Chapter 4

Multiple-Rate Testing

4.1 Introduction
The drawdown testing and analysis methods in Chapter 3 l626 gM
(4.2)
=
require a constant flow rate; however, it is often impractical kh
or impossible to maintain a constant rate long enough to and intercept
complete a drawdown test. In such a situation, multiple-
variable) rate testing and analysis techniques are applica ¬
h' = m Tlog / — 3.2275 + 0.86859 s
ble. A multiple- rate test may range from one with an uncon ¬

trolled, variable rate,1,2 to one with a series of constant ( 4.3)

rates ,3,4 to testing at constant bottom-hole pressure with a
continuously changing flow rate.5 Pressure-buildup testing1 Multiple-rate transient test data should appear as a straight
(Chapter 5) is a special kind of multiple -rate well test . line when plotted as
Almost any flow -rate change can be analyzed as a well test
by using the concepts presented in this chapter. Pi Ptcf vs V'
~
' [ (ft ~< v4i- ) i log(/ _]
- 0 ,)
Accurate flow rate and pressure measurements are essen¬
tial for the successful analysis of any transient well test . Rate
Qs L ?

measurements are much more critical in multiple-rate test ¬

ing, however, than in conventional, constant-rate well tests.
Without good flow-rate data, good analysis of multiple-rate
tests is impossible.
Multiple-rate testing has the advantage of providing tran
sient test data while production continues. It tends to
minimize changes in wellbore storage coefficient and phase
segregation (humping) effects and, thus, may provide good
results when drawdown or buildup testing would not .
To make that plot correctly, it is important to understand
that the rate corresponding to each plotted pressure point is
qN — the last rate that can affect that pressure. As time
increases, the number of rates may increase and the last rate
¬
may change; but each pressure point is identified with the
rate occurring when that pressure was measured. There may
be several pressure points associated with a given rate .

4.2 A General Multiple-Rate Test Analysis Technique q2

Fig. 4.1 schematically shows a variable production-rate Q
qN
schedule . Although flowrate may change continuously, it is
treated as a series of discrete constant rates for analysis
purposes. The step- wise approximation improves as the
*s ^3
44
time intervals become smaller. Section B .7 presents the UJ qi
derivation of a general equation for pressure behavior qN -l
caused by a variable rate. The approach presented here <r
requires that log approximation to the line source (Eq.
2.5b) applies . Then, o
u.

2 [< ~qq> '

^ ,
P-LZ-PaL ^ m' <?J )
l0g( ~ +
J~ I
' O t t2 I3 I4
* N-2 f N -l
FLOW TIME, 1, HR
(4.1)
Fig. 4.1 Schematic representation of a variable production - rate
Eq. 4.1 is the equation of a straight line with slope schedule .
32 ADVANCES IN WELL TEST ANALYSIS

Examples 4.1 and 4.3 illustrate how the summation term in superposition, may be used.6*8 In this case , one plots ( pt —
this plotting technique is calculated . puf )lqtf vs log t . The result should be a straight line with
Once the data plot is made , the straight-line slope and slope m ' given by Eq . 4.2 and intercept b' given by Eq . 4.3 .
intercept are measured. Permeability and skin factor are Permeability is estimated from Eq. 4.4 and skin factor is
estimated from the slope and intercept data using Eqs . 4.2 estimated from Eq . 4.5 . Ramey8 points out that the skin
and 4.3 , rewritten as factor so calculated may be low by about 0.4. We do not
162.6 Bfi recommend using this analysis technique for variable-rate
m'h ’ tests unless the variable rate results only from wellbore
storage, in which case the surface rate is constant.
and

$ = i. isnfL—’
m
- log | f * \
i1 #<7.7
+ 3.2275]
J
Example 4.1 Multiple -Rate Drawdown Test Analysis
Production rate during a 48-hour drawdown test declined
(4.5 ) from 1 ,580 to 983 STB/D (Fig. 4.2). Rate and pressure data
The analysis procedure is direct and simple , but the compu ¬ appear in Table 4.1. Reservoir data are
tations required to make the data plot can be tedious . The Pi - 2,906 psi p = 0.6 cp
analysis has the disadvantage that the initial reservoir pres ¬

B = 1.27 RB/STB h = 40 ft.

sure , pt , and the entire flow -rate history must be known;
Fig. 4.3 shows flowing bottom-hole pressure vs log of
frequently , they are not . As discussed in Section 4.5 , the
flow time . That plot , which is normally used for a constant-
analysis technique may be modified in some situations so
rate drawdown test , neglects rate variations. Nevertheless ,
that pi is not used . If the pressure is constant during a test and
we use the straight line from 3 to 12 hours to estimate
the rate declines , Eqs. 4.1 through 4.5 generally are not
used; instead, the techniques in Section 4.6 are preferred . permeability . Using an average rate of 1 , 450 STB/ D for the
When flow- rate variation is a result of wellbore storage, a first 12 hours of the test , a slope m = - 160 psi/cycle , and
simplified plotting method , which does not require use of Eq . 3.9,

* =-
( 162.6 X 1.450X 1.27 X0.6)
( — 160)(40)
M md . ,
1700
Fig. 4.4 is a plot of (p, - p,Cf ) /q\ vs
o
/v
2 V^ (<fc - 4J - ) log (/ — 0-,)
* 500 MEASURED RATE
—
4s Z-/
I

300
U
5 ' AVERAGE RATE *
1190 STB/ D
for this test , using the rate breakdown shown in Table 4 . 1 .
Table 4.1 summarizes the calculations of the quantities
plotted in Fig . 4.4 .
§ I lOO
To illustrate the method of computing the time summa ¬

C tion , we calculate it at 6.05 and 12.0 hours . At 6.05 hours ,

90
16
q = 1 ,440 STB/D is the third rate observed (although the
24 32 40
FLOW TIME, t, HR point is the ninth pressure point) , so N = 3. Com ¬

. -
Fig 4.2 Multiple rate drawdown test rate history and its
puting the summation term .
.
approximation Data for Example 4.1. N
- q> -1) log(r - 0 -,)
Y (
, Qi
2050
J -L{ 1

zooo [( .580 - 0) log(6.05 - 0)],.,

i 1950
fp!hr =1972 PS! =—
1 ,440
;
'
+ [( 1 ,490 - 1 ,580) log(6.05 - 2.40)],.,
UJ
§ 1900
SLOPE * m
'- /60 PS! / CYCLE
+ [ ( 1 ,440 - 1.490) log(6.05 - 4.80)]j a } _
{ [ l .580 l°g(6.05) ]i
CO

^
=
r «1

(5 1800
+ [ - 90 log(3.65 ) ]^
S 750 ° oo + [- 501og(1.25)]J<>}
z 1700 lilt = — f— {11.235. 17 - 50.61 - 4.85) = 0.819.
r
•• IO
2 3 4 S «
70
1,440
'
FLOW TIME, t, HR Thus , the point for 6.05 hours plots at coordinates (0.819,
.
Fig 4.3 Semilog plot of bottom-hole pressure for the multiple-rate 0.738) in Fig . 4.4 . At 12.0 hours , q = 1,300 STB/D andN
drawdown test of Example 4.1. — 5. Thus,
MULTIPLE-RATE TESTING 33

N
—
TABLE 4.1 VARIABLE FLOW RATE DRAWDOWN DATA FOR
EXAMPLE 4.1.
<? v ZJ Time. Rate . Pi ~ Ptrf
y* l t Q P« f Pi ~ P ,rf <7 v
( hours ) ( STB / D ) N ( psi ) ( psi ) ( psi/STB / D ) 1
"
doo
" 1.00
1.50
1.580
1.580
1 2.023
1 1 , 968
883
938
0.5589
0.5937
0.000
0.176
+ ( 1 ,490 - 1 ,580) log(12.0 - 2.40)
+ ( 1,440 - 1,490) log(12.0 - 4.80)
1.89
2.40
3.00
3.45
1.580
1 ,580
1.490
1, 490
1
1
1.941
—
2 1 ,892 1, 014
2 1 ,882 1 ,024
—
965 0.6108
—
0.6805
0.6872
0.277
—
0.519
0.569
+ (1 ,370 - 1 ,440) log( l 2.0 7.20)
+ ( 1 ,300 - 1,370) log(12.0 - 9.60)]
— 3.98
4.50
1 , 490
1.490
2 1, 873 1,033
2 1.867 1 , 039
—
0.6933
0.6973
0.624

—
0.673

= !
_— f1 ,300
L 1 ,705.11 - 88.40 - 42.87 - 47.69
4.80
5.50
6.05
6.55
1 , 490
1.440
1.440
1 , 440
2
3
3
3
1,853
1 ,843
1 ,834
1,053
1,063
1 , 072
0.7313
0.7382
0.7444
0.787
0.819
0.849

- 26.61]
7.00
7.20
7.50
1.440
1.440
1.370
3
3
— —
1, 830
4 1,827
1 , 076
1,079
0.7472
—
0.7876
0.874
—
0.974
= 1.154.
The point at 12.0 hours plots at coordinates ( 1.154, 0.853)
8.95
9.6
10.0
1.370
1.370
1, 300
4 1 , 821
4 — — 1,085
5 1,815 1 , 091 —
0.7920
0.8392 —
1.009
1.124
in Fig . 4.4.
Two straight lines can be drawn through the data of Fig.
12.0
14.4
15.0
1.300
1 , 260
1 , 190
6
— —
5 1 , 797 1 , 109
7 1 , 775 1, 131
0.8531
—.
0.9504 —
1.154
1.337

—— —
18.0 1 , 190 7 1 ,771 1 , 135 0.9538 1.355
4.4. The slope of the second line is greater than that of the 19.2 1 , 190 7
— — —
first , possibly indicating transition to pseudosteady state ,
faulting , or a decrease in permeability away from the well
(see Sections 10.2 and 10.4) . The incorrect semilog data
20.0
21.6
24.0
28.8
1.160
1.160
1 ,137
1 , 106 10
8 1 , 772
8
9 1, 756
1 , 134
1, 150 —
0.9776
1.0114 —
1.423
1.485

plot , Fig . 4.3, has a reduction in slope for / > 12 hours that
might be interpreted as increasing permeability away from
30.0
33.6
36.0
36.2
1 , 080
1.080
1 ,000
983
11 1 , 751 1 , 155
11
12
— —
13 1, 756 1, 150
1.0694

—
1.1699
——
1.607

1.788
the well . That is an incorrect conclusion , however, since the 48.0 983 13 1.743 1 , 163 1.1831 1.800
slope change in Fig . 4.3 is caused by the declining produc¬
tion rate. 4.3 Two-Rate Testing
Using the slope of the first straight line in Fig. 4.4 and
-
When a multiple rate test consists of only two flow rates,
both testing and analysis are simplified . The two rate test -
provides information about k and s while production con ¬
tinues. Wellbore storage effects are often thought to be
Thus , the permeability computed from Fig . 4.3 is about 107 minimized or eliminated by two-rate tests. In fact , wellbore
percent too high . storage effects last just about the same amount of time in a

FLOW TIME , HR

1.2 t-r-J IO 20 48

.
l l
m r 0.5 / 3 PS / / ( STO / O CYCLE )
m
\n o
i.

n 0.9

0.8

a 0.7
m’ * 0.227 PS / / ( STB / D CYCLE )
a
0.6

0.5
b •0.537 PS / / ( STB / D )
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 l.l 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.7

£ r^ ,
j - o) 1
1 lL
*1 qN
LOG ( t tj |)- -
Fig . 4.4 Correct data plot for the multiple-rate drawdown test of Example 4.1; / is in hours .
34 ADVANCES IN WELL TEST ANALYSIS

two -rate test as in a normal buildup, drawdown, falloff, etc.,
test . However, a two-rate test often can be used to prevent a
wellbore storage increase, thus providing an analyzable test
when one otherwise might not be possible (see Section
11.2). The main advantage of a two-rate test over a buildup
test is that deferred production is minimized.
Fig. 4.5 schematically illustrates the rate and pressure
behavior for a two-rate flow test;3 either a decreasing or
increasing rate sequence may be used. Eq. 4.1 may be
modified to the form presented by Russell3 for a two-rate
test:
Prf = «i' log [ )+f 1log 4r
Fig. 4.6 schematically shows such a data plot. Because of
the choice of the abscissa variable, time increases from right
to left . At long times , the data deviate from the straight line
as a result of boundary and interference effects. At short
limes they have not yet reached the straight line because of
rate restabilization and wellbore storage effects. Field test
results indicate that rate restabilization is faster for a rate
reduction than for a rate increase . 1"3
Once the slope of the straight line is determined from the
data plot, reservoir permeability may be estimated from
626 ll BlL
k = Si ' (4.10)
/« , h
] + '" -
P <
The skin factor is estimated from

Eq. 4.6 assumes a constant flow rate, q ,. from time 0 to time

,
i , at the start of the test. If, instead, the well was stabilized
then Eq. 4.6 is still a good approximation if / , is
(4.6)
s = i . 1513 r .
\// - 9s
J ( pi"(A' =o) - p T \
\ «'
' /
|

J
at rate
calculated from
l0?
fc7j) + 3.2275 . ( 4.11)

, = 24 ,
/ (4.7) The intercept of the data plot may be used to estimate the
<7 i
false pressure,3
where V ,, is the cumulative volume produced since the last
rate stabilization . l>* = Pi,» - -/( A / =0) - p ,hr ]
- ,---q- [p„ (4.12)
Eq . 4.6 implies that a graph ofpirf vs </ — 2

which is used to estimate average reservoir pressure using

[i° ( i— )+!
g ?- iog Af
] methods in Chapter 6.

should be a straight line with slope

Example 4.2 Two Rate flow Test Analysis3
m '=. - kh < 4.8) Well A is a flowing producer in a low -permeability lime ¬

stone reservoir in the Permian Basin. Pressure buildup tests

and intercept in this reservoir usually do not provide interpretable data
because of long, low-rate afterflow periods.3
*( )
^
io
A two-rate flow test was run by stabilizing the flow rate at
107 STB/D for several days and then reducing the flow rate
- 3.2275 + 0.868595 I (4.9) to 46 STB/D. The pressure data during the second rate are
shown in Fig. 4.7. Other pertinent data are

Id
or
5
-* INITIAL PRESSURE OBSERVED PRESSURE
DURING SECOND RATE
V)
Id —
St 0.
,
q2 < q

ia
3
PASIT PRESSUt
HISTORY
IRE
PRESSURE THAT WOULD
OCCUR AT UNCHANGED RATE
C . FIRST APPEARANCE OF
U.
I
a a * BOUNDTART EFFECTS
*
K - t,“ At
*• —
FLOW TIME, t , HR
id
£
” RE TURN TO
.
rseuoos
PS TEA or -
STATE FLOW
GO
U) EARLY DEVIATION FROM
Id LINEARITY DURING RATE

e SHORT TIME LAS MAY OCCUR

i.
r
RESTABILIZATION

ow
q<
-^
H
r
M
BEFORE NEW STABLE RATE IS REACHED

42 I
% INCREASING
FLOWV TIME

u!

.
- t At
—
FLOW TIME, t , HR
Fig 4.5 Schematic rate and pressure history for a two-rate .
Fig 4.6 Schematic data plot for a two-rate flow test, <7 > qt . ,
flow test, </ > q± . , After Russell .3
 -
MULTIPLE RATE TESTING 35

5 = 1.5 RB /STB The p* value may be used with material in Chapter 6 to

p„./( A / = 0) = 3, 118 psi estimate average drainage- region pressure.
h = 59 ft
,
c = 9.32 x 10 5 psi- - ‘
V? = 26,400 STB
f , = (26, 400)(24)/ 107
In certain circumstances, the plotting technique suggested
= 5,921 hours ( Eq . 4.7) by Eq. 4.6 may be simplified .9 When / i > > At , log ( / i + At )
fi -0.6 cp ~ log fi and log[( / i + A / )/A / ] ~ log ti - log At . Mak ¬
<6 = 0.06 ing these approximations in Eq . 4.6 and rearranging gives
rK = 0.2 ft
—
m ,' = 90 psi/cycle (Fig. 4.7 )
/T ,hr = 3, 169 psi ( Fig . 4.7)
puf = m" logAf + pjm
Thus , fora two rate test with /, > > A / , a plotofp,,./ vs log A /
-
(4.13)

Pin , = 3,510 psi ( Fig . 4.7). should be a straight line with slope

Permeability is estimated from Eq . 4.10: m" - ~ 162.6 { ql qx ) Bp

kh
- j 4)

( 162.6)( 107)( l .5XO 6) - and intercept

(-90)(59)
, , [ iog { )
^ ^
The skin factor is estimated from Eq . 4.11: pm^ p + r
i j
'3, 118 - 3, 169\
[ W s) ( - 90
s = 1.1513

- log /W' 0.06)(0.6)(9.32

12
“ ' + 3.2275il
)
- 3.2275 + 0.86859s + 92
log / , 1
J
( 4.15)

x 10 'X0.2) /l - 2
The pu.f vs log At data plot may be used to estimate reservoir
= -3 6.
The false pressure, p*, is estimated from Eq. 4.12:
permeability from

k= - Jgjfe -h 4 L8.M //;

. «
( 4.16)

p* = 3,510 -
46 ( 3,118 3, 169) - and to estimate skin factor from 5*
( 107 - 46)
=
= 3,548 psi. S = 1.1513 L rn °
)
- log / 4> fj.*c,r,c
\ 2
\
j
+ 3.2275
J
The analysis suggested by Eq . 4.13 is much faster and
( 4.17 )

FLOW TIME , At , HR
simpler than that suggested by Eq . 4.6. However , the ap¬
5250 •0 0 6 -4 2 I
proximations in Eq . 4.13 cause errors in the results. The
°,nr‘35 0 PS! )

WHEN EXTRAPOLATED TO ZERO

error in the permeability is 10

—
3240

Ek
~
^ actual

CO
3230
^
• actual

gj
Id 3220 = (4.18)

3210 while the error in skin factor is

u
£» $E
3200 ^actual
UJ
SLOPE - m' =-90 PSI -11513 rp , b, - p»/(Af = 0)1 / 9, \ 1
O 3190
/
= m' \ 9 i “ 92 / T*
§ 316 ( 4.19 )
h-

3170
P hr * 3/ 69 PS!
In Eqs. 4. l 8 and 4.19,
!
3160

3150
T* =
, !(g8-A+ 7f )^
og l
.f (4.20)

3.0 3.1 32 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.9

.
L0G
i^ir ) *
^ 7
.
If the second rate of a two- rate test varies significantly , an
adaptation of the multiple-rate analysis technique should be
used . Odeh and Jones’ ’ indicate that pressure behavior for a
After Russell.3
-
Fig 4.7 Two-rate flow test data plot for Example 4.2
two - rate test with a varying second rate is described by
36 ADVANCES IN WELL TEST ANALYSIS

p,r /( bt = 0) - _ mt V g } - <?j-,
Using Eq . 4.5 ,

—_
9v <7 o 2- |_
-
Ar)

>
^
»
QN "* <? o
x
i = 1.1513 f ~ 00.148
00991
L
- ,! * - log J
^
log (A/ A/j ) + ', ( 4.21 ) 61.0 + 3.2275
where A / is the time from the start of the varying second flow
-
(0.11 )( 1 0)( 1.4 X 10 5)(0 - 26) 2

„
rate. This equation is much likeEq . 4.1 [ if <7 = Oandpuf ( Ar
— 0) = pit it is identical to Eq . 4.1 ]; the slope, m ’ , and
intercept , b' , are given by Eqs. 4.2 and 4.3 , respectively . If
the data are plotted as the quantity on the left side of Eq . 4.21
vs the summation on the right side, permeability and skin
factor may be estimated from Eqs. 4.4 and 4.5 . The analysis
technique suggested by Eq . 4.21 also applies to variable - rate
= -6.5.
Odch and Jones11 state that pressure drawdown and
buildup tests on the well indicated kh ^ 1 , 100 md ft ands ~
- 7 . They also state that they used the simplified two-rate
flow - test analysis method ( Eq . 4.13) with an average rate
of 832 STB / D . The result was kh ~ 1 ,360 md ft and s ~
-6.3. Thus , the 10- percent rate variation may have re ¬

test analysis if the well has been stabilized for a substantial sulted in a 23- percent error in the value calculated for kh .
time at rate q0 . Although the production time at the stabilized rate is not
If pseudosteady state is achieved in the first flow period of known for this example , the range of errors caused by using
-
a two rate flow test , the analysis techniques of Section 4.5 , the simplified two - rate analysis may be estimated by assum ¬
Eqs. 4.30 through 4.32, should be used . ing values of the stabilized production time. ( This requires
-
assuming that analysis by a two rate technique with a con ¬
stant second rate is adequate for the data of this example .)
-
Example 4.3 Two Rate Flow Test,
From Eq . 4.20 , for / , = 10 days , and for the maximum test
-
Variable Rate Case" time of At = 10 hours .
The data in Table 4.2 are for Well X ofOdehand Jones . 11
log 10
Well X was stabilized for several days at <y „= 1.103 STB/ D . T* 56.4.
Other data are
B = 1.0 RB/STB h = 18 ft
log [ I
e - —1010(24)T,/
( )

The error in kh is estimated from Eq . 4.18 with thicknesses

)x ~ 1.0 cp A = 28.3 x I 06 sq ft
included in the numerator and denominator:
ru. = 0.26 ft 5
,
c = 1.4 X 10 psi-‘
"
cr 650 acres
</» = 11 percent.
Parameters to be plotted are calculated in Table 4.2. The
last value in the right-hand column is calculated as follows.
Ekh
— U52
1 , 103 ( 56.4 - I ) 832 (56.4)
—= 7.8 percent .
Thus , if / , is indeed 10 days or more , the 23- percent error
( In this case, N = 3 since there are three rates, but Five in kh when using the simplified two- rate analysis method is
pressure data points .) largely caused by the rate variation , not by the inherent
3
errors in the simplified two-rate analysis technique . How -
‘ ‘-'
q ~q
V log( A( - A /J . J )

0.20

.[
T T

Jgj 3 0.15

* §5t[
(1.3587X1) ] + [(-0.1794X0.7782) ]
a

? / i
SLOPE* m'* 0.14 Si

= 3
-
+ [ ( 0.1794)(0.3010)] a
.
O IO

= 1.165 .
The data plot (Fig. 4.8) indicates the slope, m’ , is 0.148 » EXTRAPOLATED VALUE
psi/(STB/D cycle) and the extrapolated intercept, A ' , is OF -0.0099 /

-0.00991 psi/(STB/D). Using Eq . 4.4, 0.05

1.5
O
(162.6X1X1)
61.0 md , N
(0.148)( 18) LOG < At -Atj -| >
and
. - -
Fig 4.8 Two rate flow test , variable rate case, data plot for
i/i = 1,100 md ft . Example 4.3. After Odeh and Jones.11
MULTIPLE -RATE TESTING 37

—
TABLE 4.2 SUMMARY OF CALCULATIONS FOR EXAMPLE 4.3.
After Odeh and Jones. ' 1
N
Ap Ql ~
log ( At

N j
At
( hours )
Qj
( STB / D )
Aq.v
q.v -
(STB / D )
=Q ,
. Qi ~ Qi
( ST8 D
-/ )
i PT/UO
( psi )
Ap
-=
p* /( At = 0) p„/( Af )
( psi )
AtJ.v
( psi /STB)
--
**
/ 1
Q.v “
'

0 0 0 1, 103 0 3.630 0
1 1 4 800 - 303 - 303 3.654 - 24 0.0792 0.602
6 840 - 263 40 3.660 - 30 0.114 0.851
2 2 8 840 - 263 40 3, 665 - 35 0.133 0.949
9 880 - 223 40 3.666 - 36 0.161 1.171
3 3 10 :880 - 223 40 3.668 -38 0.170 1.165

ever, the following table indicates that the error could be

entirely caused by the analysis technique rather than the
,
m ' = .~ l 62 6 ? /x-
kh ^ (4.23)

about 4 days.
—
variable rate if production time at the first rate is less than and intercept

Production Time
at First Rate ( days )
Error in Two- Rate
Analysis ( percent )
[logtdM
1 160 - 3.2275 + 0.86859 jj ( 4.24 )
2 50
3 30 Reservoir permeability can be estimated by solving Eq .
4 21 4.23 . The equation is the same as the normal drawdown test -
5 16 equation ( Eq. 3.9), but the data plot is different . The skin
6 13 factor may be estimated from the data plot with
8 10
= 1.1513 fP*"1 /V/( A'= 0) /' i + A'“ \
~
10 8
j

L
+
,
</:
|og
\ A' i /.
4.4 Drawdown Testing After a Short Shut In - <4 ,a
It is common practice to run a drawdown test after a
shut- in period ( pressure buildup test). If the shut- in is too Eq . 4.25 is similar to Eq . 3.10 for estimating skin factor
short for the well pressure to stabilize at average reservoir from a normal drawdown test , with the exception of the
pressure, the drawdown -test analysis techniques of Sections additional logarithmic term . The skin factor computed from
3.2 and 3.4 should not be used; instead , a multiple rate type - - a drawdown test after a buildup test often does not agree with
analysis is applicable. Fig. 4.9 schematically shows a rate that computed from the buildup test because the correct data
history for a drawdown test after a short shut in . Writing - plot and the correct equation ( Eq . 4.25) were not used in
Eq . 4.1 for such a test and rearranging gives the analysis. That is particularly true in drillstem test data -
, analysis.
'os(-'' L.r;l ' ) + 'osA ] + p‘"
A
n
/

(4.22)
4.5 Developed Reservoir Effects
Thus, a plot of Pu- j vs {(q ,/<y ) log[ ( /, +3 Atsl + Ar)/(Ar„ When bottom-hole pressure is declining as a result of
+ A / )] + log A /} should yield a straight line with slope withdrawals from the test well or from other wells in the
reservoir , the analysis methods presented earlier in this
chapter must be modified .12,13 Such modified analysis tech ¬
niques become increasingly important as the depiction rate
increases and as test duration increases. The modifications
«i presented in this section apply when pressure decline at the
UJ <3 test well is caused by production from other wells or from
<
oc the test well itself; the cause of the pressure decline is not
S important.
o Fig. 4.10 illustrates bottom-hole pressure from a tested
B! well in a developed reservoir. The solid line is the observed
0

t ,
-
«- atsi + * At
t2
— — pressure behavior, while the dashed line represents the pres ¬
sure that would have been observed had there been no
flow rate change at the well at time / ,. The pressure along
-
TIME , HR the dashed line for the “ no test” case is called pwext. Using
Fig. 4.9 Schematic rate history for a drawdown test after a the approaches outlined by Slider12,13 (similar to those in
short shut - in . Section 3.4), Eq . 4.1 may be modified to
38 ADVANCES IN WELL TEST ANALYSIS

PicextOl + A/) — Pwfih + A /) /Vratfli + AO - PuA + Ar) = Ap,„

r - m" log Af.
<1H ' i

(4.30)
JV

Y [’
q ~
' g ( Af - A / - jJ -t- . This indicates that a plot of the extrapolated pressure differ ¬

^
~

* '°
= m' j
ence vs log Ai should be a straight line with slope = ~m",
q
i mi where m" is given by Eq. 4.14. The intercept is

where m' and are given by Eqs. 4.2 and 4.3, respectively .
(4.26)
AP„
r = -m
«
[ ° (_i_r)
| g

The analysis is the same as outlined in Section 4.2 except

that the pressure quantity used is puext - pwf , the vertical
- 3.2275 + sj
0.86859 (4.31)

distance between the solid and dashed curves in Fig. 4.10. If Permeability would be estimated from Eq. 4.16 and skin
the test starts at time zero fromp, in a reservoir with no other factor would be estimated from
operating wells, Eq. 4.26 is identical to Eq. 4.1. A similar
equation can be used in place of Eq. 4.21 with p,ctxx replac ¬ !
jrA lhr - log / * US - 2275
L m^"
1.1513
ing pwr ( bt =0 ). * WA«VVV J
For the two-rate test of Section 4.3, the applicable equa¬ (4.32)
tion is
This analysis for pseudosteady -state flow during the first
/Vexl( l + A!) - ?»/ (/ > + AO
' rate can besimplified even further, since
= [ ( 2,^') +
log f|
- log A / j- \ p ,m . PirtaiOt + At ) = plrf( ^ t = 0) + in* A /, (4.33)

(4.27) where
In this case the data plot has slope m / , given by Eq . 4.8, and _
»1* dpwr (4.34)
an intercept ( it
is estimated from the slope of a Cartesian plot of p,cf vs t
" 3 - 2275 before the second rate starts . By using Eq. 4.33, Eq. 4.30
may be rewritten:
+ 0.86859 (4.28)
- m* A / = Aplhr + m" log Ar
Reservoir permeability is estimated from Eq. 4.10 and skin
<
PK-/ / I + A /) (4.35)
wherem * is given by Eq. 4.34 and m” is given by Eq. 4.14.
factor from A plot of ( pwf - in* Ai ) vs log At would be a straight line
with slope m" and intercept
f ) + 3.22751 .
j = 1.1513
L mi
li - log
9s J Apihr = .
jP K' i + A/) - m* Arj |hr

[ ( _i_)
(4.29)
= />w(Af = 0) + m" log
If pseudosteady -state conditions exist during the first flow
period in a two -rate flow test, then Eq. 4.27 becomes
- 3.2275 + 0.86859rl (4.36)

The skin factor may be estimated from Eq. 4.17 with Apthr
in place ofplhr.
The main difference between equations in this section and
r PRESSURE HISTORY
w BEFORE TEST in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 is that this section does not assume
a the system pressure is infinite- acting at the time the two-rate
PRESSURE THAT
UJ WOULD EXIST WITHOUT or variable-rate test begins. In particular, if pseudosteady -
TESTING, pw0Kt
D
cn
(0
u
f state conditions exist at the start of the test, the analysis
technique can be expected to give results different from
those of the techniques in Sections 4.2 and 4.3.
a.

z 4.6 Constant- Pressure Flow Testing

3
PRESSURE OBSERVED
DURING TESTING, pwf - The transient behavior of a well operating at constant
sand- face pressure is analogous to that of a well operating at
L.
At a constant flow rate. In a constant - pressure flow test, the
well produces at a constant bottom-hole pressure and flow
t|
rate is recorded with time. Constant bottom-hole pressure
FLOW TIME, HR test data are not influenced by wellbore storage. However, if
.
Fig 4.10 Schematic pressure history for variable-rate testing in a the surface pressure is maintained constant, the frictional
developed reservoir. pressure drop in the flow tubing may act in a manner similar
MULTIPLE- RATE TESTING 39

constant - pressure tests , so it is desirable to have a method

u for analyzing such tests .
a: m In a manner similar to that used to express pressure as a

3 - . function of flow rate and time , we may express flow rate as a

function of pressure drop and time by
kh ( pi - p u f ) Quito ) ( 4.37 )
<7
O
TIME - 141.2 B /x
'

Dimensionless time has its usual definition:

UJ 0
to
- Pi l „= 0.0002637 — (4.38)
87 ai
The principle of superposition may be used with Eq . 4.37 to
o Pwf compute the flow rate resulting from a series of pressure
U
03 Ui
drops during pressure-controlled flow . The calculations are
analogous to those given in Section 2.9 .
S o TIME - Fig . 4.12 ,* showing dimensionless rate as a function of
Fig . 4.11 Schematic representation of rate and pressure histories dimensionless time for an infinite- acting system ,* is useful
during a constant - pressure test. for test analysis by type-curve matching. The technique is
similar to that outlined in Section 3.3. Briefly , test data are
plotted on tracing paper laid over the grid of Fig. 4.12 , with
-
to wellbore storage , causing bottom hole pressure to vary flow rate on the ordinate and the time on the abscissa. The
during the test . tracing- paper data plot is moved horizontally and vertically
Fig . 4.11 schematically represents pressure and rate be ¬ until the data match the curve in Fig. 4.12. Then , qif and tu
havior in a constant - pressure drawdown test . Such a test is are read from an arbitrary match point on the tracing paper
seldom performed since it is much easier to measure pres ¬ „ „
and U/ \Xl and ( //, ). arc read from the corresponding point on
sure accurately than it is to measure flow rate accurately . Fig . 4.12 . Reservoir permeability is estimated from
However , constant- rate tests may inadvertently become *See footnote on Page 24.

lO t - io 2

§ - .

li .r ft
Cl Hill
=
1
JO * «
Si

IO’* .
IO 3 IO * IO 7 IO *

‘D
Fig . 4.12 Dimensionless rate for a single well in an infinite system . Data of Jacob and Lohman.5
40 AOVANCES IN WELL TEST ANALYSIS

141.28M T q u I Using Eq. 4.39,

k- (4.39)
{ Pi -Picl )h |_(4»)« J ( 141.2)(1.0)( 1,720)(1.35)
6.4 md,
(i,000)(0.27)( 190)
and reservoir porosity -compressibility- thickness is esti¬
mated from
an error of 1.5 percent. Reservoir porosity compressibility -
is estimated from Eq. 4.40:
,
<bc h = 0.0002637 f-JM-] ( 4.40) , _ 0.0002637 (6.4)( 190)(l)
^h ( 1.35)( 1)2(600)
The curve-matching process assumes a zero skin factor . = 3.96 x 10-4 ft/psi,
Jacob and Ijohman* show that, at long times, q0 may be
or
approximated by
2 , ?
<t>c = . 9 .
x 10
^ := 2.08 x lO-'psi- , 1

4D = „
In ( / ) + 0.80907
(4.41) 190
an error of 1.5 percent.
Eq. 4.41, which applies only to infinite- acting systems, is
An alternate analysis uses Fig. 4.14, a plot of ( 1/q) vs log
correct within 0.1 percent for /© ^ 5 x 1011. The error is
i . The slope of the straight line drawn through the data for
only 1 percent when 5* 8 x 104 and is 2 percent when tf ) ^
0.! < l < 10 hours is
5 X 103. If Eq . 4.41 is used in Eq. 4.37, and if the skin factor
is included in the pressure-drop calculation, the result is „
m = 1.7 x IO-4 (D/STB)/eycle.
Using Eq. 4.45,
1= log 1 + ( Vq ) hr , (4.42)
(I62.6)(l,0)(l.35)
9 k= . 6.8 md,
( 1,000)( 1.7 X 10- )(I90)
This equation indicates that a graph of ( \ lq ) vs log t should ‘
be a straight line with slope

mq = 162.6 Bfj.
kh( pi - pwf )
. (4.43)
an error of 4.6 percent . The skin factor is estimated from
Fig 4.14 and Eq. 4.46. From Fig. 4.14, ( l/q) , =
.
0.000578 D/STB.
,, .
and intercept (at / = 1 hour) 4= [
1.1513 -0 0005??-
.7 x 10-*
1.1
- * _)- 3.2275 + 0.86859 jj
|
^^
( lA? ) ih, = log
- log /\ ( l.35)(2.08— X 10"G)( 1)* /
\ + 3.2275]
J
(4.44)
= 0.28.
Permeability may be estimated from the slope of a ( \ lq ) vs
log r data plot with This compares with the actual value of 0.

k- 162.6 BM ( 4.45)
( Pi - PrfVt
Skin factor may be estimated from a rearranged form of As opposed to constant - rate testing, the analog to
Eq. 4.44: pseudosteady -state flow does not develop during constant -
pressure testing. When boundary effects influence behavior
s- .1513 f ( /mi9)mr - log /<t>p*trw
L
]
\ £ 2
) + 3.2275 ] .
/ J
during the constant- pressure test, there is a rapid decline of
flow rate caused by declining reservoir pressure. Flow rate
. (4.46) goes to zero as reservoir pressure approaches the wellbore
pressure.

Example 4.4 Constant-Pressure Testing in an 4.7 Reservoir Limit Testing When Rate Varies
Infinite- Acting Resen/oir
Section 3.5 discusses reservoir limit testing for constant -
The flow -rate data shown in Fig. 4.13 are from a simu ¬
rate production; however, it may be difficult to maintain a
.
lated constant-pressure drawdown test Data used to simu¬ constant flow rate during long production periods. If flow
late the test are rate varies in a cyclic or oscillatory manner, reservoir limit
k = 6.5 md = 2.05 x 10” 6 psi“ 1 .
testing techniques still can be used 14'15 The analysis tech¬
nique is similar to that for constant-rate reservoir limit tests,
/ = 1.35 cp Pi ~
Pwf = 1.000 psi
*
/i = 190 ft rw = 1 ft but the results are less accurate.
5 = 1.0 RB/STB 5=0 . To analyze a variable-rate reservoir limit test, one plots
observed flowing pressure vs time on Cartesian paper Pres¬ .
The data of Fig. 4.13 were type-curve matched to Fig. sure points must be segregated by the rate occurring when
4.12. Match-point data are the pressure measurement was made. Fig. 4.15 is such a plot
qM = 1,720 STB/D (<7D)W = 0.27 for a waste- water injection well; the three sets of pressure
tu = 1.0 hour (tD )M 600 — . points occur at three different injection rates . Such a data
MULTIPLE- RATE TESTING 41

*
M 9
( qD = 0.27 at qM - 1720 STB/ D
5 ( fD M
^ ~ 600 at t/ y - t.O HR

3 io5
3 4 5 8 78 ® 2 3 4 0 8 78 » S 4 9 8 7 8®
10*
5
IO"
' FLOW TIME , t , HR
'
O IO

.
Fig 4.13 Flow rate-time data for constant - pressure drawdown test of Example 4.4 .

’ I i r

O SLOPE* mq •0.000/7 DAY / [( STB ) ( CYCLE )]

m ( / /a ) hr , - 0.000578 O/STB

Q 4

2 3 4 5 8 7 8® 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 » 2 3
. . . . ..I
4 5 8 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
3
IO"2 IO" ' I
*

IO IO

FLOW TIME , t , HR
.
Fig 4.14 Plot of Mq vs log t for constant-pressure drawdown test of Example 4.4 .

-
plot should have a straight line section . Because of flow-rate Injection is with one , two , or three pumps, so the rate is
variation , there is actually never a definite straight line , but a
least -squares straight line usually can be fit to the pressure
-5, 140, —
10,280, or - 15 ,420 STB/ D. Pressure and rate
data are reported by month only without indication of how
points observed at one of the rates. The slope , m*, of the long the rate had applied when the pressure was measured .
straight line may be used to estimate reservoir drainage Cumulative fluid injected is known accurately . The average
volume: injection rate is -9 ,660 STB/ D for the period shown in Fig.
4.15. The formation volume factor , B , is 1.0; system total
,
A <j h =
~ Q 23395 qB
m*ct
( 4 , 47 )
_ _
compressibility , c, , is unknown , but is estimated to be about
5 x I 0 6 psi 1 .
Eq . 4.47 is identical to Eq. 3.35 except that the over all -
average flow rate is used . Even though the pressure points
are segregated by the rate in effect at the time the pressure
was measured , the total average flow rate is used to estimate
reservoir volume.

-
Example 4 . 5 Variable Ra te Reservoir Limit Test
n
a.

id
K
500

400
O
—
i i

- 3,140 STB/ D
-10 ,280 STB / O
15 , 420 STB / D

Fig. 4.15 shows pressure data from Ref . 14 for the last
5 years of the 11 -year life of an industrial waste-disposal
well . Although the data are for injection , the methods of
ft

UJ
300

^ °
-
-° ° o

this section can be applied by using a negative rate (see

Chapter 7 ).
<
200 I I I .. I

The well , with casing set at 1 ,800 ft , is completed open 3 1967

YEAR
I 960 1969 1970 1971

hole to about 3,000 ft , just into basement. Only a part of the Fig. 4.15 Long term , variable- rate reservoir limit test of Example
1,200-ft section is porous and permeable , but porosity and
-
net interval are not known . The injection horizon is known
to be of large extent.
4.5. Five years of injection history for a disposal well
with three injection rates; q = 9,660 STB/D during
period shown . After Earlougher.14 —
42 ADVANCES IN WELL TEST ANALYSIS

The lines in Fig. 4.15 are least-squares fits to the pressure distance from the well . Oil flow rate (at surface conditions)
data for each of the three rates. The slopes , m* , are + 2.62 x has been empirically related to flowing bottom- hole pres¬
10-3 psi/hr , + 2.15 x I 0 ~3 psi/hr, and + 3.16 x 10-3 psi/hr
— — —
for the 5, 140, 10 , 280, and 15,420 STB/D rates, re¬
spectively . We estimate the pore volume from Eq . 4.47,
sure and average reservoir pressure by

<7o « 4' (
^- A, r )\ (4.48)
being certain to use the average injection rate , q = 9,660 — where J 0' is a form of productivity index and n is an empiri ¬
STB/D .
ArkU
_- 0.23395 ( -9,660)( 1 )
cally determined exponent . Fetkovich 20 states that field tests
indicate 0.5 n 1.0. Eq . 4.48 is similar to the deliverabil
^ ¬

* (2.62 x 10 3)(5 X 10 «)
" "
= 1.73 x 10" cu ft
= 30.7 x 109 STB,
for the circular data points. Similarly , the estimated pore
volume is 37.4 x 10* STB for the square data points and
25.5 X 10® STB for the diamond -shaped data points . These
volumes do not contradict the known geology of the forma¬
tion . The results for the diamond -shaped points ( q =
— 15,420 STB/D) should be considered the least reliable
since there are only five data points , and they are scattered .
The value of 37.4 x 10* STB maybe the most reliable , since
most data points are for q * - 10,280 STB/ D.
These calculations require that flow be pseudosteady
state . A long period of apparently linear pressure increase
-
with time is a good indicator of pseudosteady state condi ¬
tions . If this assumption is incorrect , estimated pore volume
is too small .
4.8 Deliverability Testing of Oil Wells
Deliverability testing has long been used to predict the
capability of a gas well to deliver against a specific flowing
bottom- hole pressure.116 19 Fetkovich 20 demonstrates that
'
such testing can be used for oil wells . It is particularly useful
for reservoir systems operating below the bubble point ,
when fluid properties and relative permeabilities vary with
u
X
Pi
ity equation used in gas well testing.
Two important deliverability tests are the flow-after - flow
test and the modified isochronal test . Fig . 4.16 schemati ¬
cally demonstrates the rate and pressure behavior of a flow-
-
after flow test. The well is produced at rate q { until the
pressure stabilizes at pKfy . Then the rate is changed to q >
until the pressure stabilizes at puf .,, and so on . Normally,
-
four rates are run but any number greater than three may be
used . Flow rate may be either increased or decreased . The
-
major disadvantage of the flow-after flow test is that each
rate must remain constant until pressure stabilizes. The time
required may be estimated from Eq . 2.40,
/, ~ 380
k
( 4.49)
For systems that arc large or have low permeability , stabili ¬
zation time can be very long .
To avoid problems with long stabilization times
Cullender18 proposed the isochronal flow test for gas wells .
.
A shortened version , the modified isochronal flow test , 19
was later suggested and is generally preferred . Fig. 4.17
schematically illustrates flow-rate and pressure histories for
a modified isochronal flow test . The well is produced at rate
( , for time / , and the final flowing pressure , ptrfx , is ob ¬
/
served . Then the well is shut in for time t and the final
{
shut - in pressure , p,cirl , is observed . The procedure is re¬
.
peated at rates qq:i q 4 , etc. The well is usually produced
to a stabilized pressure at the final rate , so one stabil ¬
-
ized pressure point, ( /VrW is available.
Fig. 4.18 illustrates the analysis method for a modified

Pwfi
—
isochronal deliverability test; log( p 2 p,, * ) is plotted vs
log q. The points usually fall on a straight line with slope
l //i. The location of the line depends on the flow- period
to
to
Uj Pwf 2 duration . Thus , in normal analysis , the points for the four
Pwf 3 rates define the straight line and the single stabilized point
O
Pw /4 defines location of the stabilized deliverability curve. The
stabilized deliverability curve may be entered at set values of

*2 t3 '4
—
( p 2 p« /2 ) to estimate the well ’ s deliverability (flow rate ) at
a given drawdown . Alternatively, the data plot ( Fig. 4.18)
TIME , t , HR may be used to estimate J„' and n and the flow rate may be
estimated fromEq . 4.48. Fig . 4.18 and Eq . 4.48 are written
a with average reservoir pressure , the pressure used for flow -
U -
after flow and normal isochronal flow tests. The data plot
5a: *3 -
for a modified isochronal flow test uses the shut in pressure
<2 occurring immediately before the flow rate instead of the
o «1 average reservoir pressure .
l i. Fetkovich 20 provides data for many flow-after flow and-
isochronal flow tests in several oil wells. Fig. 4.19 demon ¬
t2
TIME , t , HR
*4 -
strates that the isochronal and flow after-flow tests can give
the same results in oil wells producing from a saturated (both
-
Fig. 4.16 Pressure- rate history for a flow-after flow test. oil and free gas present ) reservoir.
MULTIPLE -RATE TESTING 43

PwSI PwS 2
P «33
PWS 4

f y
K
pwf 2
pwJ 3
PW
CD A - * 4
Pwf 'pSS

TIME, t , HR

cr <U
UJ
<
(E
* 3

<2
$
O q ,
“ O
- ,-t -tr -tr — t -t 1 - t,- -t1
TIME, t , HR
Fig. 4.17 Pressure-rate history for a modified- isochronal- flow test .

If deliverability test data are not available for a solu¬

tion gas drive reservoir, it still may be possible to predict a
well’s deliverability by using the “ inflow performance
relationship” (IPR) proposed by Vogel21 and the modifi ¬
'" - TK 1 '0 2
('#) - ” * (?)’] '
where q0 is the oil flow rate (STB/D) occurring at bottom
14
¬

hole pressure and / * is a productivity index . Given a

cation to the IPR proposed by Standing.22 Vogel used
computer simulation techniques to demonstrate that
stabilized q0 and the correspondingpandjv , it is possible to ,
calculate / * from Eq. 4.50. Then, to estimate </„at another
many solution gas drive reservoirs operating below the
stabilized pressure, one uses Eq. 4.50 with the experimen¬
bubble point have an inflow performance relationship
tally determined / *. Standing22 indicated that, as the reser ¬

given by
voir is depleted, it is necessary to modify Eq. 4.50 because
of changes in relative permeability and fluid properties. He
suggested estimating a future value of the productivity index
4 t 1 r 1 1 1 1| from the present value by using
3
STABILIZED*
2 -

*.9 -
5 HR
f HR
0.25 HR
107 .6
1
' I

.'
0
5 p = 5922.9 PS/ A
0 8 *<t n = 0.613

.
7
6
OL
5
©I
a * 4 ~ 10
1 i
(VI
3 - SLOPE - ! / n
“a «
to .
4
cvi
8 - IC L O FLOW AFTER FLOW /1-26 -7 /
A ISOCHRONAL /2 5 7 / --
lO 8
_| I I I I I 1
10 * 4
I
6 8 6 8
I

4 9 8 7 8 9 3 4 I02 IOS I04

lO2 IOS FLOW RATE q 0 , , STB / D
FLOW RATE, q, STB / D
.
Fig 4.19 Four-hour modified- isochronal and flow -after- flow
.
Fig 4.18 Schematic example of a modified- isochronal - deliverability curves . Field data from a saturated
test data plot. reservoir. After Fetkovich. 20
44
jF* = jv . Mi
\ ]jL ( 4.51)
&).
where the subscript F refers to some time in the future and
the subscript p refers to data at the present time. Values of
kro , //.<> , and B„ in the future are estimated from material
balance relationships. The procedure for developing a future
IPR is ( 1 ) estimateVp* from current production data and Eq .
4.50; (2) estimate J?* from Eq . 4.51; and ( 3) estimate the
future IPR ( q0) by usings* in Eq . 4.50. Standing 22 gives an
example calculation .
It is emphasized that dcliverability tests are not transient
well tesLs . They do not yield estimates of skin and formation
permeability; rather, they provide empirical relationships
between flow rate and drawdown for stabilized oil wells .
They do include the nonideal conditions existing in the
reservoir , particularly saturation distributions and variation
of fluid properties with pressure . Deliverability testing thus
may be valuable in helping predict future production rates as
a function of available pressure differential .
-
4.9 Factors Complicating Multiple Rate Testing
Multiple-rate tests exhibit their greatest advantage when
changing wellbore storage makes normal transient test
analysis difficult or impossible . That is because such tests
can eliminate changes in the wellbore storage coefficient
even though the effects of wellbore storage still ' exist.
Multiple- rate tests also reduce the loss of current produc¬
tion . However , such tests are difficult to control since they
are flowing tests . Rate fluctuations are difficult to measure ,
especially on a continuous basis . The analysis techniques
are much more bothersome and difficult than those for
-
constant rate tests; they frequently require the use of a
computer .
To assure the best possible multiple- rate test , the engineer
must have an idea of a well ’s flow characteristics. The rate
change imposed must be large enough to give significant
change in a pressure transient behavior of the well . The
effect of rate change on pressure response must be estimated
from Eq . 4.1 , Eq. 4.6, or Eq . 4.13. Normally , rate is
changed by a factor of two or more.
References
1 . Matthews , C. S. and Russell , D . G .: Pressure Buildup and
.
Flow Tests in Wells Monograph Series, Society of Petroleum
Engineers ofAIME , Dallas ( 1967 ) I , Chap. 6.
2. Odeh , A. S. and Jones. L . G .: “ Pressure Drawdown Analysis,
Variable- Rate Case,” J . Pet . Tech . ( Aug . 1965) 960-964;
Trans ., AIME, 234. Also Reprint Series , No. 9
— Pressure
Analysis Methods , Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME,
Dallas ( 1967) 161 - 165.
3. Russell , D . G .: “ Determination of Formation Characteristics
From Two-Rate Flow Tests ,’ * J . Pet . Tech . ( Dec. 1963)
.
.
.
Pressure Analysis Methods Society of Petroleum Engineers
-
of AIME , Dallas ( 1967) 136 144 .
1347 - l 355; 7>fl /tr . AIME , 228 Also Reprint Series , No . 9
ADVANCES IN WELL TEST ANALYSIS
4 . Doyle, R. E . and Sayegh , E . F.: “ Real Gas Transient Analysis
of Three- Rate Row Tests,' J . Pet . Tech . ( Nov. 1970)
1347- 1356.
*
5. Jacob , C. E . and Lohman , S . W .: “ Nonsteady Row to a Well
of Constant Drawdown in an Extensive Aquifer, ” Trans.,
AGU (Aug . 1952) 559-569.
.
6. Gladfelter , R . E. Tracy , G . W.. and Wilsey , L. W.: "Select¬
ing Wells Which Will Respond to Production -Stimulation
Treatment ," Drill , and Prod . Prac .. API ( 1955) 117- 129.
. .
7. Winestock A . G . and Colpitts G . P.: “ Advances in Estimat ¬
ing Gas Well Deliverability , ” J . Cdn. Pet . Tech. (July-Sept.
1965) 111- 119.
8. Ramey , H. J ., Jr.: “ Verification of the Gladfelter- Tracy -
Wilsey Concept for Wellbore Storage Dominated Transient
Pressures During Production , ’ ’ J . Cdn . Pet . Tech . ,
-
( April Junc 1976 ) 84-85 .
9. Pinson , A . E., Jr .: “ Conveniences in Analyzing Two- Rate
Flow Tests ,” J . Pet . Tech . (Sept . 1972) 1139- 1141 .
.
10 . Earloughcr. R . C. Jr .: “ Estimating Errors When Analyzing
- .
Two Rate Flow Tests ” J . Pet . Tech . ( May 1973) 545-547.
— .
11 . Odeh , A . S . and Jones L . G .: “ Two Rale Flow Test
Variable - Rate Case
,-
-
Application to Gas - Lift and Pumping
.
Wells ,’ V. Pet .Tech. ( Jan. \ 91A ) 97 99 ,Trans . AIME. 257
12 . Slider , H . C .: “ Application of Pscudo-Steady -State Flow to
.
.
Pressure - Buildup Analysis," paper SPE 1403 presented at the
SPE- AIME Regional Meeting . Amarillo. Tex . , Oct . 27 - 28 ,
1966.
13 . Slider , H . C.: “ A Simplified Method of Pressure Buildup
— Analysis for a Stabilized Well ," J . Pet . Tech . (Sept . 1971 )
1155- 1160; Trans .. AIME 251. .
14. Earlougher, Robert C., Jr.; “ Variable Flow Rate Reservoir
Limit Testing ," J . Pet . Tech. ( Dec . 1972) 1423- 1429.
15. Kazcmi , Hossein: “ Discussion of Variable Flow Rate Reser ¬
voir Limit Testing ," J . Pet . Tech. ( Dec . 1972 ) 1429- 1430.
16 . Rawlins, E. L. and Schellhardt , M . A .: "Back - Pressure Data
on Natural -Gas Wells and Their Application to Production
. .
Practices ” Monograph 7 USBM ( 1936).
17 . Theory and Practice of the Testing of Cos Wells , 3rd ed . Pub . .
ERCB- 75- 34, Energy Resources and Conservation Board ,
Calgary , Alta . , Canada ( 1975).
18. Cullender, M . H .: “ The Isochronal Performance Method of
Determining the Flow Characteristics of Gas Wells ," Trans . ,
-
AIME ( 1955) 204, 137 142. Also Reprint Scries No . 9
Pressure Analysis Methods , Society of Petroleum Engineers
.
ofAIME Dallas ( 1967 ) 203- 208.
. —
.
19 . Katz , Donald L., Cornell , David Kobayashi , Riki, Poett -
mann , Fred FL , Vary , John A . , Elcnbaas , John R . , and
Weinaug , Charles F.: Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering ,
-
McGraw Hill Book Co . , Inc., New York ( 1959) Chap. 11 .
20. Fetkovich , M . J.: “ The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells.”
Meeting , Las Vegas , Nev., Sept . 30 Oct. 3, 1973.
-
paper SPE 4529 presented at the SPE AIME 48th Annual Fall
-
21 . Vogel , J . V .: “ Inflow Performance Relationships for
Solution - Gas Drive Wells , ” J . Pet . Tech . (Jan . 1968) 83 92;
Trans ., AIME , 243.
-
—
22. Standing , M . B .: “ Concerning the Calculation oflnflow Per ¬
formance of Wells Producing Solution Gas Drive Reser ¬
voirs,” J . Pet . Tech . (Sept . 1971 ) 1141 - 1142.