ manner so that it is usually s~.buil~up). Since the effect is close to the well._S~_:!~a~oximation-I~a better ~e for o~~~ng kh from short production tests ana-drlllstem tests.6 will be less than 10 percent. The zone of reduced permeability has b ca 11 d a " s ki n "4 .:kji"" ( ) (3. the error in kh arising from use of Eq. For all these reasons. 3. Eq.kln immediately after shutin.8 to approximate the true rate history (see also. Nisle8 has shown that if the production time subsequentto a short term shut-in is at least 10 times the duration of the shut-in.4we define the skin ~actor as. a constan~ s w~ch relates the pressure drop m the skin to the dimensionlessrate of flow. limited perforation. However.2). p* is less than the original pressure after some depletion occurs. tn. and plugging of perforations are some of the factors responsible for this reduction in permeability. . and Flow Efficiency Skin Effect In many cases it has been found that the permeability of the formation near the wellbore is reduced as a result of drilling and completion practices. A method similar to this has also been suggestedby Trebin and Shcherbakov. is plotted vs log ~t or log [(t+~t)/ ~t]. presence of a high gas saturation around the wellbore. the approximation of Eq. p* is approximately equal to. over-~11. 6) Another approximation for t and q has been discussed bY~_~d. 3.8) ~ 1260 ~ ~1240 m :: 1220 ~ 120 118 100 10 It+ 6t) /6t I :) This flowing pressure Prof is lower by an amount sqp. Hence. However. dispersion of clays.method should be used. as may be seen from Eq.2 (from Hurst5). an acceptable approXimation.PRESSURE BUILDUP ANALYSIS 19 ii* = pi. a plot of Pro. presence of a mud cake and of cement. p* is also the initial reservoir pressure. as discussedbelow.6 will be used throughout this Monograph.. the pressure should rise by an amount ~P. Note that for values of ~t small compared with t (the usual case during a. = [ In ( rc/>JiCrIO2 -2s ] 4kt ) .8). after van Ev~rdingen. 3.6 leads to correct extrapolated pressures and to reasonably accurate values for kh and 1320 130 -~ ~1280 Skin F'attor . For interpreting short produ~tion tests and for obtaining accurate kh values from drillstem tests. .Quantitatively. In practice.After introducing Eq. The skin effect is illustrated in Fig. it is necessary measure to - Fig. The difference between Pi and p* is a reflection of this depletion. Even for these cases./21Tkh than the pressure in the absence of a skin (see Eq. 3..the-itiiti-alpressure. we find for the well pressure after a production time t PIO! Pi + ~ qp. transients caused by it are of small duration and may be neglected.4a.vs log ~t should also be a straight line.(3. the plot orplO. the Odeh and Seli~. 3.kln = S 2:. use the principle of superposition discussed in Section 2. 3. is to take the rate q as the last rate before closing in and to compute the flowing time from t = .7 into Eq. The quantity p* is the pressure which would be obtained at infinite shut-in time.2. vs 102 r CL-!:~ bt.)-I-M. the average pressure in the drainage area around the well.

kh" WELL BORE . Rearranging this equation. W *1 .give~ the pressure before cloSIng m. -4. 3.303../41Tkh by its equivalent based on Eq..4 is only applicable to the straight-line portion of the curve. This is necessary because Eq.4.9) For ~t small compared with t. .3 Pressurebuildup showing effect of wellbore damageand afterproduction. choosing ~t = 1 hour so that P". the pressure PI hr is obtained from the straight-line portion of the pressure buildup curve 1 hour after closing in. WIth Eq.. 3.PRESSURE DROP P 1. we find PIC' -PIc! --qp.. If the pressure buildup curve is not straight at 1 hour.". it is necessaryto extrapolate the straightline portion of the curve backward to early times. we get for s SK 0 ZON DA m . The italicized statement is most important. 3. 11A ..20 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS the well pressure both before and after closing in. and introducing practical oilfield units. The pressure Pw! is that measured before closing in.. f1 1m!: II JJ !i~~ FLOWING PRESSURE s = 1. = PI hr. skin ACROSS SKIN "" "~. By co~bini~g ~q. it is necessary to extrapolate the curve backward as shown on I 6tt 4600 ~ ~ . 3.. r"I 4400 4200 4000 3 3 34 I (t+6t)/6t 100 Fig..~. hours 10 100 In this equation we have replaced the factor qp."« STATIC PRESSURE [ In ( 'Y<J>JLCrw2 ~t» ) -2s (t + 4kt(~t) ] (3. 3.(. illji » PRESSURE IN !~ FORMATION !: ::. 3.23 (3. To compensatefor this well fillup effect.10) ] FROM HURST5 Fig. Usually.8 which .3. 3.4 which gives the pressure after closing in. we can approximate (t + ~t)/t as 1. -- . the curve deviates from a straight line becauseof flow into the wellbore after the well is closed in at the surface. The basic theory does not take this into account. Fig.2 Pressure distributionin a reservoirwith a skin. at early times.151[PI hr -PIc! -log m (-~ <J>JLCrw2 )+ 3. m/2.

11) -Ihe flow efficiency has also_been called the~ ~ctivity ratio.etuc/ttti(t( -7'-C"-u 4 voirs if production time is not long but become poor with additional production. enter only into a logva I ues IS not re- . 1n!!r ' w = 1n!-!r + 8 w riDe-B. in this zone are related to the skin factor 8 by6 Vlrnp~.Jldw Smce J = ~ .12) 3. is 3(.7 which. (3. the condition ratio.0 after a fracture Example Calculation for formation. the effective er than r. They vary from 3 X 10-6 to 10 X 10-6 psi-!. -q actual -.~' PRESSURE BUILDUP ANALYSIS fJ -t.~ quantity ~P..H. 21 *" become ~.C' Flow efficiencies of about 2. Since compressibilities an. Ii! p". the average pres~ure. The compressibility of gas-saturated water varies from 15 X 10-6 psi-l at 1. only compressibility or riD' = If 8 is positive..3. For example. Thus. ':~ . ( ~k. d e ffi Pressure clency.kln ' *Strictly speaking. we have presented tibns for only one well in an infinite reservoir. e e e s ra us as a w c ma es e calculated pressure drop in an ideal reservoir equal to that in an actual reservoir with skin. and since this quantity oc- we obtain curs in both.87 I~DA'U 3 = Thus..5)." e ec ve we ore ra us . little error is v'F.3. compressibility of non-gas saturated water varies fr~2 X 10-6 to 4 X 10-6 psi-l 3 X 10-6 psi-l is usually satisfactory. Thus. using the equation shown at the bottom of the sheet. 8 will be positive.. Rock Oil com- must theoretically travel through addito give the required pressure drop). the permeabilities are equal. one should use p. r ' W d fin thi di th t hi h k th w. of the "skin" zone around the well and the permeability k. than that in the may reach 5. 33 B d dR .445 + 2(70) The or p* total = 4. rather than p* in this _equation. the To obtain p* in Fig.kin IS obtained . numerator caused by USIng p*. pressibilities are of the order of 10 X 10-6 psi-l. .. upon the efficiency with which a well has been drilled and completed this provided by a "flow efficiency".'In this section we will discuss modifications of previously presented theory to enable its usage in bounded reservoirs. are good approximations for bounded -equations ~.7 and the com~~~ tacror. . This effective wellbore radius concept is especially useful in discussing results of hydraulic fracturing. for Example 1-is-obtained form from The. G.-p* efficIency -p* -Pwf -~P. the flow treatment./41Tkh. 'P. FI A better relative ow Eff " Ic/ency than skin effect for deciding bilities may be obtained from Hallll (Fig. 3. te that even I f k d k t t No . we must extrapolate from P = 4. for rw = 3 in. 9 7J.0 may be obtained after if the permeability in the skin zone is less than if if that in the rest of the formation...7a) -- The radius r. reasonably m th elr . p* = 4.)1. index accurate values for skin and ..585 psig. may ge lIb aroun di " s h b ld pressure UI up curve sown m FIg. the permeability in the skin is greater hydraulic fracturing in formations permeability. reservoIr IS above the bubble pomt.10. Gun e eservolrs equaThese reser- Thus far in this chapter. Finally. where P ermea b i li t y from Eq 3 . 8 will be zero. .000 psi (see Ramey12). thmi c t erm. since p* IS a good approximation for p. (Appendix . as from fracturing or acidizing.. . I IS no possible to obtain both the radius of the skin and its . the effective wellbore of -3 radius and -5 is larger corre8 values and use of a value of compressi- than r w.445 psig (at right ordinate) two cycles to the right at a slope of 70 psi/cycle.ne 11 0 t thi difficulty by defin mg an . . 8 -will be negative. It is best to obtain the oil compressibility laboratory measurements (see also TrubeIO).... ..000 psi to 5 X 10-6 psi-l at 5. are convemently ...:.kln -Pwf from Eq. This d fin d f IS e e as e ratio 0 actual productiVIty mdex of a well to its productivity index if there were no skin (8 = 0).~ff~ and denominator. T~ ~ choos~ wo~erel'y ~t ch~~e_the == 10 !!o~s~v!!!~e of the cQns~~ the constant would nr2-21. kh. spond to effective well radii of 5 and 37 ft.303 qp.(3. Example . rw (3.. Hydraulically fractured wells often show values of 8 ranging from -3 to -5. buildup calculations 1).o (fluids tiona1 formation If 8 is negative. respectively. 8 and are for flow sheet the summanze~ Calculations on a form 3. wellbore radius riD' is small- ff ti .i:? IP It would have been possible to choose any time besides 1 hour in developing Eq. 8 an rw are nown. B..23. 3.V other so Flow The using . p* -Pwf A solution for the pressure behavior of a well in and J Ideal = p* -Pwf q ~ ~P.- (~~-==19.£ .W-~ncy .8 When subtracted from unity it gives the damage factor.. 1 ) In 2. in low-permeability efficiency of moderately high formations.. However. high accuracy quired to obtain damage. I-tp.-lQl m = 2.

kji"" 13" [( In Yc/>JLCr".2 4kt -Y(t) ) ] ..2 ) 4kt' .:. If there are other wells in a reservoir.:.:. we see that p* has the same meaning in an equation written for a bounded reservoir as does Pi in an equation written for an infinite reservoir. it is the reservoir area. from Eq. qp.:. If on Fig.t)~ Y(t). it is possible to estimate p from the extrapolated value of p*.i!!' [ (t+ L. For some time after a well is closed in it can be treated as if its drainage boundary still exi~ts.13a) On comparing this equation for a bounded reservoir with Eq.22 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS a bounded cylindrical reservoir was obtained in Chapter 2. An equation written for pressure behavior in an infinite reservoir may be immediately rewritten for the finite reservoir case by substituting p* for Pi. 2.(3. gomg methods cannot be used.t) ~ 0* and Y(t+ L.tion at the other wells is to cause a well to be surrounded by a drainage boundary. 2. For a circular drainage area.13.t) -Y(L. the effect of predfJ(. We will use this corollary later in the Monograph. +"4. 3.5 as a function of kt/c/>/LcA. a well surrounded by other wells will have a buildup curve qualitatively similar to that in Fig.tim~.(3. 3.:. for one well in a bounded reservoir.t)/ L. Thus.Y(L.:.t. strictly speaking. However..4 we extrapolate the straight-line portion of the buildup curve to ~nfinite closed-in .:. is plotted vs In [(t+ L.!!!!:. we find the extrapolated value.(3.t. On one side of this boundary fluid flows toward that well. as shown. O -- . as will be discussed later under Interference Tests.-p -* + "4.14.(3.:. [(I + L.obtaining P". the average pressure p m this bounded reservoIr.t] and extrapolated to [(t+ L.36a.t ) ] . 3. Discussion of the use of graphs such as Fig. Thus. p* will be less than Pi and the difference will increase with increasing production time. Fig. we find that the e~ect of the two Y(t) terms is to cause the pressure buIldup curve to bend over at large time.4.2 for an infinite reservoir.15 into Eq.:.15) greater than the average pressure p. ' . 3. 3. and on the other side toward another well. Y(t) is a positive function which increases with time. " * T0 Sh ow th IS we must repIace th e term In [( Y"'I'C'F.t) From Eq. 2. For a cylindrical. Returning now to Eq.:. Usually a well will not be closed ~ long enough to obtain the flattening and to observe p. Values of p* -p for drainage areas of other shapes will be found in Chapter 4. 3.14) Qoo 61 .Y(t).or Three-Phase Flow B 1ow t he bubble pomt 0f the 01 . 3. This has an important corollary.4 Pressure Buildup For Two. 3. 3. bounded reservoir.-e ~ll ~pproach.t] = 1. caused by the fact that no fluid can flow in across the outer cylindrical boundary. 3. 3. gas flow will begin.:.:.t) on the change at time L.. asymptoti~ally.5 toobtainpfromp*willbedeferredtoChapter4.)/ 4kt] in Y(t) by the equivalentEi-function. 3.. we obtain a value p* which IS L. 3. p*. At this time the pressure buildup behavior is governed by the more complicated nonlinear differential equations given in Chapter 2.14 as p* = P.:. we obtain p".36a of that chapter gives the following relation for flowing pressure Prof.13 at time (t + L. the reservoIr. we superposethe pressure drop given by Eq. On evaluating Y(t) from Eq. For very long closed-in times this is not true.!.:. The quantity A is the drainage area of the well. The flattened curve . A more extended discussion of average well and reservoir pressuresis presented in Chapter 4. If we substitute Eq.:. 3. 41Tkh . we see that it differs from the case of one well in an infinite reservoir by the two Y(t) terms. also in practical oilfield units (see Nomenclature). and since the equations are nonlinear. = P.kji""ln q/L ( Yc/>JLCr". as shown by Fig.t] / / = 1. Eq. 13) to developequations for (p* -p) vs time for drainage areas of various shapes.6. This is done by using the Ei-function and other functions developed in Chapter 2 (see Ref. a graph of (p* -P>/(q/L/41Tkh) in oilfield units is given in Fig.t + Y(t + L. the fore. To obtain the shut-in pressure in this bounded reservoir.4Observed pressure buildupcurve In well In finite reservoir.t) L.4.t) L.36a we find that for small L.. --.1015.13) ~ 12 j PROBABLE The factor (q/L/41Tkh) Y(t) may be thought of as a pressure drop additional to that in an infinite reservoir.. Then when Pro. --In q/L 41Tkh p=1190psiQ II 10 .1 m . P"" = P. as shown in Fig.

000264 9>JLCA kt . DRAINAGE BOUNDARY 1 ~ ~ :) <n <n ~ ~ 0- WELL RELATIVE I RATE I WELL RELATIVE 2 RATE 2 NOTE: WELL PRESSURES ARE FAR ARE BELOW NOT THE SHOWN FOR EITHER WELL. one should first note that the pressure in the oil phase in a given pore in the reservoir will be almost the same as that in the gas phase in tQe same or an adjacent pore. First. for practical purposes the buildup will be identical in 7 each phase. Secondly. DIAGRAM PRESSURES BOTTOM OF THE Fig 3. We might expect that we could apply. the single-fluid methods if we use total compressibility and 6 5 .6 Pressuredistribution in a 2:1 rectangularreservoir. at least approximately.5 Pressure function for one well in centerof cylindricalreservoir. If we concentrate our attention on the oil phase.c Ia. Two differences will arise.10 Fig. Thus. 3. the compressibility will be higher in any set of pores because of the presence of gas. the change in pressure with distance and time will be caused by the simultaneous flow of both oil aJld gas.1 0. The two pressures will differ by the oil-gas capillary pressure. ~ 4 m *1 a. however. :l 0lD ~ "3 2 1 0 0. which for most situations of interest will be less than a few pounds per square inch.01 ) 0. To arrive at the modifications. ~- . that with modifications the above methods also apply quite well below the bubble point. we can liken the buildup in this phase to buildup in a single-phasesituation.PRESSURE BUILDUP ANALYSIS 23 Practical experience has shown.

flow the to and for be s in except single-phase correct Eq.21a.:cp ar = (k/ JL where mobility. well.ho differe~tial gas.ed for in P"'t this may by just first values values p dividing before note following example.21a) phase..' by percent not pointed buildup Eq.k ~~ ( gas at volume average factor of well computed pressure . ./ pSI cyce I ) .21) m = 162. or kg. basis Tracy17 for such p = C1 El .5 Pressure Buildup in Gas Wells E . flowing by Fig.18 the and two-phase 3.18) B y gas t hi s same reasonmg . to what should we the would well this the point slope be. also which producing cumulative in. for the = Z - T( 8e formation T P .Bg It can be shown that.17. and that superposing the slope of to the obtain resultant a buildup pressure expressed accuracy q In practical oilfield units. noted gas apparent Perrine. and Up out curve 3. methods theoretical the be differential combined differthis is The true.6 q"p. flow In example was efficiency buildup reduced near the gas saturation When Eq. of the oil clos- influences purpose (or a value obtaining methods.where (psi/cycle). at Note the that.:2 + 1 -. ~t] ex~apolated this slope also average of change the pressure From slope Eqs. The the equation (k / JL ) t This the recommend t for and production the t does but Since only the an gas. basis equations as ential discussed equation. partial p = ~ 41Tkoh Ei ( -tpCtr2 ) + 4t(k/JL)t C2. works of Perrine to applyof the Ct is total compressibility </ICe ) t and (k/ JL) t is total op ~' ..24 total results These equations foregoing applicable. Bg the P"'8' the should As is computed In this equation qg = qgt represents the flow according -qoR8 (3. oil be by are may derivation that. .. 3.. obtained the oil for influence rate this. methods has presented may also a good be applied discussion to of gas the wells. = m = 162 6 .16. since is flow. In 2 the our and permeability example 2A).(3.6 Y log t + ~t ~t ) also Ref. xpenencehas shown th at these pressurebuild up tpCtr2 -4t(k/JL)t ) + C2 ." (3 19) arithmetic d 0" qg J.' (3. P"'8 = p* -162. given by is it completely gives a The numerical analogous justification final for justification.20) between pressure buildup.16 this condition given by is substituted into the solution to 3. use that Exis calculation have calculated curve for (Appendix ko analyzed two-phase authors for differential with the were amples of In the C t most interest. (3. of 3. the be the 3. the the the wellbore presence can case worked to wellbore. single-fluid is Weller. Martiw6 approach two-phase Section single-fluid given showing additional how flow give the may obtaining same and single-phase to replace radial 2.oBo koh . for s. p. the permeability B. either to gas.16) time water oil to this for in mobility of instead Perrine14 solved two-phase and the of the Weller15 applicable flow the has by and single-fluid show quantities.. the cited pressure to use distribution) t which have by reflects been dividing length in pressure This by the transients is oil done rate production ing As in. reason not value for for kh p* the zone. As single-fluid ing course. that at the this equation equation. we r = find r". to average Eq. (3.5 to quantities. 3.(3. PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS ko.an only of free gas.17) ideal thod results approximation. that partial showed that.. o2p a:. the the of its for as skin as we to oil. arithmetic p* with of P'O8 vs and P* . ( application. by to use of the rule for differentiating a definite by Aronofsky . lead of a to out 70 effect. Such approximationis based upon work it leads. with acceptable Putting curve. solutions radial and equation 19 and to flow their can the the of mebe integral. buildup factor for used be modifications.19. the To closing that obtained obtained is in to the the effective cumulative just before obtain oil understand used and and average we time oil wish the reservoir.7. we this 3.14 by measured boundary by saturation skin the the Perrine and around Weller. discussion). of On the and Jenkins18 obtained equations basis of the (see numerical describing their buildup by oR ( buildup curve is qoJLo/41Tkoh. we buildup see that curve we may to use calculate the changes curve the time log well during [(t+~t)/ ~ -- . completing We demonstrat. If need the of we to abbve the were apply analysis two-phase to the solve has pressure differential condition high an qo = ~~ JLo ( r ~ or ) i'=r. P8e + P"'8 )/2 .

~ .2 !!. The curve analyzedin this caseis Fig. 3. See Ref. 3.c ~t (3 21b) From this it can be seenthat a plot of PIC. 3. it In derivingboth Eqs. When these assumptions are not allowable. therefore.uis shown in Appendix B. 3.8.21 it can be seenthat the plot of PIC.plot is preferred in this range.At pressures is above2.we recommend as the commonmethod. this product is often more nearly constant than .21.2O-23 additional pressuredrop The is proportionalto the productionrate q and acts just like additional wellbore damage.615. 3. This changewill usuallybe negligible. 38 for an account this method. From Eq. an additionalpressure drop will be introduced near the wellbore due to non-DarcyftoW.au conis stant.2 log vs [(t+ ~t) / ~t] should be a straight line if . Cuand /l. One cannot determine both the skin factor s and the non-Darcy b.000 1000 10 (I-At IIAt Fig. The restof the analysis straightforward is as shown on Example 3.c1 PRESSURE BUILDUP ANALYSIS 25 slightly with time. The method of obtaining Bu. log [(t+~t)/ ~t] shouldbe straightif the prodvs uct . By substitutingEq. Ramey and Crawfords8 have shown that one can define a pseudopressurefor a gas which leadsto a form of the pressure buildup equationanalogous Eq.21b.we have obtained very satisfactoryresuItswith the "unsquared"PIC. It is only necessary convertthe gasrate in cubic feet per day to to barrels per day by dividing by 5. Even at low pressure. it was necessaryto assume that the pressuregrp.21a into Eq. and it will usuallybe satisfactory approximate to PIC.auBu constant. Example3A.auand thus the PIC. hours 1 10 130 12 II 100 9 r 'i 8 7 100. by in Whenthe gas equationis used in this form. one ~ PIC.~~ = log( ~) kgizT. can better handle presone sure buildup in very low-permeabilitygas reservoirs when these are produced at high rates. AI-Hussainy. PIC! the equationfor Bu.000 psi.000 10. 3. By using to this gas pseudo-pressure. of At high rates of gasproduction.The skin effect s' for this caseis written s' = s + Dq.plot and. 3.t. one can use exactly the same form sheetfor buildup analysis in gas wells as was used with oil wells.a and z are constant.2 p*2 -325. obtainsthe following.21 and rearranging.21 and 3.dient small and is that .7 Pressure buildupin a reservoirwhenboth oil and gasare flowing.

Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering.t. The subject of gas-well flow testing is so extensive that it cannot be covered completely in this Monograph. The buildup method furnishes more fundamentally sound data and the mathematical equation allows prediction over a much longer period of time than does the common flow-after-flow test. Some aspectsof gas-well flow tests will be covered in Chapter 5 of this Monograph. then the non-Darcy effect is negligible. An analytical prediction method for gas reservoirs has been presented by Swift and Kiel. non-Darcy flow effects should be small.. This is especially true in low-permeability reservoirs. conducted after producing the well at different rates.21If the skin effect s' is constant on two successivebuildups in a gas well. 26. Rather than conducting short flow-after-flow tests of doubtful extrapolatibility into the future.27 When flow-arter-flow tests are re10 i). 25.~~ .24a the Reynolds number is If 1 or less. published by the Oil and Gas Conservation Board of Alberta in 1965. Theory and Practice of Testing of Gas Wells. these tests can be very misleading (optimistically) if conducted for only a short time in a low-permeability reservoir.8 Pressure buildup in a gaswell. 25.26 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS coefficient D from a single pressure buildup test. ~~ .23. for a more complete discussion of methods of calculating Reynolds numbers and the onset of non-Darcy flow. For a recent discussion of non-Darcy flow. one may calculate the Reynolds number for flow at the wellbore.. where the radius of drainage of the well ceases moving outward from the well. alone. page 193ff. it is the authors' experience that a much better procedure is: (1) to determine kh and skin from a buildup test in the gas well. Ref.22 and more recently by Russell et al. and (2) to use these values in an equation which predicts gas-well performance. . Although gas-well flow tests are intended to measure directly the deliverability of a gas well. See also Ref. The reason for this is that wells in such reservoirs often require months to reach a "stabilized" condition.38 To obtain an idea of whether non-Darcy flow is important. This is often the case in the authors' experience. see Ramey. 3. 2900 280 270 260 250 240 10 I 10 3 (t+6t) /6t Fig. The separation may be made by conducting two flow tests or two buildup tests. Extrapolation to q = 0 will give the skin effect s. Tests of such length are generally impractical. one should plot s' vs flow rate. If the skin effects differ. hours 3000 . See also Ref. provides a comprehensive treatment of this subject.

6 Effects of Wellbore Fillup and Phase Redistribution Th . Fig. 3. The phenomenon does not occur in the tighter formations since in these the wellbore pressurebuilds up so slowly over a long time period that the formation pressure will always be higher than the pressure generated by bubble rise in the tubing. in some cases. no production enters the wellbore.itional data over that taken routinely dunng. Stegemeier . th e 1 ea Ize t eory Iscussed us far assumesthat a well is closed in at the sand face and that. Similarly. 3. An example application of this method is given in Figs. This is done through sonic measurements or through measurementof tubing-head and casing-head pressure simultaneously with bottom-hole pressure.and Matth~ws3O investigated this behavIor both theoretically and In the laboratory and showed that the behavior was due to segregationof oil and gas in the tubing and casing subsequentto shut-in at the surface. One of the ways of decreasingthese wellbore effects is to use a tool31which closes in the well at the bottom. In addition to distortions caused by well fillup at early times. 28). bubble rise in the tubing will simply unload liquid into the casing-tubingannulus rather than pus It ac Into t e ormation. always equalizing the pressure and preventing humping. a well is closed in at the surface and fluid continues to flow into the wellbore for some time. Only after sufficient fluid accumulatesis the effect of closing in at the surface transmitted to the formation. . the Wells which show the humping behavior usually have the following characteristics: (1) they are completed in moderately permeable formations with a considerable skin effect or restriction to flow near the wellbore. the rest of the analysis is the same as for any other pressure buildup.2v In the approach of Gladfelter et a/. After obtaining the straight-line section. 3: 11.. Instead.29 In this method it is not necessaryto measure the rate of influx after closing in at the surface. This leads to the result that one should plot P1O8 1 vs log 1 -c-Kj 2 or vs log t:. A r~~ent method pr~sente.0001 GAS-FILLED WELL80RE .!. ( t+t:. as shown by Fig. it is necessary ~o measure the rate of influx into the well after closing In at the surface. These influx rates are then used to calculate a corrected buildup pressure from t:. Dyes and Hutchinson. This corrected pressureis plotted vs logarithm of closedin time in the usual manner and is interpreted in the usual way. (After Miller. after closing in.5. thus decreasing bottom-hole pressure.to interpret these in terms of kh and skin as discussed in Section 6.t".000264 kdt/cpJLcre . The denominator on the left makes a correction for the gradually decreasing flow into the wellbore. By this we mean that the bottom-hole pressure builds up to a maximum and then decreases. For this reason there is a lag in the buildup at early times.t' ) t:.9 (adapted from Ref.t ) qo -q" . Methods for doing this have been developed by Gladfelter.An example of this is shown in Fig. This method has the advantage ?r requi~ng no add. a s~~t-In test.1OB. it is possible to apply the principle of superposition for the gradually changing rate and thereby make use of this portion of the curve.Pcorr = (t:. When the rate of flow into the wellbore is known at all times during this fillup period. In practice. If the annulus is not packed off.d 1 d h . This method of using early values on the pressure buildup curve is very helpful in cases where the straight-line section is short or is ill-defined. and (2) the annulus is packed off. Tracy and Wilsey7and by Russell. 2000 g 180 '~ 1600 ~ E 1400 ~ ~ 1200 ~ ~ 1000 In 80 600 . one uses a theoretical equation which gives the form the bottom-hole pressure should have as fluid accumulates in the wellbore during buildup.1 OA and 3.1 h.p) meaB ( qo An alternative method for using pressure buildup data at early times has been developed by Russell. h f . The rise of gas bubbles increasesthe botto~-~ole pressure: This can increas~ so much tha~ liquId In the well WIll be forced back Into the formation. if there is no restriction to flow near the wellbore. fluid can flow back into the formation easily.9 Well fillup effect.t in analyzing pressure buildup data during the early fillup period.001 201 . 3.here qo is the rate of production prior to closing In and q" is the average influx rate at a time t:.-) . 3. certain wells exhibit another peculiarity during buildup-that of "humping". The quantity C2 is obtained by trialand-error as the-value which makes the curve straight at early times.dby GadzkI~gly also uses empmcal constants In fi~tIng an equatIon to the early part of the pressure buIldup curve. it is possible. and to use these values in the fundamental prediction equations. however. d.PRESSURE BUILDUP ANALYSIS 27 quired by law. b k .

1000 MINUTES 10pOO .05 C2 a. ~ .~ 2500 ~ .j IN AFTERFLOW ANALYSIS .3 Cp 80 = 1.10BAfterflow analysis.: jli 180010 Fig. . 2400 230 220 Pwf = 1590 psig q = 157 ST8/ D fL = 0. I '+~ -N I<2 +U a. HOURS 0 Fig. ShellNo. 3..1.0 2.= 0.5 IZO 0.2. 3..1. In ~ -I 130 D 2.10A Pressure buildup curve.ShellNo. 1500 CI In 140 VALUES Of 0 to 2.1.28 3200 3100 300 290 280 270 260 01 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS \ PORTION OF DATA USED -.6 a. ~ a..1 210 200 C=2XI0-5psi-1 ~ rl? I(iJ 190 "' 100 SHUT-IN TIME. 6t.15 .

t ~ Fig. 10 0 I 10 100 CLOSED-IN 1000 TI ME..Effectof packerfailure on pressure buildup. the effect of partial penetration is to introduce an extra pressure drop near the well. due to presence of shale streaks or tight layers. 30. If. 500 " 0: 0 ::> ~400 ::> Q) UJ 30 ::> cn cn Q: ~ 20 Q. 3. Stegemeierand Matthews also showed how leakage through the wellbore between dually completed zones at different pressure can cause an anomalous hump in measuredpressures. Another type of anomaly can be caused by a tubing leak in a well where the annulus is not packed off. 3300 ~ III ~ g:: 3200 J LURE BUILDUP the effective vertical permeability is smaIl. 3 7 Eft t f P rt " I P t t " 0 a la ene ra Ion The effect of partial penetration of a well into a producing formation has been studied by Nisle82 and by Brons and Marting.11 Hump due to rise of gasin tubing after closing in. .t 1000 100 10 I .88 An important factor in this case is the ratio of vertical to horizontal permeability. Opening only a few holes in the casing can also " . This can affect the slope of the bottom-hole pressure buildup curve. High-pressure gas can enter from the annulus through the leak and cause the tubing to unload into the annulus.An example is shown in Fig. 3.000 Fig. 3. The buildup curve in such cases82 will have the same shape as that given by Fig. if the vertical permeability is high. minutes 10. curves are given f rom whic h It 3100 10000 . then the well will tend to behave as if the formation thickness is equal to the completion thickness.3.~ is possible to estimate the amount of extra pressure drop caused by not penetrating the entire formation thickness.~ . When the standard methods of pressure buildup analysis are used. On the other hand. 340 UPPER ZONEPRE5JYRE . This tool allows interpretation of a pressure buildup curve after a much shorter closed-in time.ec In the pressure observed In the other zone.12..12.PRESSURE BUILDUP ANALYSIS 29 700 600 cn 0... + f. The packing in the separation tool apparently leaked when the pressure differential between zones became small. . Williston Basinwell (upperzonepackedoff). 3.. this extra pressure drop will show up as a "skin" or apparent wellbore damage. In Ref. allowing oil to flow past and cause a hump . A clue as to occurrence of such a leak is the accompanying very high buildup in tubing-head pressure. In the work bY Brons and M arting.

Pollard35 has used this type of plot for pressure buildup in fractured limestone wells. not only open a hole in the casing. one . The -. that the equation for s in the case of variable production rate is indeed the same as for the constant-rate case. curve for no-flow over the draInage boun d ary or f or contant pressure at this boundary can be used. Perforating devices. In addItIon.6~ . ... For this reason an example will not be repeated here. ~ Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek method used to obtain +(q2-q1) [log(t2+!::Jot-t1)+s] -q2 [log!::Jot+S'J } or POD' = P. of average to t at t IS ca cu effective I a t . At time t2 the well is closed in for time !::Jot. but into this hole. as illustrated by the first two rates and times in Fig. The mathematical analysis was for the case of incompressible flow. . one obtaIns kh from the slope of the buIldup curve exactly as in the examples of Appendix B. = 162.6 and dIscussed m Section 3. or for a time (t2-tt). m t he t 00. in and the method does differ from the average system. the absolute value of the slope is equal to 162. P.162 6 q2~ . Other investigators have used it for pressure fall-off behavior in injection wells. The curve for no-flow over the outer boun d ary (Curve A) should give approximately the same value for the average pressure p as the Matthews-BronsHazebroek method (Chapter 4) for a circular (or square) bounded reservoir.. -== ---:':=-.Although gene~ally the ~etho~ of calc~lating t given m Eq. As may be seen from this equation..) against the closed-in time would give a straight line.' .' = 1626~ . age pres~ure is ma~e by u~ing solutions to the differential equation for flUId flow m a cylindrical reserv. the MIller... V Miller ' Dyes and Hutchinsow8 Method .oir. howpressure. pressure t q2 and .8 we see that the pressure drop at the well for a constant rate q is given in oilfield units by ." s IS a constant.A .1 IS adequate to account for a variable production rate history..nt for roductlon Rate Variation the braces in the last equation.8 this qt. These . 3 8 S . if the perforation holes are plugged or partially filled.OD! 'P where drop 0 ( I The basis of the Miller. sand wellbore damage exactly as in Examples 1 through 3 of Appendix B. . as will be discussed later. but they also leave a hole some distance in the formation. Dyes and Hutchinson method for pressure buildup analysis is the mathematical solution of the differential equations of pressure behavior in a fini~e reservoir. Thus. account f~r sU:h sItuatIons. tt OlDl e d . 11 I es b e 0 f A ppenwx.so he fl ow e ffi clency . I h h.k h {-og I ( qt q2 A l' } t2+ !::Jot t2-t1 + !::Jot ) + log ( t2-t1+Ut\ !::Jo t D~termination?f aver.o. and thus is not quantitatively applicable to actual reservoirs.6 q2pB/kh. permeability examp WI . 3. In 1937. Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson { q1 [log(t2+!::Jot)+s]_Homer ever. one reads the theore~cal expected buildup to final pressure. is equivalent B cosm g m . P B UIId up Ana I YSIS . 3 9 AI . Muskat . They may differ slightly In the last two equations. in actuality the flow does not converge at the perforations. Dyes andH utc hmson d eterlDlne d . This is caused by the fact that the flow has to converge as it goes through the perforations. M et h 0d S 0 f . . This convergence causes an extra pressure drop which can be interpreted as a "skin". Of course.eveloped. the skin effect will be much less than would be .34 this effect IS taken Into account. kh By m b (1 t+ og -) s...performed a mathematical analysIs on the basIs of WhICh he proposed that a plot of log (p -P. we 0 tam Pi-POD.13) gIve the theoretical pressure buildup with time on closing in. ratio superposItion 2.. From the solution d. One exception is caused when a drastic change in production rate is made within a few ~ays . the skin effect will be even greater than calculated from the constriction effect. however. However.the recent publication by Harris. 2. consider the case of a well which has produced at rate q1 for time tt. lon. as will be discussed later in this chapter as the "extended Muskat method". 3. as . the well pressure is designated by POD' rather than POD! because the well was closed in. of for rates .8 should be used. If these holes remain open. the method of superposItion as outlIned m Section 2. To determine formation parameters.to discussed ) Section . Muskat Method . From Eq.puperp~srtlon to c~ou..ressure ect by the method of Brons and Marting33 or Mus~at. We now determine kh. there are some exceptions. The reader may be interested in verifying. 3.of a pressure buildup test.. As an example.7.. By entering the curves at an actual closed-in dimensionless time.solutions plott~d in dimensionless form (FIg. the type of plot suggested by Muskat has been foune applicable in the case of compressible flow.30 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS cause a skin effect.24b In . It then produces at rate q2 until time t2. Either the . by superposition.ternatrve calculated from the purely geometncal contraction eff .. T~.

while the Matthews-Brons-Hazebroekmethod does not.:s1ea-aystate prior to shut-in.13 Theoreticalpressurebuildup curves. At this time all the exponential terms have died out.-UOIrs r ) .r--S' ( ~~~kl'w~ Fig.no flow_at the drainage radius.I~ .36 It is important that the time at which the theoretical curve in Fig./ V /' (A) .!:rvo.1."2. 3. In this interval of time. 2./ /' V V :: 00 ~ a. We will adopt similar criteria later on to estimate how long a well should be clos~d in to give a usable straight-line pressure buildup section. dt De :0. ./ . The Miller-Dyes-Hutchinson Curve B for constant pressure at the drainage boundary gives a value for p which is greater than the value of p f!. one can obtain a value for kh. From the quantity b and from knowledge of q and B.36 die .6~ kh )-0.~ ~ Extended Muskat Method29..13. 3.6roe. 0 1. -~ro"S"-\Jtc. companson -. We see from Eq.!J./ L. and P (constant pressure) was 4.OOOL'ItKt- - .5 .6 q. I .is entered be ?n the straight portion of the pressure buIldup curve. To do this we use Eq. and introduce the relation between p and Pi.PRESSURE BUILDUP ANALYSIS 31 the reservoir is at semi-steady state prior to shut in.'~. On evaluating the Bessel functions for a large outer boundary we find ' log (p-Pw.22) The units in this equation are the practical oilfield units discussedin Chapter 2. after Pitzer."/ c.461 psia. -t D -'1'~cA -o.22 that a l./ . 3.14.. wellbore filIup effects will ~ally be small and there will be little interference from production at other wells.0 V 0.(Frorri~Dyes Mca."Zt should be '!!pear with slope {3=0. I ~ I III 100 . This occurs after the pressure buildup -' 4.5 / fi\ ~ NO IPiFLU~ OF FLUID O\l£R THE DRAIPiAGE RADIUS CQljSTANT PIIESSURE AT /' ~ f8\ TH£ DRAIPiAGE IIADIUS ~ ./ E -""" ~ (8) ~ f ~ ~ . _cre t4Vf1 -l" f 70-' -p~p I r~.H.k) { and ~~son. In the I examp e gested by Muskat can be used with late-time pressure buildup data to obtain the drainage volume of a well.10-5 I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!II! 10-2 III i III I I .uB/kh.) = log ( 118.43 In this section it will be shown that the plot sug- for these flowing and production times.00168~ "'pCre (3.th_erange Q(./ /.. 2. 2./" /' V 2 5 I 1111111111111I1I11X11111! I I 1 .417 psia. 2. A value 'f:r wellbore damage can also be obtained by using the semi-steadystate form of Eq.") I"-B/kl. A --_c==:10 ppen dix '~ C P ( no fl ow ) was curve deVIates from a straIght hne on semI-log paper and starts to flatten out. We first assume that our well has produced lOng enuug1ltO~ se-mi'.. The MiIler-Dyes-Hutchinson pressure buildup plot for reservoir shapes other than circular is shown in Fig.- 10 L I' L..36 for pressure behavior in a bounded circular reservoir. Dyes and Hutchinson suggest that the dimensionless time 6tDe at ~hich th~-~_t:Y~~~!!t~!eE_be in./10-1 III nul i III I "~ . An example comparison in Appendix C shows that for the case treated the answers obtained by the two methods differ by only 2 psi.'" out.O. Miller.Q1_!Q 0. We now superpose Eq./ /' .'~t oi~(p-p:>-.OO0264kAf IS_2../ 20.ucre2 and intercept b = 118. ' tI'" f I. Next. As these quantities can also be obtained r/ L~ 0. we close in our well for a time such that all but one of the exponential terms in Eq.36 together with this kh value.s6 l .00168 k/"'./ / ./ . IV" p ~ and Perrine./ ~ . 3..

""'" I" .. .1 :.'i"" I! 1:1: ::::' I" " .~ !I "'. \1 I.: !I!.. ... I ii!I:!1.l1 .. .. Drainage volumes obtained for non-central wells will usually be conservative since the first bend-over from the straight line will be interpreted as a reflection of the cylindrical drainage radius. : : ' I " ..!: .. thi f I ."t I 'I 1 r~ I'- I I : : :: .' :' 1.". As a check on this the value of closed-in dimensionlesstime 0. ..I . .....~ : i!" 'j Ii. reservoir bbl. I :."..! ~21!!:\~:::::i: <n' e"i ~ ~.:...:::! ~:. 3."" 1(:1:111:j:'I' : ~iil!'... .':: :\1::::' :. Q.01 ~:~t~.!.!:... i .::~I""""" ..'t on a sheetof transparent graph paper using the same scales as in Fig. . -\1'" !!: !~i. .. Overlay and note 6t and 6tDe at best fit.. e average pres-.::. 3...:::: ' ... m.!.:i!:::::-: :.:.: '.000264 k6t/ cf> 2 toward the end of the buildup curve should cr b: of ilie order of 0.~1: I i' ~1~~"-t iiii\(::': 'II:":':' !:~. /'.I ! I..\!\. If the well IS not closed In long f or be The e most d e d serious M us k that " IS In may ma ki arise ng in sure using th at eno ug h f -.gnificantdeviation in buildup character..' .? ~~ "11". the ordinate 6PD may lIe obtained as 6PD = 1.' I:" .!!i":: I '" " I ".'. i.' :.I.. ." It IS also possible to deterInlne the drainage volume by matching observed data with the curves in Fig. l r """'I~':..:: ill.' "I/ .~ I"...: i i.. d Ch 8 '11 b di as WI e scusse In apter.. 1 "1 I ! I ' '. :...!..::.:!::.:.= ---=F should then plot 6PD vs log /:..' .I!.'! "" I:: 1 1 . : .. I : i: j i i . . 1 : 1111"1. .' I'" I ~' ~4'~. ::' ' m!:.. Non-central location can cau.. Ii ". :'.I d I tna -an -error pot.i:ii::. l! 1 1 I !' "" '..::: .:. I : . I .. ll !!.. 1.. I.:': . ...: Q.... .: II: ' .':.. In 0 talmng a best fit.:' I'I! '" ". .. z -" ' . If the average pressure jj is known. ' 10 . ::::': '..2. ~ .001 ..:::'. :!: .': . .:. .' I ~: l' [' I I I. ' I 'C" """./' .i.": .. I. sure P IS not h t -. .r 1 ! " i .i 0: I jI !' ~:::~:: 111..: : . 29 for an example calculation. " 1 "'" .:!. 'I!:I.: . l-ifii!. . i : 1: .::~."')" 1. '~. requent I STB '.: . P to (3 23) line is be tried .~~:!'::."'I"illl:""'" .. : : .111So!!!!--.32 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS from shorter tests. be obtained from short tests. t These methods for obtaining drainage volume are based both on a radial model and on central location of a producing well in that area...~~..024 (1-8w) q6t 0 A cmu tDe that the "bend-over" This allows different 0./)j I i 5. I :i::' j: . Drainage Volumes by Curve Fitting37 . """. It is this we obtain from:. The pore volume drained by a well cannot. 3.!.:".'y" !:::/.v.'" .. 3.. . 3.. I ! '."'.'.:I!:\l::~~~:~' I. it is not especially important to be able to obtain them from a long closed-in test.~_.: . " I . : : :: " ' ' i!. . " . This method IS best applied when the buildup is long enough observed.:1 ~3~::.f"'::1o'"" 4".. Compute the oil drainage volume V 0 from V = 0. . .....15 (P-PW8)/m. Lj~.':. however..:.!::::. 'j1-I\!!!i '.Y t e portion 0 e curve IS late enough for drainage boundary effects to be felt. I. 0 th e b en d -over t0 be or 0 b serve.! clr~' III " 1 ':Ii 111 riTf'.".. : : i 1 '~~ i: II: I I 1 &~" it:: .. by a long closed-in abc /" period the drainage volume of a well can be determined... .I II. II!::::. ..::: ': !lilII! il...~::..":' :::::.'! " !j" :::!....15 that the initial deviation from a straight line for the buildup in a well draining a 5:1 P must . .. See Ref.:'-"- 0: " :.!!i!:!~...2 -:-'" : ' ! I I .. Thi s may b e 0 b from values the straight of nown. . II ' ' i"! ~_. ii.0001 6 .I DIMENSIONLESS SHUT-IN TIME Fig.13.'... accurately known volume N III':' .."") .. .!.. c " i: I ! i: ! I I ~ ::: Irll'i. !:' . ' i! 'ii!: 1! i I: ':::: ' " rill:':" i Ii:! i :!!: I li!i r'l! ! i I! !!: :. .~ ~ ! .I!::::::' . I: :. '" ~!:~.sesi.::i" ~ 'i £"5 ~.15. II" ':' I 1 i.:". Note on Fig..: I' i . I. I ! I.:-:1 "!(I"\ !ii!~~. d the drainage th e v al ue h ' f th ' ... th S type 0 ana YSIS. as shown In Figs... One v exten ma b b e su Jec t 0 I arge error. . .14 and 3.!::j~1! ~m:/' :::. I I ::.:1... talne d f rom a b .1. ... :I /~.: !'I'.!:: I I I' l I : ! . . : '" .: .13. . ::.':... ! ' I:::. i!: I:i. i I:il :""' .~.. y In k .~.(After Pitzer.. Thus.14Theoretical pressure buildupcurves.....1 .. problem at met h 0 d .15 (or (:J6t ~ I).: ..:....11"1 ~. !!!!.

World Oil (1955)140 No. ~. Again. B-6. 447-454. (April. 1(4\\ \\:11 1 @ WELL DRAINING A SQUARE BOUNDARY tD=. Drill. Tech.Respond to ProductionTreatment.\.32 NOTE' FOR THE 5'1 RECTANGLE ~ \oV U. f li dri I d I h on curve first deviation from tting straight line.the buildup curve flattens. 11. References 5. Prac..: "Establishmentof the Skin Effect and Its Impediment to Fluid Flow into a Wellbore".: "Analysis of PressureBuild-Up Data". also. Trans. bility of Undersaturated Hydrocarbon Reservoir Fluids".AIME (1956) 207.. Pet. ~ -- . 503.. : "The Effect of a Short Term Shut-In on a Subsequent(1956)207. 225. ca mo e to volthe 0 a cy n the drainage t e 3. Trans. As the more distant boundaries begin to be felt in the 5: 1 rectangle case.: "The Skin fluence on the Productive Capacity AIME (1953)198. The other buildup curve breaks upward and heads toward Pi.320-321. Nisle. P. 6.: "Compressibility of Natural Gases". Trube. Trans. E. If one based a drainage fi volume . Note also on Fig. Jr..J. Third World Pet.Will .AIME (1953) 198. Eng. I 1 D = 0. Arps. 1963) 790794.: "How Well Completion Damage Can Be DeterminedGraphically".H. S. and Selig. \~ \ oft f\~\~ .: "Sele~ting yvells Which .125-128. J.. However..P. and then a flattening toward p.II RECTANGLE SQUARE I 61 tt61 Fig.01 0.309-311. 3.: "A Note on the Skin Effect".. P. M. o' . A. 9. W..AIME (1953) 198. J. and Prod. 1964) J. Hurst. Jr. 1953) 25. Horner.G.t a 2. Effect of W and a eII" .. Odeh. AIME (1957) 210.TWO @ @ . S. (Oct.001 .15Illustrative pressure buildupcurves. FAULT A=o2 IX: n. N.. R.341-344.1 I ~ . Pet. 3. A. Cong. 171-176.. Ramey.StImulatIon we e een e 0 au s wou e conserva ve. G..\.15 the similarity between a well draining a 5: 1 rectangle and a well betweentwo faults. Leiden (1951) H. E. Hall. In our next chapter we shall discuss more fully drainage volumes and their change with time. Variable-Rate Case".~~ o\~' ~~o( ~\~E. 355-357. results obtained for the drainage volume of the 11 b tw th tw f It ld b ti. J. ~~ \~ E.. 10.. B. Pet. Tech. 7.. ume obtained would be conservative... Hawkins.FAULTS A=o2 5 ..: "Compressibility of Reservoir Rocks".: "Pressure Build-Up in Wells". API (1955) 117. We shall also indicate how the p values we obtained in this chapt~r should be combined with drainage volumes to obtain an average reservoir pressure. 8. "Compressi- 1. AIME PressureBuild-Up Test 4. J.5. (July.-PiOASPREDICTEDBYFIGURE4. @ o/2. Gladfelter. D. van Everdingen.AIME (1957) 210. G. Trans.545 P (@) ~ ~ (/) w IX: BOuNDARY DIAGRAM:.. Its Tr In- ans.PRESSURE BUILDUP ANALYSIS 33 rectangle is like that of a well draining a square.000264 kl ~ ~E. E. Brill. Thomas.7 ATID=0.L. on an Oil Well". Tracy. O:pcA ~E. and Wilsey. W. Proc.: "Rapid Methods for EstimatingReservoir Compressibilities". H.: "PressureBuild-Up Analysis.A. the well draining the rectangle has a later rise -Trans.R. Trans. 12.356-357. R. 2.

if the reservoir is und:rsaturated.7) it can be shown3that each well in a reservoir drains a volume proportional to its production rate. This examplewas obtained by using Ei-functions to represent the pressure drop at the wells and imaging3to reproduce the boundary of this two-well reservoir. pressures are used to relate the amount of production in a given interval of time to the pressure drop. Note that each well initially drains one-half the reservoir and that the boundary gradually shifts until each well drains a volume (and an area. Finally.reflecting ~e low ~ompressibility of sing1e-phas~011 along WIth assocIated rock and water. * Prior to this time.to noted that each m a almost If IS relate corrections pre to suc ~ actualmandatory performance one and tomake . equipressure contours and flowlines were drawn. In this chapter we will pursue this subject further. In characterizing a reserv~ir.e pres~ure dr~p ~s large for a given amount of production. This is much greater ~ than in a symmetrical drainage area. Section2.s-oIlratio variation are a few of the other relevant Items necessaryfor reservoir characterization. In addition to this semi-quantitative use. since thickness is constant) proportional to its rate. He also illustrates ho.lmes are alteredrates. If the pressure drop is small per unit of production.1 Uses of Average Reservoir Pressure Data h In Chapter 3 we Pointed out a method for obtaining f t e average pressure or th e case of a sI ' ngle well in a using a prediction method whic~ relates future production to future average reservOIr pr~ss~re. IS only one element in the characterization of a reservoir. they are used for characterizing a reservoir. How does one find the size and shape of this drainage volume? We first note that at semi-steady state (see Chapter 2. Some of the flowlines are shown on Figs. the pressure drop was calculated cata network of grid points in this rectangle for a seriesof times.. pressures at the ongInal oIl-water boundary are needed in addition to average pressures.1B at a series of times.. Alternatively. this may mdicate drainage from a small sand lens or fault block.7 (or kt/</>JLcA 2 for Well 1 t~ ~ and kt/</>JLcA 1 for Well 2). fundamental to secondary recovery and pressure maintenanceprojects to indicate effectivenessof repressuring and degreeof reservoir connectivity. pressures find a quantitative use in volumetric-balance calculationsl of oil-in-place in a reservoir: For this pu~ose. the reservoIr life are thus cy li n dri c al bounded well in a multi-well reservoir. bounded We also . If water Influx calculations are to be made in combi~~tion2. If th. Pressure drop. agaIn becomIng proportlona l to the new after ~.Chapter 4 . with a volumetric balance. oil properties. 4. computing its oil in place and predicting future behavior.1 for a 2: 1 rectangular reservoir where one well produces at twice the rate of the other. water cuts and ga. each well in a reservoir tends to drain an equal share of the reservoir. Companson of well pressures ~ay indicate whether wells are separated by fa~lts or Impermeable zones.1A and 4. Measurementsof areal averagepressuresare. At eachvalue of time. First of all. Pressure measurements throughout . 4. of course. 4.2 Determining Drainage Volumes of Wells As noted in Chapter 3. Geolo~ical conditions. what are average reservoir pressures used for? Broadly speaking. ---~ --- . A simple example to illustrate these concepts is shown in Fig.. a clue is given to the existence of a water drive or to draina~e from a large reservoir volume. The time required in this case to reach semi-steady state where each well drains a volume proportional to its rate is kt/</>JLcA 0. In the symmetrical :" *Stewart8 has presentedfield confirmati~n of this for gas wells. of course. a large pressure drop may only be . each well in a bounded reservoir drains a certain volume surrounding that well. extrapolation into the future is best made by predIctIons. By summing the effect of the Ei-functions. average reservoir pressuresare requIred. h d"Iction the reservoIr behaves roughly similar manner. \' ~ Determination of Average Reservoir Pressure 4. fracturIng.wthe d~arnagevol1.

1\. I .' / / \i I / 1/_"" ."'" I " . tD =0. . 1 " .I... I " "" .4' 'I' \ ~ "\ \ / /' . .I \ \ DRAINAGE \\ T . \ ../ / 1/ . -y .---. ~ ~ " I " ~"" I ' \ t = 0. .u cAt . / / / --~--II'. './"" / / I I / // . BOUNDARY.I / \ I / I " . . ...-.36 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS WELLS IN " 1\""'" ""'. II/. .--r " ."" " \~ -.\'. .000264kt D RJ. .f \ III \1' ~ 12___~/ /11 -. I" III ~/! ~_""I .06 ..\ tD=0. / --r--II ... I "". / 1./" --"-./ / '-' ~ 11'2 "" -~ ~. 1\." \1' II 1 " " .. I \ . ~'./ . I' \ +"'. . : \ .II' . .... " " '" \ 1:. \ ' I " / / 1/ II ./ I' I / / / --" / /. ' '-- '.\ I /..' \: I / I I ' / I I I I. / I" " / ./ / i . ' 1 I /1 . \\ I ' I .-"'\'/ ~ / /1 . / / I \ . '.whereAt=totoloreo \ Fig. . "" ~~-I I '.1 I " ..II.' I './ .. \ I\ ./ ~~" . ~ ' \ * -~~--~ I -~ -~ ---~.I " / I' \ \ '" "I I / ~ 1 I " '" \ II ' / /I I " \ I I /. ..'~ I / .~" 1/ " . ---~./ --'" /'1\\ . ". .\ " '.1 I. ~ J . "" " .' I """""--'. " ". \. . . "'. / I \' / II " " ---/ / ~ I I 7 /1 'DRAINAGE.1A Movementof a drainage boundary:relative productionrates1:2. """" I ' " " . / . '.'/ I J:\ " " '.'\BOUNDARY \ : I / / / / '. I 11\ '\ ~.' '\ I / I ' / " "'" / "// ". .1/ / /' / / / .' .. I " "". \ ' \ " ' ". I I / // ' / '/./ . ' .01 . '" \ II/ / ~. I'..ft'.\ ".:. !\ \.-"" ---= ""--~. . 'f\~. \'.~ " DIMENSIONLESS TIME./ " I' '- / .. / I .&.BOUNDARY \ """"" DRA-INAGE I. \ '.. I I // .\' . \' I 1/ / I I \.L .. .. /" '11 '" 1\ '~ \ ~ / / j 'III' \. I I \' I . . I / / \I .--"" ". " '" \1" / . / .. \ -. / r.. \ "" \ I '/' / I / I' . . J lIf" " '" " \' .I . ---:::: " -"" " 'I / ~ .\. "'".."" / /1" " I". ./ / ""'""'. ~ I .1 /" I \ .. / / / I . .'. I" ... I I I ..1\ \ . \ " ---~ 1 . I ~. 1 / / """" "Iy/ I ' 1/ // /. .. . /"" / ~ II I. ' / /~ I t D = 0. " . / .1 / /I.-...r .1 I ~ '\ !"" T.03 I --..II 1'\ " . II "... 'I / // I .. " ."'" . I/ /" " 2--""'" ..' "/ . "'" /"" -"""' .~ \ II . t r! II" II.' ' \ / '11'/ I' " .'.I \ ~ - / / """ / /1 I I I ~ I 1'\ I . 4. .. / I /I 1\ " " I' " '" . I / / I / I I '\ ~f .. \ " ""-. \ \ " " ---' '\ \ "" .

/ / II I II . / I 1/ :f" ".""' '" '" -P"" '.If' -/ -'" \ ~ I "".I ~ \ I' ~ \ '~ III II' II' 1 \ . / / '" . " " 'DRAINAGE . } ~\ \ \ \ \ "' -'" --"" -~-""'.~ --'" -'" '" /1 ' DIMENSIONLESS TIME. ""'. . / I '" _'" I.-'... I . '". " . ..!-'-. '" ... . \ BOUNDARY . '". --.. // . . " " " .. ' \ -0JJcAt \ 0. '. 1. ' " . \ .. \ I .-----~ ... / / ' -. ..-". .' 2 'I --~ . "" . /J .A '" \ \ ---\\' / \.1 -" / I" .000264 kt .. \ " / / /I II I / '""./'" / / /'" / / ) / // ". I I I I / I I / .'" \ I . '\ / / ..' I '" \I '" /'.. -- \' \'. \\ I 1 '\./ ...0. / / I I '" / /' """.I 1// 2 . ..DETERMINATION OF AVERAGE RESERVOIR PRESSURE 37 ~ f \ . . " . '-"""' --. '". \ ..1HMovementof a drainage boundary:relativeproductionrates1:2. '" \ DRAINAGE 1 '" \. \\ ' \ .I '/ I'" 1/ .. tD = 0.'\ 1'\ I \'. / I // . \.. BOUNDARY '."" --.I -"" t D t- / =I ' where At = total area Fig./ ~ .-."" / / // .'" "'". --. \ " . "".D \'.\ I'. " "".\.I. \. .2 + III ". \. DRAINAGE '.'" /// \ ." ..I. \\ . '" ~"" ". ' I '" I I / '" ~ --.-- "" / '" ". .. \.I '" ~ ". I I ". ". " .../ '" tD=0. 4.. ~"I t " ' I". f I '" I I BOUNDARY " ' \ I I I" . .'. \\ ~ . . II \ I I II . 1.'" 11\ 11\ 11\" I I . .'" / / '" / / // .'" I I I --""~-I -/ / -- --P"'"--"". / ' \' .\\ .. I / / I.' . . . . \ . " " -.. ". \' \'1 .

4. the time to reach semi-steadystate* is kt/</Jp. See the Fig. however. and thus the drainage volume of each well must be proportional to the rate at that well .29 at which for a list the of straight-line such times.1 we . In both homogeneousand heterogeneous cases. may be 10 to 50 times as long as in homogeneousones. that any method developed for determining average reservoir pressure be applicable in this transient period as well as in the semi-steady state period. the pressure at each point in the reservoir will decline at the same rate. At such time each unit volume in the reservoir is losing fluid at the same rate. 4. therefore.3 through 4.1. as will be discussedin Chap*The time to reach semi-steady state may be estimated from Figs. Semi-steady state is also approached in heterogeneousreservoirs. time 10. The discussionpresentedthus far is for homogeneous reservoirs. The time required to achieve semi-steadystate in such reservoirs. . Section 10. Each well drains an area proportionalto its rate. see that this figure illus- limI't 2 1 1 4 1 1 4 3 1 1 1 2 Fig.9 for drainage areas of various shapes by noting tion begins.2 Exampledrainageboundaries (basedon flow lines obtained in model studies). Thus.the transient period may be very long. .cA = 0.38 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS case.Numbersindicate approximaterelative productionrates of wells. 4. t t th t li t 'd ra es e wo mI s on ramage vo Iume -one Returning to Fig. in a real reservoir with non-symmetrical drainage area shapes. This again points up the necessity for developing pressureaveraging methods which are applicable prior to semisteady state.3. It is important. once semi-steady state is reached. por- ter 10.

The authors prefer the slmpl~r .of each dr. This is done by obtaining p* from the flow or buildup test. A difference of only 2 psi was obtained between the two for the example in ppen IX C. p. why not extrapolate to p directly?" He shows that this can be done if the well is produced long enough prior to shut-in to reach semi-steady state. Both systerns are equivalent at semi-steadystate. or longer shut-In? pressur~s ar~ most often ~sed m re~rvolr ent~neenng to obtaIn dlfferences:.9.DETERMINATION OF AVERAGE RESERVOIR PRESSURE 39 ing volume is obtained by allocating :volumes i~ . Dyes and Hutchinson7 have also presented a method for obtaining average pressure.inage volu~e Ish estimated. (obtained by the method shown me: .om~ :x:mp e sh a: . It WIll often be sufficiently accurate to assume that the drainage areas are symmetrical and to use the curve in Fig. which assumes no flow across the drainage boundary.. portion is 162. Their method is thus like that of Dietz. . semi-steadys~ate.5 who suggests: "Instead of extrapolating to p* and then correcting to give p..However. By using their Curve A.3 through 4. For semi-steadystate producthe Dietz method gives exactly the same result for p as the Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek3method discussed in this chapter. one can / obtain p as before.Knowing p*. For cases in which it is important to make a cor- since the quantities q. Thus. 3. This usually re~ulres several adjustments m draInage area.. . one can d obtain a pressure p for the drainage area of each well in a bounded reservoir.4.regard. Miller.I nce the .Type) Reservoirs By means of the curve for the square in Fig.dlffer~nces etween e pressures taken at two different times and between functions calculated from these pressures.for co~puting average pressureboth pnor to..9).3 for a .is next. Brons this situation frequently arises. as discussedin Section 3. Now that the size. are possible. 4. .3. 4. To use these curves it will be necessaryto divide the reservoir into areas drained by each well. Wells producing at high rates will tend to have a lower average pressure in their drainage volumes than lower-rate wells and vice versa. ':Jv'hat can be done for cases m which the pressure buildup curve was not recorded. They point . As a practical matter. as well as semi-steady state. S.p~oportion to rate. This was s~own to be satisfactory3 in ~dealizedcases. To m some states so that and Miller6 have devised a useful method. By proceeding as in this example. This line can be extrapolated to give p* on a plot of pressure vs log [(t + !:::ot) !:::of]. A study of some of the shapes obtained in Ref. Because 0f thO IS. These. what about ItS shape? .approach dlscusse.) ar~ s ho In FI . but only a spot pr~ssure was measured after a 24-hour ge area to obtaIn p. . As discussed in the previous paragraph. An example calculation for p is given in Appendix C. 1 me po rti on 0 f a pressure slope of the straight-line out that these spot readings are usually on the stralghtbUIld up curve. B. 4. . The set of average pressures. in turn. k and h are either known or can be estimated. we normally make the assumption that the draInage volumes a~e proportional to pro~uctio~ rate. As disc~ssed. are not point values existing at each well.. as such. the distribution of pressure in a bounded reservoir will depend mainly on the distribution of production rates. As the latter (MBH) method gives correct results at times preceding. one can use the curves for non-symmetrical drainage areas (Figs. 4 by model experiments can be helpful in this. g 4 2 As ma y be seen man ' y vanatlons m s ape .6 qpB/kh. a small but constant error m p WIll often be urnm- Such spot pressures are required cope with this. the authors of this Monograph prefer the more general method using p*. can be averaged to give the over-all average reservoir pressure.d previously except in caseswhere It IS felt that non-urnform S acing or non-uniform production rate is unusp uallyacute. In their paper. In tight reservoirs the shut-in time required to obtain the flattening is prohibitive.productio~ rate .S q uare draina A slightly different approach for obtaining p has been developed by Dietz. and portant.tching of the draInage areas and checkIng with a plarn~eter to see whether the sketched volumes are p~oportlonal to .3 slope can be drawn through the spot pressure value. a straight line with the correct rection for non-symmetry becauseof very non-uniform spacing or large differences in production rates.and can be time-~onsuming. They represent averages for various drainage volumes and. A d. This is usually done by plotting these pressures on a map and "contouring" equipressureareas. . The paper should be consulted for details. Determining Average Pressure in Bounded (Depletion. 4. Even at times prior to steady state: we normally use the first limit and assum~ that dram~ge volumes are proportional to production rate. 4. p. one should obtain very nearly the same results as with the MatthewsBrons-Hazebroek method. and dunng. need not be smoothly contourable. this practice is not fundamentally sound in a bounded reservoir.3 and then obtaining p by difference. a correction can be obtained to each value of p* and the average pressure obtained for each drainage area. By one of the procedures discusse above. Ske. it is possible to compute the average pressure in the drainage area of each well in a bounded reservoir. In this way it is unnecessaryto close in the wells until they show the flattened portion as on Fig. Brons and Miller assume semi-steady state flow prior to shut-in.dunng. Thi s IS rue ecause .tion. It IS preferable. obtaining p* -p from Fig. t b . and the other is obtained by dividing the reservoir volume equally among all wells.

~ I {\J . .. Ii 1.::: ~ {\J .CD .0 0.q -:-'::..-. w 0 ~ Q ~ 0 j "'! ~ t n01 ! IIJilJ .~*~~~~.-" -0 (3 .3~ ~ .s ~(\JU 1 {\J 0.0 -~ <I: :l UI .t.1.40 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW ~ESTSIN WELLS~ w I 1 ~ uJ ~ ~ ~ ~ a {\J J -] to. r-W It) ~ ~~~~~ ~.--." . iB' "0 v ~ . 1'1 I.. 8 ~ ~ «) ! -ti (. ."'- ~ -' .~.

£ .: : m ..: on N U 1D4 - ~ = ~ .0 =' e ~ ~ . It) '" i 0 .s 0' on -< .Q . ~ .DETERMINATION OF AVERAGE RESERVOIR PRESSURE 41 ~. ! 0 ~Q) '" ~ r 0 d 0 -. ..::: . .r'~ § "..\~ ().:~~:~~...~.t ID In ... :! .d g~"v~ g a ~ : ~ ~: ~: .It) 4)j/8rlb d -d -* '" 9.:.OL -.

:3 u 0 -: ~ ~ ~ '" ~ § <.1 ~ (\J C\J (.~ 1.9 .) ~ O . ~ 4) :a '0 Q 0 '..D 0 . -Q ~ 2 - '" ~ N ..42 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS 0 <.It= O::l~ O-e. In v 0: ~ 0 (\J ~ ~ 0 r- <.O<x.D V ~ (\J . <..V '" .s ~ -a <.g 0 ..D It) v ~ (\J -O' 0 ~ ..D v ...0 ~ § .= 0 -.

c ::I 0 . '" = ~: ...tg r ~ (.~ 0 'z = g ~ ~ ~ . oS d 0 .~ 0 ~ ~ IC ..O::LQ) 0 ~ 0 O-e.0 -rn ~ ~ '" .c. i= . -~ ...0 V ~ N . 0 ~ 0 N a In ~ ~ N - d 0 -N I I ~ . ..D~ NU.DETERMINATION OF AVERAGE RESERVOIR PRESSURE 43 0 (. . or!..a Q) ~ rn rn (.0 ..! 5 ~ .z -d U 0 .....

Vi/Vt from age pressure is used in the terms involving volume changes in the original oil-bearing portion. The surveys should cover the range of producing rates as well as all sections of the field.7 Pressure function for rectangles variousshapes. By plotting p vs time for each well.1) Vt qt where qi is the production rate of Well i and qt is the total production rate from the reservoir of volume V to From this relation we obtain . Often a correlation can be found between the producing rates of wells and the average pressures in their drainage areas. The correct method of weighting is to multiply the average well pressure by the volume fraction of the reservoir it drains and then add the results. we may approximate the relative drainage volume of Well i.4.. Assuming semi-steadystate conditions where the drainage volumes are proportional to production rates. 0. (4. alternating wells m each survey penod. Such a correlation can help in deciding upon a pressure in the area around non-surveyed wells. The aver- volu~e of each well. of .g IQ.02 .44 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS Perhaps the best method of obtaini~g .... especially if these have differing rock properties.c ~ * co Q..01 .an avera~e reservoir pressure in a bounded reservoir is to obtain pre~sure su~eys in as many ~ells as possible.Preservolr surveyed wells and interpolate pressures for surve~ed wells to the time period of interest.000264 kt ~ 8 10 -.~ I ~ g: ..3. In the water-drive 5 4 . 4.. -= Pl qt -~ + P2 qt + -~ (4 2) p obtained in this way is averaged volumetrically over the reservoir. t~e next step is to weight these to obtain average reservoir pressure. cA . 4. Drive Reservoirs Two types of pressuresare needed for conducting a material balance in a water-drive reservoir: (1) the average pressure in the original oil reservoir and (2) the pressure at the original oil-water contact.. A different procedure must be used to obtain the average pressure in a water-drive reservoir than in a bounded (depletion-type) reservoir. After obtaining the average pres~ure m ~e drainage ~ = ~ .Fig. Pressures at the original oil-water contact are used to compute water influx. . it will be possible to extrapolate the pressure m non.4 Water.

~ -..~ 'Q "U = 0::1. ~ ~ N <X U ~ N . O-e. 0 ~ .OL d-* d ~ .S § '.= u .It) N -0 To q 4)j/811bg. u 0 ...2f ~ 0 ~ ~ Ht::j~ ~ In ..DETERMINATION OF AVERAGE RESERVOIR PRESSURE 45 0 Q z Q g3 'CO = ~ I .~ -'" = 0- ~ .e 3 '" ~ = e ~ I ~ ~ .

46 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS 4 3 2 . 4. (D ~ I <. 4.1 1.0 I ~ 0 0 r-- *0. -~ - .c 10. 0- -I -2 -3 0.0 O.9 Pressure function in a 2:1 rectangle an equilateral and triangle.10 Flow lines in a water-drivereservoir.01 0.000264kt I#IfLCA 10 100 Fig. -9- : :~ 0 0 Fig.

and this will be almost exactly the same for either case . C. N..Ie.: "Application of the Mc- that the curve well m the center of a bounded cyhndncal reservOir is used to convert p* to p (see Fig. and Hutchinson. 2. and McMaterial Balance one should plot these average pressuresvs their lateral d f h 1 1 E 1 Istance rom t e ongma 01 -water contact. However. . Those who prefer the Miller. AIME (1953) 198.DETERMINATION OF AVERAGE RESERVOIR PRESSURE 47 case there is a strong dependenceof pressure on distance from the original oil-water contact. J..10. 3.: N " D etermmatlon 0f Average ReservOir Pressurefrom Build-Up Surveys". . e same manner 1. d . Stewart. . .AIME (1954)201. 5 D Trans.: Evaluation of Individual Pet. Matthews. Miller. C.serves".. P. tel erence m pressure which IS used m water Influx '". . C. at Steady E.: "A Simple Method for Correcting SpotPressureReadings". H. 4.. 182-189.C. Y. Tech.: "Studies on Pressure Distribution in Bounded Reservoirs State". F. C. :'\' . Trans. Eng. 1961)803-805. Brons. C. 6. Muskat.r. 4. Pet. AIME (1950) 189 ' 91-104 '. P. J. 1966) 38. B. tz D . Matthews. Trans. Equation to a Partial Water Drive Reservoir". The reason for the dependenceof pressure on position in the water-drive case is the pressure gradient from aquifer to oil reservoir which develops as oil production begins.. S. 4. In the bounded case there is not necessarily any relation between position and pressureas discussedin the previous section.. The flowlines may be approximated by: (1) radial flowlines near the well and (2) linear flowlines from the original oil-water contact to the well. In addition' it is h d . xtrapo ation of this curve to the original oil-water contact will give the pressure at this point.. Brons.: "The Estimationof Pressure Permeabilityand ReservoirPressure from Bottom-hole Build-up Characteristics". A sketch showing flowlines in a water-drive reservoir is given in Fig. Trans. J. F. The averagepressure in the radial flow area may be approximated as the pressure in a bounded circular reservoir of area slightly less (say 10 percent to allow for flowlines passing besure ca cu a on IS ma e m exac y as that in Appendix C except tween wells) than the well spacing. . S. and Miller.: "A Method for Det~r. and Hazebroek. Pet. (Aug.. (May. Inc. To be strictly accurate.. the drainage boundary pressure rather than the average pressure should be used in making this extrapolation..nination Average Pressure in a of BoundedReservoir.3). F. calculations. 85. W.M. AIME (1955) 204. and Lefkovits. 51-60. Mahon... Gas Well Re- 8. A. (Aug. R. 7.J.ff .11 Approximationof flow lines. 4. . 1965)955-959.C. 4. Dyes. tl This th average presfor one @ = RADIAL FLOW LINES ~ References + LINEAR FLOW LINES Fig.A.11. Dyes and Hutchinson system may prefer to use the average between no-flow across and constant pressure at the outer boundary for this calculation. as shown in Fig. Timmerman. To obtaIn pressures at the ongInal oIl-water contact. Jr.182-191.: Physical Principles of Oil Production. . (1949) 378 if. H. 1 1 ti .. the averagepressureand the drainage boundary pressure are very nearly the same. A.. Graw-Hlll Book Co. Tech. van Everdingen..

a buildup with P ressure test? uniform excenent for if of test some ecothe may drawa presin .~ "i Co on Fig.ppcr 2 Generally are simp~y extended conveniently I' short to tests pressure pressure (reservoir of alternative drawdown afford limit volume f or thi s.1 pnman Y plot . ( or measuring flow last a at few of the to well ! i umts). equa 1 to -O.Imate I.00088 flow between as the conditions these "late two transient" schematically to presk (pracare estime semi-steady interim in the variable in a flow sufficient test. to equipment throughout. small shall same the and flow for pressure relationships for drawdown as radial tests pressure flow of a In analysis: methods flow time I 1 methods obtain effect means presented. an by can a pressure be used drawdown for comparative drawdown buildups. . The well.1c/>p. A are The analysis on theory. perreservoir tests. units)..p~cr2 t~ . of 6.'.LATE If a well a workover preclude buIldup.12 approx- . transIent conditions constant hours test.-c/>p. test to static lowered is begun. applicable. tests However.00264 -.1. maintain was pressure not Drawdown depending tests producing in k In practical several drawdown constant closed prior a included methods to . is STATE METHOD down tests the pressure in wells buildup where interpretation. tests) and buildup pressure test followed data which speaking. tIme ranges for Fig. days.e. volume pressure hole flow closed sufficient the sure then may objectives not where reach of This a possible the formation. indicated applicable discussion Chapter multiple-rate When drawdown Ideally. 1y c/>/LCre2.SEMI-STEADY then reason there a for are In drawdown considering uncertainties that case answer. values period. should so has or new been ~ reservoir. reason recommend to a pressure start wells closed opposed test . presand tests on which rate time a is method the it is or to prevail. the . In D arcy flow umts . for Usually a equalize pressure. These 5..1 Schematic FLOW TIME. buildup single this solutions constant three also.. fluid chapter for applicable a drawdown.cre2 Also. nomIc well be the for consIderations a pressure / AMENABLE TO ANALYSIS BY TRANSIENT METHOD PORTION OF DRAW DOWNTEST AMENABLE (RESERVOIR TO ANALYSIS LIMIT TEST) BY . sure affords analysis.CTe2. different data. t. ranges by of Odeh real These of and time :! present drawdown different discussed to a value drawdown pressure at in constant prior to allow to series during a of bottomperiod well of time of is techniques are during during all pressure during As period measurements producing the flow pressure reach is rate or For made rate. pressure is simply compressibility. the flow of we techniques the i. 5.Chapter 5 Pressure Drawdown Analysis In up Chapter analysis to skin by 3 the "state was estimates and of test of the art" in pressure It is buildpossible. of in the some drawdown a based j however. hrs ~ n some cases may estimates b e run reservoir ' . rate our in static analysis technique which will test should test a as considers be analysis an enmneer b' available. A further are in and cloSIng-In / t~~ PORTION OF DRAW DOWN TEST AMENABLE TO ANALYSIS BY TRANSIENT METHOD PORTION OF DRAWOOWNTEST such as recompletion further . tical tablished.~ canOlaares.e. WhICh of pressure varIOUS drawdown analysIs methods test showing are purpose. formation cases. t = k . ~ . pressure . . meability.. into 'the period the Nabor. j --0. The is sometimes time An at a time value state period referred periods analysis to are technique of t -0. test .--~ In drawdown the Also.

t.e.on FIg.. i. of these periods is where curve m is the when slope in psi/cycle on semilog to that can curve from be has the of paper.FLOW TIME. pressure earlier begin. + 3.1 10 .re schematically can kh = be be linear.a penod o~n pnor ed to ] (5.PRESSURE DRAWDOWN ANALYSIS 49 I sure drawdown in the tests text during which each follows. ~ ~SLOPE = 162.15 [ Pi -Pl m (5.B m this transient . the the analogous skin factor employed determined.crW2) 0..hrs 10 100 : '~e .6QILB kh ~ BEGINNINGOF AT END TRANSIENT OF DEVIATIONPERIOD AT 00 0 0.1) the obtain We skin. immediately of short occurrence boundary period is usually duration.. from from data. on This the 5. a pl~t This of ~f IS the effects t curve. t- I result of unstable flow conditions the well during this period. on Fig.2) 0..2 basic that plot a short period of after nonlinearity the test is transIent effects.23 + ..-= ~ Pi [log ed". established no longer obtained 162. 2.1 plotted Pressure Transient During flow in Drawdown Conditions at a constant Analysis for In a manner buildups.Crw [ -Ei (- cpp. line of a well an infinite reservoir is given pressure straight The units) graph at a flow factor time 1 hour. the the rate.31 and also at the end of that chapter. ~x_~nation ~f Eq.. 5.2~n~_c~!~~~n~~_~~- of the transient period of the late transient period flow.n a well flow IS alSO vafid In. been for pressure once the from on for 5.6qp. behaVIor early This o. It is easily is evidenced the At recognized on ~s on the pressure plot section flow by vs log in from predue of ~ottOm-hole illustrated kh product pressu.6qp. formula of Eq. The value a drop-off . the pressure by behavior (practical slope the of drawdown value read of obtained. this equation to by adding the drop given drop the the pressure pressure by in ide~ fo~~~~ reservOIr the dunng solu~~n (E the the of . 5.(5. this means that the pressure drop to production has been felt at the drainage boundary 0 0 0 0 I/O Q.00105 kt + 2s '" I \ The 5. the pressure-time presented /5. 5. The duration of this nized from the appearance The ginning end of period usually of the basic is easily plot. ~st. .87s oil stored in the may be "unloadrecog- r.3) vails.23 ] P 001 = P i -70.31). annulus ] 3.C~w.B kh skin is obtained by hr rearrangement -log ~ cpp./21Tkh). EARLY DEVIATION CAUSED BY WELLBORE EFFECTS Q...2.~~ Fig. (5. straight-line time.should 5. during In which wells without in the tubing string in effect and annulus unthis is the period packers. s = 1.. Pl hr value IS also Indicated schematIcally Note exists begun.1 can be simplified by the usual approximations 1626 it~to kt cp 2p.2.2. skin loading. Eq. Physically. the bewhen boundary slent flow pen~ of a pressur~ vs log drawdown t . s(qp.2 Schematic transient -- drawdown analysis plot..4) on FIg. It is the As discussed in Chapter 2 following Eq. expressl°.2.

then the value P be found from Because of this fact the skin factor can -P is known./21Tkh) . -n4 4 4:-qBl = 0.Drawdown tests are ~sually undertaken well has been shut in and the pressure allowed up to a stabilized assume if we t h at the change -t in P with time is negligible during the he average .= .1115.t s c hange ec 1 that this .reservoIr pressure value.(5. then kh can be determined from the intercept value by 118. -e 21Tkh is (14. This using best as of -11 by plot value -~) must be made which vs (an) rate.50 the well and. = ~ .reD) e -a. If we we combine .7 (5. for reD 14.the drawdown.reD) e -a..sient stage of... line A on the Usually it is not. Drawdown Analysis for which ~ PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS ~-. If we assume P -A an d ne gl t ."p.6819) (0. r eD) = E ~Jt --:..2 method) has been developed. 21Tkh n=l [ -2Bn The contributory pore volume (drainage volume) of (an.J) q kh 5. -14.re these equations and rearrange them. y 1 (anreD) = o. all terms except the first In the summation of Eq. Pwf -~.-( anreD ) .6819 kt ~i'CT.7) Eq.84. ] .12) method.10) after a to build value is ~ = p -~ .9) obtain Pwf -.36). Pw. r-.. (5.I..andadd the pressure drop due to the skin.OO168~. as a result of depletion.6) The graphical portion . intercept b = 118. Once this problem has been settled.cre2 00 ~ -P A = 118.IibeJ.:.e. the well can be determined plot. be linear pro- tDw = log (P"'f A -p) vs cf>p.2 [J 1 -..I 1 2 ( an )] le.A.8) A +2 where B n ( ~. ~ n= 1 Bn (an. P IS SImply P"'f dur- during the test. PhysIcally..~) qIiB -0.Pi -."Cr. From this equation we see that a plot of~g(p:. kt . basic is given by (5. from the slope of the...6 ~e . .L 2 ..6819 -a12 Thus. S(qp. ing semi-steady state flow.l we recall from Chapter 2 the equation for pressure behavior at constant rate in a cylindrical bounded reservoir (Eq. in barrels. This time interval we refer to as the late transient pe~~~~__~i~~~ :he pre~sure behavior is neither se~isteady state nor tranSIent.1 l!::.2.6 A = 084 = -2 reD can be written qp.00168 ~-and cf>p. the flow regime is in the transitioiiarperiOa:-pnor-rorea:cmiigse-mt-=Steaoy state.6!! A .11) drop across the skin zone is given by ~p(skin) = ~.crw2' and an is the nth root 11 (anreD) Y 1 (an) For in production the reservoir at is ~ ~~ 9 Ji' 1" ~ vided means the value of P is known. 2. This value.. the average pressure assumed straight That log (P"'f yields is the chosen constant given t plot --qt' P -. can also be wntten [ In~rw 2-+ 4 S log (PWf -p) A = log (118.(5.2tD.. From Jahnke and Emde2 it can be verified greater than 100. ==iJT VSt sho~e linear with slope magnitude fJ = 0. flow penod of Interest... A procedure for analYZIng the pressure behavior in this period which is analogous to the late-time pressure buildup analysis (extended Muskat 5.5) where (5.2tD" ].reD) e -a. that. 5. down at late transIent conditions.f --. r e +4 3 .-p -~ ] -1n-.5 become negligibly small.2 ' Pressure Late Transient Conditions in practical units To developthe analysistheory for pressuredraw. that a trial-and-error A P values. i. the correct P value. 1T. -P f 5. of this analysis .~.000264) kt -~i'CT. ' S = 0. -2B1 ~ 0. We can then write & [2B1 (al.Cre (5..(5. k liB h t will . Eq.6 kh = b~ liB .2tDw 1 [-.21Tkh Note that the parameter ( In ~ -2+ S rw 4 P is a constant ) ..cre2 The plot of an /12 (a"reD) 2-.84 The pressure When sufficient producing time elapses to reach the late tran. to obtain Pi -= Pwf -~+ ~ 21Tkh cf>p.

From Eq.] re WHICH STRAIGHT GIVES LINE (5. 5.14 and 3.9 show that acceptable results are calculated if wells are located centrally or not far off-center in fairly regular drainage areas (circles.15).3 Pressure Drawdown Analysis for Semi-Steady State Conditions q/. and for this regime a different analysis technique must time values for various reservoir shapes.:: qp. This type of test was first brought to the attention of petroleum engineers in a paper written by the late Park J.~Y~~~~ ~ey indicate..9. etc. hexagons. slope and intercept determination..14) LC where the slope . TI -Fig.). If agreement is obtained on kh and s values derived from the transient and late transient analyses. Because of the mathematical form of Eq. The one vitally important item that can be determined from semi-steady state data is the drainage volume contributing to the wells' production.BLis that of a linear plot of pressure (in psi) vs time (in hours). is shown schematically on Fig.!~~g.i!_. 2. the results from the late transient calculation should be viewed and used with caution. in the case of wells eccentrically 10cated in oblong areas. 0'"00. the calculated results may be distorted. re [ ] f I ~ :: :::::~~:~. These studies. -Pw/ = 2.3). 3.6. !irons and Hazebroek. this type of pressure drawdown analysis is postulated on a cylindrical reservoir shape.:~<:::o ~ ~ SLOPE.3 value quoted above is for cylindrical reservoirs.3.kh ~ 2kt + In ~ -4 3 + s . it is obvious that only in fortuitous circumstances (s and re known) is it possible to determine the kh product from semi-steadystate pressurebehavior. 5.6 ~ If a pressure drawdown test is run for a sufficient period of time (tDe = 0. noting: the nme a~wbi~n~ttl~curv~become linear with the logarithm of time. When the end of the late transient period is reached. The curvesm"M~ ~ Bfon~ ana~broek9 can be consulted to ascertain FLOW . For other reservoir shapes.13) The IDe = 0. -Pw/ -qt -1r</IChrei 3 [1n-. If odd reservoir shapes and/or well positions could possibly be inferred.I.PRESSURE DRAWDOWN ANALYSIS 51 the trial-and-error plot. equilateral triangles. the effect of reservoir shapeis to alter the value of the constant term (3/4) in Eq. the time at which semisteady state flow ~~~es. In practical units the formula for the contributory pore space V p in reservoir barrels is B V p = 0.8In succeedingyears the reservoir limit test has become a popular tool for obtaining information on the size of newly discoverecAydrocarbon reservoirs. P. However.~ ~ou8!! 4.. 5.kh P. From the analysis of a pressure drawdown curve's late transient portion.BL= 1r</ICh .4 + s.(5. then semi-steady state is r~ached and the pressw'e behavior at the well is given by P. it is possible to determine the kh product. especially those which are the least symmetrical./'" b'IIS. .13.13. This is discussedfurther in Section 10. 5. Its popularity is in no small measure due to the fact that the well can continue to produce income while the needed pressuresare being obtained."lhe-"possffiilliY"o{ oddly shaped reser~ (See example buildup plots in Figs.0418 f-. Deviations from this cylindrical shape or from a centrally positioned well location will affect all the calculated results. Further discussion of reconciliation of results from the different analysis theories is presented in the next section. 2:1 rectangles.3 Schematic transientdrawdown late analysis plot.-.. then the value found for the drainage volume should be fairly reliable. . 2 re From the slope the drainage volume can be calculated. skin factor and contributory pore volume.oooi6B-~ .~~-~TOO LARGE } CHOOSE LARGEST ~ ~ o..0/. 5.:... Jones. 5. based on theoretical drawdown behavior for various drraiffiige CtC~Ct ~hCtp~~ derived from the work of as Matthews.13 we see that plotting Pwf vs t should yield a linear relationship with a slope q . As is the case with the late transient analysis of pressurebuildups.B -. In the proper be used. One should inspect the pressure drawdown plots (~~P!~ssure buildup plots.) After semi-steady state flow is achieved. o .0 This equation can also be written + qp.o. the period of semi-steadystate pressurebehavior begins.'. Drawdown tests run for the purpose of drainage volume determination from semi-steady state pressure data are known popularly as "reservoir limit tests". squares. Some unpublished investigations have been made of the effect of drainage area shape and well location on the late transient results.

000 STB of oil. Reservoir limit: V = 149000 reservoir bbl II or . pnmanly to test the size of the 011accumulation.Is this type of test can be a valuable aid in evaluating exploitation economics.7. 5 . The well in this example was completed as a Muddy Sandstone oil discovery in the Denver basin.J Lo.4.000 Fig 5. ' On the basis of these results.- 2000 1800 ~ . . The well recovered 31. Late transient: kh = 371 md-ft. 17 dr or.. the well was flowed at a rate of 800 STB/D for a period of 50 hours. Then. 17 acres.-.. 5.5 is a linear coordinate plot of pres- sure vs flow time. Using the transient analysis equations on the straight-line portion of Fig. while Fig. = -5 4 S .52 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS circumstances and under controlled conditions..xamp 4 E Ie 0f AppI. Denver Basin Muddy Sandstone well.. After a hydraulic fracture treatment upon completion. 10 to 15 hours. the well was flowed to clean up and recover load oil. we find the following (see Appendix D) " Transient: kh = 767 md-ft. From applIcatIon of the late transient methods (see Fig.4 is a plot of flowing bottom-hole pressure vs log t. 5. The reservoir limit analysis on the semi-steadystate data gave the following value (Appendix D). a field example of the application of the three analysis techniques to an extended drawdown test has been included. 01 1600 ~ !oj ::> In In !oj ~ !oj 1400 . acres amage area. Fig. while continuously measuring the bottom-hole pressure and production rate.. 0 800 60010 100 TIME IN MINUTES 1000 10. . t Ion 0f Pressur e Ita " Drawdown Analysis Methods To demonstrate the use of the techniques discussed in the previous section. and was then shut in and the pressure allowed to stabilize at the static value. the engineers decided to run an extended pressure drawdown test. VII = 146.:. 5. Before undertaking additional drilling.. 5. s = -5.000 reservoir bbl.4 Flowing pressure logarithm of flowing time. 5. The subsequentproduction performance of this well is shown on Fig.6). we obtain the following (Appendix D).J 0 :I: I 0 m C> ~ ~ 0 2 1200 z i 1000 . It appears that the transient flow period lasted about 2 hours and that semi-steadystate flow began in the interval.0 . extended vs pressuredrawdowntest. The details of all the calculations for this example are contained in Appendix D. In a later section the application of these tests will be discussedin detail. Using a reservoir volume of 146. further drilling was not attempted.

The example demonstrates the economic value of a transient pressure analysis. This is discussedmore completely in Section 10. If he must make recommendations concerning future exploitation of a reservoir. and the pressure drop per unit of production is less than with radial flow. Thus. information was obtained which prevented an obvious loss of much greater magnitude. 5. This type of test is harder to run and control. There are cases in which a unique interpretation of reservoir characteristics may not be possible from pressure analyses and the available geological and petrophysical data.5.. : . then the pressure drawdown behavior can sometimes be analyzed by recourse to the multiple-rate 1800 -0 ". ~ ~ ~ II) II) 1&1 1&1 1600 f 1&1 -J 0 1400 ~ I0 i i 1200 m ~ z 0 -J 1000 I&. however.PRESSURE DRAWDOWN ANALYSIS 53 000 bbl and a water saturation of 35 percent. 800 600 0 600 1200 TIME IN MINUTES 1800 2400 3000 Fig. In such casesthe engineer must acknowledge the existence of more than one possible interpretation. In particular. At early time. the more radial flow away from the fracture controls the pressure behavior and truer estimates of kh result.000. In fractured wells the kh and s values will depend on the flowin.. In this case. why is it that the kh and s values determined from the transient and late transient methods do not agree more closely? In this case the explanation lies in the fact that the well was fractured on completion. As flowing time increases. the additional knowledge of pressure behavior in fractured wells gained from theoretical studies provided a basis for choosing between answers. In both instances negative skin factors are obtained. This example has served to illustrate the need for considering all available information when analyzing pressure data. If the well will not flow at constant rate. extendedpressuredrawdown test. . he should be especially aware of the economic implications of each alternative solution. this amounts to a recovery efficiency of about 30 percent. For roughly $1.5 Flowing pressurevs time." 5. The analysis methods are based on the assumption of a constant flow rate from the well. However. all the separate facets of the analyses are not in complete agreement.g time range of the pressure data used in their calculation. flow into the well is the result of essentially linear flow into the fracture. the calculated kh value will be too high. Because of this effect and the fact that the reservoir volumes determined from the late transient and reservoir limit analyses are in near-perfect agreement. we believe the 2000 kh and s values calculated from the late transient method to be preferable. becausethe well is flowing during the test. Denver Basin Muddy Sandstonewell. A recovery of this magnitude is quite reasonable for Denver Basin depletion-type reservoirs.5 Operational Considerations with Pressure Drawdown Tests The properly run pressure drawdown test can yield valuable information about the reservoir.

Denver Basin Muddy Sandstonewell. the resulting pressure data generally will not be usable.0~ 0. then an effort should be made to eliminate as much as possible the necessity for retrieving the bomb to rewind the clock.- -\ \ \\ p = 1460 A 10 \ \ \ \0 \ A p=1490 1 0 2 4 6 8 flowing time -hours Fig.6 Late transient analysisplot. Especially in those cases in which b='320 ~"0/~=1'300 . In the case where the well surges or "heads" due to slug flow through the tubing string. If an internally recording pressure bomb is used. It is advisable to have some idea of the flowing characteristics of a well before committing funds and equipment for a drawdown test. '" """"'-0 ~ = 1400 '" a. The flow rate of the well should be great enough to cause easily discernible pressurechanges on all phasesof the test. Pressure measuring equipment should be especially calibrated for the range of pressuresto be encountered on the test... ~ -0 U) \ \ \ \ \ ~= slope = ~= 1 0.. 100 0 \".. 5. 1000 If it is available. gas and water produced during the test can be metered as a function of time is highly desirable.1'35 .. ~ -0 """ / " 0'0. special test equipment with which the oil. ~ - . \ \ a.'-.54 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS test methods which are presented in the next chapter... extendedpressuredrawdown test. 0 ' . ~a. "..



small changes in pressure are being observed, the disturbance in the tubing created by pulling and re-running a pressure bomb when combined with gauge hysteresis effects can render significant portions of the pressure data unusable. Surface recording bottom-hole pressure gauges8are very helpful in drawdown tesung. When properly run, the pressure drawdown test affords a method for establishing the formation permeability and skin effect which is equally as reliable as the pressure buildup procedure. From the late transient portion of a pressure buildup or drawdown, the contributory drainage volume of the well can be estimated.

The long-term pressure drawdown test offers the engineer an additional means for estimating reservoir size (reservoir limit test). The pressure buildup is operationally simpler than the drawdown test, however, because it requires no measurementof production rates during the test. We believe it absolutely necessaryto devote some discussion to precautions concerning reservoir limit tests. These tests are probably the easiestof the pressure analysis techniques to misapply and obtain erroneous results. Invariably, the question which is asked concerning reservoir limit test data is: "Did


15000 ,

..J m m




-200 I&J 10 , 000

0 -






~ ~



,~ ',\"
5000 ';1 10,000 CUMU~:~: IlL 20,000 25,000 30,000 8

" ...

Fig. 5.7 Productionperformance, DenverBasinMuddy Sandstone well.



the well really reach semi-steady state drawdown behavior?" The longer the test, the greater the certainty as to whether semi-steady state was reached. If the test data are misinterpreted and the slope of the pressure vs time plot is derived from transient or late transient pressure data, then the resulting calculated drainage volume will always be conservative. This is true because the slope of the pressure-time plot (dp/dt) decreases monotonically until semi-steady state flow is reached, and calculated reservoir size is inversely proportional to the slope value. Some simple results from theoretical fluid flow studies will help to answer whether the test time was sufficient. Transient flow endsll at a flow time of t ~ 2 q"ucr e (practical units), 0.00264 k

viously, difficulties in maintaining proper test conditions and the cost of the test almost preclude reservoir limit testing in such cases. The pressure measurement costs will usually be $200 to $300 per day. In planning for such tests, the engineer should estimate the permeability and other parameters and make rough calculations of the time required to reach semisteady state for various drainage radii. In this way he can help decide on the practicality of attempting a reservoir limit test. Another problem may arise in economic handling of products produced from the well. In the case of oil this usually is not too much of a problem. However, with a gas well that has no pipeline connection, considerable volumes of gas may have to be produced and flared. This adds heavily to the cost of the test. In areas where production is prorated, permission must be obtained from the regulatory body to undertake any extended drawdown tests that would violate allowable restrictions. . d ProVide t he p1anmng and economIC requirements .. indicate it to be feasible, a considerable amount of useful reservoir information can usually be obtained from a well executed reservoir limit test. Surface recording bottom-hole pressure gaugesprovide a ready check on pressure behavior as the test progresses. 5.6 Behavior in Non-Ideal Cases

and flow at semi-steadystate begins9 at a time of t ~ 2 -cJ>JLcre -or three times the first value. (See also Odeh 0.00088 k and Nabor,12 who give approximately these same values.) Thus, if we can pick the end of the transient period from the pressurevs log t plot, then the semi-steady state beginning can be estimated at three times this value. This factor of three will increase as the drainage shape departs from circular and ~s the well location .is shifted from the center of the draInage area. In certaIn
..us types of heterogeneous reservoIrs the factor IS much ...or larger than three as dIscussed In Section 10.3.


Another check on the reservoir limit information can be obtained from data derived from a pressure buildup test run immediately after the drawdown test. For a fluid of small and constant compressibility, the time required to reach semi-steadystate pressure decline is the same as the shut-in time required for the well to completely build up to the average reservoir pressure. Therefore, if a post-drawdown pressure buildup is run for a shut-in time at least as great as the length of the drawdown test, a check on whether semi-steady state was reached can be made. This is done by noting whether the buildup plot (PW8 log [(t+ ~t) / ~t]) devs viates from a straight line at large time and flattens out toward the averagepressure. Unless some flattening occurs, the flow test of equal time was too short. Extended drawdown tests have been valuable to many companies in making post-discovery decisions as to further developmentdrilling. As can be seenfrom the formula for the time at which semi-steady state 2 flow begins t ~ -~~ ), however, the time re0.00088 k quired to obtain valid reservoir limit test data is directly proportional to the compressibility and inversely proportional to the permeability. In the case of a lowpermeability gas reservoir, for example, the time required for semi-steady state flow to occur for a 640acre area may be in the order of several months. Ob-

h t d th t ti d 11d tt ti ti I t ca aspec s 0f the meth0ds. I n this secti on We shall point out the modifications to the basic theory which must be effected to handle gas flow, multiphase flow, etc. If the well has been closed in prior to a drawdown test, there is some fluid stored in the wellbore which unloads when the well is opened. Van Everdingen and HursPo originally studied this effect in transient production analysis. Until mass equilibrium is restored in the wellbore, the surface-measuredproduction rate will be the sum of the bottom-hole inflow and wellbore storage depletion rates. On short drawdown tests in wells with extended periods of wellbore depletion, the calculated results may be in error becauseof the use of erroneous rates. Stegemeierand Matthews4 show that the net rate of fluid accumulation or depletion into the f


Th d

f d


. .





























tubing or casing is proportional to the rate of change of the difference between the tubing- or casing-head pressuresand bottom-hole pressures.Thus, if one plots ~(BHP-THP) vs flow time, then stable conditions prevail in the well for times beyond the point at which ~(BHP-THP) becomes essentially a constant. Generally, it is possible to recognize this point on field data from the linearity of the p vs log t plot. Ramey5 has studied wellbore storage effects in pressure buildup and drawdown of oil and gas wells. Fortunately, the casing-tubing annulus usually is isolated by a packer in a gas well so that the only gas volume available is in the tubing string. Ramey found that the time required


for wellbore storage and effects having to no die skin out effect,

in gas wells by with a large flowing to for pressure details. drawdown tests are an operasound means f or evauating. 1 and drainage volume. tests if the to drop. Their work should

without t In feet. storage tests of (da this ys


is given )

be referred

) 4 785 , -practic Lt

J.tcgrw2Lt ( kh is the length that in


umts. the


In summary, pressure tiona 11y an d th eoretically . . string wellbore drawdown tests, in critical Drawdown conditions close ic (including
th b e u bble


flow cases for

reservoir tests

parameters are the In simplest many

Ramey effects less

concluded are than likely 1


of flowing it is not

to be important day. For will

are right. for Also,

cases time



in a well

sufficient it

to begin is

a test to

at statmain-

wellbore In the

storage case
li mi t

probably of
test s

not be important. tests
b 1 e ow

conditions. a constant
test r

frequently rate.

difficult cases,

) run a t


pIe-rate f

analysIs bl methods

In these
of the

the multichapter are

reservoir point of


reservoir, case tests total






gas of We

0 ten

app Ica


will result. In this pressure drawdown must rock substitute and fluid replace of the the

the equations for analysis must be modified slightly. compressibility of the

References 1. Russell, alysis D. G.: "Extensions J. Pet. of Pressure (Dec., Build-Up AnFourth

reservoir the total of these










ity and mobility

the single-fluid flowing fluids.

mobility with The calculation

2. Jahnke, E. and Emde, Ed., Dover Publications,

F.: Tables of New York.


quantities and their use in the analysis p letel y analo gous to the modifications com flow

formulas is for two P hase as dis-



case apter.







3. Jones, P. an~ M.ca;hee, E,',: "a;ulf Coast Wildcat Verities Reservoir Limit Test, 011 and Gas J. (June 18, 1956) 184. 4 St . G L d M tth C S ." Anomalous Pressure Build-Up Behavior", Trans.,
.egemeler, ..an a ews, ...u A St d y 0

Pressure handled gous to
The ,ugBg



in gas wells of the analysis




AIME 5. Ramey, Storage


213, 44-50.

by using a modification that for pressure buildup

theory analoin gas wells.
..of the anthmetic

H. J., !r.: "Non-Darcy Flow and Wellbore Effects m Pressure Build-Up and Drawdown
Wells", J. Pet. Tech. (Feb., 1965) 223-233.

mean sures, reservoir



t e static the








d fl

. owmg




ore on the

presstatic data psi, at

6 R 11 D G G d . P erry, .usse, .., 00 nc, h J ..,H kotter, J. F.: "Methods for Predicting formance", 7. AI-Hussainy, J. Pet. R. and Tech. Ramey, (Jan.,

G ..an E d B rus Gas Well Per99-108. "Application of


CtJ.tg product If the is not greater CtJ.tg products of the

should pressure

based of




H. J., Jr.:

being analyzed the J.tgBg and the

than, say, 400 to 500 can both be evaluated and considered
there have

Re,a.l Gas Flo~ T,~eory to Well ability Forecasting, J. Pet. Tech. 8. Kolb..

Testing and Deliver(May, 1966) 637-642. Pressur.e

for all the



be conbeen no




Surface 346-349.


.Provldmg Although


Automatic 219,

h h



1 .

th d



9 M h C S B F d H b k P " 1 b .att ews, .., rons, .an aze roe, .: A

t at t e



ana YSlS me


s ou of more

a so I e than,
in gas 10.

Method Bounded 191.
,:an of


Determination Trans.,
F. and


Average AIME

Pressure 201,



modified in this In the event
say, 400 to 500 ..tlon

manner for gas wells. that pressure changes
psi are encountered during

A. Laplace

W.: to "The Flow


Everdingen, the




wells, erties


vanation be

of the taken into

pressure-dependent account. Usually,

gas propthe larg-

in Reservoirs", 11. Miller, C. C.,

Trans., Dyes,


(1949) and

186, 305-324. C. A.,



est pressure changes are encountered during transient tests and the smallest for the semi-steady state tests AI-Hussainy and Ramey7 have described a unique pro~ cedure
properties plotting

Jr.: "Estimation of Permeability and Reservoir Pressure from Bottom Hole Pressure Build-up Characteristics", Trans., AIME (1950) 189, 91-104. 12. Ode~,
duction acteristics 1343-1350.



drawdown they first analysIs. transform



of pres-


.S. and
History From








Instead the

on Determmatlon of Formation Flow Tests", J. Pet. Tech. (Oct.,



sures into a pseudo-pressure variable by means of an integral involving the pressures and associated gas properti ' e Thi . ful d f .of
s. s IS a use proce ure or gas reservoirs

13. Root, P. J., Warren, J. E. and Hartsock, J. H.: "Implications of Transient Flow Theory: The Estimation
Gas 141. Reserves", Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1965)


1 --2 .Chapter 6 Multiple-Rate Flow Test Analysis The methods for analyzing flowing well behavior discussedthus far have been based on the assumption of a constant producing rate. The remarks on the obtaining of made in the discussion good of measurements which were pressure drawdown analysis . . Applying the principle of superposition (as in Section 2.8). skin effect and reservoir pressure. In some cases.cr".3) For the third time period. As will be seen. Th t ti hd I e.esire pressure analysIs method d IS f . 6. . (61) . ThIS chapter . the multiple-rate methods to be presented are applicable to gas wells as well as oil wells. d raw d own t es t .. small .2) cf>p. 162. on measurements obtaIned whIle the well Th rom E d d th ' . (Ref. as t"-l ~ t . =. 0 ~ t ~ t1 .. .(6. regulatory bodies require flow tests made at a series of different .The methods of thIS .The IS the case wIth any Chapter 3) can be used to forecast future deliverability.. we dIVIde the 1 op .. It should be realized. t2 ~ t ~ t3 .. Analysis of these data by the interpretation methods of this chapter affords a means for estimating the kh product. t b h h th IC e pro uc Ion ra e can e consldered const ant. . the methods of Swift and Kiel (Ref. .0 . q = qs . the rate will vary with time. intervals d t 0 app I y t 0 th e case may be based producIng.. . Determination of gas well deliverability is not a primary objective.me sc e u e IS as f 011 ows: . As .. . once the basic parameters of kh and skin factor are determined. .. In other cases..6 qlJL B [I t + -] s. the skin factor and the reservoir pressure... . .W for handlIng both of these cases. however.era chapter are partIcularly useful In the case of a floWIng well which produces at constant rate where it is not operationally or economically feasible to shut in the well for a pressure buildup or to allow the pressure to equalize prior to a pressure drawdown test. (6. q. . that the measurement of production rates is more critical in the case of multiple-rate tests than with ordinary pressure drawdown at constant rate.. We shall discuss this point further in the presentation of the various multiple-rate analysis methods. Russel[et al. of course.. 27.. we find the pressure drop during the second time period to be 162. Chapter 3) 0... ti I t d e pressure rop unng e mi a Ime peno IS.. IS devoted to development of pressure analysIs methods d t.. P"'f kh og are equally valid here.1 General Equations for Analysis of Flowing Well Tests with Variable Rate T deve1 the genera equatIons. and as numerous as . 22.6 q1/A. q = q" .pressure rates. However. eac h 0f q = ql ..6(q2 -ql)JL B [log (t -t1) kh + s] .23 + O..mom . B P. t t erva 1s d unng . -P"'f = kh [log t + s] + 162.87s .-= p. 0 f a con ti nuous I y c h a n gt ng . care must be exercIsed to obtaIn good production rate and pressure measurements. . In these instances dependable transient pressure data can often be obtained by measuring the pressure responsecaused by a change in flow rate. t < t< t q q. . where s = log ---~~ -3. 5 2 . Gas-well tests fall Into thIScategory. The objective of these methods is to determine permeability.rate.

! S -1..(6.5 we see during the nth period of constant rate.1 Multiple-ratetestpressure productiondata. The basic plot requires that the initial pressure value Pi be known. yields That the is.k kh 3./L B [log t + s] . P..6 P.. dunng tIme penod n the pressuredrop IS gIvenby .. The basic data for the oilwell example + s] .87s </>p. 6. 20 From Eq.:--2+ m 'l'JLCroo ] 3. t 0 bl Thus. or P.cr 00 ] "OJ Co 200 . -Poo! -162. 6.6q"p.5) > a: l1J ~ a: 300 . In a later section of this chapter variable-rate analapplication of a modification of thewe will present the ysis theory to the determination of the kh product and This equation can also be written 162.MINUTES Fig.:. t"-1 $: t. 6. we should obtain a straight line of slopem'=-~~~~and intercept bl= 1626 B [ k'h /L log~. (6. then the utility of this type of test and analysis becomes h t d h It somew a ImtffiS ed .. 6.qj q. k -.87s . -Poo! -kh [log t+s] + [log (t-t1) [log (t-t2) -162.(6. 500 ( t -t j-1) ] ] ~ ~ m 400 r 162. ~ 15 From these values we can determine the kh product and skin factor from kh = ..MULTIPLE-RATE FLOW TEST ANALYSIS 59 _162.7) 100 DATA V0 MISSING 200 ~r Damage ratio or flow efficiency can be calculated for flow tests exactly as for pressure buildups (see Chap3). 0f course. Fig.6 + s] + -rate + s] . -P q. Odeh and Jlmes! presented the ..6/LB :: [ Aqj -"" -og I q" kh j=l q" + where A.151 [ bl. if we plot p. determine value should Pi trial that and which error.2 shows the variable-rate analysis method plot for these data.-log-:.e.(6.1..) -I + + . i.23 + 0.6 q1JA.6(qn -qn-1)/L B[log (t -t"-1) kh drawdowns.6(qa-q2)JL kh B [log (t -t2) -rate + s] + ~nalysis technique a?d also some examples of applYIng the method to ollwell and gas-well pressure .C! 162.6/LB Pi -Poo! = kh[q110g t + (q2 -q1) log (t -t1) + ( qa-q) 2 log (t-t..6JLBlog~.23 .!~~~. (I -Ij-J . Further details of the example calculation can be found in the Odeh and Jones paper. by be .(q" -q"-1) og (t -t"-1)] + 162.4) (q2 -q1) JLB kh (q -q) B ~h 2/L The foregoing equations and plotting technique comprise the basic method for analyzing pressure drawdown tests which are begun at stabilized pressure conditions in the reservoir and in which the production is non-constant. best the correct straight Pi line 162....+ 162.q1= q1 to = O.6) and .') - . TIME..qj = qj -qj-1 A...6 kh q.. If it is not known.k 3. to 100 2500 Pi = 3000 psi ! vs ~ j=1 n -log A.6(q2 -q1)JL B + kh [log (t-t1) + -on s] the basic plot. foregoIng vana bl e- " + 162. m .IS pOSSIe.. and (Data from Odehand Jones.-= p.23 + 0.presented in their paper are depicted graphically on Fig.B - kh s .B -162.

~ . rate.3 Schematicplot of productionrate and bottom-hole pressureperformancefor two-rate flow test (q. It IS assumed that the well has produced at constant rate ql for time t prior to the test.60 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS skin effect from gas-well open-flow potential test data. the bottom-hole pressure bomb is lowered into the well. .6 q2JLB [log~- k p. ~ IU - q. a well is usually stabilized for several days at a constant producing rate.2 Two-Rate Flow Test AnalysIs Method The two-rate flow test. Three to four hours prior to the rate change. the transient pressure response caused by the.. 5.0 .2 Multiple-ratetestbasicplot.) We see from Eq. -I 1. 1 0. t = producIng time pnor to the rate change.3) is followed by a period during which boundary and interference effects are felt (B).. Meanwhile.C '" 3. This is necessaryin order to obtain a dependable value for the flowing pressure prior to the test. 6. (This is the same assumptionmade in pressure buildup analysis theory.6 kh qIPB [log~+~t' ~log ql ~t' ] ' (6. 6.~ :0 0 0 3.23 + O.0 n qj-qj-l 7. The developmentof an analysis theory has led to the use of multiple-rate flow tests as a means of generating transient pressure data. after a usually short period of transition. .'j£~1 . . < qJ.ICo .. .0 -/ 'CD 'in Co 0 / / /0 0 / [IOg¥+~log~t'] ~INITIAL @ will yield a straight line. 6. and finally the well returns to a stabilized pressure decline (C). 6. p"" = Pi -kh 162.0 8. In preparation for a two-rate flow "test. and. ~ -I~~ ~ . higher or lower.6. ~ @ -' 0 : "f PORTION OF PRESSURE HISTORY USED IN FLOW TEST ANALYSIS BOUNDARY -0 .8 that a plot of p"" vs 6. the rate stabilizes at its new value.. @II'\ / 0 ~ :0 '" U) PREssuRE I..8) where . A that the ra te 0f pro duct Ion q2 becomes operative immediately after the change in rate. I I t ) I log (t-tj-l) 1--1 .1- 6t'-TIME- J=I qn Fig. ~t' = producing time measured from the instant of rate change. rate change is being measured.J) Fig.. developed by Russell.2 and the principle of superposition to yield the following expression for the flowing bottemhole pressure after the rate change.0 f I I q. The period of transient pressure change caused by the change in rate (labeled A on Fig. RETURNS TO STABILIZED PRESSURE DECLINE ~ '.~)t . v . and also eliminates the need for shutting in the well. ql = rate pnor to the rate change. The flow test pressure and production rate behavior with time are shown schematically on Fig. The required pressure data are obtained by observation of the transient bottom-hole pressure behavior V after the stabilized production rate of the well is changed to another. 6.87s ] -162.-:-6"-TIME- '. we may combine Eq. I: SHORT TIME LAGUSUALLYREOUIRED BEFORE NEW STABLE RATE IS REACHED 4. One of the most popular of these techniques is the two-rate flow test described in the section which follows.') 'I ~l.2offers a means for determining the kh product.3 for the case in which the rate is reduced.and --ssuInlng 6. The producing rate is then changed by adjustment of the choke at the wellhead. q2 = rate after the rate change. (Data from Odeh and Jones.. and pressure measurement is begun. FOR i @ EFFECTS ARE FELT AND INTERFERENCE I lc 0" ~ z: ANALYSISI I ~ WELl. skin effect and extrapolated pressure which overcomes many of the wellbore problems experienced with pressure buildups..0 50 2 PAST PRESSuRE INOT NEEDED HISTORY -. It is necessaryto measure only the pressuresjust prior to the rate change during a portion of the transient responseinterval. and both oil and gas production rates are measured on a daily basis.

.0 .32. 6.400 STB 1*~ '24* 5922hr 107 BASIC DATA-WELL A SLOPE *90pII .log ~t' ] ~t' ql will be linear for a period of time after the rate change and will then start to deviate from linearity as boundary and (or) interference effects are reflected at the well.In In a manner sImIlar to that used to denve the pressure buildup theory it can be established that the skin factor is given by 3 = 1.9) .n I this case.87 ms (at rate ql) or q ~p (skin) = 0.sows 5 h .87 ~ ms (at rate q2).- .06 Np*26. psI9 .11) b ~ CD 0 The pressure drop across the skin zone is b" aiven by ~p (skin) = 0. The times at which such effects will be felt will be of the same magnitude as would be the case if a conventional buildup were being run in the well. Permian Basinwell. 3. 6. reservoir solution of the radial flow equation for a slightly compressible fluid. the effect of a boundary is to cause the points to bend over and deviate from the straight line. the method will generally be applied to wells which produce from bounded drainage volumes. Damage ratio or flow efficiency can be calculated for I. the two-rate flow test analysis theory is based on flow of fluid of small and constant compressibility..6Cp B*I.0 . however. * 3118 pliO q2*46STB/D h*59fl c. A complete dis- Fig.~ 3220 . The value of Pi (equivalent to p. 6...IS shown on PIg. q2 < q I - [( ql I ql -q2 )( PI hr -PID ) -log~ f/llJ-CrtD2 (6.crtD2 (6. 6.6 qlJLB V I__~ -m'. . as in Example 2A.+ 3..3 Two-Rate Flow Test Analysis Non..6 + .I.2fl IJ.5 Two-rate flow test plot.0 3.. Permian Basin region of West Texas.9.6 * P *3548 . This d b . a typIcal fi eld example of a two-rate .J two-rate flow tests exactly as for pressurebuildups (see Chapter 3). (6..*9.38 3. 61' 109 .*0..9 flow test from the paper by RUsseiI. The interpretation theory is based on the infinite ' i . ~ ~ ~ 4--INCREASINGFLOW TIME log ~ ( ) ql 1+61' q + -!61 ql log 61' Fig.2 This flow test was run . As IS the case WIth pressure buIldup and pressure drawdown analysis theories. see Chapter 3) is given by [ P. 6 .MULTIPLE-RATE FLOW TEST ANALYSIS 61 From the slope m (in psi/cycle) of this plot the kh product can be determined by y -162..j ~ 3210 ~ ~ 3200 ~ i 3190 :: m 31BO 0- [ ql * 107 STB/D P. The general appearanceof a two-rate flow test curve in the caseof a well producIng from a bounded homogeneous dramage voIume . . ..23] where p~~win2 pressure at the time of the rate change an~ is the pressure at 1 hour after the rate change on the straight-line section of the flow test Plot.e. 317 316 3150 RESUL TS 1*-3. = PtD + m log kt -3...5 109~' 61 ql =30md .873 ] ~ ~ a: cfI\ / 0000 RETURN TO 0' SEMI STEADY:r STATE FLOW I EARLY DEVIATION FROM LINEARITY DURING RESTABILIZATION RATE 2 ~ f/lp.£"c~ L- . in pressurebuildup: theory. PIg.. 4 q2 < ql.. It may be expected h th h ten at t e plot of PtD! vs log t + ~t'+ !l!... If the pressures on a tworate flow test are below the bubble point.ldeal Cases .5 ~*0. 3.23 + 0.k eVlation ecomes progressIvely greater as the well fina11 y reaches a semI-stea y state pressure decline at d 3250 324 323 . .4 Appearance of two-rate flow test curve in bounded homogeneous reservoir.151 " cussion of this example and the details of the calculations employed in the analysis can be found in Appendix E.10) m . it is necessary to substitute the total mobility and compressibility of the system into the analysis formulas.3.z.'0-5pI'-1 rw*0. rate q2. In practice. Appendix B..m a Iow-permeab1li ty li mestone reservoIr m t he .

In the case of a decrease in rate. If the pressure range encountered on the test is quite great then the methods suggestedby Al-Hussainy and RameyS can be applied to account for pressure dependenceof the gas properties. The other is the instance in which phase redistribution in the tubing string subsequent to shut-in causes "humping" buildup behaVlor. Elimination of Wellbore Effects with Two-Rate Flow Tests Two-rate flow tests have found their primary area of application in wells in which wellbore effects obviate the pressure analysis technique. This can be provided quickly by the entering fluid. sand p* without loss of production from closing In the well. One is the case in which compression of gas in the wellbore and a long. If field personnel are not familiar with the behavior of the well. etc. The general multiple-rate analysisprocedure set forth by Odeh and Jonesl can be applied to determine the kh product and skin factor from such data. in reality the true straight-line section has not yet been reached.6 Pressure buildupcurve. 6.4 72-hr PRESSURE BUILDUP Np= STB 4145 . This is a very striking example of the utility of two-rate flow tests. 6.62 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS For the case of a gas well. In this case it was necessary to extend the shut-in period of the well to 6 or 7 days to overcome compression and afterproduction effects and obtain a straight-line section on the pressure buildup plot. In general it has been found from field tests that the restabilization period is shorter in the case of a rate reduction than in the case of a rate increase. the flow test performance of a well after a change in choke si~e is directly related to the vertical lift performance characteristics of the well. A basic requirement of the two-rate procedure is that the well flow without surging or heading at each rate. are quantitatively the same on two-rate flow tests as on pressure buildups.000 1+61 illustrate graphically the cases referred to above. one needs to have a general idea of the flow characteristics of the well. By obtaining such observations in advance. 2 are Included to in a well. In the case of an increase in rate.. The two-rate flow test run in this well is shown on Fig. Field experiencewith the flow test method indicates that rapid stabilization of flow conditions usually occurs within the flow string and.9. As a final note in our discussion. . Such an instantaneous change in flow rate is never fulfilled in practice because the adjustment in bottom-hole inflow rate results from a change in choke size at the wellhead.. Fig. This technique was discussedin Section 5. perforations. 6. 6. Another point pertinent to practical use of two-rate flow tests concerns the assumption of instantaneous change in flow rate in developmentof the interpretation theory.8 shows a humping buildup curve obtained from a Wilcox Sand gas-condensate producer in South Texas.kh.6.30 Some examples from Ref. The effects of partial well penetration. . Although the last few points appear to lie on a straight line. especially in low-permeability reservoirs.6 shows a 72-hour pressure buildup obtained At Fig.7.J:f Q-"o. an additional amount of fluid is needed to establish new flow equilibrium in the flow string.. Thus. The method of Stegemeier and Matthews4 can be used to detect when flow through the tubing has stabilized. one is able to make a better choice of the flow rates to be used during the flow test.problemwell. 6. the technique of employing "average" gas properties as outlined in the discussionsof pressure buildup and pressure drawdown analysis is applicable for two-rate flow tests. is the flow-after-flow type of open-flow potential test run in gas wells.5 . it is advisable to observethe flowing behavior of the well at two or three different flow rates to obtain a general impression of its performance characteristics. Two principal types of conditions are involved. The plot of a two-rate flow test from this same well is shown on Fig. 4800 440 ~ 4000 ~ a 3600 g: ~ 3200 0 T ~ 2800 ~ 2 :J 6. The flow test of 22 hours' duration enabled g?od estimate~of . The reason for this seemsto be as follows. This decreaseoccurs more slowly because fluid is now entering the flow string from the formation at a higher rate than before. 6.. Transient AnalysIs of Gas-Well Multi-Point Open-Flow Potential Tests An important and plentiful source of multiple-rate transient pressure data. therefore.P' -~ 10 000 10 2000 . there must be a net decrease in the mass content of the flow string for stabilization. low-rate afterproduction period combine to render the normal pressure buildup plot non-linear. surface producing rate measurements are not greatly distorted. Fig. we would like to emphasizethat in planning and executing two-rate flow tests. Rapid restabilization appears to be directly related to the fact that the flow string is continuously resupplied with mass during a two-rate flow test.

Ihr I spective rates.. FLOWING PRESSURE3255psig = U! U! . In the flow-after-flow type of OFPT. ~rOducingbelow bubblepoint.5hr 00 0 ° ° tt21 hr 0 0 (/) ~ 3400-.6 3. 5770psig °'b ~ ' At'=5.=70 STB/D P-0'0.84 p*.RATE FLOW TEST ANALYSIS 63 3600 ~t'=22hr ~ ~ Q Q 3500\ .e regulat?ry bodies that control oil.12 (~) 29. however. MINUTES Fig.0 U! SLOPE670 pslg = ~ "7 In several areas of the United States and Canada.7 3.8 Pressure buildup curve.4 ~ '" 3500 0- w a: :> In In a: a.~ 3.0 1°9~ + ~ 1°9 At' Fig.3186PP:. the stat.3 3.e. . the well is allowed to flow several hours at each rate and then the pressure is measured.1. sure were reduced to atmosphenc. Results of these tests are often used in conjunction with other parameters to determine the allowable flow rate of a well.13 f t 2 ~ '0. The idealized pressure-rate-time behavior during an OFPT of a new gas well in a tight reservoir is depicted on Fig.0 6t. The OFPT consists of a series (commonly from one to four) of measurementsof flowing bottom-hole pressures made at various flow rates.J 0 :I: 3400 ~ 0 ff0 UI I / 3300 I .8 ~9 4. i.0.10. 3600 3. 6.1 md s =-4.Wilcox well. The pressure-rate data from an OFPT are usually analyzed by the familiar steady-state flow method of Rawlins and Schellhardt5to determine the open-flow potential of the well. and gas production requIre that open-flow potential tests (OFPT) be obtained in gas wells. In permeable reservoirs each pressure measurement usually represents essentially semi-steady state flow conditions at the re- ~ BASIC DATA 0' 6 UI3300-I qo.7 Two-rate flow test plot. The "tight reservoir" restriction is in- 3. Generally.8 mdIcp II =t320~ s.7710-5 x psi-I r w2.~ ~ w RESULTS k . the theoretical rate at which the well would flow if the sand-facepres. the pressures are measured at the end of a flow period at a given rate. 6. after which the rate is changed immediately to a new value without closing in the well.MULTIPLE. in tight reservoirs the flowing pressures measured are usually still in the transient stage. 6. Bo' 1.~2 I 3200 :w .34cp q =40STB/D t=8151hr h02= ft 8 Ct=2.

.1 0 a four-point OFPT is shown in which the rates increase. 6. q is expressed in units of Mcf per day.12) where qo and to are identically zero. .25ft ~ : 0. 2.. By modifying the general equations (Eqs. Wilco-x well.h p..958IJ.10..254 MMcf h : 142 ft rw: 0.0 + q2 -q.5 .7 5.0056 Ct :2.9 .7) presented earlier in the chapter for flow of gas.q" vs t => q2 : : : t4 g ql ~ 0 0 :..4.=28.. w :I: p* : 3560 psig BASIC DATA-WELL C ql : 8781 Mcf/O q2 : 6002 Mc f /0 Np : 32.24xI0 fLQ : 0. -t/-1) . 6. .!~- c!>IJ.02 cp p : 3084psiQ w Plhr:3180pSiQV -4 w 6 3160 I 0 psi-I ~ 0 I- b m 3150 314 ".5. : Z 0 : I I (6... 3130 4.Bg q.5 Fig.87S w I- + 28.. relationship for fourpomt gas-well open-flow potential test (OFPl). Sw : 03 t : 88..9 Two-rate flow test plot.6.64 3200 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS . log t +6t 6t' 5.- 5..-6 t/: 22 hr 3190 SLOPE: 35 psiQ .Bg ~ k. Fig. I serted to insure that the method will be applied only in those cases in which the measured pressures are within the transient portion of the pressure history.I.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i 3 II.958 is used in this equation rather than 162. The factor 28. 6. 0 0 p wf4 1 t4 I tl I t2 TIME I t3 [10g-. In Fig.23 + O. k. . 6.h i=1 ( q/ I ) log (t.) of an OFPT the following expression can be written: Pi -PtDf. because throughout Section 6.~ 3180 U) RESULTS k s : : 5..958IJ.15 BQ: 0.: tl t2 TIME : t3 . Idealized pressure-fate-time.47 md in Co ~ a: => w ~ 3170 a: Q. Thus a plot of Pi -PtDf" . we find that at point n(n = 1.1 through 6.157 hr t6t: 3 mln 4 ' log 6t 1 I . The analysis procedure is independent of whether the rates increase or decrease during the test.clrtDl -q/-l q" ] 3.

~ (~ 1=1 q" ) IOg (I" -li-1) /LgBg.958 should be linear with slope m -koh cept b' = 28.'. If the total pressure range becomes greater. The kh product and skin factor are determined from kgh = 28. 6.g g 0.013 m'=0..009 0. The basic data and calculations lor this analysis are presented in Appendix E.4 .12: The pressure data are from OFPT obtamed at completion on a Morrow-Chester sandstone well in the Anadarko basin of Oklahoma.' 0 -::::u ~ 0 . The modifications to the basic procedure which 0.1 n 00 n )=1 ( qj-qj-l ) qn ( 0. 6..RATE FLOW TEST ANALYSIS 65 . the skin factor can be calculated.h and s from OFPT data. The use of this technique depends heavily on the accuracy of the pressure data.tester. 5 md 5 =-4. . 6... / 0. .kgh product.8 md and s = -4.5 md and s = -4. -Pw/" q" /Lg"Bg" may be plotted against ~ j= 1 ( qi -qi-1 q" ) log (I" -li-1) .13) ] Th th e thod .E ~~ cf 0.958 /LgBg[log--~koh ~/Lgctrw2 This procedure is depicted schematically on Fig.875 V ~Ctp.can be determined fro~ the slope m'. If possible..2 qj-qj-l 0. well upon the ~esuIts.012 n=I. me ou ne m e SCUSSion gas-we pressure 0 B bUl1dup and d raw d own ana IYSiS.23 m 'j'/LgCtrw (6. The calculated results are kg = 3. this converSion can be difficult.11. 3.' . Anadarko Basin well. properties I .gg pro d uct should be evaluated at the mean between the static reservoir and flowing wellbore pressures.014 of this range and considered to be constant for all the analysis.fl k g = 3 .L log (In-lj-.12 can be divided by JJ. q n ) log (tn-lj-l) Fig.12 Calculation of k.grw 0.958 /LoBg . as compared with k" = 3. me th di d an th 0 I re ate h s ou .14) frequently made at the wellhead with a dead-weight d . u ~ In 0.url product should be based on static reservoir pressure. 6.. vertmg If condensate these pressures and water back are present to sand-face . .11 Illustration of type of plot used to determine k.011 .017 0. 0'" The .00625 0. all gas properties can be evaluated at the mid-point .151 -. .3 0. 6.7.) jcl .sho~n A field example of the application of this method is on Fig. and the CI. -log ~ g 2 + 3. Th e JJ..}:.008 kh g ic~ 'i'" 0" ii: c. p.23 +0.016 0. . flow string.87s 1 . it is desirable to obtain direct measurements of flowing bottom-hole .7 28958 8 . 6.006 0 b =0. andmter- to yield a linear relationship with slope m' = ~. If the pressure is not fully built up to the static reservoir pressure during the shut-in period prior to an OF~T. d ld parameters b I e f eva uate II pressure. ana tli YSiS d . However.. m' and [ b' k s = 1.-SLOPE "' ':" c -0.02904 0.23 + 0. -28.015 0. Eq. allowanc~ mus~ be made for the effects of the preVious produ~tion. history of the.007. (.' m the conditions. -g g ~ k9 2 -3.h and s from OFPT data.2.7. RESULTS kgh =140md. and If slope and mtercept values from this plot are used with Eq. In this case one should exercise care in cond use b y t e gas OFPT d 10 h e .MULTIPLE. If the pressure range on the OFPT is only 400 to 500 psi. Fig. INTERCEPT ~~'~~-fg B log =b'=28 958p.7 determined from a subsequent pressure buildup test.010 a =m = ' a.gBg that so P. OFPT pressure measurements are (6.

"' A pp and Ilca .' 109 closed-In penods. Stegemeier. .~~. A:: "Bac~-Pr.. L.: "Determination of"F°rmation CharacterIStlCS 1963) From Two-Rate 1347-1355. i [. . Tech..essure Data on Natural Gas Wells and Their ApplicatIon to Production Practices". .. Gas . and Jones. G. AnomalousPressureBuild-Up Behavior".. are many vanations on these prace d ures 3 Al H ' Real -ussamy. L.+" . The types of 960-964. (May. J.. Variable-Rate Case". t h ere tests which ha ve been d'scussed 1 do not represent a complete library of these types of tests.. 1965) which are necessary the analysis of transient pressure to data from variable-rate flow tests in wells. Odeh...AI ME (1958)213.....66 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS are necessaryin this case can be established by use of the principle of superposition. ability Forecasting". and Matthews.Monograph 7..'J a. Flow R .n. Trans. Rawlins. Tech. Flow Tests.C. '" ~-~" .. and Schell hardt. Pet..H "'!tlI. E. 2. USBM. S. (Dec. multip le-rate I n d ee d . " \ "_. 44-50. 4. ~~ssell. A. Ion Deliver- t' 0 f which the enterprising engineer may employ to accomplish a given objective... Testing r. M. The general approach used in the theoretical presentation in this chapter may be helpful to the engineer who wishes to analyze other multiple-rate test combinations including those involv. J. S.an Theory d R arney.D. Tech. In this chapter we have presented the techniques References 1. '" "$. to Well H J J .~ . . Pet. Drawdown (Aug. G.: "A Study of G._"-~c If!) .". 1966)637-642.._'::3:... 5. Pet.~ (J~1- . J. L. ~".: "Pressure Analysis.~~Jr~: ...

ro uctlon rat.2. 7. .6 9~log kh (~ ~I ) + 70. The "image terms" are exactly like the Eifunction terms in Eq. 7. 7.il.e Interference d '.2 -~I1. etc.of all. .4. . { E' I ( O.the prod~cing v:ells at tile Slffit:m oDservl1tiunwt.i ' -1 = P roducing time of l'th mte rf enng we 11 prIor t 0 shut-in of the observation well ~ . ms . = producing time interval of the jth interfering well subsequentto shut-in of the observation well. Muskat7 shows an example of their work. 1 = cumulative production at observation well rate of production just before closing in ' buildup equation similar buildup methods never groundwater hydrologists.q -t i=lq N~Wq.ca. the test isfact that an interference test. 3./.are .OO105k(t.J!:. it may be taken into account by the method of images to be discussedin Chapter 10. . . + -~l1. ' a. Groundwater hydrologists5. The Ei terms give the pressure drop at the observation well causedby production at Wells 1..6have made much more use of interference tests than have petroleum engineers.. we find that the pressure at the closed-in observation well due to continued production at Wells 1.t. of the 1 mterfenng well from the observationwell.1 gives the effect of producing and shutting in the observation well itself. This type of test can give information on reservoir properties -Pw. This is . this dl ? A well locationf being drained d other wells?3How by hi 1 A rapl y. etc. Porosity cannot be d f b Id I Elk' 4 estimate rom a pressure UI up test a one.. 2. tests to determine the nature The log term in Eq.6 ~ kh . Prasad for the derivation. USIng the El-function solution of Chapter 2 (Eq. 01 m e Units.rvoir now patter~s. tt. . The authors are indebted to Raj K.If 7.4. -n-~ ot~er I~~nt use of Interference tests ISto deterInlne dire~arrese.1 through 7. .1 .a3 ' . quan lies m q.-Sf1°se by.6.eat our observation well before It was closed m ' qi = the rate of Prod Uct'on at WeII 1 1 .(7. First. by the same type of equation as in Chapter 3. The name comes termed the pressure drop causedby the profrom the ducing wells at the closed-in observation well "interferes with" the pressure at the observation well.. one can determine y Is the Portion of the reservoir at ' reservoocoonectivit . 2.at distancesat.. In addition to this qualitative information. *In this same paper Theis also developed a pressure to Eq.2 Equations for Pressure Interference The mathematical basis for interference tests was first presentedby Theis" in 1935.done by selectively opening wells surrounding the shut-In well..3.. n Inter erence test can eterInlne t s.6. which cannot be obtained from ordinary pressurebuildup or drawdown tests. The distance a.6. = p' -162. . has also and magnitude of an anisotropic directional reservoir permeability. there being one such term for each "image" well. 7. -distance. tbe~ ~ir are prooriced.:'!!tion ?--~~~~~~~h of.. in this case is the distance from the image well to the observation well.31).Chapter 7 V Analysis of Well Interference Tests 7. All th t't " Ifi Id ' E 71 .1)** -E' I ( O.* The following method usesthe same basic equations but differs in treatment and method of analysis. For use in Eq.3 apply to a more general case than the corresponding equations in the original monograph. . e p. . ..) ) [ h were -h .1.OO105kt. a2. it is possible to obtain a quantitative estimation of connected porosity from such a test. 3. I NW :: n~mber of mterfe~~n~ wells.. However.Cai2 )}] . pressure gained great popularity with **Eqs.1 we obtain times t. a reservoir bou~~.. is given by: used . .Reasons for Interference Tests W en one well is closed in and its pressure is ~~~th.r~ ia. This method is based on su rpo.

~nd 64. kh . apply best when the rates of production at these wells are reasonably constant during the interference test. From Eq.8) should be employed rat~er t.1 Interference test in a low-permeability reservoir.2) -1/>. + ) (7...!. 1::.OOI05kl} Since the first two terms on the left side of the equation representthe straight-line extrapolation on Fig.1. 7. I .. ] O. best represents these quantities in the reservoir between the interfering wells.200 W ~ 1900 (f) ~ Ct: 180 DUP EXTRAPOLA~E'py~l~ PRESSURE ~ r\ ? 1: a.6 ~Iog kh ~ ~I ) -P"" ' = -70.:ii'" ."'! . An example Interference test IS shown In FIg.uca..!.'1.2 and the third term.. The value of this quantity which. gives the best fit between observed and calculated values of the pressure drop at the observation well.. etc. that is.1. a series of Ei functions should be used in Eq. 7.-1/>fJ. '" .1..~. Using Eq. I . P. called "Extrapolated Buildup Pressure".1 to represent the rate at that well.Ic. I w ~ 1700 58 psi 143 psi ~ 7 ~ I- I 1600 v I() I v I() I I I() I I I I I I() I I v I() I v I() I I() I() I I() I() .11 = and similarly for 12.'.!.OOI05k(I..12. 140 ~1 1300 0 40 80 120 CLOSED-IN TIME. by trial and error.Cai2 { Ei ( O. it is possible to determine the quantity (I/>JLc/k).68 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS 11 = cumulative l?roduction at :WeIll prior to shut-In of observatlo~ well averagerate of productIQnq1 during interference test incremental production at Well 1 subsequent to shut-in of observatio~ well averagerate of production q1 during interference test 1::. this may be rewritten as (/) 0.! !. I I..1].~an the a?ove equations for 4. 7. 7.V.!. total mobilities and compressibilities should be used as in pressure buildup examples 2A and 2. 7.~.6~ . Section ~.'1.. If the rate at a producIng well varies considerably during the test.1. The dotted line in this figure.~. 7.~ q -Ei(- [ i=1 N! 1::. Eq. etc. 7. v m Q ~ \ 0 (II 150 w. 7..2 --: )}. 7.1 we see that the dIfference between thIs extrapolated curve and the observed pressure is the sum of the Ei functions. 1 Fig..!. These equations for 4. 1::. the method of superposition (see Chapter 2.olt_! -.. .1 IS written for sIngle-phaseflow condItIons above the bubble point. v I I ... -C\I r-- a> a> m = ~ .) . or ( P* -162.rIU. We have already implied that this is the case by u~ing only one Ei term to represent ~ach producing well In Eq.!. For two-phase flow below bubble point. was obtained by extrapolating the linear portion of the log plot a~ shown on Fig. 160 days 200 ". represents the observed pressure..

c/k.9 X 10-6 psi-1. Wells 1 and 2 began at the time the observer was closed in. qt = 180 B/D.2).00105 (1835)2 (3070))J .00105k (4 + !:1tj) ) !:1t -subsequent 1 -avera 23050 = -iso to shut-in ge rate at WeIll i=l q -cpp. C = 6. m = 270 psi/cycle.caj2 0. log-time plot. :I: I 0 t- ~ mo- 150 5 m 140 130 100 (t+~t)/~t Fig. This will be made clear by the following example calculation.285 Ei (- 1.ANALYSIS OF WELL INTERFERENCE TESTS 69 Pext -Pcb.3) a1 = 1.3..cn EXTRAPOLATED BUILDUP . 7. 7. -270 ~ [ 180 T4(fEl = 128 days = 3. formation volume factor. = -117. V IJ1I/ ~ " "" vv ~ I " "" " "" . compressibility.. 7. [1.21)] at Similarly.3 Calculate cu ation The calculated pressure drop at the observation well caused by production at Well 1 is.caj2 0. the pressure drop Interference at the Test observation well ~P = . and assume tha I ' The terms on the nght-hand sIde of thIs equatIon represent the calculated pressure drop at the observation well due to production at Wells 1. Fig..2 = -117.( -cpp. -m 2.3 shows results calculated rounding producing that their as above for the effect of four wells surthe observation well. 7.303 [ ~aused by production at Well 1 at the time when Incremental production at Well 1 subsequent to shut-in is 23. 2.303 -Ei = NW-El ~ qj incremental production at WeIll [ ( { . P " ~ 170 ~ W L 1 v I() I I() I() I I -.050 bbl.070 hours.042)]. 3. 4-as a function of time and for several values of cpp. ( -10-6 0."" PRESSURE" ::> <n . ~p.C/k = 10"6.1800 w Q: c.f. 2.1. rate at observation well prior to shut-m.J 160 0 ~ CD I -N I . 7.(7. for buildup curve in observation well (from Fig.285 ( -~.. Note influence was not appreciably felt at rates of 80 days 125 to 180 B/D until 60 days had passe<. [1.00105ktj )} ] . Example Calculation.. . 3. one can calculate the effect of production other wells-Wells 2.835 ft. I . B = 1.2 = 32 psi.2 Interference test in a low-permeability reservoir. from Eq. Wells 3 and 4 began producing at rates of 20 to 40 B/D 2000 1900 0' . average rate at Well 1 during test. There is no production prior to shut-in and thus t1 = O. 0 a ta q = 140 ~/D.

c/k. A more sophisticated method has been developed by Jacquard and Jain9 (see also JahnsI3). 3. . cp = 0.:. The value of CpJ1.A . Plot a curve of ~(~PObs-~Pcalc)2 vs c/lp.60 .1 = 92. e .11 multiphase segregated flow of oil and gas or water.c/k was the value which gave the best fit to the three plotted points when judged by eye. Note also that it was not necessary to find k or J1.4 Least-Squares Methods In the above example the "best" value of cpJ1. Thus far in this chapter we have assumed that a value for J1. Again. is all9wed. but flow must b ' e smglh p ase. Note from this example that a very long closed-in time may be required to see the effects of interference. :" . 16 _14 ~120 ~~ ~ ~ 100 ~: ~ ~ 80 PR ~ '5 60 [ .6 (140) 270 1.5 we J !:~~~jve ~= p..a i ~ 08siRVER 2 I .Sheldon Fig. 7. 7.11. ~ ~ . find cph.. developed by et 01.9X10-6 values of cpJ1. The method requires use of a digital computer to determine. 7. Call this difference ~Pobs' Then calculate Pext -Paba at each point for several Then ~ F h = 43 ft./kh and cp.well . the reservoir can be non-homogeneous. and summing the effects of all the producers as in Fig. 7. theIr mfluence was small.3. A more precise method of obtaining cpJ1.c/k to use the method of least squares.5 Other Methods for Computing Interference The methods presented thus far in this chapter assume a homogeneous reservoir. the modification in permeability distribution required to give a best fit to observed pressures at wells. potentially more powerful method than any of foregoing is that of general reservoir simulation on digital computer. Single. using Eq..70. by successive approximations. which takes into account variations in permeability in the reservoir. From Eq..a . . interference test.6. to c/lJ1. A minimum of two months was necessary in this case where the permeability is a few millidarcies.uc/k from an interference test.- 7=3. Pressure behavior may be computed as a function of time and location. first measure Pext -Paba (from a plot such as that of Fig. 7. . Thoand Arthurlo have d~veloped a method for computing an interference "function" and a well "function" the observed flowing and shut-in pressures in wells in a reservoir.:.5XI0-7 1 (92. If this is not so. These "functions" can be used to ME 80.c/k.5 X 10-7. ELAPSED IN DAYS ---" TIME (AFTER SHUT OFOBSERVER) IN OFFSET WELLPATTERN . ~ Wo PRESSURE ACTUALLY DROP 7. as well as reservoir heterogeneity. ~ ' predict future pressure behavior in the wells.2) for each data point such as the three shown in Fig. 162.3 Calculated and observed pressure drop. The pulses are detected at the observation well by a very accurate (O.3.c/k which~ave the agree~ent shown is cpp.the .. it is possible to obtain both J1. because of theIr low rates..OOl-psi) pressure gauge. The assumed value of cpJ1. Their influence was not felt until about 8? days after they ~e~an producing and.phase flow is assumed. 7. Use of this gauge allows the interference pressure pulses to be detect~d much more rapidly than normally used helical Bourdon-tube gauges. as shown by Morris and Tracy.C which gives a minimum in this /k curve is the least-squares choice for cpJ1... In this technique.s Their paper should be consulted for details.mere ~ 4 -from 2 0 9 .3./ was available from a buildup test in kh our observation well. A novel method of mterference determmation by "pulse testing" has been develo ped by Johnson et 01..3 as in the above example..C/k = 3. ' " . Call this total calculated pressure drop caused by all wells at the observer ~Pcalc' Compute (~PObS~Pcalc)2 for each measured point such as the three in Fig.6 qB = m 162.14 In this method a production well near the observation is alternately produced and then closed in to give series of pressuIe pulses.with +.6)6. is To use this method. Fagin and Stewart12 .C cph = k ( kh ) 1 --.70 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS after the observer was closed in. = 4. 7.c/k.

Jr. 3..: "Determination of . References 1. R. 2. J. 1966) 5. Greenkorn. API (1946) 109. and Stewart. 1966) 175-182. L. Pet. Trans. 10. Jahns H. 301-304. 3-6. G. and Glanville. (Oct. F. H. these recent methods are generalizations . Trans. Theis. .: Simulation "A ing -Silica Arbuckle Pool.. New York (1949)852.. 7. Data". paper SPE 1189 presented at 40th Annual Colo. 1965). AIME (1960) 219. . R. G. Method J.: Physical Principles of Oil Production. L. I . Tech. B..<? E. Fall Meet- 11. 574.. F. C. Behavior D. Eng. on Digital Computers".R. McGraw-HilI Book Co.. J.. "Permeability Soc. G.. 4 Elkins L. R.: "A Rapid Method for Obtaining a TwoDimensional Reservoir Description From Well Pressure Response 315-327. Flow 1966) Properties 1599-1604.. 1960). for W. Jac°.AIME (1953) 198. Pet. and Arthur. (Oct. Harris.. Reservoir D.AGU (1940)II. 519. 3-6. Craze. In a sense . R. Elkins. (1955). "P~se-Testmg: A ~ew Method for ~escnbmg Reservlor (Dec. Soc. 1965). Denver. M. M. Johnson. K.C. 13. . C. 1965)281-294.: Data".E. 14.: "ReservoirPerformanceand Well Spacing. Inc.Fract~e Orientation from Pressure Interference". T rans.. From Field P. Elkins. and Pressure Jain. Muskat. 2-5.. and Wo~d~. Eng. 12. Pet. Spraberry Trend Area Field of West Texas". Jacquard. 0.. Paper 1521-G presented at 35th SPE Fall Meeting.: "Reservoir Performance Well Spacing.b' .: "The Relationship Betweenthe i:°wering of PiezometricSurface and Rate and DuratIon of Discharge of Wells Using Ground-Water Storage". J. . and Bavly. an d exten- sions of early "interference" calculations. (Oct.: "Flow of Water in Elastic Artesian AquIfer. C.. Hum- ing.Colo. Distribution J. Between Wells.C. Trans.: "A New Approach to the Two-DimensionalMultiphase Reservoir Simulator".: ble Oil & Refining Co. Fagin. A. They adjust reservoir parameters by trial and error to achieve a reasonable fit between measured pressuresand those calculated from a mathematical model by use of a computer. W. AGU ( 1935 ) II . Colo. Y. A. Furt her d evelopment 0f such methods WIll undoubtedly occur m t he future smce t he methods enable determination of recovery expected from the various sections of a reservoir. and Prod.: "Determmatlon 0f 01 ' m e' in a Naturall P Y ' Fractured Fall Meetore u paper SPE 1185 presentedaty40th Annual Reservoir". Drill. J. Morris E E and Tracy. and Well Spac- Sheldon.ANALYSIS OF WELL INTERFERENCE TESTS 71 6. 177-196.. (Dec.: "Analysis of the Pressure Behavior of a Production Well Subject to Interference and Its Application to Reservoir Models". (Dec. have developed a similar approach. ing. Eng. Prac.. Soc.. . (June. Denver. General C. Kansas".. Pet. 9. 8. Thomere. They then use the adjusted parameters for future reservoIr predictIon. Denver. and Skov. F. W.

as will be discussedbelow. Thus.the proper boundary condition midway between injector and producer is a contour of constant pressure across which flow takes place. As may be seen. Since the pressure distribution differs for the two cases.the averagepressure must be determined differently. as was shown in Fig. In a reservoir which contains producers only. 4.1. -- .6). In the next section we will cover analysis of injection wells 1\ prior to fillup. As shown in Ref.3.1.2 A.of constant thickness and to contain a single fluid of small and constant compressibility. 8. 4 (for a to b e similar f case). We may closely approximate the pressure behavior in this square by finding the pressure behavior in a circle of equivalent area. water is injected at a constant rate through a well which completely penetrates the formation. 2. if we can show that a gradual buildup of skin effect is occurring with time. Morse and Ott7 present a good discussion of the use and value of pressure analysis in water injection wells. Prior to shut-in.38 of Chapter 2. slightly compressible flow to fall-off curves obtained in this manner. The reservoir is assumed\to be homogeneous.2 and Groeneman and Wright3 have applied the buildup methods for singlephase. t+~t + PWB P. 8. Liquid-Filled Reservoirs 0 able to determine the characteristics of the reservoir in an area surrounding a water injection well. Thp basic assumptions for this method are the same as fo~ pressure buildup theory. 8. The reason~ average pressure must be determined differently foll~ws from consideration of the equipressurecontours and streamlines in a waterflood. Consider. We will discuss this liquid-filled reservoir case first because of its similarity to conventional buildup. In water injection wells it is natural to attempt to determine formation properties by closing in the well and using familiar pressure buildup methods. Joers and Smith. 3. The skin effect and well damage can also be obtained in the same way as for pressure buildup. discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. -constant. For waterfloods which have "filled up" and for which the oil mobility does not differ too much from the water mobility. remedial measures can be started before a full-scale pattern flood begins. The quantity A corresponds to the drainage area of a producing well.1 It . as can be shown by utilizing the Ei-function solution given in Appendix 1 of Ref. If we can determIne early m the lIfe of an InjectIon well that there is an appreciable "skin effect". For this case the pressure behavior is described by Eq.1. determination of the permeability of the sand around an injection well will allow estimation of the future relation between injection pressure and rate. we can take measures to free the water of plugging material. = where A is the area inside the 50 percent equipressure contour shown on Fig. Finally. Determination of static ~pressure a water injection well may show in that the water is entering a thief zone and not the desired reservoir. the regular five-spot waterflood shown in Fig. the 50 percent equipressure contour which divides the injection well area from the production well area enclosesa square of area A around our injector. The pressure is assumed to be constant at a radius r e from the well. no flow takes place across the boundary between wells (see Fig. for example. it is possible to rewrite Eq. Importance orm = -1 ip. we choose the radius of the equivalent circle from 1Tr. Similarly. the flow efficiency and the averagepressure must be determined differently. + 41Tkh n ~t ( ) Thus. Interest an d . Pressure Fall-Off Analysis in Unit Mobility. Although these items are determined in exactly the same way for buildup and fall-off curves. IS f consl . In the five-spot network shown in Fig.38 in the d era bl e . the theory should apply. 2. I Nowak and Lester. the slope of the fall-off curve may be interpreted in terms of kh exactly as in the case of a buildup. 4.Chapter 8 Pressure Analysis in Injection Wells 8.

.5...38. F. 4 For that by this the case injection it is shown pressure in Appendix is than p* as for cases. wellbore injection falls continue at a reduced straight-line To line PROOUCER Fig 81 E . conventional portion method of the in it correct for of is even in use the that oil single-fluid and water abOut wiili the One is that fall-off Fig. the al ..000264 kt/4>IJ. zero. minutes. . when . clrcu beIng ormaonvoume I ar one t an constant ( 1Tre2. a few pressure since the often rate. (Numbers to a low will finding pressure the a new section with was be observed.. Note di F f IX . mJec eet an cons .4 an d 8. 8. circular wellbore simpler very to m t h ese ca I cu I a ti ons. of I n -' fall -0 analysis to be given fore. .h at reservoir t e the h b oun d ary boundary con di - h s h ee. will value. ti. -I ( ) ( -~. 322 use . kt/4>. and p.4 . in the approximacorbe a given that simply result the sum by p* of two Ei-functions. developed PRODUCER broek et al. a I ways I t ne g1 t d ec e pressure behavior for equivalent case was can be made. IS f or wa t er .qulpressure network. . mJec F .CA efficiency. sc hematically were for the fluid banks and m Figs.ucre2 --I -E.on. For and Case the well A. m 11. The fluid saturation. ti. A ppen d. have may We the be idealized first same by the the A distribution case where shown oil in and solu- . these It is more since p* accurate use p behavior From obtain to in both tion is a good can use fall-offs. They show that saturation one can still discussed same this provided properties.. to to p in most to p in one In it without p* example may it is possible pressure pressure.. considered.' obtaIn kh.ty urn .. f . Aif considerably we let our examp on or an note n that s the flow e c cu a IS calculated efficiency I thi al I ti . gas A ppen di x .t at r e IS found the the recting poor cases.e. equlv- Th f f orm xamp I e 1 ti .ucA consider properties.A) -WIt ti .to reservoir ~p'.. I li bl f e or 1..u/41Tkh- -E.) . Two pOSSI bI li ties . . Pressure Fall-Off Analysis Fillup Mobility Ratio Ij : j ) 8.0033 kt using as the.on . Note treated ff s th ere- . rate in the be full this portion reason and 8. slowly surface pressure top decreases for stays filled This up to the happens considerable closed-in time. 8. difficult difficulty of finding curve. Eq. by an -an Pe = p. I 1 A e . 2.. shown. and boundary superposition and to relate between . the slope The long extrapolation the short been reason period straight-line The is section wellbore after-injection. buildups. pressures 73 equiprespresfigure is used with lA to pressure and 1 fall-off Appendix curves F to obtain Fig. . authors recommend p to calculate I Pe -p* i..4. ( ) . mJec on. for extrapolated boundary pressure this The by difference pressure extrapolated from this h at p approximation 125 = pSI p. ppen Bf f acor x or an I Ie t or a pro d ti B . the oilfield units to Reservoir Unit we ca: above E 70. I I i The relationship is plotted p -p* in Fig. slDlllanty we 11 exactly the We lower now pressures approXImate near this the square producer.PRESSURE ANALYSIS IN INJECTION WELLS Now sure sure in . uc the Injection ..t I E xamp app ca t . becomes 0. the saturations shown .4 .5..r an s ~ay be Idealized as shown m Fig. Pe = -Prior P and equation -4>IJ. The straight-line short straight-line For correct used. I c ose a so .cA mathematical tion for the pressurebehavior in this case was dePROOUCER PRODUCE R veloped the by Hazebroek of the method have gas just the using correct rather this whether p* have presence et al. th hi h e g er balanced by E d E e xamp . t 0 ma k e this A B s . analysis obtained m however. IS h t at such as that.. 8. flow 4>IJ.u /kh --I of . IS we .nor P fill th 1 d t b k .on pressure outer ra e a t t th e we this 11 . water turn 8. -4kt 4>.e reason or near the .CA 0. p 8. time kt/ This in Fig.2 As described rewrite above... e 01 an wa.between Injector WIll waterflood thi be s . However.. ti. Ismcue I d d .6i p -p* . to In dimensionless oilfield as units.2. . t d tr amI fi t con ours an s e mes m a ve-spo represent percentages of total pressure drop. shrink 1 of to Ref.s tions ent d The . the straightby Haze- overcome portion. -' s. hil W e p * = -pSI...ucA 4>.. buildups. time injection will of fluid The at the surface but no stopped bleed is Until still this fall-off difficulty method surface. Thus. m Ig.3 the pre~sure WIll be Pe along exactly the equal 50 percent contour to the average as in Example iS analyzed where a unit-mobility five-spot 8 1 Th f .3 to illustrates know to point.on mJec to w ell USIng p rathe: .. is will at the off full.

-- =---~_:-_:-~-:~IIIIIIII :: -.: -:_-~cJ=.-~ -'"c- IIIIII!IIIO -: "~ § ::}::t:.:. I I -a -8 S 0 0 0 ~ -= _I-- -. . -:~...~~=~ I = ~ d 0 "- -u "~=~. 1 -'" '8 -:-_: 'ci-~'=::._.~::: -r--t-H~Ti-::[: 0 J ~-._::~.i4:~:-~: ~:t~-=f::t~ . '" ---0 --II "3 8- .-- --:. . .. -. Ii) I -1 - -~~:.: "--- .-- -:: i. .- I . .-~~---~-~--~~~~ --.-"~~~f~~ --1~. --::':r=-:~ -~.-oX 0.lib v e 0- f 0 -e. --c::rxc ..:-::t:. I -.~'?--~ :c:::t -:- '.--:+-~:: c'---: --:"'-- ---=-~-- .'c IEI_B~-i= -c=£"--- ~'.---"---=-- 0 - . --I 1.":~1~ .-~-~-~~--' L1 -+ tl- ~:=-::- ~ i ..D It') V It) N -0 2~.~::.:- ---.74 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS v ~ I. 0 -0 L = 0 cn a) 4'>1/71'lgoOL ~ to It') ~ ~ ~J -J I l~l ~ 0: - *d -..~ -tm=l:-= -"'"':::1::-:.Q.-.---~ =-: '- --t- -:-.--.

From I : : : : : I I I I I : REGION I : : : : I I I I I : PRESSURE Pe ATRADIUS re the theoretical treatment in Ref.!.81/2. 8. and C1.>.-.5a or 8.6.PRESSURE ANALYSIS IN INJECTION WELLS 6t..303 and intercept bI at At = O.4) and PW8is the fall-off pressure in the well at closed-in time 6t. p... After-flow into the formation in this case is small since it results only from expansion of fluid in the well as the pressure decreases. P where f(fJ) is plotted in Fig. 8. after which the liquid level in the well starts to sink.B1/lt where PW8-Pe+b1e . 4~'o " '<4)::'o ~ " ~" " . the surface pressure drops to zero a short time after closing in.5b.3 Example pressure fall-off curve. (/) :J -I a . 1 = C1 -C2 b1 (1-Ca)2 f (fJ) ' . (8 1) P e is the Pressure at the outer radius of the oil bank (see Fig.. For both conditions it was found in Ref. hr 75 3 00 0 I 0 10 100 200 100 0 0 . we can find s from . we find that the :t -INJECTOR intercept b1 is related to kh and the injection rate i P-PROOUCER b y r =.4 Oil and water banks. . (/) w a: Q.. CI ..: " "" CALCULATED AVERAGE PRESSURE . From this equation we see that a plot of log (PW8 -Pe) vs At should be linear with slope . 4.-. kh = !J!:. Knowing kh and the injection pressure Pw at time of shut-in. 8." .. ~~ . ~" -t)-. 8. C2 and C3 are obtained from Eqs. " -30 " . 4 that the injection well closed-in pressure is given by --." " " . ( 8 2 ) I I I I : : P I 1 Fig. ~ a a: W .P I UNFLOOOEO I into the formation at any time is equal to the volume of the wellbore column between the top of the well and the liquid level at the time of interest. the reservoir pressure is high. 8... -20 . = -322 psig -40 10 10 10 t + 6t 6t 10 10 I Fig. . . In this case the volume of inflow Pf" .9aD re . For Case B.

become f~r C.. 8.:. .lkh . i in BID. h in ft. -~ re -.u.4) rw SQr S z ~ ~ a: :.8.00708 (PtD-Pe) n-.4 are written for the practical system of units: kin md. and hl in psi. 8.5 Fluid saturationsin the reservoir. The quantities Cl. 200 180 160 140 120 f(BI 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 .615) 7r1f>(S. I Wi (5.3 and 8.) WATER BANK OIL BANK GAS 01 L re UNFLOODED REGION RESIDUAL RESIDUAL OIL I I r DISPLACED GAS or 1 7 S 0 PRODUCER Q OIL INJECTED WATER PRIOR TO FLOODI NG OIL PRIOR TO FLOODING f<II ~ INTERSTITIAL WATER JECTOR Fig.i.2.r)h (8. 8. Wi in bbl. where r e may be calculated from the cumulative water injected Wi.76 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS s+ 1 re -0. when expressed in practical uni~s. C2 and Ca.u.6Function calculating for 8.-S.aseA where the surface pressure persIstsafter cloSIng In. .in cp.04 Fig. (83) Eqs..kh.

'-1 .«x" '0'0 x'. The curve analyzed 1Sshown m F1g.' not total compress1bility. An example calculation for the unit-mobility-ratio case prior to fillup is. m th e wa t er bank an d 0 nl y O il flows in the Cs = !!!!!-.o CURVE B '0'Q"Q. If the re. 8. 8. cw. kh = 181-bi ilL . Example 2. By mentally subtracting 30 psi from the value of Pws-Pe for each point. O. the curve turns down.and then plot 10g(Pws-:Pe)vs At where Pws1Sthe wellbore pressure at any time At. suIt is not a straight line at large times. in applying the theory it is neces.7 Curve B shows values obtained for Pe=200 psi. . given in . th r . (8.x 'b'o. a straight line can also be drawn through the last few points of Curve B in Fig.Pe=200 psi .7. ty."' graphically as follows. 80 -"\ 60 40 psi 20 100 10 20 \ 30 40 50 60 CLOSED-IN TIME.a. and ..(8. For example. we plot Curve C. The of Pe which C is the correct C2 = 0 Ca = Pw -Pe Ci bi ~ ' . In that case we 1 h ave s1mp y..8ibicw. We assume some reasonable valu~ for Pe. ' . For example. ''x Q.. ~ ~ 100 t.303. for which Pe=230 psi.. p m gm.81' This may be done .. 8. Only t wa er fl ows . P m pS1.h . 800 600 400 .81is obtained by multiplying the slope of the straight line by 2.0538 dt2.saturation . in Fig. The reason for this 1Sthat . Fig. For caseswhere the surface pressure persists during shut-in. 8. The value one. 8. where p! 1Sthe surface pressure at time ~f closm~ m.\ x\ \'x CURVE A \ Pe 260 = psi \ Plotting Results As we have seen. We have found it helpful in such cases to "bracket" the best curve by curves of types A and B. Cs and 9 are small and j«(}) can be taken equal 1000 to j(9) = 181.Ci b1 and for both Cases A and B -Ci (I-Cs) 9 -2( l-Ci-C2) . On semi-log paper the new curve can be plotted without any additional computation by shifting the previous points a certain amount Ap in pressure at the same value of time. Here dt 1Sthe diameter of tubmg or casmg expressed ~n mc les.. fl 00 d s f or cases 0 f hi gh er 011 VlSCOS1 th e resu It s m . C2.5b) Non-Unit Mobility Ratio In this case.7 Pressure fall-off curve. cc. . . flow into the formation is negligible."b'Q X. --~.HOURS 70 Fig. For Case B wh~re ~he surface pressure drops to zero shortly after closmg m.Ap~endix F. m pS1 . the quantities C1.Q ~. where Pts is the surface tubing pressure at any time and Pes is the surface pressure which corresponds to the outer boundary pressurePe. the value of Pe is changed and a new curve plotted.. This approXimation is a good one for oils of 1ess th an about 50 -cp VlSCOS1 Asere are f ew w atety. This means that the effect of the after.7..0538 ip C2 = ~Cl ~ ) . The saturation distribution during injection is idealized in Fig. . one need only plot 10g(Pts-Pes) vs At. x\ 1 \.. It is sometimes difficult to tell when the best straight line is obtained. / .= 70 =0 0412 -I Iv ~ '°'0 '0. 8. In Case A and very often in Case B. sary to determine Pe.-=-l!!.81 m hr. When the assumed value of Pe is too high.5. 8. Water is assumed to displace oil and gas down to some uniform residual in the water bank and to build up the oil saturation to a uniform value in the oil bank.5a) intercept at At = 0 is b1... gives as in Curve Curve A. The ratio (kw/ ILw) (ko/ ILo) is the mo/ bility ratio M. and Pw 1Sthe bottom-hole pressure at this same time.(1°9360-1°920)2303 P. b1 and . -~~) Ci -0.The quanuty Cw1Sthe water compress1bility. ' Cw occurs m the term for expans10n of water m the tubing. 200 0..8. (Pw-pt) 'p 77 Fig. d oil bank.7.PRESSURE ANALYSIS IN INJECTION WELLS ~ Ci = 0.n. oil and water are allowed to have different properties.

Fig. as applicable) to determine whether or not this as~umption is correct. pressure fall-off curve when the after-flow has decreased to a small value. 8. ti .11) has been constructed giving F as a function of M for values of the parameters rODand 'Y' Each figure corresponds to a value of 'Y ('Y= 1.h by k.0 ~.0. 8. The quantities entered into Eq.. _/~ + 1 . t fill ames pnor 0 up.values roD=O. Curves for the limIting case. on 0 f B esse 1 fu nc- 8.10) The function F is also a function of 'Y. PW' MOBILITY RATIO. . .9. For best results we suggest that -..l. However.ufO in cp Notice that the quantities Cl. like the unit-mobility-ratio PW8= Pe + ble-.be !he func~on F IS a .4 case.10... No after-flow was assumed to take place .8 2. From the theoretical treatment constant b 1 is related to k.. . . 1. 0.9) this non-unit mobility ratio method not be applied when Cl ~ 0. For conditions where the oil and water banks (see Fig...9.9 Function for calculating kh.(8. The method of this section will apply best to the latter part of the V 0 -volume ~ -volume of oil bank -So -Sor of water bank -Sg -Sgr (8. Hazebroek et al. .6) it is shown that the ..1. These curves have been omitted for other values of 'Y and M because of their closeness to the curve.h = ~(2F) bl . rOD= 0. the ratio of the total compressibility in the oil bank to total compressibility in the water bank. Criteria for judging when this method should be applied will be discussed toward the end of this section.8 Pressure fall-off curve. An estimate of s may be obtained from the bottomhole injection pressure just before closing in. 8.8 3 10 F 8 6 5 7 4 100 0 CLOSED-IN TIME. V w t ti.. we have assumed that the flow of water into the formation after closing in is negligible.8~'t. C2 and Ca are not used in these calculations.. 8. b b ' lity ti M ence' or mo I ra 0 . In obtaining the results in this section.m this non-unity mobility ratio case so that these quantities did not appear. rOD = 0.78 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS this section are believed applicable to most non-unit mobility ratio waterfloods. is and is obtained in md-ft when iw is in BID. into the ma formation which took place after closIng m at the surface.8) . The plotted value of F contains a number of conversion constants such that k. were h h fu H f t e nc F .1.. 8. The quantity rOD may be obtained from 1 rOD=. 8. (8.uo koh -~M' k.. show that. M 1. 600 h 80 50 40 F 60 40 3 5 .. If C is small then the after-flow will be small for each unit 1drop in ~ressure.h (8. This is the same assumption made in deriving pressure buildup theory. ti on IS a com .. 'Y = 1." . ... 8. have been drawn for 'Y = 2 and 'Y = 4 when M > 2..(8.the rati~ of the Inner radius of the OIl bank to the outer radius (see Fig. 2 and 4) and gives curves corresponding.M 6 7 8 10 100 3 4 5 were.9 10 15 1.£unction of rOD. HOURS 0 MOBILITY RATIO.t~ . lions.30 a- -= a- '.2.5) have different properties. 20 20 . except at large closed-in times.7) . it is suggested that Cl calculated (for Case A or B.0 Fig.4).2 because " of the afterflow from the wellbore .h hl is in psi. A set of curves (Figs.

OO708 (PtD~Pe) -~. S + In~=O.2 .8 2.1 .+ 2 ) In[(V o/V tD) + 1]..e ..4 . .8 1. 8.7 --.7 .:. kwh r.2 .(8.4 .h rtD As In(re/ro) = (1/2) practical units.: 1-f ~if[1 +-t t 10 .4 .11 I 2 3 4 MOBILITY ~ RATIO.6 .9 80 eo f' ~O 40 30 20 .o [V 0 n --v.PRESSURE ANALYSIS IN INJECTION WELLS 79 [s + In~+ PtD= ~ 27rk".10 Functionfor calculatingkh.2 RATIO. we find in 1] .5 400 . (M-l) In~ ro ] + Pe.3 .0 M081LITY 1..2 .1 150 .0 100 80 :t ~ -.4 .0 Fig.9 1.o I 'tDJL.6 1.B 200 I~O --. 6 M 7 8 9 10 -0 1000 800 .5 100 . I~ f :t t1Ji f:.3 600 ~OO . M 1.:~ t: . 'Y = 2.6 f' 300 r --.

3 ..7 6 F 5 4 3 2 I I 1..5 . Results show that if one applies the methods MOBILITY the engineer may dec1dethat there is no reason to stimulate the well.1 . for unit mobility ratio to a reservoir where the mobility ratio is higher than 1. M 5 1000 6 7 B 9 10 00 .0 MOBILITY . 8.. y = 4.3 .2 .80 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS We will apply this method to the same curve used in the previous example to illustrate the error one mtg . ht ma k e .9 10 8 15 00=. 1S ac tu a 11 y 4 . too Iowa value will be obtained for wellbore damage.8 -. M 1. .6 RATIO.2 BO 6 . .11 Function for calculatingkh.7 20 -' + 15 -.0 Fig.. Exin ample 3. t 1 .Thus Results are shown and d1scussed Appendix P.4 5 40 F 30 .9 8 .5 .4 10 .6 .6 -.1 -.0 (as in the case of viscous oil). RATIO.8 . Use of the non-unit mobility ratio casewould lead to the proper recommendation.8 2. 1 f h e assumes M = 1 w h en ..1.

An example application of this method is given in Appendix F. which is actually quite different from that to be presented here. n mjection we.4 Gas Injection Wells For mjection wells m gas-cycling projects. 8. a procedure similar to the two-rate flow test method (Section 6. or in pressure maintenance projects in oil reservoirs. as shown for p = 3.modification.. Rainbow and Matthews4 and Muskat.PRESSURE ANALYSIS IN INJECTION WELLS 81 8.2) .13) .h 12. Appendix B. The averagepressure must be determined by a trialand-error procedure as noted above. }) vsLll'.14 yields 1. provided a good estimate of Teis obtainable.3 Two-Rate Injection Test Analysis Discussion thus . 8.8 Theory We begin by making the same assumptionsas for the unit mobility ratio cylindrical case. vs Ll e plot should be linear.000664 ~ CP.. Appendix F. This procedure has an advantage over conventional fall-off methods for cases in which the surface pressure falls to zero after cessation of injection.600 psig.uCT e where PiID= injection well pressure after change in rate. a quantity 1 which was neg ected m the case 0f water . and p = averagepressure in area between injector and producer. 8. PID= injection well pressure at time of rate change. Appendix F.12.000664 k .- P'ID { -~ P + .(8.13 and 8.3) can also be used for analysis of fluid injection wells. cause it was so close to unity.. From the results of Hazebroek.C .(8.151 log 0. mjection be- ( . Example 3A may be used as a guide in applying the form sheet given in Example 1. and from the mtercept value b at Lll' = 0 ' we find -181.17) Eq. 8. (8. As might be expected.17 is an alternative formula for determination of the skin factor. The procedure is to try various values of p until one is found which yields the best straight line on the plot of log (PiID-{P+(i2/i1)[PID-PJ -0.1 of this chapter. This procedure can usually be employed with a good degree of accuracy. 8.2 kh -b (4 -. We see from Eq. } ) 181 2 (. a bottom-hole pressure bomb must be run. With the two-rate procedure.5 have also presented a variable-rate method for determining wellbore damage. the midpoint pressure between injector and producer. we note that the slope of the plot of log( PiID-{p + (i2/i1)[PID-PJ} )vs Lll' is given by . we recall that at time of rate change .}) l' th .1 [PID p] -. IIH owever.CTID (8. Example 4. If the value of Teis questionable.000664~.283 ( PID-P ) ~~b 11 . PID= P + 141.12 that if we plot 10g and substitution of Eqs. 8.Their method. the methods discussedin Section 8.8 ~.2 ~ In~. a pressure bomb usually need not be run since surface pressures generally persist throughout the two-rate transient injection test. may be applied with slight The modification consists in determining and using the formation volume factor B. appears quick and practical for determin' mg skiff e ect m an .14) Eq. To determine the value of s.u (8.8cPp. Te2 = 0. Johnson el al. 'l'Jl. As discussed in Section 8. TID (8.00066~ k S = 1.. and we will therefore describe the more comprehensiveprocedure.8 = 0. To obtain pressure data after closing in such wells. For injection wells in miscible floods.6 it can be shown that the pressure behavior of the well at time Lll' after the change in injection rate is given by ( { . thf ormae a= PID-~141. Variable injection rate data may also be analyzed by the method of Odeh and Jones. For i2 = 0 the inter~retation formulas for t~o-rate tes~sbecome those whIch are ~ommon1y used m conventional pressure fall-off analysIs... to a gas well. P = Po.uCTe Thus.) log PiID.12) 'I'. Trial-and-error values of p are used until the best straight line is obtained.2 ~( In~+ s) .14 can be used to determine s.. 8. the non-unitL mobility ratio case treated above would at first sight An example of this type of plot IS shown m FIg.16 into Eq. the skin factor..u . The value of B is determined at the arithmetic average of the pressures p* and PID'as in Example 3A.1. and given as Example 1.15) . -.16) tion permeability and average pressure cannot be determined by this method.P+t[PID-PJ = log ..

..9-6-G-00 00 ~-e-e &--- 000000 OOOOOO~e-e-o-e-e=~ =-~ -e P=3400psig e-P=3600psig P=3800psig --0--.o. il=2563B/D 12=742 BID ~ 1C1. Appendix B..e~ -9-9 90s P = 4200 psig 40 -36 -48 50 100 0 44 ~t:HOURS Fig. 8.)t = ko/p. relative flow ratio of gas and the oil cannot be directly measured in the area around the . nonmiscible case... apply the same method modified for two-phase (oil-gas) flow.17. ~~ for a b~tldup wel~. 1 (k ) d t (k ) t th tu ti 01 0. Section 8. 1. should also be used for this case of gas injection with the above modification for Ct and (k/ p. it will be necessaryto calculate total mobility and total compressibility. Two-rate injection test. .. . VlClm 0 e gas lOjeC . apply the unIt-mobIlity-ratio as in Example 2A.82 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS seem most applicable.~ 0 9 kg. However.o+ kg/p.e-e-e00G-e-e e-e-o-e-e. of cylindrical banks where only one fluid is flowing (Appendix F.1000 '-0-' 1 .. In applying this case. For gas injection into an oil reservoir.0btalO ko. Example 1. .~ on C1.. d h . tor. This is justifiable because of the much . . In USlOg metho . a useful method was obtained in that case only where the wellhead pressure falls to zero shortly after closing in.gmay be obtalOed from the slope of th~ pressure fall-off ~urve in ~e injector.. (k/ p.g. Further.. For gas lOjection lO O1lsclbleprojects. Total compressibility Ct may be calculated 10.+1C1.-P ~~ -G$.. The best recourse for gas reservoirs is probably as f 11 0 ows. From this and from data on p. method of . r~lative per~eability data WIll be required slOce. Example 1). higher compressibility of gas.In so olng you are neglecting the expansion of the solvent and oil outside the gas.244 h = 31 ft = 0.e A as the area of the lOjected gas a . a e average sa ra on In th ty f th ' . an 0 gas g. The quantities Ct and (k/ p. The quantity kg/ p.37 cp Ct= 7.4> ~ N -rw . I . rom e re a ve permea I lity t0 . = 4000 psig ---9- 0 0 0 6. k = k .c oose this b nk d ..~ . ..). . the assumption in each bank is not nearly so applicable for nonmiscible gas injection as for water injection.0XI0-6 psi-I Pw = 6777 psig =0. Total mobility is given by (k/p.gas this chapter .w= 0. The form sheet used in Appendix F.-1.. .1 of . 2. This does not happen in gas injection wells. To .)t may be calculated..000 DATA . ti' 11 F th 1 ti b lOjeC on we.)t are used in calculating the skin factor s.! Co 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 0 00 0000 0 00 0 00 0 0 00 00 IJ.3 'I 0 000 00000 000 0000000 000 00000 0000 000 00 0G-f>.

. . Dallas. '. ..r\(""':. J. . Johnson.-r ~ .~tfJ li')w r'i :oi:'. ..li..!i 'll"t'.. 1956) 21-24..:tl.'~ i'os . . "~Vtin7' "J! . and Matthews.: "Field Application of Unsteady State Pressure Analyses in Reservoir Diagnosis". Muskat.f' . (July..J . F. 250-260.' '" j' '" .\. (Jan..M...' i..~~ l'.' 1/':.Eff~ctlve Formation Perme~. c. "A Variable-Rate Procedure for Appraising Wellbore Damagein Waterflood Input Wells".bllitles OperationEfficiencies and of Water Input Wells. rl!~') ": .~: . 8. Trans.h .: "Pressure Drawdown Analysis.)1!~~.()l<..I~ i""'m~.H...' . d " 0'. C. Greenkorn.'... and Wright. Pet. Monthly (Oct. 96-102.~ . Odeh. 7.ation J...: The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through Porous Media.C.: j 1 .pi.1... . Prod. .!'Jf... ["'" . :>10. 960-964.. "j. . paper SPE 1514 presented at 41st Annual Fall Meeting..:. <. . 1963)85-89. .. V..." .. F. t'J.oers.Variable-RateCase".1:....Iot~. '.V. 3.10.' flt ' t. R. 0. J.'.."' 11~"I .. :'i .'1 ~. Input Wells by Shut-In Pressures". f .(.1..1: . . and Widner.1 dJ f)'.)-~o\1..5':~~""lha.R.l!t.L.W..)1 !. ""~..w . Inc. .I:.. Nowak. McGraw Hill Book Co.i ) !t" 'I'oj' 'I. S. 4. R.AIME (1958) 213. c: .". Groeneman.fjifs -...'J\):I'.£. (WOu . F....'). Tech...J(!](.' f. . Tech.ti°n Wells ~? Determme Injective Capacity and Formation Damage.. Tech.>ri ': ')'111 .'~--. Pet. i)~~ : . (Oct. .j~. T.') . ..5iiRii/.r. . . Z1$X~q ri OLS: W1A} . G...:?lU 1(.1 :\. J.'J.~ at ~u ~..0. ~"a hP . 1\11('.: "Determin.:~ ~. 1954). G. if}(f. '.'.\' i~ir:i. 2-5... J.':' '1. W."~c~:.".:~ ii!. ~: .~!1: :IIo~. 1966). cT.'. Curv~s ~btamed ~n Water Injec. and Ott. Trans.PRESSURE ANALYSIS IN INJECTION WELLS 83 This is the same modification as was made in Appendix B Exam le 2' and therefore an example will not be p d . ". : .~OO . J-4/ . J.~ S~11l":. ". Rainbow.:.. "'. repeate. A.: -'."O"..: C. F.: "Analysis of Fluid A.lit-A' 0: .. .. Pet. New York (1937)Section10. ! " r~ .~ !!Ht5ii1 m(:Ml. .(1') f)f1L.iq. References 1.: "Ana!ysi~ of Pressure Fall-off... 1965) J..! :-{?I'. (Aug.L. 5. 2. Hazebroek. 6.. and Le~ter. Morse.(':10:".1 . r .and Smith. '. Tex. S. A. sure Fall-Off in Water Injection Wells". .: "PresP. .""~" ".. " "u... and Jones.. AIME (1955) 204..'!'~. of. )' .

As a result. The packers are used to seal off the mud-filled annulus from the interval to be tested. A properly run and interpreted DST probably yields more valuable information per dollar spent than any other evaluation tool. the only good estimates of the initial reservoir pressure are obtained by DST in the first wells in the reservoir. By utilizing some of the transient pressure methods previously discussed. 9. Hole conditions do not always permit the use of the DST as an evaluation tool. Essentially. The recorders presently in use are generally of good quality. the fluid production and pressure information obtained are many times invaluable. Recognition of the potential value of interpretation of DST pressure behavior led quickly to the development and use of accurate and sensitive pressure recorders.2 A DST is run by lowering into the borehole on the drill pipe an arrangement of packers and surface-actuated valves. Nutter and Lebourg.") . 9.Chapter 9 Any discussion of transient pressure behavior in wells would be incomplete without considering pressure behavior under drillstem test conditions.1 Diagramof currently operationalDST tool. Pressures were first recorded on DST's to ascertain proper test tool operation. a DST is a temporary well completion effected for the purposes of sampling the formation fluid and establishing the probability of commercial production. in those cases amenable to the technique. and the valves allow the formation fluids to flow into the drill pipe. the early pressure recording devices were rather insensitive. the kh product and skin effect can be estimated and thus be used to help plan effective well treatments. However. By closing the valves a pressure Fig. (After McAlister.1 Pressure Behavior on DST's The reader who is unfamiliar with DST equipment and operational procedures is referred to the paper of van Poollen1 or the more recent presentation of McAlister. Nutter and Lebourg. Often. The measurement and analysjs of drillstem test (DST) pressure behavior affords the engineera practical and economical means for estimating important formation parameters prior to well completion.

1 is a schematic diagram of a currently operational DST tool. a period of pressure buildup labeled D results. The final closed-in pressure buildup is usually slightly longer than. Both the static mud-column pressure and the setting of the packer cause mud filtrate to be squeezedinto . After the test tool is closed. as shown.' SAMPLE (2750CC) RETRIEVED UNDER PRESSURE BY. The section labeled A shows the increase in hydrostatic mud pressure as the tool is lowered into the hole. The brief initial flow period is designed to relieve this over-pressured condition and restore the formation to a near-original state. Finally. The eventsinvolved are referred to as the initial flow and initial shut-in periods and the final flow and final shut-in periods.2 shows the sequenceof operations of this tool from running-in the hole to retrieval.2) of .3.DRILLSTEM TEST PRESSURE ANALYSIS 85 buildup can be obtained. Fig. Setting of the packers causes compressionof the mud in the annulus in the test interval.PASS VALVE OPEN w) Il-. This initial flow and shut-in sequence enables a good estimate of the static reservoir pressure to be made. At the beginning of the second flow period.3 Schematic DST pressure record. (After McAlister. 9.. ~ Go ~ (I) (I) TIME --Fig. This second flow period generally runs from 30 minutes to 2 hours or so. the test is ended and the packers are pulled loose.2 Sequence operationsfor MFE tool..the formation. the pressure behavior is as shown on Section C. The initial flow period is followed by an initial shut-in period of about 30 to 60 minutes. The double shut-in method of testing is the most common test procedure in use. The first flow and shut-in period is usually followed by a subsequentflow and buildup period. When the tool is on bottom. the formation is hopefully restored to initial conditions and the natural flow behavior of the test zone can be obtained.. Fig 9.DUAL CONTROL VALVE CLOSED '\ ru ~'I '\.J /SAFETY SEAL PACKER DEACTIVATED (a PULLED LOOSE WELL WELL ~ FLOWING SHUT-IN OUT HOLE OF Fig.F:E. the maximum mud-column pressure is obtained. 9. 9.. and then the tool is pulled (Section F). (I \. ~ t . 9. duration and is primarily for the purpose of allowing the equalization back to static reservoir pressure of the fluid in the filtrate-invaded zone near the wellbore. The initial flow period is usually of 5 to 10 minutes -M. Nutter and Lebourg. The appearanceof a pressurerecord from a drillstem test is shown schematically on Fig. and a cor- . Fluid recovery from the test may be estimated from the contents of the drill pipe or from the amount recovered at the surface if a flowing DST is obtained. causing a return to hydrostatic mud pressure (Point E). When the test tool is opened and inflow from the formation occurs. or at least equal respondingincreasein pressureis noted at Point B. A pressurerecord of the entire flow and shut-in sequence is obtained.

by dividing the fluid recovery by the length of the flow period. Dolan et al.s If the initial flow period was sufficient to . The final shut-in time should be at least equal to the flowing time if an accurate extrapolated pressure is to be obtained and if permeability changes nearby are to be detected.4. The length of the second flow period (on a double shut-in test) is generally dictated by experience and prevailing conditions. In addition to the common double shut-in tests. For tests with a weak surface blow throughout the duration of the flow period. 9. then the final buildup should be started immediately. the second flow period.The liquids recovered. as freely as he can. The appearance of the pressure buildup curves for a typical field case is shown on Fig. In a later section we will discuss this type of test. If it is estimated that the on-bottom time during the test should be. Many of the points to be mentioned in this section are discussedin greater detail by Maier. However. times of 30 minutes to 1 hour may be sufficient. the average production rate can be used as a good approximation in pressure buildup analyses. 9. The volume of liquid recovery should be carefully measured. The basic assumptions of pressure buildup theory-radial flow. 9.o. If the drill pipe fluid load increases to the point that the hydrostatic pressure of the fluid column kills the inflow.PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS to. This normally will allow expansion of mud trapped below the packers and pressure equalization in the filtrate-invaded zone so that a good estimate of static reservoir pressure can be obtained.4 have shown that as long as the difference in the initial and final production rates in the flow period prior to the pressure buildup is not extreme. The hydrostatic pressure of the liquid recovery should be calculated and compared with the final flow pressure. The lower the formation permeability. the longer the desired final pressure buildup.3 Use of Pressure Buildup Theory on DST Data Pressure buildup analysis theory.vs log[ (t + ~t) / ~t] where ~t is shut-in time and t is the flowing time prior to shut-in. variable-rate flow period. both separatelyand in contaminated mixtures. Prior to pressureinterpretation one should evaluate the accuracy of the pressure gauges by comparing their recorded pressuresat severalkey points.4. service company personnel should be apprised of expected conditions (including estimated reservoir temperature and pressure range) and the over-all test objectives so that the proper clocks and pressureelements can be selected. The rate of liquid recovery can be estimated at any time by converting the rate of change of hydrostatic pressure in the drill pipe to a liquid production rate. single compressible fluid-are fairly well suited to DST conditions. the first flow period on a DST should be at least 5 minutes and the initial closed-in period at least 30 minutes. The average rate of production is determined. The weaker the "blow" at the surface. On flowing DST's the assumption of a constant producing rate is sometimes even fulfilled. and van Poollen. For higher kh values. Gas flow on drillstem tests should be measured as accurately as possible at several equally spaced time intervals throughout the flow periods.1 The engineershould consult. say. of course. It is common in low-permeability reservoirs to employ even longer final buildups in order to obtain interpretable pressure buildup data. from the paper by Maier. the tool must be left open longer to sample the formation effectively.This is especially true if the rate of change of the production rate with time is constant. many of the operational factors may be ascertained from previous experience in the same geologic province. but also care In the measurement of fluid recoveries and flow rates must be exercised since these quantities must be known for pressure analysis purposes. Not only must the reservoir parameters directly affecting pressure behavior be considered. On non-flowing liquid recovery tests this is frequently the case. Perhaps the primary consideration in planning a test is the maximum time in the hole with the test tool that can be tolerated by borehole conditions. the flow rate usually decreasesthroughout the flow period. Frequently. as presented in Chapter 3. has been found to be applicable to analysis of DST pressure buildup data. Use of their method yields greater accuracy in kh and s values for variablerate cases.The most recent date the pressure bomb was calibrated at the expected conditions should be of interest. it is now possible to run drillstem tests with an arbitrary number of flow and shut-in periods.3 Dolan et al. For accurate pressurereadings.4 is usually acceptable as a practical matter. shut-in times of at least 2 hours are recommended. This applies for both the initial and final pressure buildups on a double shut-in test. on a non-flowing liquid recovery test. then the test must be planned accordingly. The conclusion of Dolan et al. For a kh product of less than 10 md-ft. 2 hours.2 Operational Considerations in Obtaining Good DST Pressure Data Various factors govern the quality of DST pressure data. with his colleagues or with DST service companies to gain any knowledge of a general nature concerning DST behavior in a particular formation. Odeh and SeliglOhave presented a means for calculating the proper production rate and flowing time values for use in pressure buildup analyses in instances in which the shut-in period is preceded by a short. infinite reservoir. Generally speaking. The static formation pressureis estimated from extrapolation of the plot of P. should be adequately described and density measurements taken. the slower the rate of formation fluid influx and the longer the second flow period should be.

final flowing presis sure.87s . 9.Rearrangement of the above equation yields the following expression for the skin factor. it is sometimes possible to infer the presence of reservoir heterogeneities within the radius of drainage affected by the test. From Eq.B log~ kt [ -3. the importance of careful determination of these quantities cannot be over-emphasized. In that case the skin effect formula becomes (9. The papers on DST pressure behavior which have appeared in the petroleum literature are well illustrated with field examples.DRILLSTEM TEST PRESSURE ANALYSIS 87 relieve mud compression effects and to allow the formation to expel most of the filtrate invasion.9. 0.. 9.. If it was not. Since the inference of a small reservoir is based on comparison of extrapolated pressures. 9. The B and /A. values must be estimated from some type of correlation.25.6q/A. permeability pinchouts. In the case of DST's of extended duration.23 + O.15 and rID= = 0.1. which we shall call Pavg.4Field exampleof DST pressure buildupcurves. As discussed in Chapter 11. is The skin factor cannot be determined by the method of Chapter 3 because flow time and closed-in time are of the same order in drillstem tests. To calculate the kh product of the formation. An outstanding collection of well documented field examples can be found in the paper of Ammann. the approximate relationship is m ' 0.2) The transient drainage radius during a DST is also of interest.5 A correlation for /A. 9.6 qllB where m is the slope of the buildup curve used to determine the kh product. then Pwf would be the true value for the final flowing pressure.000264. Pavg replaced by the true. The spe~ific behavioral attributes of such heterogeneities as faults. To use these methods it is necessaryto convert the pressure . 2 . The extrapolated pressure value from the second buildup curve should be fairly close to that from the initial buildup.2. 9. and t is the total flow time.ucr8 where m is the slope of the buildup plot in psi/cycle. In the case of a flowing test in which the rate is fairly constant.333 ft. If it is appreciably lower. it is possible to analyze the flowing pressure behavior by means of the transient pressuredrawdown analysismethods presentedin Chapter 5. 1 A reservoir boundary at a distance r e from the well will be reflected in the pressure behavior of the well at a time " estimated from the above relationship. MaierS presented a convenient simplification of Eq. kl = . For the-more common low-permeability cases in which the pressure behavior during the main flow period is essentiallya record of the buildup in fluid head in the drill pipe and the flow rate is not constant. given in Fig. In the case of multiphase flow the total compressibility and total mobility of the reservoir fluid system must be substituted for the corresponding single-fluid quantities as in other transient pressure analysis techniques. kh = 162.. the familiar transient pressure technique which utilizes the slope of the buildup plot is used.4 Analysis of DST Flow Period Pressure Data Fig. If the rate is not constant.1. The skin factor is determined through use of the equation for the flowing pressure immediately prior to shut-in. (Mter Maier.. Pwf = Pi -kh 162. the initial buildup should extrapolate to the true formation static pressure. will be discussed in Chapter 10. Thus. it is possible to analyze the flow period pressure behavior using the multiple-rate techniques of Chapter 6.6 Pressure buildup behavior from one of Ammann's examples is shown on Fig.. a better approximation for this value is the average flowing pressure during the flow period. such as gas tests and some oil tests. then a higher value may result. then one could conclude that a very small accumulation had been tested and that significant depletion had occurred on the test. etc. the drainage radius corresponding to a time t is estimated by If the rate q had been constant during the flow period. He assumedtypical values of cf> 0.5.') For DST's which flow at constant rate. 5.

Firing a shapedcharge or hydraulically forcing a tube from the center of the 0 5 51 66 112 156 246 -TIME. 9.") .Oftentimes. Nutter and Lebourg.5 Multiple-Rate DST's Recent developmentsin testing equipment2have produced test tools which can be opened or closed an arbitrary number of times without disturbing the packer seat.9.1 may be used to analyze these data. Critical flow will produce a nearly constant pressure throughout the flow period. This figure can be used to estimate the viscosity needed in DST pressure analysis. The multiple-flow DST can help substantiate reservoir depletion implied by comparison of the extrapolated initial buildup and second buildup pressures. The charts should be examined carefully. MINUTES- Fig. then the presenceof a small reservoir can be inferred without the need for retesting. change in the skin effect on successive buildups may give a clue as to whether the well might clean up when put on permanent production. To aid further in DST interpretation. (After Ammann.2 These authors showed that with only slight error one may disregard prior flow and buildup periods and simply aRalyze each pressure buildup by the familiar Pros log[ (t+ ~t) / ~t] plot. When should one choose to run a multiple-flow parison. (After McAlister. Multiple-flow DST's obviously lend confidence to the values calculated for the kh product and skin effect by providing additional calculation results for com- Test interpretation. knowing the density of the produced fluids and the internal diameter of the drill pipe. typical pressure chart configurations for various reservoir flow conditions are shown. first to ascertain that the tool operated properly. the analysis of data vs from this type of test is of the same order of difficulty as that encountered with. This clearly opens a myriad of possibilities when one must design a DST. 9. an additional figure from the paper by Black11 has been inclu~ed.8. These chambers are connected to an opening in a pad that is forced againstthe wall of the hole to effect a seal. in addition to estimation of liquid recovery. say. the extrapolated If pressures subsequent on buildups confirnl a pronounced downward trend. 9.88 PRESSURE ~UILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS rise in the drill pipe to equivalent fluid production rates. Low-permeability formations are normally revealed on the pressurecharts by extremely low flowing pressures. taken from the paper by McAlister et 01. In high-permeability zones. Pressurechart configuration will also vary. Also. A correlation of API gravity with viscosity is presented on Fig.7. "critical" flow effects may cause the flow of fluid into the drill pipe through the bottom choke to be independent of the pressure inside the drill pipe. by converting fluid head to cumulative inflow as a function of time.6 Practical Considerations in OST Interpretation period DST as opposedto the conventionaldouble shut-in DST? We shall offer some simple guides that can be used to answer this question from the reservoir analysis point of view. Thus.ll the typical pressure chart configurations for successfulsingle-flow period DST's and for common types of failures are shown. Fig. the wireline formation testeris often used to test formations in sand-shalestratigraphic sequences. lack of a packer seat and sloughing shales prevent use of the conventional DST technique. The method of Section6. Also. requires preliminary interpretation of the pressure charts. The slope of this cumulative inflow vs time curve is the production rate. and second to verify that the pressures during the test were measured accurately. 9. by regulation of choke sizes it is possible to vary production rates on flowing DST's.') Fig. On Fig. This is accomplished.6 shows a multiple-flow period DST pressure behavior record. the ordinary double shutin test. On Fig. 9.7 Wireline Formation Tests In addition to the commonly used DST methods. 9.5 DST pressure buildups from Arbuckle formation.6 Multiple-flowDST pressure record. Pressurecharts should always be inspected to ascertain proper tool operation. 9. Essentially. The accuracy of the gaugesmust be judged by comparison of key pressures against the computed mud pressure. taken from a paper by Black. 9. 9. a wireline tester consists of a sampling chamber or chambers of several gallons capacity. depending on the productive capacity of the zone being tested.

(After Black.FLOW p[~ (TOP GAUGE NOT BLANKED -TOP OFF. The tool is run on an electrical logging cable and the valves which open and close the sample chamber are controlled from the surface.DRILLSTEM TEST PRESSURE ANALYSIS 89 pad establishes communication between the chamber and the formation. I ".DKO .. JL .I BOTTOM CHART I j' 1.) I 1 I I--I ~':'-I-.UMG OUT 1.-aaD~~T[ II -tWAUZlNG VALVE O~[N[O I -NCR£R IM[AT[O J -. is recorded. ":' . .SI«JT* P[RaI 4-TPlA.. FLOWING O-SHUTIN E -fiNAL MUO o-c -~AWOOWN 1-lat~1N ~-LAST~* c-~~TTOM 4-~ SET I -~ ~. -LAST TIR8L[ OOT I-~_* TYPICAL CHARTS FROM A SATISFACTORY TEST 1. More detailed descrip- tions of the wireline tester can be found in the literature. as well as a final pressure buildup. 9. TIMI PRESSURES: .O I-~ Cl.~ WT .s The basic features which distinguish wireline tester pressure behavior from that of a conventional DST are the small fluid sample -CRITICAL ---NON-CRITICAL FLOW FLOW TOP CHART 4.7 A pressure analysis theory for the wireline tester has appeared in the literature.TiMI EVENTS: A-INITIALMUO 8-~CKER SQUEEZE C -AVE. The pressure behavior during sampling.7 Pressure chart interpretation:typical chartsfrom a satisfactorytestand charts from commontypes of mis-runs. BOTTOM GAUGE BLANKED OFF) lEGEND: CHART (OR BOTH CHARTS) CHART ---BOTTOM (CRITICAL FLOW) "-' TOOL FAILED TO OPEN PACKER FAILED NO St«JT-IN PRESSURE \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ CHOKE PLUGGING ANCHOR PLUGGED TOP CLOCK STOPPED 8 STARTED Fig.") .

SHOWN CC»IPR£SSED Fig.-WATER b. Milburn and Howell9 studied results from 560 wireline tests and concluded that quantitative interpretation of this type of test is often difficult. as opposed to being radial in a conventional DST. but calculation of permeability from the results was not dependable. Their study showed that the magnitude of the recorded pressureswas usually correct.(After Black!') ~ . i 1-2 3 HK. Like most other formation evaluation tools. In the references which we have cited on drillstem testing and also in the literature of the testing service comparnes.-J. We conclude this chapter on DST pressure behavior by reminding the reader that a properly run and analyzed DST is a very valuable evaluation tool.90 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS obtained and the fact that the flow is into a single perforation and is thus essentially spherical. it must be carefully applied and the results interpreted with the benefit of a large dose of engineering judgment and experience. 9.H PERMEABILITY ON 3/16" BOTTOM CHOKE (CRITICAL FLOW) HIGH PERMEABILITY ON 1/4" BOTTOM CHOKE (CRITICAL FLOW) HIGH PERMEABILITY WITH NO BOTTOM CHa<E (NON-CRITICAL FLOW) . SHUT IN IN A DIMINISHING FLOW RATE.FLOWING DRY GAS d. a large number of well-documented examples exist of DST behavior in various reservoir and operational situations.-TER WATER CUSHION EXCESSIVE FLUID HEAD INSIDE PIPE CUSHION RISING TO SURFACE CUSHION BEING PROOUCEO FLOWING PRES~ ~TREAM OF CHOKE ~NED CONSTANT UNTIL THE 8ACI< PRESSURE ~ INSIDE PIPE TO LIQUID AC~TIDN BE~ EXCESSIVE.8 Pressure chart interpretation:varioustestingconditions.TO«.TING c. From these examples it is possible 2+3 NO PERMEABILITY VERY LOW PERMEABILITY SAND FACE POSSIBLY PLUGGED .l. RESlA. NOTE: TIE RtNIING A« N AN) ~LING OUT PERIODS t:W TIAIE SCALE t:W THESE CHARTS FM CLARITY. 2 GAS TEST -UNLOADED .

...: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering. Tech.: "Formation Evaluation with the Wireline Formation Tester-Merits and Shortcomings". A. Okla.-. t' ~1"f )" .: "Theoretical Analysis of Pressure Phenomena Associated with the Wireline Formation Tester". McAlister. J. and Lebourg. 318-324..: "Special Applications of Drill-Stem Test Pressure Data".1. (After Black. F. . Tech. J. Pet.. Nutter. W. 9. E. Tech. 0 6. C. J.. Pet.. (May. R. Norman. Maier. (1955).. Dolan. 11. t u ge as 0 qua 1 y. Moran. Pet. J. J.. 1962) 899-908.0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 35 ~ ~ ~ 30 ~ ~ 0 ... Tech. . d d J t l. AIME (1957) 210.: "A Method of Formation Testing on Logging Cable". 10. 3. and Howell.D) to gain an understanding of DST behavior and the manner in which DST pressure interpretation results should be . ~ ~ Z5 ~ ~ $ a: zo c 00 0 ~ ~o --2-. H. A. Pet. and Hill. H. Variable-Rate Case". J.." " " ! J . Q..ii" 0/"""""" . (July. and Finklea.. (Aug.. Milburn. 1956) 21-30.. 5. 1963) 790794. Pet. John P. J.. C.: "Status of Drill-Stem Testing Techniques and Analysis". Trans. ~. (Nov.. Odeh. J. (Feb.. 1961) 333-339. B.: "Pressure Build-Up Analysis. ~ "' ("'~ . c p OIL Fig. 1962) 1213-1222.' r . Marshall: "A Review of Drill-Stem Testing Techniques and Analysis". li"". 1961) 987-994. S. 9.a. ~ 0 0 '" ~ 0 00 ~8 ~\ '\ 0 ~ 00 0 1. P. Calhoun. Charles B. van Poollen. Tech. J. 15 I Z 3 4 5 6 7 VISCOSITY OF SATURATED REKRYOIRAT RES. 0 . Tech. M.. "!'" (:i~j!'fk -- i . AIME (1957) 210. 1960) 27-36. 8.. TENP.. Tech. A. and Doh. (April. University of Oklahoma Press. (June. J.: "Recent Developments in the Interpretation and Application of DST Data". Ammann. 0 . 7. J. K.: "A New System of Tools for Better Control and Interpretation of Drill-Stem Tests". Tech. Trans. D. Charles A. (Oct. C" Jr. J. 1965) 207-214. L. 260-267. Lebourg. 4. Pet. Pet.. 2. E. Gilman A. F. and Selig.t jI:). Fields. Pet.: "Case Histories of Analyses of Characteristics of Reservoir Rock from Drill-Stem Tests". Einarsen.DRILLSTEM TEST PRESSURE ANALYSIS 91 so References \oj ~ 4~ ~ ~ ~ : c 40 . J.9 Correlation of API gravity with viscosity. Black. M..

)1 Note that the actual distance of the image well from the real well is 2d.!lL [Ei -c/>.1 The pressure behavior in this case is derived very conve~ently by employing a technique called the "method of images".( ) .ucr0 08. P0! = P. pressure behavior for heterogeneities which occur laterally away f. 10. These studies have ranged from investigations of behavior of wells near faults to performance of wells in naturally fractured reservoirs.1 to yield p rp 2 P = p' + -. and then removing the fault.cd2 + 2s ] ) (10. in the usual manner. In this chapter we will examine reasons for this and will study caseswhere the simple theory does not apply. (10.CT02 [ . We must al~o acknQwledge th~t ~tudies of heterogeneousreservOIrS are very much limIted by our current inability to simulate them in a mathematically rigorous way.ontal and its porosity and permeability distributions are isotropic and constant. erosion.rom the well. In spite of these seemingly over-simplifying restrictions. glaciation..e in understanding the e ects 0 reservoIr eterogenelties has been made. then its pressure behavior during flow at a constant rate is qJl. The engineer who has inspected subsurface cores or surface outcrops of reservoir rocks does not have to be told of the inherent heterogeneousnature of reservoir rocks. + El -kt cpp. all act to produce reservoir rocks that are non-uniform. if the well is located a distance d from the fault. one must be familiar with the pressure behavior anomalies which are engendered by the commonly encountered reservoir heterogeneities. The resulting pressure drop at the real well due to its own production and the "interference drop" from the image well add together to simulate correctly the pressure behavior of the real well as though it were in the proximity of the fault. although the nonuniformity is. In order to properly qualify pressure analysis results obtained in the field.Cd2 k(t+ ~t) ) '. the method of su e osition and Eq. the various pressure analysis theories have proven generally to have fairly wide applicability. 10. The subject of pressure behavior in heterogeneous reservoirs has received considerable attention in the petroleum literature in recent years. Mathematically. Generally. In addition it was also assumed that the producing layer is hori. With the advent of the digital computer many mathematical model studies have been made of pressure behavior in heterogeneous reservoirs. 47rkh 4k (t+~t) ( . one would conclude that invaluable progress ff f h . . -Ei -Ei ( -~ ( -~ 4k~t k~t )+ Ei ( )] -c/>Jl. ( ) of the distributions of pore space parameters together with the expected larger and faster computers will bring about additiona! progre~s in the investigation of heterogeneousreservoIr behaVIor. +""4. predictable.2) . Th b I ldup behavior in an ideal case can pressure u be obtained by employing. Geologic processesthemselves dictate that reservoir rocks be non-uniform. .. The processes of sedimentation. The image well interacts with the actual well so that no flow occurs across the fault. In this formulation the effect of a fault is simulated by assuming the presence of another identical well producing at a symmetrical position across the fault. first.. to an extent.Chapter 10 Effect of Reservoir Heterogeneities On Pressure Behavior The pressure analysis methods which were presented in the preceding chapters are all based on the assumption of a homogeneousformation of uniform thickness.kh El -4kt c/>Jl. Hopefully. This includes faults and lateral changes In the hydraulic diffusivity such as occur at fluid contacts.1 Pressure Behavior Near Faults or Other Impermeable Barriers The pressure behavior of a well' near a sealing linear fault or other flow barrier in an otherwise infinite reservoir was first presented by Horner. the detailed study The presentation of the material on reservoir heterogeneitieswill consider. etc.

t+dt (10.6car Eq.6) )] (10. The doubling of the slope is the distinguishing featureof the pressure behaviorof a well neara fault. A theoreticalexampleof a pressurebuildup in a well located near a fault is shownon Fig.3) kdt For all but very smallvaluesof d. 10.we obtainthe Homer equationfor the fault distance: .k(~~ 1T From this equation seethat the slopeof the second we part (late time) of the buildup curve is exactlydouble that of the early part.uCd2 -El -0.000264 kt ) = 2.EFFECT OF RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES 93 For t sufficientlylarge and for all but very early shut-intimes. the other Ei-function will be essentially constantuntil dt becomes large. 6 S04 4 3 2 I . early in the buildup. 10.2 canbe expressed as + c/> d2 ) PWI Pi -~ = [ln~Ei(. 100 80 60 40 7 . 10. 1 21Tkhn dt ( With the usualEi-functionapproximation.-~ PWI -P.4) This equationtells us that the slope of the normal pressurebuildup plot will be unchanged the early for part of a pressure buildup.1.and late-timesections intersecton the basicbuildupplot.dt Ei -~ ( kt )J (10. 10. PWI Pi -~ = 47rkh + Ei ( -~ [ln~.ucd2--~-t+dt~ . As dt becomes large. Fig.000264kt yf/>. c/>. If we equatethe righthandsidesof Eqs. Homer also presented method for calculatingthe a distance a fault whichis basedon the shut-intime at to whichthe extrapolated early.1Illustration thetheoretical of a linearbarrier of case fault.10.Eq. Also.4and 10.0 ': I' ' In ~ At I..Also.3becomes -.303log~. alsobe written as ( 105 ) ~ 0.0 ~ E 140 . 120 Q. the late-time portion of the curve mustbe usedto obtainthe extrapolated pressure.Eq. The characteristic changeof slopeis clearly evident.5. 10. Thus. the last Ei-function in the abovewill be zero until dt becomes large. (AfterHomer!) . 200 180 ISO .

8) PLANVIEWOFRESERVOIR L. 10. it is usually best to run a pressure drawdown test instead of a pressure buildup. Here we show a well which is situated in proximity to three distinct sections of the reservoir boundary.p value is the difference between the first straight-line section and the actual buildup curve at shut-in time 6.1 at which a pressure buildup plot becomesnon- [ . ~~N~HOUT ATER CONTAC . the Davis and Hawkins formula. A schematic pressure buildup curve for this well is also shown. Russe1l4 has illustrated the application of the Homer technique in calculating fault distance from tworate flow tests.6qp. The Homer method gives good results if the value of I is large. 10. a second straight-line section of slope greater than two times the early slope will usually result. Note that the second straight-line section has slope greater than twice the initial slope. '" STRAIGHT LINE SECTIONS /j -log t+~t At Fig. In the case of multiple boundaries near a well. ) (10.on ISaIso valid f or pressured rawdown.Again. It can be applied to all types of transient tests. Gray2 has shown that the Homer method (Eq. the pressure behavior of the well will be composed of a multiple set of transients. above for calculating fault b d f hi stance on a pressure UI up can e use or t s purpose on other types of transient pressure tests. This formula is predicated on the existence of a single fault.. and is most accurate if I is large. The value 6. Because of the time involved.' has shown that the Davis and Hawkins3 formula for distance to a fault seems to give consistently acceptable results [despite a restriction that it is strictly valid for '-' pressure buildups for [( 1+ 6.( -M"002~ rpp.7.In such casesthe transition period from ( d = ~/1. This means that the intersection point is very much a function of the distance to d h b fb d t e num er 0 oun anes. The formula In the case of a well located near intersecting fallits or other multiple reservoir boundaries.94 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS These equations (in practical units) are solved by trial and error for the distance d. di The methods outlined ld b .1.1) vs /6. The methods which we have outlined for fault distance calculation should not be applied if multiple boundaries is are suspected. Thi s equati'.. the equation must be solved by trial and error for d.-:~G\.p (10.7) rpp. is preferable because of its accuracy and ease of application. This method involves graphically measuring the pressure difference between the first straight-line portion and the actual buildup curve during the transition part of the curve where the image well buildup becomes significant.1] plot. For small values of I.p method" suggested by Gray is a much faster method in terms of test time.6) is inaccurate. After the early straight-line section on a transient pressure analysis plot.2Pressure buildupperformance the caseof in multiple boundaries.lz is the shutin time value at which the straight-line sections intersect on the POD' log[ (1+ 6. 10. For example.lz] > 30.c the first to second linear segmentsmay be of extended length because of successivearrivals of the reflections from the various boundaries.lz) /6.:~~ ~ WELL 0 ~ In this equation the 6.2 in an excellent review of methods for calculating the distance to a fault from buildup tests. If the flow or shut-in time at which the effect of the nearest boundary is felt can be estimated (this is done by finding the time 6. Eq.2. Such a case is indicated schematically on Fig. Gray.tests . 10. f Co . about the best one can hope to do is obtain an estimate of the distance to the nearest boundary. The "6.cdz )] -6. to use it one must be sure that the deviation fro~ the early straight line is a result of the presenceof a sIngle fault. If the intersection method is used for finding the distance to a fault. The principal objection to the intersecof test time of finding fault distance is the large amount tion method usually needed to infer twQ straight lines correctly.B -El .48 X 10-4 ~ . pRESSURE BUILDUP CURVE I .an Another procedure for calculating fault dIstancewas presented in the paper by Gray. . Gray's equation for the pressure buildup or drawdown cases is -kh 70. however.

uc thereby in the tween changes cur have hydraulic differing in porosity contacts an effect on pressure occur behavior.3. stn ution ' on Pressure in porosity requent fl d di . or Generallypresence fault speaking. . <!>2. yet they Some situations shown homogeneous.= WELL z.uc Sp --. dependent The calculated tance the If at which buildup to be nonlinear. Diffusivity Discontinuities . have published a in due also depositional permeability. of the practical discontinuity.""O"'f~~. although not complete barriers (as are sealing faults) . other factors ma y cause will be discussed in the simnext .EFFECT OF RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES linear.'""-- LINEAR BOUNOARY BETWEEN REGIONSANO2 I 10.Fig DEPDSITIDNAL UNIT A "'" {. tance2).-~~N-.3 Idealized a reservoir studied and van Poollen. as in then Gray's method for estimating fault the distance to the nearest boundary from discan -k1 111 -~ -k2 112-C . cause discontinuous in the hydraulic diffusivity.... The mathematical solution to this flow problem is presented.4. are and buildup idealized is shown reservoir situation They by that and authors 10. beto oc10. theoretical hydraulic behavior. 1] = -f-. I pressure of the reservoir Larkin situations for which the theory in terms parameters: and van Poollen" may be applicable. in the reference.6. (10. reservoir are posite sections study schematic for which 10. Larkin 't'. lution pressed The for results the from computer behavIor following evaluation at the of well the are soex- a 10 4 Sc ..REGION 2 is desired the the boundary. in . The test is probably for this is that a the testing meth- "2 = ~ . b UI Such flow f I y occur hi and reservoIrs.2 Effect of Lateral Changes in Hydraulic Behavior and permeability wit ' . these the that The dent of changes Larkin study difIusivity The in viscosity and van Poollen5 of linear of the effect discontinuities and drawdown studied assumed on pressure reservoir on Fig. uniquely is by a tranit difficult to test because sient P ressure ilar effects.". situation distance to the drawdown reason from is suspected nearest and it REGION I " = -. Some of these section. for the constant flow rate case.. -if I... constant-rate best test to pressure run.00105~. ons 0 f some prac t. at the Changes diffusivity geological and such boundary units Changes or oil-water compressibility.!:!I .BOUNOARY BETWEEN n REGIONS ANO2 I to REGION I REGION 2 discontinuities. parameters differ on opcrossthis isotropic are constant These can assumed sides of may to be constant. Ica of Bixel.T --0 a a multiple-boundary to find the t .u22 ' -<!>2C2 't'.9) 95 ' be estimated ~ o~ow.2"2 C2 minimum of additional transients od is boundary infer introduced. slightly fluids the in the compressible are are compressibilities permeability and the viscosities porosity is constant. C I i":." by Bixel.. I a w upon Thi only ' ' s IS an approXImate order-of-magnitude value is quite is judged f ormu hi h c the genera time II ' <!>lC1 y gives disCD + results.j ti ' c h ema cross-sec ti.'~ELL DEPOSITIONAL B UNIT be applicable on Fig.t d~ 0. changes and Fig. indepen- formation of pressure and of and formation thickness.. as gas-oil and at fluid contacts because Bixel.

96 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS M = k2IJ. = 00002636 + (fr..~ ~. k !.R.~ 01 I ~ ~ . 1]2/1]1'is equal to M/Sp./ I. On these curves the hydraulic diffusivities in the two regions are assumedto be constant and the results for various mobility ratios are shown. Larkin and van Poollen.. Gas-water contacts may not be distinguishable from a ~E ~ '::' ~.0..I" !i!J1e ~ N " EXAMPLES ~ ~ " <J :10" II -- - 0. the -" usual homogeneousreservior behavior results. < 1 000 .-" UO.5 Theoreticalpressuredrawdowncurves.5 shows a set of theoretical pressure drawdown curves for the case of Sp= 100 and various M values. 10. the closer the slope change will approach a factor of two.2 .6.3048.:!:. the pressure buildup curve slope increases after the effect of the discontinuity is felt. is to cause the pressure buildup curve slope to flatten. beyond the discontinuity. Larkin and van Poollen. Depending on the M value. 10.. Fig..) (~) ( Fig.. the b 10 6 P (After Bixel. buildup curve either steepens or flattens in the same way as does the radial pressure profile..1/k1IJ.i . ~ ':!.- 20 .. as with faults. .") -'c~ . A low value of M therefore corresponds to a reduced hydraulic diffusivity in Region 2." uo.-.1 Some synthetic pressurebuildup curves from the Bixel.::'" . 0 001 --. 10. 1 . II II II II II 10 a. < M . the pressure buildup curve shape is a reflection of the reservoir . Larkin and van Poollen study are shown on Fig. t. Thus. The ratio of hydraulic diffusivities. . (After Bixel..") . T s e aVlor IDlg t e easty IDlsta en for the common bend-over in a buildup which occurs in a well producing from a bounded reservoir. 'w'7.M At Fi g.Large increasesin hydraulic diffusivity across the discontinuity will cause the pressure drop to arrest and become essentially constant. For M < 1.. The greater the reduction in hydraulic diffusivity from the region containing the well to the region beyond the discontinuity..:::0. fault in practical cases. the effect of the more mobile fluid in Region 2 hi b h . h b . For M = 1.. For M >1.So'~ .ressure ill ld up curves f or.

we see that pnor to boundary effects the pressure behaVIor IS that 0f a sIngle.kh product of that la y er. the average value of time for occurrence of LAYER I LAYER 2 :. and that which follows. the fractional flow rate from ~ayer 1 becomes equal to CPlh1/(cph)t= 0. Together with the other usual single-fluid study assumptions.1 LAYER n t ~~~:==~=~::===~:J'--( A) VIEW RESERVOIR OF 1. . During early times at which drainage boundary effects have not been felt.10) . one use an overlay technique to compare the field data with the theoretical curves. 10 7 Layere reservoir sys em sue d by L efk OVlts. . ~ Becauseof the rate adjustments which can occur between layers." Fi g... Each layer was assumedto be homogeneousand isotropic but of differ~t porosity and permeability..". ql (t) / qt. is that unique interpretation of heterogeneoussituations from pressure behavior alone is not usually possible. 56 As may be seen from these curves for large or small M values. then. to obtaIn the distance to such a discontinuity."2 j=th2 kn. there may be a long transition between the early transient behavior and the onset of semisteady state.. IS approXImately equal to k1h1/(kh)t = 0.7. ' . . The point of the presentation thus far. on pressure (qualitatively) appearance behavIor..8. pore volume of Layer 1. The pressure drop IS proportional to In t Ius a const ant .. t t di ..8. A large suite of theoretical pressure behavior curves is included in the paper. 10.ayer reservoIr WI I th . At semI-steadystate the fractional flow from Layer 1 IS proportional to the . Those interested in the details of this type of analysis are referred to their paper. 10. a mathematical solution was found for the pressure behavior which results when the well produces at constant rate. the pressure behavior at the well in the two-layer caseis given by Pi-Pw! -In t-lny 41T(kh)t -1 k1h1 In ¥ (kh)t + k2h2In ¥ 2 t (10.. Bixel. we have poInted out the sImIlar of different situations on pressure buildup curves.qtp..6 The idealized reservoir system which they studied is shown on Fig.091..= 0. Larkin and van Poollen suggestthat. large shut-in times may be required to extrapolate to the correct reservoir pressure.p. After boundary effects.n of tota~ flow which comes from Layer 1.. of Bixel and van Poollen37have also studied the Those radial discontinuities on pressure behavior. For the two-layer casesstudied by Lefkovits et al. . then they will perform in a much different manner. However when pressure behavior is combined with geological ~nd petrophysical information..!::~ re --I jJ:. IMPERMEABLE ~ BOUNDARIES ~~ ~ I I i 1: .05 and cpl/cp2. the total rate is assumed constant. d ....Rather.3 Pressure Behavior in Layered Reservoirs Perhaps the most common type of heterogeneity we ordinarily think of is that which results from various cycles of sedimentation-a set of heterogeneouslayers.8.k:~k2 = 4. .166. 10. w?ere (kh)t = k1h1+ ~2h2.) I :I hn (B) CROSS SECTIONAL OFRESERVOIR VIEW Hazebroek. 10. 10. and thera te 0f d epIeti' on 0f each I ayer is proportional to the . the reservoir behavior will be analogousto that of a singlelayer reservoir having the average properties of the layered system. Note that Imtially the fractio. If unrestricted interlayer crossflow can occur. .. the most important question is whether there is significant interlayer pressure and fluid communication or lack of it. d I pos a e a reasona e reservoIr mo e. . . h1/h2. are felt and semi-steady state is reached. that differential depletion between the layers can cause theIr respective producIng rates to vary untIl semI- In the case sh~n In FIg. kh = (kh) t.. Analysis of the early part of the buildup curves (and also drawdown curves) in all cases will give correct k1h1 and skin factor values. .Allen and Matthews. Some theoretical pressure decline curves from the subject study are shown on Fig.EFFECT OF RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES 97 pressure profile. It is important to realize that a constant producing rate from each layer is not assumed. In reservoirs composed of stratified layers.p! I) hi K2. of The performance wasbounded reservoirs composed stratified layers of investigated theoretically for the no-crossflow case by Lefkovits et al. This means. effect Pressure Performt t h d d th r w 0 are Inferes e t In this aspect of ance are re erre 0 elr pape .2. This effect has been pointed out also by Weller.p In thIS reVIew of the effect of lateral heterogeneItIes steady state conditions are attained. it may indeed be possible to tul t bl . . If the discrete reservoir layers communicate only by means of a common wellbore. From this equation and FIg.: r~ ~I.

the buildup curve levels off (BC). 10. and thus.9 is a theoretical pressure buildup curve for a two-layer reservoir. there is an initial straight-line Section AB.10.13 00 . After the straight-line portion.") Hazebroek. This leveling-off corresponds in a singlelayer reservoir to the pressure's having almost reached its average value. showed vs ~t that the trial-and-error which was discussed in the average pres(p -PW8) Pws Lefkovits -3 10 10 -2 -I 10 I Section 3. noting that one might draw a single straight line through the early sections in a practical case. (After Lefkovits. Dunng the penod 1960 to 1962.~ 0" 20 ~= ii = hl+h2 hl+h2 00 0 I 103 104 -105 106 107 108 t Ow = kt "f>JLCrw2 . less per- tion CD is due to the repressuring more E permeable layer by the less depleted.11 . Lefkovits et al. AL t + tJ. the pressure behavior of the well ~ll be . (After Lefkovits. The Section BC may have a slope only slightly less than that of Section AB. seven papers (Refs.") ~- In the case where no barriers to vertical flow of fluids between the layers are present.09 1 10 103 104 -105 106 108 t = kt Ow Fig. 10. The slope of this straightline section is used to calculate (kh ) t in the usual manner. plot of log conventional extrapolation to obtain a cannot be carried out in this type of reset al.. 10. As in a single-layer reservoir. See also Fig. Hazebroek.considerably ~ifferent fro~ that which we have Just discussed. 10. Allen and Matthews. Fig. t Fig. 7 through 13) were pub- . flow rate from one layer for a two-layer Allen and Matthews.9 can be used to determine sure in these cases.8 Well pressure decline and fractional ~JLCrw2 reservoir. 10. meable layer.::: 0" _I -0" +- .15 .9 Theoretical pressure buildup curve for two-layer reservoir.rise in the porof the more depleted. the two sections may be indistinguishable in some practical situations as shown in Fig.~8 60 I-C k = PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS -klhl + k2h2 hl+h2 . However. and then finally levels off at the average pressure (DE). The. semi-steady state was about 50 times as great as for a single-layer case with the same drainage radius. value for p* ervoir.14. Obviously.1~40 Co Co V +- -~lhl+~2h2 =10 ~. also considered pressure buildup performance. in a two-layer reservoir the pressure again rises (CD).

11 Schematic cross-section portion a two-layer of a of :::~~~ interlayer crossflow. (AfterRU-:~d Prats. 2800 '. Thus.- D:: . "'-/" ~1 .- .10. in the homogeneous-caseformulas. it has been found that the flowing bottom-hole pressureperformance of a two-layer crossflow system can be represented almost exactly by an equiva- lent homogeneous system of identical radial dimensions.'1"'\ .000 Fig..6q. f .' :' 1-.") --- CAPROCK --- DIRECTION OIL FLOWOF i i RCK ---- --- ~ --- - I -- Fig. "?. . (10.J 0 :J: c.10.. '0 CD ~ 0 .10 Buildup a two-layer in reservoir. the transient bottom-hole pressure performance of a well in a reservoir with crossflow is given by PtO!= Pi -162.. .11) "" 300 CI <II . 10. lLJ I .23 «I>h)tp..B (kh) t [ log _J~2~ -3. and with (kh) t and «I>h)t substituted for kh and <l>h. minutes 1000 10. (AfterMatthews.STRAIGHT-LINE w => a. SECTION ~ 2900 lLJ D:: -. i-' PRESSURE 2700 I 100 SHUT-IN TIME. A schematic cross-sectionof the reservoir situation of interest is shown on Fig. In the case of constant producing rate.71 :!"j'q .H) ....cr to } .I.11.EFFECT OF RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES 99 I I lished on the theoretical behavior of reservoir systems composed of inter-communicating layers. Russell and Prats14summarized the practical aspects of the findings of these papers in a later paper..p. respectively.

The fact that the constant-rate be represented by homogeneous equivalent properties indicates case pe~ormance reservoir theory buildup -. have been discussed previously..!.100 In this equation. state). (10... ~ TRANSIENT PERFORMANCE: 162 6 Pwf = PI -'-Tk~~~ B [ (kh)t log ~h~r: t -3. r e C c/> t 2 q B . one should be able to detect crossflow either semi-steady the slope of the plot of vs time is constant and is flowing bottom-hole given by I from pressure drawdown or from pressure buildup tests.07455 rl B q~ c (l#Ihlt .2qp.B Pw! -P.12 pressure plot shows an idealized flowing bottom-hole for a two-layer reservoir with crossflow 10.+ In IAocr I. the linear coordinate plot of flowing bottom-hole pressure vs time should be .23 ] ~ -J SEMI STEADY-STATE P wf ..c r 2 t~ 1136 8f""'trVOe hr (khlf" TATE q B SLOPE = 1.") . in reservoirs ~f this should P ossess the properties shown on this plot.000528 (~hl 't't (k h)+ t . from the By computing equation the expected of linearity on Fig. . however.(10. ~ hr 0 TIME i~!.000528 (kh ) t (kh)t t ( c/>h t p. Field measuretype For large times (semi-steady h d b d b aVlor IS escn e y .-(dayS).75 rw ] g l!) z ~ 0 Ii TIME AT WHICH SEMI STEADY IS REACHED: '4>hI JJ. the pressure bewhich PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS is producing at constant rate.13) From the differences between pressure behavior with and without crossflow.07455 re c ( 'I' h) t psi/hour. e r. linear after the semi-steady state IS reached. From these expressions it is apparent that so-called reservoir limit tests in reservoirs with crossflow should yield accurate measurements of the total productive pore volume..an WIth be- that pressure + 1n!. ments of flowing pressure.75].-141. a pressure buildup from this type of reservoir reservoir (kh) t. rw where by ( h) 2 47.!!.l.-0. The the- It: VI ~ ::) Q.2 = - 1 783 qB . /d ( h) pSI ay. the presence or absence of crossflow can be judged. havior in a layered reservoir with crossflow is similar to that in a homogeneous reservoir. Thus.2nuB -. 10.cr e2 ) . of should possess the and should The time semi-steady state begins is given classical homogeneous yield an estimate appearance t ~ For .. If the well flows..13 and comparing with the observed time. t is expressed in hours.783 re 2 c (l#Ih) t Dsi ~ DAY = 0. . it is sometimes possible to infer the presence or absence of crossflow. i . The drawdown curve at semisteady state will have the same slope whether crossflow occurs or not.r-lkhlt [ 0.35 J?_(if>£!.12) c. t state flow.(10. --0. [ 0. the time to the onset of linearity without crossflow will be of the order of 50 times that required time with crossflow. Fig.I PERFORMANCE: ~ 1 2 0 lI- 141. 0. 10.14) oretical slope and time of onset of linearity." FIg. (After Russell and Prats.12 IdealIzed constant-rate flowmg bottom-hole pressure performance in two-layer reservoir' with crossflow.p. In the case of a drawdown test with the well adjusted to produce at constant rate. The the- s ope -. pressure t is again expressed at which in hours.



oretical behavior in these cases is depicted on Fig.
10.13. DECLINE EXPONENT:.,. O,O1267( kh)t 2., ---, I

The pressure buildup characteristics of a well in a d .. h fl .. 1 thosem .(ljIh)t/Lcre layere reservoir WIt cross ow are S1In1arto h . A f h a omogeneous reserv01r. companson 0 t e pressure buildup behavior in a two-layer reservoir with and without crossflow is presented on Fig. 10.14. The case without crossflow has an initial straight-line section, then a slight flattening and next a rising portion. By qualitative comparison of observed curves with the curves in Fig. 10.14 and with other examples in Figs. 10.9 and 10.10, h th fl 1 d d one can ec1 ewe er cross ow 1Soccumng m a ay-

2 t~4735(DAYS) ;. .; co -NO
Q (kh)t

(.h)t~re(ln reo-0.75) DAY





TIME, DAYS 2 t~4735 (ljIh),/Lcre(DAYS) I ( k h) t

ered reservoir. The studies which have been summarized in this section constitute the bulk of our knowledge of layered


reservoir behavior. Although the studies are highly theoretic a1 t h ey have been 0f va1ue m und erstandmg .r2 ,







reservoir and well behavior. For1 example, the theoretid th ca1 mo d e1 emp1 d m stud ying ayere reservOirS WI oye




'i a.

out crossflow is often a near-exact representation for the behavior of wells in which production from two or more separate reservoirs is being comingled within the ., .'lg. wellbore. Future study of additional representative reserv01r mo~els WIll undoubtedly contnbute to further understanding.

I,. 1o.13 Pressure perf ormance at constant pro d uction rate .
with and without crossflow in bounded layered reservoir. (From Russell and Prats.")







; ~ ~ .;.
-IQ a. . ~ 5520



0.000264Ikh)t t

8 5.5X109

k, -8 kl


" -80.4 .1


-1- 82.5,7hi


5535 -6


10 -4 t+6i




Fig, 10.14 Comparison of pressure buildup behavior in two-layer reservoir with and without crossflow. (After Russell and Prats!')



10.4 Pressure Behavior in Naturally Fractured Formations ...two Most reservoIr engIneenng theory has been founded on the assumptionof a homogeneousand isotropic porous medium. However, many prolific reservoirs produce from naturally fractured and jointed formations. The occurrence of a high-permeability, secondary porosity flow system of this type generally requires analysis by something other than the normal homogeneousreservoir theory. Early contri~utors to f.ractured reservoir flow and pressure analysIs theory Include Pollard,I5 Freeman and Natanson,16and Samara.17 Perhaps the most extensive theoretical work on behavior of naturally fractured reservoirs is that of Warren and Root.IS These authors formulated asystem and model of a single-fluid fractured reservoir theoretical solved mathematically for the pressure behavior. In the text which follows we shall outline their model and discuss some of their results.
The ...a Idealization of a heterogeneous porous medium

tems; i.e., flow between the two systems at any point is proportional to the pressure difference between the systems at that point. The mathematical solution presented by Warren and Root for the case of pressure behavior at constant flow rate will not be repeated here. Rather, we shall present some results from numerical evaluation of the solution. All the results shown are for the infinite reservoir case and are described by two basic parameters: /I)= !J>2C2/ + !J>2C2) (!J>lCl and ,\ = ak1 rw2/k2 , where C1= total compressibility, primary system, ... C2= total compressIbility, secondarysystem, k1 = matrix permeability, k -ff . bili' 2 -e ective permea ty, fractures, and
= shape factor systems. controlling flow between two

which was used by Warren and Root is shown schematically on Fig. 10.15. The primary porosity systemis homogeneous and isotropic, and is contained within an array of identical parallelepipeds. All of the secondary porosity is contained with an orthogonal systemof continuous, uniform fractures of uniform (anisotropic) permeability. Flow can occur between the secondary and primary porosities, but flow through the gross medium to the well can occur in the fracture systemonly. It is also assumedthat semi-steadystate flow occurs on a local basis between the primary and secondary sys,

Fig. 10.16 shows a set of theoretical pressure buildup curves from this study. The pressure buildup for early time is the ~ame a~.in ~ homogeneous .reservoir. Then, as more rapId stabIlIzation of pressure In the more permeable secondary porosity system occurs, the pressure buildup lags. As inflow from the primary porosity system progresses,the pressure buildup assumesa trend parallel to that for early time. A field example of a buildup curve from a fractured reservoir displaying the parallel sections is shown on

Ii .






I !







Fig. 10.15 .Idealization of a naturally fractured heterogeneous porous medium. (After Warren and Root.]")






~ig.. 10.17. Odeh19 has studied a theoretical m~del simIlar to that of Warren and Root and has emphasized that fractured. reservoirs ~requently behave as homogeneous res~rvolrs. ~deh cites several field examples to support his conclusions. Thus, we conclude that naturall~ fractured reservoirs mayor may not display clear evidence of their pore space distribution on transient pressuretests. In the casewhere a "parallel section" type of pressure buildup does result, valuable reservoir information can probably be obtained with the Warren and Root theory.
l5 h

buildup is typified by the occurrence of a "tail" on the buildup. When the well is closed in for a pressure buildup, the pressure builds up first in the fracture system, giving the straight-line section as shown. Then the less permeable matrix, which is at higher average pressure, begins to feed fluid into the fractures. This causesthe rise above the straight-line section. Finally, the pressure will build up completely, as shown on the end of the buildup curve. The occurrence of the type of buildup displayed ~y
Pollard is quite common

sure buildup behavior in fissured limestone reservoirs in conjunction with evaluation of acid treatments. A

. d t t . as carne ou an ex enslve



y 0



in Venezuela and the United States. ~his ~pe, In fact, seems to be much more common t an t e type sug-

in fissured ...



typical field example of a buildup from a fissured limestone reservoir is shown on Fig. 10.18. This type of

gestedby the study of Warren and Root. Pollard also presented a method for analyzing pressure buildups in fissured limestone reservoirs which has proved to be quite useful. The Pollard method of analysis is based on the assumption of semi-steadystate flow during the pressure buildup period. One plots log (p-P",.) vs ~t as in the extended Muskat method (Chapter 3). From this basic plot it is possible to obtain estimates of fracture system volume and the extent of any damage zone. An example of the Pollard method is shown on Fig. 10.19. It should be noted that pressure behavior in naturally fractured reservoirs is similar to that obtained in layered reservoirs with no crossflow. In fact, in any reservoir system with two predominant rock types, the pressure buildup behavior is similar to that of Fig. 10.18. The geometry of the fractured system, the permeabilities involved, and the pore volumes of each rock type combine to yield systems which are far too complex for precise analysis with presently known techniques. There may be a future for probabilistic reservoir models in aiding description and analysis of these complicated systems. 10.5 Pressure Behavior in Hydraulically Fractured Wells The discussion of reservoir heterogeneities thus far has considered pressure behavior for naturally occuring heterogeneousreservoir situations, e.g., faults, layers, natural fractures, etc. A very important and manmade type of reservoir heterogeneityis the hydraulically induced formation fracture. A large percentage of present-day well completions employ the hydraulic fracturing technique. It is important that we have a good understandingof the effects of hydraulic fractures on the pressure behavior of wells.



CI 3 ~ ~ ~ ..; 3850 ~ ~ ~ Q. 3 ~ ~

W. 0


~ 31


3 A
Fig. : 10.16 Theoretical Warren

10 +

1<5" 10t
curves. (After


The orientation of hydraulic fractures is dependent on the stress distribution in the formation and the steps which may be taken to alter the stress distribution locally in the region near the well. If the leastl
principal a vertical stress fracture in the plane formation usually is results. horizontal, If then it is vertical,



.'") 1900 (/) Co ~ 1800 cn U> ::> ~ 1700 a. Co) CI ~ w a: => cn cn w 430 a: a.'") ." . 10. (After Pollard.. 10. Fig... 0 " . ~ 420 0 m ~440 ./ / " ". "" / . (After Warren and Root.17 Field buildup curve. . " ~ 410 I i ~ w -l . " " "" ' " . ' ' ..104 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS (\IE 450 WELL A " . '.! ""'" ~ 10 0 CLOSED-IN TI ME.I . ~ 1600 w LI NEAR ~RTION ~ ~ 1500 ~ 0 ro 140 1300 I '..i:l!J. " : 400 108 107 106 ~ 2000 105 t + ~t 104 103 102 10' ~t Fig..' ..18 Buildup in a fissuredlimestone reservoir.

lI) Well then a horizontal (bedding plane) fracture usually occurs. This study was conducted with a heat flow model..2') .20.kin (law FPI preclude.EFFECT RESERVOIR OF 'HETEROGENEITIES 1000 - _1~ 1 In . They concluded that these effects must be considered both in the determination of the effective permeability of the formation and in any calculations of final buildup pressure.Co - In Co ~ - I ICo 1 Will A -Skin resistance = 264 psi at 261 m3/D 3 Coarse nssure resistance = 50 psi at 261 m ~D Fair prasped far acidizatian ta remave .21 Plan view of fractured reservoir showing position of symmetry element. A schematic view of the reservoir situation which they studied is depicted on Fig. A horizontal reservoir which is homogeneous."') Fig.2O first discussed the performance of vertically fractured reservoirs for the caseof a compressible fluid. (After Russell and Truitt. J-I RE FRACTURE ~ -Xe f - /'~IL-BEARING STRATUM BOUNDING SURFACES OF DRAINAGE VOLUME Fig. Theoretical studies of pressure behavior for both vertical and horizontal fractures have appeared in the literature. Russell and Truitt24 obtained comprehensive information on transient pressure behavior in vertically fractured reservoirs through study of a mathematical model of a vertically fractured system.. First we shall consider pressure behavior for wells with vertical fractures.20 Schematic view of fractured well and accompanying reservoir drainage volume. 10. Fig. however. Kemp and Caudle22 employed an electrical analog to investigate the influence of artificial vertical fractures on well productivity and pressure buildup. J #1 SYMMETRY ELEMENT 4 h ! ~ '1-~" ""/. (After Russell and Truitt. isotropic and completely filled with a fluid of small and constant compressibility and constant viscosDRAINAGE ~BOUNDARIES . ' . In a more recent paper. transient pressure behavior at constant rate was not investigated.'--'' . A. McGuire and Sikora21and Dyes. 10. Prats et al. a large praductian increa. 10. These authors considered large-time (semisteady state) constant-production-rate behavior for vertic ally fractured wells.) I 50 100 150 200 SHUT-IN TIME IN HOURS . Scott23reported the results of an investigation of the effect of vertical fractures on pressurebehavior.19Curveshowingboth skin and coarse fissureresistance. They found that fractures which extend beyond 15 percent of the drainage radius away from the well alter the position and slope of the straightline portion of the buildup curve. 10. (After Pollard.

3980 ~ Xe . an graVI t y e ffec ts are. 10. Because th e frac ture ext end s from to p to bottom of the f ti d orma on. s o~. the slope of the buildup 2.5371 D+0. A set of pressure buildup curves for various fracture penetrations is shown on Fig.. Th. Fracture penetration is defined as the ratio of fracture length to length of side of the square drainage area pattern. F~r the mathematical and numencal details. m four fracture penetrations. Thus. one can obtain illustrative pressure buildup curves. is parallel to a drainage boundary.23 is a plot of the pressure-drop function vs the logarithm of dimensionless time for the same kt : D '~C"2. and is located symmetrically within the square drainage area.. .sumptions and geometry ou1?ned above.4 . as IS the case for pure radial flow. . after semi-steady state ~ress~re decline IS ~eached. tD 0. (PiPwf)/(q/l.00 . . 10 21 time from behaVIor of the pressure function can Figs. h . A coordinate plot of the pressure-drop function vs dimensionless time for various fracture "penetrations" is shown on Fig. n eglected the P robI b t d t di n . I 0 . . the situation is analogous to one well in a pattern of wells.106 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS ity is assumed.D+Q8036 51 ~ xf D+0.24. (After Russell and Truitt.. I. t. I 2. the nearer the performance approaches that for linear flow. Thus. ture penetration. 10.mathe~atical model for the case of a smgle compressIble flwd was formulated and solved for pressure behavior. we are assured h li mIt tests sh 0uld give valid resuIts m t at reservoir hicare h fiCIa 11y fracture. For fractures of small penetration. a .-.ess~re-drop ~ction !usually at times of little practica! sIgnificance) I~ essentially as ~OUgh the flow were linear.. This figure illustrates the effects of fracture penetration on the slope of the buildup curve./4kh). The effects of pressure drop within the fracture and production into the wellbore other than from the fracture are neglected. and is equal to Xf / Xe. 10.d I.7. The curve for linear flow is not shown but would lie slightly below the curve for Xf/Xe = 0. 0 0 0 °.7. A coordinate plot of this type best shows the intermediate to long-time behavior of the pressure-drop function.23 to depend greatly be seen on frac- I i I UtiliZIng the a!i. . the slope of the buildup curve is only slightly less than that for the unfractured (radial flow) case. However. By superposing these pressure-drop functions.7 Fig. For small fracture penetration the pressure-drop performance is nearer that for radial flow.. Fig. 2. wo- me Sion . ~t la~e tImes.-at the well fo~ consta~t flow rate. ~ Ig. FOR tD > 0. al dom "' n as . The reservoir is initially at uniform pressure Pi. . The deeper the fracture penetration. . t +l4127 APD IS GIVEN BY D .22.he rate of pressure decline IS constant and IS ~roportional to the hy~ocarbon-fi1led pore volume. dimensionless pressure drop vs dimensionless time.. as would be found normally in an oil reservoir. . From it we can obtain a better idea of the early-time behavior of the pressuredrop function. em can e represen e .e very early-ti~e beha~or of ~e pr.22 and 10. The drainage area of the well is assumed to take the form of a square.F. vertical fracture is assumed which extends over the entire vertical extent of the formation. I. the reader IS referred to the paper. A plane. for large fracture penetrations. .") .22 Vertically fractured reservoir.. 10. I. . Gravity effects are neglected. The pressure-drop function is the pressure drawdown expressed in dimensionless form. O. d Th e mterme wells w arti diate- . 10.

24 Vertically fractured reservoir.t I.] - 1-4 xf 10-5 10-3 10- 10- 1.6 I v ac. 10.1 4.tD= kt/~.c ~ ::l ~ l 4. 105 104 10 10 10 I t + ~t ~It Fig. ~x 5.0 (LINEAR : 0. (After Russelland Truitt. 4.2 2.23 Vertically fractured reservoir.4 4.dimensionless pressuredrop vs logarithm dimensionless time. 0 10-6 0 [. 10.EFFECT OF RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES 107 2.0 4. 0" . 5.' = 4. I.0 tc Fig.7 4.") ~.u.7 "0 4. 'Q L_~J 5. ") . ~ 4. t kt : D <t>. I. o.2 2 c 1.cx.ucxeG X f-!e.: I. '" ' c. . o. I.3 xe 4. o. 5.calculatedpressurebuildup curves. (After Russelland Truitt. o.9 4.

For determination of average pressure. They assumed the reservoir to be homogeneous. THROUGH ALL PROOUCTION FRACTURe . which is shown on Fig.tgives good results when the straight-line sectionof the buildup curve is difficult to identify. Fig. (10.6 ~ ~ 0. 10. rt Fig. the usual method of extrapolation to p* and correction to p may be used.. 10.5 ~ ~ 0.I.26. the apparent kh product as calculated from pressure buildup would be about 2.4 x FRACTURE PENETRATION..26Effect of fracture penetrationon fracture length as derived from skin factor formula. This means that in field interpretation of buildups.Eq. This effect at least partially accounts for the appearance of "new pay" after some fracture treatments.3 0. Then they calculated apparent fracture length by means of the relationship (Xt). FOR r.2 ~ 0 0. 10.23 + 10g""i. For a fracture ~en~tr~tion of 0.4 0.-1xe Fig. To estimate the true length of a hydraulically created fracture from a 1. the calculated fracture length IS wIthin 10 percent of the true value. When the straight-line section is identifiable. from FIg." ~ From this work. r- r. and I.3 a.16. (After Russelland Truitt.7 -ACTUAL ~~ ---APPROXIMATION ::> w -)( )( RELATIONSHIP !:?!:: ~~ ~ 0.25 Vertically fractured reservoir.5 ~ a.27. 10. After obtaImn~ (Xt).26 by trial and error.. r.0 0.27Idealized cross-section horizontally fractured of reservoir.0 -h/ZOr. FLOW" ! :I I 0. Russell and Truitt found that the Muskat method of plotting log (p -PW8) vs . Ixe Xf 1. This figure shows.8 0.o. 10. 10.5 [--~~-p 4k -3.16) . ~ 2.8 fJ 5 u @ ~ f 0.9 0.4 0. the following equation is suggested: p log (Xl). of anisotropic permeability kr and kz.108 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS curve becomes progressively smaller.5 times the true kh product.5.I.6 "'Q. An idealized cross-section through their model is shown on Fig... The behavior of horizontally fractured wells has been investigated by Hartsock and Warren25 for the case of semi-steady state flow. skin factor and average pressure values.9 -0. of constant thickness h. This effect has been observed quite frequently in restimulation of older wells in tight reservoirs. Russell and Truitt24 also calculated apparent skin factors from analysis of fractured reservoir synthetic pressure buildup curves.2 0. for instance. RAOIALr. 10.I.. ~ ~ ~ ..I I Lh. ~ ~~ ~ 5J ~ x 1-1 xf 0. that for a fracture penetration of 0.0 0..5 buildup. one can obtain (Xt)tru.. .. ~ 0. pressure 0 0.1 0. the effects which are introduced by the fractured reservoir flow geometry can lead to erroneous calculation of kh.7 0.1 or less. (After Russelland Truitt.") . = 0. the greater the over-estimation of the kh product from conventional pressure buildup analysis.") I h/Z+ I \ l' j 0 j h.15) pressure buildup curve. from .pressurebuildup interpretation. 10. The deeper the fracture penetration.6 0. = 2rwe-8. they obtained the curve of fracture penetration vs the ratio of calculated to true fracture length..25 is a plot of fracture penetration vs the ratio of true to apparent kh value obtained by conventional analysis of fractured reservoir synthetic pressure buildups.."C 1.4 II a: 0. (10.2 0.8 FRACTURE PENETRATION.") Fig. (After Hartsock and Warren.

investigations mathematical the industry's It is apparent that additional of transient pressure behavior models could contribute knowledge. -In. A(M) In is a that the dependent apparent skin of drainage fracture Further treatment design. . (After Warren. for water movement about bottom water-drive reservoirs.!. A (M/2) A (M) -In!L r '0 s = ~ 2 M.L r.Jk-. behavior There horizontally have been additional for different fracture 200 model investigations fracture shapes. flow is purely tion for numerical for various radial.6 This Pressure topic is Behavior perhaps in NonAreas classified since pressure areas departs as a befrom drainakin to areas incorrectly However. Pressure was studied behavior in detail in non-symmetrical by Matthews. is shown on Fig. A numerical solution of the flow equathese conditions was carried out. As pointed out by Hartsock and Warren. the skin factor is incan be used to calculate these expressions. They assume there is no flow across the drainage radius re and that beyond some critical radius rc. 10.809 Fig. of horizontally fractured wells was extracted mathematical 109 by Warmodel of radius rf and flow ca- ren26 in his discussion of Coats' pacity (kh) J is located at the mid-point of the reservoir. non-symmetrical age areas can probably be thought of as being more naturally caused reservoir heterogeneities. f 3 r. From the results. They can be used in also concluded = h yk. etc.kji"" [1n~ kt + 41T~ kt + 2S]. drainage Brons and Haze- broek.".EFFECT OF RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES completely horizontal penetrated symmetrical by a well of radius fracture rw.o -0." ~ ". and all but shapes.28 Apparent slonal fracture skin factor as a function flow capacity. -F(~)+ 1n~+ 0. pressure behavior geometrical paper..2') ~~-- of limenand where A is the area of drainage time function and F (~) is a Hartsock shape-dependent given by . apparent skin factors were calculated = 200 combinations of parameters. these curves show that a poorly designed fracture treatment can yield an increase in apparent skin effect and a consequent reduction in productivity. A single.28 By employing late reservoir pressure different reservoir the method of images to calcubehavior for a large number of established that shape. in non-symmetrical that for more -1 -2 -3 ideal situations. these authors -4 -5 the pressure drop for any reservoir very early times. (10. pressure concerned. factor curves radius./rJ' obtainable and knowledge of the transient constant from Table 2 of Coats' The papers which have been noted representthe 6 5 4 R . M ~op or ottom ] ~ (10.10. the authors concluded that for a radius of drainage at least four times greater than the fracture radius.u = 4-. [ fracture in on center ] ~ t [ flow fracture From the results shown and others.18) -6~ ).28. drainage Symmetrical reservoir havior Drainage heterogeneity.27 Warren observed that a segment of Coats' resuIts could be interpreted as being applicable to transient flow in a horizontally fractured situation similar to that considered by Hartsock and Warren and with infinite nary fracture transient conductivity. is given by Pi-Prof q. theoretical in realistic to significantly 2 1 10 10.= (kh) l /~ . radial flow He showed expression that the ordiskin effect with A set of numerical results for the case of rf/rw given by M.4045.17) transient behavior.!L. "state in of the art" as far as transient fractured wells is steady-state orientations.4045 ' -0.

= (kh) l /~ . They assume there is no flow across the drainage radius re and that beyond some critical radius rc. radial flow He showed expression that the ordiskin effect with A set of numerical results for the case of rf/rw given by M.kji"" [1n~ kt + 41T~ kt + 2S].Jk-..!L. They can be used in also concluded = h yk.4045 ' -0.".809 Fig. A numerical solution of the flow equathese conditions was carried out./rJ' obtainable and knowledge of the transient constant from Table 2 of Coats' The papers which have been noted representthe 6 5 4 R .L r. apparent skin factors were calculated = 200 combinations of parameters. M ~op or ottom ] ~ (10. investigations mathematical the industry's It is apparent that additional of transient pressure behavior models could contribute knowledge. 10. these authors -4 -5 the pressure drop for any reservoir very early times.18) -6~ ). "state in of the art" as far as transient fractured wells is steady-state orientations. in non-symmetrical that for more -1 -2 -3 ideal situations. pressure concerned. (After Warren. the authors concluded that for a radius of drainage at least four times greater than the fracture radius. -F(~)+ 1n~+ 0. is given by Pi-Prof q.!. A single. etc. non-symmetrical age areas can probably be thought of as being more naturally caused reservoir heterogeneities.2') ~~-- of limenand where A is the area of drainage time function and F (~) is a Hartsock shape-dependent given by .10. for water movement about bottom water-drive reservoirs. and all but shapes. f 3 r. drainage Symmetrical reservoir havior Drainage heterogeneity. From the results. factor curves radius.28. these curves show that a poorly designed fracture treatment can yield an increase in apparent skin effect and a consequent reduction in productivity.28 By employing late reservoir pressure different reservoir the method of images to calcubehavior for a large number of established that shape. pressure behavior geometrical paper.28 Apparent slonal fracture skin factor as a function flow capacity. -In. behavior There horizontally have been additional for different fracture 200 model investigations fracture shapes. . the skin factor is incan be used to calculate these expressions. Pressure was studied behavior in detail in non-symmetrical by Matthews. theoretical in realistic to significantly 2 1 10 10.EFFECT OF RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES completely horizontal penetrated symmetrical by a well of radius fracture rw.4045. A (M/2) A (M) -In!L r '0 s = ~ 2 M.u = 4-. is shown on Fig.27 Warren observed that a segment of Coats' resuIts could be interpreted as being applicable to transient flow in a horizontally fractured situation similar to that considered by Hartsock and Warren and with infinite nary fracture transient conductivity." ~ ". A(M) In is a that the dependent apparent skin of drainage fracture Further treatment design. [ fracture in on center ] ~ t [ flow fracture From the results shown and others. As pointed out by Hartsock and Warren. flow is purely tion for numerical for various radial. drainage Brons and Haze- broek.o -0. (10.17) transient behavior.6 This Pressure topic is Behavior perhaps in NonAreas classified since pressure areas departs as a befrom drainakin to areas incorrectly However. of horizontally fractured wells was extracted mathematical 109 by Warmodel of radius rf and flow ca- ren26 in his discussion of Coats' pacity (kh) J is located at the mid-point of the reservoir.

. geopressuredreservoirs.18 .and 10. The differential equation for flow of a single. 4. If effective stress builds up to a high enough level. We believe it is essential for en- P-PIO! = ~ [ ln~ + 0. Predictions of pressure behavior incorporating laboratory determined curves of porosity and permeability vs pressure can be carried out in a manner analogous to the non-ideal gas studies of Russell et al. ~any cases we do.. nothing this dramatic ISobserved. . However. [ 47r~ kt -InCA A + 1n~ lem.8 Concluding Comments The intent of this chapter on reservoir heterogeneity has been to display to the reader the "state of the art" as far as understanding and predicting pressure behavior is concerned.3 through 4. 10. The results of these in10. !n norm~ll~ pressured reservoIrs.. 1!laybe observed. effective stress increases forcing skeletal changes in the rock and consequentreductions in permeability and porosity. 10.ss 10. On Fi .e.21) At semi-steady state. The effective s~ess which correspond~ to th~ maXl.10.7 .20) pores will subject the rocks to progressively greater stressesthan they have yet withstood.correction function of Matthews et al. however. As reservoir pressure (pore pressure) declines. for Pi-PIC! = ~ qp. The effective stress is simply the difference between the conmrnwng overburden pressure and the pressure or within the pores of the rock. What does all this have to do with pressure analysis techniques? In general we should expect to observe a decline in calculated permeability from successivetransient pressure tests run throughout the life of a well in depletio~ reservoirs. h g nd assocI ' ated C values 0 .20 becomes ' (10. these effects are usually less than for those which have unusually high pore pressure.. i. For reservoir rocks which are "normally" compacted. 10. slightly compressiblefluid with pressure-dependent rock properties is identical in mathematical form with that for flow of a non-ideal gas with constant rock properties. restoration of pressure in a rock back to its original level generally will not bring permeability and porosity back to their original levels.c ~ . For the most part this is not a greatly restrictive assumption. therefore. In fact..pSI of pressure ~op. In.110 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS ( kt ) p* -p F T~ = qp. declines of 10 percent or so.29 is shown a tabulation from . in sediments which today are at their maximum depth of burial.81 Effect of Pressure-Dependent Rock Properties All of the pressure analysis theories we have presented have been predicated on the assumptionof pressure-independent porosity and permeability. .9. but because of variations of other kinds (two-phase flow effects. In addition. presented In FIgS.) quantitative evaluation becomesdifficult.000 . vestigations are usually portrayed in terms of rock properties as a function of effective stress on the rock. However.19 YIelds the folloWIng expreSSIon the semI-steadystate case. The variation of porosity and permeability with effective stress generally displays hysteresiseffects. depletion of fluid from their + 0. This may cause rock failure.(10. Co~bInation ~f Eqs. the difference between the average pressure p and the flowing pressure PlOt depends directly on the shape of the drainage boundary as evidenced by the shape factor CA. a comprehensive review of these considerations has been ed prepar by Ramey.809 + 2S] 41Tkh CArlO (10. we do know from laboratory studies and from observed pressure behavior in some wells that both porosity and permeability decrease as reservoir pressure declines. It i~ not unusual In low-permeabIlity.. These shape factors given in Fig. failure of the rock skeleton may occur ~d cause drastic reductions in porosity and permeability. then it is unlikely that rock skeleton failure will be a prob- which IS the familiar pres~ure. f dr . The implications of reservoir shape in pressure calculations were discussed in Chapter 4 and also in the references which have been cited. rock will not expenencestressesd unng d epIeti on any greater than those it has previously experienced.. Vander Knapp82and others 8..19) where C A is a shape-dependentconstant whose value has been tabulated. amage area s apes a A DIetz paper. Sandstonesand other clastic rocks tend to be more elastic in their behavior than carbonate rocks. etc.a mum depth of bunal the rock has expenenced In geologIC time IS qwte Important. That is. have studied the effect of pressure on rock properties.29 may be used to calculate p from a buildup curve as shown by Dietz.809 +28] If we note that ---qt Pi -P -~~ then Eq. geopressuredreservoIrs to observe declines in kh values from transient tests o~ the order of 30 to 50 percent over the first 2. Limestones often are somewhat plastic in their behavior. . If one can esta bli s h th at . Brons and Miller 29and also DietzSO have shown that for semi-steadystate conditions F ~ ( kt ) = 1n~ C kt ' .

0 2 D 3.t=~ -2.I' 3.22 25 0.68 5.38 0. 10.111 1.2 [ A )4 reservoirs -2. I 1.7 EEIiE' 2 3 ..56 12.3 -0.1 Fig.12 22.2 ~ 2 I .16 0.8 () 8 2 3.6 0.73 2. SO) .72 0. (After Dietz.~I -2.8 0.098 0.cA In bounded reservoirs EE3 I 2.86 1.9 0.7 1.32 27.52 4.36 0.09 21.1 I EB 2 I 1.20 0.4 1.46 0.9 EE 2. I 4 3.5 I:i7 600 W ~ 2 EHE I I 2 1.32 0.115 3.43 30.1 0.14 3.0 I.22 3.6 -.8 I 3.607 1.39 0.1 ~I 0.30 27.58 4.3 0 3.2 I' -1.5 (:\ '---=.II ~~ 0.07 0.38 10.00 2.1 1_I + I 4 I.II 4 IL .9 0.1 0.50 0.13 0.1 In reservoirs of unknown production charocter [IJ 1.6 0.45 31.J 3. 4 Eo.6 0.2 .45 31.232 2.6 [~EJ In water-drive (~":"\ U 2.9 0.6 0.0 : 3.57 0.95 19.cA ~ S cpp.29 Table of drainage area shapes.EFFECT OF RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES Stabilized conditions kt for-> III Stabilized conditions kt for-> ~ -5!- cpp.86 2.t(~ \:==-1 I I -I .

Cong.d P. 10. Pet.M . Samara. do represent reservoi~ models which are p.. J. and Warren. Russell. Vacher. 1962) 589-594. they have shown that in some cases augmentation of pressure data by geological and h I f .3.0 IS very 8. Mech.D. E. R f e erences 216. (Dec. (Dec.hysicallymore rea~stic th.A.RevueI. . Prats. Jr. and Prats.. and Seguier." L Inear D .: "Ev alua tIon 0 f A Cl d T rea tIn en t s f rom .. 1960). Warof ren and P.: "Pressure Build-Up in Wells". M. J.W.. 1965) 60-66. Tech. . C. 1964) 1159-1170.. H. 18.. Pet. . Pet. (Sept.P. M. H. Hazebroek. (Aug. .D. G. C. Nauk SSSR. V. 38-43.) 20. 1963)885-895. ResultatsObtenus sur Ie Modele du Bicouche Avec Communication".zvest. Russell. Fifth World Pet. Trans.. Th t d b h h e s u les on pressure e avlor m eterogeneous reservoirs. 14. 1962)53-67. and Prats. Pet. D. Congo(1959) II. J. AIME (1959) In fact. 1962)68-82. N.. 1963) 245-255.. Jr. Pendergrass. E.. K. Fluid-Barrier Detection by Well Pressure Measurements".'. (June. Nauk. Pelissier. R. J. E.V.Soc. and Strickler. (March. Eng. E.. J. P. J.. 1965)761-767. 23. Tech.: "Unsteady-StateBehavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs". L. Pet. McGuire.. Eng. Secondly. Dyes. 25. 17. First.. E .J. M. G. Eng.: "Determination of Formation Characteristics From Two-Rate Flow Tests". 10. Tech. K. Akad. and H awkinS. A. P. Russell.: "The Effect of Vertical Fractures on Well Productivity". there are so many heterogeneitieswhich manifest themselves similarly that an attempt at unique interpretation without adequate supporting data from other sources is foolhardy. G. and van Poollen. 1963)1365-1369. Also. Pet. 15 P IIar. We hope that additional theoretical studies may be of further aid in understanding and better defining the utility of pressure analysis techniques. Third World Pet. Trans. 245-249. E. Proc. Odeh. S. Pet. petrophysical and geological information.. the studies have served to temper the thinking of those who mi~t ten~ to regard pressure analysis results as always bemg uruque and exact. Bixel. although highly idealized. E..Soc.: "Transient Pressure Behavior in Vertically Fractured Reservoirs". C. Proc. Brill..J.Pet. Maksimov. J. Eng. (1960) No. (March. H.Pet. . G F 3. Kemp. .B. No. and Berry... . Eng.: "Estimation of Reservesfrom Pressure Changesin Fractured Reservoirs". B. Russell. Tech. J. Tech.. .F. Scott. 401-403. and Cazabat. and Truitt.aVIS. What has been the value of these theoretical studies?We believe them to be valuable for severalreasons. S. they have shown how various reservoir heterogeneities affect pressure behavior and how analyses based on a homogeneous interpretation theory are affected. Root..: "Effect of Vertical Fractures on ReservoirBehavior-Compressible-FluidCase". Pet. P. AIME (1958)213. 4. lemsin a Fracture-PoreSystem -Kirkuk Field". Pet..Otdel. 1961)43-58. J. A. 13. Pet. Eng. J. 12.H. Tech. Warren. W II t F It D t 2 G K E "A ' . Lefkovits.: "The Influence of Nonhomogeneities on the Determination of ReservoirParameters on Data on Unsteady-State Fluid Influx Into W IIs. Pet.J. and Sikora. M. 11.. (June.. RevueI. 14.J. Transient Performance of a Multilayered Reservoir With Crossflow". No. difficult to make from pressure data alone.ray.: "Analyse Numerique des Equations des Bicouches". J. Soc. 5. 297..112 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS gineers who are responsible for analyzing and interpreting pressure behavior to develop an intuitive feel for the effects which the various reservoir heterogeneities can cause. 16. Soc.: "Etude Mathematique du Drainage d' un ReservoirHeterogene"." lon. Leiden (1951)II. 1962) 347354. 19. Hazebroek.. J.W. (March. J. J. Soc.: "A Study of the Behaviorof Bounded Reservoirs Composed of Stratified Layers". I. H.Soc.: "Performance of Layered Reservoirs with Crossflow -Single-Compressible-Fluid Case". J. 24..: "Ecoulementdes Fluides dans les Milieux Poreux Stratifies.FP (1961) XVI. type . 6.D. J. and Caudle. J.AIME (1960)219. P.FP (1960)XV.(Oct. E. 1961)1050-1056. (Oct. Tekh..: "The Practical Aspects of Interlayer Crossflow". 22.: "RecoveryProbH. Tech. Larkin.: "The Effect of Horizontal Hydraulic Fracturing on Well Performance".. 1. I h ld b d db " t s ou e un erstoo y all that a uruque mterpretation as to the cause of pressure behavior of a certain .: "The Effect of Vertical Fractures on Transient PressureBehavior of Wells".Second Arab Pet.Based petrop yslca m ormation may aId us m forrntng Ideas . Allen.ra dy. J. Hartsock. J. D.C. Trans. Soc.P. 9. G..: "Effect of Linear Discontinuities on PressureBuildUp and Drawdown Behavior". A C ase 0f a Two-L ayer Format. V.: "Effect of Fractures on Sweep-OutPattern". Eng.J. (Oct. (July. (March. Cong. Freeman. . 7. J. 10. 503. and Root. R. R. J . 1963) 1347-1355. 1962) 8794 -. 21. H. E. J.: "Pressure J.V. M. .. (Includesdiscussion the paper by J. G.e of reservoIr geometry and pore spacedistribution. Beirut (Oct.: "The Behaviorof Naturally Fractured Reservoirs".D. 0. and Tek. 1963) 1077-1079. Jacquard. A.FP (1961)XVI. and Matthews.au ISance from Pressure Build-Up Tests". Pet. (Dec.an the sImple model upon which pressure analysIstheones are based. Pressure Build-Up Analysis".: "A Theoretical Study of Pressure Distribution and Fluid Flux in Bounded Stratified Porous Systemswith Crossflow". and Natanson. Revue I. Pet.: pproxlmatlng e -0. Katz. Horner. B. No. What the engineer should strive to develop is an objective interpretation of reservoir and well behavior which integrates all available pressure. Tech. S.. Jr.

Matthews. Ramey. (Jan. C. and Bruskotter.P. Pet.J.. D. Hemstock. K. 1966). 35. G. F. J. Brons. W. 29. Matthews. (Sept. 28. . Tech. Russell. 1966).Tex.: "Discussionon a Mathematical Model for Water Movement about Bottom-Water-DriveReservoirs". 1961)803-805. 1962)44-52. Pet. and van PQollen.EFFECT OF RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES 113 26.: "Nonlinear Behavior of Elastic Porous Media".: "Methods for Predicting Gas Well Performance". 27. J. and Young. S. W.. Eng. (March. 182191. Tech. (Feb. Warren.. 1961)862-870.A.: "Determination of Average Reservoir PressureFrom Build-Up Surveys". 36. H. W.J. A.C. 37.AIME (1954) 201. AIME (1958) 213. H. van der Knapp. Pet. Pet.. paper SPE 1361 presentedat joint SPE-AIChE Symposium held during 58th Annual AIChE Meeting..: "PressureDrawH. 1966)240-247. 34. F. Tech.. J. Pet. Pet. H. Goodrich. J.J.. and Miller. S. Bixel.. 7-10. J. 2-5.R. Weller. 179-187. 33. J.J.. E. Dallas. 1962) 367-368. . Tech.Tex. (Aug. (Dec. down and Buildup in the Presence Radial Disconof tinuities".: "Analysis of PressureBuild-Up and Flow Test Data". (Feb. Trans. Brons. (Oct.: "A Simple Method for Correcting Spot Pressure Readings". Dallas.. Pet. 1965)955-959. Jr. C. G. T.. Coats. Dietz.: "Reservoir PerformanceDuring TwoPhaseFlow". Trans.. 32. Perry. Keith H. (Aug. paper SPE 1516 presentedat 41st Annual SPE Fall Meeting. Tech. and Hazebroek.. 31. C. E. J. W.: "A Method for Determination of Average Pressurein a Bounded Reservoir". Trans. J. 30. S.: "The Effective Compressibilityof ReservoirRock and Its Effects on Permeability".. 1966)99-108.: "A Mathematical Model for Water MovementaboutBottom-Water-DriveReservoirs". 386-388. Eng. Soc.: "Application of the Line Source Solution to Flow in Porous Media-A Review".. F. Soc.D. McLatchie.AIME (1959) 216. N.

t 0 4 days run ermtne .. where core analysis is of little aid in determining the amount of oil in place.000-psi reading have been obtained by careful calibration and operation of this gauge. Early in the ts f or ti mes varyIng project1 one shouldt 0 detclosedm tes life of an injection f rom . The two-rate test usually will require somewhat more supervision since one needs to make sure that two constant rates (or near constant) are actually obtained.:\"i'~::-": !1rf1'lfiM . only a few large fractures andin a qualitative sense interference tests should be used case. They also enable determination of effective reservoir porosity. These data are also helpful for checking on the progress of long buildups or flow tests. the two-rate test will occasion less income loss than a closed-in test. 'tic".1:1 - ~c: If. 11.Chapter 11 : " i\O'/. one of the most useful tests is the two-rate injection test..:~. Monthly production data alone may suggestthat production was continuous. it is often helpful to record casingand tubing-head pressuresas a function of time in addition to bottom-hole pressure.(.. They are designedto indicate degree of reservoir connectivity and directional trends in permeability. The test is operationally simple.. when in actuality a shut-in period was sandwiched between two months.. If rates in other wells are changed. it is advisable to check for extended periods of shut-in. In carrying out a pressurefall-off test. Generally speaking. An accuracy and precision better than 1 psi for a 10.oJ '. The two-rate test will usually eliminate these. injection . . The latter determination is especially useful in fracture porosity reservoirs.6.the observed surface pressure behavior will be difficult to interpret. In addition."-' :J :Tr. In the course of collecting data on flowing (and pumping) wells.} ~ :. For reservoirs with some matrix porosity. '. This will be the case if phase redistribution masks the true buildup behavior and causes "humps". longer closed-in times are required for water injection wells than for new oil wells in equivalent formations. Long flow tests are very useful for finding reservoir limits. it is important to close in the well for a sufficient length of time. An important practical consideration in a two-rate test is that injection wells are normally tied together through an injection header.': Q~ 11. and thus the requIred longer closed-m time. one should make certain that rates of other wells are not changed during the test period..~~'~~i. In certain cases it will be desirable to carry out a two-rate flow test rather than a buildup test. A surfacerecording bottom-hole pressuregaugeI is very helpful in obtaining and recording accurate data during such tests. This test does not usually require running a bomb and thus allows use of a very accurate surface gauge or dead-weight tester.fl:. . It may be necessaryto account for this by superposition (Sections 2. When testing wells which have previously given an*Interference methods plied quantitatively to using the fractured Ei-function reservoirs can be apwhere the omalous behavior. only.1 Choice of Tests in Flowing Wells The standard transient pressure test in flowing wells will probably always be the pressure buildup test.~ Practical Aspects of Pressure Analysis .~t. if the well is in a non-prorated area. and the theory is well developed. The reason for this is that the relative permeability to water (at residual oil saturation near the well) generally will be only 1/10 to 1/3 that of oil at its original saturation. High precision in pressure measurementis required for such usage because the rate of change of pressure with time is small at the extended test times required to delineate reservoir boundaries.IjfJJA 1.Some applications of such data were discussed in Section 3.2 Choice of Tests in Injection Wells In injection wells. In running two-rate tests. Other factors being equal.:I.-" ""'"h~~. it will take a pressure response 3 to 10 times as long to be felt in the water fractures are numerous and well connected. This is the most direct method of obtaining an averagepressure for reservior analysis. case as in the oil-filled .8 and 3.8) if the shut-in occurred near the time of buildup or flow test. Interference tests serve a different purpose than pressure buildup tests.

. However. 11. To illustrate the use of this equation. as well as bottom-hole pressure (BHP). but they are costly unless run at the time of a routine rod-pulling job. At such time they ceaseinjection and observe the surface pressure fall-ofl in the well.000854 2.1 applies both to gasesand liquids and their mixtures. If the mobility of oil is considerably less than that of water. In summary. In addition. lead to average gas saturation m the drainage area of pumpThi alue is best obtained by a rough maal we b a Sance l . ratio authors recommend use of theof the singlebility the interpretation method. . it enables estitaft = 2XI05~. . RameyShas presented a useful equation for estimating the time at which wellbore storage effects become negligible during buildup or drawdown. Eq. or by using permanently installed devices which are surface-indicating. when two or more phases are flowing into the wellbore. only 10 percent of its initial value. A curve showing (BHP-THP) and (BHPCHP) can be plotted vs time. pulling the pump dumps the liquid contents of the tubing into the well and introduces a new transient. = 014 hours or 8 minutes. Often there ~sc?nslderab~euncertamty as to . Annulus bomb runs are probably the best. Although the averagepressure obtained from such a test may not be very accurate.1 is useful in two ways.4 Required Closed-In Times Wellbore Storage Effects A well should be closed in for pressure buildup long enough to allow the str~ght-li~e section. At this time. Then. 11. the quantity k/ p.1) kh where V w is the volume (bbl) and c is the compressibility (psi-I) of fluid in the wellbore. gauges. Sonic measurementshave been useful in some cases. h = 20 ft. low-productivity pumping wells not equipped with packers since in these a long period of "afterproduction" wili be needed to fill the wellbore with liquid and com- Buildup tests in pumping wells may be made in two general ways: (1) by measuring pressuresin the annuIus. however.)t. C = Cg= 0. This should be taken into account for accurate results. by using echo-sounding devices. Secondly. 11.and tubing-head pressures (CHP and THP). these cannot be made in deeppumping wells or in wells where the annulus clearance is small.(11. the rate of buildup in pr.3 Tests in Pumping Wells 11.159 md/cp. The longest time WIll be required for deep. Permanently placed instruments are usually satisfactory. Tubing measurements using a conventional pressure bomb are quite accurate. .essureis low. Also. (k/ p. Example 2: (k/ p.to be clearly delineated. and then inject water down the annulus for several hours until the surface injection pressure stabilizes. conseq~en~y. and V w = 36 bbl (9.PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF PRESSURE ANALYS1S 115 11 how long a time will be required. The difference between BHP and THP or CHP is directly proportional to the mass of fluid between these two levels. the influx is probably small enough that the simple theory can be applied. Use non-unit mofluid case may indicate that a wellbore clean-up to eliminate "skin" is not needed when use of the correct method would show that stimulation is desirable. Annulus measurements may be made by running a bomb if there is sufficient clearance.)t = 2. Thus. -~ pressedgas. when . we choose the data from Appendix B. when the bomb must be run in through the tubing after a pulling ~ob. The equation for "time of afterflow" is: hours. order ?f 4 days WIll often be requlred to obtain suffic~entpo~ntsto draw the. It assumesthat there is no skin.150 ft of 2-in. the higher fixed cost must be borne by a few measurements. this is often of secondaryimportance to the diagnosis of causes for poor productivity which can be made from knowledge of kh and skin. Each system of measurementshas its advantagesas well as its problems. A simple method of determining when the rate of influx has become small is to determine casing. Thus. scatter. or (2) by pulling pump and rods and running a bomb in the tubing.should representthe total mobility. Eq. t aft = 2X 105(36) 0. Morse and Ott2 have given examples of a novel method of testing pumping wells in water injection projects. no pressure measurement can be made at the time the well is closed in. the pressure changes after 4 days are usually small and. the best system is some sort of annulus measurementwhen conditions allow this.S f or v th e reservoir. but the accuracy is not so great as is desirable. slope accurately.000854 psi-I.-the used m plots considerable times often In many pumping wells the rate of influx is low and. such as the Maihak or Ball Bros. the influx rate into the wellbore is only 10 percent of the production rate at time of closing-in. They first shut in the producer for 2 days for pressure stabilization. First. Only after the influx into the wellbore becomes small can the simple theory of pressure buildup be applied.II ten of the log (PW8-p) vs ~t type.159 (20) . the authors have observed few injection caseswhich required more time than this. Further. Interpretation of this test allows calculation of kh and skin. If there is a large volume of gas in the wellbore. tubing). say. it will usually be satisfactory to take c = cu. . during buildup. the skin effect cannot be calculated. Cl?sed-m time~ of the. When the slope of each difference curve falls to. pressures are not of much value taken at such large unless one of the m~ highly accurate subsurface gaugesis used. Why not close in for times greater than 4 days?First.

If one used this higher value for compressibility in Eq. on - .to the$e two times. I 11. Because of this. Odeh and Nabor6 show that the straight-line section of a drawdown test persists for a time IDeof about 0.38 for this time. .65) 92 = 0050 ~tDe= 0. 3. .. the rate of deviation is considerably smaller for drawdowns than buildups.3). Appendix B. Boundary and Interference Effects Curve A. t is the time of floWIng for a floWIng test or the time of shut-in for a buildup test.4 md. effective permea~ility and a ~orrespondingl.4 (20) 0. '. bounded drainage area. 11.13..2) . As an example. d 11 . 9). SInce any pressure d IS rbance I' S felt to a small extent throughout the reservoir.005 to 0. This is well past the estimated outer radius of the oil bank (82 ft). .00105 0..recalculate taft and decid. The early portion of the ~uIldup .7.from Tiny=" ~10. Interference tests will normally ~equire that the observation well be closed in for a time ~tDe = 0. The maximum dimensionlesstime of shut-in.116 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS mation of the minimum length of time required for a pressure buildup or flow test.075.m bl tive permea Iity IS muc o".00105~.6 hours. the existence of layers of different permeability and the 0f 0th er het erogenel es make any answer to ti h ti . = 0.. the afterflow appears to die out at about 0. 4.presence straIght. ~tDe = 0.000264 (7.. . This agreementis about as good as we should expect from Eq.5 Radius of Investigation "How far into the reservoir have I investigated with ? my test. and having obtained kh/ JL from its analysis.suc to a I?W cal:ulated. An aques estimate can be based on the fact that equations for pressure behavior in an infinite reservoir are applicable .4 shows that boundary and interference effects limit the usable straight-line portion of a pressure buildup curve taken in a bounded reservoir to a time. Most of the points which will be used in pressure buildup analysis should fall in the range of dimensionlesstime ~tDefrom 0. one can . 3.000264 kt _I kt 0. the apparent straight-line sectionis much longer for drawdowns than for buildups The cntena we have discussed may be used to test whether we have used the correct portion of a curve cylindrical reservoir at a time IDeof about 0. use of ~tDe = 0. (11. than about 0. 11.1. choose the d~ta for the pressure fall-off test m Example 2.CTe2. However.3 in a circular.9 cpo Fo~ the oil = and water banks we estimate c = 6 X 10-6 PSI-I. As an e~ample. It IS d probable that too early a portion of the buIldup curve was use. If the flow efficIency IS around two and the calculated effech I h d .2. .. A precIse answer c annot be mven to this o' tu . the pressure drop is greater in the finite reservoir than in the infinite case. For example. Since most drainage areas are at least pa~~lly bounded (see Fig. Another useful test for choosing the proper straightline portion of the buildup curve may be obtained from the flow efficiency. setnl-stea y state WI st art m a bounded .80) 17 X 10-6 (2..14 hours. Thus. This indicates that the fall-off test was carried out long enough to reflect the pressure Pe at this outer radius. ft.yhig~ estimate of flow efficIency. Tiny. .* We now choose (after van PoollewO) a time IDeof 0. as developed by Miller.curve for a da~aged well usua~y has a section which appeals . 3.til a finit e dramage area un a dimensionlesstime of about 0.000264 k ~t/ct>fl. In this equation.1 gives an approximate upper limit to required shut-in times. both drawdown and buildup tests deviate from unsteady-state theory at about the same time.1. Then.3 (0.3. homogeneous. 11. Fig.!er t an exp~cte . A c~lc~lated flow e~ciency much greater than two often Indicates that the Incorrect portion . At a shut-in time of 20 hours.3.. int:rmed~ate..3 (treated as Example 1.10).. the afterflow time calculated above was 0.9) 6 X 10-6 -386 ft. Appendix B). Use of this portion of the curve leads . less Curve B for constant pressure at the outer boundary shows deviation from the straight line at about ~t = 0. ct> 0:3 and fl...039 (0. but actually IS much steeperthan the true slope (see FIg. As may be seen from Fig.7...question of the buIldup curve was used as the straIght-line portion. as in this illustration. 2 and 3. Further. . Note that past this outer radius there will be a gas saturation and thus a much higher compressibility than used above. . Dyes and Hutchinson. Since most of the pOInts used m the analys~sare within the interval 0. . consider the buildup curve in Fig.. for our analysis. as calculated in Examples 1.005 to 0.C = . . Strictly speaking. After this time. where k = 51! /45 = 11. TinT -. for FIg. ~tDe' is: 0. the correct portion of the pressure buildup curve was analyzed. one would obtain a much smaller radius of investigation than the 386 ft calculated above. 3. Thus the true radius of investigation *Jones'suggests 0.1 (see Ref. In general. Fur ther. Appendix F..4.See 9deh and Nabor8 for referencesand diScussIon thIS subJect.2-0. Eq.. 3.25 ~IJ. 11.e whether ~e correct portion of t~e curve was used m ~e analysIs. having made the test.0.1 should be used in a qualitative manner. No precisevalue can be given for either the end of "infinite-reservoir" behavior or the start of "sem~-stea~y state". and calculate a radius of Investigation.25. A calculation such as the above should be made before conducting a buildup or flow test on a new well to determine the shut-in or floyvtime required to obtain the correct portion of the curve for analysis.on good t oanor der of magmtude only. .640)2 . This is about four times as long as for a buildup curve in the same drainage area.1.

As this latter portion defines p. This eff:~t at lea~~ partially accounts for the appearance of new p~y 5 after some fracture treatments.4 (AtDe= 0.1Choiceof a datumlevel. depending on the clock) while coming out of the hole 'after a buildup. This is not true of uncorrected level pressures. Because of such factors as change in saturation and change in reservoir properties with position. A note of caution on closed-in times should be added for heterogeneousreservoirs. The 01 gtadi ent IS 10un 1 . This gradient is defined as the pressure drop over 100 ft of tubing.000 ft) by holding the bomb at these levels for an identifiable time period (5 to 15 minutes. the greater importance of choice of datum level. as shown in Fig. Thus.000 to 2. the choice of datum level is not so important since the differenceswould be the same.pres~nted a method of correcting the apparent kh obt8. for the case of a vertical fracture.7 Correction of Pressure to a Datum It is common practice to correct all pressures obtained in a given reservoir to a common datum level in that reservoir. 11. Pressuresare ordinarily corrected from the measurement level to the datum level by using a so-called "tubing gradient".5. of the hole even though the well produces no water. the absolute value Qf the pressure is important in material-balance calculations and.2 (water and oil only). When the pressuresare to be used for comparative purposes only. If there is a gas cap as shown in Fig. changes in datum level of 50 to 100 ft will normally have small effect on results of a material balance. Pressuresmeasured at the different levels are used to calculate the tubing gradient.. Although this is not strictly necessary when pressures are to be used to obtain values for kh and s. Eq.However. as shown in Fig. 11.2 should generally be used in an order-of-magnitude manner. This is especially important when the pressures are to be used in material-balance calculations. oil next and gas at the top.10). one should plan long buildups in such reservoirs.approxImately indicates that oil will tend to flow from that high-pressure region to a lower-pressure region at that same datum level.1. The reasonfor determining the pressure at several levels in the tubing is to make sure that the . the average pressure at the midpoint of the gas volume can be obtained from the oil datum-level pressure by correcting from that level using the oil density to the gas-oil contact and the gas above. As this sometimes causesconfusion. In water influx calculations.6 Notes on Fractured and Other H eterogeneous eservolrs R .1) are still applicable in such cases for defining the "straight-line" portion of the buildup curve.The . for the 011 the datum level so that half choosIng reservoIr volume IS above and half below is to make the resultant averagepressure at this datum level reflect the volumetric average oilzone pressure. The greater the fracture radius.1. the datum level is chosen so that about half the oil volume of the reservoir is above and half below. degree of reservoir connectivity can be judged by comparison of corrected datum-level pressures. stratified reservoirs. ~ussell and Truitt have. After obtaining the oil gradient and the bottom-hole . the greater the overesti~ation of kh from the slope. To measurethe tubing gradient. as discussedm Section 10. pressure differences are used rather than absolute values of pressure. pressures are measured at selected levels in the tubing (usually at one level 100 ft above the lowest measurementlevel and then every 1. In practice. Thus. 11.PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF PRESSURE ANALYSIS 117 is much less than the 386 ft calculated above. 11.e d b y noting which of the gr adients corresponds to the expected oil density. as in this example. . and for layered. 11. Water is often found in the bottom reason In the case of wells which have been heaVIly fractured by hydraulic means. the practice of correcting all pressures has arisen.005-0.1 d 01 gradi ent .IS measure. Gradient surveys often indicate that the tubing contains water at the bottom. 11. a long time will be required in these cases both to reach semi-steady state during flow and to approach averagepressureduring buildup. It is convenient to use the common field datum level for these pressures also. since the datum level is immaterial as long as the same level is used for all wells. Ideally. Values obtained for the gradient range from 2 to 50 psi/100 ft and reflect the average density of the fluid betweenthe two levels. The datum level chosenas discussedwill tend to give an average oil-zone pressure.density 11.sto the ~rue k~.ined m such well. it is necessarywhen these pressures are to be used to obtain jj or p*. Comparison of pressures corrected to this common datum indicates oil flow tendency directly. particularly for fractured reservoirs with a tight matrix. The criteria given in Section 11. Much longer times (10 to 50 times as long) are required to observe the later rising and then flattening portions (see Fig. the slope of the apparent straight-line portion of a buil~up curve will be affected. a high pressure at a given datum level WELL A WELL B DATUM -LEVEL CHOOSE DATUM LEVEL HALF IS BELOW SO APPROXIMATELY THE HALF THAT OF OIL-ZDNE VOLUMEABOVE IS AND Fig. and the oil gradient. thus.. As discussedin Chapter 10. L . 10. Two of these tubing gradients are used in correcting to datum-the gradient just above the bomb.

As the tubing may be partially filled with water below the bomb level. As should be evident from the discussion.2.2Correctingpressures a datum level. even if the bomb is run exactly to datum level in the tubing. it is important that the production rate be stabilized for approximately a week before the test.II. A gas well may contain condensate and/or water below the bomb level. to -- .6) to be used. Note that. In the case of gas wells. This allows the simplified method of calculating production time (Eq.I) CORRECT FROM BOMB LEVEL TOP OF FORMATION USING DOWN WATER TO GRADIENT (OBTAINED JUST ABOVE BOMB). If the tubing contains only oil between datum level and the open interval (or gas in the case of a gas well). as with Well B. the correction is made from measurementlevel to datum level in this one step. THEN CORRECT uP TO DATUM LEVEL USING OIL GRADIENT DATUM LEVEL FIRST CORRECTION (WATER GRADIENT) SECOND CORRECTION (OIL GRADIENT) TOP OF FORMATION BOTTOM OF FORMATION Fig. the pressure bomb should be run as close to the formation interval as possible to minimize correction errors. Fig. Although the oil density in the tubing will not be exactly the same as that in the formation. The density of fluids in the tubing is used in the first. and therefore in this case also. a second step is required. the bomb should be run as close as possible to the open interval to minimize possible error. as noted in Fig. The first step is to correct the measured bottom-hole pressure to the pressure at a point in the producing interval. Fig. 11. as with Well A.2. the same discussion applies except that the . 11.8 Well Stabilization When conducting a pressure buildup test. This final correction is made by use of the oil gradient. no correction will be required for a bomb run at datum.1. Fig. as for Well B. 11. When the datum level is in the producing interval. The second step is to correct from the point in the producing interval (the top of the open interval is a convenient point as shown in Fig. The true oil density is used only in the second step of datum-level correction. 11. 11.2. the bomb should be run as close as possible to the open interval. If the datum level is not in the producing interval.118 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS gradient (the two may be the same if there is no water in the hole). 11. 3. it will usually be close enough for practical purposes if datum-level corrections are a few hundred feet or less. 11. A more accurate density for second-step datum-level corrections can be obtained from PVT data for the oil in question.2) to the datum level. This is done by use of the gradient obtained just above the bomb. one can correct pressuresto datum. The stabilized rate should be approximately the same as the normal production rate. a correction may still be required if the tubing contains water. It may be desirable in some casesto "stabilize" a well at WELL NOTE BOMB THAT WATER AFTER WELL STANDS ABOVE IS CLOSED IN B (SEE FIG.'gas gradient" is used instead of the "oil gradient".

us. Ok.' . It is mainly precision (not accuracy) which is involved in determining slopes of pressure curves. the accuracylS 8 pSI. Odeh and Nabor6 have presented an excellent discussion of the errors brought about by changing rates prior to a buildup test. Tulsa. . If this is done. The precision t . B th th Am d RPG 3 ( I . However. When there are numerous short flow and shut-in periods. . gas. sapphire or diamond stylus burnishes a fine bright line on this chart. especially at temperatures greater than 200F.3. . a pressure drawdown test should be conducted and interpreted as in Chapter 5. An average value is usually satisfactory for calculating the skin effect. the production rates will usually be steady and there will be no particular problems of measurement or inter- a. A magmfymg chart reader l~ n~essary to enable the charts to be r~ad to their mherent acc~rac~.0 The most widely used bottom-hole pressure measuring instrument is the Amerada RPG-3 gauge* shown in Fig. . 11. q/h. if a well is subject to paraffin deposition..This requ~resthat the pressure. of course. .000 pSI. A dead-weight tester is needed for this operation. say. both before and during the test.9 Other Considerations In Well Tests It is necessary to obtain the bottom-hole flowing pressure ~rior to. time scale. the maximum temperature is recorded by a maximum recording thermometer placed in the pressure section. Cal1 . is small. /" 74-m. Smker bars Will some.. m di ameter ) an m ame er t 0 ms tru ments I h ave a state d Th ng. The taking of accurate oil. Then.bomb be mtroduced mto a floWing well.. Wells which intermit or "head" are poor candidates for pressure buildup or flow tests.4 000-pSteIemen.~anufactured by GeophysicalResearchCorp.8) should be used in plotting the buildup curve. the method of superposition should be used in pressure analysis. . This can also happen in tight reservoirs where . and possible hang-up... In some reservoirs the permeability is so high and/or the allowable production rate so low that the pressure buildup curve will have no measurable slope. which. buildup in order to calculate th~ skin effect. Nisle7 has shown that a short shut-in period (such as to change a valve before a buildup test) is not detrimental to a subsequent buildup provided the short shut-in is followed by a flow period 10 times as long.first to measure the bottom-hole pressure over a penod of. Good results can be obtained on wells which produce only part-time during a month by proper scheduling of flow and buildup tests. however.accuracy 0 f 2 f full times be required to lower the bomb mto a floWing well. For wells producing by continuous gas lift. This procedure Will give the required information b build much faster than Will a stablhzed flow penod and a su sequent up. 0 e era a -74 -In. the method of superposition (see Section 3. During a bottom-hole pressure run... kh and ~kin Will be ~eslred from a well ~~ch has been closed m for some time. Motion of the Bourdon tube in responseto a pressure change is recorded by a stylus on a clock-driven chart. This is since the calibration of the pressure element is a slight function of temperature. Metering separators are handy for this purpose. of the measurements can be considerably better than this. Clock ranges vary fr~m 3 to 180 hours. as well as during drawdown tests. the paraffin should be cut before e om lS mtro uce to e mmate pOSSle difficulty th b b . introduces fluid into the helical Bourdon tube.PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF PRESSURE ANALYSIS 119 a much higher than normal rate to obtain a measurable buildup slope. An average production rate determination for severalhours preceding a buildup test is usually sufficient for this test if the well has been stabilized. m msertion . to make sure the pressure is constant or is changing only very slowly. . bl . diamet er gauges use a helicaI N i-span C m rea di . The ch~rts have a 2-m. Th K t KPG ** . this can be accomplished without difficulty. m .n some cases mfo~ation on p. During two-rate flow tests. I I e us er gauge lS comp ete y mterchangeable With the Amerada RPG-gauge. h f ** M anuf actured by Kust er C0. /" RPG 4 ( 1 di t ) ' . .necessary 11. I. A steel.. Fluid is admitted at the lower end of the instrument where it actuates the bellows. In. Buildup pressures are usually smooth and satisfactory on these wells. e Ine ' 0 Gauges pressure so at e rate 0 1 ux per urnt thickness. and thereby determining the value of kh. Procedures are given by the manufacturer. d . . In general. only an over-all productivity index can be obtained. This gaugeis lowered into the well through tubing or annulus on a piano-wire line. and it will be necessaryto include water in calculation of total compressibility and total mobility. The chart is made of brass and is coated on one side with a special darkgray paint. in turn. and water production records is indispensable. Both 0f t hese 3 I . In such cases it lS usually better .. pressure scale and a 5-m. 11. production rate determinations should be made every few hours so that the true rate behavior will be known. L ong B eac.there is a low th th f nil . d d li . 24 hours.10 Measuring Instruments Wr O .I reservoir pretation. Calibration of the pressure elements should be carried out at frequent intervals.percen -sca e . In such casesone cannot calculate kh and skin from the test. The clock and the pressure element can be replaced by other devices of different ranges.. These wells often will be producing at high water cut. depending partly on the care taken in using the instrument and in reading the charts. Wells on intermittent gas lift do not give a steady flowing pressure. Press~reelemen~s ?ave ranges va~~g from 500 to 25.


) and by the H. mstrument IS avaIlable m.This is not usually a drawback if care is taken in drawing a smooth curve.the deflection of the Bourdon tube is measured by the down-hole rotation of a code wheel. The latter is required for most pressure buildup and flow tests. This reading. while with the nine-digit code 0.25 percent of full scale is comparable to that (0. The Ball Bros.7 which has the seven-digit code as above. . These two gaugesare somewhat shorter than the Amerada gauges (42 in. 100 . gauge is basically a helically wound Bourdon tube whose disp!acementis telemetered to the surface via a single conductor cable.wher~ the ~ota~dIsturbance IS small. The Leutert-Hugel wireline gauge* has now been made available in the U.. and the MK-9 which has a nine-digit code. Long Beach. 11. 11.mngshould be sImIlar to those of runnIng other wirehne gauges.This higher accuracyshould be very helpful in many cases. *Manufactured by Lueneburg. This enables an accuracy of 0. ThIS. In the Ball Bros.8 1200 I ' . This gauge is a spring-andpiston type device in which the piston is rotated continuously during the test by a clockwork mechanism.run. 3141 Erbstorfm' U. Th e two tt .' 400 PRODUCING BOTTOM-HOLE PRESSURE I 2 0 tt- m o 200 0 0 20 40 60 80 HOURS SHUT 100 IN 120 140 160 180 Fig. Permanently Installed Surface-Recording Instruments There are two types of permanently installed bottomhole pressure instruments which are usually satisfactory for pressure buildup and drawdown tests. S.2 percent of full scale is realized. (Boulder. There are two basic Ball Bros. Their stated accuracy of 0.rich dIstrIbuted L. or about 10 times that of the more commonly used subsurfaceBourdon gauges. Costs of . Conversion tables are used to change the telemetered code readings to equivalent pressures. approximately). With the sevendigit code. Colo. instruments -the MK..-~ . F~ied.7 gauge. vs 75 in.4.26 ~nd 1. (Hamburg. gauge. Due to the construction of the down-hole code reading device. by Kuster Co. such as 0110100. An example of data from a Ball Bros.. Maihak Co.. Other Kuster gauges are available in diameters of % and 1 in. Ball Bros. an accuracy of about 1 percent of full scale is obtained. These are the gaugesmanufactured by Ball Bros. gauge is given in Fig.42 m. represents 135 psi on a 500-psi MK. such as in tests in highpermeability wells where the slopes of the pressure curves. and in int~rf~rence tests. the pressure information received at the surface may have a slight "stair-step" appearance."c PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF PRESSURE ANALYSIS 121 Bourdon tube as pressure element. Germany.2 percent) of the Amerada gauges and of the Kuster KPG gauge. gauge.Calif. The Maihak surface-indicating bottom-hole pressure gauge consists .eutert. ~ 80 a: :::> U> U> : W ~ 60 '" -J 0 Z ". S. for example.025 percent of full scale. The code readings are a series of zeros and ones. The Maihak gauge utilizes the pulsed-vibration frequency of a diaphragm-actuated taut wire for telemetering. an. ResearchCorp.4Builduptest of a producingwell. Data are telemetered to surface in a code form. are small.d?as a length of 139 ~n. Germany)..~ In a.di~meters of 1. of a permanently installed bottom-hole t ranSmi er and a po rtable surface receIver.

th t a . .and IS Surface-Recording Instruments Run on The precision instrument designed by Kolbl for surface recording of subsurface pressuresuses a helical Bourdon tube.... 1966).122 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS components are connected by a single conductor cable strapped to the production tubing.an B of d H utc h. Frequency matching is noted on a cathode-ray tube in the portable field receiver..e 0 Th mera al. J.mson. 11 11 Q l t t I t t t ua I a lye n erpre a Ion 0f B UIld up Curves O o . combIne several of the features shown.haa kanpressures a are evlces . (Feb. They have found only limited general application becauseof the increased operating costs of running the conductor cable and sealing it at the wellhead. The down-hole transmitter consists of a sealed cylindrical steel body closed on one end by a steel diaphragm Other surface-recording instruments which can be run on conductor cable have been made available by both Amerada and Kuster. I ra on. H. These instruments employ the standard helical Bourdon tube for down-hole pressure measurement. gauge also belong to this category of cable-hung devices. 0. Tex. . discussion .perb 'ld 1 b examp e Ulld up curves.. a or care y cal ra e .. MINUTES 200 400 600 1000 2000 Fig. d 1 cor er IS a so aval a e w IC gives output on a stnp h 1 cart.MAIHAK oAMERADA PRESSURE PRESSURE POINTS POINTS ~ ~ ~50 w 0' ~ 2 ~ ~ AMERADA BOMB PRESSURES 400 ~ ~ I I- m 300 '-MAIHAK DEVIC E PRESSURES x (/) ::I 200 I 2 4 6 B 10 20 40 60 80 100 TIME. The surface-reading devices are very useful for special purposes such ~s reservoir limit tests... V.. a single conductor cable and a telemetering systemto measure very accurately the angular d I f h B d b A f ISpacement 0 t e our on tu e. An automatic re1 bl h' h ' '.: "Two Bottom-Hole PressureInstruments Providing Automatic Surface Recording".900 psi. The wire is vibrated by a coil and magnet. which also act as pickup to transmit the vibration to the surface.1 w c t e Instrument IS run. AI ME (1960)219. A . reader should For a further the consult . Instrument. n accuracy 0 References 1. FIg. 3. 1965) 223-233.C Estimation D yes. d . pape~SPE 1514. section of each Indicated. we show in Fig. Ramey. h ken ta al sown 5 M .A Jr. As a practical . C .5 Pressure buildupcomparison. Tech. 346-349. t b al A a .100 to 5. J. its vibrational frequency. F. Sorne qua1 ItatIve Interpretation '. actual actual curves curves may with these Ideal curves. telemetering to surface via a single which is deformed by externalpressure. Transmitters have ranges varying from 1. . !r.y Flow and Wellbore Storage Effects m Pressure Build-Up and Drawdown of Gas Wells". thus. .01 percent of full scale . h k d .2 percent of full scale. Their accuracyis stated to be 0. aid. Kolb. the Interference. th e ou t 0 25 . such as wellbore fillup well effect. 11. 11.. Pet. Morse. H. A small-diameter (42-mm) Maihak and a small-diameter (11/4-in. .: "Field Application of UnsteadyStatePressure Analysesin ReservoirDiagnosis". ideal ...teIS accep t -.6. th WI ms t proper f h b th A d d M . and C .. (Oct.. may be made by Of companng course.. 4 M o ll er. presentedat 41st Annual SPE Fall Meeting. conductorcable. ' In quI cent 0 bl f e full f companson 0 a pressure UI up d an di fl owes d t b t s K 'f I th e Ib gauge rumen ' t ' ca IS a b l 'b ti. A grease-type has been achieved lubncator with this wellhead IS used tohi seal h the wellhead around the conductor cable on h at . The surface receiver consists of a similar magnetic pickup and a vibrating wire whose tension can be varied.. and Ott.) Ball Bros. o K 0 Ib l h as 0 full o f oun e 1 accuracy f th M h k sca e.: Pres- "The Permeability Reservoir (/) 0W a: 60 . Trans.A taut steel wire is attached to the diaphragm and the body. Wit 11. Conductor Cable mos l 'b 'ld UI up t d . .: "Non-Darc. Changes in pressurechange the tension of the wire and. Dallas. J. 2-5. as scusse yo.. 2. R.

Pet. 10.41)/6. 10. (Oct. R. Tech./""""""" Pws / 10Q[(I. G. . van Poollen.6 1 . 3..41)/41J FAULT OR NEARBY ~ p ws /"".Sec..J.: "The Effect of a Short Term Shut-In on a 1964) 133.AIME (1950) 189. N.3.41)/41J IDEAL.: "The Effect of Production History on Determinationof Formation Characteristics From Flow Tests".1 ~ 10Q[(I. G. Pet.L. 10.41)/41J STRATIFIED LAYERS ~ 10Q[(I.J. 91-104. 1963)333-337. Pet. 6.-t: Pws p ws 10Q[(I. W.41)/41J INTERFERENCE (mulliple in a bounded reservoir). W.2.000- " "" ~ 10Q[(I.6Example buildupcurves. 10.7. (Oct. J.: "Field TestConfirms Accuracyof New Bottom-HolePressure Gauge". H. 10.3. 1959)26-29. 1966) 1343-1350.2 Fig. 3.G..AI ME 8. 7."'" P ws P ws . A. 11.3 1 loq [(I." Pws / Pws Pws o / / """ o.: "Radius of Drainage and Stabilization Time Equations". K. G. (Sept./-"". Tech..IJ LATERAL INCREASE 1 BOUNDARY-Sec.2 ~ 10Q[(1.PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF PRESSURE ANALYSIS 123 "". Lozano. G. Subsequent (1956)Build-up Test on an Oil Well" ' Pressure 207.D.:~~ 10Q[(1.: "Transient Pressure Behavior in Vertically Fractured Reservoirs". A.. E.1 OR FRACTURES WITH TIGHT MATRIXSec. Tech. Russell. Nisle. and Harthorn. (Feb. 320-321.: "ReservoirReserveTests". Odeh.5 1 "".4 IN MOBILlTYSec.Sec.41)/41J DEEP PENETRATING HYDRAULIC FRACTURESec.(oI)/41J BOUNDARY (one well in a bounded reservoir) -wells Sec. S.3. Trans.3.6 1 10Q[(I.Sec. Jones. 10. Trans. Tech. 1964) 1159-1170. 9.. (March. J. 5. and Truitt.41)/41J PHASE SEPARATION IN TUBING -Sec. Pet.. 14. sure from Bottom Hole PressureBuild-up Characteristics".. Oil and Gas J. and Nabor.41)/41J SKIN AND/OR WELL FILLUP.

it is not possible to infer heterogeneity type and distribution solely from pressure observations. this is not the way that we should use the information. then. But what of our ability to interpret pressure behavior to infer the nature and distribution of the pore space heterogeneities within a reservoir? The answer here is that from pressure behavior alone we cannot obtain unique interpretations. One could argue that all reservoirs are heterogeneous a degree and. with the exception of the uniquenessproblem associated with heterogeneousreservoirs. Except for this question of uniqueness in the interpretive portion of pressure analysis techniques. the engineercan evaluate the economic consequences the various reservoir models which fit of the data and recommend a course of action which should be followed in each instance. However. Essley. Wyllie2 has made an eloquent case for what he calls "the holistic approach" to reservoir mechanics which relies on physical reservoir system measurementsmade in situ. one of a suite of tools which the engineer must apply objectively and intelligently in his job of reservoir systemdefinition. In reply. We may ask ourselves. Since the early work on pressure behavior in the . how well the present theories and analysis techniques permit us to define reservoir systems. it is possible in many cases to obtain unique interpretations. Of equal importance is the fact that such estimates are unique in value. i. or are they too highly idealized to generate realistic results? To answer these basic questions we must first of all define what we as engineersare seekingto accomplish. our conclusion stated at the beginning of the paragraph makes sense. This type of analysis is not new to most engineers. therefore.1 The State of the Art What is the "State of the Art" as far as our knowledge and understanding of pressure behavior is concerned? Do the theories and analysis methods which we now possessenable us to do a competentjob. Then. give a unique interpretation. we believe that under favorable circumstancesgood estimatesof formation permeability.Chapter 12 . The conclusion that the theory and practice of transient pressure testing techniques is in good shape. Transient pressure test data must be used with geological and petrophysical data in an integrated approach to reservoir characterization. we are seeking through our knowledge of pressure behavior an accurate definition of the reservoir system. We believe that. to all transient pressure test results are non-unique.e. As we have seen. well damage and averagepressure in the drainage volume of the well can be obtained by transient pressure test analysis.We believe that when transient pressure analyses are used in conjunction with all other available data. in the absolute absence of other geological and petrophysical data. Throughout this Monograph we have emphasized that engineersmust use all available petrophysical. fundamentally. has stated that the goal of engineering is optimization. It is not possible for even the most experienced reservoir engineer to analyze a transient pressure test and. geological and pressure-production behavior information in an integrated approach in order to define the reservoir systemand predict its behavior. we must first acknowledgethe fact that to varying degreesall suchresults are non-unique. In Qther cases even the integrated approach will not supply a unique interpretation. He points out the fact that maximization of the economic recovery from a petroleum reservoir requires early and accurate identification of the reservoir system. So far as we can see. we belieye that the theory has been developed to a high level and that the analysis methods do a reliable job if used with discretion.. Conclusion - 12. Another way of portraying the "State of the Art" is to say that it is good if viewed as a part of the holistic approach to reservoir mechanics. However. With such an approach we do not believe the uniqueness problem to be overwhelming. Analysis of pressure measurementsmade in wells is an in-situ technique for accomplishingthis task. may be viewed by some as an inconsistent statement.l in his paper entitled "What is Reservoir Engineering?".

there have .3 and to the present. What we are saying is that there are instances in which computerized pressure analyses can be applied because of the routine nature of the job. at present. We are a11 " 10r t his.4 One can point to pressure fall-off analysis methods to contend t~at succe~sful combination of wellbore and reservoIr flow ~ght le~d to surface-based measurement and analysIs theones. The effects of pressure drop within the fracture and the heterogeneous .. through the work of Stegemeier and Matthews. In the more common cases in which such equipment is not available. . that such approaches be camed out in a rational manner lest both the engineerand his management become dubious of the value of this approach. Mathematlc~l simulati?n st~dies of pr~ssure behavior in pumpIng wells mIght YIeld for us estimates of the errors been. Hopefully.2 Current Problems and Areas for Further Investigation that we make in analyzing these wells and some suggestionsas to how to improve our techniques.. how will the pressure behave in a well which is completed in a shaly. We need further studies aimed at improving our ability to detect fluid contacts in more realistic geometries. the influence of multiphase flow is important. 12. aged . P . do a reasonably good job of pressure measurement and analysis on wells which produce by artificial lift if pressures are obtained by means of permanently installed. . There are also cases in which the interpretive aspects of the analysis techniques so dominate the analysis that a great danger exists of erroneous results from a straightforward computer-based analysis. 1 d t 00 m petro1eum engIneenng most com1 y use Reservoir Heterogeneities It should be clearly evident to all who have read Chapter 10 that the heterogeneousreservoir situations for which pressure behavior has been studied are highly idealized. At present we can do a reasonablygood job on pressure buildup analysis taking into account afterproduction.parnes follow removal of some of the more restnctive. a start in this direction has been made by Kern and Nicholson.. efforts to reduce these to comtenzed techniques.m most quarters. our understandingof the nature and magnitude of borehole effects on pressure behavior has steadily increased. if we run a pressure buildup in a pumping well.' have endeavored . through geologic studies of various depositional units and the developmentof faster computers with larger memories. We are not. . . we urge. in future k Th h k t f It d f h oa di app .. As . In the section which follows we shall discuss a few of the areas in which additional work is needed. Computer-Based Analysis Methods the ad vent 0f t he d. engIneer- mathematical assumptions. Reservoir m~chanics and vertical lift perfo~mance are complexly I?terrel. however.mce nature of the fracture itself should be considered. however. we may be able to study more realistic situations. - . Rigorous Treatment of Borehole Effects From the early recognition of the importance of afterproduction in pressure buildup behavior. in less ideal cases the chief value of the computer may be to organize and display the data graphically as required by the analysis technique being applied so that the engineer is freed from the more far as pressure analyses are concerned. we have been limited in our ability to describe reservoir heterogeneitiesin a rigorous manner. We possessthe ability and understanding from each viewpoint to integrate our knowledge and develop better theory. in the euphoric state of having all our problems solved. etc. however. For example. lagoonaI-type sand traversed by a stream-channel deposit? Studies of pressure behavior based on more realistic geological models are a must.CONCLUSION 125 1930's.mon extended by .mg wor k 1 d by JU CIOUS li cation 0f t his new too1 . This is not so. Authors should be encourto through more completely b . 1 computer as a comIgIta S .W II umptng e s We can. Thus far. surface-recordingpressure gauges. In doing this we miss the important early-time portion of the buildup and we cannot dete~ne t~e ski? effect . To the contrary. However. Also. phase redistribution.pu matlcal Investigations by companson WIth field behavIor s ou ecome more 0 a routine matter. we have made substantial and satisfactory progress in developing and applying our understanding of reservoir pressure behavior. However. e c ec ou 0 resu s 0 tame rom mat eh ld b f . .ated and together constitute the over-all system m which we seek to operate. Also. Perhaps it is too much to hope that eventually a suite of testing tec?niques for producing wells could be developed WhICh are as successful as our present bottom-hole pressure-based methods and which employ only surface measurements of pressure. more rigorous treatment of hydraulically fractured wells should be encouraged. then we usually must pull the rods before we can begin pressure measurements. in the case of flowing transient pressure tests. The borehole flow and reservoir flow need to be combined to produce better interpretation theory. The studIes of naturally fractured formations should be .Mth much precision. In reservoirs in which more-or-less ideal pressure buildup behavior is obtained. one might feel confident in using a computer-based analysis as a routine tool. For instance. to reduce the . routIne wor s. the value of our present techniques is significantly reduced. we must attack successfully in order problems which there are important and challenging to maintain our progress.

Of course. 12. Herein lies the value of pressure analysis methods to the industry. the reservoir size and/or the reservoir recovery mechanism might be established.Stalnaker7notes that the success ratio for fracturing operations in the West Burkburnett field improved by a factor of 4 to 5 after pressure buildup analysesbegan to be used as a basis for selection. It appears to us that movement forward from this plateau will come only as the result of well-conceived fundamental research on pressure behavior for various types of reservoir systems. Many fundamental problems remain to be solved. We believe that through further work on the more pressing problems the value of pressure analysis methods can become even greater. Based on the foregoing we must conclude that research efforts on pressure behavior analysis at least as ambitious as those carried out in the past should be maintained. With the theoretical foundation upon which our present theories are based. pressure behavior analyses can be used to aid i~ ~he . The cost of a transient pressure test may range from $200 to $300 for a 48-hour pressure buildup to as much as $5.blymo~fied pressure analysIs methods It mIght b~ possIble to Infer the shape and extent of the heated 011 zone at the end of a period of steaminjection. Thermal Recovery Applications A field which is.000 for a stimulation treatment. by attempting to assessthe value of present pressure analysis methods we may be able to make an educated guess at whether further work is worthwhile. Without an efficient set of pressure analysis techniques. Examples of studies of this ~Yrehave been~resented by v~n ~~0Ilen5 and KazemI. consider the case of a well which has beencompleted but the productivity ~--"" ~" is not as high as was anticipated. We believe that this in itself is a worthwhile use of computers which should be pursued more fully. as yet. Where Do We Go From Here? The "State of the Art" as far as pressure analysis methods are concerned is good. say. we have built quite a framework. we believe the answer is yes.3 Value of Pressure Analysis Methods To the Petroleum Industry " . in any analysis method which is based on trial-and-error procedures. theoretical studies of pressu~e~eh~vior which take i~to account the temperature distnbutlon must be camed out. The burden is not entirely on the researcher. or is the formation permeability so low that this is the controlling factor and a treatment to remove a "skin" would be of no value? This is clearly a case where a transient pressure test and analysis can provide the answer. Is it really worthwhile to encourage work on these problems or should we simply leave well enough alone? Will these problems be so hard to solve that the cost of the necessaryresearch is prohibitive? To answer these questions is difficult. As we see it.control ~f thermal recovery processes and maXImIZation of 011 recovery. virtually untouched as far as applications of pressure analysis methods are concerned is thermal recovery. and most operators would be willing to spend several hundred dollars to obtain the neededinformation. These costs are simply average costs and can vary appreciably depending on operating conditions.000 to $10. O~e can visu~lize in steam soak ~perations t~at t?rough suIta. the development of suitable theories for application in thermal recovery operations should present a challenging and rewarding goal. But what of the more expensive tests such as those costing severalthousand dollars? In the case of a reservoir limit test. provided they are used with a reasonable amount of professional judgment. At present we are on a sort of plateau as far as our theories and methods are concerned. For purposes of discussion. Before we can apply our present analysis methods or designnew.-'".s Another way of attempting to assessthe value of pressure analyses to the industry is to ask whether or not alternatives exist for characterizing a reservoir.'" 126 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS burdensome tasks. The monetary value of a reservoir limit test can far exceed its cost when drilling and development decisions must be made. We have a variety of analysis techniques and testing procedures which do a good job. who h~ve dIscussed the applIcabIlIty of pressure fall-off techmques for 10cating a burning front in in-situ combustion operations. $10.12. For those interested in extension of pressure analysis techniques. There is a danger involved in straightforward application of present theories to thermal recovery operations. Operations engineers must devote some extra effort to evaluation of present techniques in welldefined field cases so as to provide a guide for research efforts. Do we get our money's worth from such tests? Even considering the fact that there will be an occasional test which fails to meet its objectives. It is not a dead art. however.4 In the preceding section we have outlined a few of the important problems in pressureanalysis which presently exist. to say the least. the computer can save even greater amounts of time for the user. pressure analysis techniques are an indispensible part of the packageof tools which the engineer must use to describe and characterize the reservoir system. more rigorous methods. This is due to the fact that all of our presentpressure analysis techniques are based on isothermal reservoir conditions.000 for extended reservoir limit tests. As an example of value in such cases. However. we do not believe it is possible to achieve the goal of optimization of the economic recovery of hydrocarbons from a reservoir. -~'" . Undoubtedly. Should we spend.

'!t!.: "Reservoir Mechanics-Stylized Myth or Potential Science?". Tech.t..1.:r/1~ ...'J 1j] "i. .: "TransientTestsFind Fire Front in an In Situ CombustionProject".. and . ?f. 1965) 1373-1378.' .:" '. P..: "What Is Reservoir Engineering?".~ii. 1965) 19-25..(: '"J i...CONCLUSION 127 f 0 Finally.. . Pet. 6.. (Feb. catIon C. Oil and Gas J.. (Jan. Stalnaker. (Dec. We cau~on.:r.' !t . Anomalous (1958) 213 Pressure 44-50. Tech. ~. J.. Tech."'II. K. J. .f f (1\ -'... Pet. 1966) J.(. c.''" :j'. w e ho p e that in some measure the development of more rigorous methods will result.PractIcal ApphFlowmg Bottom-Hole .. Ke~n. ~ .f. "'. Pet..' c'" ~ J . . "" l".c. Pressures".. and McGhee. "". (June. J. 11 b e s ti mu 1 a t e. (Feb.r"OfT.F:i:.:.i ". ~':"" ..!i:.. B. Jr. '.. :. I... we hope that from the objective treatment 1 pressure ana YSIS .:... Calculated Mulnphase R. Our goal is optimization of recovery through characterization of the reservoir system. of P...". Pet. 2..}(i[.. Stegemeier..: "Gulf CoastWildcat Verifies P. Trans. L. References 1.!iJ1'$11.."" i'. 10 irl~i:J"j 'i~'[' ".1'. b r' ' q J' .1'(. J. Tech. L. 4. 1962) 583J.. Oil and GasJ.Jf" hr! ""~ 'I...: Shallow "West Project Burkburnett Waterflood-A in North Texas". ch 1 we have en deavored to give in this Monograph. :"1) . 588.!fJ(. R. (Aug.stbe u:.~. that pres~ure a~alysi~ tec~niques mu. AIME th me 0 d s w h . . van Poollen.".': ""J!'\(.i'i"':'i'.Matthews. the usage of the methods WI .':.ed objectively and In conjunction WIth all avaIlable reservoir information. "' ". l' r(.H. 1965) 78.. i ( .. 8.' ' ".. 3. Successful D. Essley.Hossein:"Locating a Burning Front by Pressure Transient Measurements".. (June 18. . Kazemi.I ': .. d Al so. Wyllie M."T . Jr... -1. ."'c' . 1966)919-923. and NIcholson? F.b' i..: "A Study of G.. 1956) 184..."m . 5. BuIld-Up BehavIor. ReservoirLimit Test".'f.." ". Pet.'..! ~( .. Jones.C: ~. Tech. 7.E. 227-232..

since Miller-Dyes-Hutchin- m = absolute value of slope of linear portion of pressure buildup or flow test curve.t) l..u)2 M = molecular weight of a gas Pe = external boundary pressure at radius re. (kl..6.11 a g = accelerationdue to gravity h = formation thickness. psi B = formation volume factor c = compressibility psi-l . correspondsto pressureobtained after infinite closed-in time in an infinite rese~volr. . vs .tfor injection wells. \!10~t ~}. 3.!' - i. Nomenclature "" 'i. see Section 2.6.!. see Seetion 3. sure falloff curve.6.3 for a disCUSSIon p* on -. psi Pt = tubing-head injection pressure at time of closing in. we have used this definition in presenting their method in Section 3. . in two-rate flow tests and in all injection tests. psi.).'.t+ vs .PD (see Appendix A) .. (B/D)-l fu ti' 1 tt d 8 9 8 10 nd F = thencOnpOelnlgs. sq ft .6. 5.(lii"'i. m Pi = initial reservoir pressure." .6.5 for the definition of .t]. psi P = Laplace transform of .6. pSI A P = Pw at semi-steadystate (Eq. .h01e In]ecti on we11 pressure.pressure b = Intercept at . seealso Section 10. .5).6. PW8 log[ (. Only practical oilfield units are given after symbols. pSI . = bottom-hole flowing (or pumping) pressure psi ' Pl br = pressure read from linear portion of pressure buildup curve at I-hour closed-in time. F' 8. BID at surface conditions I d BID ' = In]ectlVlty In ex. at I-hour test time p* = pressure obtained when linear portion of buildup curve. psi-l d diameero f t ub109 In. .u)1/(kl.Pwf b1 = Intercept at. dimensionless...6. -pSI / = productivity index.6. .'.I'. D = non-Darcy flow constant.'{Ii !t 7' c.6. also refers to pressure read from linear portion of drawdown test curve two-rate flow test curve or Pres..6.PD as (p -PW8) I (q. t ..ul 21Tkh).Piw pSI .p . ~i[. psi \ --~- .IS extrapolated to (t + .P8kln pressuredrop In "skin" region next to well= bore.6. .6.PD pressure drop. ft. psil 10glocycle M = mobility ratio. psi P~c= pressure at standard conditions.10. for Darcy units.'.-. on permea b ' lit d 1 y. P = averagepressure..13 and 3.14.6. pSi-l Ct = total compressibility. Cf = effective formation (rock) compressibility.J. psi. similarly for a2.6. ft i = injection rate. al = distance between observation well and production well 1. """~.9 and Figs.t= 1. .t..t) I . psi son define . pSI... "'fi:.pressure t= . BID-psi k = f orma ti. A = drainage area of well.t = 0 of plot of log(Pw8-Pe) vs . Pw is the at time of change in rate = b0ttom.PD hyfor draulically fractured wells . psi Pw = bottom-hole pressure.t=0 of plot of log .u/21Tkh). a3' etc. (Pi -Pw) / = (q... .'.

IDe becomes 0.00105 The in Eq. z = pV /nRT) .crw2.Note: T..5772 p. d .4) b d di ft re = external oun ary ra us. kAt/c/>p.cre2.000264). Wi = cumulative water injection. r/Tw 1 f d f 1 roD = dimens10n ess ratio 0 1nner ra IUS 0 01 bank to outer radius (see Fig. Quantities .78.6qp. -Pe) . bbl Y(t) = function giving effect on well pressure of reservoir boundary In practical oilfield units in this report.. kt/c/>p.. note at end of Nomenclasee ture tDw= dimensionlesstime of flowing based on rw.W. At' = flowmg (or mjection) time a er c ange m rate. cp p = density.1StD = kt/c/>p. u = volumetric rate of flow per unit cross-sectional area V = 01 vo1 . which has units of psi.gs = oil. hours-1 . ft R = universal gas constant R. of log (pw.B -162.. oR .B kh In t -kh log10t .NOMENCLATURE 129 q = production rate of well. cp. hr. note at end of Nomenclasee ture At = closed-in time. water.c = absolute temperature at standard condiR . fraction of pore space t = time of flowing.cre2. ./47rkh. kt/c/>p.. cp. dimensionless oS" apparent skin factor. gas at standard conditions or. hours vs At curve for mjection wells] . ft. ImenS10n 1 es S rw = wellbore radius. atm) .. gm/cc (in injection well analysis) c/> porosity.= viscosity. / 70.2. constant 0. .. .4) D ImenS10n time m the D arcy syst em 0f urnts 1 ess (darcy.303. bbl V /V = ratio of volume of oil bank to volume of ° w water bank (see Fig.81 = [absolute value of rD = dimensionlessradius. \ . / reD = re r. In one case we obtain IDeand in the other tDto. y = 1.cr2. water.g = oil. V" = pore volume. In the Darcy system of units the flow rate is usually written as qp. hours tDe= dimensionlesstime of flowing based on re.1 is 4(0. hours AtDe= dimensionless closed-in time based on re. .8 = absolute value of slope of log Ap vs At curve. bbl/bbl s = skin factor. hours-1 "Y= ratio of total compressibility in oil bank to total compressibility in water bank "Y= Eulers constant. 8.For the practical oilfield units used in this Monograph (md. gr.O tions.cre2.1 ume bbl 0. Also. dimensionless (s' = = s + Dq) S = saturation. = f sds e-' x 00 ft h . . psi). In"y = 0. = gas solubility in oil. The quantity r may be chosen either at r e or rw. hours-1 . 7. . B/D conditions at surface z = gas deviation factor (compressibility factor. this quantity is 70.os.6qp. . note at end of Nomensee clature T = absolute temperature.6qp.000264 kt/c/>p. 8.o. refers to tubing when used with d or p slope . Dimensionless . bbl/bbl R.. = oil and gas at residual conditions sc = standard conditions t = total. fraction = -EI(-X) Subscripts i = initial o. which has the units of atmospheres.B kh. sec. gas.8L = absolute value of slope of linear plot of well pressure vs time. W also refers to well when used with p and r ws.w = gas solubility in water. cm.

Jr. A. In summary.. C = ~ 1 41Tkh' q.u a:.Appendix A Solutions for Radial Flow of Fluids of Small and Constant Compressibility Constant Rate. A. J.7 can be assignedarbitrarily. the mathematical problem which we must solve is: p--+-Pi as y--+. less-tractable condition (see Mueller and Witherspoon5).kh = Jim y--+-O 2C1 e -II. Fundamental to the solution is the use of the Boltzmann Transformation. (1) ~ + ~ ~=~k ~ or2 r or 01' Boundary and initial conditions: (1) p=Piat/=Oforallr. A.(A.. We choose y = 00 and obtain . dy y C and C1 are constants of integration.3) The lower limit of the integral in Eq. A. A . y -4F -cp. we first replace the second boundary condition by the condition Jim r --+. (A 6) '.now becomes S dp -q~ e-ll " (A. several slightly different approac~es to t~e solution of this problem have appeared In the lIterature.2 into the differential Eq. We have chosen to present the approach of Polubarinova-Kochinal because it is quite straightforward.u (2) y--+-O 2y-ay-= ~ .+(I+y)p'=O =~dP.S) As mentioned in the text. A. that This imation boundary to the condition original is the boundary "line-source" condition. for calling this approach to our attention.2) which can be integrated to yield p = -& "tiY-4. To develop the solution. " (A. Separation of the variables and integration yield p'= or P' = ~= ~e-ll. Jim dp q. Infinite Reservoir Case The initial value problem represented by this case is presented in Chapter 2. .0 r op -q.7) .4) (2) ( r ~ )rw = &(3) for I> O. for 1 > O.l and accompanying boundary conditions gives y~+~(I+y)=O.u 2-. A. approxIt has been Jim dp = y--+-O 2yliY Thus. dy2 dy with -~ I T dy + C2.ucr2 Eq.y 1) To solve Eq." (A .. (A. Ramey.3 becomes y!!E:.S shows dy P --+. From boundary condition (2) above.00. y--+-O dy 21Tkh Comparison of this expression with Eq. We are indebted to H.3Ietp' Then Eq.. shown to yield identical results (from a practical standpoint) with those obtained from solution of the problem with the original.In Pi -In y -y + c (A.lChy' Substitution of Eq.as r--+-oo for all 1 . . Jim 2y ~ = -!!L.-~.

PI -p(r . We shall present here the solution of van Everdingen and Hurst3 which employs the Laplace transform..13) give Aysl].14. A.(A. ].12 is simply a form of Bessel's equation and possesses a general solution P = A 10 (rDYs) + B Ko (rD~)' .C op ¥ + r ar = kat' with initial and boundary conditions: (1) (2) P = Pi at t = 0 for all r.. d tDw. A.13).(reDys)I]. condition (1) (A. = O. this problem has been solved by several different authors. 'j'p.rD (2) (a. -. we obtain P = K1 (reDYS) I~ (rDYs) ~ 11 (reDys)_Ko S3/2 [I]. (ys) -K].13) ( ) The ~nitial value problem for this case (from Chapter 2) IS as follows: 02p 1 op cf>p. ~+~~=~ With .. Bounded Circular Reservoir Case . If we solve these equations for A and B and substitute the values into Eq.)r aAPD If we d apply boundary fi we n Finally C2=Pi' obtain we . (A.lS is the Laplace transform of the general solution for the pressure behavior in a circular. t) = ~ 41Tkh p ( rD . bound- . A. (3) = 0 for all t. (reDYS) = 0 . (-= ) dP dr~]. we introduce the following dimensionless variables: Pi -P ApD = ~ 21T rD = r/rw kt tDw = A. OrD2 rD OrD OtDW' (1) qp..(ys)] ' (rDYs) (A. A and B are arbitrary constants whose values must be determined through application of the boundary conditions (Eq. of order zero. As mentioned in the text. eD The Laplace transform of ApD is given by (3) 00 ( -:ar. for all tDw. This solution can also be obtained by physical and mathematical arguments using the instantaneous pointsource solution as a basis. ) [ -Ei ( -~ 4kt' )] .f+"t:. for tDw > O.dr.-!!1!:-for 21Tkh t > O. A ysl]. Application of the transform to the differential equation and boundary conditions yields d2P 1 dP d. .) OAPD --1. tDw e -stn.APPENDIX A 131 P = ~ or 1le-li 41Tkh y 00 J -dy + C2. at tDw = 0 for all rD' P = -4.) or re = .. S) -ApD 0 J ( rD. To facilitate solution of the problem..8) to the above. (reDYS) K]. = SP with (1) . the reader is referred to the book by Collins.crw 2 (reDYS) -BysK]. 00 ApD = 0.kji" JydY e-li 11 + C2 .9) confused with skin factor). Differentiation of Eq.I0) (ys) -BysK].12) hi h E 2 31 f th t t w c IS q. For an interesting presentation of this approach.lS) Substitution of these new variables into the differential equation and boundary conditions yields Eq. A.1 S t . A.:. This last equation can be rewritten as P = -&Ei (-y) + C2.(A. A.. respectively. (A.0 e ex. -0. (ys) = -1 S (r ~ ) or rw 0 (J!. (2) ( ~ ) drD reD The condition at tDw = 0 has been accounted for in the transformation of the time derivative in the partial differential equation.14 with respect to rD and substitution into the conditions (Eq.14) -where 10 (rDYs) and Ko (rDYs) are modified Bessel functions of the first and second kind. Eq. (All) where S IS the Laplace transform van able (not to be (A.2 Constant Rate.





Constant Rate, Constant Pressure Outer Boundary Case The mathematical statementof this problem is as fol-

case we find that the only singularities of Eq. A.25 in the complex plane are simple poles at the origin and along the negative real axis. At the origin p = -(In reD -In rD) S and, therefore, for large time ~PD = In reD -In rD. ...(A.27)



o2p 1 op -tPp.c op a;:2"+rar-k~'


I i I

(1) P = Pi = Pe at t = 0, for all r. (2) (3) If


op ) qp. r -:a-:;:- = 2;kh , for t > O. r..

To obtain the complete solution we again need to find the singularities along the negative real axis. Those interested in the details are referred to Carslaw and Jaeger. 4


f all -Pi, or t.

t th bl t f th d m nless we recas e pro em m erms 0 e 1 ensio .pressure vana bles 0f Eq..,A 10 we 0btam





Finally, we obtain the following expression for the . behaVIor at the well. Pw! = Pi -~

.!!:!!:!!-Eo -1--~= + orD2 rD orD with

~ otDw'


[ In reD-2

; n=l

(1) ~PD = 0, at tDw= 0 for all rD. o~p (2) ~ = -1, for tDw> O. rD 1 (3)" ~PD = 0 at rD = reD,for all tDw' .Application of the Laplace transform to the above gives d2P 1 dP -analysis -a;:-2+ r ~ = sP,. D D D .(A.23)

e-P.2tD.. (,8"reD) ]02 ,8n2 []12 (,8n) -]02 (,8nreD)] ,




where ,8nis a root of ]1(,8n) Yo(,8nreD)-Y 1(,8n) ]o(,8nreD)= O. E A 28 d I q. .IS 1 entica WIt Eq.. 2 38 0f t he text. h In Ref. 4 of Chapter 8 a slightly different form of Eq. A.28 is employed to provide a basis for pressure fall-off prior to reservoir fillup in the unit mobility ratio case. This form is based on the vanishingly small ore radIus (rw~O) assumption. The pressure falloff equation which is obtained is of the form Pw, = Pi + h1 e-Pl~t.




.well WIth




~ = _1-~ !rD S = 0 r.D

(2) PI



Since only the first term in the series expansion has been retained, this expression is valid for large values of shut-in time only. References 1. Polubarinova-Kochina, Ya.: Theory of Ground WaP. ter Movement,Translated from the Russian by J. M. fi9~2e~~9~' Princeton University Press,Princeton,N.J. 2. Collins, R. E.: Flow of Fluids Through Porous Materials, Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York (1961). 3. van Everdingen,A. F. and Hurst, W.: "The Applica' tion of the Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs", Trans., AIME (1949) 186, 305-324.

Again, Eq. A.14 is a general solution of the differential equation and the conditions (Eq. A.24) must be used to evaluate the constants A and B. In this case A ys 11 (ys) -Bys K1 (ys) = -+,

A 10 (reD yS) + B Ko (reDyS) = O. S I f A d B d b ti t ti mo. t 0 VIng or an an su sung yields


. ..

Eq A. 14


p = 10(reDysL KO(rDYs~



S8/2 (ys) [/1

KO(reDYS) + K1(ys) 10(reDYS)] (A.25)

4. Carslaw,H. S. and Jaeger, C.: Conduction of Heat J. in Solids,Oxford at the ClarendonPress (1959) 89. 5. Mueller, Thomas D. and Witherspoon,Paul A.: "PresInterference Effects Within Reservoirsand Aquifers", J. Pet. Tech. (April, 1965) 471-474.

which is the transformed solution to our problem. " ..sure Proceeding as WIth the bounded cIrcular reserVOIr


Appendix B

Example Calculations for Pressure Buildup Analysis
I :,

This appendix contains three example pressure buildup analyses: Example I-Reservoir Above Bubble Point,

f ,I

Examples 2A and 2-Reservoir Below Bubble Point, Examples 3A and 3-Gas Reservoir.


fi :i II

Results for each case are presented on a form sheet, based on equations given in Chapter 3, and designed especially for routine pressure buildup analyses.The curve analyzed in each case is noted on the form sheet. Calculations were usually made on a slide rule, and thus the reader should expect only this level of accuracy in the results shown.







440 1hour CURvE

"~ ,

co .In W .-to
::) U)

>0 '
0,.,0 -w~-



, 'U)~I~





~ !l.





0 Q:


O~Q: -ow I-IDI-


I-wo 0 +



, ,






3400 100.000




(t + At) fAt Fig. 3.3 Pressure buildupshowingeffectof wellboredamage afterproduction. and



Example Calculation 1: Reservoir Above Bubble Point (Based on Fig. 3.3) Test Data: Test Date January 4, 1951 Producing (Formation- 4 "/C Dolomite ),1.,".,:...::: ,0 H I S' h ) ..., rr 0 e Ize mc es -/4":; ! Cum. Prod. Np (bbl) 142,01-0,;:..,:, Company Shell Lease Lend Well No.1 Field Center State .Texas n



Stabilized Daily Prod. q (bbl) 250 Effective Prod. Life t (hr) =24 N,,/q

13,630 \

I. Calculation of kh (md-ft) and k (md): kh = .!~~~~ h q 69.0 250 ; k=~. ft B/D = 5277 d-ft ~ m, p. B m (70) 0.80 1.136 70 ~ 765 md. cp psi/cycle

kh = 162.6X(250) X (0.80) X(I.136)


k =

(527.7)= (69)

II. Calculation of Skin Effect, s; and PressureLoss Due to Skin, ~P8kln(psi): s = 1.151[~~Og(*) ~P8kln= (m) X 0.87 (s). k c/> p. c 7.65 0.039 0.80 17 X 10-6 md cp psi-l ~ 'to PI hrPtO! m (7.65) (144) (0.039)(0.80)(0.000017)(5.64) 2.375/12 4,295 3,534 70 ft psig psig psi/cycle . + 3.23].


s -1.151

[ (4,295) (701-log -(3,534)

+ 3.23 -~


~P8kln= (70) X 0.87 (6.37) = ~psi. III. Calculation of Productivity Index (B/D-psi) and Flow Efficiency: 1(actual)-q p* -(Ideal) Pto! ~P8kln 388 q 250 I(actual) -(4,585)
-(250) 1(ldeal) -(1,051)
, Flow Efficiency =

psi B/D

-q p* Pto!

(p *

- Pto!)


...akin p psig .psig

4,585 3,534





-. -(388)-~B/D-pSI.
I(actual)=~= 1(ldeal) 0.377 0.631. -


1. Compressibility is obtained from C";" ~ Ct = SoCo StOCto = 0.85(11 X 10-6)+ 0.15(3 X 10-6) + 7.2 X 10-6 = 17 X 10-6. + +C!

The value of Cois obtained from PVT analysis, cf from Fig. G.5; CW an averagevalue for water. is 2. p* is obtained by extrapolating two cycles to the right on Fig. 3.3. p* = 4,445 + 2m = 4,445 + 2(70) = 4,585 psig.


55.315/655 = 2. 3.]y mh 162.7) or 1./dp) and (dBo/dp) are obtained as the slopes of laboratory-determined curves of R. . Ct = 0. Obtaining p* for Fig.= 720/464 = 1.7: [~ ] .56.159. Cr = 0. and for So = 0.740 X 106 -924 = 2.546." (f Values of (dR. Then Cu= cr/Pc = 0. Pr = 1.q".315 psia. Then Tr.) + B". i .uu. p*=1320 + 2m = 1320 +2 (135) = 1.590 psig.227 . G. G.6). Su = 0.15.000854) 0.~.0003622) + 0.300 psig on Fig. = 0.136 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS Example 2A: For Reservoir Below Bubble Point I. .01. Thus.u ~ [Boqo + Bu (qut-qoR.227 . + Cf. the slope is drawn at the estimated averagepressure (1. We estimatec'" = 3 X 10-6 psi-I. B (1P R 1 dB X 53. and from Fig. Since we do not have a gas analysis. 3.7: p* is obtained by extrapolating two cycles from the pressureread at [(I + ~t)/~t] = 100.0003622 psi-I. G.7A.f = 0. Obtaining Total Mobility and Total Compressibility for Fig.204 + and S".uw . bot.c".1) + 0] ' '-s 0 p I Co = -1fT-BY 0 = 12.204 (0.546 (0. 3.56/655 = 0.9 X 10-3 (00455) 1.000 10.6 = (135) (20) [1.000376. 3.000 1000 1 10 (t+At)/4t Fig. + 0.25 (3 X 10-6) + 4 X 10-6 = [~] t = .9 X 10-3 (2.II. we estimate T c = 464°R and Pc = 655 psia from the gas gravity of 0. Then Ct = Soco = + SgCu S".7 Pressure buildupin a reservoir when both oil and gasare flowing.25. hours 1 10 1 12 II 10 I 9 8 1 100. From FIg.93 (Fig. -~(O 0001425) 1.227 (924) + 12.000854 psia-l.o . Cf = 4 X 10-6 pSi-I at cf> 0. and Bo vs p.5.u t =~ + ~ + ~ IJ.

151 (1. h q 20 924 ft BID Bg 12.0 788 -0. BID-psI. c/> 3. Calculation of Skin Effect.000376) 6/12 1.l skin ) p .!!.1 11.590) -(240)= (1. kll1.!!!!-IOg(~)+ ~PBkln= (m) X 0. .15)(2. k =~. Fl ow Effi clency -I(actual) ' _ I (Ideal) -. Life t (hr) = 24Nplq 865 I. q (bbl) 924 oil.195 ft psig c 0.151 [..590 240 psig psig (924) (1. III. -POD! 285 924 psi BID ~B/D-pSI. Calculation of kh (md-ft) and k (md) : ! kh = ~~~~~-.23]..7) TestData: Company Shell Test Date April 1.159 0. .350) (924) -(285) = ~ . 1. 15.87 (s). Np (bbl) 33. Calculation of Productivity Index (BID-psi) and Flow Efficiency: 1(actual) = ~P8kln q I(actual) = 1(ldeal) = q P*. 3.23 -~ 240 135 psig psilcycle s = 1. ~PBkln(psi): s = 1. Prod.4 Hole Size (inches) 12 Field Edd Cum.APPENDIX B 137 Example Calculation 2: Reservoir Below Bubble Point (Based on Fig.684 .0 868 -.195) -(240) (135) [ ] ~PBkln= (135) X 0. rOD PI hr 2.159) (144) (36) (0.300 State California Stabilized Daily Prod. d-ft . 1(Ideal)-q p' POD! (p * - POD!-" L. and PressureLoss Due to Skin.38 MMcf gas (2.000376 POD! m -log + 3.675) X (1.87 (2.0 0.9 X 10-3 Rs 298 ft3/bbl or 53.6 X (924) X (0..227) = 922 (135) _m. 46 II.740 MM bbl gas) Effective Prod.- .~~~. k = ~(20) = ~ 1 md. 1956 Lease Weller Producing Formation Sandstone Well No. s.15 md/cp psi-I (0.p.227 m 135 bbl/bbl bbl/bbl psilcycle kh = 162.43) = ~psi.675cp Bo 1.

Obtaining Bg. Cgis obtained from Fig.673 psia.65 Bg = 0.57 T c 420 -(p* pr -Pc+ p~f)/22.7A as 0.895 pSlg. and P. /Lgis obtained from Figs.000347) +0. and a gas gravity of 0. Chapter 3. hours 1.422) -2 = 2. P. = 520oR IC.138 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS Example 3A: For Gas Well I.71.0201 cpo Also.000254 psi-I.844 + 3 m = 2. = 0.8 Pressure buildup in a gaswell.809 (from Fig.:!g T.. II.00563 . G.5 at I/>= 0. Thus.0 3000 2900 2~ 27 2600 2500 2400 10' 10 105 10 10 (t+6t) /6t Fig. /Lg. 12.29 andSg=0.844 + 3 (17) = 2.03 6 t. The compressibility of gassaturated water at pressure (p* + Pwf)/2 is estimated from Ref. G.8: p* is obtained by extrapolating three cycles from pressure read at [(t+~t)/~t] = 103.. C C = 0.71(0.and Cgfor Fig. 3. Then. 3.c = 14.895) 2 + (2. 3.8.. cf from Fig. forSw = 0. ' Using T. = Sg g + Sw w + Cf.658 psig = 2.000347 psi-I.C p* + P~f 2 z = 0.673 -the 663 -4.6) .8: B = z -.3A and G.. T 660 Tr = -== 1. G.809 X 520 X 2673 = 0. G.c T P. .23/663 = 0.16.3B as /Lg= 1.7XO. Obtaining p* for Fig.01185 = 0.p* = 2.Ct ReservoIr temperature T = 200 + 460 = 660R p* + P~f _(2.65 psia Pseudocritical temperature T c = 420R P d " I 663 ' seu ocntica pressure Pc = psia . 660 14.29(13X10-6) +4X10-6.

895) -(2.(bbl) 1./q 50.900) Tli~. - I~ I .422) ] (Ideal)= Flow (536. 8.J EfficIency (actual) = 1135 --!-](Ideal) 3.0201 0. Field State Orr 3 Left Texas kh = 162.422 17 ft psig psig psi/cycle ~P. cp cu ft/cu ft psi/cycle h q 84 536.5/12 2. m ' k =!!!. Calculation of Productivity Index (BID-psi) and Flow Efficiency: ](actual) -q p* ~P.23J = ~ .!!:!:md..000254 md cp psi-t -log -(2.151 PI hr -Pro! -log m [ (~ cJ>/lcrro2 ) + 3.390 MMcf) Stabilized Daily Prod.92 0.815 2.87 (8).422 psig psig 1('01- (536. Life t (hr) = 24N. (.340.815) (17) [ (6." (P * - Pro! ) -" ~ p skin p* POD! 2.k!n (psi): 8 = 1..8) Test Data: Company Test Date November 16. B. from the above calculations. B/D-psi.kln 312 q 536. ft l/' X ~Q.k IL. N.5 for a method of obtaining 8 in such cases.900 (3. and PressureLoss Due to Skin.87 (21.6 q~.900B/D kh =162.h . rtD Pt hr Pro! m 3.151 (2. ~P. 1956 Producing Formation Sandstone Hole Size (inches) 7 Cum. 3. Calculation of kh (md-ft) and k (md): ( Shell Lease ~ellNo.422) s = 1.000254) (12.0201) (0. III.23 ].895 2.~ ~Pskln= (17) X 0. . Consult Section 3.12) = ~psi. instead'of 8.".0201) II.8 X 108 I. k cJ> /l C 6. m =_i~~J0. = 0. q (bbl) 536.APPENDIX 8 139 Example Calculation 3: Gas Well (Based on Fig. Calculation of Skin Effect. Prod. ~~ !C .92) (144) (0.16) (0.900) (473) -(312)= = BID-pSI..6 X (536. one will obtain the apparent skin factor 8'.138 X 109 (6.900) l(actual) = (2.0201 0.335 Note: At high rates of gas flow.01 MMcf/D) Effective Prod.25) + 3.16 0. ~ ..kln = (m) X 0.900 P ro! ](Ideal) -q psi B/D =~ 3 335 2-.00563)=~md-ft.00563 17 = !!.

000 10. I T~ 38 -I . have..000 100 (t + At) tAt Fig. taking A = 160 acres = (2. 0. Prom the information in Example 1. we .3' -~ . -' determInIng p.~ 17 = 7. p* = 4.45.it ""'0 a. 3 . -" '~"."'/ .. r 42 4000. Appendix C Example Calculation for Average Pressure Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek Method As an example for consld er PIg.cA_.65) 13..t.= l[O391(O-:-SO) X 10-6 (2. Appendix B.r: "".o/.445 + 2(70) = 4. 3..3 Pressure buildupshowingeffectof wellboredamage and afterproduction..585 psig..640)2 sq ft .: """.~~ . 36 I 3400 100.000264 kt 0.." d .000264 (7.'u" -0' . 3 To obtain p* we must extrapolate two cycles to the right to [(I + ~t)/~t] = 1. Thus.0-.hours 10 100 460 440 . 1 At. ..\.630 I ~p. = 4.445 + 2m '.

.. reflect slide-rule accuracy. Fig..Q. ~PD then p* -p and p = 4. I \ i ~. i '. ". agrees closely with the value of p obtained above..039 (0.4) = 166. no flow over drainage radius. -4 -30.80) 17 X 10-6 (2.Q1L!~-:=_M_l~f.B/kh) = m. t . ~ ~~lQ~ !:~2.!!2m Fig. an average pressure of about 4. = 70/2. [.3 appears to be approaching.303. t.:.3. as in the others..362 PSl_~. we would have obtained ~PD = 1. i. ..000264 (7. The slope of the buildup curve m is 70 psi/cycle."" .640)2 = 0. after 90 hours' shut-in.. . PIQ' at ~O hours l~ ~.uB/kh) = 5.45.000264 k~t = 0. .cre2 0. then ~ i " 0.90. for the square we read (p*-p)/(70.65) 10 (1T) cpp. /2 303 (70. '\ If we had used Curve B.461 psig. ~"" . = 0. Then :9_~_. 4.eo ~a~.:~s ~2". 3. Now since "J'.0172. line sectionof the buildup curve. 3. some 11 psi greater than this calculated average. i: . ~3. t l i t . for constant pressure at the drainage radius.Dyes.15 = 4.3 .45 (30.13..6qp. ! i . . obtain re2=J~~2. 3. Then.430 psig. . This value lies in betweenthe value of p* and that of p for no flow over the drainage radius.Hutchinson Method Choose ~t = 10 hours as a point on the straight= 5.-t !- !.6 q. P = 4.585 -166 = 4.13.62 (70)/1.. Note that the pressure buildup curve in Fig. Curve A.This difference reflects the accuracy which should be expected from use of methods for calculating p."" !. Calculations in this appendix.62.419 psig.362 + 1.APPENDIX C 141 Then from Fig. Miller.3.

:0.") '8!sd S68'1 = fd '"JJ ££'0 = = 'Ii 'Q/H.L 'pa1uasald aJt! S la"Jdt!q. Molaq UMOqS }sa"J S~} 10J suopt!In:>It!.au!I arP.)lnSSald '1 gOI SA alnssald aloq-wo}}oq gu!/1\°g palnst!aw Jo }OId t! S! v'S S!s.LS 008 = b t!"Jt!Q 'l!OAlaSal = cp 'd:> 0'1 :SMOnOJ St! alt! }sa"J aq"J 01 }uauplad -ap!Is }:>agal ..L -sald aq} pUt! }sa} aq"J O} lopd /IOA/IOA 9-01 X L'LI 01.1'0 'S£'O = OISpu~ 'SZ'I = °8 '!sd = I.)Q 10Id s~"J uo rP.(leuy '8!d lua!sueJl -plO:>al-I~Wa}u! -~aw alnssald fJ~U!plO u~ q}!/1\ ap~w alalA S1UaW~lns .c ~.. .L 'a:>!Aap alnssald aloq-Wo}}oq 8U! S! popad }ua!Su~l1 aq} gupnp adOIS .L 'slnoq Z 1noq~ JO amp ~ }~ palln:>:>o popad }Ua!SU~l} aq"J Jo pua aq"J Jt!u8!s O"Jau!I 1QG!t!1"JS aq} wall uopt!!A..g!sd S68'1 }t! az!It!nba O"JpalAont! alns U! }nqs St!M naM aq....) 'aI:>A:>/!Sd ZIZ S~IA a}~l 1A0g aq. OOt'1 ~ c: ~ 0091 (/) (/) r ..1'}J 8 = l{ '." r 0 0001 ~ z Q ~ 0 ~ 0021 ~ 0 E I :I: 0 .A:>t!ln:>:>t! aInl U!st!H laAuaQ t! U! naM t! U! }sa"J UMOpMt!lp lnoq-os t! wol} pau!t!"Jqo alaM t!}t!p alnssald aq.) lsa"J aq} }noqgnolq"J aIqt!"Js a}!nb .)q.) Jo spoq}aw aq} 8u!sn t!}t!p 1sa"JUMOpMt!lp s!q} uI ]0 a1!nS t! Jo S!SAlt!ut! aq} Jo sI!t!"Jap aq"J x!puaddt! S!S~leUV UMOpMeJOl aJnSSaJd JOJ SUO!~elnJle3 81dwex3 a x!puaddv . .'ualA aUo}spU1!SAppnw UIS1!H JaAUaa '}Sa} UIAOplA1!lpaJnssaJd papua}xa 'aW!"} 8UIlAog }O mIn!J1!80I SAaJnssaJd 8UIlAOH t'S ~. 0081 0002 'SIAOnOJ S~ al~ suop~In:>I~. popad }ua!sUt!11 aq"J 8upnp plt!MUO sa}nu!W 01 Jo amp MOg t! wall t!"Jt!p .!I S31nNIW 000'01 0001 NI 3Wll 001 01009 008 .

..14 X 1. ~ -0 cn \ \ \ \ ~ =slope.15 [ Pi -Plhr-log~+ m q.0 X 1.APPENDIX D i' .690 212 0.6qp.- . Denver Basin Muddy Sandstone weU.0 X 17. \ \ \ -\ a. md. I 0 2 flowing time -hours Fig.23 ]. -log s = 1. 4 From Eq. extendedpressuredrawdown test. 1000 s = -5.23 J .15 1.6 X 800 X 1. \\ A \ p=1460 10 \ \ \ \ 0 \ A p=1490 .138 !" )l:{ .}. Af ea. 5. /.' 143 From Eq.~ ""0"'. /~=1300 0 _D'.6 Late transientanalysisplot..0.~ .7 [ 96 X 10~6 X 0.. kh = 162. """"0 '\. -- .895 -1.3. 0 '0 '"'" '0\'\ ""0 ' : = 1400 '\ a.tcrw 3. 5..". 162. 100 000 ---8. fi I = 0.(r "Jr. .» .. b=320 /. m ~~ " s = 1. "" """ ---0 0. 5.25 kh = 212' kh k = = 767 96 md-ft.11 + 3..

[t.S .b Sl13M NI SlS3. sz'r X o.S .g!d uo pa~uasaldS! 'poq1aw S!SA~U~ 1Ua!SU~11 alp a~~l JOS!S~q S! q:>!l{M SA(d -J"'d) gol Jo 10ld aq. 9-0r X L. V OOOZ .L '.:J aN'v' dnallna [ ] = q 'AlaAp:>adsal 'al~ san~A adOls pu~ 1da:>la~U! .sal:>~ r .o u.~~p aq~ Jo ~Old au!l-1qg~l1S alq~uos~al ~ aA~g g!sd 09v'r = d 1~q~paqs!lq~~sa S~M '(9.0 = "A v'L .~~~1S Ap~a1s-!Was pal~add~1! (S S g!d aas) 1 SA d Jo 1~q1 10ld l~au!l aq~ WOld .(O'S -pu~ :ij-pW L9L) S!SA~U~ 1Ua!SU~11 Aq alp v'L .{ S31nNIW NI 3Wll OOZI 009 0 000£ oo~z 0081 009 008 ~ 0001 .pw 17"9v= 'I .ldwo:> 1uaw1~al1alm:>~lJ:>nn~lpAq~ UI uo uaA~ S~MnaM alp 1~1p1:>~J Aq pasn~:> Alq~qOld aq~ S! s!l{..bg: WOld .(aln~:>~lJaq1l~au auoz alp WOlJ)alm~U U! l~aUn An~pUaSsa sawp AJl~a 1~ MOg '£z'or .aq.Jqfi 'srrr. ua~q aA~q ~qg~.slnoq Z ~no~ 1~ pua o~ pal~ad -d~ popad 1Ua!SU~l~ 'Alsno!Aald pa10u S~Msy . :ij-pW rL£ = 1J'I . ~ ".}-{ 'rr's .9.L aq~ '1 v S!SAleUV lua!SueJ. C 0091 ~ 0081 .l alel V171 = "A 3~nSS3~d .o =" A .S!SAl~U~ ~U~!SU~l1 aq1 U! papnl:> a1~l ~U! alaM slnoq ~ 01 Z popad alp lOJ ~1~Palnssald slnoq Sr o~ 0 r '" 1 1~ paq:>~~l.JJ .. OOZI 6 ~ 0 -OO~I fA (/) r ".L u~ '{qq l!OAlaSal90r X 917r..V m.= 1J'I 9 sr r '6.Lr X oz£ XI SZ'r X oos X Sr r r.ba wold .uopa.g!d aas) 1! v lalla pu~ l~P1 Aa' .S alp .L .l T +9J ur -d-=--il vSO = S v ..L MO1.L ..JA\ ~UO1SPU~ Appnw U!S1!H J~AU~a '1S~1 UA\OpA\1!Jp ~Jnss~Jd p~pU~1X~ '~W!~ SA~Jnss~Jd 8U!A\OId S'S '~!. r ~ z C) 0 m 0 -.g!d uo AIfI!:>! S! -qd~iB UA\oqs pu~ s.-.r OZ£ X 9'srr X oos = 1J'I ' -g:rTb!l-:--.' lO ':ij ZSv Jo sn!p~l ag~ L -u~lp 1ual~A!nba 01 s~unow~ awnloA l!OAlaSals!1{.'r S v ~ -= -rl -tJ P u~ glsd . ~ ".SU! pu~ :ij-pw rL£) alaq pau~1qo sanl~As pu~ 1J'I aq.m-1--"J r -Z£ gOl 'or's ..ba WOld 17"L -OZ£ gOl pau~qo asoq~1p!A\~uawaaiB~asol:> 10Ual~ (V.o r uop:>asU! passn:>s!p syMOYJO S! -ap al~ ~~~palnssald :>!S~q q:>!l{A\ aq1 wall amp . OZ£ vS'O -s 'SL'O +~ur ZSV 09v'r -S6S'r -OZ£ [ q ] .paAp agu~l aq1 uo 1uapuadapaq 01 s1:>adxa UMOpM~lp alnssald wall pau~1qQ~1~A--~-PU~If'ls1sa1 auo SnaMpalm -:)U.


Since the theory for transient analysis assumesradial flow, the kh value derived from a transient analysis will b I I hi h A fl d h di I e anoma ous y g. s ow time procee s, t e ra a flow in the region away from the fracture becomesdoininant and 1ate-transi~nt anal--sis which is also based on ra al flow theory more nearly represe e values of the reservoIr parameters. Thus, in the case of a fractured well we believe the late transient results are probably more representative.

The equivalent drainage area is approxim;t;iyi7~cres.


Semi-Steady State Analysis (Reservoir Limit Test) The linear plot of P,vfvs t is found on Fig. 5.5. This plot appears to be linear for times greater than 15 hours. From the slope of the plot of Fig. 5.5 and Eq. 5.14, we find -qB V" -0.0418 fj";c' -of V" = 0.0418 X 800 X 1.25 -6' 15.8 X 17.7 X 10 V" = 0.149 X 106 reservo~r bbl.

Th. e suIte of ~ata analyzed here is typical of the ty~e .that t?e .engIneermust analyze whenever a reserVOIr IS of lImIted extent. Actually, it is seldom that all the sep~ra.te facets of the t~ansient, late transient, and reservoIr lImIt analysesare In perfect agreement. In the case we have seen here, there was disagreement between the transient and late transient analyses which was readily explained by fracturing. The belief that the late transient results are more representative is further supported by the almost-exact agreement in reservoir size calculated from the late transient and reservoir limit analyses. As is discussed in the text, these conclusions were substantiated by subsequent production performance. There are instances in which unique interpretation pressure drawdown data is not possible. More than one set of conclusions may be feasible. In such cases, the economic consequencesof each answer must be considered.






'f .,~;~










LL --

Appendix E

Example Calculations for Multiple-Rate Flow Test Analysis

In this appendix the details of the calculations required in the analysis of two different types of multiplerate flow tests are presented. The first of these is a two-rate flow test. The second is a gas-well open-flow potential test. Slide-rule accuracy is maintained in the results. Two-Rate Flow Test The well is a flowing producer from a typical lowpermeability limestone reservoir in the Permian Basin region of West Texas. In this particular reservoir, pressure buildup data usually are poor in quality because of long, low-rate afterproduction periods which occur when the wells are closed in. Pressure buildups of 72 hours' duration, or in some cases even longer, are required to obtain interpretable data. I . f n preparation or the two-rate flow test, the well was stabilized at a rate of 107 STB/D on a 12/64-in. choke. The rate was reduced to 46 STB/D by a reduction in choke size to 7/64-in. The well is equipped with d .324 a pro uction packer. Wellhead pressureswere not recorded during the test; however, producing rates were measured by means of a continuous-recording metering .26400 oil and gas separator. Flowing bottom-hole pressureswere measuredin the well for a period extending from 3 hours prior to the h 2 rate c ange until 2 hours after the rate change.The resuIting flow test plot and data pertinent to the flow test analysis are shown on Fig, 6.5. As is suggestedby the appearance of the flow test plot, the producing rate stabilized at 46 STB/D very soon after the rate change.

kh = 174 md-ft, k = 3.0 md. T~e ~ext step in ~he analysis proce~ure is the deterffilnation of ~e skin factor s. For this purpose, Eq. 6.10 of the text IS used: s = 1.151 [( ~ ) (fu ~ ql -qz m -log~ + 323 c/>,ucrw2"

) )
+ 3 23 ., ]


s = 1.151


107 107 -46

)( 3,169 -3,118
10-5) (0.04)

-log (0 --06 .) s = -3.6. 3250






ql '107STB/D Pw' pliV 3//B Q2'46STB/D h'59fl .-1 c,'. 9 32 0 -5 P"' xl r 02fl w'. /J.'0.6Cp B'I.5 -#I' 0.06 Np'26,400 STB 1.-=tar .24 =5922r h BASIC DATA-WELL A


'ti ~ 3210 ~ ~ ~ 3200 ~ ~ 3190 ::
g 31BO


This was confirmed by the metering separatormeasurets men.



From the basic flow test plot of Pw!vs {log [(t+~t')/ ~t'] + (QZ/ql) log ~t'}, the value of m is 90 psig/cycle. Thus, from Eq. 6.9 of the text, kh = 162.6 Ql,uB m ' kh = (162.6) (107) (0.6) (1.5) 90'

316 3150 3.0

k =3.omd .=-3.6 . p*.354B pslg ..3.3 3.4
!..tA! '

.9.i. I



log 61' + Ql

og 61'

Fig. 6.5 Two-rate flow test plot, Permian Basin well.

148 Having found values for k and s, we may now proceed to determine p*. By Eq. 6.11 of the text, we have p* = Pw + m log '" kt 2 -3.23

0.01 0.01


+ 0.87s ,


p* = 3,118 + (90)

[log (0.06)

0.014 (3) (5,922) (0.6) (9.32 X 10-5) (0.04) ], ,0.013 ~ 0.01 m'=0.02904


+ (0.87) (-3.6)

p* = 3,548 psig. The pressure drops across the skin at rates ql and q2,respectively, are: dP(skin) = 0.87 (m) (s),

~ 0.011 -i ~ ~ 0.010

RESULTS kgh =140md-ft
k g =35md .
= -4.7


= 0.87 (90) (-3.6),
= -282 psig, dp(skin) = 0.87 (q2/ql) (m) (s), = 0.87 (0.43) (90) (-3.6), = -121 psig.

0.00 0.007 / 1 0.006 0 I b =0.00625 0.1 ~ i-I . 0.2

0.3 og n J-I
(t -t. )


The minus sign indicates that, because of an enlarged well radius, the pressure drop near the well is less than normal.

(~~ ) qn

Multi-Point Open-Flow Potential Test In this casethe well is a gas producer in the MorrowChester sandstone in the Anadarko basin of Oklahoma. The data were obtained on a four-point OFPT run upon completion of the well. General data pertinent to the test are as follows: rw = 0.23 ft, 4>=0.16, S - 0 20 to-., h = 40 ft,

Fig. 6.12 Calculation of k.h and s from OFPT data, Anadarko Basin well. kgh = (~8,958) (0.017) (8.28X 10-8), 0.02904

kgh = 140 md-ft, kg = 3.5 md.

From Eq. 6.,14
hi k g 2+ 3.23 , s = 1.151 [-; -log", m 't'p.gCVW
s = 1.151[ 0.00625







Ct = 6.89 X 10-4 psi-l, Bg = 8.28 X 10-3 cu ft/cu ft, .s gas gravIty = 0.7. T he total vanation m pressure dunng the test was 82 psi. Accordingly, the IJ.gBg product was evaluated at 1,650 psia, the mean pressure. The pressure and production rate data are given in Table E-l, and the I ul ti th th d necessary ca c a ons to carry out e me 0 proposed in Section 6.5 are given in Tables E-l and E-2. From the plot (~eeFig. 6.12) we have m'=0.02904, hi = 0.00625. Thus, from Eq. 6.13.

3.5 log (0.16) (0.017) (6.89 X 10-4) (0.052) + 3.23 ] , = -4.7 .

TABLE E-1~PRESSURE AND PRODUCTION FORGAS WELLANDCALCULATION ORDINATE OF RATE DATA ' IN FIG. 6.12 t Lengthof Elapsed Flowat Flow Assoc. q Prod. Time Rate Rate p.. (hours) (hours) (Mcf/D) ~~~ -0 1691 1.25 1.25 1048 1682 2.25 1.0 2101 1667 3.25 1.0 4167 1637 4.25 1.0 5116 1609


kgh = 28,958IJ.gBg m'

Time ~ -0 t, t, t, t.

PI -p../. q. 0.00859 0.01142 0.01295 0.01603

40383 0. (q.51188 0.25270 0.0 n=2 2. ~ (q 1.49885 n=3 0.) n=1 1=1 i=2 1=3 1=4 .20481 0. (Mcf/D) 1048 ql-q.09691 -0 --0 ---0 n=2 0.t.0 ---1. = 0 The four numbersin the last columnof Table E-2 are the summations n= 1.0 n=4 4.25 3. 6.47712 0.30103 ~cf/D) 1048 0 2101 4167 5116 q.30103) + 0. ~ .49580 ---0..25150 n=4 0..0 n=l 0. Summation=0.25270 (0.0 --1..-. 0.25 n=3 3.12 the four numbersin the last columnof Table E-2 are plotted vs the four numbersin the last columnof Table E-l.18550 0...-q.0 n=2 0.the summationfor n=3 is obtained from the values in the columns for n=3 as follows.62839 0.25 -1.For example.=1 .25150(0.q. n=3 and n=4.20582 0. 6.35218 n=3 0. refor spectively.50123 --0.34849 ..-t.25 2. n=2.51188)+0.- log(t.q.20485 . In Fig.=.12 t.149 TABLE E-2-CALCULATION OF ABSCISSA FOR FIG..-!!. log(t.09691 ) 1053 2066 949 -0.) q.17568 0.=O 1..L 1.0 2. -t.)/q.30103 n=4 0.49580 (0) = 020481 .-. -tl-.

on It: . we calculate dimensionlessflowing time for a 40-acre pattern flood (injection area A of 20 acres): 0. 8. .::"" " CALCULATED AVERAGE PRESSURE co --" a.6 ip.'11' /0' . " ~-+-"-9" 4.. we find ip.2. Liquid-Filled Determining p for Fig. = 7.000264 (21. from FIg. " -20 .6 300 0 0 0 .3-The Since 70. . " "- w w It: Q. cpp.8~ 40. 8.cA 0. 6t.6) 7 X 10.* and. 8.200) From Fig. Using this k and other data given in this example. hr 10 100 P = -322 + 447 = 125 psig.303. This resu t and 0ther resuts In A ppendix F are liInlted 1 1 to slide-rule accuracy.(871./kh) = 7. .100 = 393. ~4.91 (m/2.3 Examplepressure fall-off curve.Appendix F Example Calculations for Injection Well Analysis Example lA: Pressure Fall-Off Analysis..303) .3.91 (130/2. obtain out in the of Appendix F. I 0 20 10 "'" ~~ . " psig j'.000264 kt = 0.1../kh = m/2. obtaining p . -30 " ". : p*=-322 -40 10 10 10 t+6t 6t I 1 Fig. Example This is carried k from Part Islope of the fall-off curve. then p -p* Case.Unit Mobility Ratio first step is to - = 7. -10 (/) :J (/) " " .303).16 (0. .0'0. 8. = 447 psi.:" . (p-p*)/(70.91.

20.20 (3 X 10-6) + 0.BID-pSI.80 (3 X 10-6) + 4. ] ~Pskln= (130) X 0. Calculation of Injectivity Index (BID-psi) and Flow Efficiency: I(actual)= ~P. kw: kh = J~~-~h i 49 1.i (bbl) 1.8) X 10-6) (18.87 (-3. k is permeability to water.4) psi/cycle d = kw.16 0.0 X 10-6. = 7. s. k cf> po c 21. + + = 0.--m k = (1. k = ~ it BID d-f ' t. Calculation of Skin Effect. we have C = Ct = SoCo SwCw Ct.6) X (1.5 Cum.426 .APPENDIX F 151 Example 1: Pressure Fall-Off Analysis. 1964 Producing Formation Sandstone Hole Size (inches) 8. II.426) -(-421) 1 73 = -:.23J. Inj.151 [ (525)(130) -(273) (21.3) Test Data: Test Date October 30.1) + 3. .8 0.070) = 21 8 (49) ~m 0.0 (144) = -~psi (well had been fractured). po B m kh = 162.6 7.06. Life t (hr) = 24 W i/i Company Shell Lease Zipper Well No.6) (7.73) III.73 Note: Assuming So = 0. Sg = 0 in the swept zone.16) (0.426 Effective Prod.426 B/D -(125) ---=-3 56B/D -pSI. ~Pskln (psi): s = 1.0 X 10-6 md cp psi-I -log 'w PI hr Pw m 4.426) -(525) (actual) 1(Ideal)= (400) (1. 8. .87 s. .0 X 10-6psi-I.kln i i -1(ldeal) Pw -P -421 psi 1.000 Stabilized Daily Inj.151 [~~~-IOg(k) ~Pskln= m X 0..0) = 1 070 (130) -!.. .6 1.6 X (1. s = 1. 2. Flow Efficiency = I(actual) = ~= 1(ldeal) 1. Wi (bbl) 2. Calculation of kh (md-it) and k (md).25/12 273 525 130 it psig psig psi/cycle + 3.4 Field Bent State Illinois 40. . and PressureLoss Due to Skin.i (Pw -p) -~P. . Unit Mobility Ratio (Based on Fig.. Liquid-Filled Case.100 I.380.kln 'iJ 125 Pw 525 = psig psig 1 -(1. G.426) X (0.0 130 cp (Fig.23 = =~ (0.

8 .366)2(0. M -1 -In 2 (-+1 V 0 V. we have ~= V. The ratio k". Fig. and Sor = 0. 1 y4 -. 8. re r". d an (0./cc.007~8(P".020(0.9 . = 1. ~'o = 1 ft .8 Pressure fall-off curve. </> 0.28 times as large as the value obtained for the single-fluid case. S".020) (347) . ¥ Then. IS d ea d ~ ~ L oil.32. S9 = = 0.7 and reading F from Fig.o f or t h .-~.Bl = 2.! . h = 45 ft. sInce Pt = 0 . Therefore. C 2 = O. $ + In ~ = 0. 347 Fig.23 .5 = 511 md-ft. 8. = 0. 0.o ) -In-. 8. CLOSED-IN HOURS TIME.176. M = 4 and y = 1 C1(I-C3) fJ=2(I-C1-C2)= . so we will apply the case where the wellhead pressurefalls to zero shortly after closing-in.3(12) = 4.00708(566) -1./ko is obtained by measuring core permeability to water at the saturation in the water bank and core permeability to oil at the saturation in the oil bank.020 B/D.. T herefore.9.- . p = I gm.097(5.o So -Sor= S9 -S9r 3 and M =~= ko p.".00708(p".303' (log 347 -log 122)/20 = 0. . . . (6. 30 :: a. -66 1 = 0.Blb1 pi -0. -Pe) k". 8.2(220) 347 = 1.020(0.0522) (1. = 0. ~ k". I 100 $= 0. Further. According to Eq.p. Therefore. p". p.615).(estimated on basis of sand removed dunng swabbmg).152 PRESSURE BUilDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WEllS Example 2: Pressure Fall-Off Analysis Prior to Reservoir Fillup. = 05 600 50 40 . Pt = 0 (zero wellhead injection pressure).937) 2(0. we find b1 = 347 psi and. According to Eq. We have the following data on this well: i = 1. C3 = C1.020(0.303 log (82/1) = -2. 8.0386(0./kh -0. The value of Pewas known for this well from a previous lengthy shut-in period.". bl '. smce Co ~ c. 8.170 md-ft.12.4.0386.9..0188. 8. dt = 6.56.. The skin effect is found from Eq. 20 ' This value of k.8. .4 at 88F and 8 percent NaCl). we obtain .937)2 .5.18. .2. See Fig.11. Stir = 0.0628. The wellhead injection pressure was zero.2F . ~ . 8.0522 hours-I. 8.9 cp (from Fig./ko = 0. Unit Mobility Ratio kh = !!!:. G. Example 3: Pressure Fall-Off Analysis. f(fJ) = 176. This value (32 psi) was used in plotting Fig.(1 -C1 -C2) b1 (1 -C3)2 . re = _I Wi(_5. 0.0386 (~) 47 = 0.12) (45) = 82 ft.ch is 2.6.961) (0.0538 ~t2 .8 shows an example pressure fall-off curve. 1 rD ==0 ~/~+ 1 1 V".366 in.(0.9).-Pe) r. $ = 2.o lp. f rom Eq. We have for the case where the pressure drops to zero shortly f I 5b a ter c osmg m. using Eq.3) (0. since no tubing in this well).h . = 598 psi.615) = 1 . 0.9). 17r</>(S9 -Stlr)h £f 6. Non-Unit Mobility Ratio From the information given for the preceding example..3.961)=0. C1 = 0.h = ~ .23 -2. 8. (casing diameter.f(fJ) = 1. 0 l".8. From Fig.0538 -1 = 0.. So = 0.097 bbl. 8.9)/511 = 2. From Fig.3. Wi = 6. for /10= 12 and for k".5.

Use of the pro.0XI0-6psi-1 .020(0.b An example two-rate mjection test IS shown m FIg. the plot is linear for values of p < 4. Thus one might have estimated the average pressure as some 600-psi higher at the shorter time.nj.9) 2 -ln~ 1 ' B/D.563 hours-!.3 It 00 a 00 00 a 000 0 0000 OOOOOOOG-E).APPENDIX F 153 = 0. too small a value for kh.000 DATA . 8. 8.ect~onTes~ .6777 psig 4> =0. a 000 G-'O~"G 6-e"$oE)'"9'9 So&.41 . Note that the curves bend down at large time for greater assumedvalues of p. r ~ 10- 1 ~ ~ N -a . Further note that an injection time of 48 hours after the rate change was required to obtain this value of static pressure.'1.+ 00..10 -2.per mobility ratio would lead to a proper recommendation.-=!ln4 1.244 h =31 11 rw = 0. as shown. By trial and error as shown on the plot. In preparation for the test the well was stabilized at an injection rate of 2. = -1.- -- P=4000psig ---9- -50 --~ P=4200psig 1000 4 A t: HOURS Fig. . This value of s is less negative (indicating a smaller effective wellbore radius) than the value obtained in the single-fluid case.39.600 psig. as noted above. From the solid line on this figure we find = 740 psig (intercept).200 psig. the engineer may incorrectly decide that there is little possibility of injectivity improvement by well stimulation. This is the result one finds when the water mobility is greater than the oil mobility (M> 1). By obtaining too large an effective wellbore radius from use or the single-fluid case.. To obtain the transient pressure data the rate was reduced to 742 B/D..000-ft well. At 32 hours injection time. 8. Example 4: Two-Rate I. Pw . The average pressure is chosen as the highest value for which the plot in Fig.08 -4. 8. and fJ (absolute value of slope) as fJ = (log 740-log 460)/50=0.00708(566) 1..12 is linear at large time.~ ~ il=2563B/D i2=742 LL rW =037 . Data pertinent to the analysis of this test are shown in Fig. 00 00 00 0 &\9-o-E)-e-g. Thus. 10.00413 = 5.12 for a 10.e-&e-o-e-ee-e-oP=3400psig Co :!:. the average pressure in the region around the well was found to be 3.12Two-rate injectiontest.12.'. use of the single-fluid case has given too large a value for effective wellbore radius and.170_!!:. 1000 '---' I 00 a a a a a a Ct=7. 00000 a a 00 A 00 000000 e OOOOOOO~ 00000 -e-P=3600psig 000 000 a 00 0000 00 a Oc-e-e -e-&~-e-E) --e 9-G-e: p=3800psig -9--. BID Cp .

8. These values agree quite well with those determined by other methods for wells in this reservoir.154 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS To determine the formation permeability.17 to find the skin factor.000664 (5. ( ) ( 2. = 165md-ft.0XI0-6) 0.600 740.32 md.36. . we use Eq.2 (2.37.5~~~742) 0.37 (7.'l-'zp.777-3.. 8.32) 4.1511og = 181. ) ' -1. We use Eq.563-742 ) -1.13 of the text.crw 1812 ( .283 (~ b ) . = 1. -b . (~4 ) 0.283 6. k = 5.000664 k 2' fJcf>p.151 2.13XI0-s (0.32' of= -4.563 log 0.244) 0. kh- of-1.

20 (1946) 165. G. AIME 100 80 60 ~ In In In 40 0 ICY n. O~ oln ~4 4 10 8 6 4 ~O "Z In" In~ " 0-'" ~ IL I ~ 2 BL 0'" >o-~ iii ~ o~ ~ In 4".~ -". Trans..2 .10 IS CRUOE 20 OIL 25 GRAVITY 30 'API 35 AT 60 40 ~ ANO 45 30 55 PRESSURE 60 65 ATMOSPHERIC Fig. From Chewand Connally. G.- ~ . v ~ ~ .2 Viscosityof gas-saturated crude oils... (1959) .4 02 I 0.l Viscosityof gas-free crude oil at oilfield temperatures.'" " ~ 4 >' .- I 08 06 04 "". o::~ z- ~ ~ 00.. tOo... . 10 8 U : 4 20 10 8 " . """ 0. >'" ~ -02 ~ .Appendix G Charts and Correlationsfor Use in Pressure Buildup and Flow Test Analysis 10POO 8000 6000 4000 '" 2000 ~ 1000 ~ 800 . CENTIPOISES AND ATMOSPHERIC 40 60 eo 100 TEMPERATURE PRESSURE) Fig.8 I 2 VISCOSITY (AT RESERVOIR 20 OF DEAD OIL.. Trans.. ~ )- RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE ~ 6 8 '" .2 m 08 n6 0. 216.6 . From Beal.. AIME 23.4 os 0..: 600 z ~ 0 400 200 -' i ~ .. 94.. 01 0.

5..AIME (1954) 201.I ~ 0 I I ~/ -' I 0 ~I I I I / 1/ 0 .:: ~ >I0 3.5 I / / I I I / / I I I / / ~91 2.'" ---/ --'5 / kI II I 1/ I 1 I / I "I.156 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS 6...1 K! -QO I / ""'I I !/ - 11)/ / ~I / / / cv ./ / !J !/ / I I ('II I 1 u:.1 1 1 / I I / 1/ 1 1 1 1 II I -~ '5 / / I / II I / / 4. Kobayashi and Burrows.~ L ~ ~~ / -'" :r 0'0 -~ 1. / f 1 1 I 1/ 1/ --: 50 . G.5 4.~ -~ -Q.3.///" ~ ///v""..0 ~ ~ ~ ~~I g 1 .~I " 15 .3A Viscosityratio.5 --1-.J8 5.5 / .0 0 <n > / -- / / 2. .0 ~ ' 1 1 1 I I.0.6.0 2 3 ""'" ~ -'" ~ .9 ~ -6 7 89100 20.2.8. Trans. 264.:/ / 1 I // -..0 Note: obtain ~l from Figure G. From Carr.4 . Pr Fig. I 1/ / 7 ~I ~I '\I. 3.:) 1 11.:/ II / I 1(0 I"" . -11.7. ."" 1.0 PSEUDOREDUCED PRESSURE.1 .1/ I / II / / V / / / / / V "7 r1.

I .. I' ~ .CD q q q q 3SI0dl.'( " I' . d 0 .I r . 0 e ~ c ~ ~ =. (. 'I .. :I .J ' 0 0 .' "I ' ~ 0 0 .. : . .. r: I: I.. I (.~ . ~! .' .tI I I . ' '. I I I .'.- --.I -.{ 1: I .::PI NOI.I 'I .J-' W) 8 0 0 q d 00300Y 1I I --I~. 0 t\I ... ~ .. t---V! 'A % a -I f t -' ' --o-!. 1-.I ~ ~ ' . ~ ." " I' I I I ! .1 .d')-'.1 i I .)5Ih'O.) -I W)i . -.1.'I:'.1' -r--:/--.I.\~ W1~ I 1'0" A. 'I' -~Ji : -1-' I -fI -: . -1 0 0 0 . . : ' .) * .(. -. ~ ~ !! 0300~ -0 01 ~ 8.).. W) ~ 01 ~-- ~ 0 01 0 2(. '~ '.-' : : i " '. ~ ft .l =ro:~ 0 -. . ':r. r- -I 'I : it.-i:. I' !I'11 '..I '~ . Ii/.: . '" -0 I I! ~ l -I~ no m _r~.I I -I !..'.J --~ _0 2 -. I" .J U e 0 ~ ~ \ \ . " 0 -' " 1'. :::::: -~ = -.l03YYOO J ~ '-' ..I ~ r-.APPENDIX G 157 ~ o.lOiYYOO 1 V) -~ . .: I ~- i ~ 0 0 -.) I ~ :a rI) (U '1: 0 ~ 051h q 01 ~ --f=i .-.'/ I .. : I "" .10iYYOO --I' .I . O. ~ -~ -' --'I W) 01 I 0 m :- . I I ___. .jI_lf-l-_I_I_IIIII_IIII_--=1- Ji-t-T1-1-1-ritTitTt..L "L . . " . .. !/:-. at. I " -i-- " ." = ~ .~ : t.1.dO':" -05Ih' O.- . . ..J > C ~ ~ (I) <X G~ -+"'_"'~ ' I .trJ ~ § ~ -I < .. 1 CD V) .~ > '" y'" . -. Q ~ <X ..-d .J -1-'.. .lISOaSI~ -~ 8 8 8 g. i- L // T7-. 01 --I g -J--.l 8: § NOI. >':: .-0 ~- I' II-. 'I oo! /!' .I' 1. ~ ~ .~ -~ r 0 Iff "- ::f 0 0 ~ .-2z W) rj Z .. ~L .-II I' .. oj -C >- g ~ :/ r ~: O:/'"' ---~ ae- ~ ~ ~ 0 .' . !.-'~ 0 0 ! H + -+ 'I -0 -1- ' I .y. W)2' I .I.In 0 13 ~ ~ ~ co 0 '.J -O!. 1"1 ---u Q" . -~ I f 'r 'I .If) : OiOOY I' NOI. ."I. .I' -~ . W) .I 'J l' ... W) -r ~ -~ L 0 I ..0 . LLIT-. . : .N3~c q O§. .

~ 0. From Chesnut.* ERROR f 1.14 ~ IJ.02 1. *T .6 / VISCOSITY (IJ.2 PRESSURE FOR WATER CORRECTION VS.12 1.1 '" 60 BO 100 120 140 160 IBO 200 220 240 260 2BO 300 320 340 360 3BO 400 0 40 T.t. f I I.9 > O.1. G.3 0.1 PRESU~EO APPLICABLE TO BRINES .0 0in 0 AT ELEVATEO = IJ.1 2 ESTI~ATEO I TE~P 1. ~ :.oF 'ACTOR (f ) BUT u 1. of Fig. 120°-212° 212°-400° 1% ~% 10% ~% ~% ~% I.T E~PERI~ENTALLY PRESSURE *.4 0. ~ 0 A. T.4 Water viscositiesfor various salinitiesand temperatures..4 1.: ~ 1. .7 0. O.2 0.o. 1.10 40°-120° I.*) AT SATURATION AT I AT~ PRESSURE BELOW 212° I PRESSURE OF WATER ABOVE 212°.p.- .00 0 T.fp.B 0.unpublished. Shell Development Co.3 '" 1.T u on 0. .158 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS 2.NOT CONFIR~EO VISCOSITY IJ.

_0. w8. 309. 0 0 w 7 6 0 ~7 ~ ow --&&.f .z ~ a: a.LL oc~C ~~ oJ-lAIN &&.APPENDIX G --- C. -c cOm Z a: 0 0 I 4 ~ I- w -~-~ > 3 -~o&&. .159 10 9 >- ~ .~ .. Trans. Fig.5 Effective formation (rock) compressibility. G.c..Q..AIME (1953)198. From Hall.SANDSTONE " 00 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 POROSITY. In S W 9 ~ ~ C -- i: c - a. percent .J0 LIMESTONE W .. W LL 0 2 I u U .J m -~ 8 ~ w . -.1-1 - ..

9 N N 0. s 8~ 0.From Standingand Katz. ro .7 I.9 Pseudoreduced Pressure Fig. ~ LJ.160 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS Pseudoreduced 1.1 I . . I.1 0 I 2 3 T P RA R 4 Pressure S 8 7 8U I.6 .8 U ro ". 140. 0. G. ....- .0 0 .8 L 0 '1.4 ro .S C 0 0.. Trans. -.2 0. -I-J o.7 U LJ.-> > Q) 0..L -I-J 0. 0 C ro ~ -I-J 1.-.7 ~ 10 II 12 13 . 1.30 0 Q) .3 .6 Deviation factors for natural gases. 0 ~ -I-J .- ..AIME (1942) 146.2 ..

. .4 c.2 L 0 "'C ~ a...-0.6 T E M PER AT U R E .> (.- 0.-PSEUDOREDUCED r-f 0. l~~.) ~ "'C a. p -/ r Fig. Cr= c.7 ~ ..> 0. I'O 9 .a (/) (/) 0.) 0.> (/) Q.5 a.355. .1 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Pseudoreduced Pressure. From Trube.> L 0..7A Reducedcompressibilityfor gases.AIME (1957)210. +' .P.8 0. G. Trans..~ 0 s APPENDIX G C -L~ / 161 J -(.. E 0 (.Pc..3 "'C a.

p 1 r Fig.162 PRESSURE BUILDUP AND FLOW TESTS IN WELLS 0.. G..) 0.. Cr = c. .09 0.P. 0. 355.AI ME (1957) 210...M ~ .10 0.7B Reducedcompressibilityfor gases(low range).08 L0 0.07 +' .03 ""C Q) 0 ::) Q02 ""C Q) L0 ""C ::) Q) cn a- QOI '3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 Pseudoreduced Pressure. From Trube. Trans.06 Q05 .04 cn Q) L0- E 0 (.c cn 0.

1 N . ~ ~ . 0.. . 0.. IQ. ~ 0 ~ ~ t-' '+. . N -00 ~ 0. ci . 0 N 0 0 - ci 0. N N -:" -il ' 0 0 -~ W I 0 ci 0 0 q . 0.. ci 0.. ci . 0.APPENDIX G 163 -~ IQ. ~ 1 -. 0. . 0.. ci . 0. Q. .. 0.' =' ..++ -IH )( 0 OJ:: U d d 0 . 0.