SPE

Society of Petroleum Engineer'S

SPE 14313

Practical Considerations When Reservoir Boundaries Are

Encountered During Well Testing
by H. Moser, Amerada Hess Corp.
SPE Member

Copyright 1985, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 60th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Las
Vegas, NV September 22-25, 1985. '

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the
author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at SPE meetings are sUbject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where
and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT slope results. This period is often referred as

the late time region. Naturally this is only
Semi-log type curve matching applied on
true when the common well testing model is
drawdown, desuperposed drawdown, Mill er-Dyes and
assumed, i.e., horizontal radial flow in a homo-
Hutchinson and Matthews-Brons and Hazebroek plots
geneous, unfractured reservoir, and negligible
can determine drainage shape and the outer bound-
we11bore storage effects.
ary conditions of a well. Since only a single
set of type curves for a particular drainage This paper evaluates semi-log type curve
shape/outer boundary condition is necessary, the matching techniques to determine single, multiple
selection of a proper well test model is straight or entirely enveloping reservoir boundaries.
forward. Although semi -log type curve matchi ng has been
1
employed on Horner p10ts ,2 the literature seems
Additionally, the porosity-compressibi1 ity-
to have avoided the application of this method on
area product and the skin effect can be estimated
the most obvious case, the pressure drawdown.
by a semi-log type curve match. Furthermore, a
generalized form of desuperposition has been When a drawdown is not available or the data
applied when the duration of the buildup is a is not reliable, an equivalent drawdown can be
multiple of the drawdown period. This method constructed by temporal desuperposition. This
eliminates the use of all drawdown pressures method requires additional information and condi-
except at the moment of shut-i n. Therefore, tions as demonstrated in later examples. When
variable skin effect during drawdown (e.g. clean- pseudo steady state flow has been reached, the
up) can be analyzed. above technique has been applied on Mi11er-Dyes-
Hutchinson 3 (MDH) "shaped" .curves and/or4
on its
complimentary Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek (MBH)
INTRODUCTION functions. The other applications besides the
pressure drawdown should widen the field of use-
In a constant rate pressure drawdown, reser-
fulness of this matching technique considerably.
voir boundaries are encountered when the flowing
pressure departs from the commonly known semi-log
straight line. In the most obvious case of a
single boundary, the classic doubling of the

References and illustrations at end of paper.

 PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN RESERVOIR BOUNDARIES ARE
2 ENCOUNTERED DURING WELL TESTING SPE 14313

LATE TIME ANALYSIS Type-curve matching of the MDH-shaped, MDH and

MBH curves are only strictly correct when pseudo
To demonstrate best the inter-relationship
steady state flow has been reached before shut-
of the type-curves used in the proposed matching
in.
method, all curves are shown on a "comparison"
plot (Figure 1). Note, the plot illustrates the
actual type curves used for matching such as (a)
SEMI-LOG TYPE CURVE MATCHING
the drawdown curve, (b) the MDH-shaped curve and
(c) the MBH curve. The MDH-shaped and MBH curve The 1 iterature offers suites 8,9 of dimen-
are on ly for the condition that pseudo steady si onl ess drawdown curves for di fferent drai nage
state flow has been reached before shutin. shapes and outer boundary conditions. These
curves are generally based on a geometrical ratio
As "supporting" curves, a pair of equivalent
of ~/rw = 2000. Ref. 8 offers an equation from
drawdown timeS and Horner 6 curves are also over-
wh i ch dimens ion 1ess pressures can be converted
layed on this plot. You will note that it
for other geometrical ratios. Using the notation
appears--and is indeed the case--the equi val ent
"ac tual" rather than "desired," Eq. C.19 (Ref. 8)
drawdown time curves are the mirror image of the
reads:
Horner curves merged laterally to share a common
semi-log straight line. Since this straight line
is also shared by the drawdown curve, it can be (PD)actual (Po)table
helpful to construct a desuperposed drawdown + ln [(VA/rw)actual/CfA/rw)table] (2)
curve. Thi sis an important observation from
which follows by corollary that similar informa-
tion estimated by a Horner analysis (flow capac-
In examlnlng Eq. 2, it is obvious that other
ity, skin factor, average pressure, etc.) can be
geometrical ratios will shift the curve only
obtained by the equivalent drawdown time
vertically in the pressure direction, leaving a
method. Because of thi s observat i on, it shoul d
time match with field data intact. Therefore,
also be possible to apply the MBH method on the
from a time match, the obtained ratio t/t OA can
equivalent time method. The false pressure, p*,
be used to calculate the drainage area as:
whi ch is defi ned by Horner time = 1, is defi ned
in the equivalent 'time method as :
0.000264 k tit (3)
~ 11 ~t ] = t P
A <l>\lc DA
(1)
1 im [lit P t
~t->oo
or otherwi se, sol ve for any parameter contai ned
Thus for different drawdown times, p* moves along in Eq. 3, which is expressed in customary oil-
the straight line and a new function could be field units. For the preferred API Standard SI
plotted This function is shaped as the MDH func- Units, the constant 0.000264, becomes 3.6 x
tion, however, it i: defined as: pws(~t)­ 10- 6• The geometry and boundary condition are
PWf(~t=O) rather than p -Pws{l~t). The straight a1 ready inherent by the best fi t. Before the
line again is shared with the drawdown/equivalent type-curve match, field data must be transformed
time curve, however, it diverges from this line in dimensionless pressure as:
at an earlier time, completely consistent with
the finding of other authors 7 comparing the ( ) 1.151 (4)
Horner and MDH methods. The relationship of the PO actual = ---m---(Pi - Pwf)
MDH-shaped curve with the MBHcurve is shown in
the Appendix.
where the slope, m, has been obtai ned from a
Because of the complementary relationship of standard semi-log plot.
MDH, MDH-shaped and MBH function, a semi-log type
curve match could also be done on a buildup using A convenient way to calculate the skin-
the MBH function. This seems to be somewhat odd effect from the pressure match can be deri ved
since the MBH function has been always related from Eq •. 2. Let (rw)a~~ual be the apparent well
with a single producing time before shut-in. bore radlus, rwa = rwe , and solve for S in Eq.
2. Thi s resul ts in:
SPE 14313 HEINRICH MOSER 3

S = (PO)actual - (PO)table A= 0.000264(96) (72.5)

+ 1n [('IA/rw)tab 1e/ C{A/rw) actua 1 ]
Eq. 2 and Eq. 5 can be used for the drawdown
curve and the MOH-shaped curves. Eq. 5 is
related to the commonly known skin factor equa-
tion as shown in the Appendix.
Since the skin effect included in thel!.A/r w
term shifts the type curve only vertically, the
constraint that skin effect must be eliminated by
drawdown/buildup superposition to calculate the
porosity-compressibility-area product can be
removed.
Drawdown
Example A:
Pressure drawdown data from
literature lO were extracted from a plot and
converted in (PO)actual (Eq. 4). Necessary
parameters for thi s method are gi ven in Ref.
lOa s f 0 11 ows: jJ = 1. 0 cp, ~ = O. 14, Ct = 17. 7 x
10- 6 psi-I, r w = 0.33 ft, m = 212 psi/cycle and k
= 96md (estimated from a semi-log analysis in
Ref. 10). A self-generated type-curve (VA/r w =
2000) of a closed rectangle, x = 1.5, y = 1.0
with the well located in x/3 and y/3, gave the
best overall fit (Fig. 2). In comparison,
Earlougher 11 has estimated a drainage shape of a
closed rectangle, x=2, y=l and the well located
in x/2 and y/4. As it can be noted in Fig. 2,
this curve does not fit as well in the middle
region, although it is nearly identical in the
early and 1ate (pseudo steady state) peri ods.
This is precisely the point to be made, namely,
the entire pressure behavior (excluding early
well bore effects) can be observed and matched
with this method, whereas Ref. 11 relies only on
parameters estimated from the semi-log straight-
1ine and the 1ate, pseudo steady state period.
As one may expect, the drainage area estimated in
Refs. 10 and 11 should closely agree with this
method. Using Eq. 3 and t/t DA = 72.5 hours from
the time match will give this result:
6
(0.14)(1.0)(17.7 x 10- )
(5)
1 acre = 17 acres
x 43,560 sq ft
In addition the skin-effect from the pressure
match, using Eq. 5, is estimated as:
S = -4.8 + In[2000/rV17 x 43,560/0.33)] = -5.1
This result compares closely with -5.0 estimated
in Ref. 10.
Desuperposed Buildup
A drawdown from a buildup can be constructed
by using temporal desuperposition if (a) the
initial pressure, Pi' is known, (b) the flowing
pressure at the moment of shuti n, PWf(~t=O), is
known, and (c) the duration of the buildup is at
the 1east twi ce that of the drawdown peri od. For
multiple drawdown periods, the pressure drawdown,
Pi- Pwf(t=(n+l)t p)' is calculated for t>tp as:
[Pi - Pwf(t=(n+1)t p)] = [Pi - pws(~t=ntp)
+ [Pi - pwf(t=nt p)] (6)
subsequently for n = 1, 2, 3 •••• < t/tp, and
then for t<tp
[Pi - PWf(t~t)] [Pi - PWf(tp+~t)]
- [Pi - pws(~t)] (7)
for the pressure range t p<t<2t p interpolation in
Eq. 7 must be used, thus at least 3 pressure
points (at t p ' 2t p ' 3t p) should be available for
accurate results.
Example B:
The Pressure Bu il dup 3, Well 2 in Ref. 1
meets the above stated requirements for desuper-
position. Thus an equivalent drawdown curve was
constructed using first Eq. 6 and subsequently
Eq. 7. Then the pressure differential was
 PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN RESERVOIR BOUNDARIES ARE
4 ENCOUNTERED DURING WELL TESTING
estimated by the authors from a Horner plot.
Naturally, a plot of Pi-Pwf(t) vs. log time using
the desuperposed curve cou1 d have been used to
estimate m which can be used as a check. A list-
ing of the data is presented in Table 1. Ref. 1
also 1ists a type-curve using the authors
proposed reservoir model as a well in the loca-
tion x=3.0, y=1.5 in a drainage area of
rectangular ,dimensions x=12, y=3 with no f.10w
boundaries at the long sides and constant pres-
sure at the short sides.
This type curve has been overlayed with the
desuperposed, actual dimensi on1 ess pressure di f-
ferentia1s (Fig. 3). The time match resulted in a
rat i 0 t/t DA of 185 hours, whereas the authors
conc1 uded ina t/t DA of 154 hours from another
pressure buil dup (4). Di rect compari son is
therefore, not possible, since Buildup 4 does not
meet the above stated timing requirements for
desuperposition. Also note, a desuperposed curve
can be more accurately matched than a Horner plot
(used in Ref. 1) by: (a) its extended range of
t=t p + ~t, and (b) havi ng the advantage that
pressures do not become increasingly compressed
along the time axi~.
Example c:
An exploration gas well was tested by three
success i ve drawdown/buil dup peri ods as shown in
Fig. 4. For comparison the individual buildup
pressures are shown as pressure differentials of
Pi-Pws and Pws-Pwf(~t=O) plotted vs. equivalent
time (Fig. 5). It can be observed that the level
of the Pi-Pws is increasing with every subsequent
buildup indicating that depletion must have
occurred during the individual flow periods
whereas the 1eve1 of the Pws -Pwf( ~t=O) is,
decreasi ng wi th every subsequent bui 1dup, i ndi -
cating that the well seems to·be cleaning up
during each preceding flow periods. With the
findings of this "diagnostic" plot, the approach
taken for this well was (a) to use only the
buil dup peri ods and in the range where pressure
was not affected by skin, (b) desuperpose
together all buildup periods to construct an
equivalent semi-log drawdown plot, (c) semi-log
type curve match the drawdown plot to find the
proper model and (d) verify this model by analyt-
ical simulation of the entire rate history.
SPE 14313
To desup~rpose the buildup periods, a Horner
approximation' such as Q1/q1=t1' was assumed for
the first drawdown period. Then desuperposed
according to equation below:
for N = 2, 4, 6••• for the buildup periods only.
Since only the buildup periods greater than
~t=20 mi n. (assumed time when ski n effects have
ceased) could be used, pressure points for a
multiple first drawdown period were not always
available, thus extrapolation and interpolation
were used. Values were adjusted by trial and
error of Eq. 10. Finally the early drawdown
period wa~ "restored" using Eq. 7.
Thi s desuperposed drawdown curve is for a
constant skin as it is actually occurring at the
moment of the fi rst shut in, i.e., ~Pski n is
already included in the last term of Eq. 10; skin
changes in the following drawdown periods cancel
in the subsequent buildups (for N=4 and 6).
The pressure di fferent i a1s of the desuper-
posed drawdown curve have been normalized to
dimensionless pressures and overlaid with a
dimensi on1 ess curve. The best fit was achi eved
with a rectangular drainage area, with x=2, y=l
and the with well located in x/4 and y/2. The
far boundary of the well was considered of
1imi ted pressure support (10%), i.e., the type
curve of a closed far side boundary was
interpolated with a type curve with full pressure
support at the far boundary. The best fi twas
achi eved wi th 10% pressure support and a time
match of t/tDA = 1400 minutes (Fig. 6).
Finally, the data of this model was used to
simulate the entire pressure history of this test
using rate (dashed lines) indicated in Fig. 4.
Bearing in mind the skin matches the skin effect
at the instant of the first shut1n, it can
clearly be noted that the well was still cleaning
up in the second and thi rd flow peri od.
Nevertheless, buildup periods have been' closely
matched (Figure 7). Example C should be an
excell ent mode'l to apply on an i socrona1 test
where depletion effects are noticab1e and skin
effects are flow rate dependent.
SPE 14313
Example D:
This example shows the pressure behavior of
an explorat ion 0 i 1 we 11 ( Fig. 8). Again, the
actual drawdown has been plotted to compare
against the equivalent time and desuperposed
drawdown (skin effect at the moment of shutin).
Typi ca 1 cl ean up effects can be not iced in the
comparison of the plots. It is interesting that
the equivalent time plot compares fairly closely
to the desuperposed plot. This is usually the
case, as long depletion effects are not notice-
able. Note, the comparison between the IIcorrectll
drawdown and equi va 1ent time plot demonstrates
the quality that can be expected when the dis-
tance to boundaries are estimated from a Horner
plot (recalling the corollary between the plots).
This example exhibits a typical behavior of
a double with a possible triple boundary. The
di stance to the fi rst two boundari es coul d be
calculated the conventional way by using the
intersection of the single with the double slope
and, for the second boundary, the intersection of
the doubl e with the quadrupl ed slope. However,
there is not enough data available to calculate
the thi rd bounda ry the convent i ona 1 way. Never-
theless, the triple boundaries could be matched
with a closed rectangul a r dra i nage shape (x=2,
y=l) and the well located in x/8, y/8. Since a
closed system type curve is matched with an
apparent infinite acting case, the type curve
should diverge from the field curve at the time
when the fourth boundary has been noticed.
2 compari ng it to the true drawdown slope. Si nce
th d41T
t(4 boundary) = 0.1 -X- t/t DA
= 0.1 (7/~ ~ i) 2
1T (3700 min) 1780 min
This time is indicated in Fig. 8 where the type
curve has been matched with the desuperposed
field plot. The distances to the boundaries are
estimated from Eq. 3 as:
A= 0.000264(224) (3700) ~
(0.24)(0.46)(14.6x10-6) . 60 mln
= 2.26x10 6 sq ft
and for the matched drainage shape,
HEINRICH MOSER 5
x = ~2x2.26x10 6= 2,126 ft; Y x/2 = 1,063 ft
d1 = Y/8 = 133 ft; d 2 = x/8 = 266 ft;
d = 7/8y = 930 ft
3
MO" and MOM Types
Example E:
Data. of a bui 1dup of a well that reached
apparent pseudo steady state before shut-i n was
12
taken from the literature. Since only a Horner
plot was' available, a MDH plot has been con-
structed (Fig. 9). A time match was achieved
with a closed boundary drainage area with the
well in its center (any other other concentric
shaped drainage area would have given a similar
match) • The value of the time match t/t DA =660
hours transl ates to a drainage vol ume of 78,430
res. bbls. which agrees closely with the drainage
volume of the author's value.
Note, the slope was drawn by the original
author through a seri es of poi nts on a Horner
plot between the values of ~t = 1 to 8 hours. On
thi s plot (Fi g. 9), where the Horner plot is
represented by the equivalent time method, it can
be clearly noticed that a slope drawn through
thi s range woul d be too conservati ve when
the reservoi r vol ume was already known from the
Muskat plot, a desuperposed drawdown curve could
have been constructed whi ch woul d agree closely
(9) with the shown theoretical drawdown curve. For
illustration purposes, the theoretical curves
have been converted to actual pressures. When
PWf(~t=O) has been added to the pressure
differentials, the initial pressure which is
given in this example gives a match point on the
drawdown curve. Last ly, the compl imentary MBH
match shoul d be of the same qual ity as the MDH
match. The MBH curve is perhaps helpful in
defining the proper straight line. In this case,
the slope drawn on the equi val ent time curve
woul d gi ve too small values in the early part
when the data begins to diverge from the straight
line.
 PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN RESERVOIR BOUNDARIES ARE
6 ENCOUNTERED DURING WELL TESTING
CONCLUSIONS
• Semi-log type curve matching using the
proposed procedures allows for one set of type
curves for a parti cul ar drai nage shape and
boundary condition.
• The procedure to identify the reservoir model
of similar pressure,behavior as the field data
is straightforward.
• Type curve matching using type curves for
enclosed models can be applied on partially
enclosed reservoirs from which the distance to
the boundaries can be estimated.
• A type curve set illustrating all the proposed
plots and matchi ng all actual data can show
inconsistencies in data and interpretations.
• Data di screpanci es such as cl ean -up can be
i dent i fi ed, and if of interest, the rate of
clean-up calculated.
NOMENCLATURE
A = drainage area, sq ft (m2 )
ct = total system compressibility,
psi -1 (kPa- 1 )
d = distance to boundary, ft (m)
k = formation permeability, md (m2 )
L = distance to the fault, ft (m)
m = slope of semi log straight-line,
psi/cycle (kPa/cycle)
PD = dimensionless pressure
PDMBH = dimensionless MBH pressure
PDMDH = dimensionless MDH pressure
PDMDHS = dimensionless MDH-shaped
pressure
Pi = initial pressure, psi (kPa)
Pwf = wellbore flowing pressure,
psi (kPa)
Pw~ = shut~in pressure, psi (kPa)
p = average pressure, psi (kPa)
q = flow rate, B/D (m3 /D)
rw = wellbore radius, ft (m)
S = dimensionless skin-effect
t = producing time, hours
tDA = dimensionless time based on
drainage area
tp = producing time; pseudo producing
time defined as:
Np (~t=O)/q(~t=O), hours
SPE 14313
~t = shut-in time, hours
x,y = dimensions of rectangle, ft (m)
~ = viscosity, cp (Pa·s)
~ = formation porosity, fraction
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author thanks Amerada Hess Corporation for
permission to publish this paper.
REFERENCES
1. Strobel, C. J., Gulati, M. S., Ramey, J. H.
Jr.: "Reservoir Limit Tests in a Naturally
Fractured Reservoir - A Field Case Study
Using Type Curves," J. Pet. Tech. (Sept.
1976) 1097 -1106.
2. Denson, A. H., Smith, J. T., and Cobb, W. M.:
"Well Determination Pore Volume and Porosity
Determi nat i on from Pressure Buil dup Tests, II
Soc. Pet Eng. (Aug. 1976) 209-216.
3. Miller, C. C., Dyes, A., B., and Hutchinson,
C. A., Jr.: liThe Estimation of Permeability
and Reservoir Pressure From Bottom-Hole Pres-
sure Build-up Characteristics," Trans., AIME
(1950) 189,91-104. Al so Reprint Series, No.
9--Pressure Analysis Methods, Society of
Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas (l967)
11-24.
4. Matthews, C. S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek,
P.: "A Method for Determination of Average
Pressure in a Bounded Reservoir," Trans.,
AIME (1954) 201, 182-191. Also Reprint
Seri es No. 9--Pressure Ana1ysi s Methods,
Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME,
Dallas (1967) 51-60.
5. Agarwal, Ram G.: "A New ~1ethod to Account for
Producing Time Effects when Drawdown Type
Curves are Used to Analyze Pressure Buildup
and Other Test Data, II paper SPE 9289
presented at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas Sept. 21-
24.
6. Horner, D. R.: "Pressure Build-Up in Wells,1I
Proc., Third World Pet. Cong., The Hague
(l951) Sec. II, 503-523. Also Reprint
Series, No.9, SPE, Dallas (1967) 175-187.
7. Ramey, H. J., Jr., and Cobb, William M.: "A
General Buildup Theory for a Well in a Closed
Drainage Area,1I J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1971)
1493-1505; Trans., AIME, 251.
8. Earlougher, R. C., Jr.: IIAdvances in Well
Test Ana1ysis,1I Monograph Series, SPE, Dallas
(1977)5, Appendix C.
SPE 14313 HEINRICH MOSER 7

9. Ramey, J. H. Jr., Kumar, A., and Gulati, M. Combining the equations lA, 2A and 3A yield~:
S.: HGas Well Test Analysis Under Water-Drive
Conditions,· American Gas Association,
Arlington, VA (1973).
10. Matthews, C. S. and Russell, O. G.: uPressure
Buildup and Flow Tests in Wells,· Monograph
Series, Society of Petroleum Engineers of (4A)
AIME, Dallas (1967)1, Appendix D.
11. Earlougher, R. C., Jr.: "Estimating Drainage Eq. 4A has been shown by Ramey 14 in order to \
Shapes From Reservoi r Limi t Tests, J. Pet.
II
develop pseudo steady state MDH curves 15 from MBH
Tech (Oct. 1971) 1266-1268; Trans., AIME,
251. curves.

12. Russell, D. G.: "Extensions of Pressure The relationship of PDMDHS and PDMDH is obtained
Build-Up Analysis Methods ," J. Pet. Tech. by combining Eq. 1A with Eq. 4A:
(Dec. 1966) 1624-1636; Trans., AIME, 237,
Also Reprint Series, No. 9--Pressure Analysis
Methods, Society of Petroleum Engineers of
. AIME, Dallas (1967) 175-187. [p(t p) - Pwf(tp)]D = 1/2 In(2.~46 A)
r C
w A
13. Lee, John: "Well Testing, SPE Textbook
II

Series Vol. 1, SPE, New York/Dallas (1982), PDMDS + POMD (5A)

Appendix E.
14. Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Application of the Line
Source Solution to Flow in Porous Media--A
Review," Prod. Monthly (May, 1967) 4. Relationship of Eq. 4 with Skin Effect Equation

15. Ramey, H. J., Jr., and Earlougher, R. C.,

Jr.: A Note on Pressure Buil dup Cu rves, J.
II II
The equation to estimate skin 10 is expressed as:
Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1968) 119-120.

APPENDIX (6A)

Relationship of MDHS and MDH Curves

Rearranging and substituting
The MDHS is defined as:
PO(l hr) = 1.151(Pi-P1HR)/m

and t (lhr) = 0.000264 k yields to:

DA <l>JJctA

S = Po(lhr) - 0.5 In[3,788t DA (lhr) A/r~]

+ 1.151(3.23) (7A)
The pressure drop for pseudo steady state 13 for
t p is:
Assuming for the table function Stable=O and
[ ()] / 1 ( / 2) ( A/rw)table .,. ( A/rw)actual' then Sactual can be
Pi - Pwf t p D = 2nt pDA + 1 2 n 2.246 A r w obtained by differences of Eq. 7A, resulting in:

- 1/2 1nC A ( 2A)

and fo r,
(3A) (8A)
 PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN RESERVOIR BOUNDARIES ARE
8 ENCOUNTERED DURING W.ELL TESTING SPE 14313

Note, Eq. 8A is already similar to Eq. 4 in'the

text, except, the pressures are compared only at
the one-hour mark. However, this constraint is
not necessary when examining Eq. 2 in the text,
where a parallel shift in the PO-direction for
different VA;rw implies independence of time.
Also notice, that the requirement of Stable=O in
the development of Eq. 7A .is unnecessary, since a
value of Sf 0 could be "hidden" in the value
of)0\/r w when including S as r wa = rwe- s •

TABLE 1
tp = 31.25 hrs
q = 28.0 MMCF/D
Pi = 2,865 psi
Desuperposed
Buildup Drawdown
At;t pws(At) - P~f(At=O) Pi - Pwf(t)
(hrs) (psi} (psi) (PD)actual
o o o o
0.017 20 20.0 0.576
0.033 91 91.0 2.618
0.05 126 126.1 3.629
0.067 150 150.1 4.319
0.084 162 162.1 4.664
0.1 169 169.1 4.866
0.15 179 179.2 5.156
0.2 185 185.3 5.332
0.25 189 189.4 5.450
0.3 192 192.4 5.536
0.35 195 195.5 5.626
0.4 197 197.6 5.686
0.68 205 206.0 5.928
1.18 211 212.7 6.120
1.43 213 215.0 0.187
1.68 214 216.4 6.227
1.93 216 218.7 6.293
2.93 224 228.0 6.561
3.93 229 234.3 6.742
4.93 232 238.5 6.863
5.93 236 243.7 7.012
6.93 238 246.9 7.105
7.93 242 253.0 7.280
8.93 244 255.1 7.341
10.93 247 260.2 7.487
14.93 253 270.0 7.769
17.93 256 275.6 7.930
20.93 260 282.1 8.117
29.93 264 292.5 8.417
31.25 264.7* 294.0** 8.460
38.93 269 302.8 8.713
56.93 274 316.3 9.102
62.50 278.8* 323.3** 9.303
62.60 279 323.6 9.312
93.75 N/A 338.5** 9.740

*Interpolated Value
**From Eq. 6; remaining from Eq. 7 using Newton's interpolation and the values
(**) for the range t = 31.25 - 62.50 hours
 HORNER TIME
1.0 10 100 1000 10000 121 I
1600 I i J 1906

1500 BOO

1400 700 :5: ,0

0' 1300 600 ~ --;;
1.
S ~
l'200 ---=-=""':::"'--::'::~-"' .............. ':iffi'.;3-~;=~----------------
~_ ;500 ~
; """t ~l, 'ii Cl
"- 00

- '""",~, g
~w

~ 1100 400
g
~
! , " """
"""
Ill.
..!.. ~
/~ /~
1000 300
J
n:
,
, " /
1 o log t
900 "" """ ///~ 200 *ll.
0 o DA
"" "" /~/~ l- o
............................. .,,/~

,. I~;,
BOO 100

700
----~>< '" " 'y/
............... ,
I 0.0' 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00
0.10 1. 00 10.00 100.00
TIME (HOURS)
TIME. DEL. TIME or EQUIV. TIME - - 12x3 W: 114.1/2
LEGEND: TYPE o 0 0 Desup. DD.
LEGEND: TYPE - - Drowdown
=-.:::==: M~': T~~~~tpsf: 5
==.=-~ tl~~~r~mi~~~~p, =-=-=-: ~~~~:\ ~~P;I~: L. '" I G. 3: Exampl. B: Type Curv. Metch
FIG. 1: Comperlson Plot -Closed Squere Prelnege Aree - Well In Center

16f------:-----~----L
30 J I
I

25

log t DA

~ ~20
r
~
e.
~g'15
f Ii Cl l5:.
g 4 "-

183,/_//
"",,"'" 10

}
--~---------

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

10 100 1000 10000 TIME (MINUTES)
TIME (MINUTES) LEGEND: TYPE Appr. Rote -e-e-e Actue] Rote . Horner Approx.
LEGEND: TYPE
::_::_::. ~~L~Div: 113.1/3 - - 2Xl W: 112.114
FI G. 4: Exemple C: Producing Ret. History

FIG. 2: Example A: Type Curve Match

 1500-1------------------------------------,

~o
II
4
o 000 00 0 0[JlJ
'! 1000-
I
0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0

A
0

A
0

A A
0
I:. A A A AA A A AAA
OO~
I/)
A A I!.
at A A A A A A A AA <> 00 0 0<> 0 0
.e::, o 0000 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0
0 0 0
<>

500- <> 0 0 <> 00000 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0

<><> 000 0 0 O<>~
~
A A A A A A A AA A A A A
lil A A A A A A A AA A A AAA
at
0.
r 0 0 0 0 00000
Jf, 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 000 00 OOQJ

0-1,----------'----.,-------------.,-------------t
10 100 1000
EQUIV. TIME (MINUTES)
LEGEND: TYPE o 0 0 First. BU. b A A Second BU. 00 oThird BU.

FIG. 5: Example C: Diagnostic Plot

2500-+---------------------- -1-

log t
bA
E
~
i
0.
2000 2

~
it
lfi
J

Pressure Support
1070...---...83 1

'jj
\3
~
$
~ 1500

..........
<ll

..0
o
-+J

Cl
0...

1000
10 100 1000 10000
TIME (MINUTES)
LEGEND: TYPE (] 0 0 Desup.DD - - - - 0% Pro Supp. ------ 10% Pro SUpp.
-'---. 50% Pro Supp. ----- 100% Pro Supp.

FI G. 6: Example C: Type Curve Match

 9000-1------------------------------------+

8500

~
'iii
~
4J
0::.
::J
~ 8000
~
ll..

7500

7000
o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
TIME (MINUTES)
LEGEND: TYPE --- S j mu j. Pre s s . o 0 0 Db s e r v. Pre s s .

FIG, 7: Example C Observed vs. Simulated Pres~ure

22
1 J
1 I
J J

~
I I
I
l20 ,
I
I
1
I
I

1 I
I/) I I
~ I 1
~ <1l 1 J

o18 -0
c .1
m l
I
J
1
1
J

Q
'---'" 1 <>I Q Q 2
.... a ...... 1 QQQQ I
0
Cl.. (fI1
,-I ~Q ::r
o
:S:16 ._1 Q l.L..
? l.L.. 1
I
¥

i* 14
~
ll..
tI
I
1
It) 1
log t
112 DA
'"5
::J
1)
"
'0
ll.. 10
III

8-',----------r----------,----------r------- -l-
10 100 1000 10000
TIME or EQUIV. TIME (MINUTES)
LEGEND: TYPE

FIG. 8: Example 0: Type Curve Match

 3100-+------------------------------,----------1700

Oi 3000 600
'Uj
..8
~
);"2900
11:
0..
o
...
f 2800 - 400
:S
~
0..
+
?2700 300
11: d.--&b!Et---Elt--------------::I
0..
J
n:
2600

2500

10 100 1000
TIME. DEL. TIME or EQUIV. TIME (HOURS)
LEGEND: TYPE lJ lJ lJ MDH
A A A ~~~o~!~DH
Theor.Drawdrawn
000InitiaJ Press. CJ lJ lJ UBH
Theor. M8H Semi -J og st r. L.

FIG. 9: Example E: Observed ys. Calculated Pressure