Well Test Analysis and Design PDF

Types and Purposes of Well Tests
❖ Pressure transient tests
▪ We generate and measure pressure changes with time
❖ Deliverability tests
❖Well controlled production
❖ (Production Analysis)
▪ Use of production data for goals usually achieved by well testing

Goals of pressure transient tests
(PTA)
❖ to quantify important reservoir rock, and fluid properties
▪ permeability, porosity and average reservoir pressure
❖ to locate and identify reservoir heterogeneities
▪ sealing faults, natural fractures, and layers
❖ to characterize near wellbore and wellbore conditions
▪ affected by drilling and completion operations
Production data analysis
❖ Reservoir properties (permeability, skin
factor, fracture half-length, etc).
❖ Reservoir pore volume (estimated using
long-term production performance).
❖ Estimated ultimate recovery (EUR)—movable
fluid volumes.
PTA: Single-Well Tests
❖ one well in which the pressure response is measured
following a rate change.
❖ pressure buildup test
▪ shut in after controlled production
❖ drawdown or flow test
▪ (specific drawdown tests: are called reservoir limits
tests)
❖ pressure falloff test
▪ similar to a pressure buildup test, except it is,
conducted on an injection well
❖ injectivity test
▪ Inject into the well at measured rate and measure
pressure as it increases with time
▪ analogous to pressure drawdown testing.
PTA: Multiwell Tests
❖ Flow rate is changed in one well
❖ Pressure response is measured in one or more other
wells
❖ Directional variations of reservoir properties
(orientation of natural fractures)
❖ Presence or lack of communication between two
points in the reservoir
❖ Ratio of the porosity-compressibility products of the
matrix and fracture systems
Multiwell tests:
❖ Interference tests
▪ The active well is produced at a measured, constant
rate throughout the test
▪ (Other wells in the field must be shut in so that any
observed pressure response can be attributed to the
active well only.)
❖ Pulse tests
▪ The active well produces and then, is shut in, returned
to production and shut in again
▪ Repeated but with production or shut-in periods rarely
exceeding more than a few hours
▪ Produces a pressure response in the observation wells
which usually can be interpreted unambiguously (even
when other wells in the field continue to produce)
Deliverability tests (DT)
❖ production capabilities of a well under
specific reservoir conditions
❖ primarily for gas wells
❖ absolute openflow (AOF) potential
❖ inflow performance relationship (IPR) or gas

backpressure curve
DT: Flow-After-Flow Tests
(referred to as gas backpressure or four-point tests)
❖ producing the well at a series of different stabilized

flow rates
❖ measuring the stabilized bottomhole flowing

pressure at the sandface
❖ typically, with a sequence of increasing flow rates

DT: Single-Point Tests
❖ low-permeability formations
❖ flowing the well at a single rate until the bottomhole flowing
pressure is stabilized
▪ required by many regulatory agencies
▪ requires prior knowledge of the well's deliverability
behavior
▪ (from previous testing or from correlations with other wells
producing in the same field under similar conditions)

DT: Isochronal Tests
❖ Specifically, the isochronal test is a series of single-
point tests developed to estimate stabilized
deliverability characteristics without actually flowing
the well for the time required to achieve stabilized
conditions
❖ The isochronal test is conducted by alternately
producing the well, then shutting in the well and
allowing it to build up to the average reservoir
pressure prior to the beginning of the next production
period.
General Test Design
Considerations
❖ If properly designed and implemented, a well test can
provide much useful information about both
individual wells and the reservoir
❖ In general, the goals of a well test are not only to

obtain sufficient. data to meet the stated objectives,
but also to accomplish these tasks in a timely and
inexpensive manner
Issues
❖ Development Wells vs. Exploration Wells
❖ Producing Wells vs. Injection Wells
❖ Shallow Wells vs. Deep Wells
❖ Stimulated Wells vs. Unstimulated Wells
❖ Effects of Reservoir Properties
❖ Low Permeability vs. High Permeability Formations
❖ Single Zones vs. Multiple Zones
❖ Safety and Environmental Considerations
❖ Sweet Gas vs. Sour and Corrosive Gases
❖ Other environmental Concerns
Production data analysis
❖ Reservoir properties (permeability, skin
factor, fracture half-length, etc).
❖ Reservoir pore volume (estimated using
long-term production performance).
❖ Estimated ultimate recovery (EUR)—movable
fluid volumes.
Ideal Reservoir Model
❖ Based on diffusivity equation, which, to
achieve objective, combines
▪ Law of conservation of mass
▪ Darcy’s law
▪ Equation of state
❖ Simplifying assumptions introduced as
needed
Wellbore
 p
2
1 p  c t p
+ =
r 2 r r 0.000264k t
Compressibility of total system
(small and independent of pressure)
 p
2
1 p ct p
+ =
r 2 r r 0.000264k t
Permeability
(constant and isotropic)
Porosity Viscosity
(constant) (independent of pressure)
 p
2
1 p ct p
+ =
r 2 r r 0.000264k t
Hydraulic diffusivity , 1

 p
2
1 p ct p
+ =
r 2 r r 0.000264k t
Solution to Diffusivity Equation
❖ Assume that:
▪ Well produces at constant rate, qB
▪ Well has zero radius
▪ Reservoir is at uniform pressure, pi, before
production begins
▪ Well drains an infinite area (p→ pi as r→∞)
 2
qB  − 948ct r 
p = pi + 70.6 Ei
kh  kt 
 
Pressure at distance r
from well at time t
 2
qB  − 948ct r 
p = pi + 70.6 Ei
kh  kt 
 
 e −u
Ei ( − x ) = −
 x u
du
Ei function
 e −u
Ei ( − x ) = −

x u
du
❖ Accurate approximation for
3.79 x10 5
ct rw
2
948ct re2
t
k k
 e −u
Ei ( − x ) = −
 x u
du
❖ Simplification with negligible error, when
x < 0.01
Ei (− x ) = ln(1.781 x )
Altered Zone and Skin Factor
❖ Most wells have damage near wellbore
▪ Results from drilling or completion
operations
❖ Other wells stimulated by acidizing or
hydraulic fracturing
 2
qB  − 948ct r 
p = pi + 70.6 Ei
kh  kt 
 
• Fails to properly model damaged wells
• Includes explicit assumption of uniform
permeability throughout drainage area up to
wellbore
qB  ra  qB  ra 
ps = 141.2 ln   − 141.2 ln  
ka h  rw  kh  rw 
qB  k   ra 
ps = 141.2  − 1 ln  
kh  ka   rw 
p
ΔpS
pw
rw
rs
r
❖ Solution to the diffusivity equation:
 2
qB  − 948ct r 
p = pi + 70.6 Ei
kh  kt 
 
 2 
qB  948ct r w 
pi − pwf = −70.6 Ei − + p s
kh  kt 
 
where
qB  k   ra 
ps = 141.2  − 1 ln  
kh  ka   rw 
❖ For r = rw , average of Ei function is so small
that logarithmic approximation can be used,
so drawdown is:
qB   1688ct rw2   k   ra 

pi − pwf = −70.6 ln   − 2 − 1 ln  
kh   kt   k a   rw 
❖ Dimensionless skin factor in terms of
equivalent altered zone:
 k   ra 
s =  − 1 ln 
 ka   rw 
• Thus drawdown is:
qB   1688c r 2  
pi − pwf = −70.6 
ln t w
− 2s
kh   kt  

Algebraic sign of skin factor
 k   ra 
s =  − 1 ln 
 ka   rw 
(ka<k) The greater the difference
between ka and k, the larger s is
S
-∞ 0 ∞
❖ If a well is:
▪ Damaged, s will be positive
 k   ra 
s =  − 1 ln 
 ka   rw 
(ka>k) The deeper the stimulation treatment,
the larger |s| is
S
-∞ 0 ∞
❖ If a well is:
▪ Stimulated, s will be negative
 k   ra 
s =  − 1 ln 
 ka   rw 
(ka=k) S
-∞ 0 ∞
❖ If a well is:
▪ Stimulated, s will be negative
▪ Neither damaged nor stimulated, s = 0
Effect of skin on calculated p
❖ At wellbore radius, use
qB   1688c r 2  
pi − pwf = −70.6 ln t w

− 2s
kh   kt  
❖ Outside altered zone, use
qB   − 948 c r 2
p = pi + 70.6 Ei t 
kh  kt 
 
Altered zone affects only pressure near the well.
Skin Factor Estimates
Type of Stimulation or Completion Skin
Natural completion 0
Small acid treatment -1
Intermediate acid treatment -2
Large acid or small fracture treatment -3
Intermediate fracture treatment -4
Large fracture treatment in
lowpermeability reservoir -6
Very large fracture treatment in
lowpermeability reservoir -8
IT Flow and Rate-Dependent Skin
s = s + Dq
Radius of Investigation
❖ Distance a pressure transient has moved into
formation following rate change in well
2000
t=0 ri ri ri ri
t = 0.01 hr
t = 1 hr
Pressure,
psi
t = 100 hr
t = 10,000 hr
1000
1 10 100 1000 10,000
Distance from center of wellbore, ft
❖ Radius of investigation for a given time t :
kt
ri =
948ct
• Time required to reach a given radius of

investigation ri :
948ct ri2
t=
k
Pseudosteady-State Flow
❖ Constant rate
❖ Cylindrical drainage area
❖ Begins at t = 948 c r
t e
2
k
qB  0.000527kt  re  3 
pwf = pi − 141.2  + ln   − 
kh  c r
t e
2
 rw  4 
❖ Replace original reservoir pressure, pi ,
with average pressure, p
V 5.615qB( t / 24) 0.0744qBt

pi − p = = =
c tV (
c t re h
2
) c t hre2
Pressure decrease resulting from removal

of qB RB/D of fluid for t hours
0.0744qBt 0.0744qBt qB   re  3 

pwf = p + − − 141.2 ln   − 
ct hre2 ct hre2 kh   rw  4 
qB   re  3 
= p − 141.2 ln   − 
kh   rw  4 
❖ Equations more useful if they include skin
factors to account for damage or stimulation
qB   re  3 
p − pwf = 141.2 ln   −  + (p) s
kh   rw  4 
qB   re  3 
p − pwf = 141.2 ln   − + s 
kh   rw  4 
❖ and
qB  0.000527kt  re  3 
pi − pwf = 141.2  + ln   − + s 
kh  c r
t e
2
 rw  4 
Productivity Index
Productivity index
Stabilized rate
q kh
J =
p − pwf   re  3 
141.2 B ln   − + s 
  rw  4 
Pressure drawdown
Generalized Drainage Area Shapes
❖ More general reservoir shapes:
Drainage area, ft2
qB  1  10.06 A  3 
p − pwf = 141.2  ln  − + s
2  4
kh  2  C Arw  
Shape factor for specific drainage-area

shape and configuration
❖ Productivity index, J, can be expressed for
general drainage-area geometry as:
q 0.00708kh
J= =
p − pwf  1  10.06 A  3 
B  ln   − + s
 2  2  4

 C Arw 
Drainage Area Shapes
1 2 3 4
Infinite System Pseudosteady-State System
Reservoir Less Than 1% Exact Less Than 1%
shape CA Error for tDA < for tDA > Error for tDA >
31.62 0.10 0.1 0.06
30.8828 0.09 0.1 0.05
21.8369 0.025 0.3 0.15
2.0769 0.02 1.7 0.50

❖ Information in this table allows us to
calculate:
▪ Maximum elapsed time during which a
reservoir is infinite-acting
▪ Time required for the for the pseudosteady-
state solution to predict pressure drawdown
within 1% accuracy
▪ Time required for the pseudosteady-state
solution to be exact
❖ For maximum infinite-acting time in hours
Use Infinite System Solution
With Less Than 1% Error for
(t DA ) = 0.0002637 kt
 ct A
 ct A(t DA )col 2
t<
0.0002637 k
1 2 3 4
31.62 0.10 0.1 0.06
30.8828 0.09 0.1 0.05
21.8369 0.025 0.3 0.15
2.0769 0.02 1.7 0.50

❖ For pseudosteady-state equation to be exact
Use
(t DA ) = 0.0002637kt
 ct A

t>
0.0002637 k
1 2 3 4
31.62 0.10 0.1 0.06
30.8828 0.09 0.1 0.05
21.8369 0.025 0.3 0.15
2.0769 0.02 1.7 0.50

❖ For pseudosteady-state equation to be
accurate within 1%
Use
(t DA ) = 0.0002637 kt
 ct A

t>
0.0002637 k
Transient Region
pwf
Late-Transient Pseudosteady-State
Region Region
log t
Semilogarithmic coordinates
Transient Region
pwf
Pseudosteady-State
Late-Transient Region
Region
t
Cartesian coordinates
❖ Closed drainage area (no-flow boundaries)
▪ Permanent
• Zero-permeability rock
▪ Temporary
❖ Constant-rate production
▪ Reservoir pressure drops at uniform rate at
all points in reservoir
• At well
• At reservoir boundary
True Steady-State Flow
❖ Occurs throughout drainage area of well
when
▪ Boundary pressure maintained constant
▪ Well produces at constant rate
❖ Conceivable in well with edge-water drive
❖ Conceivable in repeated flood patterns
Steady-State Flow Equation
❖ Constant-pressure outer boundary
▪ Applicable after boundary effects appear
qB   re  
pi − pwf = 141.2 ln   + s 
kh   rw  
Constant Bottomhole Pressure
❖ More likely than constant rate
❖ Boundary-dominated flow
▪ Transients reach all drainage area
boundaries
❖ Steady-state flow
▪ Transient reaches constant-pressure
reservoir boundaries
No-Flow Boundaries
r4
No-Flow Outer
r3
Boundary
t1= 0.3 day r2
r1 Fluid at the farthest
t2= 1 day boundary starts moving
t3= 3 days
toward the well
t4= 10 days
Radial Pressure Profiles

Constant Well Rate Constant Well Pressure
r4 r 3 r2 r1 r1 r2 r3 r 4
t1 t2 t3 t4 t5
No-Flow
t5 t4 t3 t2 t1 t = Boundary
Changing pwf Constant pwf
Constant-Pressure Boundaries
r4
Constant-Pressure
r3
Outer Boundary
t1= 0.3 day r2
r1 Fluid at the farthest
t2= 1 day boundary starts moving
t3= 3 days
toward the well
t4= 10 days
Radial Pressure Profiles

Constant Well Rate Constant Well Pressure
r4 r 3 r2 r1 r1 r2 r3 r 4
t1 t2 t3 t4 Constant-Pressure
t4 t3 t2 t1 Boundary
Changing pwf Constant pwf
Wellbore Storage
❖ Ei-function solution assumes constant flow
rate in reservoir, t = 0
▪ Actually able to control only surface rate
❖ Reservoir rate approaches surface rate
during unloading
▪ Then Ei solution becomes valid
❖ Wellbore unloading during test is called
wellbore storage
Wellbore Storage—Flow Test
Rate
Surface Rate
Bottomhole Rate
0
Time
Pressure Buildup Test
Rate
Surface Rate
Bottomhole Rate
0 Time
Mass Balance Modeling
q q
pt
Area = Awb ( ft 2 )
qsf pw qsf pw
wellbore completely filled wellbore with a rising or
with single-phase fluid falling liquid/gas interface
❖ Wellbore with single-phase fluid
24Vwb c wb dpw
q sf =q+
B dt
❖ Well with rising or falling liquid/gas
interface
24  25.65 Awb  d ( pw − pt )
qsf = q +  
B   wb  dt
Frequently assumed to be constant
(convenient but frequently inaccurate)
General Mass-Balance Form
For a fluid-filled wellbore, C = cwbVwb bbl/psi
24C dpw
q sf = q+
B dt
For a moving liquid/gas interface 25.65 Awb
with unchanging surface pressure, C =  wb
bbl/psi
Unit-Slope Line
❖ Flowing well
▪ Fluid stored in wellbore
▪ No flow from formation
❖ Shut-in well
▪ Afterflow equals rate prior to shut in
Pressure Elapsed time
qBt  qB 
log (p ) = log (t ) + log  
change since
start of flow
p =  24C 
or shut in
24C Wellbore
storage
coefficient
Unit-Slope Line
Line with slope

= 1 cycle/cycle
log p
Use any point (t, p)
on line to calculate C
log t
Linear flow
❖ Long, highly conductive vertical fractures
❖ Long, relatively narrow reservoirs
❖ Horizontal wells during certain times
Linear Flow Equation
Cross-sectional area
Af = perpendicular to flow
1/ 2
qB  t 
pi − pwf = 16.26  
A f  kct 
Af = 4hLf
for linear flow Af = wh
into vertical for linear flow in
fractures channel reservoirs
Spherical Flow
❖ In wells with limited perforated intervals
❖ Into wireline formation test tools
Flow
Boundaries
Spherical Flow
❖ In wells with limited perforated intervals
❖ Into wireline formation test tools
❖ Modeled by solution to the diffusivity equation
▪ One-dimensional spherical flow
▪ Uniform pressure prior to production
▪ Boundary conditions: constant flow rate, infinitely
large drainage area
Spherical Flow
2456qB  c t
ms = 3
ks 2
70.6qB 1 70.6qB
pwf = pi − + ms − s
k s rs t k s rs
2
 1  3
k s = k h kv 2  rs is the radius of the
  sphere into which flow
converges
Superposition in Space
❖ Total pressure drop at any point in a reservoir
▪ Sum of pressure drops at point caused by
flow in each well in the reservoir
Well A
rAC
rAB
Well C Well B
❖ Using superposition:
( pi − pwf )total at Well A = ( pi − p)due to A

+ ( pi − p )due to B
+ ( pi − p )due to C
❖ For infinite-acting reservoir, Ei-function solution
including logarithmic approximation at Well A:
( )
pi − pwf total at Well A =
q A B   1,688 ct rwA  

2
− 70.6 ln − 2s A 
kh   k (t − t A )  

 2
q B B  - 948 ct rAB 
− 70.6 Ei
kh  k (t − t B ) 
 
qC B  - 948 ct rAC 2 
− 70.6 Ei
kh  k (t − tC ) 
 
Superposition and ‘Image’ Wells
Image Actual
Well L L Well
q q
No Flow Boundary
qB   1,688c r 2  
pi − pwf = −70.6  
ln  t w
− 2s
kh   kt  

qB  − 948ct (2 L) 
 2
− 70.6 Ei
kh  kt 
 
(no skin factor)
Image Well Actual Well
Image Well Image Well

Actual
Well
Image Actual
Well L L Well
-q +q
Constant-Pressure Boundary
Superposition in Time
0 ( q2 q- 2q1 )
q1 ( q3 - q2 )
t Well 2 q3 3
Well
q Well 1
t1 t2
0
q1
Well 1
( q2 - q1 )
Well 2
t1
Well 3
( q3 - q2 )
Superposition in Time
pi − pwf = ( p )1 + ( p ) 2 + ( p) 3
  2 
q1 B  1,688 c t rw  
= −70.6 ln − 2s
kh   kt 
 
 (q 2 − q1 ) B   1,688 c t rw2  
− 70.6 ln   − 2s
kh   k ( t − t1 )  
 (q 3 − q 2 ) B   1,688 c t rw2  
− 70.6 ln   − 2s
kh   k ( t − t 2 )  
Horner Approximation
❖ Replaces sequence of functions with single
function
▪ Single producing time, rate
❖ Preserves material balance in drainage area
❖ Properly gives greatest weight to most recent
rate
❖ Particularly useful for hand calculations
▪ Superposition more appropriate with
computer software
Horner Approximation
Cumulative production from well, STB
Np
t p (hours ) = 24
qn
Most recent rate
  2
70.6 nn B  - 948ct r 
70.6 q B
pi − p = − Ei
kh  k t
kt 
 pp 
Log Approximation to Ei-Function
y = mx + b
qB
pwf = pi − 162.6 •
kh
  k  
log 10 (t ) + log 10   − 3.23 + 0.869s 
 2
   c t rw  
Drawdown Test Graph
162.6qB
k=
p −p  k   ( − m )h
− log 10   + 3.23
1,200
s = 1.151 i 1hr
 − m   c r 2  
 t w 
b
(t1, pwf1) ( pwf 2 − pwf 1 ) ( pwf 2 − pwf 1 )
m= =
Pressure, log 10 (t 2 ) − log 10 (t1 ) log 10 (t 2 / t1 )
psi
(t2, pwf2)
Powers of 10
700
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Elapsed Test Time, hrs
Semilog Analysis
❖ Pressure Buildup Tests
Rate during production of +q.
q
t
0t = 0 tp
Time, t
t
0
Rate after shut-in of -q
-q
q
Sum after shut-in
of 0.
0 t
tp
tp +t
Semilog Analysis
❖ Superposition process
qB   k  
pws = pi − 162.6 ( )
log 10 t p + t + log 10 
  c r 
 − 3.23 + 0.869 s 
 
kh 2
 t w 
qB   k  
+ 162.6 log 10 (t ) + log 10   − 3.23 + 0.869 s 
kh    c r 
2

 t w 
❖ Simplified
qB  t p + t 
pws = pi − 162.6 log 10  

kh   t 
Buildup Test Graph
162.6qB
2,000 k=
( − m )h
pws 2 − pws 1
m= pi
 t p + t   t p + t 
log 10   − log 10 
 


 t  2  t  1
 t p + t 
 
 t  , pws 2
 t p + t   2
 
 t  , pws1
 1
1,400
10,000 1,000 100 10 1
Horner time ratio (tp + Δt)/Δt

Solving for Skin Factor
qB  t p + t 
pws = pi − 162.6 log 10  

kh   t 
qB   k  
pwf = pi − 162.6 ( )
log 10 t p + log 10   − 3.23 + 0.869 s 
2
kh   c t w
r 
 p1hr − pwf  k  
s = 1.151 − log 10   + 3.23
 (− m ) 
 c 2
t w
r 
Radius of Investigation in Buildup
2,000
t = 10,000 hr
ri
1,800
ri
1,600 t = 100 hr
1,400
ri
t = 1 hr
1,200 ri
t = 0.01 hr
t=0
1,000
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Radius-of-Investigation in Buildup
1/ 2
 kt 
ri =  
 948ct 
Type Curves
❖ Powerful method for analyzing pressure
drawdown and buildup tests
❖ Preplotted solutions to flow equations for
selected formations and conditions
❖ Field data overlaid on type curve
❖ Best-match provides qualitative and
quantitative descriptions of formation and
properties
Dimensionless Variables
qB  948ct r 2 
p = pi + 70.6 Ei −
kh  kt 
 
  
2 
rD 
r
 r
  
kh( pi − p )   rw
1
= − Ei  −  rw 

141.2qB 2   0.0002637 kt  
 4 
kh( pi − p)   ct rw2  
pD    
141.2qB 0.0002637 kt
 2 
1  rD  tD 
pD = − Ei − ct rw2
2  4t D 
❖ Advantages
▪ Solution can be expressed in terms of single
variable (tD) and parameter (rD)
▪ Much simpler graphical or tabular
presentation of solution
▪ Can include dimensionless skin factor (s)
and wellbore storage coefficient (CD)
0 .8936C
CD =
ct hrw
2
Gringarten Type Curves
❖ Based on solution to radial diffusivity equation
▪ Vertical well, constant production rate
▪ Infinite-acting, homogenous-acting reservoir
▪ Single-phase, slightly compressible liquid
flowing
▪ Infinitesimal skin factor (thin ‘membrane’) at
production face
▪ Constant wellbore-storage coefficient
Gringarten Type Curve
100
CD e 2s=1060
pD
Similarities of
CD e 2s=0.01
curves make
matching difficult
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Derivative Type Curve
❖ Designed to eliminate ambiguity in
Gringarten type curve
▪ ‘Derivative’ of solution to radial diffusivity
equation on Gringarten type curve
▪ Derivative is
p D p D
= tD = t D pD
 ln t D t D
or
p p
=t = tp
 ln (t ) t
Pressure Derivative
❖ Infinite-acting radial flow
70.6qB   1688 c r 2  
p = − ln t w 
− 2s
kh 
  kt  

Derivatives: In dimensionless terms,
p p
t = pD = 0.5ln(t D ) + 0.809 + 2s
t  ln (t )
Derivatives:
p 70.6qB p D p D p D
t = tD = tD = 0.5
t kh t D  ln (t D ) t D
Pressure Derivative
❖ Complete wellbore storage distortion
qBt In dimensionless terms,

p =
24C pD = t D / C D
Derivative:
Derivative:
p qBt
t = = p p D
t 24C tD = t D / C D = pD
t D
Derivative Type Curve
100
Differences in curve CDe2s=1060
shapes make
matching easier
CDe2s=1010
tDp´D
CDe2s=100
CDe2s=0.01
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Pressure + Derivative Type Curves
100
Combining curves
gives each stem
value two distinctive
shapes
pD
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Pressure/Derivative Type Curve
100
WBS Transition Radial Flow
Horizontal
Derivative
pD
Unit
Slope
Line
Early-Time Region Middle-Time Region
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Pressure + Derivative Type Curve
100
High skin
pD No skin
Negative skin
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Drawdown vs. Buildup Type Curves
100
Buildup Response
Dimensionless pressure
10
Shape depends on duration of

1 production time prior to shut-in
Drawdown
0.1
5 6 7 8
tpD=10 tpD=10 tpD=10 tpD=10
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shutin
Dimensionless shut-intime
time
Equivalent Time For PBU Tests
❖ Drawdown
qB   k  
pi − pwf = 162.6 ( )
log 10 t p + log   − 3.23 + 0.869 s 
2
kh   c t w
r 
❖ Buildup
qB   k  
pi − pws = 162.6 ( )
log 10 t p + t + log   − 3.23 + 0.869 s 
2
kh   c t w
r 
qB   k  
−162.6 log 10 (t ) + log   − 3.23 + 0.869 s 
2
kh   c t w
r 
Equivalent Time for PBU Tests
❖ Subtract drawdown and buildup
qB   k  
pws − pwf = +162.6 ( )
log 10 t p + log   − 3.23 + 0.869 s 
2
kh   c t w
r 
qB   k  
− 162.6 ( )
log 10 t p + t + log   − 3.23 + 0.869 s 
2
kh   c t w
r 
qB   k  
+ 162.6 log 10 (t ) + log   − 3.23 + 0.869 s 
2
kh   c t w
r 
❖ Simplifying,
qB   t p t   k  
pws − pwf = 162.6 log 10   + log   − 3.23 + 0.869 s 
kh   t p + t   c r 
2

    t w
❖ Drawdown equation
qB   k  
pi − pwf = 162.6 ( )
log 10 t p + log   − 3.23 + 0.869 s 
2
kh   c t w
r 
❖ Buildup equation
qB   t p t   k  
pws − pwf = 162.6 log 10   + log   − 3.23 + 0.869 s 
kh   t p + t   c r 2  
    t w
❖ Introducing equivalent time

qB   k  
pws − pwf = 162.6 log 10 (t e ) + log   − 3.23 + 0.869 s 
2
kh   c t w
r 
Drawdown
p = pi − pwf vs t
Buildup
p = pws − pwf vs t e
Properties of Equivalent Time
t p t
t e 
t p + t
tp
= t  t , t  t p
t p + t
t
= tp  t p , t  t p
t p + t
tp
=
HTR
Using Type Curves
100
1,000
pD
p
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Move Field Data Toward Horizontal
100
1,000
pD
p
Align data with

1 horizontal part of
teq type curves 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
100
1,000
pD
p
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
100
1,000
pD
p
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
100
1,000
pD
p
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
100
1,000
pD p
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
100
1,000
pD p
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
100
1,000
pD p
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
100
1,000
pD p
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
100
1,000
p
pD
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
100
1,000
Stop when data align
with horizontal
derivative
p
pD
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Move Field Data Toward Unit Slope
100
1,000
p
pD
Begin to move toward unit slope line
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
100
1,000
p
pD
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
100
1,000
p
pD
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
100
1,000
p
pD
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
100
1,000
p
pD
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
100
1,000
p
pD
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
100
1,000
p
pD
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
100
1,000
p
pD
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
100
1,000
p
pD
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
100
1,000
p
pD
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
100
1,000
p
pD
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
100
1,000
Stop when data align

with unit slope line
p
pD
1
teq 1,000
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Interpret the Type Curve
Calculate CDe2s from
100 matching stem value
1,000
p/pD→ k  C De 2s 
s = 0.5 ln curve
Extrapolate 
p  C 
pD 
as necessary D 
1
teq 1,000
teq/tD → CD
0.01 100,000
tD/CD
Calculate k From Pressure Match
141.2qB  pD 
k=  
h  p  M . P .
k=
(141.2)(50 )(1.325 )(0.609 )  10 
 
(15)  262 
= 14.5 md
Calculate CD From Time Match
0.0002637 k  t eq 
CD =  
2  t C 
ct rw  D D  M.P .
CD =
(0.0002637)(14.5)  0.0546 
 
(0.183)(0.609)(1.76  10 )(0.25)  1 
−5 2
= 1703
Calculate s From CDe2s
 2s 
1  C De 
s = ln
2  C D 
 9
1  7  10 
s = ln
2  1703 
= 7. 6
Manual Log-Log Analysis
❖ Objective
▪ Manually estimate permeability and skin factor
from the log-log diagnostic plot without using type
curves
Estimating Permeability and Skin
Factor from the Diagnostic Plot
1000
pr
Pressure change, psi
100
(tp’)r
10
1
0.01 0.1 1 10 tr 100 1000
Equivalent time, hrs

Estimating Permeability
and Skin Factor
70.6qB
k=
h(tp )r
1   pr  ktr 
s=  − ln 
2 
2  (tp )r  1688 c t rw  
Example
q = 50 STB/D pwf = 2095 psia
h = 15 ft  = 18.3%
B = 1.36 RB/STB ct = 17.9 x 10−6 psi−1
 = 0.563 cp rw = 0.25 ft
Estimate (tp’)r, tr, and pr
1000
400
Pressure change, psi
100
14
10
1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
20
Equivalent time, hrs
Estimate Permeability
70.6qB
k=
h(tp )r
 (70.6 )(50)(1.36)(0.563) 
=  
 (15)(14) 
= 12.9 md
Estimate Skin Factor
1   pr  ktr 
s=  − ln 
2 
2  (tp )r  1688 c t rw  
1  400
= 

− ln
(12.9 )(20) 

2 
 (1688)(0.183)(0.563)(17.9  10 )(0.25)  
−6
2  14
= 7.23
Causes of Formation Damage
❖ Damage caused by drilling-fluid invasion
❖ Damage caused by production
❖ Damage caused by injection
Drilling Fluid Damage
Fines may clog pore
throats, reducing
effective permeability
Mud filtrate
invasion
Filtrate may cause

clays to swell,
causing damage
Production Damage
p > pd p< pd p < pb p > pb
Retrograde Gas Oil Reservoir

Reservoir Free gas reduces
Immobile liquid
phase reduces
Injection Damage
‘dirty’ incompatible
water water
Altered Zone and Skin Effect
Skin Effect
Altered
zone
rw ka
k h
ra
r
Altered Zone and Skin Effect
2,000
Pressure, psi
1,500
1,000
Dps
500
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Skin and Pressure Drop
141 .2qB
Dp s = s
kh
 k   ra 
s =  − 1 ln  
 ka   rw 
rw ra
h
r
Assume ra , solve for ka
k
ka =
s
1+
ln (ra rw )
Assume k/ka , solve for ra
  k 
ra = rw exp  s − 1
  ka 
Apparent Wellbore Radius
−s
rwa
wa  rw e
 rwa 
s = − ln wa 
 rw 
Theoretical Minimum Skin Factor
 re  = 745
smin = − ln  = -7.82
= 0.3
 ww 
r
▪ implies increasing permeability to infinity
throughout the entire drainage area
▪ implies altered zone extends to drainage
radius of well
▪ clearly idealistic ‘lower limit’
Apparent Wellbore Radius
❖ Highly conductive vertical fracture
rwa = Lf /2 = rwe-s
s = - ln (Lf /2rw)
For Lf = re = 745 ft and rw = 0.3,

s = -7.12
…a much more realistic minimum
Flow Efficiency
q
J actual 
p − pwf
J actual p − pwf − Dps

Ef  =
J ideal p − pwf
q
J ideal 
p − pwf − Dp s
Flow Converging to Perforations
Geometric Skin
Partial Penetration
hp
Geometric Skin
Incompletely Perforated Interval
h1
h
hp
h
s= sd + s p
hp
Geometric Skin
Incompletely Perforated Interval
1
h1 D = h1 h Geometric Skin A=
h1 D + hpD 4
hpD = hp h
 1    hpD  A − 1  2
1 
1
sp =  − 1 ln + ln    
 hpD  2rD hpD  2 + hpD  B − 1  
   
1
rw  kv  2
B=
1
rD =   h1 D + 3hpD 4
h  kh 
Deviated Wellbore
 h sec
h s = sd + s
Geometric Skin
Deviated Wellbore
−1 
kv


w
'
= tan  tan w 
 kh 
2.06 1.865
  w'   w'  hD 
s = −  −  log  
 41   56   100 
   
h kh
hD =
rw kv
Gravel-Pack Skin
Cement
Reservoir permeability
khLg
s gp = 2
2nk gp r p
Number of perforations
does notpack
Gravel include
Radius effects
ofpermeability
perforations
Lg of non-Darcy flow
Completion Skin
rw
s = s p + sd + sdp
kdp rdp
rp
k
Lp  h  rdp  k k 
sdp =  ln  − 
 L p n  r p  k dp ka 
ka    
ra
does not include effects of non-Darcy flow

Hydraulically Fractured Wells
Lf
rwa =
Lf
2
rwa
L f = 2rwa
Geometric Skin
❖ Dimensionless fracture conductivity
fracture formation
width, ft permeability, md
Cr = wf kf /kLf
fracture half-
permeability of the length
proppant in the fracture
Pressure drop in the fracture

is negligible for Cr>100.
❖ Alternate dimensionless fracture
conductivity
FCD =  C r
wfkf
FCD =
kL f
Diffusivity Equation for Liquid Flow
1   p   c t p
r  =
r r  r  k t
❖ Based on three principles:
▪ Conservation of mass
▪ Equation of state for slightly compressible
liquids
▪ Darcy’s law
Diffusivity Equation for Liquid Flow
1   p   c t p
r  =
r r  r  k t
❖ Linear differential equation:
▪ Makes solutions ‘easy’ to find
▪ Allows superposition in time and space
▪ Leads to solutions for complex flow
geometries, variable rate histories
Modifications for Gases
❖ Need diffusivity equation for gases
▪ Equation of state for liquid not applicable
❖ Introduce real-gas law:
pV = znRT
❖ Result is complex, nonlinear partial
differential equation
Pseudopressure
❖ Introduce pseudopressure transformation:
p Gas viscosity
p p ( p) = 2  ( p /  z ) dp
Gas deviation
po factor
❖ Resulting form of diffusivity equation:
1   p p   c t p p
r =
r r  r  k t
Pseudopressure
pseudopressure function of
pressure
1   p p   c t p p
r =
r r  r  k t
Pseudopressure
❖ Can be treated as linear
❖ Ei-solution is valid for gases
▪ Evaluate ct at pressure at beginning of flow
period until boundaries influence pressure
drop at well
1   p p   c t p p
r =
r r  r  k t
Pressure-Squared Approximation
p
p p ( p) = 2  ( p /  z ) dp
po
❖ If product z is constant, pseudopressure
becomes
( )
2  1 
p p ( p) = p − po  
2
z 
❖ Diffusivity equation becomes

 2
1   p   c t p 2
r =
r r  r  k t
Pressure-Squared Approximation
❖ Independent variable has become p2
▪ Ei solution is valid if z is constant
▪ True even though equation is nonlinear, but
only for infinite-acting reservoir
 2
1   p   c t p 2
r =
r r  r  k t
Pressure Approximation
0.16
SG=1.2
Fairly constant at
pressures <2,000 psi
SG=1.0
z, T = 200°F
psi/cp SG=0.8
SG=0.6
0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Pressure, psia
p
p p ( p) = 2  ( p /  z ) dp
po
❖ If p/z is held constant, pseudopressure
becomes pp(p) =( p – po)(2p /µz)
❖ Diffusivity equation becomes

independent variable
1   p   c t p
r  =
r r  r  k t
❖ Independent variable has become p
▪ Ei solution is valid if p/z is constant
▪ True even though equation is nonlinear, but
only for infinite-acting reservoir
1   p   c t p
r  =
r r  r  k t
250
SG=0.6
T = 200°F
SG=0.8
SG=1.0
SG=1.2
Fairly constant at pressures >3,000 psi

0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Pressure, psia
p, p2 Approximations
❖ Implications
▪ Choice of variable for gas-well flow
equations depends on situation
▪ Pressure-squared approximation is valid
only for low pressures (p<2,000 psia)
▪ Pressure approximation is valid only for
high pressures (p>3,000 psia)
p, p2 Approximations
❖ Choosing the pressure variable
▪ For pressure-transient analysis with
software, pseudopressure is almost always
optimal
▪ For hand analysis, only pressure or
pressure-squared approaches are feasible
Pseudotime Transformation
❖ Diffusivity equation for gas flow
1   p p   c t p p
r =
r r  r  k t
▪ Same form as for slightly compressible liquids
(pressure replaced by pseudopressure)
▪ Nonlinear because ct is strongly dependent
upon pressure
❖ Further linearizes equation for gas
❖ Definition of pseudotime:
t

dt
t ap 
 ( p )c t ( p )
0
❖ Diffusivity in terms of pseudotime:
1   p p   p p
r =
r r  r  k t ap
❖ Pressure is function of position in reservoir
▪ Not obvious where pressure should be
evaluated
❖ Best to evaluate at BHP during wellbore storage
for all tests
❖ Best to evaluate at BHP for buildup test
❖ Best to evaluate at average reservoir pressure
at start of test during MTR for flow test
▪ For infinite-acting reservoirs, equivalent to
using ordinary time
Normalized Transformed Variables
❖ Pseudopressure, pseudotime transformations
improve accuracy of gas well test analysis
❖ Inconvenient even though accurate
▪ Values will often be in range of 105 to 109
▪ Units not actual pressure, time units
▪ Lose ‘feel’ for transformed variables
▪ Pseudopressure/pseudotime require different
test interpretation for oil, gas wells
p
 z  pdp  z 
pa ( p)   

=   p p ( p)
 p  i p z  2 p  i
0
t
t a  (ct )i
 = (ct )i t ap
dt
 ( p)ct ( p )
0
❖ Table of equations
Gas, using adjusted variables Flow Test Buildup Test
Semilog graph pa , wf vs t pa , ws vs (t p + t a )/ t a
Variables
162.6q g Bgi  i
Permeability k=
mh
 p   
gas (p & t ) s2
k
Skin Factor  = 1.151 1hr
− log   + 3.23
 − m   c r 
2

 i ti w 
Definition of
gas
NA
(p p & t
kh)
( p a − pa )
*
PMBH,D 70.6q g B gi  i
❖ Horner time ratio for gas well buildup tests
HTR = (tp + ta)/ta
❖ Use adjusted pressure, time

❖ Calculate HTR using actual producing time tp
Non-Darcy Flow
❖ Darcy’s law fails in many gas wells
▪ Flow velocity exceeds laminar limits
▪ Flow usually in transitional region between
laminar and turbulent flow
▪ May reach turbulent flow
❖ High velocities occur near well
❖ Pressure drop resembles skin effect
Non-Darcy Flow
❖ Model for apparent skin factor s ´
non-Darcy flow coefficient
(assumed constant)
s = s + D│qg│ absolute value

‘true’ skin due to gas flow rate
damage or stimulation
❖ Cannot calculate skin from single, constant-

rate test
❖ Multiple rates yield ‘true’ skin, non-Darcy flow
coefficient
Non-Darcy Flow
10
8
D = 5.1x10-4 D/Mscf
6
Apparent
skin factor
4
2 s = 3.4
0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Flow rate, Mscf/D
Non-Darcy Flow
❖ Estimate D
−15
2.715  10 k g Mpsc
D=
hrw Tsc  g , wf
Assumes nonDarcy flow near wellbore
10 −1.47 −0.53
  1.8810 k 
May not suffice in gravel-packed well
Multiphase Flow Models
❖ Modifications to single-phase flow models
❖ Based on simplifying assumption:
▪ Saturation gradients in drainage area of
well are small
❖ Reasonable approximation for solutiongas
drive reservoirs
❖ Inappropriate for water-drive reservoirs with
saturation discontinuity in drainage area
❖ Perrine-Martin modification:
 q o Rs 
q Rt = q0 B0 +  q g −  B g + q w Bw
 1,000 
q Rt   1,688c t rw2  s 
pwf = pi + 162.6 log − 
t h   t t  1.151

k o k w k g
t = + +
❖ Horner equation o w g
▪ Buildup test in infinite-acting reservoir
q Rt t p + t
pws = pi − 162.6 log
t h t
❖ Total mobility from pressure buildup test
producing two or three phases
simultaneously
▪ t related to slope m of Horner plot of
pws vs log(tp + t)/(t) by λt = - 162.6 qRt/mh
▪ Slope m of a plot of pwf vs log(t) data from
constant-rate flow test has same interpretation
q Rt t p t
pws = pi − 162.6 log
t h t
❖ We can estimate permeability to each phase
flowing
qo Bo  o
k o = −162.6
mh
free-gas flow rate
 qo Rs 
 qg − Bg  g
k g = −162.6  1,000 
mh
q w Bw  w
k w = −162.6
mh
❖ Skin factor using semilog plots
 p  t  
s = 1.151 1 hr
− log   + 3.23
 m  c r 2  
 t w
❖ Relation of type-curve pressure match point
to total and individual phase mobilities:
t / qRt = ko /  o qo Bo = k w /  w qw Bw
= k g /  g (q g − qo Rs ) / 1000Bg
= (141.2 / h )( pD / p )MP
❖ Relation of time-match point to
dimensionless storage coefficient

C D = 0.0002637c t ( tC D t D ) MP rw2 t
= c ( tC
t D t D ) MP r (k  )(q
2
w o o Rt qo Bo )
= c ( tC
t D t D ) MP r (k  )(q
2
w w w Rt qw B w )
= c ( tC r (k  )q

  qo Rs  
D t D ) MP  qg −  Bg 
2
t w g g Rt
  1,000  
❖ Practical implications
▪ We can determine total mobility and
individual phase permeability from pressure
match points on type curve
▪ We can determine dimensionless storage
coefficient from time match point
▪ We can calculate skin from
s = 0.5ln(CDe2s/CD)
❖ If Perrine-Martin not applicable, use simulator
Diagnostic Plot
Pressure change (Dp)
Pressure derivative (Dp )
Elapsed time (Dt ), hrs

Time Regions
Unit-slope
line
Near-wellbore effects
(wellbore storage) Horizontal derivative
Early-time Middle- Late-time
region time region
region

Volumetric Behavior
Reservoir acts like tank

Volumetric Behavior
Fluids from outside ‘recharge’
tank or reduce pressure at
uniform rates throughout
drainage area
Volumetric Behavior
Volumetric Behavior
Volumetric Behavior
Volumetric Behavior
Volumetric Behavior
Volumetric Behavior
Volumetric Behavior
Volumetric Behavior Examples
❖ Wellbore storage
▪ Dominates during early-time period
▪ Fluid leaves or enters ‘tank’ during early test
time
❖ Pseudosteady-state flow
▪ Closed reservoir, constant-rate production
▪ Pressure changes uniformly as fluid leaves
through well
❖ Buildup test with recharge entering reservoir
Volumetric Models
❖ Wellbore storage qBt

Dp =
24C
❖ Pseudosteady-state flow
0.0744qBt
pi − pwf =
c t hre2
141.2qB   re  3 
+ ln  − + s
 4
kh   rw  
Volumetric Models
❖ General form
Dp = mV t + bV
❖ Derivative of general form
Dp  (mV t + bV )
t =t
t t
= mV t
Derivative Plot
Pressure change during recharge

or pseudosteadystate flow
Pressure derivative
Pressure change during
wellbore storage

Radial Flow
Vertical, Unfractured Well
Wellbore
Radial Flow
Vertically Fractured Well
Wellbore
Fracture
Radial Flow
Horizontal Well
Late radial flow
Wellbore
Early radial flow
Radial Flow Models
❖ Logarithmic approximation to Ei- solution
162.6qB   kt  
Dp = log   − 3.23 + 0.869s 
kh     2 

c t w 
r
❖ General form Dp = m log (t ) + b
❖ Derivative D p m
t =
t 2.303
Radial Flow Models
Pressure
Pressure derivative

Linear Flow
Hydraulically Fractured Well
Vertical wellbore Fracture
Linear flow
Linear Flow
Channel Reservoir
Vertical
Linear
wellbore
flow
Channel (ancient
stream) reservoir
Linear Flow
Horizontal Well
Wellbore
Early linear flow
Linear Flow
Late linear flow
Wellbore
Linear Flow
❖ Occurs in channel reservoirs, hydraulically

fractured wells, horizontal wells
❖ With estimate of permeability, provides
data to estimate channel width, fracture
halflength
❖ In horizontal wells, with known productive
well length open to flow, enables
permeability estimates
Linear Flow Models
❖ Channel of width w

16.26qB  kt 
12 
Dp =   + c1 s 

khw  ct 
  
❖ Hydraulically fractured well, fracture
length 2Lf

4.064qB  kt 
12 
Dp =   + c2 s f 
khL f  ct  
 
Linear Flow Models
❖ General form
Dp = m L t 12
+ bL
❖ Derivative
Dp 1
t = mLt 12
t 2
Linear Flow Models
Pressure change in damaged-fractured

or horizontal well
Pressure change in
undamaged
fractured well
Pressure 1
derivative
2

Bilinear Flow
Bilinear Flow Model
 
12 14 
 44.1qB   1  t 
Dp =       + c3 s f 
 h   w f k f   ct k  
  
❖ General form Dp = mB t 14
+ bB
D p 1
❖ Derivative t = mB t 14
t 4
Bilinear Flow Models
Pressure in fractured,
damaged well
Pressure in fractured,
undamaged well
1
Pressure derivative
4

Spherical Flow
Vertical wellbore
Few perforations
open
Spherical flow
Spherical Flow
Wireline
Vertical wellbore testing tools
Spherical flow
Spherical Flow Models
70.6qB 1 70.6qB
pwf = pi − + ms − s
k s rs t k s rs
ks = (khkz1/2)2/3
Spherical Flow Model
❖ General form
−1 / 2
Dp = −m s t + bs
❖ Derivative
Dp 1 −1 / 2
t = ms t
t 2
Spherical Flow Model
Pressure
Pressure derivative
1
2

Flow Regimes on Diagnostic Plot
Radial
Wellbore flow
storage Spherical flow Recharge?

Buildup Testing
and the
Diagnostic Plot
Objectives
• Become familiar with time plotting

functions used with diagnostic plots for
buildup tests
• Become aware of the very different
shapes in the diagnostic plots of buildup
and drawdown tests as buildup tests
approach stabilization
Time-Plotting Functions
• Shut-in time
• Horner pseudoproducing time
• Multirate equivalent time
• Superposition time function
Variable Rate History
q2
q1 qn-1
qn
0
t1 t2 tn-2 tn-1 t
t
Horner Pseudoproducing Time
Cumulative
24 N p produced oil
tp = Final rate
Expressed qn −1 before
another way... shut-in
n −1
 (
24  q j t j − t j −1 )
j =1
tp =
qn −1
Horner Pseudoproducing Time
24 N p
tp =
qn −1
• Good results as long as last

producing time is at least 10x
maximum shut-in time.
Multirate Equivalent Time
  q j − q j −1  
 
 n−1  tn−1 − t j −1  qn−1 − qn  
te      t

 j =1   t + t n −1 − t 
j −1  
 
(Agarwal equation for radial flow)

Superposition Time Function
 n −1 
STF 
1
( ) (
  q j − q j −1 ln t + tn−1 − t j −1
(qn − qn−1 )  j =1
)


+ ln(t )
Some literature recommends . . .

Pressure derivative for buildup calculated as
pressure derivative with respect to superposition
time function, plotted vs. shut-in time
 n −1  q j − q j −1  
STF     (
 ln t + tn −1 − t j −1 )

 j =1  qn − qn −1  
+ ln(t )
(previous equation, rearranged)

  q j − q j −1   
  n −1 


  
   −
 n −1 n 
q q
 t 
1
STF = ln   
   t + t n −1 − t j −1   
j =1  
  
  
(previous equation, rearranged again

using properties of natural logarithm)
  q j − q j −1   
  n −1 


  
   −
 n −1 n 
q q
  te 
1
STF = ln   
   t n −1 − t j −1   
j =1  
  
  
STF = ln(C ) + ln(te )

• Superposition time function is simply the log

of a constant plus the log of the equivalent
time.
Derivative with respect to multirate equivalent time

= derivative with respect to superposition time

pressure derivative with respect to superposition
time function; plotted vs. shut-in time
pressure derivative with respect to equivalent time
function

Since the derivatives with respect to

multirate equivalent time and
superposition time are equal,

Conclusions
• Horner pseudoproducing time is adequate

when producing time is 10 times greater
than the maximum shut-in time
Conclusions
• Derivatives with respect to time for the

superposition time function and radial
equivalent time are identical. They can be
plotted vs. shut-in time, superposition time,
or equivalent time
Conclusions
• Some literature or software documentation

may specify the method of taking or plotting
the derivative, but any of these will work for
these situation.
Radial Flow
Approaching Stabilization
• Stabilization is the stage where pressure has

built up completely and is no longer
changing.
Stabilization in Radial System
100
Drawdown
10
Buildup
pD
Drawdown
0.1 Producing times must

5
Buildup, t pD=10
be at least 10x
maximum shut-in time
0.01
1E+02 1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08
tD
Linear Flow
Stabilization in Linear System
1000
Drawdown
100
(spherical flow may also

pD
10
produce slope = -1/2)
t pD=103
1
Derivative
response
slope = -1/2
0.1
1E+00 1E+01 1E+02 1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06
tD
Volumetric Behavior
Stabilization in Volumetric System
100
All boundaries have been felt

10
Drawdown
Drawdown response
tpD=10
6
feels boundary later than
0.1
build-up response
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shutin time
Conclusions
• Shapes of the buildup and drawdown

diagnostic plots are fundamentally different
as the reservoir approaches stabilization.
• Don’t expect to see the same shape on a
diagnostic plot for a build up test as for a
drawdown test.
Buildup Testing
and the
Diagnostic Plot
Reservoir Boundaries
❖ Effects appear following middle-time region
(infinite-acting flow) in a test
❖ Recognizing influence can be as important as
quantitative analysis
❖ Problem: Many models present similar
pressure responses
❖ Model must be consistent with geological,
geophysical interpretation
Test analysis may be straightforward
once model is determined.
Shape of Diagnostic Plots
❖ Buildup, drawdown essentially identical
during early-, middle-time regions
❖ Quite different at late times if boundary
effects occur
❖ Use of ‘equivalent time functions’
complicates analysis of buildup tests on
drawdown type curves
▪ Apply rigorously only where either producing
‘Equivalent
time time
and shut-in time functions’
lie within middle-time
depend on flow regime.
region or shut-in time is much less than
producing time prior to shut in
Plotting Functions
❖ Shape of curve depends on calculation,
plotting of derivative
▪ Derivative of pressure change may be taken
with respect to logarithm of either shut-in,
equivalent time
▪ Derivative may be plotted against either
time function (shape differs for each)
❖ Software may allow choices in time function
in taking derivative or time-plotting function
Well in Infinite-Acting Reservoir
Infinite-Acting Reservoir
100
Drawdown Type Curve

10
No boundaries encountered
1
Wellbore storage
0.1
effects can occur
early in test.
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to shut-in time
10
Shape depends on duration of

1 producing time before shut-in
Drawdown
0.1
tpD=105 tpD=106 tpD=107 tpD=108
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent time
10
Not affected by producing time

1
tpD=105 tpD=106 tpD=107 tpD=108
0.1
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless equivalent time
Linear No-Flow Boundary
(If so, far away….)
No-flow boundary
Producing well
100
Drawdown Type Curve

10
0.1
Change in derivative from 0.5 to 1
Change occurs over about 12/3 log cycles
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
100
Buildup Response
10
Drawdown
1
8
tpD=10
0.1
The longer the producing time before shut-in, the longer
the coincidence between buildup and drawdown
5 6 7
tpD=10 tpD=10 tpD=10
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shutin
Dimensionless shut-intime
time
100
Buildup Response
10
5 6 7 8
tpD=10 tpD =10 tpD=10 tpD=10 Drawdown
1
0.1 Derivative doubles over only a tiny

fraction of a log cycle for very short
producing times prior to shut-in
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent time,
plotted against shut-in time
10
8
tpD=10
7
tpD=10 Drawdown
1
6
tpD=10
5
tpD=10
0.1
Similar to drawdown response
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time function
Linear Constant-Pressure Boundary
Constant-pressure boundary
Possible injection,
waterflood, or gas/oil
Producing well contact causing
constant-pressure
boundary
100
Drawdown Type Curve

10
1
Slope can (and in this
case, does) reach -1
Wellbore storage
0.1
effects can occur
early in test.
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
100
Buildup Response
10
Slope steeper than drawdown slope for

1 very short producing times before shut-in
6
tpD=10
0.1 Drawdown curve
5
tpD=10
8
tpD =10
7
tpD=10
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shut-in
time
100
Buildup Response
10
Derivative falls sharply over tiny fraction of log cycle for

1 very short producing times prior to shutin
0.1
5 6 Drawdown
tpD=10 tpD =10
7
tpD=10 8
tpD=10
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
100
Buildup Response
plotted vs. shut-in time
10
5 6
tpD=10 ,10
1
7
tpD=10
0.1
Derivative curves resemble
Drawdown
drawdown curve tpD=10

8
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Channel Reservoir
No-flow boundaries
(Effects
of ends
not felt )
Producing well
Channel Reservoir
100
Drawdown Type Curve Slope → 1/2

10
Slope = 1/2
0.1
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
Channel Reservoir
100
Buildup Response
10
8
Drawdown tpD =10
1
Derivative reaches a
slope of -1/2 if shut-in 7
tpD =10
time is much larger
0.1
than producing time
6
tpD =10
5
tpD =10
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shut-in
time
Channel Reservoir
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect to equivalent time, plotted
against dimensionless time
10
Drawdown
7
tpD=10
8
tpD=10
5 6
tpD=10 tpD=10
0.1 Radial equivalent

time not appropriate
in linear flow regime
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Channel Reservoir
100
Buildup Response
10
8
tpD=10
Drawdown
7
tpD =10
1
6
tpD=10
5
tpD=10
0.1
Derivative curve shape resembles
drawdown curve shape
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Intersecting Sealing Faults
‘Wedge’ reservoir
No-flow boundaries
Producing well
100
Drawdown Type Curve

10
The narrower the angle, the
longer to reach new horizontal
1
0.1
Derivative levels off at
(360/ ) x (derivative of infinite-acting response)
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
100
Buildup Response
10
Drawdown
8
tpD=10
7
tpD=10
Dramatic difference in curves
0.1
when shut-in is greater than
producing time prior to shut-in 6
tpD=10
5
tpD=10
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless shut-in time
100
Buildup Response
10 8
tpD=10
7
5 6 tpD=10 Drawdown
tpD=10 tpD=10
Derivative shape same as drawdown

0.1
response only when producing period
is long
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
100
Buildup Response
10
Drawdown 8
tpD=10
7
tpD=10
1
6
tpD=10
5
tpD=10
0.1
Derivative, drawdown curves similar
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Closed Circular Boundary
No-flow boundary
Producing well
100
Drawdown Type Curve

10
Both slopes approach unit

1 slope at late times
(pseudosteady-state flow)
Reservoir limits test yields Unit slope may be seen
0.1
pore volume of interval earlier if two zones with
different permeabilities
are present
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
100
Buildup Response
10
Drawdown
6 7 8
6,10,10
7,108
5 ttpD =10,10
pD=10
tpD=10
0.1 Derivative falls rapidly
for all combinations of
plotting functions
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
100
Buildup Response
Derivative with respect
to equivalent time
10
Drawdown
Slope drops sharply

0.1
for very small values
5
tpD=10
7 8
=10,10
t pD=10
pD of8 producing time
7,10
tpD=10
6 before shut-in
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
100
Buildup Response
10
Drawdown
5
tpD=10
0.1 Buildup, drawdown type

tpD=t10
pD =10
6
6, 10 7
7, 10
,10 8
,10
8 curves differ fundamentally
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Circular Constant-p Boundary
100
Drawdown Type Curve

10
Pressure approaches constant

1
value at late times
Derivative falls exponentially
0.1
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
100
Buildup Response
10
Drawdown
1
6 7 8
tpD=10 ,10 ,10
5
tpD =10
Curve can be identical to
0.1
drawdown plot just seen
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
100
Buildup Response
10
1
Derivative falls off rapidly
0.1
Drawdown
5 6
tpD=10 tpD=10 7
tpD=10 ,10
8
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
100
Buildup Response
10
Results in somewhat-
1 changed curve on the plot
0.1
5
Drawdown tpD =10
7 8
tpD=10 ,10
6
tpD=10
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Radially Composite Reservoir
Significant difference in permeability near,
farther from well
k1 k2
Producing well
100
M1/M2 = 100
Drawdown Type Curve

Varying M1/M2
10
Mobility of fluid away

near well k
from well M1/M2 = 10
M (mobility) = Responses resemble other tests

1
 M1/M2 = 1
M1/M2 = 0.2
0.1
M1/M2 = 0.05
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
100
Drawdown Type Curve

Varying S1/S2
S (storativi ty) = ct h
10
Storativity
Storativity of
of fluid
fluid near
awaywell
from well
10
1
S1/S2 = 100
0.05
1
S1/S2 = 0.01
0.1 If S1/S2> 1, plot looks like closed circular drainage area

If S1/S2<<1, plot looks like closed linear flow
0.01
1E+03 1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09
Dimensionless time
Comment
❖ Assuming a well is in a radially composite
reservoir can lead to apparent (and
inappropriate) fit of test for many different
reservoirs
Well Position in Rectangle
❖ Totally different reservoir conditions can be
modeled by a rectangle
L
dy
dx
Well Position in Rectangle
❖ Totally different reservoir conditions can be
modeled by a rectangle
Comment
❖ Assuming a well is in an arbitrary point in a
closed, rectangular reservoir can lead to a
good (but inappropriate) fit of test data for
many different reservoirs
Summary
❖ Make sure the model is consistent with known
geology before using the model
❖ Two most dangerous models (because they can
fit so many tests inappropriately)
▪ Composite reservoir
▪ Well at arbitrary point in closed reservoir
Estimating Average
Reservoir Pressure
Estimating Reservoir Pressure
• Middle Time Region Methods
– Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek Method
– Ramey-Cobb Method
• Late Time Region Methods
– Modified Muskat Method
– Arps-Smith Method
Middle-Time Region Methods
• Based on extrapolation and correction of MTR pressure
trend
• Advantages
– Use only pressure data in the middle-time region
• Disadvantages
– Need accurate fluid property estimates
– Need to know drainage area shape, size, well location
within drainage area
– May be somewhat computationally involved
Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek
Producing time prior to shut-in, tp = 482 hr
Porosity, f = 0.15
Viscosity, m = 0.25 cp
Total compressibility, ct = 1.615 x 10-5
Drainage area, A = 1500 x 3000 ft (a 2x1 reservoir)
2
1
Curves for Square Drainage Area
6
3
pMBHD
-1
0.01 0.1 1 10
tpAD
Curves for 2x1 Rectangle
6
3
pMBHD
-1
0.01 0.1 1 10
tpAD
Curves for 4x1 Rectangle
5
2
pMBHD
-1
-2
0.01 0.1 1 10
tpAD
2750
2650
Shut-in well
pressure, psia
2550
2450 Step 1: Plot pressure vs. Horner time ratio

2400
106 105 104 103 102 10 1
Horner time ratio
2750
p*=2689.4
2650
m=26.7
Shut-in well
pressure, psia
2550 k = 7.5 md
2450 Step 2: Extrapolate slope m to find p*

2400
106 105 104 103 102 10 1
Horner time ratio
Step 3: Calculate dimensionless producing time
7.5 md
0.0002637kt p
t pAD =
fmct A
=
(0.0002637 )(7.5)(482)
(0.15)(0.25)(1.615 10 )(1500)(3000)
−5
= 0.35
Step 4: On appropriate MBH curve, find pMBHD
6
05 .0002637 kt p
t pAD = 2x1 rectangle
4 fmct A
3
2.05
pMBHD 2
0
tpAD = 0.35
-1
0.01 0.1 1 10
tpAD
Step 5: Calculate average reservoir pressure,p
pMBHD 
( )
kh p * − p 2.303
= p*− p ( )
70.6qBm m
so
pMBHD (t pAD )
m
p = p *−
2.303
= 2689.4 −
26.7
(2.05)
2.303
= 2665.6
• Plot pws vs (tp+t)/t on semilog coordinates
• Extrapolate to (tp+t)/t=1 to find p*
• Calculate dimensionless producing time tpAD
• Using appropriate MBH chart for drainage area shape and
well location, find pMBHD
• Calculate p
• If tp >> tpss, more accurate results may be obtained by
using tpss in place of tp in calculating Horner time ratio and
tpAD
• Advantages
– Applies to wide variety of drainage area shapes, well
locations
– Uses only data in the middle-time region
– Can be used with both short and long producing times
• Disadvantages
– Requires drainage area size, shape, well location
– Requires accurate fluid property data
Reservoir Shapes
Dietz
Dietz
shape
shape
factor
factor
CA C=A4.5132
12.9851
= 30.8828
Reservoir Shapes
Dietz shape factor CA = 21.8369

10.8374
2.0769
4.5141
Reservoir Shapes
Dietz shape factor CA = 0.1155

5.379
2.6896
0.2318
Reservoir Shapes
Dietz shape factor

DietzCshape
A = 31.6
factor
Dietz
CAshape
= 21.9factor CA = 27.1
Dietz shape factor

DietzCshape
A = 31.62Dietz
factor
DietzCAshape
= 19.17
factor CA = 0.098
37.6
Ramey-Cobb
Step 1: Plot pressure vs. Horner time ratio
Step 2: Calculate dimensionless producing time
0.0002637kt p
t pAD =
fmct A
=
(0.0002637 )(7.5)(482)
(0.15)(0.25)(1.615 10 )(1500)(3000)
−5
= 0.35
Ramey-Cobb
Step 3: Find the Dietz shape factor CA for the drainage area
shape and well location
 t p + t 
  = C At pAD
 t  p
= (21.8)(0.35)
Shape factor CA = 21.8369
= 7.63
Ramey-Cobb
2750
2650
Shut-in wellbore p = 2665.8

pressure, psia
2550
2450 HTR = 7.63

2400
106 105 104 103 102 10 1
Horner time ratio
Ramey-Cobb
• Plot pws vs (tp+t)/t on semilog coordinates
• Calculate the dimensionless producing time tpAD
• Find the Dietz shape factor CA for the drainage area shape
and well location
• Calculate HTRavg
• Extrapolate middle-time region on Horner plot to HTRavg
• Read p at HTRavg
Ramey-Cobb
• Advantages
– Applies to wide variety of drainage area shapes, well
locations
– Uses only data in the middle-time region
• Disadvantages
– Requires drainage area size, shape, well location
– Requires accurate fluid property data
– Requires producing time long enough to reach
pseudosteady state
Late-Time Region Methods
• Based on extrapolation of post-middle-time region
pressure trend to infinite shut-in time
• Advantages
– No need for accurate fluid property estimates
– No need to know drainage area shape, size, well
location within drainage area
– Tend to be very simple
• Disadvantage
– Require post-middle-time-region pressure transient
data
Modified Muskat Method
Exponential decline
Average reservoir
Shut-inpressure
pressure
− bt
p − pws = Ae
ln ( p − pws ) = ln ( A) − bt
ln ( p − pws ) = C − bt
Step 1: Assume a value for average pressure
ln ( p − pws ) = C − bt
1000
Assumed pressure too high

p − pws , psi
100
p
5600
5575
Assumed pressure fits 5560
Assumed pressure too low

10
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Time, minutes
• Advantages
– Very simple to apply
• Disadvantages
– Somewhat subjective: Which data points
should I try to ‘straighten’?
– More sensitive to estimates that are too low
than to estimates that are too high
– Not easily automated
• Recommendations
– Don’t try to straighten data until there has
been a clear deviation from the middle-time
region
– Once middle-time region has ended, try to
straighten all data
– Expect best reliability for wells reasonably
centered in drainage areas
Arps-Smith Method
− bt
p − pws = Ae
dpws − bt
= Abe
dt
= b( p − pws )
dpws
dt
Arps-Smith Method
Step 1: Calculate derivatives of pressure
= b( p − pws )
dpws
dt
Arps-Smith Method
Step 2: Plot dpws/dt vs pws on Cartesian scale
10
9
Step 3: Fit a straight line
8
7
through the data points
dpws/dt, 6
psi/hr 5
4
Step 4: Read
3
p from the Pavg = 5575 psi
2
x-intercept
1
0
5300 5350 5400 5450 5500 5550 5600
Pws, psi
Arps-Smith Method
• Advantages
– Simple to apply
– Easily automated
• Disadvantages
– Requires data in late-time region, after all
boundaries have been felt
– Assumes pws approaches p exponentially
– Requires numerical differentiation of pressure
with respect to time
Late-Time Region Data
250fmct re2
750fmct re2
 t 
k k
Late-Time Region Data
100
10
Dimensionless
pressure
1
0.1
0.01
103 104 105 106 107 108 109
Estimating Average
Reservoir Pressure
Hydraulically
Fractured Wells
Hydraulically Fractured
Wells
• Flow Regimes
• Depth of Investigation
• Fracture Damage
• Straight Line Analysis
– Bilinear Flow Analysis
– Linear Flow Analysis
– Semilog Analysis
• Type Curve Analysis
Ideal Hydraulic Fracture
Reservoir sand
(permeability=k ) Wellbore
Fracture width, wf
Hydraulic fracture Fracture

(permeability =kf ) halflength, Lf
Flow Regimes in Fractures
Fracture Linear Flow

Bilinear Flow
Formation Linear Flow
Elliptical Flow Pseudoradial Flow

Transient moves down fracture length
Regime is not of
practical importance
Transient has not Transient has not

moved into reservoir reached end of fracture
0.0002637kt
tLf D  Cr =
wfkf
ct L2f kL f
2
0.01C r
Dimensionless tLf D 
time  2fD
k f c t
 fD =
k f c ft
Bilinear Flow
Low-conductivity fracture, Cr < 100
Pressure transient moves down

fracture, into formation
Bilinear Flow
Low-conductivity fracture, Cf < 100
Pressure transient has not reached end of fracture

Bilinear Flow
(Log-log plot)
Pressure change
Pressure
derivative
Pressure 2.45 1 4
drop: pD  tL D
FcD f
Time
Bilinear Flow
(Log-log plot)
(Duration depends on dimensionless

fracture conductivity)
Time
Bilinear Flow
−4
 4.55 
If Cr < 1.6 tLf D  
 C r 
If 1.6 < Cr < 3 t L f D  0.0205C r − 1.5−1.53
0.1
If Cr  3 tLf D 
C r2
(Duration depends on dimensionless
fracture conductivity)
Bilinear Flow
Data can yield fracture conductivity wfkf if k is known.

Bilinear Flow
Data cannot yield Lf, but may identify lower bound .

Negligible pressure drop down fracture
Transient moves linearly into wellbore

Flow from beyond ends of
fracture not yet significant
If Cr > 1.6
−4
Transition to period is
complete by time of
t L f D = 10
Period ends when t L f D  0.016

Plots of t(dp/dt) and p have
slope on log-log plot of 12
Damaged fracture
(Log-log plot) Undamaged
fracture
1
2
Pressure
Derivative
Time
Elliptical Flow
Pseudoradial Flow
Drainage pattern can be considered as circle
Begins at tLf D  3
Estimate Flow Period Duration
• Estimate end of linear flow (tLf D = 0.016) and start
of pseudoradial flow (tLf D = 3)
 = 0.15  = 0.03 cp Cr = 100 ct = 1×10-4 psi-1
Case No. Lf , ft k, md
1 100 1.00
2 100 0.01
3 1, 000 0.01 End linear flow:
ct L2f t L f D (0.15)(0.03)(1  10 −4 )L2f (0.016 ) 2.73  10 −5 L2f
t= = =
0.0002637k 0.0002637 k k
Begin pseudoradial flow:
ct L2f t L f D (0.15)(0.03)(1  10 −4 )L2f (3) 5.12  10 − 3 L2f
t= = =
0.0002637k 0.0002637 k k
Estimate Flow Period Duration
 = 0.15  = 0.03 Cr = 100 ct = 1×10-4 psi-1
Time to end Time to Start
Case No. Lf , ft k, md of FLF, hr of PRF, hr
1 100 1.00 0.273 51.2
2 100 0.01 27.3 5,120 (213 D)
3 1, 000 0.01 2,730 (114 D) 512,000 (58 yr)
Depth Of Investigation
a
b
(x,y)
2 2
x y
+ =1
Lf
a 2
b 2 2
Lf =a −b 2 2
Depth Of Investigation
Dimensionless time at 0.0002637kt

distance b (length of t bD =
minor axis): ct b 2
12
Solving for length  0.0002637kt 
b =  
of minor axis:    ct t bD 
Assuming pseudosteadystate 12
flow  kt 
to distance b at time b = 0.0288 
tbD = 1/ as in linear systems    ct 
Depth of Investigation
Depth of investigation
along major axis
a= 2
Lf +b 2
Area of investigation A =  ab
Hydraulic Fracture
With Choked Fracture Damage
k
kfs k
f
wf
Ls
kLs Lf
sf =
k fs w f
Hydraulic Fracture
With Fracture Face Damage
k k
ws ks f
wf
Lf
ws  k 
sf =  − 1 
2 L f  ks 
Post-Fracture Well-Test
Analysis
• Assess success of fracture treatment
• Estimate fracture half-length, conductivity,
and permeability
– Bilinear flow
– Linear flow
– Pseudoradial flow
Bilinear Flow Method
1.38 1/ 4
pD = tLf D + s f
Cr
dpD 0.345 1/ 4
tLf D = tLf D
dt L f D Cr
Bilinear Flow Analysis
Procedure
• Identify the bilinear flow regime using the diagnostic
plot
• Graph pwf vs. t1/4 or pws vs teB1/4 on Cartesian
coordinates
• Find the slope mB and the intercept p0 of the best
straight line
• Calculate the fracture conductivity wfkf from the slope
and the fracture skin factor sf from the intercept
Bilinear Equivalent Time
teB = (14
tp + t 14
(
− t p + t )
14 4
)
t eB  t , t  t p
t eB  t p , t  t p
Prefer tests with tp >> tmax

Equations
2 0.5
 44.1qB   1 
w f k f =    
 hm B     ct k  Must be
known
Drawdown sf =
0.00708kh
( pi − p0 )
qB
Buildup sf =
0.00708kh
qB
p0 − pwf ( )
2800
2750
m = 63.8 psi/hr1/4
p ws, psi
2700
2650
p0 = 2642.4 psi
pwf = 2628.6 psi ps
2600
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
teB1/4, hrs 1/4
Limitations of
• Gives estimate of wfkf and sf
• Cannot be used to estimate Lf
• Bilinear flow may be hidden by wellbore
storage
• Requires independent estimate of k
Linear Flow Analysis
(
pD =  t L f D )
12
+sf
tLf D
dpD 1
(
=  tLf D
dt L f D 2
) 12
  1

log t L f D

dp D 
dt L f D  2
( )
= log t L f D + log ( )
1
2
 
Linear Flow Analysis Procedure
• Identify the linear flow regime using the
diagnostic plot
• Graph pwf vs t1/2 or pws vs teL1/2 on
Cartesian coordinates
• Find the slope mL and the intercept po of
the best straight line
• Calculate the fracture half-length Lf from
the slope and the fracture skin factor sf
from the intercept
t eL = t p + t − t p + t
teL  t , t  t p
t eL  t p , t  t p
Equations
12
4.064qB   
Lf =  
m L h  k ct 
Drawdown sf =
0.00708kh
( pi − p0 )
qB
Buildup sf =
0.00708kh
qB
(
p0 − pwf )
6000
5000
m = 211 psi/hr1/2
4000
paws, psi
3000
2000
pa0= 2266.0 psi
pawf= 1656.2 psi
ps
1000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
teL1/2 , hrs1/2
Limitations of
• Applicable only to wells with high-conductivity
fractures (Cr > 100)
• Wellbore storage may hide linear flow period
• Long transition period between end of linear flow
(tLfD < 0.016) and beginning of pseudoradial flow
(tLfD > 3)
• Estimating Lf requires independent estimate of k
Pseudoradial Flow Diagnostic
Plot
10
pD, 0.1
tDpD´
0.01
0.001
0.0001
1E-06 0.0001 0.001 1 100
t L fD
Pseudoradial Flow Analysis
Procedure
• Identify the pseudoradial flow regime using the
diagnostic plot
• Graph pwf vs. log(t) or pws vs log(te)
• Find the slope m and the intercept p1hr of the best
straight line
• Calculate the formation permeability k from the slope
and the total skin factor s (or s´ for a gas well) from the
intercept
• Estimate fracture half-length from total skin factor
−s
L f  2rw e
2500
2400
2300
2200
2100
pws, psi
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
 te, hrs
Limitations of
• Most likely to occur in short, highly conductive
fractures in high-permeability formations
– Formations above rarely fractured
– Wells with long fractures, low-permeability
formations require impractically long test times
• For gas wells, skin factor s´ calculated from test data
often distorted by non-Darcy flow
• Method applies only to highly conductive fractures
(Cr  100); otherwise, Lf will be too low
Type-Curve Analysis:
( )
0.0002637k 0.00708kh
tL f D = t pD = pi − pwf
ct L2f qB
0.8936C wf kf
CL f D = Cr =
ct hL2f kL f
wf kf
sf =
0.00708kh
ps FcD = = Cr
qB kLf
1. Graph field data pressure change and pressure derivatives
2. Match field data to type curve
3. Find match point and matching stem
4. Calculate k from pressure match point
5. Calculate Lf from time match point
6. Interpret matching stem value (wf kf, sf, or C)
Interpreting Match Points
141.2qB  pD 
k=  
h  p  MP

0.0002637 k  t  
Lf =
ct  tL D 
 f  MP
Cinco Type Curve
10
Cr = 0.2
0.5
1
3
1 10
50
1000
0.1
pD, tDp'D
0.01
0.001 w f k f = kL f Cr
0.0001
1E-06 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
tLfD
Damaged-Fracture Type Curve
10
0.1
pD, tDp'D
0.01
sf = 1
qB
ps =
0.3
0.001
0.1
0.03
0.01
sf
0.00708kh
0.003
0
0.0001
1E-06 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
tLfD
Wellbore-Storage Type Curve
10
CLfD = 0
-5
5x10
-4
1 3x10
-3
2x10
1.2x10-2
-2
8x10
0.1 5x10-1
pD, tDp'D
0.01
ct hL f
2
0.001
C= CL f D
0.8936
0.0001
1E-06 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
tLfD
Limitations of
Type Curve Analysis
• Type curves are usually based on solutions for drawdown
• Alternatives for buildup tests
– Shut-in time
– Equivalent time (radial, linear, bilinear)
– Superposition type curves
• Type curves may ignore important behavior
– Variable WBS
– Boundaries
– Non-Darcy flow
• Need independent estimate of permeability for best results
Hydraulically
Fractured Wells
Pressure Transient
Analysis
for Horizontal Wells
Horizontal Well Analysis
• Describes unconventional and complex
reservoirs
• Determines effectiveness of completion
technique options
• Distinguishes between poor reservoir
and damaged formation
• Differentiates between completion
success and in-situ reservoir quality
Complications in Analysis
• Three-dimensional flow geometry, no
radial symmetry
• Several flow regimes contribute data
• Significant wellbore storage effects,
difficult interpretation
• Both vertical and horizontal dimensions
affect flow geometry
Steps to Evaluating Data
• Identify specific flow regimes in test data
• Apply proper analytical and graphical
procedures
• Evaluate uniqueness and sensitivity of
results to assumed properties
Step 1: Identify Flow Regimes
• Five major and distinct regimes possible
– may or may not even occur
– may or may not be obscured by
wellbore storage effects, end effects,
or transition effects
Step 2: Apply Procedures
• Estimate important reservoir properties
– Determine parameter groups from
equations
– Expect complex iterative processes
Step 3: Evaluate Results
• Expect nonunique results
– Simulate test to confirm that the
analysis is consistent with test data
– Use simulator to determine whether
other sets of formation properties will
also lead to a fit of the data
Well and Reservoir Geometry
z y bH
h Tip of well
0
0 x
aH
Well and Reservoir Geometry
Dx dx
dz
x dy z Dz
z y bH
h Tip of well
0
0 x
aH
Horizontal Well Flow Regimes
• Five possible flow regimes
(1) early radial
(2) hemiradial
Calculate different
(3) early linear formation properties
(4) late pseudoradial from each period
(5) late linear
Any flow regime may be absent from a

plot of test data because of geometry,
wellbore storage or other factors.
Flow Regimes
• Radial
Flow not affected by

reservoir boundaries
Flow Regimes
• Hemiradial
Flow affected by one

vertical boundary
Flow Regimes
• Early Linear
Flow affected by
vertical boundaries
Flow Regimes
• Early Linear
Flow effects not seen

at ends of wellbore
Flow Regimes Flow similar to radial
flow beyond vertical
• Late boundaries
Pseudoradial
Flow Regimes Effects of transient
reach boundaries
• Late Linear perpendicular to
wellbore
Flow Regimes/Drawdown
Dp 1
2
Log (Dp)
1
or 2 p'
Log (p) 1
1
Wellbore Early- Early- Pseudoradial Late-

storage Radial Linear Flow Linear
Flow Flow Flow
Log (time)
Early-Radial Flow Regime
Similar to radial May be masked
flow near vertical by wellbore
wells storage effects
Early-Radial Flow Regime
162.6qB   k x kz t  
pi − pwf = log 10   − 3.227 + 0.868 s 
 2  d
k z k x Lw   ct rw  
End of Early-Radial Flow
Shortest
distance to
1,800d z2  ct
Vertical
boundary
effects
:
t Eerf =
kz
vertical
boundary
Vertical
permeability
125L2w  ct
Wellbore
end
effects
: t Eerf =
ky
Early-Radial Flow/Drawdown
47
Semilog plot
Dp
33
0.1 100
Time
Early-Radial Flow/Drawdown
47
Semilog plot
162.6qB
Dp merf =
Lw k x k z
162.6qB
k x kz =
merf Lw
33
0.1 100
Time
Skin in Early-Radial Flow
   
 Dp1hr  k x kz  
sd = 1.151 − log   + 3.23
m    c r 2  
 erf  t w  
Drawdown Data for Well Erf-1
– Centered in box-shaped drainage area
– h = 200 ft, bH = 4,000 ft long, and
aH = 2,000 ft wide
– Lw = 1,000 ft
– From analysis of data in early linear
flow regime, kx = 200 md.
q = 800 STB/D rw = 0.25 ft
 = 1 cp  = 0.2
B = 1.25 RB/STB ct = 15x10-6 psi-1
Dp at Well Erf-1
Time, hr Dp = (pi - pwf), psi
0.24 33.96
0.48 36.41
0.96 38.85
1.44 40.26
2.40 41.96
12.50 46.23
16.80 46.91
24.00 47.65
Dp vs. log t for Well Erf-1
47
45
43 Slope =
Dp1hr = 39 8 psi/cycle
41
Dp,
Points begin to
39
psia deviate at 2.4 hr
37 (close to value
35 from
33
calculations)
0.1 1 10 100
t, hr
Permeability in Well Erf-1
162.6qB
kz k x =
merf Lw
162.6(800)(1.23)(1)
kz k x =
8 1,000
= 20.3
k z k x = 20.3 2
= 412 k z = 412 / 200 = 2 md
Damage Skin in Well Erf-1
Dp  k k  
− l o g
x z 
sd = 1.151 + 3 .23
1hr
 merf  2 
  φ μc t rw  
 39   20.3  

 − log   + 3.23
= 1.1513 + 
 8   (0.2 )(1)(15  10 −
)
6
(0.25 )2 



= 0.0812
End of Early-Radial Flow
Find the smaller of dz= h/2=100 ft
t Eerf = 1,800 d z2 ct / k z
( )
t Eerf = (1,800) (100)2 (0.2) (1) 1.5 x10 −5 / 2
= 27 hr ky = kx = 200 md
t Eerf = 125 Lwct
2
/ ky
( )
t Eerf = (125) (1,000)2 (0.2) (1) 1.5 x10 −5 / 200
= 1.875 hr
Start of Hemiradial Flow
• Begins after closest vertical boundary (at
distance dz from wellbore) affects data
and before farthest boundary (at Dz from
wellbore) affects the data.
dz
Dz
Hemiradial Flow
325.2qB   k x kz t  
pi − pwf = log 10   − 3.227 + 0.868 s 
 2  d
k z k x Lw   ct rw  
Start of Hemiradial Flow
• Begins after closest vertical boundary
(at distance dz from wellbore) affects
data and before furthest boundary (at Dz
from wellbore) affects the data.
1,800 d z ct
2
t Shrf =
kz
End of Hemiradial Flow
• Ends when furthest boundary (at distance
Dz from wellbore) affects the data . . .
1,800 Dz ct
2
t Ehrf =
dz
kz
Dz
End of Hemiradial Flow
• . . . or when effects are felt at ends of
wellbore, whichever comes first.
125 Lw ct
2
t Ehrf =
ky
dz
Dz
Hemiradial Flow/Drawdown
47
Semilog plot
Dp
325.2qB
mhrf =
Lw k x k z
33
0.1 100
Time
47
Semilog plot
Radial flow
162.6qB
Dp merf =
Lw k x k z
Hemiradial flow
325.2qB
mhrf =
Lw k x k z
33
0.1 100
Time
 Dp  k k  
 1hr  x z  
sd = 2.303 − log  + 3.23
 mhrf   c r 
2 
  t w 
Early-Linear Flow Regime
• Start
1,800Dz2  ct
t Self =
kz
• End
160L2w   ct
t Eelf =
ky
t 141.2qB
pi − pwf =
8.128qB
+ (sc + sd )
Lw h k xct Lw k x k z
Early-Linear Flow/Drawdown
11
Cartesian plot
Dp
8.128 qB 
kx =
melf Lw h  ct
4
1 8
Time1/2
Early-Linear Flow/Drawdown
Lw k x k z
sd = Dpt =0 − sc
141.2qB
Convergence skin

 h


k
 z


   dz 
sc = ln   + 0.25 ln − ln sin

 h  − 1.838
r  k   
 w   x  
Convergence Skin
h
Lw
Drawdown Data for Well Elf-2
• Centered in box-shaped drainage area 100
ft thick, 4,000 ft long, 4,000 ft wide
• Lw = 2,500 ft
• Constant q of 800 STB/D
• From early radial-flow regime data,
kxkz = 8,000 md2
 = 1 cp rw = 0.25 ft
B = 1.25 RB/STB  = 0.2
ct = 15x10-6 psi-1
Dp for Elf-2
Time, hr Dp, psi

1.2 4.11
2.4 4.54
12.0 6.33
24.0 7.65
48.0 9.49
60.0 10.26
Dp vs. t1/2 for Elf-2
10
9
Straight line on this
plot indicates early
8 linear flow.
7
Dp
6
5
Slope = 0.934
4
3
0 1 2 4 4 5 6 7
Time1/2
Permeability in Well Elf-2
8.13qB 
kx =
melf Lw h  ct
(8.13)(800)(1.25) 1
(0.934)(2,500)(100) (0.2)(15)(10−6 )
kx =
k x = 404 md
k z = 19.8 md
Damage Skin in Well Elf-2
Lw k x k z h  kx    d z  
sd =    
Dpt =0 −scs=c ln 0.25 ln  − ln sin   − 1.838
141.2qB  rw   kz    h 
(2,500) (8,000)(3.10)
sd = − sc
(141.2)(800)(1.25)(1)
= 4.91 − sc
 100   404     (50)  
sc = ln  + 0.25 ln  − ln sin   − 1.838
 0.25   19.8    100  
= 4.91
Therefore, sd = 4.91- 4.91 = 0.

End of Early-Linear Flow
Find the range of
1,800 Dz2ct
t Self =
1,800)(50)2 (0.2)(1)(1.5 x10 −5 )
kz
t Self =
(
20
= 0.675 hr
t Eelf = 160 Lwct

2
/ ky
(160)(2500)2 (0.2)(1)(1.5 x10 −5 )
t Eelf =
400
= 7.5 hr
Late-Pseudoradial Flow
162.6qB   k yt   141.2qB
pi − pwf = log 10   − 2.303 +
2 
(sc + sd )
k ykx h   ct Lw   Lw k x k z
Late-Pseudoradial Flow
• Start
Lw
bH
Lw  0.45
bH
Late Pseudoradial Flow
• Start
1,480L2w  ct
t Sprf =
ky
Wellbore
end effects
 
2
2,000ct  d y + Lw 4 

t Eprf =  
ky
Ends when
flow from beyond
z the ends of the
wellbore hits a
boundary ...
1,650  ct d 2
x
t Eprf =
kx
…or reach
end boundaries
(whichever is reached first)of reservoir
Pseudoradial Flow/Drawdown
59
Semilog plot
Dp
162.6qB
k xk y =
mprf h
53
100 200 300 400 500
Time
Pseudoradial Flow/ Drawdown
 k z Lw  Dp1hr ky 

sd =  1.151   −l o g + 1.76  − sc


k y h  mprf

  ct Lw
2


h  kx    d z  
   
sc = ln  0.25 ln   − ln sin   − 1.838
 rw   kz    h 
Drawdown Data on Well Prf-3
– Centered in drainage volume
– h = 150 ft, Lw = 900 ft, aH = bH = 5,280 ft
– From analysis of early linear flow,
kx = 100 md
– From analysis of early radial flow,
kxkz = 1,000 md2, and kz = 10 md
q = 800 STB/D rw = 0.25 ft
 = 1 cp  = 0.2
B = 1.25 RB/STB ct = 15x10-6 psi-1
Dp for Well Prf-3
Time, hr Dp, psi

192 53.69
240 55.13
288 56.32
360 57.81
432 59.05
Dp vs. log t for Well Prf-3
59
58
57
Dp, 56
psia
55
54 Slope = 15.3
53
100 200 300 400 500
Time
Permeability of Well Prf-3
162.6qB
kxk y =
mprf h
kxk y =
(162.6)(800)(1.25)(1)
(15.3)(150)
=70.8 md
k x = 100 md
k y = (70.8)2 / 100
= 50.2 md
Damage Skin for Well Prf-3
k z Lw  Dp1hr  ky  
sd = 1.151  − log   + 1.76 − sc
k y h  m prf  c L2  
  t w
 150   100     (75)  

sc = ln   + 0.25 ln   − ln sin   − 1.838
 .025   10    150  
= 5.13.
10 (900)  18.94  50  
sd = 1.151 −log  +1.76 − 5.13

50.2 (150)  15.3 ( )
 (0.2 )(1) 1.510−6 (900)2 
  
= 0.057
Start of Pseudoradial Flow
t Sprf = 1480 Lwct

2
/ ky
(1,480) (900)2 (0.2)(1)(1.5 x10 −5 )

t Sprf =
50.2
= 71.6 hr
End of Pseudoradial Flow
Find the smaller of
(
t Eprf = 2,000 ct Lw / 4 + d y / k y )2
(2,000)(0.2)(1)(1.5 x10−5 ) 900 + 2190 

2
t Eprf =  4  = 697 hr
50.2
t Eprf = 1,650 ct d x2 / k x
(1,650)(0.2)(1)(1.5 x10−5 )(2640)2
t Eprf = = 344 hr
100
Late-Linear Flow
Effects of pressure
reach boundaries in
y, z directions
Late-Linear Flow
Pseudosteady-state
flow in these directions
Late-Linear Flow
8.128qB t 141.2qB  bH 
pi − pwf = +  s p + sc + sd 
bH h k xct bH k x k z  Lw 
Late-Linear Flow
4,800  ct ( D y + Lw / 4)2
t Sllf =
ky
Starts with
effects of end
boundaries . . .
Late Linear Flow
1,800  ct Dz2
t Sllf =
kz
. . . or
effects of
vertical
boundaries . . .
(whichever is reached last)
Late Linear Flow
• End
1,650  ct d 2
x
t Ellf =
kx
Late Linear/Drawdown
60
Estimate kx
8.128qB 
kx =
mllf bH  ct
Estimate bH
Dp (when kx is known)
8.128qB 
bH =
Cartesian plot mllf h  ct k x
30
5 Time1/2 17
Late Linear Flow
• Calculate total skin, s, including
partial penetration skin, sp
(a complex function
given in table)
Lw  k k D pt =0 
sd = b x z
− s − s 
bH  H 141.2qB c p
 
Drawdown Data for Well Llf-4
– h = 150 ft, Dz = 85 ft, dz = 65 ft
– Lw = 1,000 ft, bH (length of drainage area
parallel to Lw) = 2,000 ft, aH = 6,968 ft
– From analysis of early radial flow,
kxkz = 1,000 md2,
– From analysis of pseudoradial flow,
kxky = 5,000 md2
q = 800 STB/D rw = 0.25 ft
 = 1 cp  = 0.2
B = 1.25 RB/STB ct = 15x10-6 psi-1
Pressure Change for Well Llf-4
Time, Hr Dp, psi
60 40.50
84 42.72
120 45.52
156 47.92
192 50.07
240 52.65
Dp vs. t for Well Llf-4
50
45
40
Dp,
psia 35 Slope = 1.56
30
25
0 4 8 12 16
(Time)1/2
Permeability of Well Llf-4
18.3 qB 
kx =
mllf bH h ct
(18.28)(800)(1.25) 1
=
(1.56)(2,000)(150) (
0.2 15  10 −5 )
= 10
k x = 100 md
Total Skin of Well Llf-4
L  k x k z Dpt =0 
sd = w b − sc − s p 
bH  H
141.2qB 
 
=
(1,000) 1000 (28.4) − 1,000 (s + s ) = 6.36 − 0.5(s + s )
(141.2)(800)(1.25)(1) 2,000 p c c p
 h  kx    d z  
 
sc = ln   + 0.25 ln   − ln sin   − 1.838
 rw   kz    h 
 150   100    65  
= ln   + 0.25 ln   − ln sin   − 1.838
 0.25   40    150  
= 5.16.
Partial Penetration Skin
• Use equations from tables
aH 6,968
= = 696.8
kx 100
aH 0.75bH 0.75h
 
bH 2,000 0.75bH kx ky kz
= = 283; = 212
ky 50 ky
h 150 0.75h
= = 47.4; = 35.6.
kz 10 kz
 bH    h   kx    d z   
p xyz =   
− 1 ln   + 0.25 ln   − ln sin  − 1.838 
 Lw    rw   kz    h   
 2,000    150   100    65  
=  ln   + − 0.25 ln   − ln   150 
sin − 1.838 
 1,000   0.25   10     
= 5.16.
Lw 1,000
ym = d y + = 500 + = 1,000.
2 2
Lw 1,000
= = 0.25
2bH (2)(2,000)
 
F (u) = − u 0.145 + ln (u) − 0.137(u)2 , u  1
 Lw
F 

 
 = −(0.25) 0.145 + ln (0.25) − 0.137(0.25)2 = 0.313
 2bH 
4 ym + Lw (4)(1,000) + 1,000
= = 1.25
2bH (2)(2,000)
4 ym − Lw
= 0.75
2bH
F (u) = (2 − u)0.145 + ln (2 − u) − 0.137(2 − u)2  , u1
 4 ym + Lw 
F  
 = (2 − 1.25) 0.145 + ln (2 − 1.25) − 0.137(2 − 1.25)2 
 2bH 
= −0.165
 
F (u) = − u 0.145 + ln (u) − 0.137(u)2 , u  1
 4 ym − Lw 
F  
 = −0.75 0.145 + ln (0.75) − 0.137(0.75)2 
 2bH 
= 0.165
2bH 2   Lw    4 ym + Lw   4 ym − Lw   
pxy = k z / k y F   + 0.5 F   − F    
Lw h   2bH    2bH   2bH   
=
(2)(2,000)2 10
0.313 + 0.5− 0.165 − 01.65
(1,000)(150) 100
= 2.50
s p = 5.16 + 2.50 = 7.66
sd = 6.36 − 0.5(7.66 + 5.16) = −0.05
Duration of Flow Regime
t Sllf =
(
4,800ct D y + Lw / 4 2 )
ky
( )
2
 1,000 
4,800(0.2)(1) 1.5  10 −5  500 + 
=  4 
50
= 162 hr
Duration of Flow Regime
1,800ct Dz2
t Sllf =
kz
=
( )
1,800(0.2)(1) 1.5  10 −5 (85)2
'
10
= 3.90 hr.
End of Late Linear Flow
1,650 ct d x2
t Ellf =
kx
(1,650)(0.2)(1)(1.5 x10 −5 )(3,484)2

t Ellf =
100
= 601 hr
Summary of Analysis Procedures
• Calculate kx
– Early linear flow regime data: from
effective wellbore length, Lw
– Late linear flow regime: from reservoir
length, bH, parallel to wellbore
Effective wellbore length, Lw, can be

calculated from data in the early linear
flow regime if kx has been calculated.
• Calculate kx
– Early linear flow regime data: from
effective wellbore length, Lw
– Late linear flow regime: from reservoir
length, bH , parallel to wellbore.
Length of the boundary, bH, parallel to

wellbore can be calculated from data in
late linear flow regime if kx is known.
• Calculate kx
• Calculate kz from data in early radial or
hemiradial flow regimes
• Calculate ky from pseudoradial flow regime
If data such as Lw or bH are unknown or if

flow regimes are missing, analysis is
iterative at best and will result in
nonunique results.
• Calculate kx
• Calculate kz from data in early radial or hemiradial
flow regimes
We can assume kx = ky = kh and often

simplify analysis, but validity is
questionable.
• Calculate kx
• Calculate kz from data in early radial or hemiradial
flow regimes
• Check on expected durations of flow regimes
using tentative results from the analysis to
minimize ambiguity in results
Drawdown Diagnostic Plot
Wellbore storage
unit-slope line Dp
Log (Dp)
or p'
Log (p)
Linear flow halfslope
Radial flowline
horizontal derivative
Log (time)
Build-Up
Drawdown Diagnostic Plot
Shapes may not
appear in build-
up tests
Log (Dp)
or
Log (p)
(better chance
if tp>>Dtmax)
Wellbore Early Early Pseudoradial Late
storage Radial Linear Flow Linear
flow Flow Flow
Log (time)
Field Example: Well A
Ld, ft 2,470 • Horizontal
Lw, ft - exploration well
rw, ft 0.25 • Vertical tectonic
, % 5
h, ft 150
fracture
q, STB/D 104 • Permeability
Bo, RB/STB 1.40 probably results
, cp 0.45 from fracture
tp, hours 238
• kh  kz
Well A: Diagnostic Plot
10,000
p
Wellbore
1000 Radial flow?
Log (Dp
storage
or p ) p'
100
10
1 10 100
t, hr
Well A: Horner Plot
24.69 Time 2.4
4,500
Test time too
4,000
short to m  -392.63
3,500 detect lower
boundary,
p linear flow,
2,500 or anisotropy
k = 0.011
2,000 Semilog plot s = 2.9
1,500
1 10 Horner Time 100
Well A: Buildup History Match
10,000
p
Wellbore
1000 Radial flow
Log (Dp
storage
or p ) p'
100
k = 0.027 k = 0.011
s = 11.5 s = 2.9
10
(from Horner plot)
1 10 100
t, hr
Field Example: Well B
Ld, ft 2,000 • Well in west
Lw, ft - Texas carbonate
rw, ft 0.30 • Expected
, % 17
h, ft 75
isotropic k
q, STB/D 200 caused by
Bo, RB/STB 1.60 fracturing,
, cp 1.80 dissolution
tp, hours 1,320
Well B: Diagnostic Plot
1000
k = 0.15
Dp, psia s = -3.2
or p
100
Radial flow Linear
flow
10
Wellbore storage
1 10 100 1000
t, hr
Well B: Horner Plot
146.67 t, hr 13.33
4000
3900
tErf = 165 hr
3800
k = 0.14
p, psia
3600 m = 336.4
3500
3400
10 100
Horner time ratio
Well B: Tandem-Root Plot
1800
1600
h = 75 ft
1400
Nearest boundary = 29 ft
p, psia
1000
m = 39.6
800
600
10 100
t p + Dt − Dt , hr1/2
Well B: Buildup History Match
1000
Dp, psia
or p
100
k = 0.15 Good
10
k = 0.14 agreement
1 10 100 1000
t, hr
Field Example C
Ld, ft 1,400 • Horizontal well
Lw, ft 484 • High-k sandstone
rw, ft 0.41
, % 17 • Extensive
h, ft 54 underlying
q, STB/D 2,760 aquifer
Bo, RB/STB 1.10
, cp 4.88
tp, hours 36
Well C: Diagnostic Plot
1000
Radial, hemiradial,
100 or elliptical flow
Dp, psia No apparent

or p wellbore storage
1
Decline caused by
underlying aquifer
0.1
0.01 0.1 t, hr 1 10 100
Well C: Type-Curve Match
1000
p
100 p
Dp, psia
or p Geometric average
of horizontal,
1
vertical k ~ 48 md
0.1
0.01 0.1 t, hr 1 10 100
Well C: Horner Plot
5.44 0.4949 t, hr 0.0490 4.90E-03
4000
3800
k = 53 md
p, psia
k ~ 48 md
3600
(confirms validity of
earlier findings of
no wellbore storage)
3400
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Horner time
Horizontal Well Test Configuration
Measurements usually made
above horizontal wellbore
Conventional tools can be
used in horizontal well tests
Tools may be too rigid to pass through curve

Wellbore storage inherent

in horizontal well testing
Wellbore crossflow may

dominate test results
Factors That Affect
Transient Response
• Horizontal permeability (normal and parallel
to well trajectory)
• Vertical permeability
• Drilling damage
• Completion damage
• Producing interval that may be effectively
much less than drilled length
• Variations in standoff along length of well
Obstacles to Interpretation
• Multiple parameters frequently yield
inconclusive test analysis results
• Wellbore storage obscures effects of
transient behavior
• Middle- and late-time response behavior
may require several hours, days, or
months to appear in transient data
Ensuring Interpretable Data
• Estimate horizontal and vertical k from tests in
pilot hole before kicking off to horizontal borehole
segment
• Estimate standoff from directional drilling survey
• Determine producing part of wellbore from
production log flow survey
• Flow wells in developed reservoirs long enough to
equilibrate pressures along the wellbore and
minimize crossflow
Pressure Transient
Analysis
for Horizontal Wells
Effects of Errors
in Input Data
Presentation Outline
Introduction
Sources of Error in Input Data
Effects of Error on Results of Welltest
Interpretation
Examples
Summary
Problem 1
Well A estimates from PBU test
– Permeability, 10 md
– Skin factor, 0
– Distance to boundary, 250 ft
Analysis assumed net pay 25 ft
If the net pay were actually 50 feet, how would
that affect our estimates of permeability, skin
factor, and distance to the boundary?
Problem 2
Seismic interpretation indicates
boundary 300 ft from Well B
PBU test interpretation indicates nearest
boundary 900 ft away
Can these inconsistencies possibly be

resolved?
What could have caused this much
error in the distance estimate?
Sources of Input Data
Log interpretation
Fluid properties
Reservoir and well properties
Data From Log Interpretation
Porosity
Water saturation
Net pay thickness
Causes of Error in Log Interpretation
Failure to calibrate the logging tool
Failure to make necessary environmental
corrections
Failure to calibrate the log-derived
properties against core measurements
Failure to select appropriate cutoffs for net
pay estimation
Error in Log Interpretation Data
Parameter Deviation
Without With
correction correction
Porosity 15 % 5%

Water saturation  40 %  10 %
Net pay 50 %  15 %
Fluid Properties Data
Formation volume factor
Compressibility
Viscosity
Error in Fluid Properties Data
From Gas Properties Correlations
Parameter Deviation
Bg from composition  1.1% to  5.8%

Bg from gas gravity  1.3 % to  7.3%
(as much as 27% if impurities are ignored)
cg Negligible at low pressure
mg  2% to  4%, gg < 1
up to 20% low, gg > 1.5
Error in Fluid Properties Data
From Oil Properties Correlations
Parameter Deviation
Bo, p > pb  10%
Bo, p  pb  5%
co, p > pb Up to 50% low at high pressure
Best near pb
co, p  pb  10%, p > 500 psi
 20%, p < 500 psi
mo Order of magnitude only

Other Input Data
Flow rate
Wellbore radius
Formation compressibility
Total compressibility
Error in Well and Reservoir Data
From Measurement or Calculations
Parameter Error
Flow rate Failure to record rate before BU test

Inaccuracy in estimates, averages
Wellbore radius Poor choice of measurement
Formation compressibility Estimation errors
Total compressibility Variations in fluid saturations
Abnormally pressured reservoir
Oil compressibility
Total Compressibility
ct  c f + So co + S wcw + S g cg
Formation Each phase of fluid
compressibility times its compressibility
Effects of Errors
Vertical well
Single-phase flow
Homogeneous reservoir
Boundary
– No-flow, linear constant pressure, closed
Test
– Drawdown, buildup, injection, or fall-off
– Duration long enough to identify boundary
Errors in Viscosity
If minput = 2 mtrue
Then:
– kcalc = 2 ktrue
– Nothing else will be affected
Errors in Porosity
If input = 2 true,
Then:
– scalc = strue+ 0.5ln(2)
– Lx calc = Lx true/sqrt(2)
– A calc = Atrue/2
Errors in Water Saturation
Cause errors in calculating total

compressibility
Errors in Compressibility
If ct input = 2 ct true
Then:
Errors in Net Pay
If hinput = 2 htrue
Then:
– kcalc = ktrue/2
Errors in Flow Rate
If qinput = 2 qtrue
Then:
– kcalc = 2 ktrue
– scalc = strue- 0.5ln(2)
– Lx calc = sqrt(2) Lx true
– A calc = 2 Atrue
Errors in Formation Volume Factor
If Binput = 2 Btrue
Then:
– kcalc = 2 ktrue
– scalc = strue- 0.5ln(2)
– Lx calc = sqrt(2) Lx true
– A calc = 2 Atrue
Errors in Wellbore Radius
If rw input = 2 rw true
Then:
– scalc = strue+ ln(2)
Solution to Problem 1
Well A estimates Net pay50 ft
– Permeability, 10 md – Permeability, 5 md
– Skin factor, 0 – Skin factor, 0.35
– Boundary, 250 ft – Boundary, 177 ft
Assumed net pay 25 ft
Solution To Problem 2
Seismic interpretation indicates
boundary 300 ft from Well B
PBU test interpretation indicates nearest
boundary 900 ft away
Total compressibility could

be off by a factor of 10
Boundary could be a
factor of 3 too far away
Summary
Permeability is most affected by errors in
viscosity, net pay, and flow rate
Distances to boundaries and drainage
area are most affected by errors in
compressibility
Skin factor is not affected to a large
degree by any input variable
Effects of Errors
in Input Data
Integrated Well Test
Interpretation
Integrating Test Interpretation
Model
Geology
Selection
Parameter
Geophysics
Estimation
Flow Regime
Identification
Model
Petrophysics
Validation
Engineering Data Well Test

Interpretation
Interpreting Integrated Data
Importance of Model Selection
Integrating Other Data
Geological Data
Geophysical Data
Petrophysical Data
Engineering Data
Validating the Reservoir Model
Common Errors and Misconceptions
Similar Model Responses
Well in a Wedge Composite Reservoir
Multiple ‘Knobs’ Confuse
Composite Reservoir Well in a Box
W
R
L
M1,S1 D2
M2,S2 D1
• Mobility ratio M1/M2 • Distance to wall D1

• Storativity ratio S1/S2 • Distance to wall D2
• Distance to boundary R • Reservoir length L
• Reservoir width W
Models ‘Simplify’ Geology
Well A
• Interpretation model must be consistent with

(not identical to) geological model
• Have we oversimplified the geology?
Responses Differ With Test Type
Slight divergence
Wrong test type Wrong test type
Closed Reservoir - DD TC Const Pres Boundary - DD TC
Close match
Slight divergence
Right test type
Unsupported shape Logical shape
Const Pres Boundary - BU TC Closed Reservoir - BU TC
Importance Of Model Selection
Most major errors caused by use of wrong
model instead of wrong method
Meaningless estimates
Misleading estimates
Two aspects of model selection
Selecting reservoir geometry
Identifying features of pressure response
Geology Offers Insights
Depositional Diagenesis
environment
Types of boundaries
Reservoir size
Faults
Shape
Sealing
Orientation
Partially sealing
Reservoir Fluid contacts
heterogeneity Gas/oil
Layering Oil/water
Natural fractures
Geophysics and Petrophysics
Structure Net pay thickness
Faults Porosity
Location
Fluid saturations
Size
Fluid contacts
Reservoir
compartments Lithology
Shape
Layering
Orientation
Evidence of natural
fractures
Engineering Data
Drilling data—daily reports
Production and flow test data
Stimulation treatment results
Fracture design half-length, conductivity
Fracture treating pressure analysis results
Problems during treatment—daily reports
Data from offset wells
Possible interference—production records
Well test results
‘Reality Checks’ Validate Model
Wellbore-storage coefficient
Skin factor
Core permeability
Pressure response during flow period
Productivity index
Average reservoir pressure
Radius of investigation
Distances to boundaries
Independent estimates of model parameters
Wellbore-Storage Coefficient
Fluid-filled wellbore Rising liquid level
C = Vwb cwb C = 25.65

Awb
 wb
WBS coefficient from test should be within
order of magnitude of estimate
Phase segregation can cause smaller WBS
WBS coefficient >100x estimated value may
indicate reservoir storage instead of WBS
Skin Factor
Likely estimates by completion type
Natural completion 0
Acid treatment -1 to -3
Fracture treatment -3 to -6
Gravel pack +5 to +10
Frac pack -2 to +2
Local field experience may suggest more
appropriate values
Skin factor < -6 very unlikely
Core Permeability
In-situ permeability from well test
Core permeability to air
High—overburden and saturation
Low—natural fractures
Total kh from core adjusted to in-situ value
less than kh from well test
Fractures
Missing core
Most useful when entire interval cored
Production Period Pressure
Must be consistent with shut-in pressure
response
Must ensure consistency
Interpret flow periods independently
Predict flow period pressures from results
of buildup
Match flow and buildup periods
simultaneously
Productivity Index
Field Data q
J=
p − pwf
Model Parameters
kh
J=
 1factor 10
Shape from
.06Dietz 3
A  chart
141.2 B  ln  2
 − + s
 4 
 2  C Arw  
Correct model should give consistent values

Average Reservoir Pressure
Compare average reservoir pressure from
test interpretation
Material balance
Analytical simulation
Numerical simulation
Results should be similar if same reservoir
model is used
kt kt
ri = ri =
948ct 948ct
Estimate radius of investigation
Beginning of middle-time region
End of middle-time region
Unrealistically large ri may indicate selected
MTR is incorrect
Very small ri may indicate wrong MTR or test
not measuring reservoir characteristics
Distance to Boundaries
Reservoir size
Production data
Geological data
Geophysical data
Distances to boundaries
Geological data
Geophysical data
Geoscience professionals should develop
common interpretation model
Independent Parameters
Dual porosity from fracture width, spacing
Storativity ratio 
Interporosity flow coefficient 
Composite reservoir parameters for
waterflood-injection well
Radius of waterflooded zone
Mobility ratio (k/)1/(k/)2
Storativity ratio (ct)1/ (ct)2
Composite reservoir parameters for
waterflood-injection well
Fracture properties from treatment design
Fracture half-length Lf
Fracture conductivity wf kf
Common Errors/Misconceptions
Most-often-misused models
Well between two sealing faults
Well in a radially composite reservoir
Well in a rectangular reservoir
Common misconceptions
Unit-slope line always indicates
wellbore storage
Peak in derivative always indicates
radial flow
Strong aquifer always acts as constant-
pressure boundary
Well Between Two Sealing Faults
Well in a Wedge
Angle between faults

Distance from well to 1st fault
Distance from well to 2nd fault
Composite Reservoir
• Mobility ratio M1/M2

• Storativity ratio S1/S2
• Distance to boundary R
Rectangular Reservoir
Well in a Box
L
D2
D1
• Distance to wall D1
• Distance to wall D2
• Reservoir length L
• Reservoir width W
Unit-slope line always indicates
wellbore storage
Unit-slope line may be caused by

Pseudosteady-state flow
(drawdown test only)
Recharge of high-permeability zone
(either drawdown or buildup test)
Peak in derivative implies radial flow
Linear
Bilinear
Radial
Spherical
Peak in derivative may be caused by a flow

restriction for any flow regime
Strong aquifer acts as constant
pressure boundary
Mobility of water must be much higher than

that of reservoir fluid to act as constant
pressure boundary
Maybe, maybe not for oil
Never for gas
Integrated Well Test
Interpretation
Design Considerations
❖ Identify test objectives
❖ Select test required to achieve objectives
▪ Implement safely, economically
▪ Select equipment to obtain data
▪ Collect and analyze test data
❖ Strive to obtain sufficient data to meet stated
objectives
▪ Minimize test time
▪ Minimize expense
Pretest Estimates
❖ Test design requires accurate estimates of
permeability, skin factor
▪ Estimates usually more difficult than other
properties
❖ Three common sources of estimates
▪ Lab analysis of core data
▪ Results from other tests in same formation
▪ Productivity tests
• Pseudosteady-state radial flow equation
• Unsteady-state flow equation in infinite-acting
reservoir
Skin Factor
❖ Quantifies pressure drop caused by altered
zone immediately adjacent to wellbore
▪ Damage results in positive skin
• Larger skin values indicate greater reduction in k
▪ Stimulation results in negative skin
❖ Skin factor approximations
▪ Estimates from other pressure-transient tests
▪ Approximations from completion/stimulation
▪ Approximations from breakdown/acid treatments
Estimating Skin Factors
Type of Stimulation or Completion Skin Factor, s
Natural Completion 0
Small Acid Treatment - 1.0
Intermediate Acid Treatment - 2.0
Large Acid or Small Fracture Treatment - 3.0
Intermediate Fracture Treatment - 4.0
Large Fracture Treatment in Low-Permeability
Reservoir - 6.0
Very Large Fracture Treatment in Low-Permeability
Reservoir - 8.0
Non-Darcy Effects
❖ Additional pressure drop similar to skin
adjacent to wellbore in gas well tests
❖ Varies directly with flow rate; estimated skin is
apparent skin factor
skin Additional, rate-
Apparent
skin s' = s + Dqg dependent skin
Non-Darcy flow 2.715  10 −15  k g M psc
‘constant’ D=
hrw Tsc  g ,wf
 = 1.88 x 1010k −1.47f −0.53
Formation Permeability
❖ Sources of estimates
▪ Core analysis from same or adjacent well
▪ Well tests in adjacent wells
▪ Pseudosteady-state flow from productivity tests
▪ Unsteady-state flow in unstabilized wells
❖ Pseudosteady-state flow for oil wells
141.2 qB   re  3 
k= ln   − + s 
( )
h p − pwf   rw  4 
❖ Pseudosteady-state flow for gas wells

5.04Tz
Gas flow rate, Bg =
Mscf/D p s' = s + Dqg
141.2q g B g  g   re  3 
k= ln   − + s'
( )
h p − pwf   rw  4 
❖ Unsteady-state flow
▪ Oil well, flow rates changing smoothly
pi − pwf 70.6B   kt  
= 
ln   − 2s
2
q kh   1,688f  ct rw  
▪ Gas well, using average pressure in mature fields

or initial pressure in new fields
pi − pwf 70.6Bg  g   kt  
= ln  − 2 s'
  1,688f  g ct rw  
2
qg kh
❖ Define effective transient radius of drainage
12
 kt 
12
 
rd =   rd = 
kt 
 377f  ct   377f  g ct



Average Average
viscosity compressibility
atp atp
141.2qB   rd  
k= ln   − 0.75 + s 
h( pi − pwf )   rw  
141.2 q g B g  g   rd  
k= ln  − 0.75 + s'
(
h pi − pwf   rw) 
 
Iterative Procedure
❖ Five general steps
▪ Assume initial value of k, calculate rd
▪ Solve for k; stop if answer matches estimate
▪ If k does not match, recalculate rd from new k
▪ Solve again for k
▪ Repeat until estimates, calculations converge
❖ Permeability overestimated if test data are
distorted by WBS data
Gas Well Pretest Estimate
❖ Example evaluation in low-permeability formation
▪ Gas well, low-permeability formation
▪ Produced 20 hr at pwf of 400 psia
▪ End qg = 110 Mscf/D; cumulative q = 110 Mscf
▪ Breakdown with KCl water gave s´ = -1.0
▪ Low-permeability formation, unsteady-state flow
conditions
f = 0.118 h = 6 ft rw = 0.365 ft
pwf = 400 psia pi = 3,200 psia s' = -1.0
Vwb = 15 bbl cwb = 2.9 x 10-4 psi-1 Gp = 110 Mscf
Bg = 1.5 RB/Mscf g = 0.015 cp
qg = 110 Mscf/D ct = 2.0 x 10-4 psi-1
❖ Calculate effective producing time, t
t=
24G p
=
(24)(110 Mscf ) = 24 hr
qg 110 MMscf D
❖ Assuming k = 0.1 md, estimate rd

(0.1)(24)
12
 
12
kt  
rd =   =   = 134 ft
 377f  g ct


  (377 )(0.118 )(0.015 )(2.0  10 −4
) 
❖ Solve for k using new rd
141.2q g Bg    rd  
k= ln   − 0.75 + s'
(
h pi − pwf   rw  ) 
=
(141.2)(110)(1.5)(0.015)   134  
 ln   − 0.75 − 1.0
(6)(3200 − 400)   0.365  
= 0.0864 md Initial estimate = 0.1 md
❖ Use new k to estimate new rd

(0.0864)(24)
12
 
12
kt  
rd =   
=  = 125 ft
 377f  g ct


 (
 (377)(0.118)(0.015) 2.0  10
−4
) 
❖ Use new rd to estimate new k
141.2q g Bg    rd  
k= ln   − 0.75 + s'
(
h pi − pwf   rw  ) 
=
(141.2)(110)(1.5)(0.015)   125  
 ln   − 0.75 − 1.0
(6)(3200 − 400)   0.365  
= 0.0850 md Initial estimate = 0.1 md
Second estimate = 0.0864 md
❖ Again use new k to estimate new rd
(0.0850)(24)
12
 
12
kt  
rd =   =   = 124 ft
 377f  g ct


  (377 )(0.118 )(0.015 )(2.0  10 −4
) 
❖ Use new rd to estimate new k
141.2q g Bg    rd  
k= ln   − 0.75 + s'
( )
h pi − pwf   rw  
=
(141.2)(110)(1.5)(0.015)   124  
 ln   − 0.75 − 1.0
(6)(3200 − 400)   0.365  
= 0.0848 md
Initial estimate = 0.1 md

Second estimate = 0.0864 md
Third estimate = 0.0850 md
Oil Well Pretest Estimate
❖ Example in high-permeability formation
▪ Oil well, stabilized flow in less than 24 hr
▪ pwf = 2,000 psia, stabilized flow rate of 3,020 STB/D
▪ Single-phase flow
▪ Breakdown with KCl resulted in skin = -1.0
▪ Expected to drain 160 acres; re = 1,489 ft
f = 0.25 h = 1154 ft rw = 0.365 ft
pwf = 2,000 psia pi =p = 2865 psia s = -1.0
Bo = 1.25 RB/STB o = 0.8 cp re = 1,489 ft
qo = 3,020 STB/D
Oil Well Pretest Estimate
❖ Estimate permeability, k
141.2qB   re  3 
k= ln − + s 
( )
h p− pwf   rw  4 
=
(141.2)(3,020)(1.25)(0.8)ln 1,489  − 3 −1
 
(115)(2,865−2,000)   0.365  4 

= 28.1 md
Estimating WBS Duration
❖ Homogeneous-acting reservoir
▪ Flow period must last beyond WBS distortion
▪ For well with s  -3.5, duration of WBS is
Unloading for well produced

at constant surface flow rate
t D = (60+3.5s ) C D
0.8936C
CD =
f ct hrw2
0.0002637kt
tD =
f  ct rw2 Gas well properties
at average pressure
Wellbore Storage Duration
❖ Changing gas/liquid interface
Wellbore area, ft2
Awb
C = 25.65
 wb Density of
liquid in the
❖ Well filled with single fluid wellbore, lbm/ft3
Compressibility of
wellbore fluid, psi-1
C = cwbVwb
Volume of fluid
in wellbore, bbl
❖ Dimensional variables
t W BS =
(200,000 + 12,000s ) C
kh 
❖ Measured/estimated productivity index

200C
t W BS =
JB
❖ Flow time shorter than WBS does not allow
conventional analysis of buildup nor flow data
▪ Well test should be run again with longer flow
period before shut-in
❖ Possible alternatives to acquire sufficient data
▪ Surface shut-in if test length > 4tWBS
▪ Bottomhole shut-in device if buildup test has low
probability of reaching semilog straight line
• WBS distortion of data should be negligible
❖ Limiting wellbore volume, duration of distortion
more difficult in flow test
❖ Semilog analysis
▪ May be more accurate than type-curve methods
▪ Desirable for analyzing pressure-transient tests
▪ Require at least half log cycle of middle-time data
• Time to reach end of middle-time region should be 3
to 4 times greater than time to reach end of WBS
Distance from well to

closest no-flow boundary
948f  ct L 2
te nd or te nd =
k
Estimating Test Duration
❖ No-flow reservoir boundaries
▪ Natural (sealing faults, lowpermeability barriers)
▪ Artificial (results of adjacent producing wells)
❖ Well in closed reservoir
▪ Well centered in drainage area with radius re
▪ Buildup test Change constant
Smaller than for well to ‘948’ for
near single boundary drawdown test
237f  ct re2
te nd =
k
❖ Infinite-conductivity fracture
▪ Dimensionless time at the end of wellbore-
storage distortion t L D
f
t L f D = 15C L f D t D = 15C D
0.0002637kt 0.8936C
tLf D = CLf D =
f  ct L2f f ct hL2f
▪ Dimensionless fracture conductivity, Cr
wf kf
Cr =
 kLf
❖ Pseudoradial flow
▪ Begins with middle-time region
infinitely-conductive fracture,
tLf D  3 well centered in square
drainage area
▪ In dimensional form
11,400f  ct L f
2
tprf 
k
❖ 1/3 to 1/2 log cycle of pseudoradial flow is
desirable
▪ Rarely achieved in practice, especially in low
permeability with long fractures
▪ End of WBS is not beginning of pseudoradial flow
❖ Boundary effects may mask pseudoradial flow
if half-length is large relative to re
▪ Calculate boundary effects from
948f  ct L2e Le = distance from

te nd = well to side of
k square reservoir
❖ Required to evaluate representative volume,
identify suspected heterogeneity
❖ Should achieve 50 < ri < 200 ft during flow test
or during period before shut-in for buildup test
▪ Similar ri desirable during shutin period
❖ For sampling at boundaries, ri ~ re desired
❖ To identify heterogeneity, ri ~ 4 x expected
distance to heterogeneity
12
 kt 
ri =  
 948f  ct 
Flow-Rate Requirements
❖ Assume constant production during entire test
▪ During drawdown, before shut-in for buildup test
▪ Achieve through choke at wellhead
▪ Before buildup, maintain historical producing rate
❖ If constant rate cannot be maintained, measure
instantaneous rates and use variable-rate
analysis techniques
❖ Place pressure gauge in hole with well flowing
if possible
❖ Alternatively, re-establish constant rate,
maintain for at least eight times shut-in period
Initiating Flow in Low-Permeability
❖ Prefracture breakdown with acid, KCl water, or
nitrogen can stimulate flow adequate for testing
▪ Cotton Valley success with 2% KCl breakdown
▪ Eastern Devonian gas shales success with nitrogen
Liquid Loading
❖ Gas wells must flow at sufficient rate to lift
liquids from wellbore
❖ Common methods to identify rate developed by
Duggan, Turner et al.
▪ Duggan identified 5 ft/sec as minimum required
velocity to lift liquids in many observed wells
• Higher velocities might be required
• Simple chart supports findings
▪ Turner method provides equations with minimum
flow rate to avoid loading
Duggan Method
❖ Chart provides required data
10
7.5 x 4.5 in.
8
5.5 x 2.5 in.
6
Gas flow rate,
Mscf/D
(14.65 psia, 60ºF,
4
0.6 GR)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Flowing Wellhead Pressure, 100 psia
Turner et al. Method
❖ Minimum velocities to lift water, condensate
ug − w =
(
5.62 67 − 0.0031 ptf )1 4 (
4.02 45 − 0.0031 ptf )1 4
ug −c =
(0.0031 ptf )1 2 (0.0031 ptf )1 2
❖ Minimum flow rate to avoid loading
▪ All properties at wellhead conditions
q g (MMscf / D) =3.06 pu g A / T z
flow area of
conduit, ft2
General Design, Single-Well Tests
❖ Estimate well, reservoir properties
▪ Select flow rate sufficient to lift liquids from wellbore
▪ Estimate pi (or p) and pwf (t = 0)
▪ Estimate fluid properties
▪ Estimate k, h, and f
▪ Estimate productivity index, J, or skin factor
▪ Estimate wellbore storage coefficient, C
• Use appropriate equations presented earlier
• Use average p, T
▪ Estimate the drainage radius, re
❖ Estimate duration of WBS distortion during
production or shut-in period
▪ If J is unknown but kh/ and s estimates are
available, use
t wbs =
(200,000 + 12,000s )C
, s  −3.5
kh 
▪ If J is known and kh/ and s estimates are

unavailable, use
200C
t wbs 
JB
❖ Estimate flowing or shut-in time
required to achieve design ri
948f  ct ri 2
tmin or tmin =
k
❖ Estimate flowing or shut-in time
required to achieve design ri
▪ For near-wellbore conditions, ri = 200 ft
• If smaller, ri should be several times estimated depth
of damage or stimulation, rs
• For small ri , use estimated properties in altered zone
near wellbore rather than in formation to estimate ri
▪ For entire reservoir, use ri = re
▪ To confirm flow barrier estimated distance L from
well, use ri = 4L
❖ Estimate flowing or shut-in time, tend, when
boundary effects may appear
For drawdown,
▪ For well at distance L from boundary
2 use re for
948f  ct L closed, linear
te nd or te nd 
k drainage area
▪ For buildup test in well centered in
circular drainage area
237f  ct re2
te nd 
k
❖ Select flow time for drawdown or shut-in time
for buildup test: greater of 4tWBS and tmin
❖ Select pressure gauge with proper sensitivity
▪ Estimate slope, m of semilog straight line expected
in flow or buildup test
m=
162.6qB  p = m log (1 0.90) = 0.0458 m
kh
▪ Choose gauge sensitive enough to respond to
expected pressure change during test
▪ Estimate maximum pressure to be encountered (in new
well, pmax=pi)
▪ Choose gauge such that expected pmax is within 60 to
80% of upper limit of gauge
▪ Use tandem gauges; memory or surface read-out
gauges are excellent
Prefracture Buildup Test, Gas Well
❖ Estimate formation permeability and initial
reservoir pressure
❖ Prefer to produce for 1 day, shut in for less than
3 days
❖ Estimated drainage area = 640 acres
❖ Production 100 Mscf/D at BHP of 400 psia
f = 0.118 pi = 3,200 psi pwf = 400 psi
rw = 0.365 ft h = 6 ft kg = 0.0848 md
Vwb = 15 bbl cwb = 2.9  10-4si-1 cwb = 2.9  10-4 psi-1
Bg = 1.5 RB/Mscf g = 0.015 cp A = 640 acres
❖ Estimate gas, formation properties
▪ Use pressures, gas properties from table. Choose
s´ = 0 for conservative test design
▪ Assume only gas in wellbore, giving WBS
C = cwb Vwb = (2.9 x 10-4)(15) = 0.00435 bbl/psi
▪ Produce at pwf = 400 psia (assume qg can be
maintained at end of flow period)
▪ Calculate re for 640-acre, circular drainage area
re = A  = (640)(43,560)/  = 2,979 ft
❖ Calculate duration of WBS distortion
t wbs =
(200,000 + 12,000s')C
kg h 
=
200,000 + (12,000)(0)(0.00435)
(0.0848)(6) (0.015)
= 26 hr
❖ Calculate shut-in time required to investigate at
least 200 ft into reservoir
948f  g ct ri2
tmin 
kg
(948)(0.118)(0.015)(2.0  10 −4 )(200)
2
=
0.0848
= 158 hr
❖ Calculate shut-in time at which boundary
effects appear for 640-acre drainage area
237f  ct re2
t end 
kg
(237 )(0.118)(0.015)(2.0  10 −4 )(2,979)
2
=
0.0848
= 8,780 hr
❖ Using twbs = 26 hr (4 twbs = 104 hr ) and
tmin = 158 hr, set flow time to greater value (7
days).
▪ Investigate about 200 ft of formation
▪ Maintain a rate of 100 Mscf/D
❖ Set shut-in to same time
❖ Estimate pressure gauge sensitivity
▪ Estimate slope of estimated semilog straight line
from flow or buildup test 162.6q B  g g g
m=
kh
=
(162.6)(100)(1.5)(0.015)
(0.0848)(6)
= 719 psi cycle
▪ Calculate p between end of line and 90% of end

 p = m log(1 0.90) = 0.0458 m
or
 p = 0.0458m = (0.0458)(719) = 33 psi
❖ Choose appropriate pressure gauge
▪ Ordinary Bourdon tube gauge adequate
▪ Any gauge with greater sensitivity acceptable
❖ Estimate maximum pressure to be encountered
(pmax = pi)
▪ Here, pi = 3,200 psia
❖ Choose pressure gauge range so that pmax falls
between 60 and 80% of upper limit of gauge
▪ Here, pmax = 4,000 to 5,300 psia
❖ Choose 120-hr clock for pressure gauge
❖ Test cannot meet preferred time criteria (1-day
flow period, 3-day buildup)
❖ Flow period should last 7 days at pwf = 400 psia,
shut-in period also 7 days
❖ WBS distortion should not be a problem
❖ Boundary effects will not be encountered
Post-Fracture Test
❖ Estimate well, reservoir properties
▪ Select flow rate, ensuring continuous liquid lift
▪ Estimate pi and pwf from drillstem test or surveys
from other wells in formation
▪ Estimate fluid properties from lab data or correlations
▪ Estimate k, h, and f; use cores, logs, correlations
▪ Estimate WBS coefficient
• Use equations for C
• Use average wellbore T
▪ Estimate Lf and distance to side of drainage
area/boundary
Post-Fracture Test
❖ Estimate duration of WBS distortion
▪ Calculate dimensionless WBS coefficient
0.8936 C
CD =
f ct hrw2
▪ Determine dimensionless time when WBS ends

t D  15 CD
▪ Calculate duration of distortion

f  c t rw2 t D
t wbs =
0.0002637 k
Post-Fracture Test
❖ Estimate time to reach pseudoradial flow
11,400f  ct L2f
tprf 
k
❖ Estimate time at which boundary effects appear
▪ For a well centered in ▪ For a well much nearer
a symmetrical area one boundary than others
948f  ct L2e 948f  ct L2

te nd  te nd 
k k
Post-Fracture Test
❖ Select flow time for test
▪ Must exceed 4tWBS
▪ Should at least equal lesser of 4tprf and maximum
possible flow time
▪ Should flow at least long enough to clean up
❖ Select shut-in time for buildup
▪ Must exceed 4tWBS
▪ Should at least equal lesser of 4tprf and maximum
possible shut-in time
❖ Select appropriate pressure gauge
Post-Fracture Buildup Test, Gas Well
❖ Currently producing 1,500 Mscf/D at BHP of 400
psia
❖ Longest possible pretest flow period is one
month, longest buildup test is 2 weeks
f = 0.118 pi = 3,200 psi pwf = 400 psi
rw = 0.365 ft h = 6 ft kg = 0.0848 md
Vwb = 15 bbl cwb = 2.9  10-4 psi-1 cg = 2.0  10-4 psi-1
Bg = 1.5 RB/Mscf g = 0.015 cp qg = 1,500 Mscf/D
Le = 2,640 ft Lf = 200 ft
❖ Calculate WBS coefficient
C = cwb Vwb = (2.9 x 10-4)(15) = 0.00435 bbl/psi
❖ Estimate duration of WBS distortion
▪ Calculate dimensionless WBS coefficient
0.8936C
CD =
f ct hrw2
=
(0.8936)(0.00435) = 206
(0.118)(2.0  10−4 )(6)(0.365)2
▪ Determine tD at which WBS effects end
t D  15 C D = (15)(206) = 3,090
❖ Calculate tWBS
f  g ct rw2 t D
t wbs =
0.0002637k g
(0.118)(0.015)(2.0  10 −4 )(0.365) (3,090)
2
=
(0.0002637)(0.0848)
= 6.5 hr
❖ Estimate time to reach pseudoradial flow
11,400f  g ct L2f
tprf 
kg
=
( )
11,400(0.118)(0.015) 2.0  10 −4 (200)
2
0.0848
= 1,904 hr or 79 days
Longer than longest flow
period (1 month) and
longest possible shut-in
period (2 weeks)
❖ Calculate time to boundary effects
948f  g ct L2e
te nd or te nd 
kg
(948)(0.118)(0.015)(2.0  10 −4 )(2,640)
2

0.0848
 27,600 hr or 1,150 days
▪ Estimate slope of semilog straight line expected in
flow or buildup test
162.6q g B g  g
m=
kh  p = m log (1 0.90)
=
(162.6)(1,500)(1.5)(0.015) = 0.0458m
(0.0848)(6) = (0.0458)(10,800)
= 10,800 psi cycle
= 495 psi
▪ Choose pressure gauge (ordinary Bourdon tube
gauge or better)
▪ Estimate maximum pressure
• Here, pi = 3,200 psia
▪ Choose pressure gauge range so that maximum
test range falls between 60 and 80% of upper level
of gauge
• Here, 4,000 and 5,300 psi
▪ Choose 180-hr clock for pressure gauge
❖ Operator should produce for 1 month at
pwf = 400 psia and qg = 1,500 Mscf/D
❖ PBU test should last 2 weeks
❖ WBS effects should last approximately 6 hr in
both flow and buildup
❖ Neither boundary effects nor pseudoradial flow
will be achieved
❖ Semilog analysis will not be possible

Well Test Analysis and Design PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Well Test Analysis and Design PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Types and Purposes of Well Tests

❖ Pressure transient tests

▪ We generate and measure pressure changes with time

❖Well controlled production

▪ Use of production data for goals usually achieved by well testing

❖ primarily for gas wells

❖ absolute openflow (AOF) potential

❖ inflow performance relationship (IPR) or gas

❖ producing the well at a series of different stabilized

❖ measuring the stabilized bottomhole flowing

❖ typically, with a sequence of increasing flow rates

❖ flowing the well at a single rate until the bottomhole flowing

▪ required by many regulatory agencies

▪ requires prior knowledge of the well's deliverability

▪ (from previous testing or from correlations with other wells

producing in the same field under similar conditions)

❖ In general, the goals of a well test are not only to

qB   1688ct rw2   k   ra 

• Time required to reach a given radius of

V 5.615qB( t / 24) 0.0744qBt

Pressure decrease resulting from removal

0.0744qBt 0.0744qBt qB   re  3 

Drainage area, ft2

Shape factor for specific drainage-area

31.62 0.10 0.1 0.06

30.8828 0.09 0.1 0.05

21.8369 0.025 0.3 0.15

2.0769 0.02 1.7 0.50

31.62 0.10 0.1 0.06

30.8828 0.09 0.1 0.05

21.8369 0.025 0.3 0.15

2.0769 0.02 1.7 0.50

31.62 0.10 0.1 0.06

30.8828 0.09 0.1 0.05

21.8369 0.025 0.3 0.15

2.0769 0.02 1.7 0.50

Radial Pressure Profiles

Radial Pressure Profiles

Line with slope

( pi − pwf )total at Well A = ( pi − p)due to A

q A B   1,688 ct rwA  

Image Well Actual Well

Image Well Image Well

Horner time ratio (tp + Δt)/Δt

qBt In dimensionless terms,

WBS Transition Radial Flow

Early-Time Region Middle-Time Region

Shape depends on duration of

❖ Introducing equivalent time

Align data with

Begin to move toward unit slope line

Stop when data align

Equivalent time, hrs

Filtrate may cause

p > pd p< pd p < pb p > pb

Retrograde Gas Oil Reservoir

For Lf = re = 745 ft and rw = 0.3,

J actual p − pwf − Dps

does not include effects of non-Darcy flow

Pressure drop in the fracture

❖ Diffusivity equation becomes

Fairly constant at pressures >3,000 psi

❖ Diffusivity in terms of pseudotime: