You are on page 1of 9

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 62916
The Green Element Method for Numerical Well Test Analysis
Rosalind A. Archer, SPE, Texas A&M University, and Roland N. Horne, SPE, Stanford University

Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.


This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition held in Dallas, U.S.A. 1-4 October, 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the authors. Contents
of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum
Engineers and are subject to correction by the authors. The material, as presented
does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission
to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where
and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A. Telex, 163245

Abstract
To use pressure transient test data in computerised methods for integrated reservoir charcterisation numerical simulations of the well tests are typically required. Numerical
artifacts occurring in the simulation must be avoided as
much as possible so that they do not adversely affect the
reservoir characterisation.
This work explores the advantages of a hybrid boundary element method known as the Green element method for
modeling pressure transient tests. Boundary element methods are a natural choice for the problem because they are
based on Greens functions, which are an established part of
well test analysis. The classical boundary element method
is limited to single phase flow in homogeneous media. This
works presents formulations which give computationally efficient means to handle heterogeneity. The accuracy of the
scheme is further enhanced by incorporating singularity programming.
Comparisons of the proposed Green element approach to
standard finite difference simulation show that both methods are able to model the pressure change in the well over
time. When pressure derivative is considered however the
finite difference method produces very poor results which
would give misleading interpretations. The Green element
method in conjunction with singularity programming reproduces the derivative curve very accurately.

Introduction
The boundary element method (BEM) was applied by Numbere and Tiab1 to generate steady-state streamlines in sectionally homogenous two-dimensional reservoirs. Masukawa
and Horne2 considered immiscible displacement problems
using BEM. Kikani and Horne3,4 applied BEM to generate
pressure transients in arbitrarily shaped homogeneous reservoirs. The problem of flow in heterogeneous reservoirs was
addressed by Sato and Horne5,6 who developed a perturbation based approach. This approach became increasingly
computationally intensive as the reservoir hetereogeneity
became more pronounced.
The standard form of BEM is not applicable to flow
in heterogeneous media so hybrid boundary element based
schemes were considered. This study focused on the application of the Green Element method (GEM). Taigbenu7,8
first presented GEM in 1990 and described it as an
element-by-element implementation of the boundary element method. Taigbenu considered the Laplace, diffusion, nonlinear Boussinesq and convection-diffusion equations. Taigbenu and Onyejekwe applied GEM to groundwater flow in the unsaturated zone9 .
Archer and Horne10 discussed the application of the
GEM and the Dual Reciprocity Boundary Element Method
to one-dimensional pressure diffusion and tracer flow in heterogeneous media. Archer and Horne11 and Archer12 extended the analysis to two dimensions. Singularity programming was introduced to study well tests. This work compares the performance of the proposed GEM/singularity
programming approach to finite difference simulation of well
tests.
Theory
Treatment of Heterogeneity To use the classical boundary element method the differential equation being considered must include a 2 operator. The single-phase flow
equation:
p
(1)
(kp) = ct
t
is therefore not in a form suitable for solution by a boundary
element method.

THE GREEN ELEMENT METHOD FOR NUMERICAL WELL TEST ANALYSIS

Taigbenu and Onyejekwe9 demonstrated how the singlephase flow equation could be solved by rewriting it as:
2 p = lnk p +

ct p
k t

(2)

The singular solution used in this work is based on the


pressure response of a well flowing at a given rate in an
infinite homogeneous reservoir with uniform permeability,
k0 (Dake14 ):


ct r2
q
Ei
(4)
ps = pi +
4k0 h
4k0 t

(5)

Out of regard for numerical stability dimensionless variables were used in the implementation of the singularity
programming. The choice of dimensionless variables in this
work follows that of Sato13 :
pD

pi p
=
pi

x
xD =
A
y
yD =
A
q
qD =
4k0 hpi
k0 t
tD =
ct A

The singular part of the pressure solution given in Equation


(4) satisfies:
ps
2 psD = D
(13)
tD
Subtracting Equation (13) from (12) gives:

Incorporation of Singularity Programming Masukawa and Horne2 and Sato13 applied singularity programming
in conjunction with boundary element methods to compute
pressure transients. Unlike the current study Satos solution
was performed in Laplace space. Singularity programming
decomposes the solution into singular and nonsingular components:
s
(3)
pD = pns
D + pD

where Ei(x) is the exponential integral:


Z s
e
ds
Ei(x) =
x s

SPE 62916

2 pD 2 psD =

(8)
(9)
(10)

(14)

s
Noting that pD = pns
D + pD Equation (14) can be simplifed
to:
 s

pD
ko
k0 pns
2 ns
s
D
1
+
lnk (pns
pD =
D + pD )
k tD
k
tD
(15)
The right hand side of Equation (15) includes both the
singular and nonsingular solutions. This does not present a
problem however since the singular solution is known and
can be incorporated easily into the boundary element solution.

Green Element Method To transform Equation (15)


into an integral equation suitable for solution with GEM
the right hand side terms, which do not depend on time or
space derivatives of pns
D , are collected together:
2 pns
D =


where
f=

(6)
(7)

ko pD
ps
D lnk pD
k tD
tD

k0 pns
D
lnk (pns
D)+f
k tD

ko
1
k

psD
lnk (psD )
tD

(16)

(17)

Equation (16) can be cast as an integral equation in the


usual manner by multiplying it by the Greens function G
and integrating over the domain:
Z
Z
pns (r)
i ns
pD (ri ) + K1 (r, ri )pns
d
(r)d

K2 (r, ri ) D
D
2
n



ZZ
k0 pns
D
G
lnk pns
+
f
d
(18)
=
D
k tD

Using this choice of variables the singular solution is:




2
rD
s
(11)
pD = qD Ei
4tD

where

To apply singularity programming in a heterogeneous


reservoir careful consideration must be made of the nonsingular solution. The GEM solution scheme will be used to
solve for the nonsingular solution. To ascertain what differential equation must be solved for the nonsingular solution
consider the equations that govern the pressure and the singular part of the pressure. The pressure satisfies:

The integrals in Equation (18) are then written as summations over the elements:

pD

k0 pD
=
lnk pD
k tD

(12)

G = K1 = ln(r ri )
K2 =

G(r, ri )
n

M Z
X
i ns
pD (ri ) +
K1 (r, ri )pns
D (r)d
2
e
e=1

M Z
X
e=1

K2 (r, ri )

pns
D (r)
d
n

(19)
(20)

SPE 62916

ROSALIND A. ARCHER and ROLAND N. HORNE




M ZZ
X
e=1

k0 pns
D
lnk pns
D +f
k tD


d

(21)

Equation (21) can be written in a more compact form in


terms of the element matrices R, L, U , V and T :

M 
X
k0 p
Vijl lnkj pl + Tij fj = 0
Rij pj + Lij qj Uijl
kj tD
e=1
(22)
Note that in Equation (22) the subscript and superscript
have been dropped from pns
D for clarity.
Z
G(r, ri )
e
Nj d ij i
=
(23)
Rij
n
e
Z
G(r, ri )Nj d
(24)
Leij =
e

ZZ
Uijl =

e
=
Vijl

ZZ
e

G(r, ri )

G(r, ri )Nj Nl d


Nj Nl
Nj Nl
+
d
x x
y y

(25)

G(r, ri )Nj d

(27)

Equation(22) was solved using a fully implicit treatment i.e:


M 
X
pm
k0 pm+1
l
l
+ Lij qjm+1 Uijl
Rij pm+1
j
k
t
j
e=1


+ Tij fjm+1 = 0
Vijl lnkj pm+1
l

Example 2: Reservoir with Closed Boundaries


The value of using singularity programming in combination
with the Green Element Method can be demonstrated by
comparing well tests simulated using this technique to well
tests simulated using a commercial finite difference simulator. The first example is a well test in a closed square
reservoir. The well is located at the center of the reservoir.
The simulator uses a standard Peaceman15 well index. The
reservoir properties are given in Table 1. The reservoir dimensions are 3000ft by 3000ft.
The GEM solution used a mesh of 21 by 21 nodes and
the simulation used a grid of 21 by 21 cells. No local grid
refinement was used in the finite difference simulation. The
reservoir is homogeneous, so an analytical solution could be
generated for this problem. The finite difference simulation
is compared to this analytical solution in Figure 2. The
GEM simulation is shown in Figure 3.
The well test response calculated using finite difference
simulation appears to show some wellbore storage effects,
however these are artifacts of the finite difference computation approach. In the late part of the well test the data
simulated using finite difference simulation did not sense the
closed boundary until much later than it should have.

(26)

ZZ
Tij =

(28)

Results
Example 1: Comparison to an Analytical Solution
Example 1: Well Test in a Closed Reservoir To
test the combination of singularity programming and GEM
a pressure transient was computed and compared to a transient generated analytically. The reservoir properties are
given in Table 1. The reservoir dimensions are 2500ft by
3000ft.
The grid used for the GEM solution of the nonsingular
component of the problem was a 10 by 10 mesh. The well
was located in the center of the reservoir. Constant pressure
boundaries were imposed on all sides. The resulting drawdowns are compared to the analytical solution in Figure 1.
The agreement between the GEM and analytical solutions
is excellent.
Examples 2 and 3: Comparison to Finite Difference
Solutions

Example 3: Gridding Study The performance of the


finite difference method in reproducing the pressure derivative curve was investigated further by running more finite
difference simulations. To assess the role of gridding the
simulation was repeated with both uniform and nonuniform
grids. The grid parameters used are shown in Table 2. For
the nonuniform cases the geometric factor is the ratio between adjacent grid cell sizes i.e. in the last case the cell
containing the well is 5ft by 5ft and the adjacent cells are
6.5ft by 6.5ft. The grid used for the first nonuniform case
is shown in Figure 4.
The time stepping scheme was the same for all the models, both GEM and finite difference. The finite difference
solution was calculated and reported in the following manner:
- 10 steps of 0.0001 days
- 10 steps of 0.001 days
- 10 steps of 0.01 days
- 20 steps of 0.1 days
- all subsequent time steps one day
The finite difference simulator was able to compute the
solution at intermediate times also if its time step control
algorithm required it.
The pressure and pressure derivative curves computed
using the uniform and nonuniform grids are shown in Figures 5 to 10. The derivative curves for all the uniformly gridded cases show that the effect of the boundary on the derivative curve is resolved better as the grid is refined. However
even when the grid is refined to 101 by 101 cells the boundary location is still sensed incorrectly. All the uniformly
gridded cases exhibit a period of infinite-acting radial flow

THE GREEN ELEMENT METHOD FOR NUMERICAL WELL TEST ANALYSIS

before sensing the closed reservoir boundary. The nonuniformly gridded cases performed worse than the uniformly
gridded cases in their reproduction of the pressure derivative. The infinite-acting radial flow period did not appear.
Instead of remaining level during the time corresponding to
infinite-acting radial flow the derivative maintains a steady
downward slope.
The effects of the errors in the pressure derivative curve
in this suite of finite difference simulations were quantified
by treating each one as data in a well test analysis. The
interpretation was performed using a standard regression
procedure. The estimates for skin and permeability from
the regression are highly correlated so the skin was set to
zero in each case to ensure the treatment of the permeability
was consistent. The initial pressure was also fixed at its
true value of 2000psi. The wellbore storage coefficient was
set to zero. Regression was used to determine the reservoir
permeability and the location of the boundaries. The results
are shown in Table 3.
Recall that the true permeability is 150md and the true
boundary location is 1500ft. The uniformly gridded cases
all predict permeability values of 154-161md, which is due
to the regression trying to fit the early time derivative data
which appear to show wellbore storage. If the fit is performed manually ignoring this data the true permeability
of 150md is predicted.
Example 4: Reservoir with Constant Pressure
Boundaries A well test was simulated in a reservoir with
the properties given in Table 1. The well was located in
the center of the reservoir and constant pressure boundary
conditions were applied on all sides. Finite difference simulation was used to simulate the well test. The constant
presure boundary was simulated by putting injection wells
in every cell along the boundary. The resulting well test
response is shown in Figure 11. The effect of the constant
pressure boundary was not well matched on the derivative
curve. The same well test was simulated using GEM combined with singularity programming. The transient is shown
in Figure 12. This simulation captures the effect of the constant pressure boundary accurately also.
Examples 5 and 6: Well Test Simulation without
Singularity Programming Two wells tests were modeled
to study the performance of the GEM simulation scheme
without singularity programming. The set of reservoir properties given in Table 4 were common to both models. The
boundary conditions applied were constant pressure boundary conditions.
To assess how the strength of the singularity affects the
computed results two cases were considered. In the first case
(Example 5), k = 100md and qw = 100ST B/d and in the
second case (Example 6) k = 150md and qw = 50ST B/d.
The singularity in Example 5 is three times stronger than
in Example 6. The pressure and pressure derivative curves
computed when Example 5 and Example 6 were simulated

SPE 62916

using GEM without singularity programming are shown in


Figures 13 and 14. The analytical versions of these curves
are presented for comparison.
Figures 13 and 14 show that when singularity programming is not used the match to the pressure is not as precise
as when singularity is applied (compare to Example 4, Figure 12). The early time behavior of the derivative curve
is matched poorly. Figure 15 illustrates how this poorly
matched derivative curve could be interpreted if it were
treated as true data in a classical well test analysis. The
match was performed on the derivative, and gave rise to
the estimates shown in Table 5.
The values in Table 5 are clearly erroneous, they demonstrate the artificial wellbore storage effect that occurs in this
method as the well drains the grid block it is located in. Singularity programming is successful in avoiding this artifical
effect.
Conclusions
The simulated well test examples show that the combination of GEM and singularity programming can reproduce
pressure transients accurately in comparison to analytical
models. The proposed method was able to reproduce the
pressure derivative curve much more accurately than conventional finite difference simulation. The use of singularity programming was shown to be a key component of the
proposed method. When singularity programming was replaced by the use of a Peaceman15 well index the accuracy
of the method suffered significantly. The Peaceman well
index is not strictly appropriate for modeling pressure transient tests because it was derived for single-phase, steadystate, radial flow in a homogeneous reservoir. Sato13 showed
that singularity programming was a useful tool when applied in conjunction with the perturbation boundary element method. The well test modeled in Example 5 when
singularity programming was not used was also simulated
using finite difference simulation. Neither the GEM scheme
nor the finite difference scheme produced an accurate derivative match, however the GEM simulation accurately reproduced the effect of the reservoir boundaries on the derivative
curve.
Example 3 shows that the effect of a closed boundary on
the pressure derivative could not be reproduced accurately
by finite difference simulation. Using nonuniform gridding
exacerbated this problem and caused the infinite-acting radial flow period to be misrepresented in the pressure derivative curve. GEM in conjunction with singularity programming produced accurate matches to every pressure transient
considered without being hampered by numerical artifacts.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the SUPRI-D research Consortium on Innovation in Reservoir Testing for its financial
support.

SPE 62916

ROSALIND A. ARCHER and ROLAND N. HORNE

Nomenclature
c
compressibility, psi1
G Greens function
h
thickness, f t
k
permeability, md
L GEM element matrix
M total number of elements
r
distance (radial), f t
p
pressure, psi
q
flowrate, ST B/d
R GEM element matrix
T GEM element matrix
t
time, hours
U GEM element matrix
V GEM element matrix
x
distance, f t
y
distance, f t
Greek
, porosity
, viscosity, cp
Subscripts
D dimensionless
i
initial
o reference
Superscripts
ns nonsingular
s
singular
References
1. Numbere, D. T. and Tiab, D.: An Improved StreamlineGenerating Technique that uses the Boundary (Integral) Element Method, SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1988,
1061-68
2. Masukawa, J. and Horne, R. N.: Application of the
Boundary Integral Method to Immiscible Displacement Problems, SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1988, 1069-77
3. Kikani, J. and Horne, R. N.: Application of Boundary
Element Method to Reservoir Engineering Problems, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 1989, 229-241
4. Kikani, J. and Horne, R. N.: Pressure-Transient Analysis of Arbitrarily Shaped Reservoirs With the Boundary
Element Method, SPE Formation Evaluation, 1992, 53-60
5. Sato, K. and Horne, R. N.: Perturbation Boundary
Element Method for Heterogeneous Reservoirs: Part 1 Steady-State Flow Problems, SPE Formation Evaluation,
1993, 306-314
6. Sato, K. and Horne, R. N.: Perturbation Boundary Element Method for Heterogeneous Reservoirs: Part
2 - Transient Flow Problems, SPE Formation Evaluation,
1993, 315-322
7. Taigbenu, A. E.: A More Efficient Implementation of
the Boundary Element Theory, Proc. 5th International
Conference on Boundary Element Technology (BETECH
90), Newark, Delaware, 1990, 355-366

8. Taigbenu, A. E.: The Green Element Method, Kluwer


Academic Publishers, 1999
9. Taigbenu, A. E. and Onyejekwe, O. O.: Green Element
Simulations of the Transient Nonlinear Unsaturated Flow
Equation, Appl. Math. Modelling, 19, 1995, 675-684
10. Archer, R.: Computing Flow and Pressure Transients
in Heterogeneous Media Using Boundary Element Methods,
Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford U., 2000
11. Archer, R. and Horne, R. N.: Flow Simulation in Heterogeneous Reservoirs Using the Dual Reciprocity Boundary
Element Method and the Green Element Method, European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery VI,
September 8-11, 1998, Peebles, Scotland
12. Archer, R., Horne, R. N. and Onyejekwe, O. O.: Petroleum Reservoir Engineering Applications of the Dual Reciprocity Boundary Element Method and the Green Element
Method, 21st World Conference on the Boundary Element
Method, 25 - 27 August, 1999, Oxford University, England
13. Sato, K.: Accelerated Perturbation Boundary Element Model for Flow Problems in Heterogeneous Reservoirs,
Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford U., 1992
14. Dake, L. P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering,
Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1978
15. Peaceman, D. W.: Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numerical Reservoir Simulation, SPEJ, 253, 1978,
183-194

SI Metric Conversion Factors


E-03 =P a s
cp 1.0
E-01 =m
f t 3.048
md 9.869233 E-04 =m2
psi 6.894757 E+00 =kP a

Conversion factor is exact

Table 1: Examples 1 to 4 - Reservoir properties


k

pi
qw
ct
rw
h

150 md
0.3
1 cp
2000 psi
50 STB/d
10e-06 psi1
0.3 f t
50 f t

THE GREEN ELEMENT METHOD FOR NUMERICAL WELL TEST ANALYSIS

SPE 62916

102

Table 2: Example 3 - Gridding study


dx = dy, ft

11 by 11
21 by 21
41 by 41
101 by 101
37 by 37
45 by 45
35 by 35

272.72
142.85
73.17
29.70
10 to 223.83
5 to 189.68
5 to 215.73

Gridding
style
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Nonuniform
Nonuniform
Nonuniform

Geometric
Factor
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.2
1.2
1.3

psi

10

Number of cells

GEM, p
GEM, dp
Exact, p
Exact, dp
10-1

10-2
10-2

10-1

10

103

102

104

time, hours

Figure 1: Example 1 - GEM + singularity programming


Table 3: Example 3 - Well test interpretation of finite difference simulations

11 by 11
21 by 21
41 by 41
101 by 101
37 by 37
45 by 45
35 by 35

Gridding
Style
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Nonuniform
Nonuniform
Nonuniform

Permeability
Estimate, md
154
158
160
161
185
196
203

Boundary
Estimate, ft
2750
2380
2047
2024
3430
4010
4000

10

delta p, pressure derivative

Case

102

10-1

Finite Difference, p
Finite Difference, dp
Exact, p
Exact, dp

-2

10

10-3
10-3

10-1

10-2

Table 4: Examples 4 and 5 - Reservoir properties

10

10

aa
aa
aaaa b
aaaaaaa
aaa
aaa
aaa
b
aaa
aaaaaa
b
a a a a a a aa
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
bb
b
b b b b b b bbb bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

10-1

a
b
-2

10

Value
6.46 stb/psi
-7.62
48md

Confidence Interval
6.2e02 %
2.7 %
2.1e02%

103

102

Table 5: Example 5 - Regression matched parameters


Parameter
C
S
k

102

Figure 2: Example 2 - Finite difference simulation of well


test in closed reservoir

0.3
1cp
2000 psi
10e-06
0.3ft
50ft
3000ft
3000ft

delta p, pressure derivative

pi
ct
rw
h
Length
Width

Time, hours

True Value
0 STB/psi
0
50 md

10-3
10-3

10-2

10-1

10

GEM, p
GEM, dp
Exact, p
Exact, dp

102

103

Time, hours

Figure 3: Example 2 - GEM simulation of well test in a


closed reservoir

SPE 62916

ROSALIND A. ARCHER and ROLAND N. HORNE

102

delta p, pressure derivative

10

500 ft
Geometric factor = a/b

10-1

Finite Difference, p
Finite Difference, dp
Exact, p
Exact, dp

-2

10

Figure 4: Example 3 - Nonuniform grid


102
10-3
10-3

10-2

10-1

10

102

103

Time, hours

delta p, pressure derivative

10

Figure 7: Example 3 - Pressure derivative for uniform 101


by 101 grid case
1

10-1

Finite Difference, p
Finite Difference, dp
Exact, p
Exact, dp

10-2

10-3
10-3

102
10-2

10-1

10

102

103

Time, hours

Figure 5: Example 3 - Pressure derivative for uniform 11 by


11 grid case
delta p, pressure derivative

102

10

delta p, pressure derivative

10

10-1

Finite Difference, p
Finite Difference, dp
Exact, p
Exact, dp

10-2

10-1
10-3
10-3

Finite Difference, p
Finite Difference, dp
Exact, p
Exact, dp

-2

10

10-2

10-1

10

102

103

Time, hours

Figure 8: Example 3 - Pressure derivative for nonuniform


grid case 1
10-3
10-3

10-2

10-1

10

102

103

Time, hours

Figure 6: Example 3 - Pressure derivative for uniform 41 by


41 grid case

THE GREEN ELEMENT METHOD FOR NUMERICAL WELL TEST ANALYSIS

102

10

a a aaaaaaa

a a aaaaaaaa

a a aaaaaaaa

SPE 62916

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a aa
a a aaaa

10

delta p, pressure derivative

delta p, pressure derivative

10-1

Finite Difference, p
Finite Difference, dp
Exact, p
Exact, dp

-2

10

10-3
10-3

10-2

10-1

10

102

b
10-1

bb
bbb
b
b

bb
bb
b b

b
a
b

10-2

10-3
10-3

103

b b b bbbbbbbb bbb
bbbbbbb b bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb bb
bb bbbbbbbb

Finite Difference, p
Finite Difference, dp
Exact, p
Exact, dp

bb
1

10-1

10-2

Time, hours

10

103

102

Time, hours

Figure 9: Example 3 - Pressure derivative for nonuniform


grid case 2

Figure 11: Example 4 - Finite difference simulation of well


test in a reservoir with constant pressure boundaries

102

10

aaa
a a aaaa

aaa
a a aaaa

aa
a a aaaaa

a a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

delta p, pressure derivative

delta p, pressure derivative

10

10-1

b bbbbbbbb

b b bbbbbbb

10-1

a
b

Finite Difference, p
Finite Difference, dp
Exact, p
Exact, dp

10-2

b b bbbbbbb

GEM, p
GEM, dp
Exact, p
Exact, dp

b b
b

bb
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b

10-3
10-3

10-2

10-1

10

102

103

Time, hours

Figure 10: Example 3 - Pressure derivative for nonuniform


grid case 3

10-2
10-3

b
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
10-2

10-1

10

102

103

Time, hours

Figure 12: Example 4 - GEM simulation of well test in a


reservoir with constant pressure boundaries

SPE 62916

ROSALIND A. ARCHER and ROLAND N. HORNE

102

delta p, pressure derivative

10

10-1

GEM, p
GEM, dp
Exact, p
Exact, dp

-2

10

10-3
10-3

10-2

10-1

10

102

103

Time, hours

Figure 13: Example 5 - GEM simulation without singularity


programming

10

delta p, pressure derivative

10

10-1

GEM, p
GEM, dp
Regression Match, p
Regression Match, dp

10-2

delta p, pressure derivative

1
10-3
10-3

10-2

10-1

10

102

103

Time, hours

Figure 15: Example 6 - Artificial skin/storage effect

10-1

GEM, p
GEM, dp
Exact, p
Exact, dp

10-2

10-3
10-3

10-2

10-1

10

102

103

Time, hours

Figure 14: Example 6 - GEM simulation without singularity


programming - example two

You might also like