SPE-188664-MS

Pressure Build-Up Test Interpretation Studies: Models, Numerical

Simulation, and Field Test in the Huabei Oilfield

Y. Miao, X. Li, and Y. Zhou, China University of Petroleum; H. Li, Texas A&M University; J. Shi and Y. Chen, China
University of Petroleum

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 13-16 November 2017.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Accurate pressure build-up test interpretation technologies for both conventional and unconventional
reservoir development have been highly applied in oil and gas industries in recent years. However, for the
late development stage of wells, current well test interpretation methods lose their accuracy to characterize
fluid flow behavior and fracture properties etc. due to the complex underground situation and interference
among adjacent wells. Novel pressure build-up test interpretation methods should be developed with the
incorporation of these effects.
We developed a novel model to interpret formation pressure and formation physical properties, during the
process of pressure build-up test, by incorporating stress interference among adjacent wells and two-phase
flow of oil/water directly into the model. Trial approach was utilized to iteratively correct average formation
pressure and permeability of oil and water phase, depending on the complexity of well interference systems.
A simulation was developed based on this semi-analytical model which is capable of interpreting formation
pressure and formation physical properties during the process of pressure build-up with much higher
accuracy compared with traditional methods.
A numerical simulation in Eclipse was utilized to validate our model. Our interpretation results, including
formation pressure, skin factor and permeability etc., are in fair agreement with the numerical simulation. We
applied our model to conduct pressure build-up interpretation tests for testing wells in the Huabei Oilfield,
and the precision of our model can reach up to 35.15% which has greater accuracy compared with traditional
methods.
This novel model exhibits high efficiency and accuracy for pressure build-up test interpretation for the
case with interference among adjacent wells and oil and water two-phase flow. This work provides an
effective framework for pressure build-up test interpretation in fractured reservoir development.

Introduction
Well testing method is one of frequently-used dynamic monitoring methods in oil and gas field development.
Based on fluid mechanisms in porous media and different kinds of testing tools, well test analysis aims to
obtain physical properties and connected relations of oil, gas, water layers as well as the testing well by
2 SPE-188664-MS

monitoring the production performance of oil-gas wells. Well testing interpretation methods of production
wells mainly inherit from the interpretation methods of exploration wells, which uses conventional methods
of analysis and modern well test interpretation methods to obtain average formation pressure and formation
parameters by the computers and well testing software.
The common methods acquiring formation pressure mainly include Horner (Horner 1951; Perrine 1956),
MDH (Miller et al. 1950; Hu 1995), MBH (Matthews et al. 1954), Dietz (Dietz 1965), modified Muskat
(Hu 1994; Larson 1963; Yu et al. 2009) and Chen method (Chen 1988). The formation parameters are
mainly acquired by fitting actual well testing curves with theoretical template of double logarithm derivative
curves of pressure verse time. In this study of MDH method (Miller et al. 1950), in order to compare
the effects of extremes in the conditions existing at the external boundary of the reservoir, two general
equations defining the build-up characteristics of the reservoir are shown. It indentidifies reservoirs with
constant pressure maintained at the radius of drainage or with no influx over the radius of drainage. These
equations define the build-up characteristics for the shut-in well as functions of time, the permeability
and porosity of the drainage area, the viscosity and compressibility of the fluid flowing, the production
rate prior to shut-in, and the radius of drainage of the well. For the MBH method (Matthews et al. 1954),
the average pressure in a bounded reservoir is obtained. The reservoir is first divided into the individual
drainage volumes of each well, by using the criterion that at steady state each individual drainage volume is
proportional to a well's production rate. The average pressure in each drainage volume is then calculated by
volumetrically averaging these individual drainage volume pressures. The Dietz method (1965) can, with
a slight modification, also be used for water-drive reservoirs. The Larson method (1963) is to obtain static
pressure from build-up curves. In his study, a re-examination of the technique, accounting more rigorously
for fluid compressibility, shows why the early part of the Muskat pressure plot actually curves upward, so
that it sometimes seems to give unsatisfactory results. A straight line, indicating a correct static-pressure
guess, should be expected only for later data; however, the time at which the line stops curving can be
estimated simply. The reservoir transmissibility and expansibility also can be obtained from the plot.
During the late stage of oil field development, usually not being shut in to conduct the reservoir
dynamic monitoring. However, the present methods (Shahbazi et al. 2016; Bottomley et al. 2016; Azamifard
et al. 2016; Zhao et al. 2015; Al-Shukaily et al. 2011; Cheng et al. 2003; Liu et al. 2004; Ai et al.
2007; Lu et al. 2013; Zenith 2015) are mainly based on the early development stage and not injection-
production environment. Moreover, for the real production process, the pressure distribution among
injection-production wells is mutual interference(Lee 1982; Wu 2016; Ge 1982; Jiang 2006), and the
influence of interference well around the testing well in the current interpretation method is not considered,
so interpretation results are with some errors.
Therefore, under the situation of one injection well and several production wells, depending on
the pressure build-up test of wells, we proposed a new method to conduct the pressure build-up test
interpretation by incorporating both the interference among adjacent wells and oil-water two phase flow.

A Method for Production Well Pressure Build-up Test Interpretation under

the Situation of one Injection Well and Several Production Wells
Model Construction
We assume that, for the homogeneous and uniform thickness infinite formation, only one well belongs to
injection well and several wells are the production wells. The number of production wells is "n" and the
number of test well is "0". The number of other production wells is "j", which begins from "2" to "n". The
well spacing between the test well and injection well (or other production wells) is "dj". The formation
thickness is "h", initial formation pressure is "pi", total formation compression factor is "Ct", conductivity is
"η", formation permeability is "k", average oil saturation is "Sw", oil and water relative permeability is "kro"
SPE-188664-MS 3

and "krw", oil and water viscosity is "μo" and "μw", stable production of test well before shut-in is "Qo", and
production/injection volume of other production wells and injection well is "Qoj", "Qw". Then we assume
that the test well is shut-in after producing the time of "tp" with stable production. At this time, the injection
time of injection well is "tin", and production time of other production wells are "tpj". The injection well
continues to inject after the test well is shut-in, and other production wells are still produced.
Then we derive by relative formulas from flow mechanisms through porous media. The calculation
equations of bottom-hole pressure of test well with "Δt" shut-in time are obtained, which is shown in Eq. 1.

(1)

Next, we transform it into the units of well test system with 10 logs base, presenting it in Eq. 2.

(2)

The expression formulars of "ηw" and "ηo" are respectively,

(3)

The derivation form of the Eq. 2 is,

(4)

Then Eq. 4 is arranged and yields,

4 SPE-188664-MS

(5)

The Calculation Method of Formation Permeability

We define the pressure build-up velocity as "Y". Based on the Eq. 2, the vertical axis is described as "Y"

and the horizontal axis is " ". Then it will occur a straight line in the

rectangular coordinates, which determines the formation permeability "k" depending on the slope "M" of
the straight line.

(6)

Or we take "Y" as vertical axis and "lg " as horizontal axis. In the

rectangular coordinates, it will occur a straight line with the slope "1". Then the formation permeability "K"
is obtained by the intercept "N" of the line.

(7)

The process can be solved by the trial method, which is explicitly explained in the following. Firstly, on
the basis of the logging permeability, the horizontal axis is determined. Then the permeability is obtained
by fitting the straight line. If the results of permeability and logging permeability are not in agreement with
the accuracy requirement (ε<10−3), we will take the calculated permeability into the horizontal axis and refit
to fulfill the permeability with precision requirements.
SPE-188664-MS 5

The Calculation Method of Skin Factor

The build-up test pressure formulas of production well under the situation of one injection well and several
production wells are described in Eq. 8.

(8)

If the injection well and production wells around the test well are opened for a long time, the expansion
form of "-Ei(-x)" is adopted.

(9)

If x≥3.2, the value of-Ei(-x) is less than 0.01 and the interference of adjacent wells is very little, which
will be neglected. So "x=3.2" is selected as the critical condition whether considering the inference or not.
If x≤3.2, we can take the front 12 items of "-Ei(-x)", which ensures that the absolute error is less than
6.4×10−4 and relative error is less than 6.3%.
If x≤0.6, the front 4 items of "-Ei(-x)" will be retained.
If x≤0.3, the front 3 items of "-Ei(-x)" will be considered.
If x≤0.01, we can take the front 2 items of "-Ei(-x)", whose absolute error is less than 0.01. This satisfies
the engineering calculation.
If the injection well and production wells around the test well are opened for a long time, determining
Δt=1h, the Eq. 8 will be simplified as,

(10)

The calculation formula of skin factor is,

(11)

The Calculation Method of Average Formation Pressure

When the test well reaches the quasi-stable state (t=tp+Δt), the relationship of average pressure and bottom-
hole pressure will be indentified in Eq. 12.

(12)

After the test well is shut-in, the injection well is still injecting and other production wells are still
producing. The pressure formula of test well at the time "tp+Δt" is,
6 SPE-188664-MS

(13)

where, "tp" is the production time of the test well before shut-in, "tin" is the injection time of the injection
well before the test well is shut-in, "tpj" is the production time of other production wells before the test well
is shut-in, and "Δt" is shut-in time of the test well.
Then taking the Eq. 13 into Eq. 12 yeilds,

(14)

The above formula is the calculation formula of average formation pressure during the quasi-stable state
period.

Application Examples
To verify the accuracy of our models, the numerical simulation technology "Eclipse" is employed, where the
geology model is constructed under the situation of one injection well and three production wells (Figure
1). Depending on the method we proposed in this paper, we conduct the interpretation and contrast it with
interpretation results from the modern well testing interpretation software. Furthermore, the reasonableness
of the interpretation method derived in this paper was verified.

Figure 1—The numerical simulation model of 1 injection well and 3 production wells.
SPE-188664-MS 7

The main parameters we utilized in the Eclipse software are shown in Table 1. A production well "OIL1"
was conducted the shut-in build-up test for 240 hours at April in 2015, which produces 50m3/d stable volume
for 8760 hours before shut-in. The distance between the injection well "WATER" and the test well is 300m,
which is 200m3/d stable production for 10920 hours. The distance between the interference well "OIL2"
and the test well is 424m, which is 50m3/d stable production for 10200 hours. The distance between the
disturb well "OIL3" and the test well is 300m, which is 50m3/d stable production for 9480 hours.

Table 1—Basic parameters in the Eclipse.

Formation Formation Formation

Porosity Drainage area(m2) Wellbore radius(m)
thickness(m) permeability(mD) pressure(MPa)

10 50 0.15 4521600 30 0.1

Oil viscosity(mPa·s) Water viscosity(mPa·s) Oil volume Water volume Total compression Initial water saturation
factor(m3/m3) factor(m3/m3) factor(MPa−1)

5 0.5 1.01 1 0.00026 0.2

The Figure 2 and Figure 3 are respectively the matching data by the radial composite model and
homogeneous model from the modern well test interpretation software. The interpretation results of
parameters are shown in the Table 2. It can be seen that the modern well test software interpretation results
are with big errors for the value of permeability, which illustrates that the modern well test software is
limited in the application of well test interpretation that the test well is interferenced. Additionally, it could
not provide the value of average formation pressure.

Figure 2—Matching data by Radial Composite model in modern well test interpretation software.
8 SPE-188664-MS

Figure 3—Matching data by Homogeneous model in modern well test interpretation software.

Table 2—Comparison between interpretation results by the proposed model and those by the modern well test software.

Parameters Permeability/D Average formation pressure/MPa

Numerical simulation parameters 0.05 29.68

Interpretation results by our software 0.048 29.24

Interpretation results by current software 0.029 28.32

Then we use the method we proposed in this paper to interpret parameters for this well. As shown in
Figure 4, the values of permeability, skin factor and the relationship between average formation pressure
and time during the quasi-stable state period are acquired, which presents that the fitting effect is good
and the differences of interpretation results (Table 2) between our method and numerical simulation model
parameters are very small. Accordingly, our test well interpretation results are reliable and our method
reasonable.
Furthermore, an actural field case from the Huabei Oilfield is adopted to validate the proposed model
in this paper. Figure 5 shows that a production well named "Z41-5" is conducted a well test interpretation
by the buildup well test under the situation of one injection well and multiple production wells, which is
introduced in this paper. The constant rate of the well "Z41-5" is 10m3/d and the constant production time is
2100hr. The well "Z41-5" was shut down in Sep. 2nd 2005 and began the buildup well test. The interfering
injection well "Z41-24" is 145m away from the testing well "Z41-5", which produces 1540hr with the
constant flow rate 8.1m3/d. Figure 7 shows the interpretation results of this injection well, from which,
the values of permeability, skin factor, average reservoir pressure and other parameters can be obtained.
Compared with the log-log overlay plot of the modern well tese interpretation software, whose results are
shown in Table 3 and Figure 6. The model selected by our software is more accurate and better fitting and
the parameter values calculated by our software is better agreement with the actual field (Table 4).
SPE-188664-MS 9

Figure 4—Matching data by the interpretation model considering multiple wells interference.

Figure 5—Top structure map of well group "Z41-5".

Figure 6—Log-log overlay plot of well "Z41-5" by existing well test software.
10 SPE-188664-MS

Table 3—Selecting matching model of existing well test software for the well "Z41-5".

Character Type Model Character

Reservoir Type Homogeneous Formation

Internal Boundary Effective Radius

Wellbore Storage Skin Factor Constant

External Boundary Infinite

Figure 7—Well test fitting figure of well "Z41-5" considering the interference of adjacent wells.

Table 4—Results comparison of well "Z41-5" between the proposed software and modern well test interpretation software.

Parameters Interpretation results by our software Interpretation results by current software

Permeability / D 0.156 0.29

Average Formation Pressure/ MPa 31.22 26.86

Skin factor −3.00 −2.48

Results
• By fully considering the effect of interference among adjacent0 wells and oil-water two-phase
flow, a new well-test interpretation method of pressure build-up test under the situation of one
injection well and several production wells was construct. The interpretation parameters include:
permeability, skin factor, and formation pressure under quasi-stable state period.
• Numerical simulation cases from "Eclipse" verify that the modern well test intepretation software
is limited for the test wells with interference, whose interpretation results exist big errors. However,
the differnence of interpretation results by the approach we proposed in this paper is very small,
SPE-188664-MS 11

which illustrates that our interpretation model considering well interference is reasonable and
reliable.
• Our model was applied to conduct pressure build-up interpretation tests for testing wells in the
Huabei Oilfield. The precision of our model can reach up to 35.15% which has greater accuracy
compared with traditional methods.

References
Ai, C., Feng, F., and Li, H. 2007. The Present Situation and Development Trend of Formation Pressure Prediction
Technology. Petroleum Geology and Engineering, 06(21):71–73.
Al-Shukaily, and Alwaleed, R. 2011. Evolution of Well-Testing Methods and Multi-Phase Metering Techniques in Gas
Condensate Fields in Central Oman. Paper IPTC-15272 presented at International Petroleum Technology Conference,
Bangkok, Thailand, 15-17 November. DOI: 10.2523/IPTC-15272-MS.
Azamifard, A., Hekmatzadeh, M., and Dabir, B. 2016. Evaluation of Gas Condensate Reservoir Behavior Using Velocity
Dependent Relative Permeability During the Numerical Well Test Analysis. Petroleum, 2: 156–165.
Bottomley, W., Schouten, J., McDonald, E., and Cooney, T. 2016. Novel Well Test Design for the Evaluation of Complete
Well Permeability and Productivity for CSG Wells in the Surat Basin. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering,
33:1002–1009.
Chen, Y. 1988. Using Typical Curve Fitting to Determine Formation Pressure. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 01(9):67–74.
Cheng, S., Tang, E., and Li, X. 2003. The Review of Well Testing Analysis's Progress and Development Trend. Well
Testing, 01(12):66–68.
Dietz, D.N. 1965. Determination of Average Reservoir Pressure From Build-Up Surveys. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 17(8): 955–959.
Horner, D.R. 1951. Pressure Buildup in Wells. Proc, Third World Pet. Cong, The Hague See. II:503–523.
Ge, J. 1982. Fluid Mechanics in Porous Media. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Publishing.
Hu, J. 1994. A New Method to Acquire Formation Pressure Using Extended Muskat Method.Well testing, 02:51–56.
Hu, J. 1995. A Simple Method to Determine Average Formation Pressure Using MDH Method. Petroleum Geology &
Oil Field Development in Daqing, 01:39–42.
Jiang, H. 2006. Reservoir Engineering Methods. China University of Petroleum Publishing.
Larson, V.C. 1963. Understanding the Muskat Method of Analyzing Pressure Build-up Curves. Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology 03:136–141. PETSOC-63-03-05. DOI: 10.2118/63-03-05.
Lee, J. 1982. Well testing. Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME.
Liu, Y., Zhang, Q., and Sun, B. 2004. The Development of Well Testing Theory and Application. Well Logging Technology,
S1:69–74.
Lu, X., Xu, L., Peng, J., and Guo, X. 2013. The Present Situation and Development Trend of Formation Pressure Prediction
Method. West-China Exploration Engineering, 01:69–70.
Matthews, C.S., Brons, F., and Hazebroek, P. 1954. A Method for Determination of Average Pressure in a Bounded
Reservoir. Petroleum Transactions, AIME, 201:182–191.
Miller, C.C., Dyes, A.B., and Hutchinson C.A.Jr. 1950. The Estimation of Permeability and Reservoir Pressure From
Bottom Hole Pressure Build-Up Characteristics. Journal of Petroleum Technology 2(4): 91–104. SPE-950091-G. DOI:
10.2118/950091-G.
Perrine, R. L. 1956. Analysis of Pressure-buildup Curves. Drilling and Production Practice.
Shahbazi, Sh., Maarefvand, P., and Gerami, Sh. 2016. Transient Pressure Test Analysis of Horizontal Wells in Gas
Condensate Reservoirs: Evaluation of Conventional Multi-Phase Pseudo-Pressure Solutions. Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engineering, 145: 668–688.
Wu, Y. 2016. Multiphase Fluid Flow in Porous and Fractured Reservoirs. Gulf Professional Publishing.
Yu, X., Huang, Q., Yin, L., and Sun, L. 2009. A New Method to Calculate Average Formation Pressure: Further Discussion
of Muscat Curve. Foreign Oilfield Engineering, 03:17–20.
Zenith, F., Foss, B. A., Tjønnås, J., & Hasan, A. I. 2015. Well Testing by Sinusoidal Stimulation. SPE Journal 03: 441–451.
SPE-174552-PA. DOI: 10.2118/174552-PA.
Zhao, X., Rui, Z., and Liao, X. 2015. A Simulation Method for Modified Isochronal Well Testing to Determine Shale Gas
Well Productivity. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 27: 479–485.