SOCIETY OF pETROLEUMENGINEER5 OF AIME PAPER

62oO North Central Expressway NUMBER SPE 6054

Dallas, Texas 75206
THIS X5 A PREPRINT --- SUBJECT TO CC)R~CTION

COI’IPREHENSIVE
ANALYSISOF DRILLSTEMTESTDATA
WITHTHE AID OF TYPECURVES

By
B. K. Sinha, J. E. Sigmon, and J. M. Montgomery
HalliburtonServices,Members SPE-AIME
&opyrlght 1976
American Instituteof Mining, Metallur@cal, and PetroleumEngineers,Inc.
This paper was prepared for the Zlst Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of
PetroleumEngineersof AIME, to be held In New Orleans, La., Oct. 3-6, 1976.
Permissionto copy Is restrictedto an abstract of not more than 300 words.
Illustrationsmay not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous
acknowledgmentof where and by whom the paper is presented. Publicationelse-
where after publication-in the JOURNAL OF PETROLEUMTECHNOLOGYor the SOCIETY
OF PETROLEUMENGINEERSJOURNAL is usually granted upon request to the Editor of
the appropriatejournal, provided agreementto give proper credit is made.
Discussionof this paper Is invited. Three copies of any discussionshould
be sent to the Society of PetroleumEngineersoffice. Such discussionsmay be
consideredfor publicationin one of the two SPE magazines.

ABSWRACT situations,the recent type curve match-

A substantialpercentageof drill-
stem tests cannot be analyzedby
conventionalmethods due to insuffic-
ient data. Numerous tests have been
analyzedby several publishedtype
curves.
In this paper, many examplesare
includedwhere the applicationof the
appropriatetype curve aided in provld-
Ing correct analysis of data which
otherwisemay have been misinterpreted.
INTRODUCTION
The importanceof the decision
based upon drillstemtest results re-
garding the probabilityof commercial
productionfrom a well cannot be over-
emphasized. This vital decision requires ;. mechanicalproblems
that availabledata be analyzedthor-
oughly to provide a high de~ree of
confidencein the analysis. D\~eto
variousreasons, it Is not often possible
to assure availabilityof sufficient
data to complete a conventionalHorner
analysiswith confidence. Under these
=ferences and illusiratlongat end of
paper.
ing techniquesare being used for
analyzing Incompletedrillstemtest
data.
Since 1970 several type curves
have been publishedfor analyzingearly
time data from pressure transienttests.
The majority of the literatureon type
curves applicationis oriented toward
long duration tests (which are usually
conductedlater In the producing life of
a well) and not toward drillstemtests.
There are several problemswhich are
common to drillstemtests:
a. occurenceof crttical flowl
b. presence of superch~rge
c, usually short testing duration
ds questionableproductiondata
. drasttc variationsin bottom-hole
pressures
~* presence of more than one producing
zone
h. lack of reservoirand fluid proper-
ties data at the time of the test
In addition$most of the problems
which make the Interpretationof-long
 COMPREHENSIVEANALYSIS OF DRILLSTEMTEST DATA
—
P
durationtests (conductedlater in the The drillstemtests which produced
life of a well) difficultare also acceptablematches with Fig. la, lb, and
present in thecase of drillstemtests. lC also gave reasonablyclose results
The above mentioned factors complicate with the Horner method of analysis.
the analysls o? drillstemtest data even Figures 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d show Horner,
when sufficientdata are available. The Ramey, McKinley and Earlougher-Kersch
problem is magnified several fold when plots, respectively. Data needed for
sufficientdata are not availableto quantitativeanalysis for this test and
completeconventionalHorner analysis. all others presentedin this paper are
given in Table 1.
In a recent paper, Ramey2’3empha-
stzed the simultaneousapplicationof The actual match points used and
log-log, semi-log,and Cartesianplots the results of the analysis are given
for correct interpretationof transient in Table 2. It can be seen in Table 2
test data. Raghaven4,in a recent that extremelygood agreementwas ob-
publication,has also demonstratedthe tained by the three type curves in
advantagesof using newer log-log type comparisonwith the Horner method.
curves in conjunctionwith older seml- Similar agreementin the results was
logrithmictechniques. obtainedw~th several other drillstem
tests. The tests which produced accept-
Publishedliteratureon the appli- able matches with radial flow type
cation of type curves in analyzing, curves were from areas which are not
drillstemtest data is limitedl~s believed to be naturally fractured.
Misinterpretationof data can easil~
ooour by using type curve techniquesdue INSUFFICIENTDATA
tu the reasons given in referencesl’g’~.
The purpose of this paper is to care- A substantialnumber of drillstem
fully study the applicabilityof avail- tests cannot be analyzed by the conven-
able type curves in analyzinginsuffic- tional methods due to insufficienttest
ient drillstemtest data and to aid in data; therefore,considerableeffort Is
the interpretationof tests where suffic. made to analyze such test data with the
ient data is present. aid of a type curve. The lesser the
amount of the data, the more difficult
SUFFICIENTDATA It becomes to analyze the data and still
maintain an acceptabledegree of confi-
When sufficientdata is available, dence in the analysis. It is logical to
conventionalHorner analysis can be expect a defintte lower limit for the
made. In this case the applicationof amount of data needed below which type
type curves is only to check whether the curve techniquescannot be used effec-
correct semi-log straightline has been tively, For all practtcalpurposes,thi
selected if it is present. lower limit Is the departureof data
points from the unit slope or one-half
Several drillstemtests were se- slope lines for unfracturedand fracture
lected and it was apparent from the wells, respectively. This fact Is often
drillstem test charts that a Horner ignored in practice and attempts are
analysis was most likely feasible made to salvage the test with the magt-
(sufficientclosure). Data from these cal use of a type curve of the analyst’s
selected tests were analyzedby Ramey,8’$ choice.’Frequently,the salvage attempt
14cKimley1°and Earlougher-Kerschlltype ends without obtainingany reliable
curves which are shown in Figs. la, lb, information.
and lc, respectively. These three type
curves are based on radial flow concept. Figure 3 is a Ramey plot of drill-
stem test data on a gas well which
The majority of the selected drill- indicatedconventloqalHorner analysis
stem tests data (closedin pertods) was probably not feasille. A McKinley
produced acceptablematches with these plot (not shown) of the same data will
three type curves. A few drillstem be similar except the parameterswill
tests did not produce acceptablematches be plotted on ditferentaxis. As shown
with the earlier mentionedtype curves in FQ. 3, all the data points fall on
but produced good matches with a stralsht line of unit slope indicating
Clringarten12et al. type curve for a constantwellbore storage co-efficient
_ fracturedwell (constantflux case) If the unsquaredpressure difference
shown xn Fig. ld. values are plotted instead of the
squared values, deviation from the unit
slope line Is observedwhich can easily
 COMPREHENSIVEANALYSISOF DRILLSTEMTEST DATA
SPE 6054 WITH THE
-.-— AIR
----- OF
- - !I?VPF!
- -. - C
- TIRVIW
- . . . -- 2
cause misinterpretationof data (see bore conditions,the wellbore storage co.
Fig. 3). In case of gas wells, Maer18 efficientis not constant. This is quit[
type curve (modifiedform of McKinley common in drillstem testing due to dras-
shown here as Fig. le) should be used. tic variationsZn pressure conditions
Use O; real gas potentialmethod is when the tool is opened and closed.
preferableover “squared”and “unsquared”Therefore,it is essentialto”understand
methods as “suggestedby A1-Hussainylbet the factorswhich effect the behavior of
al. in case of gas well analysis. early time pressure data in drillstem
tests.
A drillstemchart indicatedthat
conventionalHorner analysis was”most A drillstemtest chart indicated
likely not feasible. Data from this pronouncedwellbore storage effects.
test,were plotted accordingto Horner, Figures 5a, 5b, 5c, and 5d show Horner,
Ramey, McKinley and Earlougher-Kersch Ramey, McKinley and Earlougher-Kersch
methods and are shown in Figs. 4a$ 4b, plots, respectively. In this case, it
4c, and 4d, respectively. The results is extremely difficultto determinethe
of the ana+ysis are given in Table 3. time beyond which wellbore storage
ReasonableagreementIn the result was effects become negligibleon Ramey or
observedby the differentmethods. McKinley plots. However, the sharp
bend on Earlougher-Kerschplot very
In order to determinean approximateclearly tndicatesthe time beyond which
lower working limit of the amount of data wellbore storage effects have diminished,
needed for type curve analysis,a drill- It is then possible to determinethe
stem test chart which Indicatedthat possiblevariation in the valueof calcu-
Horner analysiswas most likely feasible lated parameterswith the aid of Horner
was selected. The analysts (twenty-four and Ramey plots. If the ‘rbend!t on the
individuals)were divided into six groups Earlougher-Kerschplot is long enough,
of four persons. Each group received then reliable quantitativeanalysis is
differentnumbers of data points and did feasible from their type curve. Results
the analysis independently. Based only of the analysis of this drillstemtest
upon the data available>each individual is given in Table 5.
calculateda value of permeability
using both conventionaland type curve If proper care is not taken, the
methods. A few with low numbers of data change in the slope of the plot due to
points did not use Horner analysisreal- a changingwellbore storage co-effic$ent
izing that data was not sufficient, can easily be misinterpretedas charac-
while others realizingthis limitation istic of the formationitself. Chances
still went ahe~d and completedthe anal- of misinterpretationof drillstemtest
ysis based on th~ later data points data due to a changingwellbore storage
lying on a straightline. Each individ- coefficient or due to the presence of
ual used the same values of known para- fractures (naturalor artificial)are
meters needed to do the analysis. more likely using McKinley type curve
than when using Ramey or Earlougher-
Table 4 shows the average values Kersch type curves. This Is due to the
~btainedby each group of analysts. As fact that McKinley uses two separate
expected,the value of permeabilityob- matches (early time and late time) to
tained using the conventionalHorner determinewhether the formationis
nethod varied considerablybecause the damaged or stimulated. It appears that
correctHorner slope was not attained. the ~arlougher-Kerschtype curve should
The type curve methods, however, gave be used In conjunctionwith the other
nearly consistentvalues after one-half type curves when the wellbore storage
log’cycle of data beyond the well de- coefficientchanges during the test.
fined unit slope line became available.
FRACTUREDFORMATION
All the analysts expressedtheir
opinion that McKinley10 type curve was Data from a drillstemtest which
easiestto use h comparisonwith those did not produce a good match with the,
by Ramey8 and Earlougher-Kerschll.The radial flow type curves, but produced
easy to use advantageof the McKinley a match with the fracturedwell type
Cype curve is lost if the accuracy of curve is shown in Fig. ld. Plots for
results is also considered. the Horner and type curve methods of
analyses are shown in Figs. 6a and 6b,
All the availabletype curves are respectively. It should be noted that
based on a constantwellbore storage co- in Fig. 6a it is difficultto select the
ef’f%o%entoHowever,under aotual well- correct semi-log straightline. More
than one straight line is noticeable.
 COMPREHENSIVEANALYSIS OF DRILLSTEMTEST DATA
WITH THE AIR O TYPE CURVES SPE 6054
The same test data when plotted as cave (towardszero pressure),then It 1s
Shown in Fig. 6b followed the predicted possible to apply the typecurves for
~ehavior of a fracturedformation. Fig. “slug test”.
-C shows the square root of time versus
~ressure plot of the same data shown in One drillstemtest was analyzed
~igs. 6a and 6;>. Since the early time using both closed-inperiod and flow
=ata points fall on a straightline period data utilizingRamey et al.
mresence of linear flow can be inferred. “slug test“ type curves (three)and
~his confirms the earlier analysis by conventionalH&?ner method. The plotted
~ringartenl2 et al. type curve technique data are shown in Figs. 7a, 7b, 7c, and
-hat the formationunder Investigation 7d. Type curves shown as Figs. lf, lg,
as naturallyfractured. and lh were used with plots shown in
Figs. 7b, 7c, and l’d,respectively. The
It is importantto note here that results of the analyses by both methods
*he applicationof the appropriatetype are given in Table 7. Table 7 indicates
su??ve avoided possiblemisinterpretation that It is possible to obtain reasonable
=af data. In this situation,the appli- estimatesof formationpropertiesby
cation of Ramey type curve8 for un- analyzingthe flow period data alone.
~ractured wells would have been However, in a majority of the cases, It
-nappropriate. This also applies to is not possible due to the presence of
Other type curvesI0,11s13 based Only On critical flow as discussedby Rameyl et
-adial flow concepts. al.
Once a match with a fracturedwell If the flow period in this case
=ype curve is made, it becomes easy to would have been longer, the hydrostatic
select the beginningof the semi-log pressurewould have reached bottom-hole
straight line (if It is present) using pressuremaking conventionalanalysis
~attenbarger-Rameyls, (tQ = 1) and impossible.
~ringarten12 et al. (t - 3) criterion,
lFtaxney9
has mentioned s1’
mple rule~~of SUMMARY
-humb which are extremelyuseful in
Selecting the teginningof the semi-log In the case of’a constant wellbore
straight line with the aid of his type storage co-efficientRameya, McKinleylO,
surves. Earlougher-Kerschlland Maerlg type
curves are applicable. However, it is
The results of the analysis along felt that Ramey type curves8’12are more
With the match point values are given in useful because it easily lends itself to
gable 6. Here the test was not continued the conventionalHorner analysi . By
~ong enough to completethe conventional using RameylG et al., equation tt = C
Horner analysis. (6o + 3.5s), s >0] or Rameyt2’lsDeta!?.
criterion (tD = 1 - 3) for the start of
In general,most of the test data the semi-log straight line in con:mctiol
Srom fracturedformationsdo not produce with the appropriatetype curve (for un-
- well defined one-half slope line at fracturedor fracturedwell) and Horner
-arly times on the log-log plot. In plot (also cartesianplot for fractured
=pite of this, acceptabletype curve well) simultaneouslya high degree of
matching has been possible in the - confidencein the analysis can be at-
majority of the cases. Departureof tained.
-he early time data points has been
attributed to damaged formationcondi- In case of changingwellbore storag~
tions or errors in the value of flowing coefficient,simultaneoususe of Ramey
~ressure used. Sometimescorrections and Earlougher-Kerschtype curves along
(usingcartesianplots) as suggested with the conventionalHorner plot Zs
my Rameyg and Raghavan4 Zmprove the helpful in quantitativetype curve
~uality of the match. analysis. If desired, Ramey plot can
also be used on McKinley type curve by
dNALYSIS OF DST FLOW PERIOD DATA just turning over the plot made on
tracing paper. In order to do this,
All the type curves described it is essentialthat both the type
earlier used closed-inperiod (buildup) curves and the overlay data plot be on
data. The type curves shown in Figs. lf, exactly the same size log-log grid.
lg, and lh by RameyI .etal., utilize flom
period pressure data for the analysis.
As suggestedby Rameyl et al., if the
drillstemtest flow period curve is con-
 COMPREHENSIVEANALYSIS OF DRILLSTEM TEST DATA
5PE 6054 WITH THE AIR C TYPE .CURVES
CONCLUSIONS
1. When insufficientdata are available
for a Horner type analysis,type
curve often may be used to obtain
reasonablyviable reservoir infor-
mation.
2. The simultaneousapplicationof log-
log, semi-logand cartesianplots
for comparisonare advantageous.
3, It is extremelyimportantthat the
proper type curve be used depsndent
upon the characteristicof the
reservoir (fracturedor unfractured
well).
4, The applicationof the proper type
curve in conjunctionwith the
Horner plot helps eliminatemis-
interpretationof data and gives
greater degree of confidencein
the analysis.
5. Drillstem”testdata may be easily
misinterpretedwhen the wellbore
storage coefficientchanges during
the test. Under this situation,
the analysis of data by type curve
methods becomes difficultand
therefore,extra precautionsshould
be taken to avoid misinterpretation.
6. Type curves for analyzingdrillstem
test flow period data should be used 5* Van Poollen,H. K. and Weber, J. B.:
wherever applicable.
NOMENCLATURE
formationvolume factor, RB/STB
total system compressibility,psi-l 6. Milner$ E. E. and Warren$ D. A.:
wellbore storage coefficient,
R.B/p
si
dimensionlesswellbore storage o
coefficient
net formationthickness~ft .
P .= initial pressure,psi
P:f = flowing pressuresat time of
shut-in,psi
P. = pressure above the DST value at
time zero, psi
q = flow rate, STB/D
rSw = wellbore radius~ ft
= skin effect factors dimensionless 8. Ramey, H. J., Jr,.: “Short-TimeWell
k = formationpermeability,md
t = flowing time, hours
N = fluid viscosity~ Cp
$ = ~~m~ion porosity,fractionbulk
PD = dimensionlesspressure
tD = dimensionlesstime
c
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to express their
appreciationto the managementof
HalliburtonServices for permission
to publish this paper. Assistanceof
R. W. Litke and J. E. Evans in plotting
numerous drillstemdata is appreciated.
REFERENCES
1. Ramey, H. J., Jr.; Agarwal,R, G,;
and Martin, I.: “Analysisof ‘Slug
Test! or DST Flow Period Data,”
J. Can. Pet. Tech., (July-Sept. ,
1975) 37*
2* Ramey, H. J., Jr.: l?rivate
communicationswith the senior
author.
39 Ramey, H. J., Jr.: Impractical Use
of Modern Well Test Analysis,”
Paper SPE 5878 presentedat SPE
46th Annual CaliforniaRegional
Meeting, Long Beach, April 8-9,
1976.
4. Raghavan,R.: ‘tSomePractical
Considerationsin the Analysisof
Pressure Data,‘fPaper SPE 5876
presentedat SPE 46th Annual
CaliforniaRe ional Meeting, Long
Beach, April f-9, 1976.
“Data Ana2ysis for High Influx
Wells$” Paper SPE 3017 presented
at 45th Annual Fall Meeting,
Houston, Texas, Oct. 4-7, 1970.
“DrillstemTest AnalysisUtilizing
McKinley System of AfterflowDomi-
nated PressureBuildup, Paper SPE
4123 presentedat 47th Annual Fall
Meeting, San Antonio, Oct. 8-11,
1972.
7. Kohlhaas, C. A.: “A Method for
Analyzing PressuresMeasured During
Drillstem - Test Flow Periods,’f
J. Pet. Tech. (Oct., 1972) 1278.
Test Data Interpretationin the
Presence of Skin Effect and Wellbore
~~orage,IIJO pet. Tech- (Jan., 1970)
.
—
 COMPREHENSIVEANALYSIS OF DRILLSTEMTEST DATA
WITH THE AIR O TYPE ”CURVES ““ SPE 6054
9. Agarwal,R, G.; A1-Hussainy,R.; and
Ramey, H. J., Jr.: ‘!AnInvestiga-
tion of Wellbore Storage and Skin
Effect in UnsteadyLiauid F1ow-I.
AnalyticalTreatsn&t,fiSot. Pet.
- (Sept.,1970) 279.
a.o ● McKinley,R. M.: “WellboreTrans-
missibilityfrom Afterflow-Dominated
PressureBuildup Data,” J. Pet. Tech
(July, 1971) 863.

al ● Earlougher,R. C., Jr. and Kersch,

K. M.: llAnalysisof Short-Time
TransientTest Data by Type-Curve
Matching,” J. Pet. T6ch~-(July,
1974) 793.
a2 . Gringarten,A. C.; Ramey, H. J., Jr.
and Raghavan,R.: “Applied Pressure
Analysis for FracturedWells,”
J. Pet. Tech (July, 1975) 887-892.
=3. Maer,N. K., Jr.: “Type Curves for
Analysisof Afterflow-l)ominated
Gas Well Buildup Data,” Paper SPE
5134 presentedat 49th Annual Fall
Meeting,Houston, Texas, Oct. 6-9,
1974*
Z14 ● A1-Hussainy,R.; Ramey, H. J., Jr.;
and Crawford,P. B.: “Application
of Real Gas Flow Theory to Well
Testing and DeliverabilityFore-
~:fing,”J. Pet. Tech. (May, 1966)
.
_.15 Wattenbauger,R. A. and Ramey, H.
●

J., Jr.: “Well-TestInterpretation

of VerticallyFracturedGas Wells,”
J. Pet. Tech; (May, 1969) 625. -
16. Ramey, H. J., Jr.; Kumar, A.; and
Gula}i, M. S;: Gas Well-Anaiysis
Under Water-DriveConditions,
AmericanGas Association,
Arlington,Virginia (1973) 58.

..
_-
 >.
L

Table1 - DataUsedIn Quantitative

Analysis
Valuesusedin Calculation
Results ShownUnder
Parameter Table2 Table3 Table5 Table6 Table7
‘q 37.0 23.9 4.0 248 383
B 1.07 1.0 1.04 1.02 1,28
h 43 19 30 25 26
rw 0.365 0.328 0.328 0.258 0.328
c~ 11 x 10-e 3 x 10-s 8 X 10-G 5 x 10-~ 12 x 10-6
t 1.25 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.017
u 1.4 0.88 2.5 0.78 2.2
# 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Pwf 136 96 96 1882 ~?8
Pi -- -- -- -- 549
P. -- -- -- -. 69

Table2 - Comparison
of ResultsObtainedby Horner
and Different Type Curves when Sufficient
Data was Available
-------------------------Tsme Curves --------
----m-------------
Parameter Corner — Rainey Earlougher-Kersch McKinley

CurveMatch -- S=lo cD@2s = 10’ (T/F)w= 75,000

-- Ap = 1000” psi (AP/At) = 10,000,~
APF = 3.5x 10-2
hr
-. AP 24c =0.38 ~p - 1000 psi
PD = 8.2 ~~
MATCHPOINT ()
-- At = 10 min At = ljO hr

()llr
I I& At = 6.35X 105
-- t; = 2.2 x 102 (T/F)Form. = 250,000
khlp,—md-ft 42.93 45.83 39.80 31.33
kh, red-% 60.10 64.17 55.73 43.87
k, md 1.40 1.49 1.30 1.02
s (calculated) 9*3 “lo
.2 8.3 5.9
 Table 3 - Comparisonof Results Obtainedby
Dit’ferentType Curves (Constant
Wellbore Storage Coefficient)
Type Curve --------------------------
------------------------
‘arameter Ramey Earlougher-Kersch McKinley
ave Match 8=() cD~2s= 10’ (T/F)w= 25,00~
AP = 1000 pSi At=lhr (T/F) Form. = 75,000

ECH POINT
PD= 7.0
()
AP 24c
Em=0*7
kh At
APF = 1.63 X 10-2
T
At = 1.667 hr Tr = 1.9 x 10s
I ()
tD = 1.17 X 104 AP/At = 10,000 psiihr
d~ md-ft
— 23.6 13.2 15.1
Cp
_ md-ft 20.8 11.7 13*3
md 1.09 0.61 0.70
<calculated) -. 1.4 --

Table 4 - Comparisonof Results Obtainedby

DifferentType Curves
---- Average Value of’Permeability,md ------
-— Horner Ramey Earlougher-Kersch McKinley
A 9.0 29.9 16.4 25.5
B 19.1 37.2 35.0 24.2
c 20.9 33.1 25.6 29.0
D 22.8 33.5 34.4 30.6
E 24.0 34.5 29.9 60.0
F 31.2 33.5 34.0 33.1
 Table 5- Comparison of Results Obtained by
Different Type Curves when Insufficient
Data was Available (Changing Wellbore
Storage Coef’flcient)

---.----------------=---Type Curves -----------------------

Parameter Ramey Earlougher-Kersch !?cKinley

Curve Match s-() CDe2s = 10 (T/F)w= 15,000

APF = 3.5 X ]0-2
AP = 1000 pSi (AP/At) = 1000 ~ T
AP 24C = 0.135
MATCH POINT
PD = 2.15
At s 1000 min
()
ET
At=lhr

kb/v,
md-ft
~p
tD = 1.38 x 10’
1.26
()
w At
-ilT
6.2
“1.45
X 10’ (T/F)Vorm. =
2.06
15,000

kh, md-ft 3.16 3.63 5.15

k, md 0.11 0,12 0.17
s (calculated) -- 0.31 --

-Table6 - Results of Type Curve Analysis

(Fractured Formation)

Parameter Value
AP, pSi 1000
At, min 100
pD 1.82
t~ 1.98
Xe/Xf
md-ft 63.7
kb/v, ~
kh, md-ft 49.7
k, md 2.0
s -3*7

.
 Table 7 - Comparisonof ResultsObtatnedby Analyzing ‘m
Flow Period and Closed-InPeriodData

------------------ Type Curves .“---.-”-----”

-----
~rameter (UsinEFig. lf) (UsingFiR. IQ (UsingFIR. lh) HornerMethod
~2s ~~ts ~(jls lo~o .-

Jcf) 37 38 47 --

hr 1.667 1.667 1.667 .-

md-ft 11.6 X 109 11.9 x 10” 14.8 X 10* 8.0 X 108
1P, ~
, md-ft 25.6 X 10’ 26.3 X 10’ 32.5 X 10’ 17*5 x 10*
md 0.98 X 10S 1.01 x 10’ 1.25 X 10’ 0.68 x 10’
12.3 12.3 18.o 9*7
 ... ,:& ,. :$. . . .
.’. .
,. ‘ .: %
,!. ,l, . .
*.
.,. .’. ‘,,
. ..’.

●.vstomltnmAumtsmMtu
tosawmcT(awLiflun

T-lT-T
1
I
I i I am

● .m
L. a /i-
4 I b.*

-SP 10?

Fig.la- Ramey type curve8‘9 for unfractsaredwell

.

,/
/.
7-
/’

r.
v

1-
)-a

10
Flg.lb- McKinley type curve

.
 . ~,. ,
“!

94

.-

Fig.lc- Earlougher-Kersch type curve11

——.- —

b..
—. B

Fig.ld- (.lringarten
et al. type curve12 for fractured well

-.
 mom lo R
‘r ‘ ‘r T
w I

Fig.le- Maer type curve13 well(modifi~d McKinley)

.

‘FFrXN
I I la

Fig.lf- Ramey et al. type curve~ for

analswis of DST flow m?riod data
 ..

.
Flg.lg- Ramey et al. type curveL for analysis oi’DST flow pertod data

I I

ID
‘q
I .-L
to Qo I

Flg.lh- Ramey et al. typecurvel for analyslsof DST flow period data
 Fin. 28 - CONVENTIONAL HORNER PLOT

1
1

Fig. 2b - PLOT F(IR RAMEYTYPE CURVE* (UNFRACTURED WELL)

Io$co

3=10

,.~
I 10
Al. min
 Fia. 2C - PLOT FOR McKINLEY ‘o TYPE CURVE

Fomotloi
Motoh
T/F= 200JXXi

Wallboro Motgh
w= 75,0W

n
) loco R,aoo
4p$pst

-.

o 00
, 0 ., 0
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
000
‘o
0’
0
0
0
0
, CO*4 Id
~oo
‘cl
la
 .

Fin.
-– 3- RAMEY PLOT FOR CONSTANT WELLBORE STORAGE CO-EFFICIENT
10/243(

.
F’”
IOU

Kn
D w
At, min

Fig. 4 a - HORNER PLOT SHOM IG INSUFFICIENT OATA FOR ANALYSIS

@m
I

1400 7

1’200 —
‘“o
0
0
()
T
w

-s
a. cI — —
$=
o
0
600
0
.

4c0 - —

.
-1 10
ttAt
7
 Fig. 4b - PLOT FOR RAMEY TYPE CURVE* (UNFftACTUREU WELL)
.,‘.
..

Fig. 4C - PLOT FOR McK!NLEY TYPE CURVE 10

Formatbn Matoh

1
T/Fs 75,000

)
/-
Wollbwo Mtsh /
TiF=e6@00 “
0°

J
~

Km- )0
 Fia.4d -PLOTFOR EARLOINNIER -KERSCH TYPE RVE ‘ ‘

o
u
0 ~o
00
0 .
0
0
0
00
0
000 2s= *3
co.
Oa

,8
M, hr.

Fig. Sa - HORNER I NSUFFICIENT DATA FOR ANALY!

MO@

moo—
(
)
o
—
Iwo

m -

60 0
:
}

* ‘ —

ax —

Oi
 Fig. Sb - PLOT FOR RAMEY TYPE CURVE
(UNFRACTURED WELL I
to,ooc ..

0
0

la

o
C3C
0
!
0
0’

I 1-
10
At, m!n
100

Iml
Fig.5C - LOT FOR McKINLEY TYPE CURVE ‘o

Fom9tbn =
Welhxo mstch \

.!

a M DO
 ,.

Fit
--9-
5d -
-—
PL~T FOR EARLOU6HER-KERSCM TYPE CURVE
. -- . . . . . -------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . - ------

$Wrt
0? tm nml
@ 6 0
o
0
%30
.
‘(
) C*,41D
0
0
~o 0
o 1) ~
o 00

a ..t 1
At, h?

Fig. 6a - HtlRNER PLOT lNSUFFICIEm DATA FOR ANALYSIS

Fig. 6b - PLOT FOR TYPE CURV~2(FRACTURED WELL) ANALYSIS

Fig. (h - PRESSURE VERSUS SO!jARE ROOT OF SHUT-IN TIME

32Mr~

,.

“t--

Lo La 1.4 1.6

mai
 Fig. 78= HORNER PLOT [BUILDUP DATA)
MO

S60

040

t. 550

Oa r

510

“t
490,
10
t tAt
T

Fig. 7b - FLOW PERIOO DATA FOR TYPE CURVE ANALYSIS USIN6 Fig. 1 f
I

}
I

c ..
o

10 100 moo
4*, da
 Fig. 7C - FLOW PERIOD DATA FOR TYPE CURVE ANALYSIS USING Fig. 1 g

%0

%2

—
tie“
I
fi-

.01
I

Fig. 7d - FLOW PERIOD DATA FOR TYPE CURVE ANALYSIS USING Fig. 1 h
I

-0.1

I a
I
.-

.01
J/

At, min