IOR Indonesia Existing and Future BPMIGAS (TRISAKTI)

WELL TESTING
AND
INTERPRETATION
D. Bourdet
CONTENTS
Pages
1 - PRINCIPLES OF TRANSIENT TESTING..................................................................................... 1
1-1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
1-2 DEFINITIONS & TYPICAL REGIMES ................................................................................................7
2 - THE ANALYSIS METHODS ......................................................................................................... 27

2-1 LOG-LOG SCALE ........................................................................................................................ 27
2-2 PRESSURE CURVES ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 28
2-3 PRESSURE DERIVATIVE ............................................................................................................. 37
2-4 THE ANALYSIS SCALES ...............................................................................................................44
3 - WELLBORE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 47

3-1 WELL WITH WELLBORE STORAGE AND SKIN, HOMOGENEOUS RESERVOIR ................................. 47
3-2 INFINITE CONDUCTIVITY OR UNIFORM FLUX VERTICAL FRACTURE ............................................ 48
3-3 FINITE CONDUCTIVITY VERTICAL FRACTURE ............................................................................. 50
3-4 WELL IN PARTIAL PENETRATION ............................................................................................... 53
3-5 HORIZONTAL WELL ................................................................................................................... 57
3-6 SKIN FACTORS............................................................................................................................71
4 - FISSURED RESERVOIRS - DOUBLE POROSITY MODELS.................................................. 75

4-1 DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................. 75
4-2 DOUBLE POROSITY BEHAVIOR, RESTRICTED INTERPOROSITY FLOW (PSEUDO-STEADY STATE
INTERPOROSITY FLOW).......................................................................................................................... 77
4-3 DOUBLE POROSITY BEHAVIOR, UNRESTRICTED INTERPOROSITY FLOW (TRANSIENT INTERPOROSITY
FLOW) ................................................................................................................................................. 85
4-4 COMPLEX FISSURED RESERVOIRS ...............................................................................................90
5 - BOUNDARY MODELS................................................................................................................... 95
5-1 ONE SEALING FAULT ................................................................................................................. 95
5-2 TWO PARALLEL SEALING FAULTS .............................................................................................. 97
5-3 TWO INTERSECTING SEALING FAULTS...................................................................................... 101
5-4 CLOSED SYSTEM ..................................................................................................................... 104
5-5 CONSTANT PRESSURE BOUNDARY ........................................................................................... 111
5-6 COMMUNICATING FAULT......................................................................................................... 113
5-7 PREDICTING DERIVATIVE SHAPES .............................................................................................117
6 - COMPOSITE RESERVOIR MODELS....................................................................................... 119

6-1 DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 119
6-2 RADIAL COMPOSITE BEHAVIOR ............................................................................................... 120
6-3 LINEAR COMPOSITE BEHAVIOR................................................................................................ 123
6-4 MULTICOMPOSITE SYSTEMS .....................................................................................................125
7 - LAYERED RESERVOIRS - DOUBLE PERMEABILITY MODEL........................................ 127

7-1 DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 127
7-2 DOUBLE PERMEABILITY BEHAVIOR WHEN THE TWO LAYERS ARE PRODUCING INTO THE WELL 129
7-3 DOUBLE PERMEABILITY BEHAVIOR WHEN ONLY ONE OF THE TWO LAYERS IS PRODUCING INTO THE
WELL ............................................................................................................................................... 131
7-4 COMMINGLED SYSTEMS: LAYERED RESERVOIRS WITHOUT CROSSFLOW ...................................133
8 - INTERFERENCE TESTS ............................................................................................................. 135

8-1 INTERFERENCE TESTS IN RESERVOIRS WITH HOMOGENEOUS BEHAVIOR .................................. 135
8-2 INTERFERENCE TESTS IN DOUBLE POROSITY RESERVOIRS ....................................................... 139
8-3 INFLUENCE OF RESERVOIR BOUNDARIES ................................................................................. 143
8-4 INTERFERENCE TESTS IN RADIAL COMPOSITE RESERVOIR ........................................................ 143
8-5 INTERFERENCE TESTS IN A TWO LAYERS RESERVOIR WITH CROSS FLOW ..................................146
9 - GAS WELLS................................................................................................................................... 149

9-1 GAS PROPERTIES ..................................................................................................................... 149
9-2 TRANSIENT ANALYSIS OF GAS WELL TESTS .............................................................................. 150
9-3 DELIVERABILITY TESTS ............................................................................................................154
10 - BOUNDARIES IN HETEROGENEOUS RESERVOIRS ........................................................ 159

10-1 BOUNDARIES IN FISSURED RESERVOIRS............................................................................... 159
10-2 BOUNDARIES IN LAYERED RESERVOIRS ............................................................................... 160
10-3 COMPOSITE CHANNEL RESERVOIRS ......................................................................................162
11 - COMBINED RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES ................................................................. 165

11-1 FISSURED-LAYERED RESERVOIRS ........................................................................................ 165
11-2 FISSURED RADIAL COMPOSITE RESERVOIRS......................................................................... 166
11-3 LAYERED RADIAL COMPOSITE RESERVOIRS..........................................................................167
12 - OTHER TESTING METHODS.................................................................................................. 169

12-1 DRILLSTEM TEST ................................................................................................................. 169
12-2 IMPULSE TEST ..................................................................................................................... 172
12-3 RATE DECONVOLUTION ....................................................................................................... 173
12-4 CONSTANT PRESSURE TEST (RATE DECLINE ANALYSIS) ....................................................... 174
12-5 VERTICAL INTERFERENCE TEST ............................................................................................175
13 - MULTIPHASE RESERVOIRS .................................................................................................. 179

13-1 PERRINE METHOD ............................................................................................................... 179
13-2 OTHER METHODS .................................................................................................................180
14 - TEST DESIGN ............................................................................................................................. 183
14-1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 183
14-2 TEST SIMULATION ............................................................................................................... 183
14-3 TEST DESIGN REPORTING AND TEST SUPERVISION ................................................................184
15 - FACTORS COMPLICATING WELL TEST ANALYSIS....................................................... 185

15-1 RATE HISTORY DEFINITION .................................................................................................. 185
15-2 ERROR OF START OF THE PERIOD......................................................................................... 186
15-3 PRESSURE GAUGE DRIFT ..................................................................................................... 188
15-4 PRESSURE GAUGE NOISE ..................................................................................................... 188
15-5 CHANGING WELLBORE STORAGE ......................................................................................... 189
15-6 TWO PHASES LIQUID LEVEL ................................................................................................. 190
15-7 INPUT PARAMETERS, AND CALCULATED RESULTS OF INTERPRETATION ................................191
16 - CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 193

16-1 INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE ............................................................................................ 193
16-2 REPORTING AND PRESENTATION OF RESULTS .......................................................................203
APPENDIX - ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS..................................................................................... 205

A-1 DARCY'S LAW ......................................................................................................................... 205
A-2 STEADY STATE RADIAL FLOW OF AN INCOMPRESSIBLE FLUID .................................................. 205
A-3 DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION........................................................................................................... 206
A-4 THE "LINE SOURCE" SOLUTION ................................................................................................208
NOMENCLATURE............................................................................................................................. 209
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................... 212
Most figures presented in this set of course notes are extracted from "Well Test Analysis: The Use of
Advanced Interpretation Models", D. Bourdet, Handbook of Petroleum Exploration and Production 3,
ELSEVIER SCIENCE, 2002. http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/628241
1 - PRINCIPLES OF TRANSIENT TESTING
1-1 Introduction
1-1.1 Purpose of well testing
Description of a well test
During a well test, a transient pressure response is created by a temporary change

in production rate. The well response is usually monitored during a relatively short
period of time compared to the life of the reservoir, depending upon the test
objectives. For well evaluation, tests are frequently achieved in less than two days.
In the case of reservoir limit testing, several months of pressure data may be
needed.
In most cases, the flow rate is measured at surface while the pressure is recorded
down-hole. Before opening, the initial pressure pi is constant and uniform in the
reservoir. During flow time, the drawdown pressure response ∆p is expressed :
∆p = pi − p (t ) (psi, Bars) ( 1-1)
When the well is shut-in, the build-up pressure change ∆p is estimated from the
last flowing pressure p(∆t=0) :
∆p= p(t)− p(∆t =0) (psi, Bars) ( 1-2)
pi
∆t Dd
Pressure, p
∆p BU
∆p Dd
p(∆t=0) ∆t BU
Rate, q
drawdown build-up
Time, t
Figure 1-1 Drawdown and build-up test sequence.
The pressure response is analyzed versus the elapsed time ∆t since the start of the
period (time of opening or shut-in).
Well test objectives
Well test analysis provides information on the reservoir and on the well.
Associated to geology and geophysics, well test results are used to build a
reservoir model for prediction of the field behavior and fluid recovery to different
-1-
Chapter 1 - Principles of transient testing
operating scenarios. The quality of the communication between the well and the
reservoir indicates the possibility to improve the well productivity.
Exploration well : On initial wells, well testing is used to confirm the exploration
hypothesis and to establish a first production forecast: nature and rate of produced
fluids, initial pressure (RFT, MDT), reservoir properties.
Appraisal well : The previous well and reservoir description can be refined (well
productivity, bottom hole sampling, drainage mechanism, heterogeneities,
reservoir boundaries etc.)
Development well : On producing wells, periodic tests are made to adjust the
reservoir description and to evaluate the need of a well treatment, such as work-
over, perforation strategy etc. Communication between wells (interference testing),
monitoring of the average reservoir pressure are some usual objectives of
development well testing.
Information obtained from well testing
Well test responses characterize the ability of the fluid to flow through the
reservoir and to the well. Tests provide a description of the reservoir in dynamic
conditions, as opposed to geological and log data. As the investigated reservoir
volume is relatively large, the estimated parameters are average values.
Reservoir description :
• Permeability (horizontal k and vertical kv)
• Reservoir heterogeneities (natural fractures, layering, change of characteristics)
• Boundaries (distance and shape)
• Pressure (initial pi and average p )
Well description :
• Production potential (productivity index PI, skin factor S)
• Well geometry
By comparing the result of routine tests, changes of productivity and rate of

decrease of the average reservoir pressure can be established.
1-1.2 Methodology
The inverse problem
The objective of well test analysis is to describe an unknown system S (well +

reservoir) by indirect measurements (O the pressure response to I a change of
rate). This is a typical inverse problem (S=O/I).
-2-
I S O
input system output
As opposed to the direct problem (O=IxS), the solution of the inverse problem is
usually not unique. It implies an identification process, and the interpretation
provides the model(s) whose behavior is identical to the behavior of the actual
reservoir.
Interpretation models
The models used in well test interpretation can be described as a transfer function;
they only define the behavior (homogeneous or heterogeneous, bounded or
infinite). Well test interpretation models are often different from the geological or
log models, due to the averaging of the reservoir properties. Layered reservoirs for
example frequently show a homogeneous behavior during tests.
Analytical solutions are used to generate pressure responses to a specific

production rate history I, until the model behavior O is identical to the behavior of
S.
Input data required for well test analysis
• Test data : flow rate (complete sequence of events, including any operational
problem) and bottom hole pressure as a function of time.
• Well data : wellbore radius rw, well geometry (inclined, horizontal etc.), depths
(formation, gauges).
• Reservoir and fluid parameters : formation thickness h (net), porosity φ,

compressibility of oil co, water cw and formation cf, water saturation Sw, oil
viscosity µ and formation volume factor B. The different compressibility's are
used to define the total system compressibility ct :
ct =co(1−Sw)+cwSw+c f (psi-1, Bars-1) ( 1-3)
The reservoir and fluid parameters are used for calculation of the results. After the
interpretation model has been selected, they may always be changed or adjusted if
needed.
Additional data can be useful in some cases : production log, gradient surveys,
bubble point pressure etc. General information obtained from geologist and
geophysicists are required to validate the well test interpretation results.
-3-
1-1.3 Types of tests
Test procedure
• Drawdown test : the flowing bottom hole pressure is used for analysis. Ideally,
the well should be producing at constant rate but in practice, drawdown data is
erratic, and the analysis is frequently inaccurate.
• Build-up test : the increase of bottom hole pressure after shut-in is used for
analysis. Before the build-up test, the well must have been flowing long enough
to reach stabilized rate. During shut-in periods, the flow rate is accurately
controlled (zero).
• Injection test / fall-off test : when fluid is injected into the reservoir, the
bottom hole pressure increases and, after shut-in, it drops during the fall-off
period. The properties of the injected fluid are in general different from that of
the reservoir fluid.
• Interference test and pulse test : the bottom hole pressure is monitored in a
shut-in observation well some distance away from the producer. Interference
tests are designed to evaluate communication between wells. With pulse tests,
the active well is produced with a series of short flow / shut-in periods, the
resulting pressure oscillations in the observation well are analyzed.
• Gas well test : specific testing methods are used to evaluate the deliverability
of gas wells (Absolute Open Flow Potential, AOFP) and the possibility of non-
Darcy flow condition (rate dependent skin factor S'). The usual procedures are
Back Pressure test (Flow after Flow), Isochronal and Modified Isochronal tests.
Pressure, p
Initial Build-up
shut-in
Clean Variable Stabilized
up rate rate
Rate, q
Time, t
Figure 1.2 Typical test sequence. Oil well.
Well completion
• Production test : the well is completed as a production well (cased hole and
permanent completion).
• Drill stem test (DST) : the well is completed temporarily with a down-hole
shut-in valve. Frequently the well is cased but DST can be made also in open
-4-
hole. The drill stem testing procedure is used only for relatively short tests. The
drill string is not used any more, and production tubing is employed.
Flowh ead
B OP S tack
Casing
Tu bing
Tes t tool
P ack er
Figure 1.3 Onshore DST test string.
1-1.4 Well testing equipment
Surface equipment
• Flow head : is equipped with several valves to allow flowing, pumping in the
well, wire line operation etc. The wellhead working pressure should be greater
than the well shut-in pressure. The Emergency Shut Down is a fail-safe system
to close the wing valve remotely.
• Choke manifold : is used to control the rate by flowing the well through a
calibrated orifice. A system of twin valves allows to change the choke (positive
and adjustable chokes) without shutting in the well. The downstream pressure
must be less than half the upstream pressure.
• Heater : Heating the effluent may be necessary to prevent hydrate formation in

high-pressure gas wells (the temperature is reduced after the gas expansion
through the choke). Heaters are also used in case of high viscosity oil.
• Test separator : In a three phases test separator, the effluent hits several plates
in order to separate the gas from the liquid phase. A mist extractor is located
before the gas outlet. The oil and water phases are separated by gravity. The oil
and water lines are equipped with positive displacement metering devices, the
gas line with an orifice meter. Surface samples are taken at the separator oil and
gas lines for further recombination in laboratory.
-5-
Flowhead
Burner
Choke
maniflod
Heater
Rig HP Gas
Gas
pump
manifold
Separator
Water Oil
Water Air
pump compressor Oil
Surge manifold
tank Burner
Transfer pump
Figure 1.4 Surface set up.
• Oil and gas disposal : The oil rate can be measured with a gauge tank (or a
surge tank in case of H2S). Oil and gas are frequently burned. Onshore, a flare
pit is installed at a safe distance from the well. Offshore, two burners are
available on the rig for wind constraint. Compressed air and water are injected
together with the hydrocarbon fluids to prevent black smoke production and oil
drop out.
Downhole equipment
• Pressure gauges : Electronic gauges are used to measure the bottom hole
pressure versus time. The gauge can be suspended down hole on a wireline, or
hung off on a seating nipple. When they are not connected to the surface with a
cable, the gauges are battery powered and the pressure data is stored in the
gauge memory. No bottom hole pressure is available until the gauge is pulled to
surface. With a cable, a surface read out system allows to monitor the test in
real time, and to adjust the duration of the shut-in periods.
• Down hole valve : By closing the well down hole, the pressure response is
representative of the reservoir behavior earlier than in case of surface shut-in
(see wellbore storage effect in Section 1-2.1). DST are generally short tests.
Several types of down hole valve are available, operated by translation, rotation
or annular pressure. A sample of reservoir fluid can be taken when the tester
valve is closed.
• Bottom hole sampler : Fluid samples can also be taken with a wire line bottom
hole sampler. During sampling, the well is produced at low rate.
-6-
• RFT, MDT :The Repeat Formation Tester and the Modular Formation
Dynamics Tester are open hole wire line tools. They are primary used to
measure the vertical changes of reservoir pressure (pressure gradient), and to
take bottom hole samples. From the pressure versus depth data, fluid contacts
(oil–water OWC and gas–oil GOC) are located, communication or presence of
sealing boundaries between layers can be established. RFT and MDT can also
provide a first estimate of the horizontal and vertical permeability near the well
by analysis of the pressure versus time response.
1-2 Definitions & typical regimes
1-2.1 Wellbore storage
When a well is opened, the production at surface is first due to the expansion of
the fluid in the wellbore, and the reservoir contribution is negligible. After any
change of surface rate, there is a time lag between the surface production and the
sand face rate. For a shut-in period, the wellbore storage effect is called afterflow.
Pressure profile
rw
r
pi
pw
Figure 1-5 Wellbore storage effect. Pressure distribution.
-7-
Pressure, p
Rate, q
q surface
q sand face
Time, t
Figure 1-6 Wellbore storage effect. Sand face and surface rates.
Wellbore storage coefficient
For a well full of a single phase fluid,
C =− ∆V =coVw (Bbl/psi, m3/Bars) ( 1-4)

∆p
where :
co : liquid compressibility (psi-1, Bars -1)
Vw : wellbore volume (Bbl, m3)
When there is a liquid level, with ∆p = ρ g ∆h , ∆V = Vu ∆h and

ρ : liquid density (lb/cu ft, kg/m3)
g/gc : gravitational acceleration (lbf / lbm, kgf / kgm)
Vu : wellbore volume per unit length (Bbl/ft, m3/m)
Vu
C =144 (Bbl/psi)
ρ (g gc)
Vu
C =10197 (m3/Bars) ( 1-5)
ρ (g gc)
Pressure change, ∆p
S
WB
m
Elapsed time, ∆t
Figure 1-7 Wellbore storage effect.
Specialized analysis on a linear scale.
Specialized analysis
Plot of the pressure change ∆p versus the elapsed time ∆t time on a linear scale. At
early time, the response follows a straight line of slope mWBS, intercepting the
origin.
-8-
qB
∆p= ∆t (psi, Bars) ( 1-6)
24C
Result : wellbore storage coefficient C.
qB
C= (Bbl/psi, m3/Bars) ( 1-7)
24 m WBS
1-2.2 Radial flow regime, skin (homogeneous behavior)
When the reservoir production is established, the flow-lines converge radially

towards the well. In the reservoir, the pressure is a function of the time and the
distance to the well.
Pressure profile
Î Ï Í Í
Î Í Í
p
rw ri r
pi
S=0
pwf
Figure 1-8 Radial flow regime. Pressure distribution. Zero skin.
p ri
rw r
pi
pwf(S=0) S>0
∆p skin
pwf(S>0)
Figure 1-9 Radial flow regime. Pressure distribution.

Damaged well, positive skin factor.
-9-
p
ri
rw r
pi
pwf(S<0)
S<0
∆p skin
pwf(S=0)
Figure 1-10 Radial flow regime. Pressure distribution.

Stimulated well, negative skin factor.
Skin
The skin is a dimensionless parameter. It characterizes the well condition : for a

damaged well S > 0, and for a stimulated well S < 0.
kh
S= ∆pSkin (field units)
141.2qBµ
kh
S= ∆pSkin (metric units) ( 1-8)
18.66qBµ
• Damaged well (S > 0) : poor contact between the well and the reservoir (mud-
cake, insufficient perforation density, partial penetration) or invaded zone
• Stimulated well (S < 0) : surface of contact between the well and the reservoir
increased (fracture, horizontal well) or acid stimulated zone
Steady state flow in the circular zone :
k rs
ks rw
141.2qBµ rS 141.2qBµ rS
p w, S − p w , S = 0 = ln − ln (psi, field units)
kS h rw kh rw
18.66qBµ rS 18.66qBµ rS
p w, S − p w, S = 0 = ln − ln (Bars, metric units) ( 1-9)
kS h rw kh rw
The skin is expressed :
 k  r
S= − 1 ln S ( 1-10)
 kS  rw
Equivalent wellbore radius :
rwe = rw e − S (ft, m) ( 1-11)
- 10 -
For homogeneous reservoirs, a pressure versus time semi-log straight line

describes the radial flow regime. The analysis gives access to the reservoir
permeability thickness product kh, and to the skin coefficient S.
∆p(1hr)
Log ∆t
Figure 1-11 Radial flow regime.
Specialized analysis on semi-log scale.
Semi-log straight line of slope m :
qBµ  k 
∆p = 162.6 log ∆t + log − 3.23 + 0.87 S  (psi, field units)
kh  φ µ ct rw
2

qBµ  k 
∆p = 21.5 log ∆t + log − 3 . 10 + 0 . 87 S  (Bars, metric units)( 1-12)
kh  φ µ c t rw2 
Results:
qBµ
kh = 162.6 (mD.ft, field units)
m
qBµ
kh = 21.5 (mD.m, metric units) ( 1-13)
m
 ∆p k 
S = 1151
.  1 hr − log + 3.23 (field units)
 m φµ ct rw2 
 ∆p k 
S = 1.151 1 hr − log + 3 . 10  (metric units) ( 1-14)
 m φµ 2 
 c r
t w 
1-2.3 Examples of infinite acting radial flow behaviors
In the following examples, two wells A and B are tested twice with the same rate
sequence, and the four test responses are compared on linear and semi-log scales.
- 11 -
The two wells have very different characteristics. Well A is in a low permeability
reservoir. During one test the skin is moderate with S=6, and during the other test
the well has no skin damage (S=0). Well B is in a higher permeability reservoir
(four times larger than for well A) but the skin factors are large, respectively S=25
and S=60 (this large value is relatively exceptional. It suggests a completion
problem such as limited entry).
6000
no skin
pressure, psi
4000
moderate skin
2000
0
0 10 20 30 40
time, hours
Figure 1.12 Test history plot well A (low permeability).
On the test history plots Figure 1.12 and Figure 1.13, the two wells show
apparently a similar behavior. For each well, the flowing pressure is low during
one test (the last flowing pressure is 3200 psi before shut-in), and higher during the
other test (last flowing pressure of 5500psi before shut-in).
6000
high skin
pressure, psi
4000
very high skin
2000
0
0 10 20 30 40
time, hours
Figure 1.13 Test history plot well B (higher permeability).
On semi-log scale, the pressure response is more characteristic of the well and
reservoir condition than on the previous linear scale plots. In the case of well A
with low permeability and low skin, the pressure drop during drawdown is mainly
produced in the reservoir, and the slope of the semi-log straight line is high.
- 12 -
3000
pressure change, psi

moderate skin
2000
∆ p skin
1000 no skin
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
time, hours
Figure 1.14 Semi-log responses for well A.
3000
pressure change, psi
very high skin

2000 ∆ p skin
1000
high skin
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
time, hours
Figure 1.15 Semi-log responses for well B.
Conversely, with the higher permeability example of well B, most of the pressure
drop is due to skin damage, and the response tends to be flat with a low semi-log
straight-line slope.
1-2.4 Fractured well (infinite conductivity fracture) : linear flow regime
xf
Figure 1-16 Fractured well. Fracture geometry.
- 13 -
Linear flow regime
At early time, before the radial flow regime is established, the flow-lines are
perpendicular to the fracture plane. This is called linear flow.
Figure 1-17 Infinite conductivity fracture. Geometry of the flow lines.

Linear and radial flow regimes.
Plot of the pressure change ∆p versus the square root of elapsed time ∆t : the
response follows a straight line of slope mLF, intercepting the origin.
qB µ
∆p = 4.06 ∆t (psi, field units)
hx f φ ct k
qB µ
∆p = 0.623 ∆t (Bars, metric units) ( 1-15)
hx f φ ct k
F
mL
∆t
Figure 1-18 Infinite conductivity fracture.
Specialized analysis with the pressure versus the square root of time.
Result : the half fracture length xf
µ qB
x f = 4.06 (ft, field units)
φ ct k hmLF
µqB
x f = 0.623 (m, metric units) ( 1-16)
φ ct k hm LF
- 14 -
1-2.5 Fractured well (finite conductivity fracture) : bi-linear flow regime
Bilinear flow regime
wf kf
Figure 1-19 Finite conductivity fracture. Geometry of the flow lines during the
bi-linear flow regime.
When the pressure drop in the fracture plane is not negligible, a second linear flow
regime is established along the fracture extension. This configuration is called bi-
linear flow regime.
Plot of the pressure change ∆p versus the fourth root of elapsed time 4
∆t :
straight line of slope mBLF, intercepting the origin.
qBµ
∆p = 44.11 4
∆t (psi, field units)
h k f w 4 φ µ ct k
qBµ
∆p = 6.28 4
∆t (Bars, metric units) ( 1-17)
h k f wf 4 φµ c t k
m BLF
4
∆t
Figure 1-20 Finite conductivity fracture. Specialized analysis with the

pressure versus the fourth root of time.
Result : the fracture conductivity kfwf
2
1  qBµ 
k f w f = 1944.8  
φµ c t k  hm BLF
(mD.ft, field units)

2
1  qBµ 
k f w f = 39.46  
φµ ct k  hm BLF
(mD.m, metric units) ( 1-18)

- 15 -
1-2.6 Well in partial penetration : spherical flow regime
Spherical flow regime
Spherical flow can be observed in wells in partial penetration, before the top and
bottom boundaries are reached. Later, the flow becomes radial.
kV
kH
kH
hw h
Figure 1-21 Well in partial penetration. Geometry of the flow lines. Radial,
spherical and radial flow regimes.
Plot of the pressure versus the reciprocal of the square root of time 1 ∆t . The
response follows a straight line of slope mSPH :
qBµ qBµ φ µ ct
∆p = 70.6 − 2452.9 3 2 (psi, field units)
k S rS k S ∆t
qBµ qBµ φµ c t
∆p = 9.33 − 279.3 3 2 (Bars, metric units) ( 1-19)
k S rS k S ∆t
m SP
H
1 ∆t
Figure 1-22 Well in partial penetration. Specialized analysis with the pressure
versus 1/ the square root of time.
Result : the spherical permeability ks
23
 φµ ct 
k S =  2452.9qBµ  (mD, field units)
 mSPH 
 
- 16 -
23
 φµ c t 
k S =  279.3qBµ  (mD, metric units) ( 1-20)
 mSPH 
 
The permeability anisotropy is expressed with :
3
kH  kH 
=  ( 1-21)
kV  k s 
1-2.7 Fissured reservoir (double porosity behavior)
In fissured reservoirs, the fissure network and the matrix blocks react at a different
time, and the pressure response deviates from the standard homogeneous behavior.
Pressure profile
Î Ï Í Í
Î Í Í
p
rw pm ri r
pi
pf
pwf
Figure 1-23 Double porosity behavior. Pressure distribution.

Fissure system homogeneous regime.
First, the matrix blocks production is negligible. The fissure system homogeneous
behavior is seen.
- 17 -
Ï
Î
Î Ï Í Í Í
Î Í Í Í ÍÍ
p r ri
w r
pi
pm > pf
pwf

Transition regime.
When the matrix blocks start to produce into the fissures, the pressure deviates
from the homogeneous behavior to follow a transition regime.
Ï
Î
Î Ï Í Í Í
Î Í Í Í Í Í
p r ri
w r
pi
pm = pf
pwf

Total system homogeneous regime (fissures + matrix).
When the pressure equalizes between fissures and matrix blocks, the homogeneous
behavior of the total system (fissure and matrix) is reached.
- 18 -
1-2.8 Limited reservoir (one sealing fault)
When one sealing fault is present near the producing well, the pressure response
deviates from the usual infinite acting behavior after some production time.
Pressure profile
Î Ï Í
Í
Î Í Í
p
rw ri L r
pi
pwf
Figure 1-26 One sealing fault. Pressure profile at time t1.

The fault is not reached, infinite reservoir behavior.
p
rw L ri r
pi
pwf

The fault is reached, but it is not seen at the well. Infinite reservoir behavior.
p
rw L r ri
pi
pwf
The fault is reached, and it is seen at the well. Start of boundary effect.
- 19 -
p rw L r
pi
ri
pwf
The fault is reached, and it is seen at the well. Hemi-radial flow.
t1 : the fault is not reached, radial flow
t2 : the fault is reached
t3 : the fault is seen at the well, transition
t4 : hemi-radial flow
Figure 1-30 One sealing fault. Drainage radius.
A second semi-log straight line with a slope double (2m). Result : the fault
distance L.
2m
Log ∆t
Figure 1-31 One sealing fault.
Specialized analysis on semi-log scale.
The time intersect ∆tx between the two lines is used to estimate the fault distance
L:
- 20 -
k∆t x
L = 0.01217 (ft, field units)
φµ ct
k∆t x
L = 0.0141 (m, metric units) ( 1-22)
φµ c t
1-2.9 Closed reservoir
In closed reservoir, when all boundaries have been reached, the flow changes to
Pseudo Steady State : the pressure decline is proportional to time.
Pressure profile
As long as the reservoir is infinite acting, the pressure profile expands around the
well during the production (and the well bottom hole pressure drops).
ri (t1) Re
Ï
Î Ï Í
Í
Î Í Í
p
rw ri (t1) ri (t2) = Re
r
pi
t1 t2
t3
t4
Infinite acting
pwf Pseudo Steady State
Figure 1-32 Circular closed reservoir. Pressure profiles.

Time t1: the boundaries are not reached, infinite reservoir behavior: the
pressure profile expands.
Time t2: boundaries reached, end of infinite reservoir behavior.
Times t3 and t4: pseudo steady state regime, the pressure profile drops.
During the pseudo steady state regime, all boundaries have been reached and the
pressure profile drops (but its shape remains constant with time).
- 21 -
During drawdown, plot of the pressure versus elapsed time ∆t on a linear scale. At
late time, a straight line of slope m* characterizes the Pseudo Steady State regime:
qB qBµ  A 
∆p = 0.234 ∆t + 162.6 log 2 − log( C A ) + 0.351 + 0.87 S  (psi, field units)
φ ct hA kh  rw 
qBµ  
log 2 − log(C A ) + 0.351 + 0.87 S  (Bars, metric
qB A
∆p = 0.0417 ∆t + 21.5
φ c t hA kh  rw 
units) ( 1-23)
pi
Pressure, p
p-
pseudo ste
ady state
slope m*
Time, t
Figure 1.33 Drawdown and build-up pressure response.
Linear scale. Closed system.
Result : the reservoir pore volume φ hA.
qB
φ hA = 0.234 (cu ft, field units)
ct m *
qB
φ hA = 0.0417 (m3, metric units) ( 1-24)
ct m *
During shut-in, the pressure stabilizes to the average reservoir pressure p ( < pi ) .
1-2.10 Interference test
Pressure profile
With interference tests, the pressure is monitored in an observation well at distance

r from the producer. The pressure signal is observed with a delay, the amplitude of
the response is small.
- 22 -
pi
5000
Observation well
Pressure (psia) 4500

Producing well
4000
3500
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (hours)
Figure 1-34 Interference test. Response of a producing and an observation
well. Linear scale.
Ï Producing well
Observation well
Ï
Í Í
Î Í Í
p
rw ri r
pi
pwf
Figure 1-35 Interference test. Pressure distribution.
1-2.11 Well responses
A limited number of flow line geometries produce a characteristic pressure

behavior: radial, linear, spherical etc. For each flow regime, the pressure follows a
well-defined time function: log ∆t , ∆t , 1 ∆t etc. A straight line can be
drawn on a specialized pressure versus time plot, to access the corresponding well
or reservoir parameter.
A complete well response is defined as a sequence of regimes. By identification of

the characteristic pressure behaviors present on the response, the chronology and
time limits of the different flow regime are established, defining the interpretation
model.
- 23 -
For a fractured well for example, the sequence of regimes is :
1. Linear
(1)
2. Radial
(2)
Figure 1.36 Fractured well example.
In the case of a well in a channel reservoir :
(1) 1. Radial
(2)
2. Linear
Figure 1.37 Example of a well in a channel reservoir.
1-2.12 Productivity Index
The Productivity Index is the ratio of the flow rate by the drawdown pressure drop,
expressed from the average reservoir pressure p .
q
PI =
( p − pwf )
(Bbl/D/psi, m3/D/Bars) ( 1-25)
The Ideal Productivity Index defines the productivity if the skin of the well is zero.
q
PI (S=0) =
( p − pwf ) − ∆pskin
(Bbl/D/psi, m3/D/Bars) ( 1-26)
During the infinite acting period p ≈ pi , the Transient Productivity Index is

decreasing with time.
kh
PI = (Bbl/D/psi, field units)
 k 
162.6 Bµ  log ∆t + log − 3.23 + 0.87 S 
 φµ ct rw2 
kh
PI = (m3/D/Bars, metric units) ( 1-27)
 k 
21.5Bµ  log ∆t + log − 3.10 + 0.87 S 
 φµ c r
t w
2

- 24 -
The Pseudo Steady State Productivity Index is a constant
kh
PI = (Bbl/D/psi, field units)
 A 
162.6 Bµ  log − log( C A ) + 0.351 + 0.87 S 
 rw2 
kh
PI = (m3/D/Bars, metric units) ( 1-28)
 
21.5Bµ  log 2 − log(C A ) + 0.351 + 0.87 S 
A
 
 rw 
1-2.13 Pressure profile and Radius of Investigation
The Exponential Integral of Equation A-16 defines the pressure as a function of

time and distance :
141.2qBµ  φµ ct r 2 
∆p (∆t , r ) =− 0.5 Ei −  (psi, field units)
kh  0.001056k ∆t 
18.66qBµ  φ µ c t r 2 
∆p (∆t , r ) =− 0.5 Ei − (Bars, metric units) ( 1-29)
kh  0.0001423k∆t 
 
For small x, Ei(− x ) =− ln (γ x ) : the Exponential Integral can be approximated by

a log (with γ = 1.78, Euler's constant).
∆p( ∆t , r ) =
162.6∆qBµ
kh [ ( ) ]
log 0.000264 k ∆t φµ ct r 2 + 0.809 (psi, field units)
∆p (∆t , r ) =
21.5qBµ
kh
[ ( ) ]
log 0.000356k ∆t φµ ct r 2 + 0.809 (Bars, metric units) ( 1-30)
(The semi-log straight line Eq. 1-12 corresponds to Eq. 1-30 for r=rw).
p
Log r
pi
t1 t2 t3 t4
pwf
Figure 1-38 Pressure profile versus the log of the distance to the well.
When presented versus log(r), the pressure profile at a given time is a straight line
until the distance becomes too large for the logarithm approximation of the
- 25 -
Exponential Integral. Beyond this limit, the profile flattens, and tends
asymptotically towards the initial pressure.
The radius of investigation ri tentatively describes the distance that the pressure
transient has moved into the formation. Several definitions have been proposed, in
general ri is defined with one of the two relationships :
(0.000264k ∆t φµ c r ) = 41 or = γ1
t i
2
2
(field units)
(0.000356k ∆t φµ c r ) = 14 or = γ1
t i
2
2
(metric units) ( 1-31)
1 1
(in dimensionless terms of Equation 2.4 or 8-2, t D riD2 = 2
or t D riD = 2 ).
4 γ
This gives respectively,
ri = 0.032 k∆t φµ ct (ft, field units)

ri = 0.037 k∆t φµc t (m, metric units) ( 1-32)
and
ri = 0.029 k∆t φµ ct (ft, field units)

ri = 0.034 k∆t φµct (m, metric units) ( 1-33)
(the radius of investigation is independent of the rate).
The radius of investigation ri is sometimes viewed as the minimum distance of any

event, such as a reservoir limit, that cannot be observed during the test period.
With the sealing fault example of Figure 1-30, the pressure transient reaches the
fault 4 times earlier the boundary can be observed on the producing well pressure
behavior.
In practice, for an initial flow period, the radius of investigation of Equation 1-32
or 1-33 is relatively consistent with the distance estimated by a simulation, when a
boundary effect is introduced at the end of the test period. For a shut-in periods,
Equations 1-32 and 1-33 are not always accurate.
- 26 -
2 - THE ANALYSIS METHODS
2-1 Log-log scale

For a given period of the test, the change in pressure ∆p is plotted on log-log scale
versus the elapsed time ∆t. This data plot is then compared to a set of
dimensionless theoretical curves.
102
101
∆P,
psi 100
10-1
10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 102

(3.6 sec) (36 sec) (6 mn)
∆t, hr
Figure 2-1 Log-log scale.
pD = A ∆p, { A= f ( kh,...)}
( 2-1)
t D = B ∆t , {B = g( k , C, S ...)}
The shape of the response curve is characteristic : the product of one of the
variables by a constant term is changed into a displacement on the logarithmic
axes. If the flow rate is doubled for example, the amplitude of the response ∆p is
doubled also, but the graph of log(∆p) is only be shifted by log(2) along the
pressure axis. With the log-log scale, the shape of the data plot is used for the
diagnosis of the interpretation model(s).
log pD = log A + log ∆p

( 2-2)
log t D = log B + log ∆t
The log-log analysis is global : it considers the full period, from very early time to
the latest recorded pressure point. The scale expands the response at early time.
- 27 -
Chapter 2 - The analysis methods
2-2 Pressure curves analysis
2-2.1 Example of pressure type-curve : "Well with wellbore storage and

skin, homogeneous reservoir"
Dimensionless terms
Dimensionless terms are used because they illustrate pressure responses

independently of the physical parameters magnitude (such as flowrate, fluid or
rock properties). For example, describing the well damage with the dimensionless
skin factor S is much more meaningful than using the actual pressure drop near the
wellbore.
Dimensionless pressure
kh
pD = ∆p (field units)
. qBµ
1412
kh
pD = ∆p (metric units) ( 2-3)
18.66qBµ
Dimensionless time
0.000264 k
tD = ∆t (field units)
φµ ct rw2
0.000356k
tD = ∆t (metric units) ( 2-4)
φµ c t rw2
Dimensionless wellbore storage coefficient
0.8936C
CD = (field units)
φ ct hrw2
0.1592C
CD = (metric units) ( 2-5)
φ c t hrw2
Dimensionless time group
tD kh ∆t
= 0.000295 (field units)
CD µ C
tD kh ∆t
= 0.00223 (metric units) ( 2-6)
CD µ C
- 28 -
1 02 1060
1050
1040
1030
Approximate start of
Dimensionless Pressure, pD
1020
semi-log straight line 1015
1010
10 8 106
10 104 103
102 10
3 1
0.3
CDe2S
1
10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104
Dimensionless time, tD/CD
Figure 2-2 Pressure type-curve: Well with wellbore storage and skin,
homogeneous reservoir. Log-log scale.
CDe(2S) = 1060 to 0.3.
Dimensionless curve group
0.8936C 2 S
CD e 2 S = e (field units)
φ ct hrw2
0.1592C 2S
C D e 2S = e (metric units) ( 2-7)
φ c t hrw2
The curve label CD e2S defines the well condition. It ranges from CD e2S =0.3 for
stimulated wells, up to 1060 for very damaged wells.
Log-log matching procedure
103
Pressure change, ∆p (psi)
102
101
1
10-3 10-2 10-1 1 101 102
Elapsed time, ∆t (hours)

Figure 2-3 Build-up example. Log-log plot
- 29 -
The log-log data plot ∆p, ∆t is superimposed on a set of dimensionless type-curves

pD, tD /CD. The early time unit slope straight line is matched on the "wellbore
2S
storage" asymptote but the final choice of the CD e curve is frequently not unique
(Figure 2-12).
Results of log-log analysis
Pressure match PM = p D ∆p : the permeability thickness product
kh = 141.2qBµ (PM ) (mD.ft, field units)

kh = 18.66qBµ (PM ) (mD.m, metric units) ( 2-8)
Time match TM = (t D C D ) ∆t : the wellbore storage coefficient
kh  1 
C = 0.000295   (Bbl/psi, field units)
µ  TM 
kh  1  3
C = 0.00223   (m /Bars, metric units) ( 2-9)
µ  TM 
Curve match : the skin
C D e 2 S Match
S = 0.5 ln ( 2-10)
CD
2-2.2 Shut-in periods
Drawdown periods are in general not suitable for analysis because it is difficult to
ascertain a constant flowrate. The response is distorted, especially with the log-log
scale that expands the response at early time. Build-up periods are preferably
used : the flowrate is nil, therefore well controlled.
Example of a shut-in after a single rate drawdown
Build-up responses do not show the same behavior as a first drawdown in a

reservoir at initial pressure. After a drawdown of tp, the well shows a pressure
drop of ∆p(tp). It takes an infinite time to reach the initial pressure during build-up,
and to produce a pressure change ∆pBU of amplitude ∆p(tp). Build-up responses
depend upon the previous rate history.
- 30 -
pi
Pressure, p
∆pBU(∆t)
∆p (tp) ∆t BU
Rate, q
q
0
0 tp tp+∆t
Time, t
Figure 2-4 History drawdown - shut-in.
The diffusivity equation used to generate the well test analysis solutions is linear.
It is possible to add several pressure responses in order to describe the well
behavior after any rate change. This is the superposition principle.
For a build-up after a single drawdown at rate q, an injection period at -q is

superposed to the extended flow period.
(∆p (tp+∆t) - ∆p (∆t) )

pi
Pressure, p
∆p (∆t)
∆p (tp+∆t)
∆p (tp)
Rate, q
q
0
-q
0 tp ∆t
Time, t
Figure 2-5 History extended drawdown + injection.
Log-log analysis : build-up type curve
[p D ( ∆t ) D ]BU = pD ( ∆t ) D − pD t p + ∆t( ) D
( )
+ pD t p
D
( 2-11)
The pressure build-up curve is compressed on the ∆p axis when ∆t>>tp.
- 31 -
10 2
CDe2S drawdown
type curve
pD(tpD )
10
build-up type curve
tpD
10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104
Dimensionless time, tD /CD
Figure 2-6 Drawdown and build-up type curves (tpD = 2).
Semi-log analysis : superposition time
qBµ t p ∆t 
[∆p(∆t )]BU = 162.6 log + log
k
− 3.23 + 0 .87 S  (psi, field units)
 t p + ∆t
kh φ µ ct rw2 
qBµ  t p ∆t 
[∆p(∆t )]BU = 21.5 log + log
k
− 3.10 + 0 .87 S  (Bars, metric units)
kh  t p + ∆t φµ ct rw2 
( 2-12)
With the superposition time, the correction compresses the ∆t scale.
10
CDe2S drawdown
type curve
pD(tpD )
build-up type curve
5
tpD
0
10-1 1 10 102 103 104
Dimensionless times, tD / CD and [ tpD tD / (tpD + tD) CD ]
Figure 2-7 Drawdown and build-up type curves of Figure 2-6
on semi-log scale.
Horner method
qBµ t p + ∆t
pws = pi − 162.6 log (psi, field units)
kh ∆t
qBµ t p + ∆t
p ws = p i − 21.5 log (Bars, metric units) ( 2-13)
kh ∆t
- 32 -
10
P*
5 m
0
1 10 102 103 104 105
Horner time, [(tpD + tD) / tD ]
Figure 2-8 Horner plot of build-up type curve of Figure 2-6.
Horner analysis :
• The slope m,
• The pressure at ∆t =1 hour on the straight line
• The extrapolated pressure to infinite shut-in time (∆t = ∞): p*.
Results :
qBµ
m
qBµ
m
 ∆p k tp +1 
.  1 hr − log
S = 1151 + log + 3.23 (field units)
 m φµ ct rw2 tp 
 ∆p k t p +1 
S = 1.151 1 hr − log + log + 3.10  (metric units) ( 2-14)
 m φµ c t rw
2
t 
 p 
In an infinite system, the straight line extrapolates to the initial pressure and p*=pi.
Multi- rate superposition
At time ∆t of flow period # n, the multi-rate type curve is :
n −1
qi − qi −1
[ pD ( ∆t ) D ] MR
= ∑q n −1 − qn
[ ]
pD (t n − ti ) D − pD ( t n + ∆t − ti ) D + pD ( ∆t ) D ( 2-15)
i =1
- 33 -
Pressure, p
∆t
Period #
1,2,…, 5, 6,…….....10, 11
Rate, q
q1,…. q5=0, q6,………..q10, q11=0

Time, t
Figure 2-9 Multi- rate history. Example with 10 periods before shut-in.
The multirate superposition time is expressed :
Bµ n−1
p ws (∆t ) = pi −162.6 ∑ (qi − qi −1 )log(t n + ∆t − ti )+(qn − qn−1 )log(∆t ) (psi, field units)
kh i =1
Bµ n −1
p ws (∆t ) = p i −21.5 ∑ (qi − qi −1 ) log(t n + ∆t − t i ) + (q n − q n −1 ) log(∆t ) (Bars, metric
kh i =1
units) ( 2-16)
Limitations if the time superposition: the sealing fault example
In the following example, the well is produced 50 hours and shut-in for a pressure
build-up. A sealing fault is present near the well and, at 100 hours, the flow
geometry changes from infinite acting radial flow to hemi-radial flow.
5000
4500
Pressure, psi
Radial Hemi-radial
4000
3500
Infinite reservoir
Sealing fault
Radial Hemi-radial
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Time, hours
Figure 2-10 History drawdown – build-up. Well near a sealing fault.
During the 50 initial hours of the shut-in period (cumulative time 50 to 100 hours),
both the extended drawdown and the injection periods are in radial flow regime.
- 34 -
The superposition time of Equations 2-12 or 2-13 is applicable, and the Horner
method is accurate.
At intermediate shut-in times, from 50 to 100 hours (cumulative time 100 to 150
hours), the extended drawdown follows a semi-log straight line of slope 2m when
the injection is still in radial flow (slope m). Theoretically, the semi-log
approximation of Equation 2-11 with Equation 2-12 is not correct.
Ultimately, the fault influence is felt during the injection and the 2 periods follow
the same semi-log straight line of slope 2m (shut-in time >> 100 hours, cumulative
time >> 150 hours). The semi-log superposition time is again applicable.
In practice, when the flow regime deviates from radial flow in the course of the
response, the error introduced by the Horner or multirate time superposition
method is negligible on pressure curve analysis results. It is more sensitive when
the derivative of the pressure is considered.
Time superposition with other flow regimes
The time superposition is sometimes used with other flow regimes for straight-line
analysis. When all test periods follow the same flow behavior, the Horner time can
be expressed with the corresponding time function. For fractured wells, Horner
time corresponding to linear (Equation 1-15) and bi-linear flow (Equation 1-17) is
expressed respectively :
(t )
12
− ( ∆t )
12
p + ∆t (hr1/2) ( 2-17)
(t p + ∆t )1 4 −(∆t )1 4 (hr 1/4

) ( 2-18)
The Horner time corresponding to spherical flow of Equation 1-19 has been used
for the analysis of RFT pressure data.
( ∆t )−1 2 − (t p + ∆t )
−1 2
(hr-1/2) ( 2-19)
- 35 -
2-2.3 Pressure analysis method
The analysis is made on log-log and specialized plots. The purpose of the
specialized analysis is to concentrate on a portion of the data that corresponds to a
particular flow behavior. The analysis is carried out by the identification of a
straight line on a plot whose scale is specific to the flow regime considered. The
time limits of the specialized straight lines are defined by the log-log diagnosis.
4000
p* p(1hr)
3750
slope m
Pressure, psia
slop
em
3500
3250
3000
1 101 102 103 104
(tp +∆t )/ ∆t
Figure 2-11 Build-up example of Figure 2-3. Semi-log Horner analysis.
1 02 1060
1050
1040
1030
1020
1015
1010
10 8 106
10 104 103
102 10
3 1
0.3
CDe2S
1
10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104
Figure 2-12 Build-up example of Figure 2-3. Log-log match.
For the radial flow analysis of a build-up period, the semi-log superposition time is
used. The slope m of the Horner / superposition straight line defines the final
pressure match of the log-log analysis.
p D 1.151
PM = = (psi-1, Bars-1) ( 2-20)
∆p m
2S
Once the pressure match is defined, the CD e curve is known accurately. Results
from log-log and specialized analyses must be consistent.
- 36 -
2-3 Pressure derivative
2-3.1 Definition
The natural logarithm is used.
dp dp
∆p ' = = ∆t (psi, Bars) ( 2-21)
d ln ∆t dt
The derivative is plotted on log-log coordinates versus the elapsed time ∆t since
the beginning of the period.
2-3.2 Derivative type-curve : "Well with wellbore storage and skin,

homogeneous reservoir"
Radial flow
Log ∆p
Log ∆p' ∆p' = constant
Log ∆t
Figure 2-13 Pressure and derivative responses on log-log scale.
Radial flow.
qBµ  k 
∆p = 162.6 log ∆t + log − 3.23 + 0.87 S  (psi, field units)
kh  φ µ ct rw
2

qBµ  k 
kh  φ µ c t rw2 
The radial flow regime does not produce a characteristic log-log shape on the
pressure curve but it is characteristic with the derivative presentation : it is
constant.
qB µ
∆p ' = 70. 6 (psi, field units)
kh
qBµ
∆p ' = 9.33 (Bars, metric units) ( 2-22)
kh
In dimensionless terms,
- 37 -
dp D
= 0.5 ( 2-23)
d ln( t D C D )
Wellbore storage
qB
∆p = ∆t (psi, Bars)
24C
( 1-6)
qB
∆p' = ∆t (psi, Bars) ( 2-24)
24C
During wellbore storage, the pressure change ∆p and the pressure derivative ∆p'
are identical. On log-log scale, the pressure and the derivative curves follow a
single straight line of slope equal to unity.
Log ∆p
Log ∆p' Slope 1
Log ∆t
Wellbore storage
Derivative of Section 2-2 example
During the transition between the wellbore storage and the infinite acting radial
2S
flow regime, the derivative shows a hump, function of the CD e group.
103
Pressure derivative, ∆p' (psi)
102
1
pe
slo 0.5 line
101
1
10-3 10-2 10-1 1 101 102
Figure 2-15 Derivative of build-up example Figure 2-3. Log-log scale.
- 38 -
Derivative type-curve
1 02
Dimensionless Pressure erivative, p'D
CDe2S
1060
1040 1050
10 1030
1020
1015
1010
108
106
103
102 104
1 10
3
1
0.3
10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104
Figure 2-16 "Well with wellbore storage and skin, homogeneous reservoir"
Derivative of type-curve Figure 2-2. Log-log scale.
CDe(2S) = 1060 to 0.3.
Derivative match
The match point is defined with the unit slope pressure and derivative straight line,
and the 0.5 derivative stabilization.
1 02
Dimensionless Pressure Derivative, p'D
10
10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104
Figure 2-17 Derivative match of example Figure 2-3. Log-log scale.
2-3.3 Other characteristic flow regimes
During other characteristic flow regimes, the pressure changes with the elapsed
time power 1/n :
- 39 -
∆p = A (∆t )1 n + B (psi, Bars) ( 2-25)
With:
• 1/n =1 during the pure wellbore storage and the pseudo steady state regimes,
• 1/n =1/2 in the case of linear flow,
• 1/n =1/4 for bi-linear flow,
• 1/n =-1/2 when spherical flow is established.
The logarithm derivative is:
= (∆t )
dp A 1n
∆p ' = (psi, Bars) ( 2-26)
d ln ∆t n
The log-log pressure derivative curve (∆p', ∆t) follows a straight-line slope of 1/n.
Infinite conductivity fracture (linear flow)
On log-log scale, the pressure and derivative follow two straight lines of slope 1/2.
The level of the derivative half-unit slope line is half that of the pressure.
qB µ
∆p = 4.06 ∆t (psi, field units)
hx f φ ct k
qB µ
∆p = 0.623 ∆t (Bars, metric units) ( 1-15)
hx f φ ct k
qB µ
∆p' = 2.03 ∆t (psi, field units)
hx f φ ct k
qB µ
∆p' = 0.311 ∆t (Bars, metric units) ( 2-27)
hx f φ ct k
Slope 1/2
Log ∆p
Log ∆p'
Log ∆t
Infinite conductivity fracture.
- 40 -
Finite conductivity fracture (bi-linear flow)
A log-log straight line of slope 1/4 can be observed on pressure and derivative
curves, but the derivative line is four times lower.
qBµ
∆p = 44.11 4
qBµ
∆p = 6.28 4
h k f wf 4 φµ c t k
qBµ
∆p' = 11.03 4
qBµ
∆p' = 1.571 4
h k f wf 4 φµ ct k
Slope 1/4
Log ∆p
Log ∆p'
Log ∆t
Finite conductivity fracture.
Well in partial penetration (spherical flow)
qBµ qBµ φ µ ct
∆p = 70.6 − 2452.9 3 2 (psi, field units)
k S rS k S ∆t
qBµ qBµ φµ c t
∆p = 9.33 − 279.3 3 2 (Bars, metric units) ( 1-19)
k S rS k S ∆t
qBµ φ µ ct
∆p' = 1226.4 (psi, field units)
k S3 2 ∆t
qBµ φµ c t
∆p ' = 139.6 (Bars, metric units) ( 2-29)
k S3 2 ∆t
The shape of the log-log pressure curve is not characteristic but the derivative
follows a straight line with a negative half-unit slope.
- 41 -
Log ∆p
Slope –1/2
Log ∆p'
Log ∆t
Well in partial penetration.
Closed system (pseudo steady state)
The late part of the log-log pressure and derivative drawdown curves tends to a
unit-slope straight line. The derivative exhibits the characteristic straight line
before it is seen on the pressure response.
Log ∆p
Slope 1
Log ∆p'
Log ∆t
Closed system (drawdown).

qBµ 
log 2 − log(C A ) + 0.351 + 0.87 S  (psi, field units)
qB A
∆p = 0.234 ∆t + 162.6
φ ct hA 
kh rw 
qBµ  
qB A
∆p = 0.0417 ∆t + 21.5
φ c t hA kh  rw 
units) ( 1-22)
qB
∆p ' = 0.234 ∆t (psi, field units)
φ ct hA
qB
∆p ' = 0.0417 ∆t (Bars, metric units) ( 2-30)
φ ct hA
- 42 -
2-3.4 Data differentiation
The algorithm uses three points, one point before (left = 1) and one after
(right = 2) the point i of interest. It estimates the left and right slopes, and
attributes their weighted mean to the point i. On a p vs. x semi-log plot,
 ∆p   ∆p 
  ∆x2 +   ∆x1
dp  ∆x  1  ∆x  2
= ( 2-31)
dx ∆x1 + ∆x2
It is recommended to start by using consecutive points. If the resulting derivative

curve is too noisy, smoothing is applied by increasing the distance ∆x between the
point i and points 1 and 2. The smoothing is defined as a distance L, expressed on
the time axis scale. The points 1 and 2 are the first at distance ∆x1,2>L.
The smoothing coefficient L is increased until the derivative response is smooth

enough but no more, over smoothing the data introduces distortions. With this
smoothing method, L is usually no more than 0.2 or 0.3.
L
2
i
∆p2
1
∆x2
∆p1
∆x1
Log (superposition)
Figure 2-22 Differentiation of a set of pressure data.
At the end of the period, point i becomes closer to last recorded point than the
distance L. Smoothing is not possible any more to the right side, the end effect is
reached. This effect can introduce distortions at the end of the derivative response.
2-3.5 Build-up analysis
For a shut-in after a single drawdown period (the Horner method is applicable), the
derivative is generated with respect to the modified Horner time given in the
superposition Equation 2-12 :
- 43 -
dp t p + ∆t dp
∆p ' = = ∆t (psi, Bars) ( 2-32)
t p ∆t tp dt
d ln
t p + ∆t
For a complex rate history, the multirate superposition time is used.
In all cases, the derivative is plotted versus the usual elapsed time ∆t : the log-log
derivative curve is not a raw data plot but is dependent upon the rate history
introduced in the time superposition calculations.
Limitations if the time superposition: the sealing fault example
When the response deviates from the infinite acting radial flow regime, the
derivative with respect to the time superposition can introduce a distortion on the
response, as illustrated on the log-log derivative of the build-up example of Figure
2-10 for a well near a sealing fault.
1 04
and Pressure Derivative, psi
1 03
1 02
drawdown
build-up
101
10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 104
Elapsed time ∆t, hours
Figure 2-23 Log-log plot of the build-up example of Figure 2-10. Well near a
sealing fault.
2-4 The analysis scales
The log-log analysis is made with a simultaneous plot of the pressure and
derivative curves of the interpretation period. Time and pressure match are defined
with the derivative response. The CD e2S group is identified by adjusting the curve
match on pressure and derivative data.
- 44 -
1 02 1060
1050
1040
1030
Dimensionless Pressure, pD 1020
1015
and Derivative, p'D 1010
108 106
10 104 103
102 10
3 1
0.3
CDe2S
1
10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104
Figure 2-24 Pressure and derivative type-curve for a well with wellbore
storage and skin, homogeneous reservoir.
The double log-log match is confirmed with a match of the pressure type-curve on
semi-log scale to adjust accurately the skin factor and the initial pressure. A
simulation of the complete test history is presented on linear scale in order to
control the rates, any changes in the well behavior, the average pressure etc.
- 45 -
- 46 -
3 - WELLBORE CONDITIONS
3-1 Well with wellbore storage and skin, homogeneous

reservoir
3-1.1 Characteristic flow regimes
1. Wellbore storage effect. Result: wellbore storage coefficient C.

2. Radial flow. Results: permeability-thickness product kh and skin S.
3-1.2 Log-log analysis
1 02
CDe2S =1030
and Derivative, p'D
high skin
10
1
1 pe low skin
slo CDe2S =0.5
0.5 line
10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104
Figure 3-1 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in an infinite
homogeneous reservoir. Log-log scale.
CDe(2S) = 1030 and 0.5.
3-1.3 Semi-log analysis
50
CDe2S =1030
40 Slope m
30
∆ skin
20
10 CDe2S =0.5
Slope m
0
10-1 1 10 102 103 104
Figure 3-2 Semi-log plot of Figure 3-1.
- 47 -
Chapter 3 - Wellbore conditions
3-2 Infinite conductivity or uniform flux vertical fracture

Two models are available: one considers a uniform flux distribution along the
fracture length and, with the other, the fracture conductivity is infinite.
1. Wellbore storage
2. Linear flow: 1/2 slope straight line. Results: fracture half-length xf.
3. Pseudo radial flow: derivative stabilization at 0.5. Results: permeability-
thickness product kh and the geometrical skin S.
Dimensionless terms
0.000264 k
t Df = ∆t (field units)
φµ ct x 2f
0.000356k
t Df = ∆t (metric units) ( 3-1)
φµ ct x 2f
On Figure 3-3, CD = 0. The two models are slightly different during the transition
between linear flow and radial flow. With the uniform flux model, the transition is
shorter and the pressure curve is higher.
10
and Derivative, p'D
1 0.5 line
1/2
10-1 lope
S
Uniform flux
Infinite condutivity
10-2
10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103
Dimensionless time, tDf
Figure 3-3 Responses for a well intercepting a high conductivity fracture.
Log-log scale.
No wellbore storage effect CD = 0. Infinite conductivity and uniform flux.
Match results
The kh product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq. 2-8) and the fracture
half-length xf from the time match :
- 48 -
0.000264k 1
xf = (ft, field units)
φµ ct TM
0.000264k 1
xf = (m, metric units) ( 3-2)
φµ ct TM
The fracture stimulation is seen as a negative skin during the radial flow regime.
With infinite conductivity fracture, this geometrical skin effect is defined from the
fracture half-length xf as :
x f = 2 rw e − S (ft, m) ( 3-3)
And, for the uniform flux solution,
x f = 2.7 rw e − S (ft, m) ( 3-4)
Figure 3-4 Flow line geometry near a fractured well.
3-2.3 Linear flow analysis
The half fracture length xf is also estimated from Equation 1-16.

1.2
m LF
0.8
0.4 Uniform flux

Infinite condutivity
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Square root of dimensionless time, √tDf

Figure 3-5 Square root of time plot of Figure 3-3.
Early time analysis.
- 49 -
3-2.4 Fractured well with wellbore storage

10
and Derivative, p'D
1 1/2
pe
S lo 0.5 line
CD=0
10-1
103, 104
10-2
10 -4 10 -3 10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103
Dimensionless time, tDf
Figure 3-6 Responses for a fractured well with wellbore storage. Infinite
conductivity fracture. Log-log scale.
3 4
CD = 0, 10 , 10 .
3-2.5 Damaged fracture with wellbore storage

10
and Derivative, p'D
S=1
10-1 S=0.3
S=0
10-2
10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103
Figure 3-7 Responses for a fractured well with wellbore storageand skin.
Infinite conductivity fracture. Log-log scale.
S = 0, 0.3, 1.
3-3 Finite conductivity vertical fracture

With the finite conductivity fracture model, there is a pressure gradient along the
fracture length. This happens when the permeability of the fracture is not very high
compared to the permeability of the formation, especially when the fracture is
long.

1. Wellbore storage
2. Bi-linear flow : 1/4 slope straight line. Results : fracture conductivity kfwf.
3. Linear flow: 1/2 slope straight line. Results : fracture half-length xf.
4. Pseudo radial flow : derivative stabilization at 0.5. Results : permeability-
thickness product kh and the geometrical skin S.
- 50 -
The dimensionless fracture conductivity kfDwfD is defined as :
k f wf
k fD w fD = ( 3-5)
kx f
10
1
and Derivative, p'D
0.5 line
10-1
1/2
pe
Slo
10-2
/4
Slope 1
10-3
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105
Figure 3-8 Response for a well intercepting a finite conductivity fracture. Log-
log scale.
No wellbore storage effect CD = 0, kfDwfD = 100.
For large fracture conductivity kfDwfD, the bilinear flow regime is short lived and
the 1/4-slope pressure and derivative straight lines are moved downwards. The
behavior tends to a high conductivity fracture response (when kfDwfD is greater
than 300, see Figure 3-10).
10
1
and Derivative, p'D
kfDwfD=
0.5 line
10-1 1
1/2
pe
10 Sl o
10-2
100
/4
Slope 1
10-3
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105
Figure 3-9 Response for a well intercepting a finite conductivity fracture. Log-
log scale.
No wellbore storage effect CD = 0, no fracture skin, kfDwfD = 1, 10 and 100.
Match results
The kh product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq. 2-8) and the fracture
half-length xf from the time match (Eq. 3-2). The fracture conductivity kfwf is
estimated from the match on the bi-linear flow 1/4 slope.
- 51 -
The fracture negative skin is defined by two terms: the geometrical skin of an
infinite conductivity fracture (Eq. 3-3), and a correction parameter G to account
for the pressure losses in the fracture.
 k f wf 
S LKF = G  + ln 2rw ( 3-6)
 kxf  xf
 
0.5
rwe / xf
10-1
10-2
10-1 1 10 102 103
Dimensionless fracture conductivity, kfDwfD
Figure 3-10 Effective wellbore radius for a well with a finite conductivity
fracture. Log-log scale.
3-3.3 Bi-linear and linear flow analyses
The fracture conductivity kfwf is estimated with Equation 1-18, the fracture half-
length form Equation 1-16.
3-3.4 Flux distribution along the fracture
3
Uniform flux
Infinite conductivity
Finite conductivity
Dimensionless flux, qfD
2
kfDwfD >300
1
5
0.5
0
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1
Dimensionless distance, x /xf
Figure 3-11 Stabilized flux distribution.
Uniform flux, Infinite conductivity (kfDwfD > 300) and Finite conductivity
fracture (kfDwfD = 0.5 and 5) models.
- 52 -
3-4 Well in partial penetration

3-4.1 Definition
Sw
kV
h kH
hw
zw
Figure 3-12 Geometry of a partially penetrating well.
hw : open interval thickness

zw : distance of the center of the open interval to the lower reservoir boundary
kH : horizontal permeability
kV : vertical permeability
1. Wellbore storage.
2. Radial flow over the open interval : a first derivative plateau at 0.5 h/hw.
Results : permeability-thickness product for the open interval kHhw, and the
skin of the well, Sw.
3. Spherical flow : -1/2 slope derivative straight line. Results : permeability

anisotropy kH/kV and location of the open interval in the reservoir thickness.
4. Radial flow over the entire reservoir thickness : second derivative stabilization
at 0.5. Results : permeability-thickness product for the total reservoir kHh, and
the total skin ST.
The total skin combines the wellbore skin Sw and an additional geometrical skin
Spp due to distortion of the flow lines, as depicted on Figure 1-21:
• Spp is large when the penetration ratio hw/h or the vertical permeability kV is low
(high anisotropy kH/kV).
• For damaged wells, the product (h/hw)Sw can be larger than 100.
h
ST = S w + S pp ( 3-7)
hw
A skin above 30 or 50 is indicative of a partial penetration effect.
- 53 -
Influence of kV / kH
102
10-3 -2
10 -1
10
and Derivative, p'D
10
first stabilization
1 0.5 line
kV/kH = 10-1 10-2 10-3

10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 3-13 Responses for a well in partial penetration with wellbore storage
and skin. Log-log scale.
hw/h = 1/5 in center of the interval, CD = 33, Sw=0, kV / kH = 0.10, 0.01 and
0.001.
When the vertical permeability kV is low (low kV/kH), the start of the spherical
flow regime is delayed (-1/2 derivative slope moved to the right).
Influence of zw/h
102
and Derivative, p'D
10
hem
i-sp
h eric
sph al
1 eric
al
0.5 line
10-1
10 102 103 104 105 106 107
and skin. Log-log scale.
hw/h = 1/10, CD = 6, Sw=0, kV/kH = 0.005, zw/h = 0.5 and 0.2.
Match results
The kHh product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq. 2-8). The wellbore skin
Sw and the penetration ratio hw/h are estimated from the first radial flow when
present (derivative plateau at 0.5 h/hw) :
hw ∆p2nd stab. m2nd line

= = ( 3-8)
h ∆p1st stab. m1st line
The permeability anisotropy kV/kH and location of the open interval are estimated
from the spherical flow -1/2 slope match.
- 54 -
kV/kH =
40
10-3
Slope m
10-2
30 10-1
∆ Spp
20
10
0
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106
Influence of kV / kH on Spp (Sw=0).
The final semi-log straight line defines kHh and ST. When a first semi-log straight
line is seen (radial flow over the open interval), it defines the permeability-
thickness kHhw (penetration ratio hw/h with Eq. 3-8), and the wellbore skin Sw.
3-4.5 Geometrical skin Spp
When the penetration ratio hw h and the dimensionless reservoir thickness-

anisotropy group (h rw ) k H kV are not very small, Spp can be expressed :
 hw 
 h
=
 π h
− 1 ln
kH  h  h
+ ln 
(z + hw 4)(h − z + hw 4)  ( 3-9)
(z − hw 4)(h − z − hw 4) 
S pp
 hw   2 rw k V  hw  h
2+ w
 h 
With hw h = 0.1 and kH/kV = 1000, Spp = 68 whereas with hw h = 0.5 and
kH/kV = 10, Spp = 6 only.
3-4.6 Spherical flow analysis
Plot of ∆p versus 1 ∆t . The straight line is frequently not well defined and the
analysis is difficult : on example kV/kH =10-3 of Figure 3-13, the spherical flow
regime is established between tD/CD=104 and 106. The straight line is very
compressed, it ends before 1 t D C D =0.01.
- 55 -
When the open interval is in the middle of the formation, the slope mSPH of the
spherical flow straight line gives the permeability anisotropy from Equations 1-20
and 1-21. If the open interval is close to the top or bottom sealing boundary, flow
is semi-spherical and the slope mSPH must be divided by two in Equation 1-20.
40
35 kV/kH =
10-3 slopes mSPH
30
10-2
15 10-1
20
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Dimensionless time function, 1 t D CD
Figure 3-16 Spherical flow analysis of responses Figure 3-13. One over
square root of time plot.
3-4.7 Influence of the number of open segments
When the open interval is distributed in several segments, the ability of

vertical flow is improved compared to the single segment partially
penetrating well of same hw. On the examples Figure 3-17 with 1, 2 and 4
segments, the –1/2 slope is displaced towards early time when the number of
segments is increased (the global skin is respectively 17.9, 15.9 and 13.9).
102 segments
1
2
and Derivative, p'D
4
10
10-1
1 10 102 103 104 105
and skin. Log-log scale. One, two or four segments.
hw/h = 1/4, CD = 100, Sw=0, kV /kH = 0.10, one segment centered, two or four
segments uniformly distributed in the interval.
- 56 -
3-4.8 Constant pressure upper or lower limit
In the case of a bottom water / oil contact or a gas cap on top of the producing
interval, no final radial flow regime develops after the spherical flow regime: the
pressure stabilizes and the derivative drops.
102
and Derivative, p'D
10
oil
water
10-1
1 10 102 103 104 105
Figure 3-18 Responses for a well in partial penetration with a bottom

constant pressure boundary. Log-log scale.
hw/h = 1/5, CD = 1000, Sw=0, kV/kH = 0.005, one segment on top.
The dotted derivative curve describes the response with sealing upper and
lower boundaries.
3-5 Horizontal well
3-5.1 Definition
kV
kH
kH
L L zw
Figure 3-19 Horizontal well geometry.
L : effective half length of the horizontal well

zw : distance between the drain hole and the bottom-sealing boundary
kH : horizontal permeability
kV : vertical permeability
- 57 -
Vertical radial flow
Linear flow
Horizontal radial flow
Figure 3-20 Horizontal well flow regimes.
1. Wellbore storage.
2. Vertical radial flow : a first derivative plateau at 0.5(h 2 L ) k H kV . Results :
the permeability anisotropy kH/kV and the wellbore skin Sw (or the vertical
radial flow total skin STV of Equation 3-15).
3. Linear flow between the upper and lower boundaries : 1/2 slope derivative
straight line. Results : effective half-length L and well location zw of the
horizontal drain.
4. Radial flow over the entire reservoir thickness : second derivative stabilization
at 0.5. Results : reservoir permeability-thickness product kHh, and the total skin
STH.

10
Dimensionless Pressure , pD
and Derivative p'D
1 0.5
First 1/2
pe
Slo kH h
stabilization
10-1 k H L2
C kV k H 2 L
10-2
10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 3-21 Response for a horizontal well with wellbore storage and skin in a
reservoir with sealing upper and lower boundaries. Log-log scale.
With long drain holes, the 1/2 derivative slope is moved to the right and the first
derivative stabilization is moved down. When the vertical permeability is
increased, the first derivative stabilization is also moved down.
- 58 -
Match results
The kHh product is estimated from the pressure match (Eq. 2-8). The effective
half-length L and well location zw are estimated from the intermediate time 1/2
slope match. The vertical radial flow total skin STV and the permeability anisotropy
kH/kV are estimated from the first radial flow in the vertical plane (permeability
thickness 2 kV k H L and derivative plateau at 0.25(h L) k H kV ).
Influence of L
The examples presented Figures 3-22 to 3-41 are generated with h = 100 ft and
rw = 0.25 ft.
102
and Derivative p'D
10
1 5
15
L/h = 30
10-1
1 10 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 3-22 Influence of L on pressure and derivative log-log curves.
CD =1000, Sw =5, kV /kH =0.004, rw =0.25ft, zw /h =0.5, L =3000, 1500 and
500ft.
When the effective well length is increased, the first derivative stabilization during
the vertical radial flow is lowered and the linear flow regime is delayed.
During the linear flow, the location of the half-unit slope straight line is a function
of L2.
10
and Derivative p'D
1
L/h = 2.5, 5, 10
10-1
1 10 102 103 104 105 106
SQRT (kV kH)*L constant, (∆p1st stab)D= 0.223. CD =100, Sw =0, kV /kH =0.2,
L =250ft; kV /kH =0.05, L =500ft; kV /kH =0.0125, L =1000ft; h =100ft, rw
=0.25ft, zw /h =0.5.
- 59 -
When the effective well length is short, the behavior becomes similar to that of a
well in partial penetration.
102
and Derivative p'D
10
L/h = 2.5, 5, 10
10-1
1 10 102 103 104 105 106
SQRT (kV kH)*L constant, (∆p1st stab)D =1. CD =100, Sw =0, kV /kH =0.01,
L =250ft; kV /kH =0.0025, L =500ft; kV /kH =0.000625, L=1000ft; h =100ft,
rw =0.25ft, zw /h =0.5.
Influence of zw
10
and Derivative p'D
10-1
zw/h = 0.125, 0.25, 0.5
10-2
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105
Figure 3-25 Influence of zw on pressure and derivative log-log curves.
CD =1000, Sw =2, L =1500ft, kV /kH =0.02, h =100ft, rw =0.25ft, zw /h =0.5,
0.25, 0.125.
3-5.4 Dimensionless variables
In the derivation of the model, the lengths are transformed in order to introduce the
permeability anisotropy between vertical and horizontal directions. The apparent
open interval thickness ha, the position of the horizontal drain hole with respect to
the lower boundary of the zone zwa, and the apparent wellbore radius are defined
as:
- 60 -
kH
ha = h (ft, m) ( 3-10)
kV
kH
z wa = z w (ft, m) ( 3-11)
kV
1
[
rwa = rw 4 kV k H +4 k H kV
2
] (ft, m) ( 3-12)
Several authors use the ratio hD of the apparent thickness ha of Equation 3-10, by
the well half-length L, as a leading parameter of horizontal well behavior.
ha h kH
hD = = ( 3-13)
L L kV
3-5.5 Vertical radial flow semi-log analysis
162.6qBµ  kV k H ∆t
∆p = log − 3.23
2 kV k H L  φ µ ct rw2
(psi, field units)
1 k k 
+ 0.87 S w − 2 log  4 V + 4 H 
2  k H kV 
21.5qBµ  kV k H ∆t
∆p = log − 3.10
2 kV k H L  φ µ ct rw2
(Bars, metric units) ( 3-14)
1 k k 
+ 0.87 S w − 2 log  4 V + 4 H 
2  k H kV 
The skin STV measured during the vertical radial flow is expressed with the
wellbore skin Sw and the anisotropy skin Sani of Equation 3-34 :
4 kV k H + 4 k H kV
S TV = S w + S ani = S w − ln ( 3-15)
2
Sometimes, the vertical radial flow skin is expressed as S'TV, defined with
reference to the equivalent fully penetrating vertical well :
' h kH
STV = STV = 0.5 hD S TV ( 3-16)
2 L kV
- 61 -
. qB µ ∆t
8128 . qBµ
1412 . qBµ
1412
∆p = + Sw + S z (psi, field units)
2L h φ ct k H 2 kV k H L kH h
1.246 qB µ ∆t 18.66 qBµ 18.66 qBµ
∆p = + Sw + S z (Bars, metric units)( 3-17)
2Lh φ c t k H 2 kV k H L kH h
During the linear flow regime, the flow lines are distorted vertically before
reaching the horizontal well, producing a partial penetration skin Sz.
kH h π r  k   π z 
S z = −1151
. log  w  1 + V  sin w   ( 3-18)
kV L  h  k H   h  
3-5.7 Horizontal pseudo-radial flow semi-log analysis
qBµ  k H ∆t 
∆p = 162.6 log − 3.23 + 0.87 S TH  (psi, field units)
k H h  φ µ ct rw 2

qBµ  k H ∆t 
∆p = 21.5 log − 3.10 + 0.87 S TH  (Bars, metric units) ( 3-19)
k H h  φµ c t rw2

STH measured during the horizontal radial flow combines S'TV of Equation 3.16
and the geometrical skin SG of the horizontal well (function of the logarithm of
the well effective length and a partial penetration skin SzT , close to the linear flow
skin Sz of Equation 3.18) :
h kH
S TH = S w + SG ( 3-20)
2L kV
L
S G = 0.81 − ln + S zT ( 3-21)
rw
k H h π rw 
1 +
kV   π z w 
 sin 
S zT = −1.151
  h 
log 
kV L  h 
 kH  
( 3-22)
kH h  1 z w z w2 
2
− 0.5 − +
kV L2  3 h h 2 
- 62 -
4
zw/h = 0 .125
0.25
3 0.5
F
2 HR
sm
ope
Slope m VR
F Sl
1
0
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105
2
kV/kH = 1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001
0
Geometrical skin, SG
-2
-4
kV/kH = ∞
-6
zw/h =0.5
-8
zw/h =0.1
- 10
102 103 104 105
Dimensionless half length, L/rw
Figure 3-27 Semi-log plot of the geometrical skin SG versus L/rw.
Influence of kV/kH. h/rw =1000, zw/h=0.5, 0.1.
2
1000 2000 4000
0
Geometrical skin, SG
h/rw = 500
-2
-4
kV/kH = ∞
-6
zw/h =0.5
-8 zw/h =0.1
- 10
102 103 104 105
Dimensionless half length, L/rw
Figure 3-28 Semi-log plot of the geometrical skin SG versus L/rw.
Influence of h/rw. kV/kH =0.1, zw/h=0.5, 0.1.
- 63 -
3-5.8 Discussion of the horizontal well model
Several well conditions can produce a pressure gradient in the reservoir, parallel to
the wellbore. The vertical radial flow regime is then distorted, and the derivative
response deviates from the usual stabilization at 0.25(h L) k H kV ). During
horizontal radial flow, the geometrical skin can be larger or smaller than SG of
Equation 3-21 and 3-22.
Non-uniform mechanical skin
10
Skin Swi
and Derivative p'D
10-1
10-2
1 10 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 3-29 Influence of non-uniform skin on pressure and derivative curves.
CD = 100, L =1000 ft, h =100 ft, rw =0.25 ft, zw/h =0.5, kV/kH=0.1. The well is
divided in 4 segments of 500 ft with skins of Swi=4, 4, 4, 4 (uniform damage),
Swi=8, 5.33, 2.66, 0 (skin decreasing along the well length), Swi=0, 8, 8, 0
(damage in the central section), Swi=8, 0, 0, 8 (damage at the two ends).
The two ends of the well are more sensitive to skin damage (the total skin STH is
more negative on the curve Swi=0, 8, 8, 0).
Finite conductivity horizontal well
When the pressure gradients in the wellbore are comparable to pressure gradients
in the reservoir, the flow is three-dimensional (pseudo-spherical), and the
derivative is displaced upwards during the early time response. During horizontal
radial flow, the total skin STH is less negative.
Partially open horizontal well
When only some sections of the well are open to flow, the response first
corresponds to a horizontal well with the total length of the producing segments.
Later, each segment acts like a horizontal well, and several horizontal radial flow
regimes are established until interference effects between the producing sections
are felt. Then, the final horizontal radial flow regime is reached for the complete
- 64 -
drain hole. The more distributed the producing sections, the more negative the
total skin STH.
Dimensionless Pressure , pD 10
and Derivative p'D
1 0.5
0.25
10-1 0.125
10-2
1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107

Figure 3-30 Influence of number of open segments on pressure and
derivative log-log curves. Total half-length 2000 ft, effective half-length 500 ft.
CD =100, 1, 2, 4 segments with Swi =0, ΣLeff= L /4, L =2000ft, h =100ft,
rw =0.25ft, zw / h =0.5, kV/kH =0.1.
When the producing segments are uniformly distributed along the drain hole, the
total skin STH can be very negative even with a low penetration ratio. On the
examples Figure 3-31, with penetration ratios of 100, 50, 25 and 12.5%, STH is
respectively –7.9, -7.4, -6.6 and –5.1.
10
and Derivative p'D
10-1 100%
50%
25%
12.5%
10-2
1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107

Figure 3-31 Influence of the penetration ratio on pressure and derivative log-
log curves. Four segments equally spaced.
CD =100, 4 segments with Swi =0, ΣLeff= L /8, L /4, L /2 and L, L =2000ft,
h =100ft, rw =0.25ft, zw /h =0.5, kV /kH =0.1.
Non-rectilinear horizontal well
During the vertical radial flow, the upper and lower sealing boundaries can be
reached at different times when the well is not strictly horizontal. The transition
between vertical radial flow and linear flow is then distorted.
- 65 -
10
and Derivative p'D
1
10-1
10-2
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107
Figure 3-32 Non-rectilinear horizontal wells. Pressure and derivative curves.
CD =100, L =2000ft (500+1000+500), Swi =0, h =100ft, rw =0.25ft, kV / kH =0.1,
(zw / h)i=0.5 or 0.95 (average 0.725).
Anisotropic horizontal permeability
In anisotropic reservoirs, horizontal well responses are also sensitive to the well
orientation.
kz
ky
kx
kz ky 2L k y L2 kx k y h
Figure 3-33 Horizontal permeability anisotropy.
Effective permeability during the three characteristic flow regimes towards a
horizontal well.
The final horizontal radial flow regime defines the average horizontal permeability
k H = k x k y . During the linear flow regime, only the permeability ky normal the
well orientation is acting. At early time, the average permeability during the
vertical radial flow is k z k y .
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
pD & pD'
k y L2
1.0E-01 kxky h
kzk y 2L
1.0E-02
1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
tD/CD
Figure 3-34 Influence of the permeability anisotropy during the three
characteristic flow regimes.
- 66 -
When the isotropic horizontal permeability model is used for analysis, the apparent
effective half-length is :
La = 4 k y k x L (ft, m) ( 3-23)
(the vertical permeability kz is unchanged).
ky
ky
kx kx
Figure 3-35 Horizontal well normal to the maximum permeability direction :
apparent effective length increased.
ky
ky
kx kx
Figure 3-36 Horizontal well in the direction of maximum permeability :
apparent effective length decreased.
Horizontal wells should be drilled preferably in the minimum permeability

direction.
Changes in vertical permeability
In a layered reservoir with crossflow, the horizontal radial flow regime gives the
average horizontal permeability :
n n
k H = ∑ k Hi hi ∑ hi (mD) ( 3-24)
1 1
During the vertical radial flow, the changes of permeability are acting in series.
When the contrast in vertical permeability is not too large, the resulting average
vertical permeability is defined (assuming the well is centered in layer j) :
 j −1 n

 ∑ hi + h j 2 ∑ hi + h j 2 
k V = 0.5  j −1 1 
j +1
+ n  (mD) ( 3-25)
 ∑ hi kVi + h j 2 kVj ∑ hi kVi + h j 2 kVj 
 1 j +1 
- 67 -
In the example Figure 3-37 with n=3 and j=2, the match with a homogeneous layer
. k H 2 and k V = 0.5 (0.082 + 0.028)k H 2 = 0.0514 k H .
is defined with k H = 107
10
and Derivative p'D
10-1
One equivalent layer

10-2
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107

Figure 3-37 Horizontal well in a reservoir 3 layers with crossflow. Pressure
and derivative log-log curves.
CD =100, L =1000ft, Sw =0, h =100ft (30+30+40), rw =0.25ft, zw /h =0.55 (well
centered in h2), kH1/kH2=1.5, kH3/kH2=0.8, (kV /kH)1=0.08, (kV /kH)2=0.05, (kV /
kH)3=0.03. One layer: kH= (k1h1+ k2h2+ k3h3) / (h1+h2+h3), kV/kH=0.0514.
On Figure 3-38, a thin reduced permeability interval is introduced in the main

layer. When a homogeneous layer of total thickness is used for analysis, the
effective well length is too small and the vertical permeability over-estimated.
10
and Derivative p'D
One layer =
10-1
h1+h2+h3
h3
10-2
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107
Figure 3-38 Horizontal well in a reservoir 3 layers with crossflow. Pressure
and derivative log-log curves.
CD = 100, L = 1000 ft, Sw=0, h =100 ft (h1=45ft, h2=5ft, h3=50ft), k1=k3=100k2,
rw =0.25 ft, (kV/kH)i=0.1, zw/h = 0.25 (well centered in h3).
• One layer (h1+h2+h3) : k= (k1h1+ k2h2+ k3h3) / (h1+h2+h3), L = 550 ft,
Sw=-0.2, kV/kH=0.4, zw/h = 0. 5 (well centered in h1+h2+h3).
• One layer (h3) : k= k3, L = 1000 ft, Sw=0, kV/kH=0.1, zw/h = 0. 5 (well
centered in h3).
Presence of a gas cap or bottom water drive
When the constant pressure boundary is reached at the end of the vertical radial
flow regime (or hemi radial in the examples Figure 3-39), the pressure stabilizes
and the derivative drops. It the thickness of the gas zone is not large enough, the
derivative stabilizes at late time to describe the total oil + gas mobility thickness.
- 68 -
10
1
and Derivative p'D No gas cap
10-1
hgas = 20 ft
10-2
hgas 100 ft
hoil 500 ft
10-3
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106

Figure 3-39 Horizontal well in a reservoir with gas cap and sealing bottom
boundary. Pressure and derivative log-log curves.
CD = 100, L = 1000 ft, Sw=2, h =100 ft, rw =0.25 ft, (kV/kH)=0.1, zw/h = 0.2
(well close to the bottom boundary). Gas cap : hgas= 0.20, 1.0, 5.0 h,
µgas=0.01 µoil, ct gas=10 ct oil.
3-5.9 Other horizontal well models
Multilateral horizontal well
As for partially penetrating horizontal wells, the different branches of multilateral

wells start to produce independently until interference effects between the
branches distort the response. At later time, pseudo radial flow towards the
multilateral horizontal well develops.
In the case of intersecting multilateral horizontal wells in reservoir with isotropic

horizontal permeability, increasing the number of branches does not improve the
productivity. With the examples of Figure 3-40, the total skin STH of the horizontal
well is STH =-6.8 (one branch) and respectively –6.6 and –6.2 with two and four
branches.
10
and Derivative p'D
10-1
10-2
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107
Figure 3-40 Multilateral horizontal wells. Pressure and derivative curves.
CD = 100, L = 1000 ft (500+500 or 250+250+250+250), Swi=0, h =100 ft,
rw=0.25 ft, kV/kH=0.1, zw/h = 0.5.
- 69 -
When the distance between the two producing segments is large enough, the
response becomes independent of the orientation of the branches. The responses
Figure 3-41 tend to be equivalent to the example with two segments of Figure 3-
30. The total skin STH is more negative when the distance between the branches is
increased. For the two multilateral horizontal wells of Figure 3-41, STH =-7.1 (and
STH =-6.8 with one branch).
10
and Derivative p'D
10-1
10-2
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107
Figure 3-41 Multilateral horizontal wells. Pressure and derivative curves.
CD = 100, L = 1000 ft (500+500), Swi=0, h =100 ft, rw=0.25 ft, kV/kH=0.1, zw/h
= 0.5. The distance between the 2 parallel branches is 2000ft, on the second
example the intersection point is at 1000ft from the start of the 2 segments.
Fractured horizontal well
Two configurations are considered : longitudinal and transverse fractures. At early

time, the different fractures produce independently until interference effects are
felt. With longitudinal fractures, bi-linear and linear flow regimes can be observed,
possibly followed by horizontal radial flow around the different fractures. For a
single fracture of half-length xf, the slope mBLF and mLF are expressed :
qBµ
m BLF = 44.11 (psi.hr-1/4, field units)
xf kf w4 φ µ ct k H
qBµ
m BLF = 6.28 (Bars.hr-1/4, metric units) ( 3-26)
x f k f w f 4 φµ ct k H
qB µ
m LF = 4.06 (psi.hr-1/2, field units)
hx f k H φ ct
qB µ
m LF = 0.623 (Bars.hr-1/2, metric units) ( 3-27)
hx f φ ct k H
With transverse fractures, the flow is first linear in the formation and radial in the
fracture, it changes into linear flow, and later into the horizontal radial flow regime
around the fracture segments. The radial linear flow regime yields a semi-log
straight line whose slope is function of the fracture conductivity. For a single
transverse fracture of radius rf, the slope mRLF and mLF are:
- 70 -
qBµ
m RLF = 81.3 (psi, field units)
kf w
qBµ
m RLF = 10.75 (Bars, metric units) ( 3-28)
k f wf
qB µ
m LF = 5.17 (psi.hr-1/2, field units)
hr f φ ct k H
qB µ
m LF = 0.793 (Bars.hr-1/2, metric units) ( 3-29)
hr f φ ct k H
Once the interference effect between the different fractures is fully developed, the
final pseudo radial flow regime towards the fractured horizontal well establishes.
As for partially open horizontal wells, the time of start of the final regime is a
function of the distance between the outermost fractures.
3-6 Skin factors
3-6.1 Anisotropy pseudo-skin
An equivalent transformed isotropic reservoir model of average radial permeability

is used, by a transformation of variables in the two main directions of permeability
kmax and kmin. With
k = k max k min (mD) ( 3-30)
k k min
x' = x =x 4 (ft, m) ( 3-31)
k max k max
k k max
y' = y = y4 (ft, m) ( 3-32)
k min k min
The wellbore is changed into an ellipse whose area is the same as in the original
system, but the perimeter is increased. The elliptical well behaves like a cylindrical
hole whose apparent radius is the average of the major and minor axes, and
produces an apparent negative skin :
rwa =
1
2
rw [ 4 k min k max + 4 k max k min ] (ft, m) ( 3-33)
- 71 -
4 k min k max + 4 k max k min

Sani = − ln
2
( 3-34)
k min + k max
= − ln
2 k
Sani is in general low but, for horizontal wells, when kV/kH <<1, Sani =-1 may be
observed.
3-6.2 Geometrical skin
A B C
Figure 3-42 Configuration of wells A, B and C.

A = fully penetrating vertical well, B = well in partial penetration,
C = horizontal well.
102
SG>0
and Derivative p'D
10
SG<0
1
10-1 A : vertical well

B : partial penetration
C : horizontal well
10-2
10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 3-43 Pressure and derivative response of wells A, B and C. Log-log
scale.
- 72 -
30
Dimensionless Pressure , pD A : vertical well
B : partial penetration
C : horizontal well SG>0
20
10
SG<0
0
10-2 10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 3-44 Semi-log plot of Figure 3-43 examples.
3-6.3 The different skin factors
Name Description Type
Sw Infinitesimal skin at the wellbore. Positive or negative
SG Geometrical skin due to the streamline curvature Positive or negative

(fractured, partial penetration, slanted or horizontal
wells).
Sani Skin factor due to the anisotropy of the reservoir Negative
permeability.
SRC Skin factor due to a change of reservoir mobility Positive or negative
near the wellbore (permeability or fluid property,
radial composite behavior).
Skin factor due to the fissures in a double porosity Negative
S2φ
reservoir.
D.q Turbulent or inertial effects on gas wells. Positive
- 73 -
- 74 -
4 - FISSURED RESERVOIRS - DOUBLE
POROSITY MODELS
4-1 Definitions
4-1.1 Permeability
The fluid flows to the well through the fissure system only and the radial
permeability of the matrix system does not contribute to the mobility (km = 0).
The permeability thickness product kh estimated by the interpretation is used to

define an equivalent bulk permeability of the fissure network, over the complete
thickness h:
kh = k f h f (mD.ft, mD.m) ( 4-1)
Matrix
Fissure
Vug
Figure 4-1 Example of double porosity reservoir, fissured and multiple-layer

formations.
4-1.2 Porosity
φf and φm : ratio of pore volume in the fissures (or in the matrix), to the total
volume of the fissures (of the matrix).
Vf and Vm : ratio of the total volume of the fissures (or matrix) to the reservoir
volume (Vf + Vm = 1).
φ = φ f V f + φ mVm ( 4-2)
In practice, φf and Vm are close to 1. The average porosity of Equation 4.2 can be
simplified as :
φ = Vf + φm ( 4-3)
4-1.3 Storativity ratio ω
(φ Vct ) f (φ Vct ) f
ω= = ( 4-4)
(φ Vct ) f + (φ Vct )m (φ Vct ) f +m
- 75 -
Chapter 4 - Fissured reservoirs
4-1.4 Interporosity flow parameter λ
km
λ = α rw2 ( 4-5)
kf
α is related to the geometry of the fissure network, defined with the number n of
families of fissure planes. For n = 3, the matrix blocks are cubes (or spheres) and,
for n = 1, they are slab.
n(n + 2) -2 -2
α= (ft , m ) ( 4-6)
rm2
rm is the characteristic size of the matrix blocks. It is defined as the ratio of the
volume V of the matrix blocks, to the surface area A of the blocks :
rm = nV A (ft, m) ( 4-7)
When a skin effect (Sm in dimensionless term) is present at the surface of the
matrix blocks, the matrix to fissure flow is called restricted interporosity flow.
k m hd
Sm = ( 4-8)
rm k d
km
rm
hd
kd
n=3, cubes n=1, slabs

Figure 4-2 Matrix skin. Slab and sphere matrix blocks.
The analysis with the restricted interporosity flow model (pseudo-steady state
interporosity flow) provides the effective interporosity flow parameter λeff :
rw2 k d
λ eff =n ( 4-9)
rm hd k f
λeff is independent of the matrix block permeability km.
- 76 -
kh
. qBµ
1412
kh
18.66qBµ
tD kh ∆t
CD µ C
tD kh ∆t
= 0.00223 (metric units) ( 4-11)
CD µ C
0.8936C
C Df = (field units)
(φ Vct ) f hrw2
0.1592C
C Df = (metric units) ( 4-12)
(φVct ) f hrw2
0.8936C
C Df + m = (field units)
(φ Vct ) f +m hrw2
0.1592C
C Df + m = (metric units) ( 4-13)
(φ Vct ) f + m hrw2
The storativity ratio ω correlates the two definitions of dimensionless wellbore

storage :
C Df + m = ω C Df ( 4-14)
4-2 Double porosity behavior, restricted interporosity flow

(pseudo-steady state interporosity flow)
Pressure type curves
Three component curves :
1. - (CDe2S)f at early time, during fissure flow.
2. - λeff e-2S during transition regime, between the two homogeneous behaviors.
3. - (CDe2S)f+m at late time, when total system behavior is reached.
- 77 -
A double porosity response goes from a high value (CDe2S)f when the storativity
corresponds to fissures, to a lower value (CDe2S)f+m when total system is acting.
102 CDe2S =
Start of semi-log radial flow
1030
λe-2S = 10-30
1010
10-10
10 103
10-6 5
0.1
10-2 5x10-3
1 0.5
10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104
Figure 4-3 Pressure type-curve for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a
double porosity reservoir, pseudo steady state interporosity flow.
Typical responses
The limit "approximate start of the semi-log straight line" shows that the wellbore
storage stops during the fissure regime with example A. With example B, wellbore
storage lasts until the transition regime and, during the fissure regime, the fissure
(CDe2S)f curve does not reach the semi-log straight-line approximation.
102
Start of semi-log radial flow CDe2S =
1030
λe-2S = 10-30
1010
105
10 B 104
10-7 1
0.1
3x10-4 5x10-3
10-2
1
A
10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105
Figure 4-4 Pressure examples for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a
double porosity reservoir, pseudo steady state interporosity flow.
o = A : (CDe )f = 1, (CDe )f+m = 0.1, ω = 0.1, λeffe = 3.10-4.
2S 2S -2S
■ = B : (CDe )f = 105, (CDe )f+m = 104, ω = 0.1, λeffe = 10-7.

2S 2S -2S
On semi-log scale, two parallel straight lines are present with example A. With
example B, only the total system straight line is seen.
- 78 -
10
em
slop
8 B
6
em
sl o p
4
A
em
2 slop
0
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105
102
CDe2S =
1030
λe-2S = 10-30
1010
and Derivative p'D
B 1054
10 1030 10
10-7 1
1010 A 0.1
3x10-4 5x10-3
105
10-2
1 B
1
A
0.1 10-3 3x10-5 λCD/(1-ω)

10-1 λCD/ω(1-ω) = 10-2 3x10-4
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105

Figure 4-6 Pressure and derivative examples of Figure 4-4 for a well with
wellbore storage and skin in a double porosity reservoir, pseudo steady state
interporosity flow.
λeffCDf+m/ω(1-ω) =10-2, 3x10-4. λeffCDf+m/(1-ω) = 10-3, 3x10-5.
With the derivative, example A shows two stabilizations on 0.5. The derivative of
example B stabilizes on 0.5 only during the total system homogeneous regime.
On the derivative type-curve, the transition is described with two curves, labeled
(λ eff CD f +m ) [ω (1 − ω )] (decreasing derivative) and (λ eff CD f +m ) (1 − ω ) .
Match results
kh = 141.2qBµ (PM ) (mD.ft, field units)

kh = 18.66qBµ (PM ) (mD.m, metric units) ( 2-8)
kh  1 
µ  TM 
- 79 -
kh  1  3
C = 0.00223   (m /Bars, metric units) ( 2-9)
µ  TM 
(C De
2S
) f +m
S = 0.5 ln ( 4-15)
C Df + m
(C e ) D
2S
f +m
ω=
(C e )
( 4-16)
2S
D
f
(
λ eff = λ eff e −2 S e 2 S ) ( 4-17)
Pressure and derivative response
When the three characteristic regimes of the restricted interporosity flow model
are developed, the derivative exhibits a valley shaped transition between the two
stabilizations on 0.5.
10-2
and Derivative p'D
10
1 0.5 line
10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105
Figure 4-7 Pressure and derivative response for a well with wellbore storage
in double porosity reservoir, pseudo-steady state interporosity flow.
CDf+m = 103, S = 0, ω = 0.1, λeff= 6.10-8
(CDe2Sf =104, λeffe-2S= 6.10-8 and CDe2Sf+m = 103)
4-2.2 Influence of the heterogeneous parameters ω and λeff
Influence of ω
With small ω values, the transition regime from CDe2Sf to CDe2Sf+m is long. On
the derivative responses, the transition valley drops when ω is reduced. On semi-
log scale, the first straight line is displaced upwards and the horizontal transition
between the two parallel lines is longer.
- 80 -
102
10 ω = 10-3
and Derivative p'D 10-1

0.5
1
10-1
10-1
10-2
ω = 10-3
10-2
10-3
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
Figure 4-8 Double porosity reservoir, pseudo-steady state interporosity flow.
Influence of ω. Log-log scale.
CDf+m =1, S =0, λeff=10-7 and ω =10-1, 10-2 and 10-3
10
8 ω = 10-3 m
10-2 pe
10-1 slo
6
m
pe
4 slo
0
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
Influence of λeff
The interporosity flow parameter defines the time of end of the transition regime.
The smaller is λeff, the later the start of total system flow. On the pressure curves,
the transition regime occurs at a higher amplitude and, on the derivative responses,
the transition valley is displaced towards late times.
102
λ = 10-8
10
and Derivative p'D
10-6
1
10-1
λ = 10-6 , 10-7 , 10-8

10-2
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107
Figure 4-10 Double porosity reservoir, pseudo-steady state interporosity flow.
Influence of λeff. Log-log scale.
CDf+m =100, S =0, ω =0.02 and λeff=10-6, 10-7 and 10-8
- 81 -
12
λ = 10-8
10-7
8
10-6
em
slop em
slop
4
0
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107
4-2.3 Analysis of the semi-log straight lines
10
8
Double porosity
4
em Homogeneous
2 slop
0
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105
Figure 4-12 Semi-log plot of homogeneous and double porosity responses.
CD = CDf+m = 100, S = 0, ω = 0.01 and λeff= 10-6
During fissure flow, when the first semi-log line is present,
 kqBµ 
∆p = 162.6 log ∆t + log − 3 . 23 + 0 . 87 S  (psi, field units)
 (φVct ) f µ rw2
kh 
qBµ  k 
∆p = 21.5 log ∆t + log − 3 . 10 + 0 . 87 S  (Bars, metric units)(4-18)
kh 
 (φ V c t ) f µ rw
2

The second line, for the total system regime is :
qBµ  k 
∆p = 162.6 log ∆t + log − 3 . 23 + 0 . 87 S  (psi, field units)
kh 
 (φ Vc )
t f +m µ rw
2

- 82 -
qBµ  k 
kh 
 (φV c )
t f +m µ rw
2

The vertical distance δp between the two lines gives ω :
ω = 10 −δp m ( 4-20)
When only the first semi-log straight line for fissure regime is present, if the total
storativity is used instead of that of the fissure system, the calculation of the skin
gives an over estimated value Sf :
1
S f = S + 0.5 ln ( 4-21)
ω
Log-log pressure build-up analysis
When the production time tp is small, the three characteristic regimes of a double
porosity response are not always fully developed on build-up pressure curves.
Whatever long are the three build-up examples of Figure 4-13, only example A3
exhibits a clear double porosity response. The build-up curve A1 does not show a
double porosity behavior, but only the build-up response of the fissures. For
example A2, the build-up curve flattens at the same ∆p level as the λeffe-2S
transition, there is no evidence of total system flow regime.
Homogeneous behaviour,
( fissures CDe2Sf= 1 and total system CDe2Sf+m= 0.1)
Double porosity,
( drawdown and build-up)
10
A3
A2
A1
1
tp1 = 102 tp2 = 9x103 tp3 = 3x105

10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 4-13 Drawdown and build-up pressure responses for a well with
wellbore storage and skin in double porosity reservoir, pseudo-steady state
interporosity flow. Log-log scale.
CDf+m = 0.1, S = 0, ω = 0.1, λeff= 3.10-4 (CDe2Sf =1, λeffe-2S= 3.10-4 and
CDe2Sf+m = 0.1). tpD/CD = 100 (A1), 9.103 (A2), 3.105 (A3).
- 83 -
8
drawdown tp3 = 3x105
m
build-up pe
6 slo
tp2 = 9x103 A3
4 tp1 = 102 A2
m A1
2 pe
slo
0
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 4-14 Semi-log plot of drawdown and build-up pressure responses of
Figure 4-13.
Horner & superposition analysis
In example A3, the initial pressure pi is obtained by extrapolation of the second

straight line, the first one extrapolates to pi + m ln (1/ω). If the drawdown stops
during the transition (example A2), only the first semi-log straight is seen and its
extrapolated pressure p* is between pi and pi + m ln (1/ω), depending upon tp.
0
Dimensionless Pressure
Difference, (p - pi)D
slo
pe
m
-2
A1 p* > pi
slo
pe
m
-4
A2
p* = pi
-6 A3
1 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6
Horner time, (tpD+ tD)/ tD

Figure 4-15 Horner plot of the three Build-ups of Figure 4-13.
A1 (tpD/CD = 100), A2 (tpD/CD = 9.103) and A3 (tpD/CD = 3.105).
Derivative build-up analysis
1
A3
0.5
Derivative p'D
10-1
A2 A1
Drawdown
Build-up
10-2
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 4-16 Drawdown and build-up derivative responses of Figure 4-13.
- 84 -
4-3 Double porosity behavior, unrestricted interporosity flow

(transient interporosity flow)
Pressure type-curve
Two pressure curves :
1. - β ' at early time, during transition regime before the homogeneous behavior of
the total system
2. - (CDe2S)f+m later, when the homogeneous total system flow is reached
The two families of curves have the same shape: the β ' transition curves are
equivalent to CDe2S curves whose pressure and time are divided by a factor of two.
β ' is defined as :
(C De
2S
) f +m
β '= δ ' −2 S
( 4-22)
λe
The constant δ' is related to the geometry of the matrix system. For slab matrix
blocks δ '=1.89, and for sphere matrix blocks δ ' = 1.05.
102
CDe2S = 1030
β ' = 1030
1010
10 1010 103
5
103 0.1
5
0.1 5x10-3
10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104
Figure 4-17 Pressure type-curve for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a
double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow.
- 85 -
Typical responses
A long transition on a β ' curve is seen on example A. With example B, the

wellbore storage is large, and the transition is shorter on the tD/CD time scale.
102 CDe2S =
1030
β' = 1030
1010
10 B 6x103
1010 10
106 0.1
A 5
10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105
Figure 4-18 Pressure examples for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a
double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow, and slab matrix
blocks.
o = A : (CDe )f+m = 10, ω = 0.001, β' = 106, λe = 1.8914*10-5.
2S -2S
■ = B : (CDe )f+m = 6.103, ω = 0.001, β' = 1010, λe = 1.1348*10-6.

2S -2S
On semi-log scale, example A shows a first straight line of slope m/2 during
transition, before the total system straight line of slope m. With example B, only
the total system straight line is present.
10
em
slop
8
B
6
em
slope m
/2 slop
4
A
2
0
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105
- 86 -
102
CDe2S =
1030
β' = 1030
and Derivative p'D 1010
10 B 6x103
1010 10
106
A 0.1
5
1030
6x106
1 10 4
B
5
A
λCD/(1-ω)2 = 3x10-2 3x10-3 3x10-4 3x10-5
10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105
Figure 4-20 Pressure and derivative examples of Figure 4-18.
λCDf+m (1-ω) = 3.10-2, 3.10-3, 3.10-4, 3.10-5.
2
With the derivative, example A shows a first stabilization on 0.25 before the final
stabilization on 0.5 for the total system homogeneous regime. The derivative of
example B exhibits only a small valley before the stabilization on 0.5.
The end of transition, and the start of the total system homogeneous regime, is
described by a (λ C D ) (1 − ω )2 derivative curve.
Match results
On a double porosity response with unrestricted interporosity flow, after the

wellbore storage hump the derivative exhibits a first stabilization on 0.25 before
the final stabilization on 0.5.
(C De
2S
)f +m
λ =δ' −2 S
( 4-23)
β 'e
ω is difficult to access with the transient interporosity flow model.
Slab and sphere matrix blocks
With the two types matrix geometry, the pressure curves look identical but the
derivatives are slightly different. At late transition time, the change from 0.25 to
the 0.5 level is steeper on the curve generated for slab matrix blocks.
- 87 -
Dimensionless Pressure , pD 10
and Derivative p'D
1 0.5
sphere
0.25 slab
10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105
Figure 4-21 Double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow, slab and
sphere matrix blocks. Log-log scale.
CDe2Sf+m=1, β'=104 and ω=10-2.
Slab: λe-2S = 1.89 10-4, Sphere: λe-2S = 1.05 10-4.
4-3.2 Influence of the heterogeneous parameters ω and λ
Influence of ω
102
and Derivative p'D
10 ω = 10-3
ω = 10-1
0.5
1
ω = 10-1
10-1 ω = 10-3 0.25
10-2
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
Figure 4-22 Double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow, slab
matrix blocks. Influence of ω on pressure and derivative curves.
CDf+m =1, S =0, λ =10-7 and ω =10-1, 10-2 and 10-3
10
8
ω = 10-3 m
6 pe
m /2 sl o
slope 10-2
4 10-1
0
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
- 88 -
Influence of λ
102
10 λ = 10-8
and Derivative p'D
λ = 10-6
1 λ = 10-6, 10-7, 10-8
0.5
10-1 0.25
10-2
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108

matrix blocks. Influence of λ on pressure and derivative curves.
CDf+m =100, S =0, ω =0.02 and λ =10-6, 10-7 and 10-8
10 m
pe
sl o
8 λ = 10-8
10-7
6 10-6
m/2
slope
4
0
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
1
A3
0.5
Derivative p'D
A2 A1
10-1
Drawdown
Build-up
-2
10
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 4-26 Drawdown and build-up derivative responses, double porosity
reservoir, unrestricted interporosity flow, slab matrix blocks.
CDf+m = 0.1, S = 0, ω = 0.1, λ = 3.10-4. tpD/CD = 100 (A1), 9.103 (A2), 3.105 (A3).
- 89 -
4-4 Complex fissured reservoirs
4-4.1 Matrix skin

10
and Derivative p'D
1 0.5
0.25
Sm= 0
10-1 0.1
1
10 100
10-2
1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107
matrix blocks with interporosity skin.
CDf+m = 1, S = 0, ω = 0.01, λ = 10-5. Sm = 0, 0.1, 1, 10, 100.
1
Derivative p'D
10-1
Sm= 1 10 100
10-2
10 102 103 104 105 106 107
Figure 4-28 Comparison of Figure 4-27 derivative responses with the
restricted interporosity flow model.
λ eff = 2.500x10-6 (Sm = 1), λ eff = 3.323x10-7 (Sm = 10), λ eff = 3.333x10-8
(Sm = 100).
10
and Derivative p'D
1 0.5
0.25
Sm= 0
10-1
0.1
1
10-2 10 100
1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107
Figure 4-29 Double porosity reservoir, transient interporosity flow, sphere
matrix blocks with interporosity skin.
CDf+m = 1, S = 0, ω = 0.01, λ = 10-5. Sm = 0, 0.1, 1, 10, 100.
- 90 -
Derivative p'D
10-1
Sm= 1 10 100
10-2
10 102 103 104 105 106 107

Figure 4-30 Comparison of Figure 4-29 derivative responses with the
restricted interporosity flow model.
λ eff = 1.66x10-6 (Sm = 1), λ eff = 1.96x10-7 (Sm = 10), λ eff = 2.00x10-8 (Sm =
100).
10
unrestricted slab
and Derivative p'D
1 unrestricted sphere 0.5
0.25
10-1
restricted
10-2
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105
Figure 4-31 Log-log plot of pressure and derivative responses for a well with
wellbore storage and skin in double porosity reservoir, restricted and
unrestricted interporosity flow, slab and sphere matrix blocks.
CDf+m = 1, S = 3, ω = 0.02, λ = 10 -4. CDe f+m=403, λe = 2.48*10-7.
2S -2S
Slab: β' = 3.07*10 9, Sphere: β' = 1.71*10 9
4-4.2 Triple porosity solution
The model considers two sizes of matrix blocks. The blocks are uniformly
distributed in the reservoir. Alternatively, the matrix blocks can be fissured.
fissure, block 1, block 2 fissure, microfissure, block
Two block sizes Fissured matrix blocks

Figure 4-32 Multiple matrix blocks.
- 91 -
When the blocks are uniformly distributed, δi defines the contribution of the group
i to the total matrix storage (δ1 + δ2 =1):
(φVct = )mi (φVct )mi

δ i= = ( 4-24)
(φVct )m1 + (φVct )m2 (φVct )m
10
and Derivative p'D
1 0.5
10-1 fissure fissure + group 1 total system
10-2
1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107
Figure 4-33 Triple porosity reservoir, pseudo steady state interporosity flow,
two sizes of matrix blocks uniformly distributed, different λeff.
CDf+m = 1, S = 0, ω = 0.01, λeff1 =10-5, δ1 =0.1, λeff2 =5x10-7, δ2 =0.9.
10
m )
pe
8 (slo
6 m
ste
t al sy
1 to
4 ur e up
fiss + gro
ure
2 fiss
0
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107
Figure 4-34 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-33 example.
10
and Derivative p'D
1 0.5
group 1
fissure total system
10-1
group 2
10-2
1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107
Figure 4-35 Triple porosity reservoir, pseudo steady state interporosity flow,
two sizes of matrix blocks uniformly distributed, same λeff.
CDf+m = 1, S = 0, ω = 0.01, λeff1 = λeff2 =10-6 , δ1 =0.1, δ2 =0.9.
The dashed curves describe the double porosity responses for only blocks 1
(small valley) and only blocks 2.
- 92 -
10
group 1
Dimensionless Pressure, pD 8
group 2
6 m )
pe
m) (slo
e em
4 lop yst
re (s ls
fiss
u tota
2
0
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107
Figure 4-36 Semi-log plot of Figure 4-35 example.
The thin curves describe the double porosity responses for only blocks 1
(final semi-log straight line for fissures + blocks 1) and only blocks 2 (final
semi-log straight line for fissures + blocks 2).
- 93 -
- 94 -
5 - BOUNDARY MODELS
5-1 One sealing fault
5-1.1 Definition
L L
Well Image
(q) (q)
L
LD = ( 5-1)
rw
1. Radial flow
2. Hemi-radial flow
102
Dimensionless Pressure pD and
Derivative p'D
101
1
1 0.5
10-1
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105

and skin near one sealing fault in a homogeneous reservoir. Log-log scale.
CD = 104, S = 0, LD = 5000.
- 95 -
Chapter 5 - Boundary models
102
Dimensionless Pressure pD
LD=100
1
300 1000 3000

10-1
1 101 102 103 104 105

Figure 5-2 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a
homogeneous reservoir limited by one sealing fault.
Several distances. CD = 100, S = 5, LD = 100, 300, 1000, 3000.
The time of intercept ∆tx between the two semi-log straight lines can be used to
estimate the distance between the well and the sealing fault :
k∆t x
φµ ct
k∆t x
L = 0.0141 (m, metric units) ( 1-22)
φµ ct
20
m LD=100
e2
slop 300
15 1000
3000
10 slope m
0
1 101 102 103 104 105
- 96 -
5-2 Two parallel sealing faults
5-2.1 Definition
L2
Well
L1
1. Radial flow
2. Linear flow
102
ºA ºB
and Derivative p'D
101
1 /2
B pe
1 slo
0.5 A
10-1
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105
Figure 5-4 Responses for a well with wellbore storage in a homogeneous
reservoir limited by two parallel sealing faults. Log-log scale.
One channel width, two well locations. CD = 3000, S = 0, L1D = L2D = 3000
(curve A) and L1D = 1000, L2D = 5000 (curve B).
- 97 -
102
Dimensionless Pressure pD L1D=
and Derivative p'D L2D=
500
101 1000
2500
5000
1
10-1
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105
Figure 5-5 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near two
parallel sealing faults. Homogeneous reservoir.
The well is located midway between the two boundaries, several distances
between the two faults are considered. CD = 300, S = 0
L1D = L2D = 500, 1000, 2500 and 5000.
On semi-log scale, only one straight line is present. During the late time linear
flow, the responses deviate in a curve above the radial flow line. The time of end
of the semi-log straight line is function of the channel width and the well location.
40
L1D= L2D= 500
30
1000
20
2500
10 5000
slope m
0
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105
- 98 -
20
15 B
10 A
m
5 slope
0
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105
40
L1D= L2D= 500
30 slope mch
1000
20
2500
10 5000
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
(tD /CD)1/2
The pressure change ∆p is plotted versus the square root of the elapsed time ∆t .
The slope mch and the intercept ∆pchint of the linear flow straight line are used to
estimate the channel width and the well location.
qB µ
mch = 8.133 (psi.hr-1/2, field units)
h(L1 + L2 ) kφ ct
qB µ
mch = 1.246 (Bars.hr-1/2, metric units) ( 5-2)
h(L1 + L2 ) kφ ct
qB µ
L1 + L2 = 8.133 (ft, field units)
hmch kφ ct
qB µ
L1 + L2 = 1.246 (m, metric units) ( 5-3)
hmch kφ ct
- 99 -
kh
S ch = ∆pchint − S (field units)
141.2qBµ
kh
S ch = ∆p ch int − S (metric units) ( 5-4)
18.66 qBµ
L1 1  L + L2 −Sch 
= arcsin 1 e  ( 5-5)
L1 + L2 π  2π rw 

102
ºC ºD
Derivative p'D
101
1 D 1 /2
pe
slo
0.5 C
10-1
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 5-9 Build-up responses for a well with wellbore storage in a
homogeneous reservoir limited by two parallel sealing faults.
One channel width, two well locations. The dotted curves describe the
drawdown responses. CD = 3000, S = 0, L1D = L2D = 5000 (curve C) and
L1D = 2000, L2D = 8000 (curve D). Production time: tpD/CD = 2000.
9
D
8
C
7 slop
em
6
3
1 101 102 103
(tpD +tD )/ tD
Figure 5-10 Horner plot of Figure 5-9.
The extrapolation p* of the Horner straight line does not correspond to the infinite
shut-in time pressure.
- 100 -
9
D
slope mch
8
C
7
3
0 10 20 30 40 50
[(tpD +tD )/CD]1/2 - [tD /CD]1/2
pD versus [(tpD+tD)/CD]1/2 - [tD/CD]1/2.
For an infinite channel, when both the drawdown and the shut-in periods are in
linear flow regime, the superposition function is expressed as t p + ∆t − ∆t .
The extrapolation of the linear flow straight line to infinite shut-in time, at
t p + ∆t − ∆t = 0 , is used to estimate the initial reservoir pressure.
5-3 Two intersecting sealing faults
5-3.1 Definition
L2
Well θ
L1
θw
The angle of intersection θ between the faults is smaller than 180°, the wedge is
otherwise of infinite extension.
LD is the dimensionless distance between the well and the faults intercept. The
well location in the wedge is defined with θw. The distances L1 and L2 between the
well and the sealing faults are expressed as :
L1 = LD rw sin θ w (ft, m) ( 5-6)
- 101 -
L2 = LD rw sin(θ − θ w ) (ft, m) ( 5-7)
1. Radial flow
2. Linear flow
3. Fraction of radial flow
If for example the angle between the faults is 60° (π/3), the wedge is 1/6 of the
infinite plane (2π), and the derivative stabilizes at 3.
102
ºB
ºA
Derivative p'D
101
180°/ θ = 3
B
1
0.5 A
10-1
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105
reservoir limited by two intersecting sealing faults. Log-log scale.
CD = 3000, S = 0, LD = 5000, θ = 60°, θw = 30° (curve A) and θw = 10°
(curve B).
∆p1st stab.
θ = 360° ( 5-8)
∆p2nd stab.
Between the two stabilizations, the derivative follows a half unit slope straight
line.
- 102 -

102
θ=
10° 10°
Derivative p'D
101 20°
180° 45°
90°
135°
1
180°
10-1
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 106
reservoir limited by two intersecting sealing faults. Log-log scale.
Several angles of intersection θ, the well is on the bisector θw = 0.5 θ, the
distance to the two faults is constant L1D = L2D = 1000, the distance LD to the
fault intercept changes.
CD = 1000, S = 0, θ = 10°, LD = 11473; θ = 20°, LD = 5759; θ = 45°, LD =
2613; θ = 90°, LD = 1414; θ = 135°, LD = 1082; θ = 180°, LD = 1000.
On a complete response, two semi-log straight lines can be identified. The first, of
slope m, describes the infinite acting regime. The second, with a slope of
(360/θ)m, defines the fraction of radial flow limited by the wedge.
60
θ = 10°
20°
40 slope (360°/θ) m
45°
20 90°
135°
slope m 180°
0
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 106
m1st line
θ = 360° ( 5-9)
m2nd line
The end of the first semi-log straight line, and the level of the second straight line,
is a function of the well location in the wedge.
- 103 -
20
B
6m
15
e
op
A
sl
10
m
5 slope
0
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105
5-4 Closed system
5-4.1 Definition
A rectangular reservoir shape is considered. The well is at dimensionless distances

L1D, L2D, L3D, and L4D from the four sealing boundaries, the dimensionless area
of the closed reservoir is expressed as:
A
= ( L1D + L3 D )( L2 D + L4 D ) ( 5-10)
rw2
5-4.2 The pseudo steady state regime
pi
Pressure, p
p-
pseudo ste
ady state
slope m*
Time, t
Figure 5-16 Drawdown and build-up pressure response. Linear scale.
Closed system.
The well, at initial reservoir pressure pi, is produced at constant rate until all
reservoir boundaries are reached. At the end of the drawdown, the pseudo steady
state regime is shown by a linear pressure trend. The well is then closed for a shut-
in period, the pressure builds up until the average reservoir pressure p is reached,
- 104 -
and the curve flattens. The difference pi − p , between the initial pressure and the
final stabilized pressure defines the depletion.
5-4.3 Log-log behavior
On log-log scale, a straight line of slope unity on the late time drawdown pressure
and derivative curves characterizes the pseudo steady state flow regime. During
build-up, the pressure curves flattens to ∆ p and the derivative drops.
102
slope 1
ºB
ºA
Derivative p'D
101
A&B
B
1
0.5
A
10-1
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 5-17 Drawdown and build-up responses for a well with wellbore
storage in a closed square homogeneous reservoir. Log-log scale.
The dotted curves describe the drawdown responses. CD = 25000, S = 0.
Curve A: L1D = L2D = L3D = L4D = 30000. Curve B: L1D = L2D = 6000, L3D =
L4D = 54000. (tp/C)D = 1000. (tp/C)D = 1000.
5-4.4 Drawdown analysis
Log-log analysis
102
101
Derivative p'D
A/rw2 = 106 107 108
0.5
10-1
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 5-18 Drawdown responses for a well with wellbore storage in a closed
square homogeneous reservoir.
Three reservoir sizes, the well is centered or near one of the boundaries.
CD = 100, S = 0, A/rw2 = 106, 107, 108 (L1D = 200).
- 105 -

102
slope 1
ºD ºC
Derivative p'D
101
D C
1 1/2
0.5 pe
slo
10-1
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 5-19 Pressure and derivative drawdown responses for a well with
wellbore storage in a closed channel homogeneous reservoir.
CD = 1000, S = 0. Curve C: L1D = L3D = 20000, L2D = L4D = 2000.
Curve D: L1D = L2D = L3D = 2000, L4D = 38000.
Analysis of semi-log straight lines
20
A/rw2 = 106 107 108

15
10 2m
e
slop
5 m
slope
0
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 106
30
B
20
4m
pe
slo
10
slope m A
0
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105
Figure 5-21 Semi-log plot of Figure 5.17 drawdown examples.
- 106 -
Linear and semi-linear flow analysis
50
D
40
30
2 m ch
pe
20 slo
C
10 mh
slope c
0
0 20 40 60 80
(tD /CD )1/2
Figure 5-22 Linear flow analysis plot of Figure 5-19.
The slope for the infinite channel behavior (curve C of Figure 5-19) is expressed
in Equation 5.2. For the limited channel (curve D) the slope of the linear flow
straight line is double :
qB µ
mhch = 16.27 (psi.hr-1/2, field units)
h(L2 + L4 ) kφ ct
qB µ
m hch = 2.494 (Bars.hr-1/2, metric units) ( 5-11)
h(L1 + L2 ) kφ c t
Pseudo-steady state analysis
50
A/rw2= 106
40
107
30 slope m*
20
108
10
0
0 200 000 400 000 600 000 800 000
Figure 5-23 Pseudo steady state flow analysis plot of Figure 5-18.
During pseudo-steady state regime, the drawdown dimensionless pressure is

expressed as :
A 2.2458
p D = 2π t DA + 0.5 ln 2
+ 0.5 ln +S ( 5-12)
rw CA
The dimensionless time tDA is defined with respect to the drainage area :
- 107 -
0.000264 k
t DA = ∆t (field units)
φµ ct A
0.000356k
t DA = ∆t (metric units) ( 5-13)
φµ c t A
The "shape factor" CA characterizes the geometry of the reservoir and the well
location.
With real data, the pressure during pseudo steady state flow regime is expressed :
qB qBµ  A 
∆p = 0.234 ∆t + 162.6 log 2 − log(C A ) + 0.351 + 0.87 S  (psi, field units)
φ ct hA kh  rw 
qBµ  
qB A
∆p = 0.0417 ∆t + 21.5
φ c t hA kh  rw 
units) (1-22)
the slope m* of the pseudo-steady state straight line provides the reservoir
connected pore volume :
qB
φ hA = 0.234 (cu ft, field units)
ct m *
qB
φ hA = 0.0417 (m3, metric units) ( 1-23)
ct m *
When kh and S are known from semi-log analysis, the shape factor CA is estimated
from the intercept ∆pint of the pseudo-steady state straight line :
2.303 pi − p*int  m−log A rw2  −0.87 S 

 
C A = 2.2458e 
( 5-14)
or
C A = 5.456
[ ( *
m − 2.303 p i − pint m
e
) ] ( 5-15)
m*
- 108 -
Log-log analysis of build-up
102
º
and Derivative p'D
101
tpDA=0.6
1
0.5 tpDA=10, 2
10-1
1 101 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 5-24 Build-up responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin in a
closed rectangle homogeneous reservoir.
The well is close to one boundary. Three production times are considered.
CD = 292, S = 0, L1D = 500, L2D = 1000, L3D = 3500, L4D = 1000
tpD/CD (tpDA) = 16400 (0.6), 54600 (2), 273000 (10).
The rectangular reservoir configuration used for the build-up examples of Figure
5-24 is described in the Shape Factors Tables with CA = 0.5813 and the start of
pseudo steady state is defined at tDA = 2 (Eq. 5-13 or, with Eq. 2-6, tD/CD =
54600). The well is closed for build-up before (tpDA = 0.6) or during the pure
pseudo steady state flow regime (tpDA = 2 and 10).
When all reservoir boundaries have been reached during drawdown, the shape of
the subsequent build-up is independent of tp on log-log scale. At late times, the
stabilized dimensionless pressure p D is expressed as :
 A rw2 
pD = 1151
.  log + 0.35 + S ( 5-16)
 CA 
Semi-log analysis of build-up
When tp>>∆t, the Horner time can be simplified with tp+∆t ≅ tp :
t p + ∆t
log = log t p − log ∆t ( 5-17)
∆t
For different production time tp in a depleted reservoir, the Horner straight lines of
slope m are parallel.
- 109 -
10
p-D
8
slop
em
6
4
tpDA = 0.6, 2, 10
2
0
1 101 102 103 104 105 106
(tpD +tD )/ tD
Figure 5-25 Horner plot of Figure 5-24.
The Horner plot Figure 5-25 is presented in dimensionless terms. The straight line
extrapolated pressure p *
D changes with tp and, later, the curves flatten to reach
p D = 8.62 of Equation 5.16. For examples tpDA = 2 and 10, p*D > p D , but not for
the example with tpDA = 0.6. With real pressure, the average pressure p decreases
when tp increases.
When the same production time is used for Horner analysis of the three build-up
periods (tpDA = 2 on Figure 5-26), the difference between the straight line
extrapolated pressure p * and the average shut-in pressure p becomes a constant.
9
p-D tpDA=2, 10
p*D= 8.1
tpDA=0.6
7
5 slo
pe
m
3
1 101 102 103 104
(tpD +tD )/ tD
Figure 5-26 Horner plot of Figure 5-24 with same tp.
For the three examples, the Horner time is tpD/CD = 16400 (tpDA =0.6).
- 110 -
5-5 Constant pressure boundary
5-5.1 Definition
gas
water
L L
Well Image
(q) (-q)
The dimensionless stabilized pressure is defined as :
p D = ln(2 LD ) + S ( 5-18)
The derivative follows a negative unit slope straight line.
102
Derivative p'D
101
LD=100 300 1000 3000

10-1
1 101 102 103 104 105
Figure 5-27 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near one
constant pressure linear boundary in a homogeneous reservoir.
Several distances. CD = 100, S = 5, LD = 100, 300, 1000, 3000.
- 111 -

102
Derivative p'D
101
sealing fault : 1
1
0.5
10-1 constant pressure
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105
Figure 5-28 Pressure and derivative responses for a well with wellbore
storage near two perpendicular boundaries in a homogeneous reservoir.
The closest boundary is sealing, the second at constant pressure.
CD = 100, S = 0, θ= 90°, θw = 20°, LD = 1000.
LD=
15
3000
1000
300
10 100
slope m
0
1 101 102 103 104 105
The time of intercept ∆tx between the semi-log straight line and the constant
pressure is used, as for a sealing fault, to estimate the distance of the boundary :
k∆t x
φµ ct
k∆t x
L = 0.0141 (m, metric units) ( 1-22)
φµ c t
The difference of pressure between the start of the period and the final stabilized
pressure, [ p − p( ∆t = 0) ], can also be used to estimate L :
L = 0.5rw e
[1.151 (p − p(∆t = 0)) m − S ] (ft, m) ( 5-19)
- 112 -
5-6 Communicating fault

In the case of communicating fault, two different configurations are considered.
With the semi-permeable boundary model, also called leaky fault, the vertical
plane fault is not sealing but acting as a flow restriction. Conversely, a finite
conductivity fault improves the drainage because the fault permeability is larger
than the surrounding permeability of the reservoir.
5-6.1 Semi permeable boundary
Definition
The partially communicating fault, at distance L from the well, has a thickness wf
and a permeability kf. The dimensionless fault transmissibility ratio α is expressed
as :
k f wf
α= ( 5-20)
k L
Characteristic flow regimes
1. Radial flow wf
2. Hemi-radial flow
3. Leak
4. Radial flow kf
Log-log analysis
102
101
Derivative p'D
0.5 0.5
-1
10
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 106
near a semi-permeable linear boundary. Homogeneous reservoir. Log-log
scale.
CD = 104, S = 0, LD = 5000, α = 0.05.
- 113 -
102

Derivative p'D 101
α = 0.001
1
1
0.5
α=1, 0.1, 0.01
10-1
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 5-31 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near a semi-
permeable linear boundary.
Several transmissibility ratios. CD = 100, S = 5, LD = 300, α = 1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001.
Semi-log analysis
20
15 2m
e
slop
m α=1
10 slope
0.1
0.01
5 0.001
0
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 106
5-6.2 Finite conductivity fault
Definition
With the finite conductivity fault model, flow is possible along the fault plane,
depending upon the fault dimensionless conductivity FcD (a zero fault conductivity
FcD corresponds to the semi-permeable fault solution).
k f wf
FcD = ( 5-21)
kL
The resistance to flow across the fault plane is described with the skin factor Sf.
The definition of the dimensionless skin Sf includes the possibility of a region of
altered permeability ka with an extension wa around the fault:
- 114 -
2π k  wa w f 

Sf = + ( 5-22)
L  k a 2k f 

The skin factor Sf is related to the transmissibility ratio a of Eq. 5-20:
π
α= ( 5-23)
Sf
Characteristic flow regimes
1. Radial flow
2. Constant pressure
boundary effect
3. Bi-linear flow
4. Radial flow kf
L
wf
Log-log analysis
102
and Derivative p'D
101
1 0.5 0.5
10-1
1 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
storage near a finite conductivity fault. No fault skin. Log-log scale.
3
CD = 10 , S = 0, LD = 1000, FcD= 100, Sf = 0.
- 115 -
102
101
and Derivative p'D
1 FcD = 1 10 100 1000 10000

0.5
10-1
10-2
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109
Figure 5-34 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near a finite
conductivity fault. No fault skin and several conductivity. Log-log scale.
CD = 100, S = 5, LD = 300, Sf = 0, FcD = 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000.
102
and Derivative p'D
101
1
1 Sf=1000
0.5 0.5
Sf=10 Sf=100
10-1
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109
Figure 5-35 Responses for a well with wellbore storage and skin near a finite
conductivity fault. Several fault skin and conductivity. Log-log scale.
CD = 100, S = 5, LD = 300, FcD = 10, 1000, Sf = 10, 100, 1000.
Semi-log analysis
15
Sf = 100 em
slop
10 2m
pe
sl o
m Sf = 0
e
5 slop
0
1 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
Figure 5-36 Semi-log plot for a well with wellbore storage near a finite
conductivity fault.
3
CD = 10 , S = 0, LD = 1000, FcD = 100, Sf = 0 or 100.
- 116 -
5-7 Predicting derivative shapes
Figure 5-37 Closed reservoir example.
Example of a drawdown in a closed system, the shape of the reservoir is a

trapezoid. After wellbore storage, the response shows :
1 - the infinite radial flow regime (derivative on 0.5),
2 - one sealing fault (derivative on 1),
3 - the wedge response (derivative on π /θ),
4 - linear flow (derivative straight line of slope 1/2),
5 - pseudo steady state (straight line of slope 1).
103
and Derivative p'D
102
1
pe
101 slo
180/θ
e 1/ 2
slop
1
1 0.5
10-1
1 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
Figure 5-38 Derivative response for a well in a closed trapezoid.
- 117 -
- 118 -
6 - COMPOSITE RESERVOIR MODELS
6-1 Definitions
With the radial composite model, the well is at the center of a circular zone of
radius r. With the linear composite model, the interface is at a distance L. The well
is located in the region "1". The parameters of the second region are defined with a
subscript "2".
(k/µ)2, (φct)2 (k/µ)2, (φct)2
(k/µ)1, (φct)1 (k/µ)1, (φct)1
R L
Radial composite Linear composite

Figure 6-1 Models for composite reservoirs.
6-1.1 Mobility & storativity ratios
(k µ )1
M= ( 6-1)
(k µ )2
(φ ct )1
F= ( 6-2)
(φ ct )2
The dimensionless variables (including the wellbore skin Sw) are expressed with
reference to the region "1" parameters.
k 1h
. qBµ 1
1412
k1 h
18.66qBµ 1
tD k h ∆t
= 0.000295 1 (field units)
CD µ1 C
- 119 -
Chapter 6 - Composite reservoir models
tD k h ∆t
= 0.00223 1 (metric units) ( 6-4)
CD µ1 C
0.8936C
CD = (field units)
(φ ct )1 hrw2
0.1592C
(φ ct )1 hrw2
k1h
Sw = ∆pskin (field units)
141.2qBµ1
k1h
Sw = ∆pskin (metric units) ( 6-6)
15.66qBµ1
r
rD = ( 6-7)
rw
L
LD = ( 6-8)
rw
6-2 Radial composite behavior
6-2.1 Influence of heterogeneous parameters M and F

102
and Derivative p'D
10
M = 10
M=2
1
0.5 M = 0.5
10-1 M = 0.1
0.5 M
10-2
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 6-2 Radial composite responses, well with wellbore storage and skin,
changing mobility and constant storativity. Log-log scale.
The two dotted curves correspond to the closed and the constant pressure
circle solutions. CD = 100, Sw = 3, rD = 700, M = 10, 2, 0.5, 0.1, F =1.
- 120 -
25
M=10
20
M=2
15
M=0.5
10 slope m
M=0.1
5
slopes m M
0
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106
102
F = 10
and Derivative p'D
10
F = 0.1
F = 10
1 0.5 0.5
F = 0.1
10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 6-4 Radial composite responses, well with wellbore storage and skin,
constant mobility and changing storativity. Log-log scale.
CD = 100, Sw = 3, rD = 700, M = 1, and F =10, 2, 0.5, 0.1.
15
F=10
10 m
slope slope
sm
F=0.1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106

The permeability thickness product k1h of the inner region is estimated from the
pressure match, and C from the time match :
k1h = 141.2qBµ1 (PM ) (mD.ft, field units)

k1 h = 18.66 qBµ1 (PM ) (mD.m, metric units) ( 6-9)
- 121 -
k1h  1 
µ1  TM 
k h 1  3
C = 0.00223 1   (m /Bars, metric units) ( 6-10)
µ1  TM 
At early time, the homogeneous (CD e2S)1 curve defines the wellbore skin factor
Sw. The mobility ratio M is estimated from the two derivative stabilizations.
∆p2nd stab.
M= ( 6-11)
∆p1st stab.
The first semi-log straight line defines the mobility of the inner zone, and the
wellbore skin factor Sw.
qBµ 1  k1 
∆p = 162.6  log ∆t + log − 3.23 + 0.87 S 
w  (psi, field units)
k1h  (φµ ct )1 rw2 
qBµ1  k1 
 (Bars, metric units) ( 6-12)
∆p = 21.54 log ∆t + log − 3.10 + 0.87 S
k1h  (φµ ct )1 rw2 w 

The second line, for the outer zone, defines M and the total skin ST.
qBµ 2  k2 
∆p = 162.6  log ∆t + log − 3.23 + 0.87 S 
T  (psi, field units)
 (φµ ct )2 rw2
k2 h  
qBµ 2  k2 
∆p = 21.5  log ∆t + log − 3.10 + 0.87 ST  (Bars, metric units) ( 6-13)
k2h 
 (φµ ct )2 rw2 

The total skin ST includes two components : the wellbore skin factor Sw and a
radial composite geometrical skin effect SRC of Equation 1-10, function of the
mobility ratio M and the radius rD of the circular interface :
1  1 
ST = S w +  − 1 ln rD ( 6-14)
M M 
When the mobility near the wellbore is higher than in the outer zone (M>1), the
geometrical skin is negative.
- 122 -
102
Dimensionless Pressure , pD Drawdown
Build-up
and Derivative p'D
10
1.5
1
0.5
10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105
Figure 6-6 Drawdown and build-up responses for a well with wellbore storage
and skin in a radial composite reservoir, changing mobility and constant
storativity. Log-log scale.
The dotted curves describe the drawdown response. CD = 11500, Sw = 5,
rD = 2000, M = 3, F=1.
With a strong reduction of mobility (M>>10), drawdown and build-up responses

can show the behavior of a closed depleted system, before the influence of the
outer region is seen.
10-2
Drawdown
Build-up 50
and Derivative p'D
10
1 0.5
tp
10-1
1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107
Figure 6-7 Drawdown and build-up responses for a well with wellbore storage
and skin in a radial composite reservoir.
The dotted pressure and derivative curves correspond to the drawdown
solution. CD = 1000, Sw = 0, rD = 10000, M =100, F =1 and tp/CD=3200.
6-3 Linear composite behavior
6-3.1 Influence of heterogeneous parameters M and F
The second homogeneous behavior is defined with the average properties of the
two regions :
 k   1
= 0.5 1 +   k µ  (mD/cp) ( 6-15)
 µ  APPARENT  M 1
- 123 -
102
and Derivative p'D
10
M = 10
1
0.5 M = 0.5
10-1
M = 0.1
10-2
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 6-8 Linear composite responses, well with wellbore storage and skin,
changing mobility and constant storativity. Log-log scale.
The two dotted curves correspond to the sealing fault and the constant pressure
boundary solutions. CD = 100, Sw = 3, LD = 700, M = 10, 2, 0.5, 0.1, F=1.
15 M=10
M=2
M=0.5
M=0.1
10 m
slope
0
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106
102
and Derivative p'D
Radial
10
Linear
1 Radial
0.5 Linear
10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105
Figure 6-10 Comparison of radial and linear interfaces. Well with wellbore
storage and skin in composite reservoirs. Log-log scale.
CD = 200, Sw = 0, F=1, rD = LD = 300. Linear composite : M = 5.
Radial composite : M =1.667.
The two derivative stabilizations are used to estimate the mobility ratio M :
- 124 -
∆p2nd stab.
M= ( 6-16)
2 ∆p1st stab. − ∆p2nd stab.
6-4 Multicomposite systems
6-4.1 Three inner regions with abrupt change of mobility
10
and Derivative p'D
1 RD=1000, M=0.1
0.5
RD=2500, M=0.15
0.33 RD=50000, M=0.5
10-1
0.1
0.05
10-2
1 10 102 103 104 105 106
storage and skin in a 4 regions radial composite reservoir.
CD = 5440, Sw = 0, F =1. r1D = 1000, k/µ2 = 1.5 k/µ1, r2D = 2500, k/µ3 = 5 k/µ1,
r3D = 50,000, k/µ4 = 10 k/µ1.
The dashed curves correspond to radial composite responses with only one
zone (RD = 1000, M = 0.1, RD = 2500, M = 0.15, RD = 50,000, M = 0.5).
6-4.2 Two inner regions with a linear change of mobility
10
and Derivative p'D
1 0.5
RD=10000
RD=1000
10-1 0.05
10-2
1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107
storage and skin in a radial composite reservoir, linear change of
transmissivity.
CD = 1000, Sw = 0, F =1. From R1D = 1000 to R2D = 10,000, M decreases
linearly from 1 to 0.1. The dashed curves correspond to radial composite
responses (M=0.1, RD = 1000, RD = 10,000).
- 125 -
- 126 -
7 - LAYERED RESERVOIRS - DOUBLE
PERMEABILITY MODEL
7-1 Definitions
The layer "1" is assumed to be the high permeability layer.
The two-layers model can be used for multi-layers systems. Layer "1" describes
the sum of the high permeability zones, and layer "2" the lower permeability
intervals.
S1 h1, k1, kZ1

h', k'Z
S2 h2, k2, kZ2
Figure 7-1 Model for double permeability reservoir.
7-1.1 Permeability and porosity
khTOTAL = k1h1 + k 2 h2 (mD.ft, mD.m) ( 7-1)
(φ ct h)TOTAL = (φ ct h)1 + (φ ct h)2 (ft/psi, m/Bars) ( 7-2)
7-1.2 Mobility ratio κ
k1h1 k1h1
κ= = ( 7-3)
k1h1 + k 2 h2 khTOTAL
When κ=1, the response is double porosity.
7-1.3 Storativity ratio ω
(φ ct h)1 (φ ct h)1
ω= = ( 7-4)
(φ ct h)1 + (φ ct h)2 (φ ct h)TOTAL
- 127 -
Chapter 7 - Layered reservoirs
7-1.4 Interlayer cross flow coefficient λ
rw2 2
λ= ( 7-5)
k1h1 + k 2 h2 h' h h
2 + 1 + 2
k ' Z k Z1 k Z 2
λ is a function of the vertical permeability k z' in the low permeability "wall" of

thickness h' between the layers, and of vertical permeabilities in the two layers kz1
and kz2.
If the vertical resistance is mostly due to the "wall", a simplified λ can be used to
characterize this interlayer skin :
rw2 k 'Z
λ= ( 7-6)
k1h1 + k 2 h2 h'
When there is no skin at the interface and the vertical pressure gradients are
negligible in the high permeability layer 1, λ is expressed:
rw2 kZ2
λ= ( 7-7)
k1h1 + k 2 h2 h2 2
When λ=0, there is no reservoir crossflow.
k1h1 + k 2 h2
. qBµ 1
1412
k h + k 2 h2
pD = 1 1 ∆p (metric units) ( 7-8)
18.66qBµ
tD k h + k 2 h2 ∆t
= 0.000295 1 1 (field units)
CD µ C
tD k h + k 2 h2 ∆t
= 0.00223 1 1 (metric units) ( 7-9)
CD µ C
0.8936C
CD =
[(φ c h) ]
(field units)
t 1
+ (φ ct h) 2 rw2
0.1592C
CD =
[(φ ct h )1 + (φ ct h)2 ]rw2
- 128 -
7-2 Double permeability behavior when the two layers are

producing into the well
7-2.1 Log-log pressure and derivative responses
Three characteristic flow regimes :

1. First, the behavior corresponds to two layers without cross flow.
2. At intermediate times, when the fluid transfer between the layers starts, the
response follows a transition regime.
3. Later, the pressure equalizes in the two layers and the behavior describes the
equivalent homogeneous total system. The derivative stabilizes at 0.5.
102
and Derivative p'D
10
1 0.5
10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105
Figure 7-2 Response of a well with wellbore storage and skins in a double
permeability reservoir. The two layers are producing into the well.
CD = 1000, S1 =S2 = 0, ω = 0.02, κ = 0.8, λ = 6.10-8
k1h1 + k 2 h2 = 141.2qBµ (PM ) (mD.ft, field units)

k1 h1 + k 2 h2 = 18.66qBµ (PM ) (mD.m, metric units) ( 7-11)
k1h1 + k 2 h2  1 
µ  TM 
k h + k 2 h2  1  3
C = 0.00223 1 1   (m /Bars, metric units) ( 7-12)
µ  TM 
The heterogeneous parameters κ, ω and λ are adjusted preferably with the

derivative curve. When the two skins S1 and S2 are different, the well condition
influences the shape of the derivative transition, and it is difficult to conclude the
match uniquely.
λ provides an estimate of the vertical permeabilities. From Equations 7-6 and 7-7 :
λ
k ' Z = ( k1h1 + k 2 h2 ) h' (mD) ( 7-13)
rw2
- 129 -
λ h2
k Z 2 = ( k1h1 + k 2 h2 ) (mD) ( 7-14)
rw2 2
7-2.2 Influence of the heterogeneous parameters κ and ω
It is assumed in that the two skin coefficients are equal: S1 = S2 ( = 0).
10
κ = 0.999
and Derivative p'D
0.6
1
0.5
0.6
0.9
10-1
0.99
0.999
κ= 1
10-2
10-1 1 10 102 103 104
Figure 7-3 Double permeability responses when the two layers are producing
into the well. Well with wellbore storage and skins, high storativity contrast.
The two dotted curves describe the homogeneous reservoir response
(CDe2S = 1) and the double porosity response (κ = 1). CD = 1, S1 = S2 = 0,
ω = 10-3, λ = 4.10-4. Four mobility ratios : κ = 0.6, 0.9, 0.99 and 0.999.
6 κ = 0.99 κ = 0.6
κ = 1, 0.999
4 em
0.99 slop
0.9
0.6
2
Two layers no crossflow

Double permeability
0
10-1 1 10 102 103 104
The thick dotted curves correspond to the homogeneous reservoir response
(CD e2S = 1) and the double porosity response (κ = 1).The thin dotted curves
correspond to the two layers responses with no reservoir crossflow (for κ =
0.6 and 0.99, λ = 0).
- 130 -
10
κ = 0.999
and Derivative p'D

0.6
1 0.5
0.6
0.9 0.99
0.999
κ = 1
10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104
Figure 7-5 Double permeability responses when the two layers are producing
into the well. Well with wellbore storage and skins, low storativity contrast.
Log-log scale.
The two dotted curves describe the homogeneous reservoir response
(CDe2S = 1) and the double porosity response (κ = 1). CD = 1, S1 = S2 = 0,
ω = 10-1, λ = 4.10-4. Four mobility ratios : κ = 0.6, 0.9, 0.99 and 0.999.
6
Two layers no crossflow κ = 0.99
κ = 0.6
Double permeability
m
4 pe
κ= 1
slo
0.999
0.99
2 0.9
0.6
0
10-1 1 10 102 103 104
The thick dotted curves correspond to the homogeneous reservoir response
(CD e2S = 1) and the double porosity response (κ = 1).The thin dotted curves
correspond to the two layers responses with no reservoir crossflow (for κ =
0.6 and 0.99, λ = 0).
7-3 Double permeability behavior when only one of the two

layers is producing into the well
7-3.1 Log-log pressure and derivative responses

Three characteristic flow regimes :
1. First, the perforated layer response is seen alone, and the behavior is
homogeneous.
2. When the second layer starts to produce by reservoir cross flow, the response
deviates in a transition regime. The derivative drops.
3. Later, the pressure equalizes in the two layers, and the equivalent homogeneous
behavior of the total system is seen. The derivative stabilizes at 0.5.
- 131 -
102
layer 2 produces
and Derivative p'D

10
0.5/(1-κ)
1
0.5
10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106

Figure 7-7 Response for a well with wellbore storage and skin in double
permeability reservoir, only layer 2 produces into the well. Log-log scale.
CD =1000, S1 = 100, S2 = 0, ω = 0.1, κ = 0.9, λ = 6.10-8.
7-3.2 Discussion of double permeability parameters
When only the low permeability layer is producing, the derivative tends to
stabilize at 0.5/(1-κ) during the first homogeneous regime. The response is then
similar to the behavior of a well in partial penetration.
102
the two layers produce layer 2

and Derivative p'D
10 layer 1
layer 2 produces
1
layer 1 produces 0.5

10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105
Figure 7-8 Response for a well with wellbore storage and skin in double
permeability reservoir, only one layer is producing into the well.
The dotted curve describes the double permeability response when the two
layers are producing into the well (no skin). CD = 1, ω = 0.2,κ = 0.9, λ = 10-4,
S1 = 100, S2 = 0 and S1 = 0, S2 = 100.
When only the high permeability layer produces into the well, the two derivative
stabilizations are almost at the same level: 0.5/κ for the first (0.55 in the example
of Figure 7-8) and 0.5 for the second. The response tends to be equivalent to the
double porosity solution with restricted interporosity flow.
7-3.3 Analysis of semi-log straight lines
The response can follow two semi-log straight lines. When one of the two layers
(called layer i) starts to produce alone, the first line is expressed :
- 132 -
30
the two layers produce slope m
20 layer 2 produces
10
layer 1 produces
slope m
0
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105
The dotted curve corresponds to the homogeneous reservoir response, no
skin (CD e2S = 1).
qBµ  ki 
∆p = 162.6 log ∆t + log − 3 . 23 + 0 . 87 S i  (psi, field units)
k i hi  (φ ct )i µ rw2 
qBµ  ki 
k i hi  (φ ct )i µ rw2 i

The second line, for the total system regime, gives the total mobility :
qBµ  kTOTAL 
∆p = 162.6  log ∆t + log − 3 . 23 + 0 . 87 S  (psi, field units)
khTOTAL  (φ ct )TOTAL µ rw2 
qBµ  khTOTAL 
∆p = 21.54 log ∆t + log − 3.10 + 0.87 S  (Bars, metric
khTOTAL  (φ ct h)TOTAL µrw
2

units) ( 7-16)
The global skin S measured on the total system semi-log straight line is not only a
function of the two layers skins S1 and S2, but also of κ, ω and λ.
7-4 Commingled systems: layered reservoirs without crossflow
7-4.1 Same initial pressure
When there is no reservoir crossflow, the amplitude of the response is larger than
that of the equivalent homogenous system (thin dashed curves on Figure 7-4 and
Figure 7-6). The semi-log slope decreases slowly with time, to reach the equivalent
total system slope of Equation 7-16.
In a n layers system, the pseudo-skin factor SL due to layering is defined as :
- 133 -
1 n k jhj (kh φ ct h) j
SL = ∑ ln
2 j =1 khTOTAL ( kh φ ct h) TOTAL
( 7-17)
On the example κ=0.999 and ω=0.001 of Figure 7-4, the pseudo-skin is estimated
at SL=3.5. For the curve κ=0.9 and ω=0.1 of Figure 7-6, SL is only 0.9.
When the layers have different mechanical skin factors Si, the response is also a
function of the skin contrast between the different layers. The global skin can be
defined with two components : SL of Equation 7-17, and an average mechanical
skin S . The average mechanical skin S is approximated with :
n k jhj n
S=∑ S j = ∑κ j S j ( 7-18)
j =1 khTOTAL i =1
7-4.2 Different initial pressure
When the layers have a different initial pressure, the bottom hole pressure tends
asymptotically towards the average initial pressure if the well is not opened to
surface production. For an infinite system, p i is defined as :
n k jhj
pi = ∑ pi j (psi, Bars) ( 7-19)
j =1 khTOTAL
If the non-producing commingled reservoir is closed, the final average reservoir

pressure is p :
n V j ct j
p=∑ pi j (psi, Bars) ( 7-20)
j =1 Vct TOTAL
where Vj is the pore volume of layer j. The final average reservoir pressure p can
be greater or smaller than the "infinite" average initial pressure pi of Equation 7-
19.
- 134 -
8 - INTERFERENCE TESTS
8-1 Interference tests in reservoirs with homogeneous

behavior
8-1.1 Responses of producing and observation wells
4930
pi
5000
Observation well
Observation well
Pressure (psia)
4500
Producing well pwf
4920
4000
3500 4910
0 100 200 300 400 500 180 200 220
Time (hours) Time (hours)
Figure 8-1 Response of a producing and an observation well. Linear scale.

On the second graph, the observation well pressure is presented on enlarged
scale at time of shut-in.
103
Producing well
Pressure Change, ∆p
102
and Derivative (psi)
101
Observation
well
1
10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103
Figure 8-2 Build-up response of the producing and observation wells. Log-
log scale.
8-1.2 Log-log analysis with line-source solution
Dimensionless parameters
The line source solution, also called the exponential integral (Ei), or Theis
solution, is expressed as :
- 135 -
Chapter 8 - Interference tests
(
p D = − 1 2 Ei − rD2 4t D ) ( 8-1)
pD is defined in Equation 2-3 and the time group tD/rD2 is :
t D 0.000263k
= ∆t (field units)
rD
2
φµ ct r 2
t D 0.000356k
= ∆t (metric units) ( 8-2)
rD2 φ µ ct r 2
101
PRESSURE
1 Intersection
and Derivative p'D
DERIVATIVE
10-1
Approximate start
10-2 of radial flow
10-3
10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 104
Dimensionless time, tD /rD2
Figure 8-3 The Theis solution (exponential integral). Log-log scale, pressure
and derivative responses.
With the line source response, the pressure and derivative curves intersect at
tD/rD2 = 0.57 and pD = p'D = 0.32. The 0.5 derivative stabilization starts 10 times
later, approximately at tD/rD2 = 5.
Match results
The permeability thickness product kh is estimated from the pressure match with
(
Equation 2-8. The time match t D r 2D ∆t gives the effective porosity)
compressibility product φ ct :
0.000263 k  1 
φ ct =   (psi-1, field units)
µ r 2  TM 
0.000356 k  1 
φ ct =   (Bars-1, metric units) ( 8-3)
µr 2
 TM 
- 136 -
8-1.3 Influence of wellbore storage and skin effects at both wells
101
Line source well

1
10-1
C: rD = 300, CD = 3000, S = 30
10-2 B: rD = 1000, CD = 10000, S = 10
A: rD = 1000, CD = 3000, S=0
10-3
10-4
10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103
Figure 8-4 Influence of wellbore storage and skin effects on interference
pressure responses. Log-log scale.
The dotted curve corresponds to the Theis solution. Two distances:
rD = 1000 : CD = 3000, S = 0 (curve A) and CD = 10000, S = 10 (curve B).
rD = 300 : CD = 3000, S = 30 (curve C).
101
Dimensionless Pressure Derivative p'D
Line source well

1
10-1
C: rD = 300, CD = 3000, S = 30
10-2
B: rD = 1000, CD = 10000, S = 10
A: rD = 1000, CD = 3000, S=0
10-3
10-4
10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103
Figure 8-5 Derivative curves of Figure 8-4. Log-log scale.
The dotted derivative curve corresponds to the Theis solution.
- 137 -
1
Intersections
and Derivative p'D Line source well A
10-1
10-2
10-2 10-1 1 101
Figure 8-6 Pressure an derivative curves of Figure 8-4 and Figure 8-5,
examples A and B. Log-log scale.
The dotted derivative curve corresponds to the Theis solution.
8-1.4 Semi-log analysis of interference responses
When tD/rD2 > 5, the infinite acting radial flow regime is reached.
162.6 qBµ  k 
pi − p wf =  log ∆t + log − 3.2275 (psi, field units)
kh  φ µ ct r 2

21.5 qBµ  k 
 (Bars, metric units)
p i − p wf = log ∆t + log − 3 . 10 ( 1-30)
kh  φ µ ct r 2 

8-1.5 Anisotropic reservoirs
y
Observation
well at (x, y)
kmin kmax
θ x
Active
well
Figure 8-7 Interference test in an anisotropic reservoir. Location of the active

well and the observation well.
With a coordinate system centered on the active well, the observation well location
is defined as (x,y) and kx, ky, kxy are the components of the permeability tensor.
- 138 -
When several observation well responses are matched against the exponential
integral type curve of Figure 8-3, the pressure match is the same for all responses
and only the time match changes. The apparent permeability is :
2
k = k max k min = k x k y − k xy (mD) ( 8-4)
The apparent distance rD,x,y of the observation well is function of the well location
with respect to the main permeability directions. The dimensionless time
corresponding to well (x,y) is defined as :
 tD  0.000263∆t  k max k min 

 (field units)
 2 =
 rD  x , y φ µ ct  k x y 2 + k y x 2 − 2 k xy xy 
 tD   
  = 0.000356∆t  k max k min  (metric units) ( 8-5)
r 2  φ µ  2
+ 2
− 2 
 D  x, y c t k
 x y k y x k xy xy 
With three observation well responses, kx, ky and kxy can be estimated. The major
and minor reservoir permeability kmax and kmin are be defined with
 1/ 2

(
k max = 0.5k x + k y +  k x − k y ) 2 
2
+ 4 k xy  (mD) ( 8-6)
   
 1/ 2

(
k min = 0.5k x + k y −  k x − k y ) 2 
2
+ 4 k xy  (mD) ( 8-7)
   
The angle between the major permeability axis and the x-axis of the coordinate
system is expressed with :
 k max − k x 
θ = arctan  ( 8-8)
 k xy 
When only one observation well response is available for interpretation, the
reservoir anisotropy is not accessible. The pressure match gives the average
permeability k max k min but the porosity compressibility product φ ct estimated
from the time match with Equation 8-3 can be wrong.
8-2 Interference tests in double porosity reservoirs

The responses are expressed with the dimensionless pressure pD versus the
dimensionless time group tfD/rD2 defined with reference to the fissure system
storativity (φ V ct)f :
- 139 -
t Df 0.000263k∆t
= (field units)
r 2D (φV ct ) f µ r 2
t Df 0.000356k
= ∆t (metric units) ( 8-9)
rD2 (φVct ) f µ r 2
8-2.1 Double porosity reservoirs with restricted interporosity flow
Pressure type curves
Three curves are needed to define to a double porosity interference response :
1. During the fissure flow regime, the interference response follows the
exponential integral solution.
2. When the transition starts, the response deviates from the fissure curve and
follows a λ rD2 transition curve.
3. Later, the total system equivalent homogeneous regime is reached and a second
exponential integral curve is seen at late time.
The distance between the two homogeneous regime curves is a function of the
storativity ratio ω. The level of the pressure change ∆p during the transition is
defined by λ rD2.
When the distance rD between the active and the observation wells is large, the
λ rD2 transition stabilizes at a low ∆p value and, beyond a certain distance riD, ∆p
becomes less than the pressure gauge resolution. This distance riD represents the
radius of influence of the fissures around the active well.
101
0.01
1 0.1
10-1 λ rD2 = 5
ω =0.1 ω =0.01 ω =0.001

10-2
10-1 1 101 102 103 104
Dimensionless time, tD f /rD2
Figure 8-8 Interference pressure type-curve for a double porosity reservoir,
restricted (pseudo-steady state) interporosity flow.
λrD = 5, 1, 0.1, 0.01.
2
- 140 -
When the observation well is located inside the radius of influence riD, the fissure
flow regime is seen first. The interference response is observed faster than for the
equivalent homogeneous reservoir.
The tDf time scale of Figure 8-9 shows that the transition is observed at the same
time in the active well and in the observation wells. With the tDf/rD2 time scale of
Figure 8-10, the time of transition is a function of the λ rD2 group.
101
Active well
and Derivative p'D
10-1
A B rD=5000
rD=1000
10-2
104 105 106 107 108 109
Dimensionless time, tD f
Figure 8-9 Interference responses in double porosity reservoirs with
restricted interporosity flow (tDf time scale).
ω = 0.1, λ = 5 X 10-8, two distances : rD = 1000 (curve A) and rD = 5000 (B).
The dotted curve describes the derivative response at the active well.
101
A
and Derivative p'D
1 B
10-1
A
B
rD=1000
rD=5000
10-2
10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103
2
Figure 8-10 Interference responses of Figure 8-9, tDf /rD time scale.
- 141 -
8-2.2 Double porosity reservoirs with unrestricted interporosity flow
Pressure type-curve
Two pressure curves :

1. - The interference response starts on a β rD2 transition curve.
2. - When the total system equivalent homogeneous regime is reached, the
response follows the exponential integral curve.
101
6
60
1 600
β rD2 = 6000
10-1
ω =0.1 ω =0.01 ω =0.001

10-2
10-1 1 101 102 103 104
Figure 8-11 Interference pressure type-curve for a double porosity reservoir,
unrestricted (transient) interporosity flow
β rD2= 6*103, 6*102, 60 and 6.
For slab matrix blocks, β = 3λ 5ω and, for sphere matrix blocks β = λ 3ω .
101
A
and Derivative p'D
1 B
A
10-1 B
rD=1000
rD=5000
10-2
10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 104
Figure 8-12 Interference responses in double porosity reservoirs with
unrestricted interporosity flow. Log-log scale.
Two wells, with same parameters as on Figure 8-10
- 142 -
8-3 Influence of reservoir boundaries
Period
#2
Period Period
#3 #3
O1 A O2
Linear
sealing
fault Active
well
Figure 8-13 Interference in a reservoir with a sealing fault.

Location of the active well A and the two observation wells O1 and O2.
In case of one sealing fault, the derivative stabilizes at p'D=1 at late time. The time
of transition from 0.5 to 1 can be earlier, or later, than in the active well.
102
O1
101 Active well
O2
1
10-1 1 101 102 103
Figure 8-14 Interference in a reservoir with a sealing fault. Pressure and
derivative curves of the two observation wells. Log-log scale.
8-4 Interference tests in radial composite reservoir

When the mobility around the active well is higher than the mobility of the
reservoir (Figure 8-16), the interference signal travels faster. When the active well
is located in a low mobility region (Figure 8-17), the interference signal is delayed.
- 143 -
(k/µ)1 (k/µ)2
A O1 O2
R
Active
well
R/2 2R
Figure 8-15 Interference in a radial composite reservoir. Location of the active

well A and the observation wells O1 and O1.
103
Active well
102
O1
101
O2
Line source
1 region 2
10-1 1 101 102 103
Figure 8-16 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. The
mobility of the inner zone is 4 times larger (M=4, F=1).
The dotted derivative curves correspond to the active well A and to the Theis
solution for region 2 parameters.
103
102
Active well
101
O2
O1
Line source
1 region 2
10-1 1 101 102 103

Figure 8-17 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. The
mobility of the inner zone is 4 times smaller (M=1/4, F=1).
The dotted derivative curves correspond to the active well A and to theTheis
- 144 -
103
Pressure Change, ∆p (psi)

102
O1
O2
101 M=4
M=1/4 M=4
M=1/4
Line source
region 2
1
10-1 1 101 102 103
Figure 8-18 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. Pressure
curves of examples Figure 8-16 and Figure 8-17.
The mobility of the inner zone is 4 times smaller or 4 times larger.
The dotted pressure curve corresponds to the Theis solution for region 2
parameters.
When there is a reduction of storativity φct around the active well, the interference
signal reaches the observation well faster (Figure 8-19).
103
Active well
102
101 O2
Line source
region 2
1
10-1 1 101 102 103
Figure 8-19 Interference responses in a radial composite reservoir. Well O2.
The storativity of the inner zone is 4 times smaller (M=1, F=1/4).
- 145 -
103
and Derivative (psi) Active well
102
Line source
101 region 2
O2
1
10-1 1 101 102 103
The storativity of the inner zone is 4 times larger (M=1, F=4).
When both the active well and the observation well are located in the inner
reservoir region, the interference response can show the 2 usual derivative
stabilizations of the radial composite model (Figure 8-21).
102 Line source region 2

101 Active well
O1
1
10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 104
The mobility and the storativity of the inner zone are 10 times larger
(M=F=10).
8-5 Interference tests in a two layers reservoir with cross flow

The dimensionless pressure p1+2D and the dimensionless time group t1+2D/rD2 are
defined with the parameters of the total system.
For the example used in the following, the contrast between the layers is not high
(ω =0.4 and κ =0.7), and the active well is expected to show the equivalent
homogeneous behavior.
- 146 -
On Figure 8-22, only one layer is perforated at the observation well. When only
the high permeability layer 1 is communicating with the observation well, the
response is seen before the equivalent homogeneous solution for the total system.
When the interference is monitored through the low permeability layer 2, the early
time response is delayed compared to the Theis solution for the total system. After
the double permeability transition, the two responses merge on the equivalent
homogeneous total system curve.
Layer 1
and Derivative p'D
10-1
Layer 2
Line source
total system
10-2
10-2 10-1 1 101
Dimensionless time, tD 1+2 /rD 2
Figure 8-22 Interference responses in a double permeability reservoir, one

layer is perforated in the observation well. Log-log scale.
The dotted pressure and derivative curves correspond to the Theis solution
for the total system equivalent homogeneous reservoir.
ω=0.4, κ=0.7 and λ=10-6.
When two layers are perforated, a cross flow is present in the well at the start of
the interference response, and the observation well becomes active (even though it
is not producing at surface). The resulting response (Figure 8-23) is close to the
response of layer 1 alone : when several layers are perforated, the high
permeability layer dominates the observation well behavior.
1
and Derivative p'D
10-1
Line source
total system
10-2
10-2 10-1 1 101
Dimensionless time, tD 1+2 /rD2
Figure 8-23 Interference responses in a double permeability reservoir, the two
layers are perforated in the observation well.
Same parameters as on Figure 8-22, the dotted curves correspond to the
total system equivalent homogeneous Theis solution.
- 147 -
- 148 -
9 - GAS WELLS
Two different types of test are used with gas wells. Transient analysis provides a
description of the producing system, as for oil wells. With deliverability testing,
the theoretical rate at which the well would flow if the sandface was at
atmospheric pressure, "the Absolute Open Flow Potential" AOFP, is estimated.
9-1 Gas properties
9-1.1 Gas compressibility and viscosity
The viscosity µ and the compressibility of gas cg change with the pressure.
1 1 ∂Z
cg = − (psi-1, Bars-1) ( 9-1)
p Z ∂p
Z is the real gas deviation factor. For an ideal gas Z=1, and the compressibility is
cg=1/p.
9-1.2 Pseudo-pressure
The pseudo-pressure m(p), also called "real gas potential", is defined :
p
p
m( p) = 2 ∫ µ ( p)Z ( p) dp (psia2/cp, Bars2/cp) ( 9-2)
p0
The pressure p is expressed in absolute unit, m(p) has the unit of (pressure)2 /
viscosity , (psia2 / cp with the usual system of units). The reference pressure p0 is
an arbitrary constant, smaller than the lower test pressure.
The complete pressure data is converted into pseudo-pressure m(p) before analysis.
The change of pseudo-pressure, expressed as m(p)-m(p[∆t=0]), is independent of
the reference pressure p0.
9-1.3 Pseudo-time
The pseudo-time tps is sometimes used as a complement of m(p).
t
1
t ps = ∫ dt (hr.psi/cp, hr.Bars/cp) ( 9-3)
0
µ ( p)ct ( p)
In order to estimate µ and ct before calculation of the superposition with the

pseudo time tps, the pressure must be known during the complete flow rate
sequence
- 149 -
Chapter 9 - Gas wells
9-2 Transient analysis of gas well tests
9-2.1 Simplified pseudo-pressure for manual analysis
On Figure 9-1, µZ is plotted versus p for a typical natural gas at constant

temperature :
- When the pressure is less than 2000 psia, the product µZ is almost constant and
m(p) simplifies into :
p 2 − p02
p
2
m( p) = ∫ pdp = (psia2/cp, Bars2/cp) ( 9-4)
µZ p0
µ i Zi
On low-pressure gas wells, it is possible to analyze the test in terms of pressure-

squared p2.
- When the pressure is higher than 3000 psia, the product µZ tends to be
proportional to p and p/µZ can be considered as a constant. The pseudo-pressure
m(p) becomes :
p
2p 2 pi
m( p) =
µZ ∫ dp = ( p − p0 ) µ Z
(psia2/cp, Bars2/cp) ( 9-5)
p0 i i
On high-pressure wells, the gas behaves like a slightly compressible fluid, and the
pressure data can be used directly for analysis.
- Between 2000 psia and 3000 psia, no simplification is available and m(p) must
be used.
0.04
o p
al t
0.03 rt ion
o
rop
µ Zp
µ Z (cp)
0.02
µ Z constant
0.01
0.00
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Pressure (psia)
Figure 9-1 Isothermal variation of µZ with pressure.
- 150 -
9-2.2 Dimensionless parameters
Nomenclature
In field units, the standard pressure is psc =14.7psia and the temperature is
Tsc = 520°R (60°F, all temperatures are expressed in absolute units). The gas rate
is expressed in standard condition as qsc in Mscf/D (103scft/D ). With the metric
system, psc =1 Bar, Tsc = 288.15°K (15°C) and cubic meters are used for gas rates
(m3/D.).
When the pseudo-pressure is used, the dimensionless terms are defined with
respect to the gas properties at initial condition (subscript i). With the pressure and
pressure-squared approaches, the properties are defined at the arithmetic average
pressure of the test (symbol ).
Dimensionless pressure
m(p):
p D = 1.987 ∗ 10 −5
kh Tsc
[m( pi ) − m( p )]
Tq sc p sc
(field units)
= 7.03 ∗ 10 −4kh
[m( pi ) − m( p )]
Tq sc
[m( p i ) − m( p)]
kh T sc
pD =
37.33T q sc p sc
=
kh
[m( p i ) − m( p)]
0.1296T q sc
p2:
p D = 1.987∗10 −5
kh Tsc 2
µ ZTq sc psc
(
pi − p 2 )
(field units)
= 7.03∗10 −4 kh
µ ZTq sc
(
pi2 − p 2 )
pD =
kh Tsc 2
37.33µ Z Tqsc psc
(
pi − p 2 )
=
kh
0.1296 µ zTqsc
(
pi2 − p 2 )
p:
kh p Tsc
p D = 3.976∗10 −5 ( pi − p)
µ ZTq sc psc
(field units)
kh p
= 1406
. ∗10 −3
( pi − p)
µ ZTq sc
- 151 -
Tsc
pD =
kh p
( pi − p)
18.66 µ Z Tq sc p sc
=
kh p
( pi − p)
0.0648µ Z Tq sc
Dimensionless time
m(p):
0.000263k
φµ i cti rw 2
0.000356k
φ µ i cti rw 2
p2 and p:
0.000263k
φ µ ct rw 2
0.000356k
φ µ c t rw 2
Dimensionless wellbore storage
As for oil wells, the wellbore storage coefficient is expressed in Bbl/psi (or
m3/Bars).
m(p):
0.8936C
CD = (field units)
φ cti hrw2
0.1592C
φ c ti hrw2
p2 and p:
0.8936C
CD = (field units)
φ ct hrw2
0.1592C
φ c t hrw2
Dimensionless time group tD/CD
m(p):
tD kh ∆t
CD µi C
- 152 -
tD kh ∆t
= 0.00223 (metric units) ( 9-13)
CD µi C
p2 and p:
tD kh ∆t
CD µ C
tD kh ∆t
= 0.00223 (metric units) ( 9-14)
CD µ C
Skin
On gas wells, the skin coefficient S' is expressed with a rate dependent term, also
called turbulent effect or non-Darcy skin.
S ' = S + Dq sc ( 9-15)
In a multirate sequence, the analysis is made with respect to the rate change (qn -
qn-1), and the skin is estimated from the change of ∆pskin between the flow periods n
and n-1. S' is expressed :
q n ( S + Dq n ) − q n −1 ( S + Dq n −1 )
S' = = S + D(q n + q n −1 ) ( 9-16)
q n − q n −1
During shut-in periods (qn =0) and during a period immediately after shut-in (qn-1 =
0), the actual flow rate is used in Equation 9-16.
12
S'=S+D(qn+qn-1)
10
lope
D=s
8 S = intercept
6
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
qn+qn-1 (Mscf/D)
Figure 9-2 Variation of the pseudo-skin with the rate qn + qn-1.
- 153 -
9-3 Deliverability tests
9-3.1 Deliverability equations
Empirical approach (Fetkovich, or "C & n")
( )
n
q sc = C pi2 − pwf
2
(Mscf/D, m3/D) ( 9-17)
The initial pressure pi and the stabilized flowing pressures pwf are expressed in
absolute units. The coefficients C and n are two constant terms. n can vary from 1
in the case of laminar flow, to 0.5 when the flow is fully turbulent.
109
pwf=14.7 psia
108
pi2- pwf2 (psia2)
e
lop
=s
1/n
107
AOF=9000 Mscft/D
106
103 104 105
Rate, qsc (Mscf/D)
Figure 9-3 Deliverability plot for a backpressure test.
Log-log scale, pressure-squared method.
The Absolute Open Flow Potential (AOF) is the theoretical rate for a bottom hole
flowing pressure pwf = 14.7 psia (pwf =1 Bar).
Theoretical approach (LIT, or Houpeurt's, or Jone's, or "a & b")
In a closed system, the difference between the pseudo-steady state flowing pressure
pwf and the following shut-in average pressure p is expressed from Equation 5-16 as :
T  A rw2 
() ( )
m p − m p wf = 1637  log
kh  CA 
T
kh
2
+ 0.35 + 0.87 S  q sc + 1422 Dq sc (psia2/cp,
field units)
- 154 -
T  
m p − m p wf () ( ) = 0.1491

kh 
log
A rw2
CA 
T
+ 0.351 + 0.87 S q sc + 0.1296 D q sc
kh
2

(Bars2/cp, metric units) ( 9-18)
With a circular reservoir of radius re, CA = 31.62 and ∆m(p) is simplified :
T  
() ( )
m p − m pwf = 1637  2 log
kh 
0.472re
rw 
T
kh
2
+ 0.87 S  q sc + 1422 Dq sc (psia2/cp, field units)
() ( )
m p − m p wf = 0.1491
T 
 2 log
kh 
0.472re  T
+ 0.87 S q sc + 0.1296 D q sc
2
(Bars2/cp,
rw  kh
metric units) ( 9-19)
40,000
ed
biliz
∆m(p)/q (psia2D/cpMscf)
35,000 st a
e
30,000 l op
=s
,b
ent
a = intercept
tra ns i
25,000
20,000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Rate, qsc (Mscf/D)
Figure 9-4 Deliverability plot for an isochronal or a modified isochronal test.
Linear scale, pseudo-pressure method.
Before the pseudo-steady state regime, the response follows the semi-log
approximation and ∆m(p) is :
T  k∆t 
m p − m p wf = 1637 () ( )  log
kh  φµ i cti rw
2
+ 3.23 + 0.87 S

T
kh
2
 q sc + 1422 Dq sc
(psia2/cp, field units)

T  
m p − m p wf = 0.1491 () ( ) 
log
k∆t
+ 3 . 10 + 0 . 87 S q sc + 0.1296 T D q sc

2
kh  φ µ i c ti rw
2
 kh
(Bars2/cp, metric units) ( 9-20)
The two ∆m(p) deliverability relationships can be expressed as a(t) qsc + b q2sc.
During the infinite acting regime, a(t) is an increasing function of the time whereas
"a" is constant when pseudo-steady state is reached. The coefficient "b" is the
same in the two equations.
The Absolute Open Flow Potential is :
- 155 -
q sc , AOF =
(
− a + a 2 + 4b m( p) − m( psc ) ) (Mscf/D, m3/D) ( 9-21)
2b
9-3.2 Back pressure test (Flow after flow test)
The well is produced to stabilized pressure at three or four increasing rates and the
different flow periods have the same duration.
pi
7000 pwf1
pwf2 30,000
pwf3
Rate, qsc (Mscf/D)

pwf4
Pressure (psia)
20,000
6900
10,000
6800 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time (hours)
Figure 9-5 Pressure and rate history for a backpressure test.
3500
∆m(p)/q (psia2D/cpMscf)
3000 pe
slo
b=
2500
a = intercept
2000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Rate, qsc (Mscf/D)
Figure 9-6 Deliverability plot for a backpressure test.
Linear scale, pseudo-pressure method.
9-3.3 Isochronal test
The well is produced at three or four increasing rates and a shut-in period is
introduced between each flow. The drawdown periods, of same duration tp, are
stopped during the infinite acting regime. The intermediate build-ups last until the
initial pressure pi is reached. A final flow period is extended to reach stabilized
flowing pressure.
- 156 -
pi
7000
30,000
Rate, qsc (Mscf/D)

Pressure (psia) pwf1
pwf2 pwf, stab 20,000
6900 pwf3
pwf4
10,000
6800 0
0 200 400 600 800
Time, hours
Figure 9-7 Pressure and rate history for an isochronal test.
108
d
ize
bil
sta
pe
n= t,
1/ ien
slo
pi2 (or pws2 )- pwf2 (psia2)
107
ns
tra
pwf=14.7 psia
106
AOF=8000 Mscft/D
105
103 104 105
Rate, qsc (Mscf/D)
Figure 9-8 Deliverability plot for an isochronal or a modified isochronal test.
Log-log scale, pressure-squared method.
9-3.4 Modified isochronal test
The intermediate shut-in periods have the same duration tp as the drawdown
periods, and the last flow is extended until the stabilized pressure is reached.
7100 pws2
pws1 pws3 pws4 pi
Rate, qsc (Mscf/D)
6900 30,000
Pressure (psia)
pwf1
pwf2
6700 pwf, stab 20,000
pwf3
pwf4
6500 10,000
6300 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (hours)
Figure 9-9 Pressure and rate history for a modified isochronal test.
- 157 -
- 158 -
10 - BOUNDARIES IN HETEROGENEOUS
RESERVOIRS
10-1 Boundaries in fissured reservoirs

A sealing fault can be reached during the fissure flow regime (Figure 10-1). The
double porosity transition is observed during the semi-radial flow regime, after a
first derivative stabilization at 1.
102
101
Derivative p'D
start of the sealing fault
1 1
1
0.5
10-1 fissure regime transition total system

10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 10-1 Well with wellbore storage near a sealing fault, double porosity
reservoir, pseudo-steady state interporosity flow.
CD = 104, S = 0, LD = 5000, ω = 0.2, λeff = 10-9.
In a channel double porosity reservoir with unrestricted interporosity flow, a 1/4

slope derivative straight line can be observed at transition time (Figure 10-2).
102
º 1/ 2
and Derivative p'D
pe
101 slo
1/4
1 slope 0.5
0.25
10-1
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
Figure 10-2 Well with wellbore storage in a double porosity channel reservoir,
unrestricted interporosity flow, slab matrix blocks.
The thin curves correspond to the infinite double porosity reservoir response.
CD = 10, S = 0, L1D = L2D = 300, ω = 10-3, λ = 10-6.
When the four sealing boundaries of a closed system are reached during the fissure
flow, the double porosity transition is superimposed to the start of the pseudo-
steady state regime (Figure 10-3). With mixed boundaries, derivative responses
can exhibit several consecutive humps (Figure 10-4).
- 159 -
Chapter 10 - Boundaries in heterogeneous reservoirs
102
and Derivative p'D
101 º
1 0.5
10-1
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105
Figure 10-3 Drawdown response for a well with wellbore storage at the center
of closed square double porosity reservoir, pseudo steady state interporosity
flow.
The thin dotted curves correspond to the equivalent homogeneous closed square
reservoir. The infinite reservoir double porosity derivative response is presented
by the thick dotted curve. CD = 100, S = 0, LiD = 1000, ω = 0.1, λeff = 10-6.
102
º
and Derivative p'D
101
2
1
0.5
10-1
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105
Figure 10-4 Well with wellbore storage in a square double porosity reservoir
with composite boundaries, pseudo steady state interporosity flow.
The dotted curve corresponds to the equivalent infinite double porosity
reservoir. CD = 100, S = 0, ω = 0.1, λeff = 10-6, L1D = L2D = 500 (sealing),
L3D = 1500 (constant pressure) and L4D = 1500 (sealing).
10-2 Boundaries in layered reservoirs

On Figure 10-5, the reservoir cross flow is not established when the fault is seen.
The boundary is reached first in Layer 1, and the derivative deviates earlier than on
the equivalent homogeneous response. In layered channel reservoirs, the channel
width can appear smaller (Figure 10-6).
- 160 -
102
1
1
0.5
10-1
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105
Figure 10-5 Well with wellbore storage in a double permeability reservoir with
a sealing fault.
The dotted curves describe the sealing fault response in the equivalent
homogeneous reservoir. CD = 100, S1 = S2 = 0, LD = 500, ω = 0.15, κ = 0.7,
λ = 10-10.
102
and Derivative p'D
101
/2
e1
slop
1
0.5
10-1
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105
Figure 10-6 Well with wellbore storage in a double permeability reservoir with
two parallel sealing faults.
The dotted curves describe to the channel response of the equivalent
homogeneous reservoir. CD = 100, S1 = S2 = 0, L1D = L2D = 1000,
ω = 0.15, κ = 0.7, λ = 10 .
-10
In a closed double permeability reservoir, a derivative hump can be observed at

intermediate time, as on the composite example of Figure 10-4. On Figure 10-7,
the closed circular boundary is reached during the early time commingled
response. After the wellbore storage effect and the early time infinite behavior, a
second unit slope straight line, followed by a hump is seen. Later, the derivative
stabilizes at 0.5 / (1 - κ) until the final unit slope line for the pseudo steady state
regime becomes evident.
The first unit slope straight line describes the wellbore storage, the second is a
function of layer 1 storage ω A/rw2 and the final corresponds to the reservoir
storage (A/rw2 in dimensionless terms).
- 161 -
102
º
and Derivative p'D
1
101
pe
slo
1
pe
slo
1 0.5/(1-κ)
0.5
10-1
10-1 1 101 102 103 104 105 106 107
Figure 10-7 Drawdown response for a well with wellbore storage in a closed
circle double permeability reservoir.
The dotted curves correspond to the closed equivalent homogeneous
reservoir. CD = 100, S1 = S2 = 0, rD = 5000, ω = 0.002, κ = 0.7, λ = 10-10.
10-3 Composite channel reservoirs

In channel reservoirs, when the mobility changes near the edges of the channel
banks (Figure 10-8), or along the channel length (Figure 10-9), the responses tend
to be equivalent to that of a homogeneous channel with a different width.
When the mobility contrast is large, drawdown responses can show at intermediate
time a closed system behavior, or channel with constant pressure boundary
response (Figure 10-10). Build-up responses can be severely distorted (Figure 10-
11).
102
M= 5
º
0.2
and Derivative p'D
101
1/2
pe
s lo
1
0.5 M=0.2, 1, 5
10-1
1 101 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 10-8 Well with wellbore storage in a composite channel. The interfaces
are parallel to the boundaries.
CD = 100, S = 0, L1D = L2D =1000, d1D = d2D =500, M1 = M2 = 0.2, 1 and 5.
- 162 -
102
M =0.2
º 5
and Derivative p'D

101
1/2
pe
slo
1
0.5 M=0.2, 1, 5
10-1
1 101 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 10-9 Well with wellbore storage in a composite channel. The interfaces
are perpendicular to the boundaries.
CD = 100, S = 0, L1D = L2D =1000, d1D = d2D =2000, M1 = M2 = 0.2, 1 and 5.
103 1
pe
slo
Dimensionless Derivative p'D
closed
102 º channel M= 50
101 /2
e1
slop
M=0.02
1
0.5 channel with

10-1 constant pressure
101 102 103 104 105 106 107
Figure 10-10 Drawdown responses for a well with wellbore storage in
composite channel. The interfaces are perpendicular to the boundaries.
On the dotted curves, the interfaces are changed into sealing and constant
pressure boundaries. CD = 100, S = 0, L1D = L2D =500, d1D = d2D =1500,
M1 = M2 = 0.02, 1 and 50.
102
º
and Derivative p'D
101 M=5, 1, 0.2
M = 50
0.5
10-1
101 102 103 104 105
Figure 10-11 Pressure and derivative drawdown and build-up responses of
curve M=50 of Figure 10-10.
The two dotted derivative curves are drawdown, the build-up response (thick
line) is generated for (tp/C)D = 650.
- 163 -
- 164 -
11 - COMBINED RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES
11-1 Fissured-layered reservoirs

On Figure 11-1, a double permeability response where the two layers are fissured
is presented. For each layer, restricted interporosity flow is assumed. The
parameters correspond to the triple porosity example of Figure 4.33. When the
vertical communication is good in a fissured layered reservoir, grouping of matrix
size by layers has no effect on the response.
When reservoir cross flow between layers is not allowed (λ =0), the response is
different.
10
and Derivative p'D
double permeability
1 0.5
no crossflow
10-1
crossflow
oooo triple porosity
10-2
1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107
Figure 11-1 Fissured layered reservoir, pseudo steady state interporosity
flow, different λ in each layer.
CDf+m = 1, S1 = S2 = 0, ω = 0.1, κ= 0.7, λ =10-3 or λ =0.
ω1 =0.01, λeff1=10-5, ω2 =0.01, λeff2 =5x10-7. The (o) dotted curve
corresponds to the triple porosity response of Figure 4.33.
Fissured layered responses depend upon which transition, the double porosity or
the double permeability transition, is seen first.
On Figure 11-2, the high permeability layer 1 is fissured and not layer 2. When the
interporosity flow parameter is small (λeff1 =10-8), layer 1 is in fissure regime when
the double permeability transition starts. The reservoir cross flow is established
between the layer 2 and the fissure network of layer 1 and the response becomes
equivalent to the double permeability response κ = 0.99 of Figure 7-3 (for a
storativity ratio ω =10-3).
If layer 1 is in total system flow (λeff1 =10-3) at start of the double permeability
transition, the double porosity transition in layer 1 is first seen during the two
layers no cross flow regime. The double permeability transition tends to be similar
to that of the double permeability response κ = 0.99 of Figure 7-5 (ω =10-1).
- 165 -
Chapter 11 - Combined heterogeneities
10
and Derivative p'D
double permeability ω=10-1
1
λ 1= 10-3
0.5
10-1
double permeability ω=10-3 λ 1= 10-8
10-2
10-1 1 10 102 103 104
Figure 11-2 Fissured layered reservoir, pseudo steady state interporosity
flow, only layer 1 is fissured.
CDf+m = 1, S1 = S2 = 0, ω = 0.1, κ = 0.99, λ =4.10-4, ω1 =0.01, λeff1 =10-3 or
λeff1 =10-8.
The (o) dotted curve corresponds to the double permeability response of
Figure 7-3 with ω = 10-3, κ = 0.99 and λ =4.10-4 and the ( ) to the double
permeability response of Figure 7-5 with ω = 10-1, κ = 0.99 and λ =4.10-4.
11-2 Fissured radial composite reservoirs

On Figure 11-3, the inner region of a radial composite reservoir is fissured. The
radial composite model corresponds to the curve M=10 of Figure 6-2.
When λeff1 =10-4, the response shows first a characteristic double porosity valley
transition. After, it is equivalent to the radial composite with a homogeneous inner
region. When λeff1 =10-6, the radial composite interface is seen during the fissure
regime. The two transitions are combined at the same time.
102
double porosity λ1=10-6

radial composite
and Derivative p'D
10
1 0.5 λ1=10-6
λ1=10 -4
10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 11-3 Radial composite reservoir, the inner region is fissured, pseudo
steady state interporosity flow.
CD = 100, S = 3, M=10, F =1 rD = 700. ω1 =0.01, λeff1=10-4 or λeff1=10-6.
The (o) dotted curve corresponds to the radial composite response of Figure
6-2 with M=10, the dashed curve describes the double porosity response
with ω1 =0.01 and λeff1=10-6.
- 166 -
11-3 Layered radial composite reservoirs

On Figure 11-4, the reservoir is two-layer without cross flow, but layer 2 is radial
composite with a strong reduction of mobility at r2D = 100. The derivative tends to
follow a unit slope straight line at intermediate time (examples M2 =100 or 1000).
After the derivative hump, the two layers commingled infinite reservoir response is
seen, and the derivative tends to stabilize.
102
M2=1000
M2=1000
100
and Derivative p'D
10 10 M2=10
1
0.5
10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 11-4 Layered reservoir, no cross flow, layer 1 homogeneous, layer 2
radial composite.
CD = 30, S1 = S2 =0, ω=0.1, κ=0.5, λ=0. r2D = 100, M2 = 10, 100, 1000, F2 = 1.
The radial composite double permeability model can be used to describe the
presence of a flow barrier between the layers. When no cross flow is allowed in
the inner region of radius rD, the valley shaped derivative transition is delayed, and
it tends to be steeper than the double permeability infinite reservoir response
(Figure 11-5). When the reservoir cross flow is only possible in the inner region,
the responses change to the two layers without cross flow at late time (Figure 11-
6). Before, the derivative deviates above the 0.5 stabilization and produces a
smooth hump.
10
and Derivative p'D
1 0.5
rD=30 rD=100 300

10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 11-5 Layered reservoir, no cross flow in the inner region.
CD = 1, S1 = S2 =0, ω=0.1, κ=0.9, M=F =1. λ1=0, λ2=4 10 , rD=30, 100, 300.
-4
The dotted curves correspond to the double permeability response of Figure

7-5 with κ=0.9.
- 167 -
10
and Derivative p'D

1 rD=30
rD=100 300
0.5
10-1
10-1 1 10 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 11-6 Layered reservoir, no cross flow in the outer region.

CD = 1, S1 = S2 =0, ω=0.1, κ=0.9, M=F =1. λ1=4 10 , λ2=0, rD=30, 100, 300.
-4
The dotted curves correspond to the double permeability response of Figure

7-5 with κ=0.9 and the dashed curves to the commingled reservoir (λ=0).
- 168 -
12 - OTHER TESTING METHODS
12-1 Drillstem test
12-1.1 Test description
During a drillstem test, a down hole shut-in valve controls the well. Before
opening, the well is partially filled with a liquid cushion designed to apply a
pressure p0 above the valve, smaller than the formation pressure pi. When the tester
valve is opened, an instantaneous drop of pressure (pi - po) is applied to the
sandface. The formation starts to produce into the well, the level rises in the drill
string and the bottom hole flowing pressure increases.
If the liquid level reaches the surface, the rate tends to stabilize and the DST
procedure becomes similar to that of a standard production test. When no flow to
surface is desired, the down hole valve is closed before the liquid has reached the
surface (Figure 12-1). This flow period is called a "slug test".
5100
pi
5000
Pressure (psia)
4900 shut-in
4800
p0
4700
4600
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time (hours)
Figure 12-1 Example of DST pressure response. The rate is less than critical.
Linear scale.
The sequence is initial flow, initial shut-in, flow period and final shut-in.
12-1.2 Slug test analysis
During a slug test period, the pressure increases and the flow rate declines. In some
cases, the rate is not controlled by the downstream pressure but by the well
condition. It becomes constant and the pressure increases linearly with time. With
this flow condition, called critical flow, the flowing pressure is not suitable for
interpretation.
When rate is less than critical, slug test analysis methods use a dimensionless
pressure ratio prD, defined as the drop of pressure (pi-pwf ) normalized by (pi - po).
- 169 -
Chapter 12 - Other testing methods
pi − p wf (t )
prD = ( 12-1)
pi − p 0
The ratio prD is very sensitive to the accuracy of the initial pressure pi, especially
after some production time, when (pi - pwf ) becomes small.
Slug test pressure type curve
On the type curve Figure 12-2, the dimensionless pressure ratio prD is presented
versus the dimensionless time tD/CD. The CDe2S curves describe the well
condition.
1
CDe2S=1060
Dimensionless pressure ratio,
prD =[pi- pwf(t)]/[pi- p0]
10-1
CDe2S=10-1
10-2
-1
slo
pe
10-3
10-1 1 101 102 103
Figure 12-2 Slug test type curves on log-log scale.
When the well is opened, prD = 1 and, when the liquid level rises in the well, the
ratio drops. The same pressure ratio is used for the data and the dimensionless
curves, the pressure match is PM =1.
Knowing the wellbore storage coefficient from the changing liquid level
relationship of Equation 1-5, the time match gives the permeability thickness
product:
µC
 tD CD 
kh =   (mD.ft, field units)
0.000295  ∆t  MATCH
µC  t D CD 
kh =   (mD.m, metric units) ( 12-2)
0.00223  ∆t  MATCH
the skin is estimated from the CDe2S curve match with Equation 2-10.
- 170 -
Analysis of slug test with the derivative type curve
The product of the slug test pressure change (pi-pwf ) by the elapsed time ∆t can be
matched directly against a derivative type-curve, without having to differentiate
the data.
dp D
=
0.000295kh
d ln t D C µ ( pi − p0 )
(
∆t pi − p wf (t ) (field units) )
dp D
=
0.00223kh
d ln t D Cµ ( pi − p0 )
(
∆t pi − p wf (t ) (metric units) ) ( 12-3)
The permeability thickness product is estimated either from the time match
(Equation 12.2) or from the pressure match :
µ C ( pi − p0 )  dp D d ln t D 
kh =
(
0.000295  ∆t pi − p wf (t ) 
MATCH
) (mD.ft, field units)
µ C ( p i − p 0 )  dp D d ln t D 
kh =
0.00223 (
 ∆t p i − p wf (t ) 
 )
 MATCH
(mD.m, metric units) ( 12-4)
When the well is closed down hole before the liquid level has reached the surface,
the decreasing rate has to be estimated as a function of time in order to analyze the
subsequent build-up.
5000
p6
4900 400
p6
Pressure (psia)
Rate (BOPD)
4800 p2 300
p1
4700 p0 p1 200
q1
4600 100
q5 q6
4500 0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
Time (hours)
Figure 12-3 Example of rate estimation during a DST flow period.
The increasing pressure curve of the flow period is discretized into constant
pressure steps (Figure 12-3). Knowing the liquid gravity, the pressure difference is
converted into the corresponding height of fluid. From the capacity of the drill
pipe, the height is converted into volume.
- 171 -
12-2 Impulse test
12-2.1 Test description
With impulse tests, the well is produced only a few minutes and then closed.
5100
pi
4900
Pressure (psia)
4700
tp ∆t
4500
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time (hours)
Figure 4 Example of impulse pressure response. Linear scale.
12-2.2 Impulse test analysis
The complete well pressure response is analyzed on a single analysis plot. During
(
the short flow, the impulse response is expressed as pi − pwf t p and, during the)
( )
shut-in, as ( pi − pws ) t p + ∆t . The pressure and derivative type curves are used
to analyze the pressure response: during the flowing time, the impulse response is
matched against a pressure type curve and, during the shut-in period, the response
deviates from the usual pressure response to reach the derivative curve with same
CDe2S.
The pressure match is defined, as in Equation 12-3 :
dp D
d ln t D
=
0.000295kh
Qt µ
( )
t p + ∆t ( pi − p ws ) (field units)
dp D
d ln t D
=
0.00223kh
Qt µ
( )
t p + ∆t ( pi − p ws ) (metric units) ( 12-5)
where Qt is the amount of fluid produced during the short flow tp.
- 172 -
102
∆p= (pi-pwf)tp or (pi-p)(tp+∆t) (psi)

well flowing well shut-in
Pressure change,
101
1
10-3 10-2 10-1 1 101
Figure 12-5 Impulse match.
As for slug test analysis, the result of impulse test interpretation is very sensitive to
the accuracy of the initial pressure pi used for the data plot.
The results can be controlled with a conventional analysis of the shut-in period
after the few minutes flow period (Figure 12-6). The derivative analysis is not
affected by a possible error in initial pressure, and the pressure curve can be used
to estimate the skin accurately.
103
102
101
10-2 10-1 1 101
Figure 12-6 Pressure and derivative analysis of the impulse shut-in period.
Log-log scale, ∆p and ∆p' versus ∆t.
12-3 Rate deconvolution
In the multi rate superposition method presented in Section 2-2.2 (Eq. 2-15), the
rate history is described by several step-rate changes occurring at different flow
times ti. In the case of a variable production, the rate increments are infinitesimal
and the multi rate superposition is changed into the convolution integral.
The pressure response due to a variable rate q(t) can be expressed with the time
derivative of the rate history:
- 173 -
t
141.2 Bµ
∆p(t ) =
kh ∫ q' (τ) p D (t − τ)dτ (psi, field units)
τ=0
t
18.66 Bµ
∆p(t ) =
kh ∫ q' (τ) p D (t − τ)dτ (bars, metric units) ( 12-6)
τ=0
The objective of the deconvolution is to transform the measured pressure response

∆p(t), after any variable rate sequence q(t), into an equivalent constant flow rate
test that can be analyzed with the usual methods.
Several algorithms have been proposed for deconvolution of well test

measurements, using real data of Laplace transformed data. Results are very
dependent upon the quality of the rate curve. The technique has also been
envisaged for interpretation of build-up tests affected by wellbore storage effect.
With accurate sandface flow rate measurement at early shut-in time, the effect of
afterflow can theoretically be eliminated from the pressure build-up response.
12-4 Constant pressure test (rate decline analysis)
When a well is producing at constant wellbore pressure, the declining rate can be
analyzed versus time.
1
Dimensionless rate, qD
Infinite reservoir
10-1
5000
10-2 2500
re/rwe = 1000
10-3
103 104 105 106 107 108
Effective dimensionless time, tDe
Figure 12-7 Decline curves on log-log scale. Closed reservoir. qD versus tDe.
With log-log rate type curves, the dimensionless flow rate qD is expressed as :
. Bµ
1412
qD = q (t ) (field units)
(
kh pi − pwf )
- 174 -
18.66 Bµ
qD = q (t ) (metric units)
(
kh p i − p wf ) ( 12-7)
For semi-log analysis, the reciprocal of the rate 1/q is graphed vs. log ∆t.
1 Bµ  k 
= 162.6 log ∆t + log − 3.23 + 0.87 S  (D/Bbl, field units)
q (
kh pi − p wf  ) φ µ ct rw
2

1 Bµ  k 
= 21.5 log ∆t + log − 3.10 + 0.87 S  (D/m3, metric units)( 12-8)
q kh ( pi − pwf )  φ µ ct rw
2

Results: the permeability is estimated from the slope mq of the 1/q straight line and
the skin from the intercept at 1 hour.
Bµ
m q ( p i − p wf )
Bµ
m q ( p i − p wf )
1 q (1hr ) k 
S = 1.151 − log + 3.23
 mq φ µ ct rw2 
1 q (1hr ) k 
S = 1.151 − log + 3.10  ( 12-10)
 m q φ µ c t rw2 
12-5 Vertical interference test
Vertical interference tests are used to estimate vertical permeability in a single

layer, or quantify the presence of a sealing interval. An example of usual
application is the characterization of low permeability in feasibility studies related
to underground storage projects.
Different types of equipment can be used in order to isolate several intervals in the
same well.
- 175 -
kH1, kV1
hw-obs kH2, kV2
hw
kV
kH3, kV3
zw zw-obs
kH
Homogeneous reservoir Three layers reservoir
Figure 12-8 Well and reservoir configurations.
102
Derivative p'D
101
1 0.5 line
Zw-obs/h = 0.6
0.7
0.8
10-1
10 102 103 104 105 106 107
Figure 12-9 Vertical interference responses from a well in partial penetration
with wellbore storage. Log-log scale. Several distances.
CD = 6, Sw=0, kV/kH = 0.005. Producing segment: hw/h = 1/10, zw/h = 0.5;
observation segment: hw-obs/h = 1/100, zw-obs /h = 0.6, 0.7, 0.8.
102
Derivative p'D
101
1 kV/kH = 0.5
0.5 line
0.05 0.005
10-1
10 102 103 104 105 106 107
Figure 12-10 Vertical interference responses from a well in partial penetration
with wellbore storage. Log-log scale. Several vertical permeability.
CD = 6, Sw=0. Producing segment: hw/h = 1/10, zw/h = 0.5; observation
segment: hw-obs/h = 1/100, zw-obs /h = 0.6.
Vertical permeability: kV/kH = 0.5, 0.05, 0.005.
- 176 -
With the double-stage testing method, two tests are performed on the same layer:
the first, on a thick interval, is used to define the horizontal permeability. By
inflating internal packer in the thick interval, three discrete intervals are isolated to
provide vertical interference responses.
Observation interval
Flowing interval
Observation interval
Test 1 : radial flow Test 2 : spherical flow

Figure 12-11 Double-stage test.
102
Partial penetration
Derivative p'D
101
Test 1 Observation
1
0.5 line
10-1
1 10 102 103 104 105 106
Figure 12-12 Double-stage test log-log responses.
CD = 7, Sw=0. Producing segment: hw/h = 1/10, zw/h = 0.5; observation
segment: h.w-obs/h = 1/20, zw-obs /h = 0.35. Vertical permeability: kV/kH = 0.3.
- 177 -
- 178 -
13 - MULTIPHASE RESERVOIRS
13-1 Perrine method
13-1.1 Hypothesis and definitions
An equivalent monophasic liquid of constant properties is defined as the sum of

the three phases: oil, water and gas. The three phases are assumed to be uniformly
distributed in the reservoir, and the saturations are constant during the test period.
The equivalent rate is expressed:
(q B ) t = q o Bo + q w Bw + q g B g
(Bbl/D, m3/D)
( )
( 13-1)
= q o Bo + q w Bw + q sg − q o Rs B g
where qsg is the gas rate measured at surface, and qo Rs the dissolved gas at bottom
hole conditions.
It is assumed that the total mobility (k/µ)t of the equivalent monophasic fluid can
be expressed as the sum of the effective phase mobilities :
(k µ )t = k o µ o + k w µ w + k g µ g (mD/cp) ( 13-2)
The effective total compressibility ct includes the effect of free gas liberated (or
dissolved) in the oil and the water phases :
(
ct = c f + S o co + S w cw + S g c g + S o B g Bo ) ∂∂ Rp
s
(
+ S w B g Bw ) ∂∂Rp
sw
(psi-1, Bars−1) ( 13-3)
13-1.2 Analysis
In the usual equations for oil reservoirs, the mobility k/µ and the rate q are changed
into the total mobility (k/µ)t and the equivalent rate (qB)t. For log-log analysis,
dimensionless pressure and time are respectively :
(k µ )t h
. (qB) t
1412
(k µ )t h
18.66 (qB )t
- 179 -
Chapter 13 - Multiphase reservoirs
tD (k µ )t h
= 0.000295 ∆t (field units)
CD C
tD (k µ )t h
= 0.000223 ∆t (metric units) ( 13-5)
CD C
The slope m of the semi-log straight line is expressed
(qB )t
m = 162.6 (psi, field units)
(k µ )t h
(qB )t
m = 21.5 (Bars, metric units) ( 13-6)
(k µ )t h
The analysis yields the effective mobility of this equivalent fluid. When the
relative permeabilities kr"o,w,g" of the different phases are known, the absolute
permeability can be estimated :
(k µ )t (
= k k ro µ o + k rw µ w + k rg µ g (mD/cp) ) ( 13-7)
13-2 Other methods
13-2.1 Multiphase pseudo-pressure
For solution gas drive reservoir, the pseudo pressure is expressed :
p
k ro ( S o )
m( p) = ∫ dp (psi/cp, Bars/cp) ( 13-8)
0
µ o Bo
For gas condensate reservoir, the molar density of the oil and gas phases ρo,g are
used:
p
 k ro k rg 
m( p) = ∫  o µ o g µ g  dp (psi/cp, Bars/cp)
 ρ + ρ ( 13-9)
p0
The relative permeability curves are needed to calculate the multiphase pseudo-
pressure functions. As the saturation profile depends upon the rate history, m(p)
depends upon the test sequence.
- 180 -
Chapter 13 - Multiphase reservoirs
13-2.2 Pressure squared method
For log-log analysis, dimensionless pressure is expressed with respect to the oil
rate:
pD =
ah
282.4 q o
( )
∆ p 2 (field units)
pD =
ah
37.33 q o
( )
∆ p 2 (metric units) ( 13-10)
where a is assumed to be a constant, defined as :
ko
= ap ( 13-11)
µ o Bo
- 181 -
- 182 -
14- TEST DESIGN
14-1 Introduction
Once the objectives of the test have been defined, the program is established taking
into account the different operational constraints. Test simulations are generated to
ensure the objectives can be achieved, and to define the optimum testing sequence.
Test programming and conduct, as well as the definition of the responsibilities

during testing, are presented in a different section. In the following, only test
simulation is discussed.
14-2 Test simulation
14-2.1 Simulation procedure
• Before generating the simulations, all parameters must have been defined: static
parameters, reservoir parameters and the anticipated flow rate.
• In order to evaluate the expected reservoir model, a first simulation can be

generated for a long constant rate drawdown.
• By examination of this ideal response, the minimum duration of the flow and
shut-in periods can be estimated.
• A multirate simulation is generated for prediction of the actual test response.

Taking into account possible pressure gauge noise or drift, the test program is
adjusted to ensure a complete and significant pressure response for the lowest
test duration.
• The simulation can be converted into data in order to control the quality of the
future analysis.
14-2.2 Test design tips
Test design is a compromise between cost and reliability. The final test program is
defined from not only technical considerations, but also taking into account the
desired degree of confidence in the results. Test sequences are sometimes designed
with two or several buildup periods after different flow rates, some relatively
short, since wellbore problems frequently distort early time data. For gas wells for
example, the Modified Isochronal test sequence, possibly followed by a long build-
up period, is well adapted to transient analysis purpose.
- 183 -
Chapter 14 - Test design
In multirate testing, an increasing flowrate sequence is preferred to a decreasing

rate history. With decreasing rates, the multirate correction with the time
superposition function can be very sensitive to inaccurate rate data.
14-3 Test design reporting and test supervision

Test design is not limited to the definition of the different flow periods. From
examination of the pressure change observed on the test simulation, the
requirements for the pressure gauge characteristics are defined. Guidelines for
clean up (gas wells) and initial shut-in can be established. If the reservoir pressure
is decreasing, it may be necessary to evaluate the pressure trend accurately before
the test (interference test design). In such a case, the duration of the reservoir
pressure survey before the start of the operation is part of the design program.
Experience of tests in neighboring wells can be used to establish specifications

such as gauge depths, use of a down hole shut-in tool, etc.
In the ideal case, the same person is in charge of the design and of the test
supervision. The experience gained from the design study can be used to adjust in
real time the program to any unexpected event (well shut-in for operational or
safety reason), or to a different pressure behavior.
During the test supervision, any action that can affect the pressure data must be
recorded (such as leak, operation on the well or change of annular pressure during
shut-in, etc.)
- 184 -
15 - FACTORS COMPLICATING WELL TEST
ANALYSIS
15-1 Rate history definition

Two approaches can be used in order to simplify the rate history:
1. An equivalent production time is defined as the ratio of the cumulative

production divided by the last rate (called equivalent Horner time). On the test
example of Figure 15-1, tp=120.
2. When there is a shut-in period in the rate history, if the bottom hole pressure
has almost reached the initial pressure pi, it is assumed that the rate history
prior this shut-in is negligible. On the test example, tp=20.
4000
Pressure, p
3900
3800
3700
Rate, q
3600 tp=120
tp=20
3500
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Time, t
Figure 15-1 Example of a two drawdowns test sequence.
Linear scale.
103
pressure derivative ∆p’ (psi)
Pressure change ∆p and
102
tp=20
101
tp=120
1
10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103
Figure 15-2 Log-log plot of the final build-up.
The derivative is generated with three different rate histories.
In practice, if the duration of the analyzed period is ∆t, it is possible to simplify the
rate history for any rate changes that occurred at more than 2∆t before the start of
the period. All rate variations immediately before the analyzed test period must be
introduced in the superposition time.
- 185 -
Chapter 15 - Factors complicating well test analysis
15-2 Error of start of the period

3830
e
3810
d
Pressure, p
3790 a
b
3770
c
3750
169.7 169.8 169.9 170.0 170.1 170.2 170.3
Time, t
Figure 15-3 Example of Figure 15-1 at time of shut-in. Time and pressure
errors.
- Shut-in time error: curve a = 0.1 hr before and curve b = 0.1 hr after the
actual shut-in time.
- Shut-in pressure error: curve c = 10 psi below and curve d = 10 psi above
the last flowing pressure.
- Error in time and pressure: curve e.
103
102
101
a
1
10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103
Figure 15-4 Case a: shut-in time too early.
103
102
101
b
1
10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103
Figure 15-5 Case b: shut-in time too late.
- 186 -
103

102
101
c
1
10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103
Figure 15-6 Case c: last flowing pressure too low.
103
pressure derivative ∆ p’ (psi)
102
101
d
1
10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103
Figure 15-7 Case d: last flowing pressure too high.
103
102
101
e
1
10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103
Figure 15-8 Case e: shut-in time too late, last flowing pressure is taken in the
build-up data, during the wellbore storage regime.
A good log-log match can be obtained in case e but the resulting skin is under
estimated. Pressure errors are clearly shown on the linear scale test simulation plot.
- 187 -
15-3 Pressure gauge drift

300
Pressure change ∆p (psi)
Drift +
200
Drift -
100
0
0 100 200 300
Figure 15-9 Final build-up of Figure 15-1. Drift of ± 0.05 psi/hr.
Linear scale.
103
102
Drift +
101
Drift -
1
10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103
Figure 15-10 Log-log plot of the build-up example. Drift of ± 0.05 psi/hr.
The effect of a constant drift is inverse during flow and shut-in periods.
15-4 Pressure gauge noise

250
Pressure change ∆p (psi)
200
150
100
50
0
0 100 200 300
Figure 15-11 Final build-up of Figure 15-1. Noise of +1 psi every 2 points.
Linear scale.
- 188 -
103

Pressure change ∆p and 102
101
1
10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103
Figure 15-12 Log-log plot of the build-up example. Noise of +1 psi every 2
points.
Three points derivative algorithm. No smoothing.
15-5 Changing wellbore storage

Changing wellbore storage happens when the compressibility of the fluid in the
wellbore is not constant. It is observed for example when, in a damaged oil well,
free gas is liberated in the production string.
103
102
101 C oil
C gas
1
10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103
Figure 15-13 Log-log plot of a drawdown example of changing wellbore
storage.
During drawdown, the response describes first the compressibility of the oil but,
when the pressure drops below bubble point, the gas compressibility dominates.
The wellbore storage coefficient of Equation 1-4 is then increased.
- 189 -
103

101 C oil
C gas
1
10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103
Figure 15-14 Log-log plot of a build-up example of changing wellbore storage
During build-up periods, the response corresponds to the gas wellbore storage
coefficient immediately after shut-in, and changes to the lower oil wellbore storage
later. This produces a steep increase of derivative and, in some cases; the
derivative follows a slope greater than unity at the end of the gas dominated early
time response.
Due to the variable compressibility of gas, changing wellbore storage is also

frequently evident on gas wells with a large drawdown.
15-6 Two phases liquid level

In diphasic wells (oil + water, or gas + condensate), a phase redistribution in the
wellbore can produce a characteristic humping effect.
diphasic flow changing liquid level end of phase

segregation effect
Figure 15-15 Changing liquid level after phase segregation.
When, after shut-in, water falls at the bottom of the well for example, the weight of
the column between the pressure gauge and the formation is not constant as long as
the water level rises and the gauge pressure is not parallel to the formation
pressure. In some cases, the build-up pressure can show a temporary decreasing
trend after some shut-in time. During this time interval, the derivative becomes
negative.
- 190 -
4000
3500 humping
Pressure, p Pressure difference after
phase segregation
3000
Pressure difference before

Rate, q
2500 phase segregation
2000
18 28
Time, t
Figure 15-16 Example of build-up response distorted by phase segregation.
Humping effect.
If the interface between the two phases stabilizes, or reaches the depth of the
pressure gauge, the pressure difference between gauge and formation returns to a
constant, and the remaining build-up data can be properly analyzed.
104
103
102
101
10-3 10-2 10-1 1 101 102
Figure 15-17 Log-log plot of the build-up example of phase segregation.
When phase redistribution is expected, the pressure gauge should be as close as

possible to the perforated interval (or even below).
15-7 Input parameters, and calculated results of interpretation

Errors in the static parameters influence the calculated interpretation results, but
the choice of the interpretation model is in general not affected. Frequently, the
analysis is initialized with approximate values, and refined with adjusted
parameters later, without significantly changing the interpretation model.
The net thickness h and the oil viscosity µ are for example frequently not
accurately defined during exploration testing. Well test interpretation provides the
kh/µ group from the log-log pressure match or the semi-log slope m. Any error on
h or µ directly influences the permeability estimate k. The skin Equation 1-14
- 191 -
shows that, for a given kh/µ group, S is hardly dependent upon h (with a logarithm
relationship), and not upon the viscosity µ. (present in the k/µ group).
From the equations used to calculate the different interpretation results, the
influence of any error in the static parameters can be evaluated. The radius of
investigation for example, and the distance to a possible boundary, are dependent
upon h (with the square root relationship of Equation 1-32 or 1-22), but
independent of µ.
Before comparing results of interpretation to geological or geophysical data, the

significance of the model parameters must be clearly understood. This can be
illustrated with the different averaging methods used for the permeability:
• The apparent vertical permeability kV is a harmonic average as shown in Eq. 3-
25
• The horizontal permeability kH, is the arithmetic average of each layer
permeability (Eq. 3-24 for example).
• In the case of permeability anisotropy, the horizontal permeability is defined as
the geometric average of Eq. 8-4.
Boundary distances are frequently estimated by assuming strictly radial flow in a

single homogeneous layer. In the case of a permeability anisotropy or
heterogeneous reservoir properties such as layering (see Section 10-2) the distance
to a reservoir boundary can be different from that indicated by the simple
interpretation model used for analysis.
- 192 -
16 - CONCLUSION
16-1 Interpretation procedure
16-1.1 Methodology
Well test analysis is a three steps process:
1. Identification of the interpretation model. The derivative plot is the primary

identification tool.
2. Calculation of the interpretation model. The log-log pressure and derivative
plot is used to make the first estimates.
3. Verification of the interpretation model. The simulation is adjusted on the three
usual plots: log-log, test history and superposition.
Log-log
analysis Model selection (derivative) 1
Estimate parameters : kh, C,
heterogeneities , boundaries
(derivative) and S (pressure)
Simul #1 . . . . . . #n
2
Test
•Adjust initial pressure pi
history •Check the data (variable skin,
simulation consistent rate history)
•Check the model response on a

larger time interval
3
Superposition Adjust parameters (pi, S, C...)
simulation
Next model
End
The consistency of the interpretation model is finally checked against non-testing

information.
- 193 -
Chapter 16 - Conclusion
16-1.2 The diagnosis: typical pressure and derivative shapes
Flow regime identification
GEOMETRY LOG-LOG TIME RANGE

shape slope Early Intermediate Late
Radial No Double Homogeneous Semi infinite

porosity behavior reservoir
0 restricted
Linear 1/2 Infinite Horizontal Two sealing

conductivity well boundaries
1/2 fracture
Double
Bi-linear 1/4 Finite Finite porosity
conductivity conductivity unrestricted
1/4 fracture fault with linear
flow
Spherical Well in
No partial
-1/2 penetration
Pseudo Wellbore Layered no Closed

1 storage crossflow reservoir
Steady State
1 with (drawdown)
boundaries
Steady State 0 Conductive Constant

fault pressure
-1 (−∞) boundary
Pressure curve
Derivative curve
- 194 -
Changes of properties during radial flow
Mobility decreases : Sealing boundaries, composite reservoirs, horizontal well

with a long drain hole.
Pressure derivative,
m1
log (∆p’)
>
m2
m1
Elapsed time, log (∆t) Elapsed time, log (∆t)

Figure 16-1 The mobility decreases (kh ↓).
Log-log and semi-log scales.
Mobility increases : Composite reservoirs, constant pressure boundaries, layered

systems, wells in partial penetration.
m2 < m1
log (∆p’)
m1

Figure 16-2 The mobility increases (kh ↑).
Storativity increases : Double porosity reservoirs, layered and composite

reservoirs.
=m
1
log (∆p’)
m2
m1

φ ct h ↑).
Figure 16-3 The storativity increases (φ
Storativity decreases : Composite systems.
- 195 -
= m1
m2
log (∆p’) m1

φ ct h ↓).
Figure 16-4 The storativity decreases (φ
16-1.3 Summary of usual log-log responses
Well models
1
Wellbore storage and Skin (3.1)
∆p' & ∆p
C S
1 Wellbore storage, C
2 Radial, kh and S
kh
∆t
Infinite conductivity fracture (3.2)

∆p' & ∆p
1 Linear, xf 1/2 kh, S

2 Radial, kh and ST
xf
∆t
Finite conductivity fracture (3.3) xf

kh, ST
1 Bi-linear, kf wf
∆p' & ∆p
1/2
2 Linear, xf kfwf
3 Radial, kh and ST
1/4
∆t
Partial penetration (3.4)

∆p' & ∆p
-1/2
1 Radial, hw and Sw
kV
2 Spherical (mobility ↑), kV hw , Sw kh, ST
3 Radial, kh and ST
∆t
- 196 -
Horizontal well (3.5)
∆p' & ∆p
1 Radial vertical, kV and Sw
1/2
2 Linear (mobility ↓), L kh, ST
3 Radial, kh and ST kV, Sw
L
∆t
Reservoir models
Double porosity, restricted

interporosity flow (4.2) ∆p' & ∆p
ω kh, S
1 Radial fissures, k
2 Transition (storativity ↑), ω
and λ λ
3 Radial fissures + matrix, kh
∆t
and S
Double porosity, unrestricted

∆p' & ∆p
interporosity flow (4.3)

kh, S
1 Transition, λ
2 Radial fissures + matrix, kh λ
and S
∆t
Radial composite (6.2)
1 Radial inner, k1h and Sw

∆p' & ∆p
2 Transition (mobility ↑ or ↓), r k2h, ST

3 Radial outer, k2h and ST k1h, Sw
r
k1h > k2h; or k1h < k2h
∆t
Linear composite (6.3)
1 Radial inner, k1h and Sw

∆p' & ∆p
(k1+k2)h/2,
2 Transition (mobility ↑or ↓), L ST
3 Radial total, (k1h+k2h)/2 and
ST k1h, Sw L
k1h > k2h; or k1h < k2h
∆t
- 197 -
Double permeability, same skin
∆p' & ∆p
S1=S2 (7.2)
ω, κ kh, ST
1 No crossflow
2 Transition (storativity ↑), ω, λ
κ and λ (kV)
3 Radial, kh1+kh2 and ST ∆t
Double permeability, partial

penetration S1= ∞ (7.3)
∆p' & ∆p
k2h2, Sw
1 Radial, k2h2 and S2 kh, ST
2 Transition (mobility ↑), λ (kV) λ
3 Radial, kh1+kh2 and ST
∆t
Boundary models
Sealing fault (5.1)

∆p' & ∆p
1 Radial, kh and S kh, S

2 Transition (mobility ↓), L
L
3 Hemi-radial
∆t
Channel (5.2)
Centered :
∆p' & ∆p
1 Radial, kh and S 1/2

L1
2 Linear, L1+L2 L1+L2
Off-centered :
2 Hemi-radial, L1
3 Linear, L1+L2 ∆t
Channel closed at one end (5.4)

Centered :
1/2
∆p' & ∆p
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L1+L2 1/2
3 Transition (mobility ↓), L3 L3
L1+L2
4 Hemi-linear kh, S
∆t
- 198 -
Intersecting faults (5.3)

Centered :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L1+L2 θ
∆p' & ∆p
L1
3 Fraction of radial, θ 1/2
Off-centered : L1+L2
2 Hemi-radial, L1
3 Linear, L1+L2 ∆t
4 Fraction of radial, θ
Closed system centered (5.4)

Drawdown :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Pseudo steady state, A -
∆p' & ∆p
P
Build-up : 1
1 Radial, kh and S A
kh, S
2 Average pressure, p and A
∆t
Closed channel (5.4)
Drawdown :
1 Radial, kh and S 1
2 Linear, L1+L2
3 Pseudo steady state, A
∆p' & ∆p
-
1/2 A P
Build-up : L1+L2
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L1+L2 kh, S
∆t
Closed with intersecting faults (5.4)

Drawdown :
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Linear, L1+L2
3 Fraction of radial, θ -
∆p' & ∆p
P
4 Pseudo steady state, A θ A
Build-up : 1/2
1 Radial, kh and S kh, S L1+L2
2 Linear, L1+L2
∆t
3 Fraction of radial, θ
Constant pressure boundaries (5.5)

L
∆p' & ∆p
1 Radial, kh and S
2 Transition (mobility ↑), L kh, S
-1
One boundary
Multiple boundaries
∆t
- 199 -
16-1.4 Consistency check with the test history simulation
In the following examples, the initial pressure is 5000 psi. The interpretation
model, defined from log-log analysis of the short shut-in period, may be
inconsistent when applied to the complete rate history.
Increase of derivative response after the last build-up point (second sealing
boundary)
The log-log derivative plot suggests the presence of a sealing fault.
103
102
101
1
10-3 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 104
Homogeneous reservoir with a sealing fault.
The sealing fault model is not applicable on the extended production history.
5000
Pressure, p
pi=4914 psia
4800
4600
Rate, q
4400
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time, t
Figure 16-6 Test history simulation. Linear scale.
Homogeneous reservoir with a sealing fault.
When a second sealing fault, parallel to the first, is introduced farther away in the
reservoir, the extended production history match is correct.
- 200 -
103

101
1
10-3 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 104
Homogeneous reservoir with two parallel sealing faults.
5000
Pressure, p
pi=5000 psia
4800
4600
Rate, q
4400
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time, t
Decrease of derivative response after the last build-up point (Layered semi
infinite reservoir)
The log-log derivative plot suggests the presence of two parallel sealing faults.
103
102
101
10-3 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103
With the parallel sealing faults model, the initial pressure before the production
history is too high.
- 201 -
5000
Pressure, p
pi=5443 psia
4500
4000
Rate, q
3500
3000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time, t
The reservoir is a two layer no crossflow, one layer is closed. At late time, the
derivative stabilizes to describe the radial flow regime in the infinite layer. The
hump at intermediate time corresponds to the storage of the limited zone.
103
102
101
10-3 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 103 104
Two layers reservoir, one infinite and one closed layer.
5000
pi=5000 psia
Pressure, p
4500
4000
3500
Rate, q
3000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time, t
Two layers reservoir, one infinite and one closed layer.
- 202 -
16-2 Reporting and presentation of results
16-2.1 Objectives
A well test interpretation report should present not only the different matches, but
also all information necessary to re-do the analysis. The analysis work may be
checked several years after completion. When all rates and parameters used to
generate the interpretation solution are not clearly defined, it is may be impossible
to re-evaluate the test.
16-2.2 Example of interpretation report contents
Summary conclusion
• Main results,
• Hypothesis used (if any),
• Problems and inconsistencies not solved (if any).
Test data
• Rate history (sequence of events for the test),

• Static parameters,
• Comparison of the gauge responses and choice of the pressure gauge used for
analysis (when several gauges have been used).
Analysis procedure
• Diagnosis (comparison of different periods, discussion of the pressure

response).
• Choice of the interpretation model(s) and justification.
• Discussion of the results, sensitivity to the hypothesis etc.
Match with the different models
• Log-log,
• Semi-log,
• Test simulation.
- 203 -
- 204 -
Appendix - ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS
A-1 Darcy's law

Darcy's law expresses the rate through a sample of porous medium as a function of
the pressure drop between the two ends of the sample.
q
Figure A-1 Rate through a sample. A
dp / dl
q k dp
=V = (A-1)
A µ dl
With: q : volumetric rate

A : cross sectional area of the sample
V : flow velocity
k : permeability of the porous medium
µ : viscosity of the fluid
The flow velocity V is proportional to the conductivity k/µ and to the pressure
gradient dp/dl.
A-2 Steady state radial flow of an incompressible fluid
q q
re rw
Figure A-2 Radial flow.
In case of radial flow, the Darcy's law is expressed, in the SI system of units:
q k dp
=V = (A-2)
2πrh µ dr
For steady state flow condition, the pressure difference between the external and
the internal cylinders is:
qµ r
pe − p w = ln e (A-3)
2π kh rw
This relationship is used in the definition of the dimensionless pressure

Equation 2-3.
- 205 -
Appendix - Analytical solutions
A-3 Diffusivity equation
A-3.1 Hypotheses
• Constant properties: k, µ, φ and the system compressibility.

• Pressure gradients are low.
• The formation is not compressible and saturated with fluid.
A-3.2 Darcy's law
→ k →
V= grad p (A-4)
µ
A-3.3 Principle of conservation of mass (continuity equation)
The difference between the mass flow rate in, and the mass flow rate out the
element, defines the amount of mass change in the element during the time dt.
→ ∂ρ
div ρ V = −φ (A-5)
∂t
m
The density ρ = is used.
v
A-3.4 Equation of state of a constant compressibility fluid
The compressibility, defined as the relative change of fluid volume, is expressed

with the density ρ:
1 ∂v 1 ∂ ρ
c=− = (A-6)
v∂p ρ∂p
With a constant compressibility, the fluid equation of state is:
ct ( p − p 0 )
ρ = ρ0 e (A-7)
For a liquid flow in a porous medium, the total system compressibility ct is

attributed to an equivalent fluid:
ct = c o S o + c w S w + c f (1-3)
- 206 -
A-3.5 Diffusivity equation
Combining Equations 4 and 5, then 7:
 k →  ∂ρ ∂p
div  ρ grad p  = φ = φ ρ ct (A-8)
 µ  ∂t ∂t
With radial coordinates,
 ∂ p
∂  rρ 
1  ∂ r  1 ∂ 2 p ∂p ∂ p ∂ ρ  φ ρ µ ct ∂ p
=  rρ +ρ +r = (A-9)
r ∂r r ∂r 2
∂r ∂ r ∂ r  k ∂t
And with Equation 7,
∂ρ ∂p
= ρ ct (A-10)
∂r ∂r
1  ∂ 2 p

r ∂r
rρ 2
+ρ
∂p
∂r
+ r ρ ct
∂p
∂r
( ) 2
 = φ ρ µ ct ∂ p

 k ∂t
(A-11)
With the condition of low-pressure gradients, the approximation ( )

∂p
∂r
2
≅ 0 is
used to linearize.
 ∂ p
∂  r

 →  1  ∂r  φµ ct ∂ p
div  grad p  = = ∇2 p = (A-12)
  r ∂r k ∂t
k
The ratio is called hydraulic diffusivity.
φµ ct
A-3.6 Diffusivity equation in dimensionless terms
(customary oil field system of units and metric system of units)
kh
141.2qBµ
kh
pD = ∆p (metric units) (2-3)
18.66qBµ
- 207 -
0.000264k
φµ ct rw2
0.000356k
tD = ∆t (metric units) (2-4)
φµ c t rw2
r
rD = (6-7)
rw
The diffusivity equation is :
 ∂ pD 
∂  rD 
1  ∂ rD  ∂ pD
= ∇ 2 pD = (A-13)
rD ∂ rD ∂ tD
A-4 The "line source" solution

• Initial condition : the reservoir is at initial pressure.
pD = 0 at tD < 0
• Well condition : the rate is constant, the well is a "line source".
 ∂ pD 
Lim  rD  = −1 (A-14)
r → 0  ∂ rD 
• Outer condition : the reservoir is infinite.
Lim p D = 0 (A-15)
r→∞
The solution is called Exponential Integral.
1  rD2 
p D (t D ,rD ) =− Ei −  (8-1)
2  4t D 

∞
e −u
Ei(− x ) =− ∫ du (A-16)
x
u
- 208 -
NOMENCLATURE
Customary Units and Metric System of Units
Quantity and customary unit (Conversion to Metric unit)

A = Surface, sq ft (*9.290 304*10-2 = m2)
B = Formation volume factor, RB/STB (m3/m3)
-1
cg = Gas compressibility, psi (*1.450 377*10 = Bars-1)
1
co = Oil compressibility, psi-1 (*1.450 377*101 = Bars-1)

-1
ct = Total compressibility, psi (*1.450 377*101 = Bars-1)
ct− = Total compressibility at the average pressure of the test, psi-1
(*1.450 377*101 = Bars-1)
C = Wellbore storage coefficient, Bbl/psi (*2.305 916 = m3/Bars)
CA = Shape factor
D = Turbulent flow coefficient
e = Exponential (2.7182 . . .)
Ei = Exponential integral
F = Storativity ratio (inner zone / outer zone)
k = Permeability, mD (mD)
kd = Matrix skin permeability, mD (mD)
kf = Fracture or fissures permeability, mD (mD)
kH = Horizontal permeability, mD (mD)
km = Matrix blocks permeability, mD (mD)
ks = Spherical permeability, mD (mD)
kV = Vertical permeability, mD (mD)
h = Thickness, ft (*3.048*10-1 = m)
hd = Matrix skin thickness, ft (*3.048*10-1 = m)
hw = Perforated thickness, ft (*3.048*10-1 = m)
L = Distance, or half length of an horizontal well, ft (*3.048*10-1 = m)
m = Straight line slope (semi-log or other)
m(p) = Pseudo pressure or gas potential, psia2/cp (*4.753767*10-3 = Bars2/cp)
m* = Slope of the pseudo steady state straight line, psi/hr (*6.894757*10-2 = Bars/hr)
M = Mobility ratio (inner zone / outer zone)
n = Number of fissure plane directions, or turbulent flow coefficient
p = Pressure, psi (*6.894757*10-2 = Bars)
pf = Fissure pressure, psi (*6.894757*10-2 = Bars)
PI = Productivity index, Bbl/D/psi (*2.305 916 = m3/D/Bars)
pi = Initial pressure, psi (*6.894757*10-2 = Bars)
-1
PM = Pressure match, psi (*1.450 377*101 = Bars-1)
pm = Matrix blocks pressure, psi (*6.894757*10-2 = Bars)
psc = Standard absolute pressure, 14.7 psia (1 Bara)
pw = Well pressure, psi (*6.894757*10-2 = Bars)
p* = Extrapolated pressure, psi (*6.894757*10-2 = Bars)
p− = Reservoir average pressure, or during the test, psi (*6.894757*10-2 = Bars)
q = Flow rate, bbl/D (*1.589 873*10-1 = m3/D)
3
or Mscf/D (= 10 scft/D) (*2.831 685*101 = m3/D)
- 209 -
Nomenclature - Systems of units
r = Radius, ft (*3.048*10-1 = m)
rf = Fracture radius in a horizontal well, ft (*3.048*10-1 = m)
ri = Radius of investigation or influence of the fissures, ft (*3.048*10-1 = m)
rm = Matrix blocks size, ft (*3.048*10-1 = m)
Rs = Dissolved Gas Oil ratio, cf/bbl (*1.7810*10-1 = m3/m3)
rw = Wellbore radius, ft (*3.048*10-1 = m)
S = Skin coefficient, or saturation
Sm = Matrix skin
Spp = Geometrical skin of partial penetration
ST = Total skin
Sw = Skin over the perforated thickness
t = Time, hr (hr)
tp = Horner production time, hr (hr)
T = Temperature absolute, °R (*5/9 = °K)
TM = Time match, hr-1 (hr-1)
Tsc = Standard absolute temperature, 520°R (15°C = 288.15°K)
v = Volume, cu ft (*2.831 685*10-2 = m3)
V = Volume ratio (fissures or matrix), or flow velocity
xf = Half fracture length, ft (*3.048*10-1 = m)
wa = Width of altered permeability region near a conductive fault, ft (*3.048*10-1 = m)
wf = Fracture width, ft (*3.048*10-1 = m)
zw = Distance to the lower reservoir limit, ft (*3.048*10-1 = m)
Z = Real gas deviation factor
Z− = Real gas deviation factor at the average pressure of the test
α = Geometric coefficient in λ , or transmissibility ratio of a semi-permeable fault

β = Transition curve of a double porosity transient interporosity flow
δ = Constant of a β curve
∆ = Difference
γ = Euler's constant (1.78 . . . )
φ = Porosity, fraction
φf = Fissures porosity, fraction
φm = Matrix blocks porosity, fraction
κ = Mobility ratio
λ = Interporosity (or layer) flow coefficient
λeff = Effective interporosity flow coefficient
µ = Viscosity, cp (cp)
µ− = Viscosity at the average pressure of the test, cp (cp)
θ = Angle between two intersecting faults
θw = Well location between two intersecting faults
σ = Geometrical coefficient of the location of a well in a channel
ω = Storativity ratio
ρ = Density, lb/cu ft (*1.601 646*101 = kg/m3)
- 210 -
Nomenclature - Systems of units
Subscripts
a = Apparent or altered permeability region near a conductive fault

AOF = Absolute Open Flow Potential
BLF = Bi-linear flow (slope m)
BU = Build-up
ch = Channel (slope m)
cp = Constant pressure (slope m)
d = Damage (matrix skin)
D = Dimensionless
e = Equivalent, External
eff = Effective
f = Fracture, fissures, fault or formation
G = Geometrical
H = Horizontal
hch = Channel closed at one end (slope m)
i = Initial or investigation
int = Intersection of straight line
L = Layer
LF = Linear flow (slope m)
m = Matrix
max = Maximum permeability direction
min = Minimum permeability direction
o = Oil
p = Production (time)
pp = Partial penetration
ps = Pseudo (time)
PSS = Pseudo steady state
q = Rate decline (slope m)
r = Ratio, or relative
RC = Radial-Composite
RF = Radial flow (slope m)
RLF = Radial-linear flow (slope m)
S = Skin, or spherical
sc = Standard conditions
SLF = Semi linear flow (slope m)
SPH = Spherical flow (slope m)
t, T = Total
V = Vertical
w = Well, or water
wf = Flowing well
ws = Shut-in well
WBS = Wellbore storage regime (slope m)
z = Partial penetration
1 = Inner zone, or high permeability layer(s)
2 = Outer zone, or low permeability layer(s)
- 211 -
REFERENCES
Chapter 1
1-1. Matthews, C. S. and Russell, D.G.: "Pressure Build-up and Flow Tests in
Wells", Monograph Series no 1, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME,
Dallas (1967).
1-2. Earlougher, R. C., Jr.: "Advances in Well Test Analysis", Monograph Series
no 5, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas (1977).
1-3. Lee, J.: "Well Testing", Textbook Series, Vol. 1, Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, Dallas (1982).
1-4. Bourdarot, G.: " Well Testing : Interpretation Methods," Editions Technip,
Institut Français du Pétrole.
1-5. van Everdingen, A. F. and Hurst, W.: "The Application of the Laplace
Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs," Trans., AIME ( 1949) 186,
305-324.
1-6. van Everdingen, A. F.: "The Skin Effect and its Influence on the Productive
Capacity of a Well." Trans., AIME ( 1953) 198, 171-176.
1-7. Miller, C. C., Dyes, A. B., and Hutchinson, C. A.: "Estimation of

Permeability and Reservoir Pressure from Bottom-Hole Pressure Build-up
Characteristics," Trans., AIME ( 1950) 189, 91-104.
1-8. Russell, D. G. and Truitt, N. E.:"Transient Pressure Behavior in Vertically

Fractured Reservoirs,"J. Pet. Tech. ( Oct., 1964) 1159-1170.
1-9. Clark, K. K.:"Transient Pressure Testing of Fractured Water Injection

Wells," J. Pet. Tech. ( June, 1968) 1639-643; Trans., AIME ( 1968) 243.
1-10. Gringarten, A. C., Ramey, H. J., Jr. and Raghavan, R.: "Applied Pressure
Analysis for Fractured Wells,"J. Pet. Tech. ( July, 1975) 887-892.
1-11. Gringarten, A. C., Ramey, H. J., Jr. and Raghavan, R.: "Unsteady-State
Pressure Distribution Created by a Well with a Single Infinite Conductivity
Fracture," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. ( Aug., 1974) 347-360.
1-12. Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego-V, F. and Dominguez, N.: "Transient Pressure

Behavior for a Well with a Finite Conductivity Vertical Fracture," Soc. Pet.
Eng. J. ( Aug., 1978) 253-264.
1-13. Agarwal, R.G., Carter, R. D. and Pollock, C. B.: "Evaluation and

Performance Prediction of Low-Permeability Gas Wells Stimulated by Massive
Hydraulic Fracturing,"J. Pet. Tech. ( March, 1979) 362-372.
- 212 -
References
1-14. Cinco-Ley, H. and Samaniego-V, F:"Transient Pressure Analysis for

Fractured Wells,"J. Pet. Tech.( Sept., 1981) 1749-1766.
1-15. Brons, F. and Marting, V. E.: "The Effect of Restricted FluidEntry on Well
Productivity,"J. Pet. Tech. ( Feb., 1961) 172-174; Trans., AIME ( 1961) 222.
1-16. Moran, J. H. and Finklea, E. E.:"Theoretical Analysis of Pressure

Phenomena Associated with the Wireline Formation Tester," J. Pet. Tech.(
Aug., 1962) 899-908. Trans., AIME ( 1962), 225.
1-17. Culham, W. E.:"Pressure Build-up Equations for Spherical-Flow Problems,"

Soc. Pet. Eng. J. ( Dec., 1974) 545-555.
1-18. Warren , J. E. and Root, P. J.:"Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs"

Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept., 1963) 245; Trans., AIME ( 1963) 228.
1-19. Brons, F. and Miller, W. C.:"A Simple Method for Correcting Spot Pressure
Readings," J. Pet. Tech.( Aug., 1961) 803-805.
1-20. Jones, P.: "Reservoir Limit Tests," Oil and Gas J. ( June 18, 1956) 54, no 59,
184.
Chapter 2
2-1. Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Short-Time Well Test Data Interpretation in The
Presence of Skin Effect and Wellbore Storage," J. Pet. Tech. ( Jan., 1970) 97.
2-2. Agarwal, R.G., Al-Hussainy, R. and Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "An Investigation of
Wellbore Storage and Skin Effect in Unsteady Liquid Flow. I: Analytical
Treatment," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. ( Sept., 1970) 279.
2-3. McKinley, R. M.: "Wellbore Transmissibility from Afterflow Dominated

Pressure Build-up Data," J. Pet. Tech. ( July, 1971) 863.
2-4. Earlougher, R. C., Jr., Kersh, K. M. and Ramey, H. J., Jr.:"Wellbore Effects
in Injection well Testing," J. Pet. Tech.( Nov., 1973) 1244-1250.
2-5. Gringarten, A. C., Bourdet D. P., Landel, P. A. and Kniazeff, V. J.: "A
Comparison between Different Skin and Wellbore Storage Type-Curves for
Early-Time Transient Analysis," paper SPE 8205, presented at the 54th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE, Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 23-26,
1979.
2-6. Ramey, H.J., Jr. and Cobb, W.M.:"A General Pressure Build-up Theory for
a Well in a Closed Drainage Area," J. Pet. Tech.( Dec., 1971) 1493-1505;
Trans., AIME ( 1971), 252.
2-7. Horner, D. R.: "Pressure Build-ups in Wells", Proc., Third World Pet.
Cong., E. J. Brill, Leiden (1951) II, 503-521. Also, Reprint Series, No. 9 —
- 213 -
References
Pressure Analysis Methods, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas (

1967) 25-43.
2-8. Agarwal, R. G.:"A New Method to Account for Production Time Effects
When Drawdown Type Curves Are Used to Analyze Buildup and Other Test
Data," paper SPE 9289, presented at the 55th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of SPE, Dallas, Tx., Sept. 21-24, 1980.
2-9. Raghavan, R.:"The Effect of Producing Time on Type Curve Analysis," J.

Pet. Tech.( June, 1980) 1053-1064.
2-10. Bourdet, D. Ayoub, J. A. and Pirard, Y. M.: "Use of Pressure Derivative in

Well-Test Interpretation", SPEFE (June 1989) 293-302
2-11. Balsingame, T.A., Johnston, J.L. and Lee, W.;J.: "Type-Curves Analysis
Using the Pressure Integral Method," paper SPE 18799 presented at the 1989
SPE California Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, April 5-7.
2-12. Balsingame, T.A., Johnston, J.L. Rushing, J.A., Thrasher, T.S. Lee, W.;J.
and Raghavan, R. : " Pressure Integral Type-Curves Analysis-II: Applications
and Field Cases," paper SPE 20535 presented at the 1990 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 23-26.
2-13. Onur, M. and Reynolds, A.C.: "A New Approach for Constructing
Derivative Type Curves for Well Test Analysis," SPEFE (March 1988) 197-
206.
2-14. Duong, A.N.: "A New Set of Type Curves for Well Test Interpretation
Using the Pressure Derivative Ratio," paper SPE 16812 presented at the 1987
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 27-30.
Chapter 3
3-1. Bourdet, D. P., Whittle, T. M., Douglas, A. A. and Pirard, Y. M.: "A New
Set of Type Curves Simplifies Well Test Analysis," World Oil ( May, 1983) 95-
106.
3-2. Tiab, D. and Puthigai, S. K.:”Pressure-Derivative Type Curves for

Vertically Fractured Wells,” SPEFE ( March, 1988) 156-158.
3-3. Alagoa, A., Bourdet, D. and Ayoub, J.A.:”How to Simplify The Analysis of
Fractured Well Tests,” World Oil ( Oct. 1985)
3-4. Wong, D.W., Harrington, A.G. and Cinco-Ley, H.:”Application of the

Pressure-Derivative Function in the Pressure-Transient Testing of Fractured
Wells,"SPEFE.( Oct., 1985) 470-480.
3-5. Gringarten, A. C.and Ramey, H. J. Jr.: "An Approximate Infinite

Conductivity Solution for a Partially Penetrating Line-Source Well",
Soc.Pet.Eng. J. (Apr.1975) 347-360.
- 214 -
References
3-6. Kuchuk, F.J. and Kirwan, P.A.: "New Skin and Wellbore Storage Type
Curves for Partially Penetrated Wells". SPEFE, Dec. 1987, 546-554.
3-7. Papatzacos, P. : "Approximate Partial-Penetration Pseudoskin for Infinite-

Conductivity Wells", SPE-R.E. (May 1987) 227-234.
3-8. Daviau, F., Mouronval, G., Bourdarot, G and Curutchet P.: "Pressure
Analysis for Horizontal Wells",. paper S.P.E. 14251, presented at the SPE 60th
Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 22-25, 1985.
3-9. Clonts, M. D. and Ramey, H. J. Jr.: "Pressure Transient Analysis for Wells
with Horizontal Drainholes",. paper S.P.E. 15116, presented at the 56th
California Regional Meeting, Oakland, CA., April 2-4, 1986.
3-10. Goode, P. A. and Thambynayagam, R. K. M.: "Pressure Drawdown and

Buildup Analysis of Horizontal Wells in Anisotropic Media", SPEFE (Dec.
1987) 683-697.
3-11. Kuchuk, F. J., Goode, P.A., Wilkinson, D.J. and Thambynayagam, R. K. M.:
"Pressure-Transient Behavior of Horizontal Wells With and Without Gas Cap
or Aquifer", SPEFE (March 1991) 86-94.
3-12. Kuchuk, F.: "Well Testing and Interpretation for Horizontal Wells", JPT
(Jan. 1995) 36-41.
3-13. Ozkan, E., Sarica, C., Haciislamoglu, M. and Raghavan, R.: "Effect of
Conductivity on Horizontal Well Pressure Behavior", SPE Advanced
Technology Series, Vol. 3, March 1995, 85-94.
3-14. Ozkan , E. and Raghavan, R.: "Estimation of Formation Damage in

Horizontal Wells", paper S.P.E. 37511, presented at the 1997 Production
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 9-11 March 1997.
3-15. Yildiz, T. and Ozkan, E.: "Transient Pressure Behavior of Selectively

Completed Horizontal Wells", paper S.P.E. 28388, presented at the SPE 69th
Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 25-28, 1994.
3-16. Larsen, L. and Hegre, T.M.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Multifractured

Horizontal Wells", paper S.P.E. 28389, presented at the SPE 69th Annual Fall
Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Sept. 25-28, 1994.
3-17. Larsen, L.: "Productivity Computations for Multilateral, Branched and

Other Generalized and Extended Well Concepts", paper S.P.E. 36754,
presented at the SPE Annual Fall Meeting, Denvers, Colorado, Oct. 6-9, 1996.
3-18. Kuchuk, F.J. and Habashy, T.: "Pressure Bahavior of Horizontal Wells in
Multilayer Reservoirs With Crossflow", SPEFE (March 1996) 55-64.
3-19. Brigham, W. E. :"Discussion of Productivity of a Horizontal Well", SPERE

(May. 1990) 254-255.
- 215 -
References
Chapter 4
4-1. Barenblatt , G. E., Zheltov, I.P. and Kochina, I.N.: "Basic Concepts in the
Theory of Homogeneous Liquids in Fissured Rocks" J. Appl.. Math.
Mech..(USSR) 24 (5) (1960)1286-1303).
4-2. Warren , J. E. and Root, P. J.:"Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs"

Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept., 1963) 245-255; Trans., AIME, 228.
4-3. Odeh, A.S.: "Unsteady-State Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs"

Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Mar., 1965) 60-64; Trans., AIME, 234.
4-4. Kazemi, H.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs

with Uniform Fracture Distribution" Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Dec., 1969) 451-462;
Trans., AIME, 246.
4-5. de Swaan, O. A.: "Analytic Solutions for Determining Naturally Fractured

Reservoir Properties by Well Testing", Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (June, 1976) 117-122;
Trans., AIME, 261.
4-6. Najurieta, H.L.: "A Theory for Pressure Transient Analysis in Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs" J. Pet. Tech. (July 1980), 1241.
4-7. Streltsova, T.D.: "Well Pressure Behavior of a Naturally Fractured

Reservoir", Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Oct., 1983) 769.
4-8. Moench, A. F.: "Double-Porosity Models for a Fissured Groundwater

Reservoir With Fracture Skin", Water Resources Res., Vol. 20, NO. 7 (July
1984) 831-846.
4-9. Mavor, M. J. and Cinco, H.: "Transient Pressure Behavior of Naturally

Fractured Reservoirs", paper SPE 7977, presented at the 1979 California
Regional Meeting of the SPE of AIME, Ventura, California, April 18-20, 1979.
4-10. Bourdet, D. and Gringarten, A. C.: "Determination of Fissure Volume and

Block Size in Fractured Reservoirs by Type-Curve Analysis", paper S.P.E.
9293, presented at the SPE-AIME 55th Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX..,
Sept. 21-24, 1980.
4-11. Bourdet, D. Ayoub, J. A, Whittle, T. M., Pirard, Y. M. and Kniazeff V.:

"Interpreting Well Test in Fractured Reservoirs", World Oil (Oct., 1983) 77-87.
4-12. Gringarten, A. C.: "Interpretation of Tests in Fissured and Multilayered

Reservoirs with Double-Porosity Behavior: Theory and Practice", J. Pet. Tech.
(April 1984), 549-564.
4-13. Bourdet, D. Ayoub, J. A. and Pirard, Y. M.: "Use of Pressure Derivative in

Well-Test Interpretation", SPEFE (June 1989) 293-302.
4-14. Bourdet, D., Alagoa A., Ayoub J. A. and, Pirard, Y. M. : "New Type Curves
Aid Analysis of Fissured Zone Well Tests", World Oil (April, 1984) 111-124.
- 216 -
References
4-15. Cinco-Ley, H., Samaniego, F. and Kuchuk, F.: "The Pressure Transient
Behavior for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs With Multiple Block Size", paper
SPE 14168, presented at the 60th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, Sept.
22-25, 1985.
4-16. Abdassah, D. and Ershaghi, I.: "Triple-Porosity Systems for Representing

Naturally Fractured Reservoirs", SPEFE, April 1986, 113-127.
4-17. Belani, A.K. and Yazdi, Y.J.: "Estimation of Matrix Block Size Distribution
in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs", paper SPE 18171, presented at the 63rd
Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, Tex., Oct.; 2-5, 1988.
4-18. Stewart, G. and Ascharsobbi, F.: "Well Test Interpretation for Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs", paper SPE 18173, presented at the 63rd Annual Fall
Meeting, Houston, Tex., Oct.; 2-5, 1988.
Chapter 5
5-1. Clark, D. G. and Van Golf-Racht, T. D.: "Pressure Derivative Approach to
Transient Test Analysis: A High-Permeability North Sea Reservoir Example,"
J. Pet. Tech. ( Nov., 1985) 2023-2039.
5-2. Wong, D.W., Mothersele, C.D., Harrington, A.G. and Cinco-Ley, H.:
"Pressure Transient Analysis in Finite Linear Reservoirs Using Derivative and
Conventional Techniques: Field Examples", paper S.P.E. 15421, presented at
the 61st Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans, La., Oct. 5-8, 1986.
5-3. Larsen, L., and Hovdan, M.: "Analysis of Well Test Data from Linear
Reservoirs by Conventional Methods", paper SPE 16777, presented at the 62d
Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, Tex., Sept. 27-30, 1987.
5-4. Tiab, D. and Kumar, A.:”Detection and Location of Two Parallel Sealing
Faults around a Well,” J. Pet. Tech. (Oct., 1980), 1701-1708.
5-5. van Poollen, H. K.:"Drawdown Curves give Angle between Intersecting

Faults", The Oil and Gas J. (Dec.20, 1965), 71-75.
5-6. Prasad, Raj K.: "Pressure Transient Analysis in the Presence of Two
Intersecting Boundaries" J. Pet. Tech. ( Jan., 1975) 89-96.
5-7. Tiab, D. and Crichlow, H.B..:”Pressure Analysis of Multiple-Sealing-Fault

Systems and Bounded Reservoirs by Type Curve Matching,” SPEJ ( Dec.,
1979) 378-392.
5-8. Brons F. and Miller, W.C.: "A Simple Method for Correcting Spot Pressure
Readings", J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1961), 803-805; Trans. AIME, 222.
5-9. Dietz D.N.: "Determination of Average Reservoir Pressure From Build-Up

Surveys", J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1965), 955-959
- 217 -
References
5-10. Earlougher, R.C. Jr.:"Estimating Drainage Shapes From Reservoir Limit

Tests", J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1971), 1266-1268; Trans. AIME, 251
5-11. 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.
5-12. Yaxley, L.M.: "The Effect of a Partially Communicating Fault on Transient

Pressure Behavior," paper S.P.E. 14311, presented at the 60th Annual Fall
Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 22-25, 1985.
5-13. Cinco, L.H., Samaniego, V.F. and Dominguez, A.N.: "Unsteady-State Flow
Behavior for a Well Near a Natural Fracture", paper S.P.E. 6019, presented at
the 51st Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans, LA., Oct. 3-6, 1976.
5-14. Abbaszadeh, M.D. and Cinco-Ley, H. :"Pressure Transient Behavior in a

Reservoir With a Finite-Conductivity Fault", SPEFE, (March 1995) 26-32.
Chapter 6
6-1. Carter R.D.: "Pressure Behavior of a Limited Circular Composite
Reservoir," Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Dec. 1966, 328-334; Trans., AIME, 237.
6-2. Satman, A.: "An Analytical Study of Transient Flow in Systems With Radial
Discontinuities," paper S.P.E. 9399, presented at the 55th Annual Fall Meeting,
Dallas, Tex., Sept. 21-24, 1980
6-3. Olarewaju, J.S. and Lee, W.J.: "A Comprehensive Application of a

Composite Reservoir Model to Pressure-Transient Analysis", SPE-RE, Aug.
1989, 325-231.
6-4. Abbaszadeh, M. and Kamal, M.M. :"Pressure-Transient Testing of Water-

Injection Wells", SPE-RE, Feb. 1989, 115-124.
6-5. Ambastha, A.K., McLeroy, P.G. and Sageev, A.: " Effects of a Partially
Communicating Fault in a Composite Reservoir on Transient Pressure Testing,"
paper S.P.E. 16764, presented at the 62nd Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, Tex.,
Sept. 27-30, 1987.
6-6. Kuchuk, F.J. and Habashy, T.M. :"Pressure Behavior of Laterally

Composite Reservoir", SPEFE, (March 1997) 47-564.
6-7. Levitan, M.M. and Crawford, G.E. : "General Heterogeneous Radial and
Linear Models for Well Test Analysis," paper S.P.E. 30554, presented at the
70th Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX, Oct. 22-25, 1995.
6-8. Oliver, D.S.: "The Averaging Process in Permeability Estimation From

Well-Test Data," SPEFE, (Sept. 1990) 319-324.
- 218 -
References
Chapter 7
7-1. Tariq, S. M. and Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Drawdown Behavior of a Well with
Storage and Skin Effect Communicating with Layers of Different Radii and
Other Characteristics," paper S.P.E. 7453, presented at the 53rd Annual Fall
Meeting, Houston, Tex., Oct. 1-3, 1978.
7-2. Gao, C-T.: "Single-Phase Fluid Flow in a Stratified Porous Medium With
Crossflow, SPEJ, Feb. 1984, 97-106.
7-3. Wijesinghe, A.M. and Culham, W.E.: "Single-Well Pressure Testing

Solutions for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs With Arbitrary Fracture
Connectivity", paper S.P.E. 13055, presented at the 59th Annual Fall Meeting,
Houston, Tex., Sept. 16-19, 1984.
7-4. Bourdet, D.: "Pressure Behavior of Layered Reservoirs with Crossflow",

paper S.P.E. 13628, presented at the SPE California Regional Meeting,
Bakersfield, CA, March. 27-29, 1985.
7-5. Prijambodo, R., Raghavan, R. and Reynolds, A.C.: "Well Test Analysis for
Wells Producing Layered Reservoirs With Crossflow", SPEJ, June 1985, 380-
396.
7-6. Ehlig-Economides, C.A. and Joseph, J.A. : "A New Test for Determination
of Individual Layer Properties in a Multilayered Reservoir", paper S.P.E.
14167, presented at the 60th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 22-25,
1985.
7-7. Larsen, L.: "Similarities and Differences in Methods Currently Used to

Analyze Pressure-Transient Data From Layered Reservoirs", paper S.P.E.
18122, presented at the 63rd Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, TX, Oct. 2-5,
1988.
7-8. Larsen, L. : "Boundary Effects in Pressure-Transient Data From Layered

Reservoirs", paper S.P.E. 19797, presented at the 64th Annual Fall Meeting,
San Antonio, TX, Oct. 8-11, 1989.
7-9. Park, H. and Horne, R.N.: "Well Test Analysis of a Multilayered Reservoir
With Crossflow", paper S.P.E. 19800, presented at the 64th Annual Fall
Meeting, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 8-11, 1989.
7-10. Chen, H-Y, Poston, S.W. and Raghavan, R. : "The Well Response in a
Naturally Fractured Reservoir: Arbitrary Fracture Connectivity and Unsteady
Fluid Transfer", paper S.P.E. 20566, presented at the 65th Annual Fall Meeting,
New Orleans, LA, Sept. 23-26, 1990.
7-11. Liu, C-q. and Wang, X-D.: "Transient 2D Flow in Layered Reservoirs With
Crossflow", SPE-FE, Dec. 1993, 287-291.
- 219 -
References
7-12. Larsen, L.: "Experiences With Combined Analyses of PLT and Pressure-
Transient Data From Layered Reservoirs", paper SPE 27973 presented at
University of Tulsa Centennial Symposium, Tulsa, OK, Aug. 29-31, 1994.
7-13. Boutaud de la Combe, J.-L., Deboaisne, R.M. and Thibeau, S.:

"Heterogeneous Formation: Assessment of Vertical Permeability Through
Pressure Transient Analysis - Field Example", paper SPE 36530, presented at
the 1996 Annual Fall Meeting, Denvers, CO, Oct. 6-9, 1996.
7-14. Larsen L.: "Wells Producing Commingled Zones with Unequal Initial
Pressures and Reservoir Properties", paper SPE 10325, presented at the 56th
Annual Fall Meeting, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 5-7, 1981.
7-15. Agarwal, B., Chen, H-Y. and Raghavan, R.: "Buildup Behaviors in
Commingled Reservoirs Systems With Unequal Initial Pressure Distributions:
Interpretation", paper SPE 24680, presented at the 67th Annual Fall Meeting,
Washington, DC, Oct. 4-7, 1992.
7-16. Aly, A., Chen, H.Y. and Lee, W.J.: "A New Technique for Analysis of
Wellbore Pressure From Multi-Layered Reservoirs With Unequal Initial
Pressures To Determine Individual Layer Properties", paper SPE 29176,
presented at the Eastern Regional Conference, Charleston, WV, Nov. 8-10,
1994.
7-17. Gao, C., Jones, J.R., Raghavan, R. and Lee, W.J.: "Responses of
Commingled Systems With Mixed Inner and Outer Boundary Conditions Using
Derivatives," SPEFE (Dec. 94) 264-271.
7-18. Chen, H-Y., Raghavan, R. and Poston, S.W.: "Average Reservoir Pressure
Estimation of a Layered Commingled Reservoir," paper SPE 26460 presented
at the 68th Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, Tex., Oct. 3-6, 1993.
Chapter 8
8-1. Theis, C.V.: "The Relation Between the Lowering of the Piezometric
Surface and the Rate and Duration of Discharge of a Well Using Ground-Water
Storage," Trans., AGU (1935), 519-524.
8-2. Tiab, D. and Kumar, A.:”Application of the p’D Function to Interference

Analysis,” J. Pet. Tech. (Aug., 1980), 1465-1470.
8-3. Jargon, J.R.:" Effect of Wellbore storage and Wellbore Damage at the
Active Well on Interference Test Analysis," J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1976) 851-858.
8-4. Ogbe, D.O. and Brigham, W.E.:" A Model for Interference Testing with
Wellbore Storage and Skin Effects at Both Wells," paper S.P.E. 13253,
presented at the 59th Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, TX, Sept. 16-19, 1984.
8-5. Papadopulos, I.S.: "Nonsteady Flow to a Well in an Infinite Anisotropic

Aquifer," Proc. 1965 Dubrovnik Symposium on Hydrology of Fractured Rocks
- 220 -
References
8-6. Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Interference Analysis for Anisotropic Formations-A Case
History," J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1975) 1290-98; Trans., AIME, 259.
8-7. Deruyck, B.G., Bourdet, D.P., DaPrat G. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Interpretation
of Interference Tests in Reservoirs with Double Porosity Behavior - Theory and
Field Examples", paper S.P.E. 11025, presented at the 57th Annual Fall
Meeting, New Orleans, La., Sept. 22-25, 1982.
8-8. Ma, Q. and Tiab, D: "Interference Test Analysis in Naturally Fractured

Reservoirs," paper SPE 29514, presented at the SPE Production Operations
Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, April 2-4, 1995.
8-9. Satman, A. et Al.: "An Analytical Study of Interference in Composite

Reservoirs," Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Apr. 1985, 281-290.
8-10. Chu, L. and Grader, A.S.: "Transient Pressure Analysis of Three Wells in a
Three-Composite Reservoir," paper SPE 22716, presented at the 66th Annual
Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX., Oct. 6-9, 1991.
8-11. Chu, W.C. and Raghavan, R.: "The Effect of Noncommunicating Layers on
Interference Test Data," J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1981) 370-382.
8-12. Onur, M. and Reynolds, A.C.: "Interference Testing of a Two-Layers

Commingled Reservoir," SPEFE. (Dec. 1989) 595-603.
8-13. Brigham, W.E.: "Planning and Analysis of Pulse-Tests," J. Pet. Tech. (May
1970) 618-624; Trans., AIME, 249
8-14. Kamal, M. and Brigham, W.E.: "Pulse-Testing Response for Unequal Pulse
and Shut-In Periods," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Oct. 1975) 399-410; Trans., AIME, 259
8-15. Kamal, M.: "Interference and Pulse Testing - A Review," J. Pet. Tech. (Dec.
1983) 2257-70
Chapter 9
9-1. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J. Jr. and Crawford. P. B.:"The Flow of Real
Gases Through Porous Media", J. Pet. Tech. (May 1966), 624-636; Trans.
AIME, 237
9-2. Al-Hussainy, R. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.:"Application of Real Gas Flow Theory
to Well Testing and Deliverability Forecasting", J. Pet. Tech. (May 1966), 637-
642; Trans. AIME, 237
9-3. Agarwal, R.G.:"Real Gas Pseudo-Time - A New Function for Pressure

Build-up Analysis of MHF Gas Wells", paper S.P.E. 8279, presented at the
54th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 23-26, 1979.
- 221 -
References
9-4. Houpeurt A.:"On the Flow of Gas in Porous Medias", Revue de l'Institut
Français du Pétrole, 1959, XIV (11), 1468-1684.
9-5. Wattenbarger, R.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.:"Gas Well Testing with Turbulence,
Damage and Wellbore Storage", J. Pet. Tech. (Aug. 1968), 877-887.
9-6. "Theory and Practice of the Testing of Gas Wells", Energy Resources
Conservation Board, Calgary, Alta., Canada (1975).
9-7. Bourdarot, G.: " Well Testing : Interpretation Methods," Editions Technip,
Institut Français du Pétrole, p. 258.
9-8. Rawlins, E.L. and Schellardt, M.A.:"Back-Pressure Data on Natural-Gas

Wells and Their Application to Production Practices," Monograph 7, USBM
(1936).
9-9. Katz, D.L., Cornell, D., Kobayashi, R., Poettmann, F.H., Vary, J.A.,
Elenbaas, J.R. and Weinaug, C.F.:"Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering,"
McGraw-Hill Book Co.,Inc., New York (1959).
9-10. Bourgeois, M.J. and Wilson, M.R. :"Additional Use of Well Test Analytical
Solutions for Production Prediction," paper S.P.E. 36820, presented at the 1996
SPE EUROPEC, Milan, Italy, Oct. 22-24, 1996.
Chapter 10
10-1. Stewart, G.: "Future Developments In Well Test Analysis: Introduction of
Geology", Hart's Petroleum Engineer International (Sept. 1997), 73-76.
10-2. Larsen, L.: "Boundary Effects in Pressure-Transient Data From Layered

Reservoirs,". paper S.P.E. 19797, presented at the 64th Annual Fall Meeting,
San Antonio, Tex., Oct. 8-11, 1989.
10-3. Joseph, J., Bocock, A., Nai-Fu, F. and Gui, L.T.: "A Study of Pressure
Transient Behavior in Bounded Two-Layered Reservoirs: Shengli Field,
China", paper SPE 15418, presented at the 61st Annual Fall Meeting, New
Orleans, LA, Oct. 5-8, 1986.
10-4. Bourgeois, M.J., Daviau, F.H. and Boutaud de la Combe, J-L. : "Pressure
Behavior in Finite Channel-Levee Complexes", SPEFE, (Sept. 1996) 177-183.
Chapter 11
11-1. Al-Ghamdi, A. and Ershaghi, I.: "Pressure Transient Analysis of Dually
Fractured Reservoirs", paper SPE 26959, presented at the III Latin American
Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentine, April 27-29, 1994.
- 222 -
References
11-2. Larsen, L.: "Similarities and Differences in Methods Currently Used to

Analyze Pressure-Transient Data From Layered Reservoirs", paper S.P.E.
18122, presented at the 63rd Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, TX, Oct. 2-5,
1988.
11-3. Poon, D.C.C. :"Pressure Transient Analysis of a Composite Reservoir With

Uniform Fracture Distribution," paper SPE 13384 available at SPE,
Richardson, TX.
11-4. Satman, A.: "Pressure-Transient Analysis of a Composite Naturally

Fractured Reservoir," SPE-FE, June 1991, 169-175.
11-5. Kikani, J. and Walkup, G.W.: "Analysis of Pressure-Transient Tests for

Composite Naturally Fractured Reservoirs," SPE-FE, June 1991, 176-182.
11-6. Hatzignatiou, D.G., Ogbe, D.O., Dehghani, K. and Economides, M.J.:

"Interference Pressure Behavior in Multilayered Composite Reservoirs," paper
S.P.E. 16766, presented at the 62nd Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, Tex., Sept.
27-30, 1987.
Chapter 12
12-1. Ramey, H.J. Jr., Agarwal, R.G. and Martin, I.: "Analysis of 'Slug Test' or
DST Flow Period Data," J. Cdn. Pet; Tech. (July-Sept.. 1975) 14, 37.
12-2. de Franca Correa A.C. and Ramey, H.J. Jr. "A Method for Pressure Buildup
Analysis of Drillstem Tests," paper S.P.E. 16808, presented at the 62nd Annual
Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX, Sept. 27-30, 1987.
12-3. Peres, A.M.M., Onur, M. and Reynolds, A.C.: "A New General Pressure-
Analysis Procedure for Slug Tests," SPEFE. (Dec. 1993) 292-98.
12-4. Ayoub, J.A., Bourdet, D.P. and Chauvel, Y.L.: "Impulse Testing," SPEFE.
(Sept. 1988) 534-46; Trans., AIME, 285
12-5. Cinco-Ley, H. et al.: "Analysis of Pressure Tests Through the Use of

Instantaneous Source Response Concepts," paper S.P.E. 15476, presented at the
61st Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Oct. 5-8, 1986.
12-6. Kucuk, F, and Ayestaran, L,: "Analysis of Simultaneously Measured

Pressure and Sandface Flow Rate in Transient Well Testing," paper S.P.E.
112177, presented at the 58th Annual Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, Oct. 5-
8, 1983.
12-7. Bourdet D. and Alagoa A.: "New Method Enhances Well Test
Interpretation," World Oil ( Sept, 1984).
12-8. Jacob, C.E. and Lohman, S.W.: "Nonsteady Flow to a Well of Constant
Drawdown in an Extensive Aquifer," Trans., AGU (Aug. 1952) 559-569.
- 223 -
References
12-9. Uraiet, A.A. and Raghavan, R.: "Unsteady Flow to a Well Producing at a
Constant Pressure". J. Pet. Tech., Oct. 1980, 1803-1812.
12-10.Ehlig-Economides, C.A. and Ramey, H.J. Jr.: "Pressure Buildup for Wells
Produced at Constant Pressure". SPEJ, Feb. 1981, 105-114.
Chapter 13
13-1. Perrine, R.L.:"Analysis of Pressure Build-up Curves", Drill. and Prod. Prac.,
API (1956), 482-509.
13-2. Martin, J.C.:"Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Drive Reservoirs and the
Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase Pressure Buildup Analyses," Trans.,
AIME (1959) 216, 309-311.
13-3. Fetkovich, M.J.:"The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells," paper S.P.E. 4529,
presented at the 48th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 30- Oct.3,
1973.
13-4. Raghavan, R.: "Well Test Analysis: Wells Producing by Solution Gas Drive
Wells," SPEJ, (Aug. 1976) 196-208; trans., AIME, 261.
13-5. Al-Khalifah, A.A., Aziz, K. and Horne, R.N.:"A New Approach to

Multiphase Well Test Analysis", paper S.P.E. 16473 presented at the 62nd
Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX, Sept. 27-30, 1987.
13-6. Weller, W.T.:"Reservoir Performance During Two-Phase Flow," J. Pet.

tech. (Feb. 1966) 240-246; Trans., AIME, Vol 240.
13-7. Raghavan, R.: "Well Test Analysis for Multiphase Flow" SPEFE,
(Dec.1989) 585-594
13-8. Jones, J.R. and Raghavan, R.: "Interpretation of Flowing Well Responses in
Gas-Condensate Wells" SPEFE, (Sep.1988) 578-594.
13-9. Jones, J.R., Vo, D.T. and Raghavan, R.: "Interpretation of Pressure Build-up
Responses in Gas-Condensate Wells" SPEFE, (March 1989) 93-104.
- 224 -

IOR Indonesia Existing and Future BPMIGAS (TRISAKTI)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IOR Indonesia Existing and Future BPMIGAS (TRISAKTI)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WELL TESTING

2 - THE ANALYSIS METHODS ......................................................................................................... 27

3 - WELLBORE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 47

4 - FISSURED RESERVOIRS - DOUBLE POROSITY MODELS.................................................. 75

6 - COMPOSITE RESERVOIR MODELS....................................................................................... 119

7 - LAYERED RESERVOIRS - DOUBLE PERMEABILITY MODEL........................................ 127

8 - INTERFERENCE TESTS ............................................................................................................. 135

9 - GAS WELLS................................................................................................................................... 149

10 - BOUNDARIES IN HETEROGENEOUS RESERVOIRS ........................................................ 159

11 - COMBINED RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITIES ................................................................. 165

12 - OTHER TESTING METHODS.................................................................................................. 169

13 - MULTIPHASE RESERVOIRS .................................................................................................. 179

15 - FACTORS COMPLICATING WELL TEST ANALYSIS....................................................... 185

16 - CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 193

APPENDIX - ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS..................................................................................... 205

Description of a well test

During a well test, a transient pressure response is created by a temporary change

∆p = pi − p (t ) (psi, Bars) ( 1-1)

∆p= p(t)− p(∆t =0) (psi, Bars) ( 1-2)

Well test objectives

Information obtained from well testing

By comparing the result of routine tests, changes of productivity and rate of

The inverse problem

The objective of well test analysis is to describe an unknown system S (well +

Analytical solutions are used to generate pressure responses to a specific

Input data required for well test analysis

• Reservoir and fluid parameters : formation thickness h (net), porosity φ,

ct =co(1−Sw)+cwSw+c f (psi-1, Bars-1) ( 1-3)

1-1.3 Types of tests

Figure 1.3 Onshore DST test string.

1-1.4 Well testing equipment

• Heater : Heating the effluent may be necessary to prevent hydrate formation in

Figure 1.4 Surface set up.

1-2 Definitions & typical regimes

1-2.1 Wellbore storage

Figure 1-5 Wellbore storage effect. Pressure distribution.

Wellbore storage coefficient

For a well full of a single phase fluid,

C =− ∆V =coVw (Bbl/psi, m3/Bars) ( 1-4)

When there is a liquid level, with ∆p = ρ g ∆h , ∆V = Vu ∆h and

Result : wellbore storage coefficient C.

1-2.2 Radial flow regime, skin (homogeneous behavior)

When the reservoir production is established, the flow-lines converge radially

Figure 1-8 Radial flow regime. Pressure distribution. Zero skin.

Figure 1-9 Radial flow regime. Pressure distribution.

Figure 1-10 Radial flow regime. Pressure distribution.

The skin is a dimensionless parameter. It characterizes the well condition : for a

Steady state flow in the circular zone :

The skin is expressed :

Equivalent wellbore radius :

rwe = rw e − S (ft, m) ( 1-11)

For homogeneous reservoirs, a pressure versus time semi-log straight line

Semi-log straight line of slope m :

1-2.3 Examples of infinite acting radial flow behaviors

pressure change, psi

very high skin

1-2.4 Fractured well (infinite conductivity fracture) : linear flow regime

Figure 1-16 Fractured well. Fracture geometry.

Linear flow regime

Figure 1-17 Infinite conductivity fracture. Geometry of the flow lines.

Result : the half fracture length xf

1-2.5 Fractured well (finite conductivity fracture) : bi-linear flow regime

Bilinear flow regime

Figure 1-20 Finite conductivity fracture. Specialized analysis with the