WELL TESTING

INTRODUCTION
During a well test, the response of a reservoir to changing
production (or injection) conditions is monitored. Since the
response is, to a greater or lesser degree, characteristic of the
properties of the reservoir, it is possible in many cases to infer
reservoir properties form the response.

Well test interpretation is therefore an inverse problem in that

model parameters are inferred by analyzing model response to
a given input.
In most cases of well testing, the reservoir response that is
measured is the pressure response. Hence in many cases
well test analysis is synonymous with pressure transient
analysis. The pressure transient is due to changes in
production or injection of fluids, hence we treat the flow rate
transient as input and the pressure transient as output.

input Reservoir output

perturbation mechanism response

Mathematical
Model input Model output
model
RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION
It is a process of quantitatively predicting reservoir rock and fluid properties
to reduce geological uncertainties and define reservoir spatial variability.
The tools of reservoir characterization are:
1. FORMATION EVALUATION
• Core analysis / petrophysics
• Wireline well logs / Petrophysics
• Well Test Analysis
• MWD (measuring while drilling)
• Borehole Geophysics
2. GEOSTATISTICS
3. SEDIMENTOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION
4. 3D SEISMIC
5. STOCHASTICS MODELING
SCALE
OBJECTIVES
 OBJECTIVES

The objectives of a well test usually fall into three major

categories:

1. Reservoir Evaluation
2. Reservoir management
3. Reservoir description
RESERVOIR EVALUATION

To reach a decision as how best to produce a given reservoir

(or even whether it is worthwhile to spend the money to
produce it at all) we need to know:
• Its deliverability
• Its properties
• Its size

Thus, we will attempt to determine the reservoir conductivity

(kh), initial reservoir pressure and the reservoir boundaries.
At the same time, we will sample the fluids so that their physical
properties can be measured in the laboratory. Also we will
examine the near wellbore conditions in order to evaluate
whether the well productivity is governed by the wellbore
effects (skin or storage) or by the resevoir at large.

The conductivity (kh) governs how fast fluids can flow into the
well. Hence it is a parameter that we need to know to design
well spacing and number or wells.
Reservoir pressure tell us how much potential energy the
reservoir contains and enables us to forecast how long the
reservoir production can be sustained.

Analysis of reservoir limits enables us to determine how much

reservoir fluid is present and to estimate whether the reservoir
boundaries are closed or open.
RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT

During the life of a reservoir, we wish to monitor performance

and well conditions. It is useful to monitor changes in average
reservoir pressure so that we can refine the forecasts of future
reservoir performance.
By monitoring the condition of the wells, it is possible to identify
candidates for workover or stimulation.
RESERVOIR DESCRIPTION

Pressure transmission is an inherentlly diffusive process, and is

governed largely by average conditions rather than by local
heterogeneities, therefore well test can be interpreted to
estimate bulk reservoir properties because they are insensitive
to most local scale heterogeneities.
TYPE OF TESTS
 TYPES OF TEST

• Drawdown test (PDD)

• Buildup test (PBU)
• Injection test
• Fallof test
• Interference test
• Drill stem test (DST)
 DRAWDOWN TEST

In a drawdown test, a well that is static, stable and shut-in is

opened to flow. For the purposes of traditional analysis, the flow
rate is supposed to be constant.
Advantages

It is a good method of reservoir limit testing, since the time

required to observe a boundary response is long, and operating
fluctuations in flow rate become less significant over such long
times.

Disadvantages
• It is difficult to make the well flow at constant rate, even after
it has (more-or- less) stabilized
• The well condition may not initially be either static or stable,
specially if it was recently drilled or had been flowed
previously.
 BUILDUP TEST

In a buildup test, a well which is already flowing (ideally at

constant rate) is shut in, and the downhole pressure measured
as the pressure builds up.
Advantages

The constant flow rate condition is more easily achieved (since

the flow rate is zero).

Disadvantages

• It may be difficult to achieve the constant rate production

prior to the shut in. In particular, it may be necessary to
close the well briefly to run the pressure tool into the hole.
• Production is lost while the well is shut in.
 INJECTION TEST

An injection test is conceptually identical to a drawdown test,

except that flow is into the well rather than out of it.
Advantages

This test can often be controlled more easily than production

rates.

Disadvantages

Analysis of this test can be complicated by multiphase effects

unless the injected fluid is the same as the original reservoir
fluid.
 FALLOFF TEST

A falloff test measures the pressure decline subsequent to the

closure of an injection. It is conceptually identical to a buildup test.

Falloff interpretation is more difficult if the injected fluid is different

from the original reservoir fluid.
 INTERFERENCE TEST

In this test, one well is produced and pressure is observed in a

different well (or wells). An interference test monitors pressure
changes out in the reservoir, at a distance from the original
producing well. Thus an interference test may be useful to
characterize reservoir properties over a greater length scale than
single well test.
Pressure changes at a distance from the producer are very much
smaller than in the producing well itself, so interference test
require sensitive pressure recorders and may take a long time to
carry out.
Interference tests can be used regardless of the type of pressure
change induced at the active well (drawdown, buildup, injection or
falloff).
 DRILL STEM TEST (DST)

It is a test which uses a special tool mounted on the end of the drill
string. It is a test commonly used to test a newly drilled well, since
it can only be carried out while a rig is over the hole. A common
test sequence is to produce, shut in, produce again and shut in
again.
DST can be quit short, since the positive closure of the downhole
valve avoids wellbore storage effects.
CONCEPTS
Matching the model response to the measured reservoir
response we infer that the model parameters take the same
values of the resevoir parameters.
 THE DIFFUSIVITY EQUATION

The fundamental assumption of the diffusivity equation is that

Darcy’s law is valid in all cases and that the liquid flow is laminar.
The diffusivity equation is obtained by combination of the material
balance equation, Darcy’s flow equation and an equation of state.

ur
ur  ur 

well
h

r r
Other assumptions are as follows:
1. The porous media is isotropic, horizontal homogeneous,
uniform in thickness, and has a constant permeability and
porosity.
2. A single-phase fluid is present and occupies the entire pore
volume
3. Viscosity of the fluid remain constant at all pressures
4. The well completely penetrates the formation
5. Gravity forces are negligible
6. Pressure gradients (∂p/∂r)2 are negligibly small
7. Fluid density is governed by the equation of state
The following equation is the diffusivity equation. This partial
differential-type equation is generally written in radial coordinates
as:
𝜕 2 𝑝 1 𝜕𝑝 𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝜕𝑝
2
+ =
𝜕𝑟 𝑟 𝜕𝑟 𝑘 𝜕𝑡
For standard field units (K, md; r, ft; p, psi; t, hr; μ, cp; ct, psi-1; and
ϕ, fraction), the equation becomes:
𝜕2 𝑝 1 𝜕𝑝 𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝜕𝑝 1 𝜕𝑝
+ = =
𝜕𝑟 2 𝑟 𝜕𝑟 0.0002637𝑘 𝜕𝑡 𝜂 𝜕𝑡
Where η is called the hydraulic diffusivity constant (ft2/hr), which is
the transmissivity (Tr=kh/μ) over storativity (St=ϕcth).
Analytical solutions of the diffusivity equation are obtained under
various inner and outer boundary and initial conditions for use in
pressure transient analysis.
In order to obtain universal solution to the difussivity equation, van
Everdingen and Hurst made the following transformations:

PD 
Kh
Pi  Pwf  tD 
0,000264Kt
rD 
r
141.2qB ct rw 2
rw
Where q is a constant flow rate (STB/D), B the formation volume
factor (bbl/STB) and Pi the initial reservoir pressure (psia).
After these transformations are substituted, the diffusivity equation
can be written as:
𝜕 2 𝑝𝐷 1 𝜕𝑝𝐷 𝜕𝑝𝐷
2 + 𝑟 𝜕𝑟 = 𝜕𝑡
𝜕𝑟𝐷 𝐷 𝐷 𝐷

Several solutions to this equation are presented in the petroleum

literature.
The solution most convenient in well test analysis is that for the
case of flow into a well at a constant volumetric rate of production
and located in a porous media of infinite radial extend.
 THE SKIN EFFECT
Often, there is a zone surrounding the well which is invaded by mud filtrate or
cement during the drilling or completion of the well (this zone may have a lower
permeability than the reservoir at large and thereby acts as a “skin” around the
wellbore, causing higher pressure drop).
The pressure drop across the skin Δps is the difference between
the actual pressure in the well when it is flowing, and the pressure
that would have been seen if the well were undamaged
The skin factor is a variable used to quantify the magnitude of the
skin effect. From its definition, we can see that the skin factor is
actually a dimensionless pressure. The skin factor S is defined as:

𝑘ℎ
𝑠= ∆𝑝𝑠
141.2𝑞𝐵𝜇

If we imagine that the skin effect is due to a damaged zone of

radius rs and reduced permeability ks, then the skin effect can be
calculated from:
𝑘 𝑟𝑠
𝑠= − 1 ln
𝑘𝑠 𝑟𝑤
In the case of negative skin (ks > k), the effective wellbore radius,
will be greater than the actual radius. The pressure distribution in
this case would appear as
We can also describe the skin effect in terms of an effective
wellbore radius. This is the smaller radius that the well appears to
have due to the reduction in flow caused by the skin effect. This
effective radius is given by:

𝑟𝑤𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝑟𝑤 𝑒 −𝑠
S Apparent wellbore radius, ft
(rw=0,5 ft)
8 0,000168
4 0,00916
2 0,0677
1 0,184
0 0,5
-1 1,36
-2 3,69
-4 27,3
-8 1490
 PARTIAL PENETRATION SKIN

Skin effect is not always due just to wellbore damage. If a well has
limited entry, or only partially penetrates the formation, then flow
cannot enter the well over the entire producing interval and the
well will experience a larger pressure drop for a given flow rate
than a well that fully penetrates the formation. This geometric
effect gives rise to the partial penetration skin effect.
It is often useful to estimate the size of the partial penetration skin
factor, since it can be substracted from the apparent overall skin to
determine whether the well is actually damaged.
The main factors responsible for skin are:
1. Invasion by drilling fluids
2. Partial well penetration
3. Partial completion
4. Plugging of perforations
5. Organic/inorganic precipitation
6. Improper perforation density or limited perforation
7. Dispersion of clays
8. Presence of mud cake and of cement
9. Presence of high gas saturation around the wellbore
The mechanical skin is the result of a permeability reduction in the
vicinity of the wellbore.
To determine if the value of S is truly mechanical in nature, a
number of situations that can cause an additional pressure loss as
the fluid flows into the wellbore should be considered and, if
possible, minimized prior to the test, including partial penetration,
partial completion, turbulence, etc.

Example 2.1 (Horne)

 PRODUCTIVITY INDEX

The productivity index (J) relates the unit production rate to unit
pressure drawdown and provides a basis for comparison to other
wells, and/or predicting production rates at different flowing
pressures.
The productivity index of a well producing at a constant rate
(damaged, stimulated or undamaged) is mathematically expressed
as:
q q
J actual  
p pi  pwf
If Δps is the pressure change due to skin, then the pressure drop
under ideal conditions ,i.e. S=0, is Δp=(pi-pwf)- Δps
In this case, the ideal productivity index is:
q
J ideal 
pi  pwf  ps
 FLOW EFFICIENCY

A term sometimes used to describe the wellbore damage is flow

efficiency, the ratio of the theoretical pressure drop if no skin had
been present to the actual pressure drop measured during the
test.
It can be used to calculate flow rate that could be achieved if the
wellbore damage were removed (by stimulation) since it is also the
ratio of the ideal (zero skin) flow rate to the actual flow rate.
 J actual pi  pwf  ps ps qactual
EF    1 
J ideal pi  pwf pi  pwf qcero skin

This equation is only valid for a pressure transient in a new

reservoir, such as a DST in an exploratory well.
If the reservoir has been producing for a long period, such that the
reservoir pressure has dropped below the initial value, then the
average reservoir pressure should be used in place of the initial
reservoir pressure.
In practice, flow efficiency is time dependent, not because the well
damage is changing, but simply due to its mathematical definition.
Thus it is not as definitive as parameter as skin factor, which is
constant for all time.
Some company reports list the value of the “damage ratio” instead
of flow efficiency. The damage ratio (DR) is simply the inverse of
flow efficiency.
1
DR 
EF
DR>1 corresponds to positive skin. If the skin factor is negative
then DR<1. If the well is neither stimulated nor damaged, then
S=0 and DR=1.
 WELLBORE STORAGE

Wellbore storage, also called after-flow, after production, after-

injection, and wellbore unloading or loading, has long been
recognized as affecting short-time transient pressure behavior.
For a shut-in well, wellbore storage is the continued influx from a
formation into the wellbore after the well is shut-in.
In the case of a drawdown, it is the wellbore unloading before the
flow from the formation. Large wellbore capacity (such as
horizontal wells) will result into long duration of after-flow.
Usually, only the early data of a pressure transient test are affected
by the wellbore storage.
From a practical viewpoint, wellbore storage increases the time to
reach the infinite-acting straight line portion of the pressure
drawdown curve.
Thus if the test is not run for a long enough period, then the all
important infinite-acting straight line will not be observed and,
therefore the formation permeability cannot be determined.
For a completely fluid-filled wellbore containing a single-phase
fluid, liquid or gas, the expected value of C (wellbore storage) is
given by:

𝐶 = 𝑐𝑤𝑏 𝑉𝑤𝑏

Where cwb is the compressibility of the fluid in the wellbore,

evaluated at the average pressure and temperature of the well,
and Vwb is the total wellbore volume in bbl.
For a wellbore with a rising or falling liquid/gas interface level, the
wellbore storage coefficient may be estimated from:

144𝑉𝑢
𝐶=
𝜌𝑤𝑏
Where ρ is the density of the fluid in the wellbore in lb/ft3 and Vu is
the tubing capacity in bbl/ft.
If the area (ft2) of the wellbore is used instead of the tubing
capacity, this coefficient can also be determined from:

25.64𝐴𝑤𝑏
𝐶=
𝜌𝑤𝑏
q  qsf  qw
Example 2.2 Horne
Wellbore storage is a major nuisance to well test interpretation,
since it disguises the reservoir response until late in the test. One
way to overcome this problem is to measure the flow rates
downhole instead of at a surface.
From material balance, the pressure in the wellbore is directly
proportional to time during the wellbore storage dominated period
of th test:

tD
pD 
CD
On a log-log plot of pressure drop versus time, this gives a
characteristic straight line of unti slope:
The unit slope straight line response continues up to a time given
approximately by:

t D  CD 0.041  0.02s 
However, the storage effect is not over at this time, as there is a
period (roughly one and a half log cycles long) during which the
response udergoes a transition between wellbore response and
reservoir response.
Thus the reservoir response does not begin until a time:

t D  CD 60  3.5s 
Durign the design of a test, care should be taken to ensure that the
test is at least this long.
Example 2.3 Horne
 RADIUS OF INVESTIGATION

It is the distance that a pressure transient has moved into a

formation following a rate change in a well.

2 𝑘𝑡
𝑟𝑖 =
948𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡
DIFUSSIVITY
EQUATION
SOLUTIONS
 Infinite reservoir

Constant pressure at the

external boundary
q = constant 𝑝 → 𝑝𝑖 when r→ ∞

𝑝 → 𝑝𝑖 at r= 𝑟𝑒  p  q 1





 r 
rw 2  kh r Bounded circular
w reservoir

 p 
  0
 
 r  re

re
rw

57
1. Well producing at constant rate from an
infinite reservoir

Constant flow rate

rw
INFINITE
Well
(Internal condition) (External condition)

Initial condition
At t=0, p=pi.

58
THE CONTINUOUS LINE SOURCE SOLUTION

For a constant rate well with a vanishingly small radius rw→0 in an

infinite system, in the absence or wellbore storage and skin
effects, the continuous line source solution to the diffusivity
equation in dimensionless form is:
1 𝑟𝐷2
𝑝𝐷 𝑟𝐷 ,𝑡𝐷 = − 𝐸𝑖 − +𝑆
2 4𝑡𝐷

Where Ei simbolizes the exponential integral and is defined as:

∞ 1 −𝑢
𝐸𝑖 −𝑋 = − 𝑋 𝑢
𝑒 𝑑𝑢
Where u is a variable of integration and X is the Boltzman
transformation variable:

2
𝑟𝐷 948𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡𝑟2
X= =
4𝑡𝐷 𝑘𝑡

Mueller and Witherspoon investigated the validity of the line source

solution in the case of a finite wellbore radius.
They concluded that the line source solution is an excellent
approximation within one percent for all values of rD when (tD/rD ≥25)
The exponential integral function can be accurately calculated, for
any value of X, from the following infinite-series:
∞
−𝑋 𝑛
𝐸𝑖 −𝑋 = 0.577215 + 𝑙𝑛 𝑋 +
𝑛 𝑛!
𝑛=1

For small values of X, (X < 0.01), the exponential integral function

may be approximated, with less than one percent, by a logarithmic
function as follows:

𝐸𝑖 −𝑋 = ln (1.781X)
For real pressure any point in the reservoir located at a distance r
(ft) from a flowing well at constant rate q (STB/D) for a period of
time t (hours):
70.6𝑞𝐵𝜇 948𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝑟 2
𝑝 𝑟,𝑡 = 𝑝𝑖 + 𝐸𝑖 − − 2𝑆
𝑘ℎ 𝑘𝑡

Applying the log approximation to the Ei function, it becomes:

70.6𝑞𝐵𝜇 1688𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝑟 2
𝑝 𝑟,𝑡 = 𝑝𝑖 + 𝑙𝑛 − 2𝑆
𝑘ℎ 𝑘𝑡

At the well:
70.6𝑞𝐵𝜇 1688𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝑟𝑤2
𝑝 𝑟𝑤 ,𝑡 = 𝑝𝑖 + 𝑙𝑛 − 2𝑆
𝑘ℎ 𝑘𝑡
 In terms of log
162.6𝑞𝐵𝜇 𝑘𝑡
𝑝 𝑟,𝑡 = 𝑝𝑖 − 𝑙𝑜𝑔 2 − 3.23 + 0.8686𝑆
𝑘ℎ 𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝑟

At the well:
162.6𝑞𝐵𝜇 𝑘𝑡
𝑝 𝑟𝑤 ,𝑡 = 𝑝𝑖 − 𝑙𝑜𝑔 2 − 3.23 + 0.8686𝑆
𝑘ℎ 𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝑟𝑤

In well test analysis, the continuous line source solution is used as

a fundamental building block to simulate a number of useful
solutions for flow into wells from finite and semi-finite reservoir
systems by means of the principle of superposition.
 -E (-x), 0.000 < x < 0.209, interval = 0.001
Ei i(-X), 0.000 < 0.209, interval - 0.001

X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0,00 6,332 5,639 5,235 4,948 4,726 4,545 4,392 4,259 4,142
0,01 4,038 3,944 3,858 3,779 3,705 3,637 3,574 3,514 3,458 3,405
0,02 3,355 3,307 3,261 3,218 3,176 3,137 3,098 3,062 3,026 2,992
0,03 2,959 2,927 2,897 2,867 2,838 2,81 2,783 2,756 2,731 2,706
0,04 2,681 2,658 2,634 2,612 2,59 2,568 2,547 2,527 2,507 2,487
0,05 2,468 2,449 2,431 2,413 2,395 2,377 2,36 2,344 2,327 2,311
0,06 2,295 2,279 2,264 2,249 2,235 2,22 2,206 2,192 2,178 2,164
0,07 2,151 2,138 2,125 2,112 2,099 2,087 2,074 2,062 2,05 2,039
0,08 2,027 2,015 2,004 1,993 1,982 1,971 1,96 1,95 1,939 1,929
0,09 1,919 1,909 1,899 1,889 1,879 1,869 1,86 1,85 1,841 1,832
0,10 1,823 1,814 1,805 1,796 1,788 1,779 1,77 1,762 1,754 1,745
0,11 1,737 1,729 1,721 1,713 1,705 1,697 1,689 1,682 1,674 1,667
0,12 1,66 1,652 1,645 1,638 1,631 1,623 1,616 1,609 1,603 1,596
0,13 1,589 1,582 1,576 1,569 1,562 1,556 1,549 1,543 1,537 1,53
0,14 1,524 1,518 1,512 1,506 1,5 1,494 1,488 1,482 1,476 1,47
0,15 1,464 1,459 1,453 1,447 1,442 1,436 1,431 1,425 1,42 1,415
0,16 1,409 1,404 1,399 1,393 1,388 1,383 1,378 1,373 1,368 1,363
0,17 1,358 1,353 1,348 1,343 1,338 1,333 1,329 1,324 1,319 1,314
0,18 1,31 1,305 1,301 1,296 1,291 1,287 1,282 1,278 1,274 1,269
0,19 1,265 1,261 1,256 1,252 1,248 1,243 1,239 1,235 1,231 1,227
0,20 1,223 1,219 1,215 1,21 1,206 1,202 1,198 1,195 1,191 1,187

-Ei (-X), 0.00 < X > 2.09, interval = 0.01

0 +∞ 4,038 3,335 2,959 2,681 2,468 2,295 2,151 2,027 1,919

0,1 1,823 1,737 1,660 1,589 1,524 1,464 1,409 1,358 1,309 1,265
0,2 1,223 1,183 1,145 1,110 1,076 1,044 1,014 0,985 0,957 0,931
0,3 0,906 0,882 0,858 0,836 0,815 0,794 0,774 0,755 0,737 0,719
0,4 0,702 0,686 0,67 0,655 0,640 0,625 0,611 0,298 0,585 0,572
0,5 0,560 0,548 0,536 0,525 0,514 0,503 0,493 0,483 0,473 0,464
0,6 0,454 0,445 0,437 0,428 0,420 0,412 0,404 0,396 0,388 0,381
0,7 0,374 0,367 0,360 0,353 0,347 0,340 0,334 0,328 0,322 0,316
0,8 0,311 0,305 0,300 0,295 0,289 0,284 0,279 0,274 0,269 0,265
0,9 0,260 0,256 0,251 0,247 0,243 0,239 0,235 0,231 0,227 0,223
1,0 0,219 0,216 0,212 0,209 0,205 0,202 0,198 0,195 0,192 0,189
1,1 0,186 0,183 0,180 0,177 0,174 0,172 0,169 0,166 0,164 0,161
1,2 0,158 0,156 0,153 0,151 0,149 0,146 0,144 0,142 0,140 0,138
1,3 0,135 0,133 0,131 0,129 0,127 0,125 0,124 0,122 0,120 0,118
1,4 0,116 0,114 0,113 0,111 0,109 0,108 0,106 0,105 0,103 0,102
1,5 0,1000 0,0985 0,0971 0,0957 0,0943 0,0929 0,0915 0,0902 0,0889 0,0876
1,6 0,0863 0,0851 0,0838 0,0826 0,0814 0,0802 0,0791 0,0708 0,0768 0,0757
1,7 0,0747 0,0736 0,0725 0,0715 0,0705 0,0695 0,0685 0,0675 0,0666 0,0656
1,8 0,0647 0,0638 0,0629 0,062 0,0612 0,0603 0,0595 0,0586 0,0578 0,057
1,9 0,0562 0,0554 0,0546 0,0539 0,0531 0,0524 0,0517 0,051 0,0503 0,0496
2,0 0,0489 0,0482 0,0476 0,0469 0,0463 0,0456 0,045 0,0444 0,0438 0,0432

2.0 < X < 10.9, interval = 0.1

X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2 4.89x 10-2 4.26x 10-2 3.72x 10-2 3.25x 10-2 284x 10-2 2.49x 10-2 2.19x 10-2 1.92x 10-2 1.69x 10-2 1.48x 10-2
3 1.30x 10-2 1.15x 10-2 1.01x 10-2 8.94x 10-3 7.89x 10-3 6.87x 10-3 6.16x 10-3 5.45x 10-3 4.82x 10-3 4.27x 10-2
4 3.78x 10-3 3.35x 10-3 2.97x 10-3 2.54x 10-3 2.34x 10-3 2.07x 10-3 1.84x 10-3 1.64x 10-3 1.45x 10-3 1.29x 10-3
5 1.15x 10-3 1.02x 10-3 9.08x 10-4 8.09x 10-4 7.19x 10-4 6.41x 10-4 5.71x 10-4 5.09x 10-4 4.53x 10-4 4.04x 10-4
6 3.60x 10-4 3.21x 10-4 2.86x 10-4 2.55x 10-4 2.28x 10-4 2.03x 10-4 1.82x 10-4 1.62x 10-4 1.45x 10-4 1.29x 10-4
7 1.15x 10-4 1.03x 10-4 9.22x 10-5 8.24x 10-5 7.36x 10-5 6.58x 10-5 5.89x 10-5 5.26x 10-5 4.71x 10-5 4.21x 10-5

Example 1.1 Lee

8 3.77x 10-5 3.37x 10-5 3.02x 10-5 2.70x 10-5 2.42x 10-5 2.16x 10-5 1.94x 10-5 1.73x 10-5 1.55x 10-5 1.39x 10-5
9 1.24x 10-5 1.11x 10-5 9.99x 10-6 8.95x 10-6 8.02x 10-6 7.18x 10-6 6.44x 10-6 5.77x 10-6 5.17x 10-6 4.64x 10-6
10 4.15x 10-6 3.73x 10-6 3.34x 10-6 3.00x 10-6 2.68x 10-6 2.41x 10-6 2.16x 10-6 1.94x 10-6 1.74x 10-6 1.56x 10-6
2. Bounded resevoir (closed) with a well
producing at constant rate

In this situation is possible to find three flow periods:

1. Infinite radial flow
2. Transition (depends on well position)
3. Pseudosteady state

66
Pseudosteady state equation is:
 
 ln 
1 2.2458 A 
p  2π t S
D DA 2  2 
 C Arw 

In field units:

   
 
162 .6qB 
  2 . 2458 A 

 0.2342 qB
p p  log    0.8686 S   t
wf i kh   C r2 
   ct hA
  Aw  

67
68
SHAPE FACTORS FOR VARIOUS SINGLE-WELL DRAINAGE AREAS
Example
3. Resevoir with constant pressure boundaries -
well producing at constant rate

In this situation is possible to find three flow periods:

1. Infinite radial flow
2. Transition (depends on well position)
3. Continuos flow (steady-state)

71
Pseudosteady state equation is:

P ln reD  S
D
In field units:

141.2qB  re 
p  p - ln  S
wf i kh  rw 

Example
72
 PRINCIPLE OF
SUPERPOSITION
This approach makes it possible to construct reservoir response
functions in complex situations, using only simple basic models.
Superposition is especially useful in well test analysis, since we
can use it to represent the response due to several wells by
adding up the individual well responses.
By appropiate choice of flow rate an well location, we can also
represent various reservoir bondaries.
In addition, we can use superposition in time to determine the
reservoir response to a well flowing at variable rate, by using only
constant rate solutions.
The principle of superposition is very simple. It says that the
response of the system to a number of perturbations is exactly
equal to the sum of the rersponses to each of the perturbations as
if they were present by themselves.

Well A

rAC rAB

Well C Well B
Consider three wells A,B,C as is shown in the previous slide. They
start to produce at the same time from an infinite reservoir.
Application of superposition shows that:

𝑝𝑖 − 𝑝𝑤𝑓 = 𝑝𝑖 − 𝑝 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝐴

𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛 𝐴

+ 𝑝𝑖 − 𝑝 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝐵

+ 𝑝𝑖 − 𝑝 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝐶
 2
70.6𝑞𝐴 𝐵𝜇 1688𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝑟𝑤𝐴
𝑝𝑖 − 𝑝𝑤𝑓 =− 𝑙𝑛 − 2𝑆𝐴
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛 𝐴 𝑘ℎ 𝑘𝑡

2
70.6𝑞𝐵 𝐵𝜇 948𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝑟𝐴𝐵
- 𝑘ℎ 𝐸𝑖 −
𝑘𝑡

2
70.6𝑞𝐶𝐵𝜇 948𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝑟𝐴𝐶
- 𝑘ℎ 𝐸𝑖 −
𝑘𝑡
 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLE OF
SUPERPOSITION IN BOUNDED RESERVOIRS

Well near to a fault

REAL PROBLEM SUPERPOSITION

Fault
Real well Real well Image well
L L L

No flow line

p  p  
i wf  70.6
qB   1688ct rw2 
ln
kh  

  2S   70.6
qB   948ct 2 L  
Ei 
2


kt   kh  kt 

78
 Well near to a constant pressure boundary

REAL PROBLEM SUPERPOSITION

Real well Constant Real well Image well

pressure
L L L

Constant pressure

p  p   qB   1688ct rw2   qB   948ct 2 L  

2

i wf  70.6 ln   2S   70.6 Ei  


kh   kt   kh  kt 

79
 Well near to two intercepting faults

REAL PROBLEM SUPERPOSITION

Image well Image well

by
by
bx
Real well
Real well bx Image well

360
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑠 =
𝜃
80
 Well in a bounded reservoir (rectangular)

REAL PROBLEM SUPERPOSITION

Imag e Imag e Imag e

Real Imag e
Imag e

Imag e Imag e Imag e

81
 Time superposition – Multirate tests

q1
Well1

q2
q1
q3 q2-q1
Well 2

t1 t2
t1

t2
What is the wellbore pressure
Well 3
at t>t2 ? q3-q2

82
The first contribution to a drawdown in reservoir pressure is by a
well producing at rate q1 starting at t=0.

q1 B   1688ct rw2  
p  p 
i wf   70.6 
kh  
ln   2S 

1 kt 

Starting at time t1, the new total rate is q2. We introduce a well 2,
producing at rate (q2-q1) starting at t1, so that the total rate after t1
is the requiered q2

 pi  pwf 2   70.6  
q2  q1 B   1688ct rw 
2

ln   2S 
kh   k t  t1   

83
 Similarly, the contribution ot a third well is:
q3  q2 B   1688ct rw2  
 pi  pwf 3   70.6 kh ln k t  t    2S 
  2  

Thus, the total drawdown for the well with two changes in rate is:

q1 B   1688ct rw2  
 70.6 ln   2S 
kh   kt  
p  p  
i wf
q2  q1 B   1688ct rw2  
 70.6 ln   2S 
kh   k t  t1   
q3  q2 B   1688ct rw2  
 70.6 ln   2S 
kh   k t  t2    84
 Example (1.5 Lee)
A flowing well is completed in a reservoir that has the following
properties:

k= 25 md =16% B=1.32 bb/STB

pi= 2500 psi µ= 0.44 cp ct= 18E-6/psi
h= 43 ft

What will the pressure drop be in a shut-in well 500 ft from the
flowing well when the flowing well has been shut in for 1 day
following a flow period of 5 days at 300 STB/D?

85