VARIABLE-RATE ANALYSIS: TRANSIENT AND PSEUDOSTEADY-STATE METHODS OF INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION A Thesis ‘THOMAS ALWIN BLASINGAME Submitted to the Graduate College of ‘Texas ASM University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE December 1986 Major Subject: Petroleum EngineeringVARIABLE-RATE ANALYSIS: TRANSIENT AND PSEUDOSTEADY-STATE ‘METHODS OF INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION A Thesis ‘THOMAS ALWIN BLASTNGAME Approved as to style and content by: UyShew Ltd W. J. lee W. L. Perry (Chairman of Committee) (Member) Li, Zh hedztch, gZ R. AL We (Member)ABSTRACT Variable-Rate Analysis: ‘Transient and Pseudosteady-State Methods of Interpretation and Application. (December 1986) Thomas Alvin Blasingane, B.S., Texas ASM University Ghairman of Advisory Committee: Dr. W. J. Lee The present technology in the well testing of petroleum reservoirs uses constant rate solutions to the diffusivity equation for flow in porous media. However, in practice, a constant rate is often only hopeful at best. This makes variable-rate solutions quite desirable. This study will develop or redevelop methods to analyze the ‘transient and post-transient behavior of a single well producing at any vate schedule from a finite, homogeneous and isotropic reservoir. Also, the post-transient behavior for a vertically fractured well will be studied. The analysis will provide estimates of skin factor and permeability from the transient data and estimates of the reservoir drainage area size from the post-transient data. ‘The reservoir shape factor can then be estimated from the results of the transient and post-transient analysis. The objectives of this study are, first, to develop or redevelop analytical solutions for variable-rate transient ani post-transient flow by using the superposition principle. Next, semi-rigorous variable-rate transient flow approximations will be developed.variable-rate transient flow approximations will be developed. Finally, the analytical and approximate solutions will be applied to data generated by a finite-difference reservoir simlation model The finite-difference solutions will show that superposition is the most accurate method of analysis for both transient and post- ‘transient flow. An approximation is developed for the variable-rate buildup case based on the superposition solution and the constant rate solution. This approximation shows excellent comparison to the superposition solution. An approximate superposition solution is developed for post-transient flow that will enable variable-rate reservoir limits tests to be analyzed. This solution is general and can be applied to any drainage area, size ani shape configuration. The application of each variable-rate analysis method is demonstrated with an example generated by the finite-difference simulator. The use of superposition is recommended for all variable rate analyses. Also, only the approximation presented here is recommended for the variable-rate transient flow buildup case. The variable-rate reservoir limits testing method presented in this work is the most accurate solution available for this case, ani its use is endorsed over the other approximate methods. ivDEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to: My wife Julie, who gave me the encouragement to complete this work to the best of my abilities My parents, Mr. and Mrs. R. A. Blasingame, who gave me the love and patience that a child requires to grow into an adult; My committee chairman, Dr. W. J. Lee, whose influence has guided ne always to seek excellence in ny life and in my work; My fellow gratuate students, for their support and respect: And to God, for giving me the ability as a man to contribute a work such as this for the benefit of others.The author would like to thank the following individuals for ‘their contributions to this work: Dr. W. J. Lee, for his influence in this investigation; Dr. W. L. Perry, for his unselfish help in the development of some of the analytical solutions given in this investigation; Dr. R. A. Wattenbarger, for his help in the development of the finite-difference reservoir simlator used in this investigation; Mr. J. Olarewaju, for the dimensionless rate data for the constant wellbore pressure transient flow drawdown case; All of my fellow graduate students, for their comments and suggestions; and Drs. W. D. Von Gonten, R. R. Berg, W. L. Perry and R. A Wattenbarger for serving as members of the author's Advisory Comittee.TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .. DEDICATION ‘TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER I — INTRODUCTION GHAPTER II - LITERATURE REVIEW ... Constant Rate Solutions .......... Constant Pressure Solutions Variable-Rate Solutions Variable-Rate Reservoir Limits Testing Derivations .... Numerical Investigations ~' Base’ Cases (Wio Wollbone Storage) 33 Nmerioal Investigations ~ Yellbore Storage Cases (Surface Rates) ...... 42 Numerical Investigations (Sandfave Rates) 82 Sumary 60 CHAPTER IV — TRANSIENT FLOW INVESTIGATIONS - BUILDUP CASES .. 61 Derivations 61 Numerical Investigations ~ Base Cases (tio Wellbore Storage) 75 Numerical Investigations - Wellbore Storage Cases (Surface Rates). ca Numerical Investigations — wellbore | © Storage ¢ cases (Saniface Rates) aaa Summary 148‘Table of Contents (Continued) CHAPTER V - POST-TRANSIENT FLOW INVESTIGATIONS Constant Rate Solutions Constant Pressure Solutions Variable Rate Solutions ..... : Numerical Investigations | .0......1) Transient Drawiown Analysis . Transient Buildup Analysis Post-Transient Flow Drawiown Analysis APPENDIX A. GENERAL VARTABLE-RATE DERIVATIONS FOR TRANSIENT FLOW APPENDIX B. GENERAL VARTABLE-RATE DERIVATION FOR POST-TRANSIENT (STABILIZED) FLOW ..... sense APPENDIX C. _FINTTE-DIFFERENCE DERIVATION FOR THE NUMERICAL SOLUTION OF THE SINGLE PHASE DIFFUSIVITY BQUATION 151 181 159 258 ava 299 vidi‘TABLE 10 n 12 18 Sys 15 LIST OF TABLES System Properties for Cases Similated with the Finite-Difference Simlator - Transient Cases ee eee oe eae Error Analysis for Superposition Method: Base Cases Error Analysis for Winestook and Colpitts Method: Wellbore Storage Cases, Surface Rates Error Analysis for Superposition Method: Wellbore Storage Cases, Surface Rates ............00se00e Error Analysis for Winestock and Colpitts Method: Wellbore Storage Cases, Sandface Rates 7 Error Analysis for Superposition Method: Wellbore Storage Cases, Sandface Rates errr Error Analysis for the Horner Method: Base Cases, Buildup Time = 10 days Error Analysis for the Horner Method: Base Cases, Buildup Time - 1000 days Error Analysis for the Oich and Selig Approximation Method: Base Gases, Buildup Time - 10 Days Brror Analysis for the Odeh and Selig Approximation Method: Base Cases, Buildup Time = 1000 Days Error Analysis for the Newton Iteration Approximation Method: Base Cases, Buildup Time - 10 Days ........-- eee me oe eee iar OC Method: Base Cases, Buildup Time - 1000 Days Error Analysis for the Superposition Method: Base Cases, Buildup Time = 10 Days Error Analysis for the Superposition Method: Base Cases, Buildup Time = 1000 Days ..... Page 59 8 80 as 91‘TABLE 16. Ww 1s 1g 21 List of Tables (Continued) Error Analysis for the Horner Method: WBS Cases, Surface Rates, Buildup Time = 10 Days Error Analysis for the Horner Method: WBS Cases, Surface Rates, Buildup Time - 1000 Days Error Analysis for the Gich and Selig Approximation Method: WBS Cases, Surface Rates, Bulldup Tine - 10 Days oe... eee : Error Analysis for the Gieh and Selig Approximation Method: WBS Cases, Surface Rates, Buildup Time = 1000 Days: Error Analysis for the Newton Iteration Approximation Method: WBS Cases, Sunfeoe Rates, Bulléup ‘Tine = 10 Days : Error Analysis for the Newton Iteration Approxination eae eS 1000 Days Beror Analysis for the Superposition Matha: WBS Cases, Surface Rates, Buildup Time = 10 Days 5 Error Analysis for the Superposition Meth Surface Rates, Buildup Time = 1000 Days WBS Cases, Error Analysis for the Superposition Method: WBS Cases, (Gy = x10"), Surface Rates, Buildup Tine = 10 Days Error Analysis for the Superposition Method: WBS Cases, (Gy = 1x10), Surface Rates, Buildup Time = 1000 Days .. Error Analysis for the Horner Method: WBS Cases, Sandface Rates, Buildup Time - 10 Days 5 Error Analysis for the Horner Method: WBS Cases, Sandface Rates, Buildup Time = 1000 Days 9 Page 102 105 107 110 us ue 1g 1e2 125 128 181TABLE 29 31 37 38 39 List of Tables (Continued) Error Analysis for the Odeh and Selig Approximation Method: WES Cases, Samifeoe Rates, Buildup Tine 10 Days : : . Error Analysis for the Odeh and Selig Approximation Motho’: WEE Cases, Semface Rates, Builéup Tine = 1000 Days ... Error Analysis for the Newton Iteration Approximation Method: WES Cases, Sandface Rates, Buildup Time 10 Days .... ss. Error Analysis for the Newton Iteration Approximation Method: WBS Cases, Sonface Hates, Bulldmp ‘ine = 1000 Days : : Error Analysis for the Superposition Method: WBS Cases, Sandface Rates, Buildup Time = 10 Days ............ Resor Aualgais for the Superporttion Metho!: YES Ones, Sandface Rates, Buildup Time ~ 1000 Days ......... System Properties Used in the Honogeneous Regervair Similation Cases ....... Syste Properties Used in the Vertiosliy Fractured Reservoir Simlation Cases - Error Analysis for Post~Transient Flow Cases: Homogeneous Reservoirs, Variable-Rate Method Evror Analysis for Post Transient Foy Cases: Vertically Fractured Reservoirs, Variable-Rate Method .... System Properties for the Transient Flow Examples Generated by the Finite-Difference Similator ......... ee ee ae eo eee Surface Rates ......... ‘i Page 138 136 189 ial 144 lar 176 176 182 189 192 19541 43 45 az a List of Tables (Continued) Page Tost Data for the Transient Plow Treiiom Rremple Using Sandtace Rates 194 Results and Error Analysis for the Trenstent: Flow Drawdown Example a 200 est Data for the Transient Flov Bulldnp Emaple Using Surface Rates 7 5 +. 204 Tost Date for the Transient Flov Buildup Buuple Using Sandface Rates ........ : 206 Roculta and Error Anaigeis for the frenstent Flow Buildup Example ....... : : 210 System Properties for the Post—Transient Flow Example Generated by the Finite-Difference Simlator .......... 221 Test Data for the Post—Transient Flow Drawiown Example 222 Results end Error Aulyeis for the Post~frenetent Flov Draviown Example — Q oa Dinensionlecs Results Generated to Verify the Pinite- Difference Simlator : ; sees 208 Drawiown Dimensionless Rate (Sandface Rate/Surface Rate Ratio) . . 27LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 10 1 ie 13 Conventional Analysis for Constant Rate Transient Flow Drawdown .......0.csseeseeee Presaue Distribution during Constant Bate Transient Flov Drawdown Winestock and Colpitts Anslysis for Log Linear Rate ‘Transient Flow Drawdown ... Reservoir Pressure Distribution during Log Linear Rate ‘Transient Flow Drawiown Dimensionless Rate Performance for a Constant Wellbore Pressure Transient Flow Drawiomn ............ Rate Performance for a Constant Wellbore Pressure ‘Transient Flow Drawiovn Reservoir Pressure Distribution during Constant Wellbore Pressure Transient Flow Drawiown ... Superposition énalyeis for Log Linear Rate Trenstent Flow Drawdown Transient Flow Drawiovn Base Cases: Similated Rate ‘Transient Flow Drawiown Base Case: Performance Wellbore Pressure Transient Flow Drawiown Base Cases: Dimensionless Pressure Performance as a Function of Dimensionless Time (Winestook and Colpitts Method Equivalent) ............. Transient Flow Drawiown Base Cases: Dimensionless Pressure Performance as a Function of Dimensionless Time Superposition Plotting Function : ‘Transient Flow Drawlown Wellbore Storage Cases, Surface Rates: Wellbore Pressure Performance : Page Ww 18 21 22,List of Figures (Continued) FIGURE 14 18 16 aw 18 19 al ‘Transient Flow Drawiown Wellbore Storage Cases, Surface Rates: Dimensionless Pressure Performance as @ Function of Dinensionless Tine (Winestock and Colpites Method Equivalent) .. 36680 wes Transient Flow Drawiown Wellbore Storage Cases, Surface Rates: Dimensionless Pressure Performance as a Function of Dimensionless Superposition Plotting Function a ‘Transient Flow Drawdown Wellbore Storage Cases, Sandface Rates: Sandface Rates as a Function of Time .. ‘Transient Flow Drawiowm Wellbore Storage Cases, Sandface Rates: Dimensionless Pressure Performance as a Function of Dimensionless Time oe and eee Method Equivalent) a . ‘Transient Flow Drawiown Wellbore Storage Cases, Sandface Rates: Dimensionless Pressure Performance as a Function of Dimensionless Superposition Plotting Function .... Gonventional Analyais far Constant Rate Trenslent Flow Buildup : ponohone Reservoir Pressure Distribution for a Transient Flow Buildup Following a Constant Rate Transient Flow Oieh and Selig Tronsient Flow Bullaup analysis for Log Linear Rate Transient Flow Drawiom ... Newton Iteration Transient Flow Buildup Analysis for Log Linear Rate Transient Flow Drawiom ..... 5 Superposition Transient Floy Buildup Analysis for Log Linear Rate Transient Flow Drawiown ..... ce Reservoir Pressure Distribution for a Transient Flow Buildup Polloving a log Liner Rate Transient Flow Drawdown .. Page ar 50 53 65 68 v4List of Figures (Continued) FIGURE 25 ar 29 31 33 Transient Flow Buildup Base Cases: Dimensionless Socee nertoaee eee ie) 2 ee analysis ... Transient Flow Buildup Base Cases: Dimensionless Pressure Performance, Buildup Time - 1000 Days, Horner Analysis Benoeseoe ‘Transient Flow Buildup Base Cases: Dimensionless Proseure Performance, Builéup Tine = 10 Days, Oleh and Selig Analysis : , Boeao ‘Transient Flow Buildup Base Cases: Dimensionless Pressure Perfomance, Buildup Tine - 1000 Days, Oth and Selig Analysis ‘Transient Flow Buildup Base Cases: Dimensionless Pressure Performance, Buildup Tine ~ 10 Days, Hevton Iteration Analysis oe ‘Transient Flow Buildup Base Cases: Dimensionless Pressure Performance, Bullayp Tine = 1000 Days, Bevton Tteration Analysis 5 ‘Transient Flow Buildup Base Cases: Dimensionless Pressure Performance, Buildup Time - 10 Days, Superposition Analysis Booed ‘Transient Flow Buildup Base Cases: Dimensionless Pressure Performance; Buildup Tine - 1000 Days, Superposition Analysis ..... on ‘Transient Flow Buildup Wellbore Storage Cases, Surface Rates: Dinensionless Pressure Perfomnce, Buildup Time = 10 Days, Horner Analysis .........seee ‘Transient Flow Buildup Wellbore Storage Cases, Surface Rates: Dinensionless Pressure Perfaraanoe, Batldup = 1000 Days, Horner Analysis ........- Page 79 a2 er 95 101List of Figures (Continued) FIGURE 38 ar 38 59 al Transient Flow Buildup Wellbore Storage Cases, Surface Bates: Dinensionloss Pressure Performance, BuLlasp ‘Time = 10 Days, ich and Selig Analysis basbobcoeo ‘Transient Flow Buildup Wellbore Storage Cases, Surface see noun cetees Eeeire) pariocaeoe eee ‘Time - 1000 Days, Gieh and Selig Analysis ‘Transient Flow Buildup Wellbore Storage Cases, Surface Rates: Dimensionless Pressure Performance, Buildup Time - 10 Days, Newton Iteration Analysis ‘Transient Flow Buildup Wellbore Storage Cases, Surface Rates: Dimensionless Pressure Performance, Buildup ‘Time = 1000 Days, Newton Iteration Analysis ............ Transient Flow Buildup Wellbore Storage Cases, Surface Rates: Dimensionless Pressure Performance, Buildup Time - 10 Days, Superposition Analysis = Transient Flow Buildup Wellbore Storage Cases, Surface Batt Dini cn ace Preesnine] pantome toe 1 Dela) Time = 1000 Days, Superposition Analysis ..... Transient Flow Butldup Wellbore Storage Cases (C.-1x10*), Surface Rates: Dimensionless Pressure Performance, Buildup Time - 10 Days, Superposition Analysis Transient Flow Buildup Wellbore Storage Cases (G,-1x10*), Surface Rates: Dimensionless Pressure Performance, Buildup Time - 1000 Days, Superposition Analysis Transient Flow Buildup Wellbore Storage Cases, Sandface Raves) Tisonsosloes | eeneurs] partoteice 7 Sula) Tine - 10 Days, Horner Analysis : a Page 104 106 109 ne 4 uy 120 1as lerList of Figures (Contimed) FIGURE av 50 51 52 53 Transient Flow Buildup Wellbore Storage Cases, Sandface Rates: Dimensionless Pressure Performance, Buildup = 1000 Days, Horner Analysis ‘Transient Flow Buildup Wellbore Storage Cases, Sandface Rates: Dimensionless Pressure Performance, Buildup Time - 10 Days, Odeh and Selig Analysis ‘Transient Flow Buildup Wellbore Storage Gases, Sandface Rates: Dimensionless Pressure Performance, Buildup Time = 1000 Days, Oich and Selig Analysis ‘Transient Flow Buildup Wellbore Storage Cases, Sandface Rates: Dimensionless Pressure Performance, Buildup Time - 10 Days, Newton Iteration Analysis ‘Transient Flow Buildup Wellbore Storage Cases, Santiface Rates: Dimensionless Pressure Performance, Buildup Time - 1000 Days, Newton Iteration Analysis ‘Transient Flow Buildup Wellbore Storage Cases, Sandface Rees een cele ne = 10 Days, Superposition Analysis Transient Flow Buildup Wellbore Storage Cases, Sandface a ee eee ee ee, Time - 1000 Days, Superposition Analysis ..... Conventional Analysis for Constant Rate Post~Transient Flow Drawiown, Homogencous Reservoirs: Go Reservoir Pressure Distribution During Constant Rate Post-Transient Flow Drawiown, Homogeneous Reservoirs ... Conventional Analysis for Constant Rate Post~Transient Flow Drawiown, Vertically Fractured Reservoirs i. Conventional Analysis for Constant Wellbore Pressure Post~Transient Flow Drawiowm, Homogeneous Reservoirs Page 129 132 136 138 140 143 145 154 155 158 xviiList of Figures (Continued) FIGURE 85 387 59 61 6 Conventional Analysis for Constant Wellbore Pressure Soe Renee ay ee Reservoirs Superposition Analysis for Constant Wellbore Pressure Post-Transient Flow Drasiown, Homogeneous Reservoirs Reservoir Pressure Distribution During Constant wellbore Pressure Post—Trensient: Flow Drewlown, Houngeneous Reservoirs Superposition Analysis for Constant Wellbore Pressure Pee ene eae es Reservoirs ... : Post—Transient Flow Drawiown Cases: Similated Rate Schedule, Homogencous Reservoirs teveeeeeeenee Post-Transient Flow Drawiown Gases: Wellbore Pressure, Homogeneous Reservoirs ...... eee . Post-Transient Flow Draiwiovn Cases: Ap/q Performance as a Fnotion of the Superposition Plobting Puxction, Homogeneous Reservoirs Post—Transient Flow Drawiow Cases: Dimensionless Pressure Performance as a Function of the Dimensionless Superposition Plotting Function (Expressed as =), Homogeneous Reservoirs Post~Transient Flow Drawiown Cases: sp/q Performance bs a Function of the Superposition Plotting Punctien, Vertically Fractured Reservoirs ..... Post—Transient Flow Dramiown Cases: Dimensionless Pressure Performance as a Function of the Dimensionless Superposition Plotting Function (Expressed as €,,), Vertically Fractured Reservoirs Page 165 169 170 178 av? ire 180 181 186 187List of Figures (Cont immed) FIGURE 70 n 72 ced 4 8 c Transient Flow Drawiowm Example: Similated Rate Schedule for the Log Linear Rate Case ..........-.... : ee Performance panbee fronatent, Flow Dresiown Bemnsle: sp/q, Performance (Winestock and Colpitts Method) Transient Flow Drawiown Example: Ap/q Performance as a Function of the Superposition Plotting Function ....... ‘Transient Flow Buildup Example: Wellbore Pressure Performance, Horner Analysis : Transient Flow Buildup Example: Wellbore Pressure Performance, Oieh and Selig Analysis Transient Flow Buildup Example: Wellbore Pressure Performance, Newton Iteration Analysis ...........0..05 ‘Transient Flow Buildup Example: Wellbore Pressure Performence, Superposition Analysis (Surface Rates) Transient Flow Buildup Example: Wellbore Pressure Performance, Superposition Analysis (Sandface Rates) Post~Transient Flow Drawiown Example: Simlated Rate Schedule for the Discrete (Stair-Step) Rate Case Post-Trensient Flow Dreulom Example: Wellbore Pressure Post—Transient Flow Drawiown Example: Ap/q Performance as a Function of the Superposition Plotting Function Point-Distributed Grid for a Radial System ............. Harmonic Transmissibilities and Transmissibility Coefficients at the Cell Boundaries Page 195 198 198 202 214 216 219List of Figures (Continued) FIGURE C3 Cell Diagram for a Radial Flow System C4 Schematic of the Near Wellbore Skin Effect on a Radial Flow System ........0..05 . Sonepandsoaseac C5 Dimensionless Pressure Data as a Function of Dimensionless Time, Generated Using the Finite-Difference Simlator (Ramey Type Curve) ceceeeeeeee 06 Dimensionless Pressure Data as a Function of the Dimensionless Time/Dimensionless Wellbore Storage Coefficient Ratio, Generated Using the Finite-Difference Simlator (Gringarten Type Curve) Cv Dimensionless Rate (Sandface Rate/Surface Rate) Data as a Function of the Dimensionless Time/Dimensionless Wellbore Storage Coefficient Ratio, Generated Using the Pintte- Difference Simlator : : 282 290 295 296 298CHAPTER I ‘DYTRODUCTION The evaluation of formation properties by well testing has evolved into a major investment of time and money in the petroleun industry. Typically, the formation permeability, k, the near well skin factor, s, and the initial reservoir pressure, p,, are evaluated by a transient well test. Also, the reservoir drainage area size, A, and the reservoir shape factor, C,, are estimated fron a post-transient well test or accumlated production data. The purpose of this study is to develop techniques to evaluate these reservoir properties when variable-rate flow conditions exist in the reservoir. ‘The constant rate solution to the diffusivity equation has been used in well testing for many years. There are three cases for which the constant rate solution has been explicitly derived. These are the bounded circular reservoir flow, transient flow and pseudosteady-state flow cases. The diffusivity equation for the radial flow of a liquid of small and constant compressibility is given as: The citation on the following pages follows the style of the Journal of Petroleun Technology.cee @ aye Bp” Bp This equation is Linearized by neglecting the pressure gradient squared terms.? The most practical approach to solving Bq. 1 is to assue a constant withdraval rate and solve for a particular set of initial and boundary conditions. Equation 1 is solved for the following initial and boundary conditions: Bp ~ 0, ab ty = 0, for all ry 8B (ay)y, - (ib) ed foe ee (Qe) 8p (oboe The constant rate solution cen then be “adjusted” to account for variable rates by applying the superposition principle.**> this "adjustment" is exactly correct for continuous rate changes, hovever, ‘the rate changes discretly in reality. Therefore, the effect of rate changes on the superposition solution mst be investigated. Also, for cases involving wellbore storage, the surface flowrate is constant, but‘the sandface flowrate varies depending on wellbore storage. Sinoe the superposition solution is only rigorous for the use of sandface flowrates, the use of surface flowrates in the superposition solution must also be investigated. This investigation will specifically look at the effect of rate changes, wellbore storage and skin effect on the transient superposition solutions® > and the variable-rete transient drawiow approximation solution.° The post-transient superposition solution will be derived in this work. For this case, work will concentrate on quantifying the effect of rate changes on the post-transient superposition solution another part of this work will focus on the use of the superposition solution,**> and constant rate approximations’ "8 for the analysis of a pressure buildup following a variable-rate drawdown, all at transient flow conditions. The effect of rate changes and wellbore storage on these methods will be specifically studied. This work will also develop @ new method which will combine the superposition solution with @ constant rate and producing time approximation for the buildup following @ variable-rate drawlown case. In sumary, this vork will develop, or redevelop, analytical solutions to Eq. 1 for variable-rate flow from existing constant rate solutions using the superposition principle. This work will also develop, or redevelop, approximate solutions to Bq. 1 for transientflow. These solutions will first be verified using a finite difference numerical simlator. Then, the effect of various comiitions such as rate changes, wellbore storage, and buildup time duration will be studied using the simlator. Finally. a step-by-step example for each method of analysis will be demonstrated. As far as new theory, a new transient flow approximation is presented for a buildup following a variable-rate drawiown as well as a theoretically rigorous method for variable-rate reservoir limits testing.HAPTER IT CONSTANT RATE SOLUTIONS ‘The earliest published work on constant rate solutions was produced by Moore et al.? in 1933. ‘The earliest work focused on the solution for bounded reservoir flov. Later, several authors®*7+10-15 investigated the transient flow regime and developed the popular Exponential Integral Solution. Recently, considerable effort has been made to quantify pseudosteady-state flow.* 1 rt is noteworthy to credit Muskat?? as the first investigator in constant rate solutions. Almost all of the previously developed solutions vere originated by Muskat. The effect of wellbore storage and skin on the constant rate solutions has been studied thoroughiy.2°#* skin effect can be incorporated directly into the constant rate solution; however, wellbore storage mst he handled by either LaPlace transformation or finite-difference solution. auskat!® gives the solution of Eq. 1 for a bounded circular reservoir asBp tp - nz b+ +84 Or ty © Ftp mex? at) ar + (2) 2, 2 mel ¥,°d."(%,) where x, are the positive, real roots of e . (2a) 3,G%,) - Matthews and Russell! presented a similar solution to that of Muskat, but Muskat’s result is less tedious to manipulate and evaluate Equation 2 models all of the flow regimes in a bounded circular reservoir: first the transient flow, then the transitional flow and finally the post-trensient or psewlostesdy-state flow. Though Bq. 2 is correct, it is also inconvenient to evaluate because of the infinite series tern. 1,2,10-18 Several authors have defined the transient flow solution By gE BO) eee - @) aywhere the Exponential integral, Ei(x) is defined as an Gis fete @ afer oebuo060 ELH) = y - Im - For values of t, greater than, 100 By. 3 becomes an Pp - 2 Gnaty-» Equations 3 and 5 describe the pressure transient before it reaches the outer boundary of the reservoir. The right-hand side of Bq. 5 has been used as the basis for a plotting function in pressure drawiow testing By applying the superposition principle to Eq. 5 an equation for pressure buildup after a constant rate drawiom was expressed as:” - ©) Bp = Blin(4Ctp, + At) ~ y -In(4t,) + 7] Ramey and Cotb!® expressed the pseudosteady-state flow solution as Re 2 GP tm oo (7)where C, is the reservoir shape factor. The right hand side of Eq. 7 has also been used as a plotting function for reservoir limits testing.18 the pore volume ani shape factor of the reservoir can be estimated from this test CONSTANT PRESSURE SOLUTIONS The constant wellbore pressure case was developed simltaneously with the constant rate case by Moore et al.° in 1933. They developed the solution for a bounded circular reservoir without emphasis on a particular flow regime. The transient and pseudosteady-state flow 28-36 as with the regimes vere later investigated by many authors. constant rate case, skin effect can be combined directly into the particular flow solution. The effect of wellbore storage on the constant wellbore pressure case is negligible by definition. Van-Everdingen and Hurst” give the bounded circular reservoir solution of Eq. 1 for the constant wellbore pressure case as 2 2 ae Ty*(Agrp) EXPC-A “ atp,) 2 (agp) -@) mel Ata.) - where A, are the positive, real roots of(5, yt ¥Q(A,) — Yy(Ayty)IG(A,)] = 0 Equation 6 models all of the flow regimes in a bounded circular reservoir as it is produced at a constant wellbore pressure: first the transient flow, then the transitional flow and finally the post- transient or pseudosteady-state flow. Again as with Bq. 2, Eq. 8 is correct, but it is very difficult to evaluate and therefore is not used very often Jeeger™> originally introduced the transient flow solution as -al—1_ -—__+_,, - 8 =, .. -- G0) in ath By Qn Aty2y)) Qn Atp2y) 7) The first term in Eq. 10 is sometimes used in constant pressure drawiown testing. This approximation was first suggested by Jacob and fi Bl 25,26 Ehlig-Economides and Ramey’ derived the pseudosteady-state flow solution as pacosondacs (61)where C, is the reservoir shape factor. The right-hand side of Bq. 11 has been suggested as a plotting function for reservoir limits testing py Cox and Ehlig-Roonomides ani Ramey.°>,26 As with constant-rate reservoir limits testing, the reservoir pore volume and shape factor cen be calculated from this test. VARIABLE-RATE SOLUTIONS Most variable-rate solutions are derived by using either superposition on or an approximation to the constant rate solution. Superposition of the constant rate solution is possible because of the linearity of the diffusivity equation.” The superposition principle has not been applied directly to either Eq. 2 or 6 to yield variable- rate floy relations. However, the superposition principle has been 3-5,7,11,18,37 46 yie1a various applied to Eq. 5 by many authors’ plotting functions for variable-rate transient flow. Several approximations for variable-rate transient flow have been developed.°-8 Winestock and Colpitts® presented a variable-rate drawiown analysis technique that was proven to be applicable only for small to moderate rate declines by Lee et al." Horner’ presented an approximation for a pressure buildup following a variable-rate drasiown that gives @ constant-rate analog for rate ami producing tine. Horner based his approximation on the last rate and the cumlative production. 10Later, Och and selig® presented an approximation similar to that of Horner. However, theix work was based on infinite series expansions. Though both approximations are correct with respect to material balance, neither approximation approaches the accuracy of the superposition solutions, *:5.59 especially when the rate declines severely. This suggests a need to study the effect of rate decline on both the superposition and approximate methods for both transient pressure drawdowns and buildups. It is also suggested that a more accurate approximation for the buildup preceded by a variable-rate drawdown case be derived, Effect of Wellbore Storage Gladgelter et al.” derived a superposition formilation of Bq. 5 to handle wellbore storage that ooours in a buildup test. ‘The general superposition solutions*:>:59 can also be used in this case; however, if any superposition formation is used, the sandface flowrate as a function of time must be known. This is technically true with any approximate method also. However, more often than not, the surface flowrate rather than the saniface rate is known as a function of time Therefore, the effect of using superposition on surface rather than sandface rates must be studied. To the author's knovledge, this investigation has not yet been performed nqe VARIABLE-RATE RESERVOIR LIMITS TESTING Since a superposition formation of Bq. 7 does not exist, neither does an exact method of performing variable-rate reservoir limits tests. Harlougher*? presents an approximate method for performing variable-rate reservoir limits tests. However, this method has not been widely used in the industry. Therefore, a more accurate nethod for analyzing variable-rate reservoir limits tests would be more desirable than the approximate method proposed by Barlougher. average Reservoir Pressure Dietz'® showed that the relationship between the flowing well pressure, p,,-, and the average reservoir pressure, p, for a constant rate drawiowm is B= Pyp + at. SH ane ‘e ee ee ee Cle) Ramey and Cohb!® suggested that Eq. 12 could be rewritten into the following general area and shape relaticn 4A ease eon, + 141.2 an Pur So ++ (43)where ©, is the reservoir shape factor. However, the validity of Bans. 12 and 15 for variable-rate flow has not been investigated. ‘SUMMARY The following questions remain to be answered for variable-rate flow, 1. Can a more accurate constant rate and producing time approximation for the pressure buildup following a variable-rate rawiown case, than the Horner’ and Odeh and Selig® methods, be derived? 2. What are the quantitative and qualitative effects of severe rate declines on the superposition solutions, of the Winestock and Colpitts variable-rate approximation (drawdown) and of the constant rate and producing time analogs (buildup)? 3. What are the quantitative and qualitative effects of using surface rather than saniface flowrates on the superposition solutions, the Winestock and Colpitts variable-rate approximation (drawdown) and the constant rate and producing time analogs (buildup)? 4. Can a method of performing variable-rate reservoir limits tests be derived, and if so what are its Limitations? 5. Can the constant rate relation for average reservoir pressure be applied for variable-rate flow? 134 CHAPTER IIT ‘TRANSIENT FLOW INVESTIGATIONS - DRAWDOWN CASE In this investigation the derivation and application of the constant rate solution, the Winestook and Colpitts® variable-rate approximation, the constant rate p, - constant pressure 1/q, equality and the superposition solution will be studied. ‘DERIVATIONS Constant Rate Solution The line source solution for radial flow in an infinite medium 1,2, 10-15 has been developed by several authors using different mathematical approaches. This solution is given as ee B= BRC I vs penpoe sees G8) For t,»100, By. 14 reduoes to Bp - Fan at - yD . ceeeeee (as)18 where y is Euler’s constant and has a value of 0.577216. Expressing Hq. 15 in field units gives Op ~ ByRyp ~ 162.6 GBfltog t + toggling 2 - 8.208 ‘e + 0.86865] s+ G6) Expressing Bq. 16 in terms of the flowing bottomhole pressure, P,9, gives k& Pye = Py ~ 162.6 Betrog t + Loeguage,2 ~ 3-228 + 0.86866) (27) Equation 17 suggests that a plot of p,. versus log t will give a straight line of the following form Pye = “Mql0S * * Pipp where teveeseee (19)16 ~~, - Bu e Pypp ~ Py - 162.6 Rs 2 3.228 + 0.86865] ...... (20) Solving Eq. 19 for the formation permeability, k, gives w= 162.6 MH, ee @y mh Solving Eqs. 19 and 20 for the skin factor, s, gives PP, s = 1.15114) 16g FE a + 9.2081 (22) "a HOT These relations are shown graphically in Fig. 1. Figure 2 shows ‘the pressure distribution as a function of radius for the constant rate case. The equation used to calculate the radii of investigation is (23)aw ¢ umopaeig Mold quetsuess |3ey JUeZsUOD OJ s¥SxLeUY LeUOLqUaAUOD ~ T aunBLy Ay fauEL or rr ee 1 OL 2.01 g.01 en ee eae eee er eee nee L cose [_ oor f- cosy 000s eisd "qd18 € umopmeug mol4 quaysueal azey 3UeZSUOD BULANP OLINgLuzsig a4nssaud - Z a4nBL4 34 ‘snipey OT got or T 1 or sui a ay e-t62=3 (y) L ay grp9=83 (e) . ay evet=23 (2) L ay cet=43 (1) | as ete" (») b as s6r="a (e) b as vreau yt a ezeela MLE | b 0002 o00€ ooop 00s eisd ‘aunssaug19 Winestock and Colpitts Variable-Rate Approximation Winestock and Colpitts used the constant rate line source solution (Eq. 14) to approximate the response of a well producing at a variable-rate schedule. ‘This approximation, in field units, is PB, PuC, Ty ap AWE aan.2 Bet —pi(-oas: q q mh Similarly, for t, > 100, Bq. 24 reduoes to PR op _ Pa Pur _ Bu e a a 162.6 yhllog & + log Zio a 2 ~8.228 + 0.8686] - (5) lee et al.” throughly investigated the limits of applicability of the Winestock and Colpitts Method and suggested that it should be acceptable except in cases of severe rate changes. This result should be quantified in greater depth ami is therefore made a point of this investigation. Equation 25 suggests that a plot of Ap/q versus log t will give a straight line of the following form > = My, log t + Pane sees . beveeeeeeee (26)where Mayo ~ 162.6 Bt -@n AP. Buy Pang” 162-6 flOE gab 2 8-228 + 0.86865) . (28) Solving Bq. 27 for the formation permesbility, k, gives Bu___ k = 162.6 (29) Bagh Solving Bs. 27 and 26 for the skin factor, s, gives 4p, s = 1.181 [q 2 10g —K— 2 + 5.208) . (80) 7, Mey two ‘These relations are shown graphically for a log linear rate decline in Fig. 5. Figure 4 shows the pressure versus radius for this case with the radii of investigation calculated from Bq. 23 2021 UMopMeig MOLY quassueAL 832y UeBUL] 607 40y sLseuy 331d L09 pie y203SauLH - € aunBLy ay ‘aun got yo ot got or ae 2-08 0k eee Nene eee epee ge eee eee eee eel [ Ls }— OT fr ST 02 a/au/tsd ‘b/dy€ uMopmedg MOL4 quaLsueay @3ey Jeaul 607 Busanp uoLyngiaasig aunssadg dyonuasay - p aunBiy as ‘snipey or got or I or wird Lit tees nnnnenenen oozy 44 £162="3 (p) 44 9-9-8 (e) tw) | 2 ay eret=2 (2) at Ay Leets!9 (1) - copy as ety" }- 009% cosy eisd ‘aunssaag23 Constant Rate p, ~ Constant Pressure 1/q, Equality Several approximate solutions for constant pressure wellbore production have been developed in terms of the dimensionless rate, dy This investigation will focus on the similarities of the constant rate Pp Solution and constant pressure 1/q, solution. Jaeger™ expresses an infinite series approximation solution as = pf — = + nthe = * 99 ~ ipa - Gata? “dai? 2 eee GD Jacob and Lohman® express an approximation solution as —2 % * Init a aeaaeeeaeseae SS . (Ba) where Bq. 52 is exactly the reciprocal of the constant rate p, solution (Bq. 15). Uraiet and Raghavan” note that Bq. 52 is accurate within 4% for tp»1x10° when compared to the true solution. Barlougher® noted that for t,»6x10* the constant rate p, and constant pressure 1/a, D solutions agree within 1% (Fig. 5). This observation serves as the basis for the 1/q versus log t plot for constant pressure transient flow.UMOPMEAG MOLY quaLsUBLL auNssaud a40q1 [a4 3UezSUO] B 404 BDURUOZag Byey SsaluoLsuaMG - ¢ aunBLy Soy25 ‘An empirical least squares curve fit performed on the 1/qy versus Log ty data of Jacob ani Lohman®? gives the following equation V/qp = 0.49638440 In ty + 0.52829605 2.2... es) where the average error for Bq. 33 is less than 0.15%. As mentioned earlier, Eq. 32 suggests that a plot of 1/q versus log t will give a straight line of the following forn Vay - mylog t+ V/Dype ++ - (A) - (85) - a hoa . VD app ~ 162-6 FaTpI AG, 'Cjaa,e,? ~ 5-226 + 0.86868) .. (36) Solving By. 85 for the formation permeability, k, gives k = 162.6 - (7)Solving Bgns. 35 ani 36 for the skin factor, s, gives va) abr mn ~ log. q K— 2 + 3.208] s = 1.181f mE, . (38) These relations are shown graphically in Fig. 6. Fig. 7 shows the pressure versus radius distribution for this cases. The radii of investigation are calculated from Eq. 23. ub The application of the superposition principle for variable-rate well testing problems vas first performed by Van Everdingen and Burst.” This development is reproduced in Appendix A, and the result for a discretized variable-rate schene is given as + (9) m® Boe = HR2 EEE Gaya aye Equation 39 requires the appropriate dimensionless pressure solution, Bp: For the transient flow case, this solution is Bq. 14. Combining Eqns. 14 and 39 givesg ot UMopMe.ig MoL4 queLsued, BUNssaig 2409] [a4 IURISUOD & OJ BOURUOJJay aIeY - 9 aanbLy ay ue pot Ot OT or I or pepe perp ee espee re ee ces espe espe au/a “b/TUMOpMei MOLY quaLsueAL auNssaag a40q1 [aM 3UR]SUOD BULUMP UOLZNgLUISIG aunssaug 4LoAAasey - { aunBLy 34 ‘snipey or I 0 ay 2716273 (»), ay 9-9= (e) ay eret=?s (2: vu e124 (1), as etp="a 33 ger a pae=24 ove L- 00sp ogy eisd ‘eunssaag29 2 n eno, ap = 70.6 Be Epa pre oos net, ceveeeeeees (40) For tp»100, Eq. 40 can be expressed in terms of the logarithmic approximation. This result is given as x 2 ap = 162.6 Br yt a Oeetety .) + 208 re a” Tw — 8.228 + 0.86868) (4) For application to field use, Eq. 41 must be reduced to a plotting function. This was first performed by Odeh and Jones® and is reproduced in Appendix A. This solution is given as Pap? m (yay) ap _ PicPue?_ wep “Qa ay )5 a gq ROE GT toe ty) 162.6 BH [1og(-—E>) - 5.208 + 0.86868)... eee (42) PHOT where the summation term in Eq. 42 can also be expressed as+ 0.86865] (44) Equation 44 suggests that a plot of Ap/q versus Xj will give a straight line of the following form ae q (48) maka + Pag where eee 4s) k = 162.6 BE (1ogt ~ 8.228 + 0.86868] (a Solving Eq. 46 for the formation permeability, k, gives31 eee seeee (48) Solving Eqns. 46 and 47 for the skin factor, s, gives b. s ~ 1.181 [85 - 1o¢(—*) + 5.208) ‘as 0, These relations are shown graphically in Fig. 8 for a log linear rate decline. Also, it is worth noting that 1f a conventional semi-log plot for ‘the superposition plotting function is desired, then the following substitution is required Therefore a plot of Ap/q versus log E, will give exactly the same relations as Eqns. 46-49 because X,- log X,. This convention is used for comparison with the other methods.ot uMopmeig MOLJ quaysued] a7ey ueaut7 G07 40J S¥shteuy UOLgLsoduadns - g aunbiy ay Px pot gO OT OL 1 ot ot ot OL St 02 a/au/tsd *b/dyNUMERICAL INVESTIGATIONS - BASE CASES (NO WELLBORE STORAGE) In this section the finite-difference numerical simulator described in Appendix ¢ will be used to investigate the effects of variable-rate transient flow. Various schedules of flowrates will be simlated and analyzed using the previously described methods. This will provide insight into the applicability of each method and give a qualitative feel for what a particular flowrate schedule will do to the pressure response. The system properties used in the transient flow simulations are given in Table 1. Six rate schedules were simulated with no wellbore storage effects ani these are shown in Pig. 9. The six cases simulated vere the constant rate, constant pressure, random rate, linear logarithmic vate decline, and two non-linear logarithmic decline cases. These cases were chosen because they represent a comprehensive “suite” of vate schedules that might be encountered in the field. ant_Rate The wellbore pressure response for each of these cases is shown in Fig. 10. Note that the only case that can be analyzed using this plot is the constant rate case. Therefore, no attempt was made to quantify the results of this graph.‘TABLE 1 SYSTEM PROPERTIES FOR CASES SIMULATED WITH ‘THE FINTTE-DIFFERENCE STMULATOR - TRANSIENT CASES Geonetry Single Well Centered in a Bounded Circular Reservoir Reservoir Drainage Radius, 7, 15,000 ft Wellbore Radius, 7, 0.2 ft Near Wellbore Skin Factor, s 0.0 Net Pay Thickness, h 30.0 ft Reservoir Porosity, ¢ 0.3 Reservoir Permeability, k 1.0 ma 6 gin? Total Compressibility, o, 15.0x10 © psi Liquid Viscosity, 4 0.4 ep Initial Pressure, pj 4800.0 psia Initial Reservoir Flowrate, q 100.0 RB/D35 ainpayos 9384 paze[nuls :sase) aseg UMOpMe4g Moly qUBLSUBAL ~ 6 @4nBLy ay fou f-0s }-00r (1) €# a2ey 607 (9) ayey wopuey (¢) r 2# 9324 607 (s) aunssaag 3ue3suo9 (2) r 1# a2ey 507 (y) ayey queqsuog (rt) [ ost G/ay *baunssatd 24091 18M soueuiiojuad #8982) aseq UMOpMeAG MOLY quaLsue4] - QT eunbiy ay faut 2ot or er ot or o00e e# 872y 607 2# aqey 607 T# a3ey 607 oose yey wopuey aunssaag 3ueysuog ary quezSu09 oo0y oosy 00s esd then all data should fall on the same trend. This is true for all of the cases though there is some scatter in the random rate case due ‘to the erratic nature of the rate function. 39Ideal. Constant: Rate Constant Pressure Rate Log Rate Log Rate Log Rate TABLE 2 ERROR ANALYSIS FOR WINESTOCK AND COLITIS METHOD: BASE CASES Dimensionless Dimensionless Dimensionless Dimensionless Slope Error Intercept Error ——Slope ___ ____Intercept ) eeeaeee (Semmes 1.151293 0.404539 --- --- 1.151290 0.399490 -0. 0002212 -1.248 1.138803 0. 584546 -1.519 44.45 1.169566 0.336053 1.587 -16.95 1 1.150893 0.615438 -1.772 52.13 2 1.165212 0.417676 1.209 3.247 5 1.165176 0. 3787s 1.082 6.379a wolgoung 6u1330[¢ uoLaLsoduadns aut, Ssa[voLsuaug 40 UOLZ9UNY e Se doURIMOJJag ansaid SSB[UOLsUaULG :SaSE) aSeg UMOPMEJG MOLY qUALsUes] - 2] o4nBL4 wm prot OE OT OT gt) gOT gO gor ort pe 0-0 Es: E os sase) LLY L [9° E s-or gratThe results and error analysis for Fig. 12 are given in Table 5. The absolute slope errors for Fig. 12 were all below 0.05% except for ‘the random rate case which was 3.6%. The absolute intercept errors for Fig. 12 were all below 1.5% except for the random rate case which was 49.2%. The high relative error for the randon rate case ocours in the attempt to use the least squares routine on a fairly scattered data set. This is because the optimization part of the least squares routine assumes a fairly smooth data curve. Though this may seem significant, Fig. 12 shows that all of the random rate data fall on or near the given trend. NUMERICAL INVESTIGATIONS - WELLBORE STORAGE CASES (SURFACE RATES) The six base cases were again simulated except that a dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient, Cp, of 1000 was added to the finite-difference model. ‘The addition of wellbore storage to the finite-difference model and verification of the solution is given in Appendix C. The wellbore storage (surface) rates for these cases are identical to those given in Fig. 9. Constant Rate Method ‘The wellbore pressure response for each of the simlated cases is shown in Fig. 15. Note that the wellbore storage distortion causes theCase Ideal. Constant Rate Constant: Pressure Ranion Rate Log Rate Log Rate Log Rate 43 ‘TABLE 3 ERROR ANALYSIS FOR SUPERPOSITION METHOD: BASE CASES Dimensionless Dimensionless Dimensionless Dimensionless Slope Error Intercept Error Slope _ __Intercept, oe ——(%) 1.181293 0.404589 --- 1.151290 0.399490 ~0.0002212 -1.248 1.180939 0.408284 0.03071 0.3103 1.192765 0. 208620 3.602 49.17 1 1.150823 0.404260 -0.04078 0.06901 2 1.181349 0.400910 0.004903 0.8971 3 1.181501 0.400157 0.007342 1.083g SQUBUOJ4ad BuNSSOud a4OqL LOM :S07ey BoRJANg ‘Sase) aBeA03S B40qL LAM UMOPMEJG MOLJ qWALSURAL - ET aunBLy ay faut Of Oi oe ot To 7.0t 2.0t gor popitiriitiiiitiiy roitiiiitiriitiiia o00e (1) 1S e# erey 607 (9) F 2# agey 607 (s) . T# azey 607 (p) [L oose Oy yey wopuey (ce) f : ery aunssaug queysuo) (2) F on yey quegsuoy (1) [7 (9) }~ 000% (2) 7 5 | o0sy ‘S) b (r) L 000s eisd ) | f a3ey wopuey (€) -- Ov ff sanssoig uersuoy (2) aqey quezsuog (T) oot a/ay ‘>(quayeatnba Poy3aN S934d{09 pue x03SauM) ouyL ssajuoLsuaMLg Jo wol39uNj @ SP soURMLOJ4aq aunssaiy ssaluoysuauig :s92ey aoejpues ‘sase) abeio3s a40g] [ay UMOPMe4G MOL4 qUaLSUeA] - JT aunBLy a Gee cu se I I L L L {oy 1 i L oro fF sz i. i. a) e# 934 607 (9) E 2@ aaey G01 (5) [SE T# 03eY 607 (b) (8° (2)* (1), aqey wopuey (6) (5) aunssaug yueysuoy (2) [7 OT (9) ayey quezsuog (1) + L sardominated data where the rate is always increasing. Note that the familiar rate dominance associated with the Winestock and Colpitts Method is seen to start at about t,;10". ‘The results of the analysis performed on the straight-line portions of Fig. 17 are given in Table 6. Since the constant pressure case is unaffected by wellbore storage, this data had the lovest overall absolute error. For the cases that vere affected by wellbore storage, the minimum absolute Slope error was for the log rate +3 case, and the maximum was for the random rate case, with no error greater than 16% and with most less than 6%. ‘he minimum absolute intercept error was also for the log rate #3 case, and the maximum was for the random rate case, with all errors significantly greater than 40%. 4 possible explanation for this rather high error is that the Winestock and Colpitts solution does not account for an increasing rate function. This could also invalidate the use of the plotting technique even though the rates start on a decreasing trend. With this in mind, it is recommended that the Winestock and Colpitts Method should not be used for data with wellbore storage distortion except to estimate permeability. Superposition Method Figure 16 is a plot of the dimensionless pressure, pj, versus the logarithm of the dimensionless time plotting function, Xj), where both 55TABLE 6 ERROR ANALYSIS FOR WINESTOCK AND COLPITTS ‘METHOD: WELLBORE STORAGE CASES, SANDFACE RATES Dimensionless Dimensionless Dimensionless Dimensionless Slope Error Intercept Error (a) Case ——Slope___ ___Intercept __ ——_(#) ___ Ideal. 1.181293 0.404539 --- --- Constant Rate 1.204586 ~0.020987 4.612 -105.2 Constant: Pressure 1.133803 0.584396 1.519 44.45 Random Rate 1.356819 0.621984 17.85 253.7 Log Rate 1 1.230825 -0.083800 6.908 108.4 Log Rate 2 1.204986 0.202141 4.664 -80.03 Log Rate 3 1.193084 0.204435 3.630 ~49.47uo132un4 64133014 UoLyLsoduadns ssazuoLsuauig 40 uorzouny & Se soueWiOJAdg aUNssaig SSB|uoLsuaUIG :59zey BDeJpURs ‘sase) 621035 B40G1 [aM UMOPMBUG MOL4 JUBLSUBAL - gt aunbLy ary ort «OE gO OT) gto, OT OTS T 1 1 L 1 1 | L | . 59se Liv C orovariables were calculated using saniface flowrates. Note that all of ‘the data fall on the same trend with the exception of some of the random rate data which lies very near the given trend. Also note that, Fig. 18 is exactly the same as Fig. 12, which is to be expected since each set of data used sandface flowrates in the caloulation of its respective superposition plotting function. The results and error analysis derived from Fig. 16 are given in Table 7. Again, the lovest overall error was for the constant pressure case since it is not affected by wellbore storage. For the cases that were affected by wellbore storage, the minimum absolute slope error was for the constant, rate case, and the maximum was for the random rate case, with no errors greater than 3% and with most less than 0.3%. The minimum absolute intercept error was for the constant rate case, and the maximum was for ‘the random rate case, with most errors less than 5%. The superposition method is the most rigorous method that can be used for variable-rate well testing. However, the sandface rate data may not be available. The use of surface rates (which usually are available) does reduce the accuracy of this technique, but as shown in the previous section, their use can still give excellent results. Therefore, it is recommenied that the superposition method be used for all variable-rate cases instead of the Winestock and Colpitts Method. This guarantees the most accurate results and eliminates the discrimination as to when the Winestock and Colpitts Method should be used.Case ‘Ideal. Constant Rate Constant Pressure Random Rate Log Rate Log Rate Log Rate 59 TABLE 7 ERROR ANALYSIS FOR SUPERPOSITION METHOD: WELLBORE STORAGE CASES, SANDFACE RATES Dimensionless Dimensionless Dimensionless Dimensionless Slope Error Intercept Error Slope ___ ___Intercept _ ____(%) ____. ____(®) __ 1.151293 0.404539 --- --- 1.181291 0.399479 -0.0001844 1.251 1.150989 0.405284 -0.03071 0.3103 1.188721 0.256525 2.990 86.59 1 1.183685 0.386079 0.2078 4.563 2 1.182206 0.396797 0.07954, -1.914 3 1.154520 0. 382864 0.2803 8.363SUMMARY The following points sumarize the major conclusions derived from this chapter: 1. The constant rate drawiom plot of pj» versus log t should only be applied to the constant rate case. No variable-rate case simlated could be analyzed using this technique. 2. Winestock and Colpitts Method is valid by an analytical definition for the constant pressure case. Though this may seem a trivial fact, the existence of this case as a bound of applicability does set a noteworthy precedent. 3. The Winestock and Colpitts Method can be applied to wellbore storage dominated data, regardless of whether surface or sandface flowrates are used to calculated Ap/g. However, care should be exercized in choosing the correct straight-line portion of the data. 4. Surface flowrates can be used to calculate the superposition plotting function with very little effect on the derived results. The use of surface flowrates in this calculation only significantly affects the wellbore storage dominated portion of the data. This result suggests that the added expense of obtaining saniface rate data may not be necessary in most situations.él GHAPTER IV ‘TRANSIENT FLOW INVESTIGATIONS ~ BUILDUP CASE In this investigation the derivation and application of the Horner constant rate solution, Odeh and Selig variable-rate approximation, Newton Iteration variable-rate approximation and the superposition solution will be studied. The effects of wellbore storage and buildup test duration will be included in this study. DERIVATIONS utd Horner developed the following equation to model the pressure buildup following a constant rate pressure drawiown for a well in an infinite reservoir. ee coe) - HAGE! oy Ge? where At, is the dimensionless tine after shut-in. For t,»100, Bq. 82 reduces to> Pancact grat) )-y ~ InG@at,)+ y) nal ‘po"ty’ ay t 2 yy mht at oy tee, eee e eee eee nee eee renee ene ee (83) Expressing Eq. 53 in field units gives t, PyrPyg 7 162.6 BH tog). boeeseeneeees 6M) Expressing Eq. 54 in terms of the shut-in bottomhole pressure, p,., gives t, Pag 7 Py ~ 162-6 TE og Mate) eee (65) Equation 55 suggests that a plot of p,. versus log (Gy, + At) /at) will give a straight line of the following form + + at aCe) Pys ~ Py ~ mptos where63 a, - Bu 2. (87) Solving Eq. 57 for the formation permeability, k, gives x= 102.6 SF BeeEo cesses (58) ‘The solution for the skin factor was derived by van Everdingen”? and is @ combination of Eqns. 17, 54 and 57. This solution is given as Pigs) ar Pye At-O) s = 2.151 (wedbr wf _ jog | neg, t, 3.228 + log (PAA) ‘ph where P,,)nr 18 the pressure at At-1 hour from the straight-line portion of the Horner graph. Also, the log(t,+ 1)/ty, is usually assumed to be negligible These relations are illustrated graphically in Fig. 19. Figure 20 shows the pressure distribution as a function of the logarithm of radius for this case. Equation 23 was used to calculate the radii of investigation.dnp ting MoLJ qUBLSUeAL 87eY 3UE}SUO] 4oJ SLSALeUY [RUOLIUaAUOD - GT aunby4 Ww we ot got ot cor zot ot I Lu mn tu ut ut L 0008 [~ o0se L E L_ ooo += 00s [ epsd «SMaumopmeso MoL4 quatsuRdl a3ey 3Ue3SUO] eB BuLMoltod dnpLing MOL4 qUBLSURAL e 403 UOLINGLAZSIG auNSsatg 4LoAsasaY a3 Ssnipey = 02 aunbi4 3 elpel4 as ezesta ay c-162="3 (¥) 4y 9799-83 (e) ay ere=?3 (2) ay cets's (1) o08t oooz ooze O02 0092 eisd ‘aunssaagTt is necessary to note "Horner's Approximation" for variable- rate transient flow preceding the pressure buildup. This approximation is wirical, but it does give good results provided a long buildup is run, Horner's approximation is expressed as Ph Nest where q,,,; iS the last flowrate in STB/D, and @ is the cumllative produced volume in STB. The q,,., term is substituted for q,term in Eqns. 58 and 59 for purposes of analysis. Odeh and Selig modified By. 65 so that a constant-rate drawiown analog could be approximated for a variable-rate drawdown. This modification yields ve. CD where - (62)Gee feeteeteettsssseeeeeeseres (68) ‘The interpretation of this method is exactly the same as that for the Horner Method, therefore Eqns. 58 and 59 are used to estimate reservoir permeability and skin factor, respectively. This case is illustrated graphically for a linear logarithmic rate decline in Fig. 21. Note that only the very latest data fall on ‘the correct trend. This is because the method forces the pseudo-Horner data to "match" the last data point explicitly in the derivation Therefore, the earlier data will not lie on the correct trend. this nethod usually gives good results, but only the last buildup date should be considered for analysis. Newton Iteration Variable-Rate Approximation for Horner Method The Newton Iteration Method is derived in Appendix A, and its application is exactly the same as the Odeh and Selig Method. The Newton Iteration Method solves the time ani rate roots that force the Horner equation and the superposition solution to be equal at a single point. Tne logical point to “force match" is the last buildup data point since it is least likely to be affected by wellbore storage. However, the formulation is general, and any point can be used for a ergi ot uMopmesg Mol 4 quaISUEAL 23ey AULT 607 toy Sisfyeuy dnpiing mols quatsues. BE Las pue yapg - Tz aanBiy Or or u g poritiiritiis 3 Ot Ww we got poritioy el Oi 01 or 2 prritiiiitis rl 009 osay ory osey 000s esd Mdmatch. The advantage of this method over the Qich ani Selig Method is that it guarantees a more accurate solution because it is matched on ‘tthe superposition solution. The Qieh and Selig Method, on the other hand, is matched on the instantaneous point source solution. Since the Newton Iteration Method is applied exactly the same as the Odeb and Selig Method, Eq. 61 models the pressure behavior, and Eqns. 68 ani 69 are used for analysis. The function to be minimized for this method is given as eee ate t, +. - + m+ At = “j-1. F(t) = dy ME) ayaa at ty (ea) Since Newton interation is to be used, a closed form derivative of Bq. 63 is needed. This derivative is given as ‘This case is illustrated graphically for a linear logarithmic rate decline in Fig. 22. Note that as with the Qich ani Selig Method, only the last buildup data fall on the correct trend. Again, this is because the Newton Iteration Method was force matched on the last buildup data point. This method does give consistently better results70 UMopMeig Mo(4 quassueAL 93ey APOULT 607 40g sysfyeuy dmpiing mols 4UdtsuBAL UoLaesea] UoaMON - 22 ounbId i, wey 7 1 got Mi 03 or got rorrlriiitiiiitiiis rriitiiiit oosy [_ osov [7 oop b+ oszv ost eisd Manm than the Odeh and Selig Method, but it is also more complicated to evaluate. However, once the Newton Iteration Method has been programmed on a computer, the evaluation of the roots becomes trivial. ‘Superposition Solution The superposition solution for a buildup following a variable— rate drawiow was given by Earlougher® and Lee? and is reproduced in Appendix A. This solution is given as “yg 7 Py ~ 162.6 ah E a seat est .. . (66) where the summation term in Eq. 66 can also be expressed as %, 4 a ros A=) @ Combining Bmns. 66 and 67 gives Pye = ~ 262.6 x, - (68) Equation 68 suggests that a plot of p,, versus X will give a straight Line of the following form(69) where myo 168.6 Be see e esses CO) Solving Eq. 70 for the formation permeability, k, gives Gee mgt 162.6 sereees CL) ‘The solution for the skin factor, s, is a combination of Eqns. 41, 66 and 70. This solution is given as Pasdanr = Pug St-0) rast f = ~ 208 Gate? * 8-228) bene These relations are illustrated graphically in Fig. 23 for a linear logarithmic rate decline. Figure 24 shows the pressure distribution as a function of the logarithm of radius for this case. Bq. 23 was used to calculate the radii of investigation.78 UMopmesg MOL4 qUaLsUgu, a3ey UR9ULT 607 405 susfteuy dnpitng MoL4 juarsued UOL}1Soduadns - ez aunty Sx got “ ot vt a ot a ai 1 positirirtirirtisiitiriitisiitisiitisiit 9 0999 2 oy + ose ogy4 umopmesg Mold quaLsued agey 4eaUL] 607 e BuLMoL Loy dnpLing MOL4 JUBLSURAL B 4OJ UOLINGLAISIG BUNSSaug 4ALOAUaSEY - pZ aunBLy as ‘snipe got got oT T 7-01 wip ta aim pi over 3 2'2ee @ a3 peas" L~ oor (2) as gers" i" ©) LL oye 4 Elpsta Ovi () F ay T62=! es (») 1 orp au 979283 (£) ay ever=?a (2) r ay cet=4 (1) ose d Pisd ‘aunssau,It is also worth noting that @ conventional semi-log plot can be nade using the superposition plotting function if the following modification is mate Therefore, a plot of p,, versus log X} will give exactly the same relations as Bgns. 70 to ¥2 because X, - log X;. This convention is used so that the superposition plotting function can be plotted on the same graph as the Horner and pseudo-Horner data. NUMERICAL INVESTIGATIONS - BASE CASES (1O WELLBORE STORAGE) In this section the finite-difference numerical simulator described in Appendix C will be used to investigate the effects of variable-rate transient flow on the subsequent transient pressure puildup. The sane six rate cases used in the preceding chapter will be used for the drawdown, and the buildup duration will be either 10 or 1000 days. These resulting pressure buildup data will be analyzed using the methods previously described in this chapter. The six base cases used in the previous chapter were simlated with a 1000-day drawiown and either a 10-or 1000-day buildup. This was done to investigate the effect of buildup time on the Horner approximation, Odeh and Selig, and Newton iteration constant rateanalog methods. Odeh and Selig® state in their work that the buildup should be 1.5 times the drawdown for the assumptions made in their derivation to be accurate. This is an unreasonable constraint for most’ cases with the possible exception of drillstem tests or production tests early in the life of the well. Therefore, it would be useful to know how the applicability of this method is affected for gross violations of the Odeh and Selig criteria, hence, the 10-day buildup. For comparison and convenience, all plots the following sections are formilated in terms of the dimensionless pressure, pp. Horner Method Figure 25 is the dimensionless Horner plot for the 10-day buildup case. Note that all the cases have a similar slope trend, but only the constant rate case has the correct zero intercept. ‘he results and error analysis for Fig. 25 are given in Table 8. The minim absolute slope error was for the constant rate case and the maximum was for the randon rate case, with no error greater than 2% and most less than 0.2%. The minimum absolute intercept error was for the constant rate case and the maximum was for the log rate #3 case, with most errors less than 10%. Figure 26 is the dimensionless Horner plot for the 1000-day buildup case. Now the data focus on zero as an intercept indicating that the Horner approximation does approach the correct solution for a sufficiently long buildup. The results and error analysis for Fig. 26 are given in Table 9. The minimum absolute slopeor sisfeuy dauioy *sXeg OT = BULL dnpying ‘aouewiojag aunssaud SSa[uosuawig :9Se) aseg dnpiing MOLJ quaLsues, - 52 aunbLy Ww ug, aw My or OT OT oT ot or ot L iE L (v)a*(€) (2) (UZ # ayy 607 (9) 2# ayey 607 (5) T# 970y 607 (9) 97ey wopuey (¢) aunssaig 3ueqsuoy (z) yey quezsuo9 (T) or8 TABLE 8 ERROR ANALYSIS FOR THE HORNER METHOD: BASE CASES, BUILDUP TIME - 10 DAYS Dimensionless Dimensionless Dimensionless Dimensionless Slope Error Intercept Error Cease = _ Slope __Interoapt_ —)___ Ideal 1.151298 (0.000000 --- --- Constant Rate 1.151238 0.000187 0.008777 0.0187 Constant Pressure 1.151245 0.018237 0.004169 1.824 Random Rate 1.170842 0.098445 1.663260 -9.845 Log Rate 1 1.151335 0.064919 0.003640 6.492, Log Rate 2 1.151486 0.203323 0.015027 22.33 Log Rate 5 1.152009 1.1asa74, 0.062191 114.379 siskieuy 4ausoH #8420 OOOT = aul L dnpiing ‘aouewojuag aunssaug SSa[UOLsUaWIG :saSe) aseg dnping MOL4 juaLsueu] - 92 a4nBLy Ww aw + Wy got gO gO got, L { L i L (p)a*(e) (2) (I €# 832y 507 28 83ey 607 T# 9yey 607 yey wopuey aunssoug uUe3Su0) yey quezsuo9 (s) (9). ( ( i ( ( ( 9) §) Y € z 1 ) ) ) ) ) ) ot80 TABLE 9 ERROR ANALYSIS FOR THE HORNER METHOD: BASE CASES, BUILDUP TIME = 1000 DAYS Dimensionless Dimensionless Dimensionless Dimensionless Slope Error Intercept Error Case = __ Slope _Interospt — __(™)_ =H) Ideal 2.161298 0.000000 --- --- Constant, Rate 1.151238 0.000187 0.008777 0.0157 Constant, Pressure 1.151245 0.018237 0.004169 1.824 Randon Rate 2.160673 0.052893 0.8147 5.289 Log Rate 1 1.151335 0.064919 0.008640 6.492 Log Rate 2. 1.175321 0.025368 2.087 2.557 Log Rate 5 1.655762 0.176539 43.64 17.65error wes for the constant rate case and the maximum was for the log rate #3 case, with most errors less than 1%. The minimum absolute intercept error was for the constant rate case, and the maximum was for ‘the log rate #5 case, with most errors less than 6%. A it Figure 27 is the dimensionless Horner plot using the Qdeh and Selig constant rate analog approximation for the 10-day buildup case. This case was designed to be a gross violation of the Ouch and Selig criteria that the buildup time mst be at least 1.5 times the drawdown time. The results and error analysis presented in Table 10 show that only the constant rate case gives the correct trend for this case. the minimum absolute slope error was for the constant rate case, and the maximum was for the log rate #3 case, with all errors less than 52% and most less than 15%. ‘The minimum absolute intercept error was for the constant rate case, and the maximum was for the log rate #3 case, with all errors less than 57% and most less than 20%. Figure 28 is the dimensionless Horner plot using the Odeh and Selig constant rate analog approximation for the 1000-day buildup case. Though this case does violate the Odeh and Selig criteria, the results should not be significantly affected. All of the cases tend to "beni" towards the correct trend for (t,,, + At)/At less than 10, This proves that for a sufficiel tly long buildup, the Qieh ani Selig Method does force match the instantaneous point source and Horner solutions for the last 8182 susheuy 5119s pue yapo ‘skeq OT = aut dnpying ‘aouewiogag aunssoag SSaluoLsuauEG :S9Se] aSeq dnpi ing MOLs auaLsUAl - {2 a4nBL4 wW we cin ot ot got pot cot OL i i” i Ll 1 L 0 Lz A oe (9y e# ayey 607 (9) |_ 9 O 2# arey 607 (g) fs 1 arey 607 (pb) (x) a92y wopuey (cE) | 9 (h aunssauq uezsuoD (2) fe) ayey queqsuo) (1) or83 TABLE 10 ERROR ANALYSIS FOR THE ODEH AND SELIG APPROXIMATION METHOD: BASE CASES, BUILDUP TIME - 10 DAYS Dimensionless Dimensionless Dimensionless Dimensionless Slope Error Intercept Error Case = _Slope __Interoopt = _(m) Ideal 1.161293 (0.000000 --- --- Constant Rate 1.151216 0.coo197 0.00688 0.0197 Constant Pressure 1.122201 0.0aser7 -2.527 2.548 Random Rate 1.299909 -0.198514, 12.91 -19.83 Log Rate 1 1.068308 0.077186 “7.200 776 Log Rate 2 0.901662 0.225706 -21.67 22.57 Log Rate 3 0.560402 0.564383 -51.32 56.44pue yapo ‘Skea Oot sisfieuy Bias aut, dnpiing ‘aouewojiag aanssaug Ssaluolsuaujg :sase) aseg dnpjing molj quatsues, - gz eunby WwW ws got pot or OT or ot 01 or 1 ferereslayss [pepe ers eres renner ercrenrelererenend Ep) ef a3ey 607 (9) 2# eyey 607 (s) T# erey 607 (bp) F 23ey wopuey (£) aunssaug uezsu0) (2) aqey quegsuoy (1) F Otbuildup data point. The results and error analysis for this case are given in Table 11. The minimum absolute slope error was for the constant rate case and the maximm was for the log rate #3 case, with all errors less 7% and most less than 0.9%. The minimum absolute intercept error was for the constant rate case, and the maximum was for the log rate #5 case, with all errors less than 2% and most less than 0.3%. The important conclusions drawn in this section are that the Qieh and Selig Method does give fair results for cases where the buildup time is significantly less than the drawdown time and that only the last buildup data should be used for analysis. Neyton Iteration Approximation Method Figure 29 is the dimensionless Horner plot using the Newton Iteration Method constant rate analog approximation for the 10-day buildup case. All of the curves beni tovards the correct trend. This indicates that this method may not be as sensitive to buildup time as the Odeh and Selig Method. The results and error analysis for these cases are given in Table 12. The minimum absolute slope error was for ‘the constant rate case, and the maximm was for the log rate #3 case, with all errors less than 27% and most less than 6.4%. The minimum absolute intercept error was for the constant rate case, and the 85TABLE 11 ERROR ANALYSIS FOR THE ODEH AND SELIG APPROKIMATION METHOD: BASE CASES, BUILDUP TIME ~ 1000 DAYS Dimensionless Dimensionless Dimensionless Dimensionless Slope Error Intercept Error Case Slope Intercept, (%) —a)___ Ideal 1.151295, 0.000000 --- - Constant Rate 1.150974, 0.000182 0.02771 0.1082 Constant Pressure 1.147212 0.001796 0.3545 0.1796 Random Rate 1.184869 0.000279 0.2759 0.0279 Log Rate 1 1.141548 0.008011 0.8464 0.3011 Log Rate 2 1.115740 0.009059 3.088 0.9059 Log Rate 3 1.072451 0.020113 6.848 2.0110 1 sishyeuy uo1zeu93y uogman *sheq OT = amy dnpiing ‘aoueWtosiad ainssad Ssauorsuawig :sase9 aseg dnpling wol4 guatsued] - 62 aunbL4 w ne po a got a cot ot or 1 1 1 \ 1 ee a7ey 607, 2# 23ey 607 TF 232 607 yey wopuey aunssaug ua suo) yey URI SUD OL‘TABLE 12 ERROR ANALYSIS FOR THE NEWION ITERATION APPROXIMATION METHOD: BASE CASES, BUILDUP TIME = 10 DAYS Dimensionless Case = _Slope Ideal. 1.151293 Constant Rate 1.181216 Constant Pressure 1.145175 Randon Rate 1.224347 Log Rate 1 1.124360 Log Rate 2 1.064297 Log Rate 5 0. 849925 Dimensionless Intercept, 0.000000 0.000197 o.o171e4 ~0.156241 0.087243 0.192638 0. 708834 Dimensionless Dimensionless Slope Error Intercept Error eee eee eee 0.006688 0.0197 0.7051 1712 6.345 -15.62 2.339 5.724 7.565 19.26 26.18 70.83maximum was for the log rate #3 case, with all errors less than 71% and most less than 15.7%. Figure 30 is the dimensionless Horner plot using the Newton Iteration Method constant rate analog approximation for the 1000-day buildup case. Again, all of the curves bend towards the correct trend. However, since the Newton Iteration Method solves for the constant rate analog approximation for the last buildup data point, the t,,, for the 10- and 1000-day buildup cases are different. This causes Fig. 30 to be slightly displaced from Fig. 29, which means that the curves do not overlay as did Pigs. 27 and 28 for the Qich and Selig Method. The results and error analysis for Fig. 30 are given in Table 13. ‘The minimm absolute slope error was for the constant rate case, and ‘the maximum was for the log rate #3 case, with no errors greater than 2.9% with most less than 0.35%. The minimm absolute intercept error was for the constant rate case, and the maxim was for the log rate #3 case, with no errors greater than 1.4% and most less than 0.22%. The results for the Newton Iteration Method are considerably more accurate ‘than those obtained using the Qich and Selig Method. This advocates the use of the Newton Iteration Method to generate a constant rate analog for the variable-rate case. However, since the number of calculations for applying this method is many times that for the Odeh and Selig Method, it is suggested that the Newton Iteration Method be used only if it is programmed on a computer. 89StsA,euy uotze4aa1 uoaMaN ‘sAeG OOOT = awtL dnpLing ‘aoueWi0siag dunssadd SS9[UOLSUaUIG :5952) aseq dnpling MOL4 quaLsuesl - Of 24nbLy Ww ye aye? pot «= OF gt OT og OF zt piritiriitisiil Lovirtoiiitis (9) e# a7ey 507 2# aqey 607 T¥ a3ey 607 yey wopuey aunssaug Ue3Su09 aqey ueysu091 TABLE 15 ERROR ANALYSIS FOR THE NEWION ITERATION APPROXIMATION METHOD: BASE GASES, BUILDUP TIME = 1000 DAYS Dimensionless Dimensionless Dimensionless Dimensionless © Slope Error Intercept Error Case __Slope __ ___Intteroept (as) _%) Ideal 1.151295 (0.000000 --- --- Constant Rate 1.150974 0.001082 0.0877 0.1088 Constant Pressure 1.149750 0.001443 0.154 0.1448 Random Rate 1.152586 0.000543 0.1097 0.0543 Log Rate 1 1.147548 0.002175 0.3258 0.2175 Log Rate 2. 1.157418 0.005968 1.205 0.5968 Log Rate 3 1.118076 0.013851 -2.885 1.385‘Superposition Method Figure 31 is the plot of the dimensionless pressure, p,, versus ‘the logarithm of the dimensionless buildup tine plotting function, Xj, for the 10-day buildup case. Note that all of the data fall on the correct trend except for a few of the random rate data points. The results and error analysis for Fig. 51 are given in Table 14. The and the minimun absolute slope error was for the constant rate cas maximum was for the log rate #3 case, with no errors greater than 1.2% and most less than 0.26%. ‘The minimum absolute intercept error was also for the constant rate case, and the maximum was also for the log rate #3 case, with no errors greater than 1.75% and most less than 0.19%. Figure 32 is the dimensionless pressure, p, versus the logarithn of the dimensionless time plotting function, X,, for the 1000-day baildup case. Again, all of the data fall on the correct trend. The results and error analysis for Fig. 32 are given in Table 15. The minimum absolute slope and interoept errors were for the constant rate case, and the maximum were for the log rate #3 case. All of the absolute slope errors were less than 0.15% with most less than 0.036%, and all of the absolute intercept errors were less than 0.15% with most less than 0.11%.93 S{sf|euy uos3|sodaadns ‘shea of = auts dnpiing ‘aouewiossag aunsseug ssajuojsuawig :sese9 aseg dnpjing molj quatsueds - Te aunbiy Mx got OT gt OTT got 0 or 1 . i L 1 L 1 L Sase) Liv oOcase Constant Rate Constant Pressure Rate Log Rate Log Rate Log Rate ‘TABLE 14 ‘ERROR ANALYSIS FOR THE SUPERPOSITION METHOD: BASE CASES, BUILDUP TIME - 10 DAYS Dimensionless Dimensionless Dimensionless Dimensionless Slope Error Intercept Error Slope ——Intercept_ __() 8) 1.181298 0.000000 moe 1.151216 0.000197 0.006688 o.o1g7 1.151510 0.000240 0.01885 0.0240 1.aaavia 0.001218 -0.8714 0.1218 1 1.182486 -0.000260 0.09928 0.0260 2 1.154210 0.000617 0.2554 -0.0617 3 1.164141 0.017502 1.16 1.750siskyeuy uolatsodiadns ‘seq OOOT = aut dnpying ‘souewosiag aunssoag SS9|uoHsuauiLg :S9Se) Seq dnpling MOL4 qUa}sUeAL - Ze a4nBLy sasey Ly otTABLE 15 ERROR ANALYSIS FOR THE SUPERPOSITION METHOD: BASE CASES, BUILDUP TIME ~ 1000 DAYS: Dimensionless Dimensionless Dimensionless Dimensionless Slope Error Intercept Error Case ——Slope___ ___Interoept_-- ___(®) _____ ____(®) __ Ideal 1.151293 0.000000 --- --- Constant Rate 1.160974, 0.001032 0.02771 0.1082 Constant Pressure 1.151120 0.001088 -0.01503 0.1048, Random Rate 1.150864 0.000969 -0.035525 0.0969 Log Rate 1 1.151288 0.001077 0.000454 0.1077 Log Rate 2 1.151998 0.001185 0.0612 0.1185 Log Rate 3 1.152950 0.001505 0.1459 0.1505‘The results for the Superposition Method show that buildup time is not as critical a factor as it was for the other methods. This is to be expected since the Superposition Method accounts exactly for the variable-rate drawlown regardless of the buildup time. Therefore, the Superposition Method is recommended, for accuracy, over the other approximate methods. ‘NUMERICAL INVESTIGATIONS — WELLBORE STORAGE CASES (SURFACE RATES) The six base cases were again similated using a 1000-day draiiown and either a 10-or 1000-day buildup. This time, however, a dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient, Cy, of 1000 was added to both the drawdown and buildup. In addition to studying the effect of buildup time, the effect of wellbore storage on the Horner Approximation Method, the Odeh and Selig and Newton iteration constant rate analog methods and the Superposition Method will be studied. Horner Method Figure 33 is the dimensionless Horner plot for the 10-day buildup case. Note that all the curves have a similar slope treni for (t+ At)/at<10°. The results and error analysis for Fig. 33 are given in Table 16. The minimum absolute slope error was for the constant rateStsfteuy sausoy *sfeq oF = auLL dnp, ing ‘aouewioyag ainssalg ssa[uoysuaug :sa7ey aoegang ‘sasey aBesoys auogi lam dnp|ing mos yUaLsuedl - ce aunBiy W ST we ) eS mip) tga ee a vt > me 6 ie f These relationships are shown graphically in Fig. 53 for various fracture coniuctivities. Fracture conductivities greater than 100 are generally assuned as modeling the infinite fracture conductivity case. Note that only the very lowest fracture conductivity case (Cr-1) does not follow the correct trend. This will be discussed later. 17168 Suponuasay paunzoey A|[eo1q4eq ‘UMOpMEsG MOL quaysuedy. Ol X OT 380d @32Y 3UE}SUC] 40} SLSKLeUY [eUOLQUaAUOD - Eg aunbLy ay Samy aosz ove ‘o00r isd «Mg159 CONSTANT PRESSURE SOLUTIONS ut: ‘ivatiion ir The post-transient constant pressure solution was originally 33,54 derived by Russell and Prats’ for a bounded circular reservoir. This solution was later extenied by Ehlig-Economides and Ramey,*°+26 using the Dietz’© shape factor, to account for a bounded reservoir of any shape. ‘he general shape solution is given as + (90) vhere y is Buler’s constant and has a value of 0.877216, and C, is the dimensionless reservoir shape factor as defined by Dietz. Expressing Bg. 90 in field units gives kay Pye) = 0.005513 kt. . ER ( ee te I" 70.6 Ba oes $A —A A x, Or, Equation 91 suggests that a plot of log q versus t will give a straight Line of the following form160 log q = 10g dy, + 2-805 Dt ac) where Solving Eqns. 95 and 94 for the reservoir drainage area, A, gives 4, 2 oi A = — 0.10160 - (95) Dy they (Py Pye? Solving Bq. 9% for the reservoir shape factor, C,, gives iE eelarageva Sn mee 10 0 (96) C, v Deuce Solving Bq. 94 for the reservoir shape factor, C,, gives(97) HCP “Pye HAC; “Pyp) oa G56 ams ‘These relationships are shown graphically in Fig. 54 Solution Derivation - Vertically Fractured Reservoirs (Infinite Fracture Conductivity) ‘The post-transient constant pressure flow solution for the vertically fractured reservoir case is given by Blasingame and lee” as ~ ty ance eee (98) 2 where y is Buler’s constant and has a value of 0.877216, ami Cp is the dimensionless reservoir/fracture shape factor as defined by Gringarten.** Expressing By. 98 in field units gives EHC) Pye) T° 70.6 Be 348 Cae rap (= 0.005015 kt bey aa re ++ (99) 161162 S4LoAdasay SnosuaBowoH ‘umopmedg MOL} qUaLsUe41-7Soq auNssaid 24091 [3M 3UeISUOD 4O} SLSAL BUY [2UOLIUBAUOD - pg a4nBLY ay uy, ooosz ooo0z ooost 00001 000s 0 pore tara ir teria tira i tirig pr @ TTT ot Or a/ais *b163 Bquation 64 suggests that a plot of log q versus t will give a straight line of the following form Log G = 10g yyy + 2-808 Dygt veer where + (2) Solving Eqns. 101 ani 102 for the reservoir drainage area, A, gives tives ee) D, xe. cesses (208) ‘ye $80, (Pi Pye) = 0.10160 Solving By. 101 for the reservoir/fracture shape factor, C,, gives 2.246 A (04) LOO BT poonbose apace onnaoded DO A fSolving Bq. 102 for the reservoir/fracture shape factor, C,, gives 2.246 A eats ee C105) , 70.8 GiyeBe ExP(; i These relationships are shown graphically in Fig. 55 for various fracture conductivities. Fracture conductivities greater than 100 are generally assumed as modeling the infinite fracture conductivity case. Note that only the very lowest fracture conductivity case (Gr=1) does not follow the correct trend. This will be discussed later. VARIABLE RATE SOLUTIONS The general solution for variable-rate flow in a homogeneous bounded reservoir is derived in Appendix B. ‘his use of this solution 16 for any shape reservoir is made possible by the use of the Dietz’ shape factor. The general shape varieble-rate solution is given as 164165 satoasasay paungoeuy £1,291349, ‘uMOpMesG MOL qUa{sUe4|-7504 Bunssag a40q{ [2M 3ULISUO) 40 S{SK[euy [eUOLIUAAUO] - gg aunBLy ay fue gol X OT 80 a0 0 20 L 1 1 L L L oro TIT 201 G/ais ‘>where y is Buler’s constant and has a value of 0.577216, C, is the dimensionless reservoir shape factor, and ¢ is the superposition Plotting function which replaces t in the ty, term in the constant rate solution (Bq. 74). ‘The superposition plotting function, ¢, is defined (or) ‘Though this solution has only been derived and verified for the homogeneous reservoir case, the only rigorous constraint is that the reservoir is undergoing post-transient, radial or pseudoradial flow conditions. This suggests that the @ substitution (1.e., the superposition plotting function) for variable-rate flow conditions can be extended to other reservoir types, so long as the required flow condition is met. Expressing By. 106 in terms of field units gives PLP, ap . “ASE _ 20.6 Be an(—4-4 5 + 0.2880 52 oe (aos) q q %G,2,) fho,A 166Equation 108 suggests that a plot of Ap/q versus t will give a straight-line of the following form ap. an an + Mant - (109) where _B_ My 7 0-2539 Be, » G10) » Gu) qa) Solving Eqns. 110 and 111 for the reservoir shape factor, C,, gives (as) lerThese relationships are chown graphically in Fig. 86. Figure 87 shows the pressure distribution as a function of radius for the variable-rate case. Note that (ap/gr), is essentially constant after the pressure response has reached the outer boundary of the reservoir Recall that this assumption is implicit in Dietz’s derivation for the constant rate case. Since the constant rate solution (Bq. 76) and the variable-rate equation (Eq. 106) are exactly the seme, except for the t substitution in the variable-rate case, then it can be assumed the t substitution can be extended for other reservoir types. Though this development is not rigorous, it will be shown through simulated examples to be correct The limitations of the new variable-rate reservoir limits test method are the sane as for other well testing methods. Some of the violations of this method are vater influx, milti-thase flov, solution gas evolution and reservoir heterogeneities, if any of these violations exist, alone or in combination with others, then the method my give inaccurate results. Solution Derivation - Vertically Fractured Reservoirs (Infinite Fracture Conductivity) The variable-rate post-transient flow solution for the vertically fractured reservoir case is given as 168169 S4LoAdasay snosua6ouoH ‘uMopmeag MOL4 qUaLsuedL-350q BUNSsadd B4OGL [aM 3UeISUOD OJ SLSKLeUY UOLZLSOduadns - gg aunBLy 449 00008, 00009 0000¢ 00002 0 L ! 1 | . | . eT 02 Ov 09 08 oot G/au/tsd *b/dy170 Saponsasay snoauaGouoy ‘uMopmeig MoLj 3Ua}sue4J~3S0g ounssoug ‘2409 | La 3Ue3SUO) Bul.ing WoLgNgL43s1g aunssaig uLon4asay - LG BUNBLy 008 ag ‘snupey 009 00% 002 0 i . ree : o0sy ay setat=*s ay 6sus="3 ay e6ztely eisd ‘aunssaug1 wy - Ban 445 oMogxe + Babyy ee sees Gay where y is Euler's constant and has a value of 0.577216, and C, is the dimensionless reservoir/fracture shape factor as defined by Gringarten.**aiso = is given by Eq. 107 and is again substituted for t in the tp, term for the constant rate solution (Bq. 82). Expressing Bq. 114 in terms of field units gives PLP, ee ey eee eee fT A a 6 ee ‘Sox? 0. Sic, (ais) Equation 115 suggests that a plot of Ap/q versus = will give a straight line of the following form 4p . = @ 7 Purves * Bypyg® veers estes eesceeeeseees (116) where B Barve ~ 0-2589 5.0.4 seeeeees (117) qva Bu Dyrye ~ 70-6 BE an sees (218) Solving Bq. 117 for the ir drainage area, A, gives a- 0.2850 5B seeeenes (119) cf Meee Solving Eqns. 117 and 116 for the reservoir/fracture shape factor, Cy, gives Sis Se 70.6 Bu £ These relationships are shown graphically in Fig. 88 for various fracture conductivities. Fracture conductivities greater than 100 are generally assuned as modeling the infinite fracture conductivity case. Note that again, as with the constant rate and constant pressure cases, only the very lowest fracture conductivity case (Cr=1) does not follow the correct trend. NUMERICAL INVESTIGATIONS In this section the finite-difference numerical simulator ave