A plot of pws versus (Vt VKt) will produce a straight line that will

extrapolate to pt while a plot of Ap versus (V* VKt) will exhibit a straight

line of slope, m$u given by

(3-123)

(3-124)

Skin factor, s, is given by

(3-125)

3.7 Horizontal Well Response and Normalized

Pressure Derivative
Horizontal well tests are best interpreted using log-log representation of
the pressure-time data in conjunction with the derivative curve. This will
provide the best identification between the various flow regimes, which
improves the ability to correctly identify the flow regimes and also
maximizes the chances of obtaining a unique solution of the data. Figure
3-23 shows the type curves for infinite-conductivity horizontal wells.14 The
dash curves represent the pressure responses and solid curves represent the
pressure derivative group.
At early times, the pressure/pressure derivative solutions show that the
influence of dimensionless well length LD is negligible. As time increases,
these solutions diverge and ultimately merge with the appropriate PWD
curves after the onset of pseudo-steady-state flow. Thus, Figure 3-23 can
also be used to identify the appropriate semilog straight lines. Pressure
derivative can also be used to determine the time at which pseudo-steady-
stateflowbegins for bounded reservoirs. Once the slope of the Cartesian plot
f PWD versus t>A becomes 2?r, pseudo-steady-state begins. Many investi-
gators use the following equation to determine the beginning of the pseudo-
steady-state flow:

(3-126)
 Dimensionless pressure,/?WD
(normalized pressure)

Normalized
response
vs
PWD - 'D
Vertical End of initial radial
fracture
flow period ( I D < 1.25)
Vertical fracture TwD = IO"4, ^WD = 0.5
solution Infinite conductivity

Dimensionless time, tD

Figure 3-23. Horizontal weH response and normalized pressure derivative.14

3,8 Effects of Wellbore Storage

Wellbore storage effects can have serious consequences on the effective-
ness of a pressure transient test. In Ref. 1, it was shown that the first semilog
straight line associated with early-time radial flow almost always disappears
because of the effect of wellbore storage. Goode and Thambynayagam6
noted that the storage effect in a horizontal well lasts longer than that in a
vertical well in the same formation because of greater wellbore volume and
because anisotropy reduces the effective permeability, kz, for a horizontal
well.
First semilog straight line (early-time radial flow) commonly does not
appear due to wellbore storage because true wellbore damage, sm, and
horizontal permeability, kz, can only be estimated during that time.

3.9 Summary
This Chapter summarizes a discussion of horizontal wells in oil reservoirs.
Horizontal wells enhance the drainage area in a given time period while
in-high permeability oil reservoirs reduce near-wellbore turbulence and
enhance well deliverability. Horizontal wells have high potential in oil
reservoirs. Also, it includes the influence of turbulence and turbulence
identification, comparison of inflow performance responses in vertical and
horizontal oil wells, and time and transient pressure response analysis
equations related to each of the flow regimes to solve for specific reservoir
parameters using drawdown and buildup tests.
 References
1. Smith, R. V., Practical Natural Gas Engineering. PennWell Publishing
Co, Tulsa, OK, 1983.
2. Brown, K. E., The Technology of Artificial Methods. PennWell Publish-
ing Co, Tulsa, OK, 1984.
3. Earlougher, R. C, Jr., Advances in Well Test Analysis. Monograph Vol. 5
of the Henry L. Doherty Series in Society of Petroleum Engineers of
AIME, 1977.
4. Fetkovich, M. J., and Vienot, M. E., "Shape Factors, CA, Expressed as a
Skin, scA," J- Pet. Technol. (Feb. 1985), 321-322.
5. Goode, P. A., and Thambynayagam, R. K. M., "Pressure Drawdown
and Buildup Analysis for Horizontal Wells in Anisotropic Media," SPE
Formation Eval. (Dec. 1987), 683-697.
6. Daviau, F., Mouronval, G., Bourdarot, G., and Curutchet, P., "Pressure
Analysis for Horizontal Wells," SPE 14251, presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV, Sept.
22-25, 1985.
7. Golan, M., and Whitson, C. H., Well Performance. International
Human Resources Development Corporation, Boston, MA, 1986.
8. Mutalik, P. N., Godbole, S. P., and Joshi, S. D., "Effect of Drainage
Area Shapes on Horizontal Well Productivity," paper SPE 18301, pre-
sented in the SPE 63rd Annual Technical Conference, Houston, TX,
Oct. 2-5, 1988.
9. Gringarten, A. C, "Reservoir Limit Testing for Fractured Wells," paper
SPE 7452, presented at the SPE 53rd Annual Fall Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Houston, TX, Oct. 1-3, 1978.
10. Gringarten, A. C, Ramey, H. J., Jr., and Raghavan, R., "Unsteady-
State Pressure Distribution Created by a Well with a Single Infinite-
Conductivity Vertical Fracture," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Aug. 1974),
347-360.
11. Kuchuk, F. J., Goode, P. A., Wilkinson, D. J., and Thambynayagam,
R. K. M., "Pressure Transient Behavior of Horizontal Wells With and
Without Gas Cap or Aquifer," paper SPE 17413, presented at the SPE
California Regional Meeting, Long Beach, CA, March 23-25, 1988.
12. Odeh, A. S., and Babu, D. K., "Transient Flow Behavior of Horizontal
Wells Pressure Drawdown and Buildup Analysis," SPE Formation Eval.
(March 1990), 7-15.
13. Clonts, M. D., and Ramey, H. J., Jr., "Pressure Transient Analysis for
Wells with Horizontal Drainage Holes," paper SPE 15116, presented at
the SPE California Regional Meeting, Oakland, CA, April 2-4, 1986.
14. Ozkan, E., Raghavan, R., and Joshi, S. D., "Horizontal Well Pressure
Analysis," SPE Formation Eval. (Dec. 1989), 567-575.
15. Celier, G. C. M. R., Jouault, P., de Montigny, O. A. M. C. Z., "A Gas
Field Development with Horizontal Wells," paper SPE 19826, presented
at the SPE 64th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 8-11, 1989.
16. Giger, F. M., Reiss, L. H., and Jourdan, A. P., "The Reservoir Engin-
eering Aspect of Horizontal Drilling," paper SPE 13024, presented at
the SPE 59th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
TX, Sept. 16-19, 1984.
17. Borisov, Ju. P., Oil Production Using Horizontal and Multiple Deviation
Wells. Nedra, Moscow, 1964. Translated Strauss, S. D. Joshi (ed.), Phil-
lips Petroleum Co, the R&D Library Translation, Bartlesville, OK, 1984.
18. Joshi, S. D., "Argumentation of Well Productivity Using Slant and
Horizontal Wells," J. Pet. Technol. (June 1988), 729-739.
19. Renard, G. I., and Dupuy, J. M., "Influence of Formation Damage on
the Flow Efficiency of Horizontal Wells," paper SPE 19414, presented at
the Formation Damage Control Symposium, Lafayette, LA, Feb.
22-23, 1990.
20. Van Der Vlis, A. C , Duns, H., and Luque, R. F., "Increasing Well
Productivity in Tight Chalk Reservoir," Vol. 3, Proc. 10th World Pet-
roleum Conference, Bucharest, Romania, 1979, 71-78.
21. Van Everdingen, A. F., and Hurst, W., "The Application of the Laplace
Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs," Trans. AIME (1949)
186, 305-324.
22. Van Everdingen, A. F., "The Skin Effect and Its Influence on the
Production Capacity of a Well," Trans. AIME (1953) 198, 171.
23. Hurst, W., "Establishment of the Skin Effect and Its Impediment to
Fluid Flow into a Wellbore," Pet. Eng. (Oct. 1953).

Additional Reading
1. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H. J., Jr., and Crawford, P. B., "The Flow of
Real Gases Through Porous Media," J. Pet. Technol. (1966), 624-636;
Trans. AIME, 237.
2. Duda, J. R., Aminian, K., and Ameri, S., "Predicting Horizontal Well
Production Performance Using Type Curves," papers SPE 18993,19342,
presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Morgantown, West
Virginia, Oct. 24-27, 1989.
 Chapter 4
Pressure
Drawdown Testing
Techniques for
Oil Wells

4.1 Introduction
A pressure drawdown test is simply a series of bottom-hole pressure
measurements made during a period of flow at constant production rate.
Usually the well is closed prior to the flow test for a period of time sufficient
to allow the pressure to stabilize throughout the formation, i.e., to reach
static pressure. As discussed by Odeh and Nabor,1 transient flow condition
prevails to a value of real time approximately equal to

(4-1)

Semi-steady-state conditions are established at a time value of

(4-2)

In this section, we will discuss drawdown tests in infinite-acting reser-

voirs and developed reservoirs including two-rate, variable, multiphase,
multi-rate drawdown tests. An analysis technique applicable to pressure
drawdown tests during each of these periods including other types of tests
is presented in the following sections.
 4.2 Pressure-Time History for Constant-Rate
Drawdown Test
Figure 4-1 shows the flow history of an oil well and can be classified into
three periods for analysis:
Transient or earlyflowperiod is usually used to analyze flow character-
istics;
Late transient period is more completed; and
Semi-steady-state flow period is used in reservoir limit tests.

4.3 Transient Analysis - Infinite-Acting Reservoirs

An ideal constant-rate drawdown test in an infinite-acting reservoir is
modeled by the logarithmic approximation to the ^-function solution:

(4-3)

Afterflow fractures
and skin
Drawdown test amenable to
analysis by transient method
Bottom-hole flowing pressure, p (psi)

Drawdown test amenable to

analysis by late transient method

Drawdown test amenable to analysis by

semi-steady-state method
(reservoir limit test)
Transient flow Late transient flow
Semi-steady-state flow

Beginning of late transient End of late transient

Flowing time (hour)

Figure 4 - 1 . Schematic pressure-time histories for a constant-rate drawdown test

(after Odeh and Nabor, J. Pet. Tech., Oct. 1966).
 Assuming initially the reservoir at initial pressure, /?,-, the dimensionless
pressure at the well (rD = 1) is given as

(<W)

After the wellbore storage effects have diminished and tDlr2D > 100,
dimensionless time is given by

(4-5)

Combining and rearranging Eqs. 4-3 through 4-5, we get a familiar form
of the pressure drawdown equation

(4-6)

Eq. 4-6 describes a straight line with intercept and slope term together and it
may be written as

(4-7)

A plot of flowing bottom-hole pressure data versus the logarithm of

flowing time should be a straight line with slope m and intercept p\hr
(Figure 4-2). Semilog straight line does appear after wellbore damage
log pressure change, {pi-pyvf) (psi)

Unit slope

log flowing time, r(hour)

Figure 4-2. Semilog pressure drawdown data plot.

and storage effects have diminished. The slope of the semilog straight
line may be given by

(4-8)

The intercept at log t = 0, which occurs at t 1, is also determined from

Eq. 4-6:

(4-9)

The skin factor is estimated from a rearranging form of Eq. 4-9:

(4-10)

The beginning time of the semilog straight line may be estimated from log-
log plot of [ log (pi pwf)] versus log t (Figure 4-3); when the slope of the plot
is one cycle in Ap per cycle in t, wellbore storage dominates and test data give
no information about the formation. The wellbore storage coefficient may be
estimated from the unit-slope straight line using the following equation:

(4-11)

Early deviation
caused by
Drawdown pressure, p , (psi)

wellbore effects

Slope, m

Beginning
of deviation
at the end of
transient
period

log flowing time, t (hour)

Figure 4-3. log-log pressure drawdown data plot.

where Af and Ap are the values read from a point on the log-log unit slope
straight line. C is calculated using Eq. 4-11, and should agree with C
calculated from Eq. 412:

(4-12)

where Vu is the wellbore volume per unit length in barrels per foot. Duration
of wellbore unloading can be estimated from Eq. 4-13:

(4-13)

where

(4-14)

The apparent wellbore radius rwa may be estimated by

(4-15)
Radius of investigation at the beginning and end of the apparent middle
time line may be checked by the following equation:

(4-16)

4.4 Late Transient Analysis - Bounded (Developed)

Reservoirs
Pressure behavior at constant rate in a bounded reservoir can be repre-
sented by2
log(/V -P) = IQg(A1) - (A)/ (4-17)
From this we see that a plot of log (pw/ p) versus t should be linear with
slope magnitude:

(4-18)

and intercept

(4-19)
 The plot of log (pwf p) versus t will be linear provided the value of p is
known. Usually it is not. This means that a trial-and-error plot must be
made using assumed/? values. That value which yields the best straight line
on the log (pw/ p) versus t plot is chosen as the correct p value. A schematic
late transient drawdown analysis plot is shown in Figure 4-4.
After determining the correct p value, kh can be estimated from the
intercept value b by

(4-20)

The pore volume (drainage volume) of the well Vp can be determined

from the slope of plot (Figure 4-4). This value, in barrels, is given by

(4-2Ia)

The equivalent drainage radius re is given by

(4-2Ib)

Intercept, b{
Reservoir pressure
values are too low

Slope, /J1
log(pwf-PR) (psi)

Correct
reservoir
Too high values pressure

Flowing time, t (hours)

Figure 4-4. Schematic late-transient drawdown analysis plot.