SPE

Society of Petroleum Engineel'S

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/87SPE/All-87SPE/SPE-16743-MS/2022923/spe-16743-ms.pdf by Universidad Industrial De Santander, kathleen Hooker naranjo on 24 February 2021
SPE 16743

A New Approach to Multiphase Well Test Analysis

by A-J.A. AI-Khalifah, K. Aziz, and R.N. Horne, Stanford U.
SPE Members

Copyright 1987, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 62nd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in
Dallas, TX September 27-30, 1987.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the
author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of
where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

Abstract
This paper presents a new approach to analyze multiphase well
tests. In this approach, multiphase flow is modelled using the
diffusivity equation with p2 as the dependent variable. This approach
is applied to analyze simulated and literature multiphase tests for a
range of PVT properties. Results of this approach are compared to
those obtained by the pressure (Perrine's) approach, which is shown
to be a special case of the new approach.
Fetkovich's empirical approach for isochronal oil-well testing
has been in use since 1973 without theoretical derivation. His
approach is derived here using the pseudosteady state solution of the
diffusivity equation in terms of p2. The possibility of extending the
isochronal testing to three phase systems is also discussed.
This paper derives the pressure-saturation relation, reported by
both Muskat and Martin. Assumptions made are also investigated.
Martin's total compressibility is derived without assuming negligible
pressure and saturation gradients.
Finally, this paper explains the application of a new relative
permeability technique, to estimate the absolute permeability of
multiphase reservoirs. Two examples to verify this application are
also reported.
Introduction
Multiphase flow is commonly encountered in reservoirs of
interest to petroleum engineers. Equations describing multiphase
flow are highly nonlinear and do not yield simple analytical solutions.
. Hence, very little work has been done in multiphase well testing to
accurately estimate reservoir properties. Those publications, that do
Weller3 ' found that as gas saturation increases, Perrine's results
become less reliable. Chu et al. 7 studied the sensitivity of this
approach to saturation gradients in oil-water systems. They
concluded that a good estimate of total mobility can be obtained.
However, individual phase mobilities can only be estimated if the
saturation distribution is uniform or the producing fluid ratio is
representative of the investigated zone. Ayan and Lee 8 considered
the effect of non-uniform saturation distribution within the drainage
area during buildup tests. They found that Perrine's approach
overestimated the skin due to gas blockage around the wellbore.
Although Perrine's approach underestimates effective phase
permeabilities and overestimates the skin, it has remained the most
commonly applied approach.
The pseudopressure (Raghavan's) approach for solution .}as-
drive reservoirs is analogous to that wven by Al-Hussainy et al. for
gas reservoirs. Evinger and Muskat! formulated the steady state oil
flow rate for solution gas-drive reservoirs as:
k h
r
141.2 In ( ....!.. )
f
p(r)
(1)
r
The two-phase pseudo pressure function may be defined as :
p
m (P) = ! dp, (2)

exist, can be divided into two main categories. First, is the pressure
(Perrine's) approach. Second, is the pseudopressure (Raghavan's) which Fetkovich" used to fonnulate the transient solution:
approach.
Perrine's! (pressure) approach was a modified single phase kh
solution. He suggested, based on empirical observations, the
replacement of single phase properties (mobility, compressibility) by
total system properties. His solution results in estimates of wellbore
skin and effective phase permeabilities but not the absolute where
permeability. Martin2 showed that Perrine's approach was based on 0.000264 k t
(4)
tD=
the pressure diffusivity equation, which he derived assuming ep Jl.o c/ ,.:,
negligible pressure and saturation gradients. A very extensive
investigation of Perrine's approach has been reported in literature3- 8.
Raghavan!2 was the first to apply this integral transfonnation for
drawdowns and buildups in solution gas-drive reservoirs. This
References and illustrations at end of paper. application resulted in estimates of absolute penneability and
9
2 A NEW APPROACH TO MULTIPHASE WELL TEST ANALYSIS SPE 16743

wellbore skin. A pressure-saturation relation needs to be used to following equation results (see Appendix A for details):
evaluate the integral of Eq. 2. Raghavan used the producing GOR
for drawdowns and producing GOR before shutin for buildups. A
field aPRlication of this approach was reported by Verbeek l3 .
Whitson 4 reported the use of the Evinger-MuskatlO approach based
on the steady state theory. B4>e et al. IS presented a detailed analysis

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/87SPE/All-87SPE/SPE-16743-MS/2022923/spe-16743-ms.pdf by Universidad Industrial De Santander, kathleen Hooker naranjo on 24 February 2021
of solution gas-drive reservoirs. They offered another pressure-
saturation relation which computes the saturation change at the
sandface in terms of flowing well pressure change. They concluded + B w V. [-kknv]
- Vp = 4> Ct
2P..
a (8)
I!w B w t
that producing GOR quickly stabilizes during the infinite-acting
period of a drawdown test. More elaboration of the pseudopressure
approach was presented by Aanonsen I6 •17. He studied the nonlinear where ct is the total system compressibility, defined as:
effects of solution gas-drive reservoirs. Aanonsen stated that small
inaccuracies in relative permeability data greatly influence the
accuracy of the pseudopressure approach. All validations of this
approach were done numerically, where reservoir curves (input data)
were used. However, for field applications, only laboratory curves
are known, which might be very different from the reservoir
curves l8 . Both this inaccuracy and the tedious pressure
transformation, necessary for almost every test, makes this elegant
approach much more difficult to apply, as compared to the former
pressure (perrine's) approach. In general, if we allow for gas to dissolve in the water phase, the
above equation can be modified to:
This paper describes a derivation which simplifies the
multiphase flow equations for oil reservoirs to the diffusivity equation c
t
=_ So dB o + So Bg dR. _ dB g !L
in terms of p2. The solution of the resulting diffusivity equation is B o dp Bo dp Bg dp
applied to several two- and three-phase simulated tests, covering a
wide range of saturations. Results of the new approach are also
compared to those obtained by the conventional Perrine's approach.
(9)
Solutions of the diffusivity equation in terms of p2 are applied
to derive some existing multiphase relations. Among those are
Martin's total compressibility relation, the Fetkovich isochronal oil- Equation 9 derived here does not require Martin's2 assumption
well testing approach and the Fetkovich material balance relation of negligible pressure and saturation gradients. Therefore, Martin's
The saturation-pressure relation derived by both Muskat l8 and total compressibility applies to any flow condition provided
Martin2 is rederived here and inherent assumptions are made clear. thermodynamic equilibrium is reached and PVT properties reflect
The possibility of extending the Fetkovich isochronal oil-well testing
interphase mass transfer in the reservoir.
approach to three phase systems is also discussed.
The flow terms of Eq. 8 can be expanded and rearranged as:
The last part of this paper presents a simple approach to
estimate the absolute permeability of multiphase flow reservoirs. It
applies the relative permeability technique of Al-khalifah et al. 19 to
analyze a multiple rate test conducted in such systems.

Mathematical Model
The multiphase flow equations20 , neglecting gravity and
capillary effects, are:

For oil:

v . [k k,.o
Ilo B o
vp] (5)
(10)

For gas:
where
V . [[ k k,.g + R. k k,.o]
Ilg Bg Ilo Bo
vp]
and the following definitions apply to all (r,t):
For water:

V . [~
I!w B
vp] =.£.at [4>
Bw
Sw] . (7)
w

It is also assumed that oil does not evaporate into the gas phase, and
that gas does not dissolve in the water phase.

When Eq. 5 is multiplied by [B o - Bg R.J. Eq. 6 by Bg and Eq. Note that the pressure (perrine's) approach neglects all the right
7 by B w , and the three equations are expanded and added, the hand side terms in Eq. 10 except the first one. This derivation of

10
SPE 16743 A. A. AL·KHALIFAH & K. AZIZ & R. N. HORNE 3

Perrine's approach seems to be more physical and straightforward PVT terms _1_. It is an accepted assumption that the PVT term
than Martin's derivation. On the other hand, the new approach ~oBo
assumes the following: _1_ varies linearly with pressure. An example is the PVT
~o B o
1. V GOR . V P is negligible, and properties reported by B<I>e et al. lS and plotted in Fig. 1. On the other
2. V WOR . V P is negligible. hand, sandface saturation is found to adjust to a stabilized value over

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/87SPE/All-87SPE/SPE-16743-MS/2022923/spe-16743-ms.pdf by Universidad Industrial De Santander, kathleen Hooker naranjo on 24 February 2021
most of the test (Fig. 2 shows the sandface saturation profile during a
Hence; Eq. 10 can be reduced to: simulated drawdown test). When sandface saturation stabilizes, the
sandface effective oil permeability does too. Hence, ko will drop
approximately to a constant value over most of the test. Thereafter,
k
the whole __ 0 - term will be approximately linear with pressure.
~o B o
This is verified numerically22 using a commercial simulator, as can
be seen in Fig. 3.
k
As reported by Handy2l and applied by Fetkovichll the __ 0_ Therefore, the inner boundary condition can be written as:
~oBo
term can be assumed to vary linearly with pressure. Numerical
analysis of this relation is repeated here at different stages of
22 ko
li
r-2A
[[ k
r
o
~o B o
] 22.]
ar 21th
qo

depletion. For all the runs made , the plots of - - showed an

~oBo
approximately linear relation with pressure. The slope of this linear
relation is discussed later.
The linear relation can be expressed as: ~~rap*] 21th
%

ko
= ap (12)

limr~]
~oBo qo
(17)
r->Oar = 1tah
where a is a constant.
Solutions of pressure diffusivity equation, presented in the
The linear relation, Eq. 12, is utilized to reduce Eq. 11 to the literature23 ,24 , are followed to obtain the line source solution. The
following diffusivity equation in terms of p2 : initial and boundary conditions, Eqs. 14, 15 and 17, are applied to
solve the diffusivity equation in terms of ~, Eq. 13. The following
line source solution is obtained:
(13)
p.2 - p 2 (r,t) = - - ", ?
qo - [ - E· [_..:t:..:.- - CI]] (18)
I 21tah I 4t A,
Details of the derivation are presented in appendix A.

Line Source Solution When the logarithmic approximation applies, Eq. 18 can be
written in field units as:
The multiphase diffusivity equation in terms of p2 can be
,
linearized assuming constant total compressibility/mobility ratio, ~.
C
2
Pwf- Pi2 (r,t) = - 325.2h qo ~log t + log [- -A,- 2]
a <I> c, rw
It can then be solved for any linear initial and boundary conditions.
The following is a derivation of the line source solution in terms of
p2. - 3.228 + 0.869 s] (19)
The reservoir is assumed to be infinite, homogeneous and
isotropic. It is also assumed that the flow is isothermal and the well Similarly the single :phase skin equation is written for
penetrates the whole thickness. Initial and boundary conditions are multiphase flow in terms of p :
defined as:

initial:
p2 = p~ at t = 0, for all r, (14)
outer boundary:
p2 = p~ for r-.+oo, for all t. (15)
where m is the slope of the semilog straight line in the p~ versus
log t plot.
inner boundary:
The line source solution is considered here as a simple application of
lim [[ k
r->O
o
r ~o Bo ] 22.]
ar (16) the general approach. For other reservoir or testing conditions, single
phase pressure solutions, well documented in literature23 ,24 , could
certainly be followed to obtain the multiphase solutions in terms of
(constant oil rate) p2. In general, the diffusivity equation, expressed by Eq. 13 can be
solved for any linearized set of initial and boundary conditions.
k
To linearize the inner boundary condition, __ 0 - is assumed to
~oBo Empirical Slope, a
k ko
vary linearly with p(r-.+O , t). To verify this assumption, __ 0 - is The assumption of linear relation with pressure was
~oBo ~oBo
considered to be a combination of oil effective permeability ko and utilized to linearize both the diffusivity equation and its inner

11
4 A NEW APPROACH TO MULTIPHASE WELL TEST ANALYSIS SPE 16743

boundary condition. If this linear relation was exact, its slope, a, where:
could be evaluated at any pressure. In fact, this relation is only p is average reservoir pressure,
approximately linear since it depends on highly nonlinear PVT and ( IIo lio ) are evaluated at p,
relative permeability data. Therefore, the appropriate pressure at m is the slope of Homer or MDH plots in terms of p 2•
which the slope should be evaluated is subject of the following
investigation. Three choices of eValuating the slope, a, are considered These relations, Eqs. 22-a, and 22-b are applied for oils of both high

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/87SPE/All-87SPE/SPE-16743-MS/2022923/spe-16743-ms.pdf by Universidad Industrial De Santander, kathleen Hooker naranjo on 24 February 2021
here: and low volatility. As can be seen in the applications, they perform
well for all ranges of drawdowns in highly volatile oils. For oils of
1) The empirical slope, a, is evaluated at any average pressure over low volatility, they yield accurate results for low drawdown and
a semilog cycle of p 2 vs log t plot. The slope, m, of the same cycle is following buildups, but tend to overestimate effective phase
used in the effective oil permeability calculation. The semilog cycle, permeabilities for high drawdowns and their subsequent buildups.
(t = lhr to t = lOhr) is chosen, Therefore, a third choice is investigated for high drawdowns and
following buildups in oils of low volatility.
where the slope of the cycle is:
3) The empirical slope, a, is evaluated for oils of low volatility as
m = (PIhr - PIohr), follows. For high drawdowns, a is evaluated at
P = Pwf (t = 0.1 hr). For the following buildups, a is evaluated at
And the empirical slope, a, is evaluated at P = =
Pw. (!J. t 10 hr). Hence, the follOWing relations are obtained:
High drawdown:
Plhr + PlOhr 325.2 qo PO.lhr (~o Bo ) Po.llv
P= k o = --------_.:..::::::.... (23-a)
2
m h
Hence, Following buildup:
ko 2
a = (--) . ----- (23-b)
~o B o ( Plhr + PlOhr )

Applying this in the line source solution of Eq. 19, the following Choosing these pressures avoids the underestimation of the first
relation is obtained: choice (perrine's approach), and the overestimation of the second
choice. As can be seen in the applications, this results in accurate
answers.
Applications
The validity of the new approach is demonstrated using several
simulated drawdown and buidup tests, and a buildup test reported by
Raghavan l2 . Effective phase permeabilities and wellbore skin are
which can be reduced to : calculated and compared to their input values.
Simulated tests were generated using a two-phase, 40-block
162.6 qo ( ~o Bo ) P!1v + PIO/or radial model25• Time steps started very short but increased with time
k = ---:: 2"-_ to allow close monitoring of the early time data. Three different sets
o (21) of relative permeabilities were used in the simulation runs. These are
m* h
shown in Fig. 4.
where: The proposed approach is applied for oils of both high and low
m* = (Plhr - PlOhr) volatility. The PVT data for the highly volatile oils are those
reported by Bcpe et al. IS , and another set presented in Table 1 . The
first PVT data set for oils of low volatility is given in Table 2. The
is the slope of the Pwt versus log t plot. Evidently, Eq. 21 is identical oil PVT v:roperties of this set are approximately those reported by
to Perrine's solution, except the pressure at which ( ~o B o ) term is Raghavan 2. Table 3 shows the second PVT data set for oils of low
evaluated. However, the saturation profile of Fig. 2 shows that k o at volatility. These four sets are thought to represent a wide range of
( Plhr + PIOhr).IS much 1ess than k0 at Pi' This exp1ams . wh y PVT properties over which the empirical slope, a, could be
2 investigated.
Perrine's approach underestimates effective oil permeabilities. To
k For highly volatile oils, Eqs. 22-a and 22-b are applied to
overcome this underestimation, __ 0 - should be evaluated at a estimate effective oil permeability. The corresponding relations for
~o Bo oils of low volatility are:
higher pressure. high drawdown or following buildup: Eqs. 23-a or 23-b,
low drawdown or following buildup: Eqs. 22-a or 22-b.
2) The empirical slope, a, is evaluated at the initial pressure, hence The results are compared to Perrine's solution obtained by Eq. 21,
ko 1 as well as to the actual input values.
a = (--)i'- Effective gas permeability is estimated utilizing the producing
~o Bo Pi
GOR. The following relation is applied:
This slope is substituted in the line source solution of Eq. 19, to
obtain: kg = (GOR - R.) ~g B g ko (24-a)
~oBo
325.2 qo Pi ( ~o B o )i
ko = mh' (22-a)
For drawdown, GOR at the sandface is higher than away from the
wellbore22• To compensate for this overestimation, all PVT properties
For buildup tests, Pi refers to average reservoir pressure, and the of Eq. 24-a are evaluated at the initial pressure. For pseudosteady
corresponding relation is : state drawdowns, Levine and Prats26 and Aanonsen l6 reported almost
uniform GOR. Therefore, buildup tests after pseudosteady state
325.2 qop( rrolio) drawdowns applied Eq. 24-a, using the producing GOR before shutin
ko = mh' (22-b) with all PVT properties evaluated at average reservoir pressure.

12
SPE 16743 A. A. AL·KHALIFAH & K. AZIZ & R. N. HORNE
Effective water peImeability for three phase systems is
evaluated utilizing the producing water/oil ratio, WOR, as follows:
WOR (24-b)
The skin factor is evaluated for drawdown tests using Eq. 20.
For buildup, that relation changes to the following:
PYhr - P~ (~t = 0.0 )]
s = 1.1513 {[
m boundary condition to obtain Perrine's reported solutions , Eq. 26.
(25)
Both Perrine's and the new approach are applied to compute
Effective phase peImeabilities and skin for all simulated tests.
Results are then compared with input values.
Applications are reported in three categories: (1) tests run in
reservoirs with highly volatile oils, (2) low drawdowns and
subsequent buildups in oils of low volatility, and (3) high drawdowns
and following buildups in oils of low volatility. Each category has its
own table which summarizes relevant reservoir data for all of its
tests. These are Tables 4, 5 and 6 respectively. Results are compared
with those from Perrine's approach and the input values. For the
first category, Tables 7 and 8 compare effective oil and gas
peImeabilities respectively, while Table 9 compares the wellbore
skin. For the second and third categories, only effective oil
peImeabilities are compared in Tables 10 and 11 respectively.
Reference 22 reports several other applications for all three
categories.
Test data are plotted as p 2 versus log t, as shown in Figs. 5 to
10. The slopes of the semilog straight lines are utilized in Eqs. 22
and 23 for effective oil peImeabilities, and in Eqs. 20 and 25 for
wellbore skin. Effective gas and water peImeabilities are evaluated
using Eqs. 24-a and 24-b respectively. On the other hand, results
using Perrine's approach are obtained using Eq. 21 and skin solutions
reported in literature. It should be noted that Perrine's approach
utilizes the slope of a P versus log t plot22.
The proposed approach estimates effective oil peImeability
more accurately than Perrine's approach. This is more pronounced in
Tables 10 and 11 than in Table 7. In general, buildup tests seem to
result in more accurate effective oil peImeabilities than drawdown
tests.
The new approach is better applied to drawdown tests when
deteImining wellbore skin, as can be seen in Table 9. For the
drawdown tests analyzed, wellbore skins obtained by the new
approach are closer to input values than those estimated by Perrine's
solution. However, both results are accurate enough for practical
applications. On the other hand, buildup tests analyzed with the new
approach underestimate the skin slightly, when compared to Perrine's
approach. Since Perrine's solution was reported8 to overestimate the
skin of some buildup tests, the proposed approach might cure this
overestimation.
Discussion of Perrine's Approach
Although much of muItiphase well testing literature deals with
the investigation of Perrine's approach, some important aspect
regarding the inner boundary condition (constant oil rate) has not
been considered. Perrine's solutions reported in the literature24
estimate effective phase peImeabilities, utilizing the following
equation:
(26)
13
5
As was reviewed already, Martin linearized the multiphase diffusivity
equation in teImS of p. However, to the best of our knowledge,
linearization of the inner boundary condition, Eq. 16, has not been
k
discussed in literature. Assuming __ 0_ of Eq. 16 to be constant
110 Bo
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/87SPE/All-87SPE/SPE-16743-MS/2022923/spe-16743-ms.pdf by Universidad Industrial De Santander, kathleen Hooker naranjo on 24 February 2021
throughout the test, the inner boundary condition is linearized as
follows:
(27)
Martin's diffusivity equation can be solved applying this linear inner
Both physical understanding and simulation runs showed that the
k
__
0 _ teIm varies linearly with pressure (it has its highest value at
110 B o
the average reservoir pressure). However, the well pressure
measured throughout the test is always lower than the average
ko
presure. Hence, if the - - teIm was assumed constant, (not
110 B o
corrected for its change with pressure), it would result in
underestimates of effective oil peImeabilities. Perrine's 1 solution is
a typical example of this case.
Estimates of the effective oil peImeability, obtained from the
new approach, can be reduced to Perrine's under certain conditions.
The first approach to evaluate the empirical slope, a, reduces the new
solution to Eq. 21, which is almost identical to Perrine's solution, Eq.
26. This shows that Perrine's solution for effective oil peImeability
is only a special case of the general approach proposed here.
Discussion of the new approach
The underestimation of effective oil peImeability by Perrine's
approach suggests that the first choice did not use the appropriate
pressure to evaluate the empirical slope, a. The linear relation of
k
sandface __
0 - with pressure, shown in Fig. 3, explains the reasons
110 B o
for the underestimation of the first choice. This relation also
suggests the need for the use of a higher pressure in estimating the
empirical slope, a. In order to choose the appropriate pressure,
different sets of PVT data for oils ranging from high to low
volatility, were used to simulate several drawdown and buildup tests.
When these tests were analyzed, the appropriate pressure to evaluate
the empirical slope was found to be different for different oils.
These different pressures are discussed in the following section.
For highly volatile oils, the use of initial pressure for
drawdowns and average pressure for buildups gives accurate results.
The same is also appropriate for low drawdowns or following
buildups in oils of low volatility. However, the use of these
pressures is found to overestimate effective oil peImeability with high
drawdowns and following buildups in oils of low volatility. Instead,
the followings are found to work:
for high drawdowns: Pwt (t = 0.1 hr ) ,
for following buildups: Pws (~t = 10.0 hr ) .
Theoretically any pressure could be chosen to evaluate the empirical
slope, a. The physical understanding of Perrine's approach guided
the new approach for these recommendations.
In general, the proposed approach offers a very practical way of
estimating effective oil peImeability to a good accuracy. It also
results in an acceptable skin for drawdown tests, and slightly
underestimated skin for buildUp tests. This underestimation may help
to resolve the problem of Perrine's approach, which overestimates
skin from some buildup tests.
Fetkovich's Isochronal Testine Approach
Fetkovichll introduced an empirical approach for isochronal oil
well testing. Since then, this approach has been used without
theoretical justification. Empirically, Fetkovich suggested that the
6 A NEW APPROACH TO MULTIPHASE ,WELL TEST ANALYSIS SPE 16743

deliverability curve for solution gas-drive systems follows the relation: Equating Eq. 34 with Fetkovich empirical relation, Eq. 28, the
following productivity index is obtained:
(28)
(35)

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/87SPE/All-87SPE/SPE-16743-MS/2022923/spe-16743-ms.pdf by Universidad Industrial De Santander, kathleen Hooker naranjo on 24 February 2021
Here Jo' is the productivity index of a well producing under solution
gas-drive, and n is an exponent
Intuitively, this approach in terms of p 2 can be related to the
oil-gas diffusivity equation in terms of p 2 : Eq. 35 defining J; is identical to Eq. (A-21) of Fetkovich's paperll .
The present derivation emphasizes the inherent assumption,
represented by Eq. 32, which was implicit in Fetkovich's approach.
When this assumption holds, the exponent n becomes unity, provided
non-Darcy flow is negligible. On the other hand, if this assumption
does not hold, n will differ from unity, and might also vary with
where c, is the total system compressibility of oil-gas system (from time. This is in agreement with Camacho and Raghavan27 simulation
Eq.9): runs which demonstrated that the exponent n may be a function of
time.
C, = In summary, Fetkovich's empirical relation for solution gas-
drive systems is derived with its assumptions explicitly demonstrated.
Furthermore, it is intuitive that the same approach may be extended
+ 1. i!..1 (29) to three phase reservoirs based on the three phase diffusivity equation
q, dp in terms of p2. The derivation follows exactly the same steps, but
and with total compressibility and total mobility defined for the three
phase system (see AI-Khalifah22). To the best of authors knowledge,
this has not yet been reported elsewhere in the literature.
A, (30)
Fetkovich Material Balance relation
The pseudosteady state solution of the oil-gas diffusivity In 1980, Fetkovich28 proposed an empirical material balance
equation in terms of p2 is the basis of Fetkovich empirical approach. relation to predict the performance of solution gas-drive reservoirs.
Assuming a closed outer boundary system producing at a constant oil This relation can be written as:
rate, the following pseudosteady state solution is obtained for
r. > > r w and large tD:
qo flo liop 2 A, t If = - [P7
N
.] Np + P7 (36)
PI
1t ko h ,:; q, C, Here Pi is average reservoir pressure at initial condition, Pi in our

(31)
°
notation; Np is cumulative oil production; and Np i is cumulative oil
production to a reservoir shut-in pressure of psi. This relation is
Eq. 27 of his papei1.

The assumption, expressed by Eq. 32, can be rewritten as:

This solution is derived in appendix B.

In analogy to single phase material balance equations, the

following assumption is made in the derivation:
.,.,2
P = Pi -
2 %t [2 110 lio Adf ] (32)
fa c,
1t ,:; q, c, h ko Assuming that is constant during the life of the field,
2 flo BoPA,
This assumption accommodates the non-linearity of oil-gas systems Eq. 37 is reduced to:
and the variable saturation represented by its corresponding effective
permeability. Deviations from theory as a result of this assumption, Np = Constant X (P7 - If) (38)
inherent in Fetkovich's empirical approach, are reflected in the value
of the exponent, n, as will be discussed later.
Eq. 38 is the basis of Fetkovich's empirical material balance relation
Eq. 32 is substituted in Eq. 31 to obtain the conventional , Eq. 36, which holds only when those assumptions used are valid.
pseudosteady state solution for oil-gas systems:
The Pressure-Saturation Relations
2
Pwf = P
.,.,2
-
qo flo lio [2:..2.] In
[_0._47_2_r...;;...] (33)
Muskat 18 assumed a tank model to obtain the following
2 1t k h k,o rw pressure-saturation relation:
dS A
-dpo =-A,o c, - So (co + cf) (39)
Here k,o is the relative permeability corresponding to Po
The rate term can then be expressed as:
where

21tkh
(34)
dB o
tip

14
SPE 16743 A. A. AL·KHALIFAH & K. AZIZ & R. N. HORNE
The same relation was derived by Martin2, who assumed negligible
pressure and saturation gradients.
The new derivation presented here offers another view of this
simple relation. The two assumptions utilized to derive Eq. 11 are
also made here. Also, phase saturations are assumed to be only
pressure dependent. When applying this last assumption, Eq. 5 for
oil flow can be expanded to:
V [~:~J Vp
+ [So l!..1 _ ep So dBo + ..!. dSo ] E.E. (40)
Bo tip B~ dp B o tip dt
This equation can be substituted in Eq. 11 to get Eq. 39.
A similar water relation was presented by Martin2 as follows:
dS w
(41)
dp
The same relation can be obtained when Eq. 11 is combined with
the expanded water equation.
Investigations were carried out to check the applicability of
these simple pressure-saturation relations. The VGOR . Vp term was
assumed negligible. Levine and Pra~6 did simulation runs to
investigate the change of GOR over the drainage area. They found a
maximum difference of 10% over the drainage area during the
pseudosteady state period. Later, Aanonsen16 verified almost the
same behavior. Therefore, the assumption of negligible VGOR . Vp
is satisfied throughout the pseudosteady state period. Also gravity
effects were neglected. Therefore, this relation better applies to thin
reseIVoirs. It was also assumed that phase saturations are functions
of pressure only. This assumptions ruled out several saturation-time
derivatives. Therefore, only approximate results should be expected.
Estimation of absolute permeability
Neither Perrine's approach nor the new one proposed in this
paper are capable of estimating the absolute permeability of
multiphase reseIVoirs. Raghavan's approach for solution gas-drive
reseIVoir, extended by Al-Khalifah et al. 19 for three-phase flow
reseIVoirs, is only accurate· if reseIVoir relative permeabilities are
utilized. Therefore, unless single phase tests are available, estimation
of absolute permeability will be of major concern for typical reseIVoir
engineering analysis.
The relative permeability technique of AI-Khalifah et al. 19
yields only effective permeabilities as functions of saturations, if
absolute permeability is not known. When the technique is applied
to a multiple-rate test, the effective permeabilities can be obtained for
a 10 - 15 % change in the sandface saturation. At a different stage
of depletion, the test can be repeated to cover other saturation ranges.
Results of one or more tests can be utilized to estimate the absolute
permeability. The wetting phase effective permeabilities for the
saturation range tested can be fitted by the following polynomial:
(42)
Here, w refers to the wetting phase.
A regression fit by Eq. 42 can then be obtained for the wetting
phase effective permeabilities over the whole range of tested
saturation. This fit is supposed to result in both the absolute
permeability, k, and an exponent, n',. Since the saturation in Eq. 42
is not normalized the exponent obtained is not the true Corey's
exponent. In general, the absolute permeability obtained falls in the
range of acceptable accuracy, as will be seen in the following two
examples.
15
7
Results of this approach may be improved, as more multiple-
rate tests are done later to cover other saturation ranges. If a long
segment of the wetting phase effective permeability CUIVe is
available, better representative polynomials could be used to fit the
results, e.g. Corey's relative permeability relations. This kind of fit
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/87SPE/All-87SPE/SPE-16743-MS/2022923/spe-16743-ms.pdf by Universidad Industrial De Santander, kathleen Hooker naranjo on 24 February 2021
would yield both the absolute permeability and the residual wetting
phase saturation.
The absolute permeability obtained is very sensitive to the
accuracy of multiple-rate test results. Nevertheless, this simple
application of the Al-Khalifah et al. relative permeability technique
offers a simple direct method to estimate the absolute permeability as
will be shown in the following examples.
Example 1
Table 12 shows the results of the first test (case 1) reported in
references 19 and 22. The actual wetting phase (oil) relative
permeability CUIVe used to generate the test was:
krw = ( s:)3.3
where:
* (Sw - 0.20)
Sw = (1 _ 0.20)
Therefore, the input wetting phase effective permeability CUIVes used
to generate the first test were:
k w = 10.0 (S: )3.3
Where, the input absolute permeability is 10.0 md.
The regression fit by Eq. 42 results in both k and n,
but here,
for simple illustration, no regression analysis is done. Rather
approximate results are obtained by applying Eq. 42 on any two
points. When using the first two points of Table 12, the following is
obtained:
n' = 3.458
k = 9.544 md.
Here, the resulting absolute permeability is in good agreement with
the input value of 10.0 md.
Example 2
Table 13 shows the results of the second test (case 1) reported
in references 19 and 22. In this test, the same wetting phase (oil)
relative permeability CUIVe used in Test 1 was also used to generate
this test A regression should be done using the results of both first
and secpnd test to determine the fitting parameters of Eq. 42, namely
k and n. As explained in example 1, no regression is done here and
results are obtained by applying Eq. 42 using the first and last points
of Table 13 to obtain:
n' = 5.61
k = 12.69 md.
Here, the resulting absolute permeability is still a good estimate
of the input value of 10.0 md. It is worth noting that if a regression
fit is done, all points will be considered and better accuracy is
possibly obtained.
Conclusions
In this paper we have presented a practical approach to analyze
multiphase well tests. This approach applies to gas-oil or gas-oil-
water systems. Multiphase flow equations were simplified to a
solvable diffusivity equation in terms of p2. Line source solutions
were applied to both simulated and literature multiphase tests.
Semiempirical work was also done to account for different volatilities
of oils. This resulted in three different possible forms of the
8 A NEW APPROACH TO MULTIPHASE WELL TEST ANALYSIS
solution. One of the forms was shown to reduce to Perrine's
pressure approach l . However, other forms were different and they
provided better estimates of effective oil permeabilities for all
applications.
1. Multiphase flow was modelled by the diffusivity equation in
terms of p2. This equation was linearized assuming constant total
compressibility/mobility ratio. The inner boundary condition was
also linearized based on the physical behavior of the system.
The linear diffusivity equation was then solved with its linear
boundary conditions to obtain the line source solution in terms of
p2. In general, pressure solutions reported in the literature can be
followed to solve the diffusivity equation in terms of p2 for any
reservoir and testing condition.
2. Linearization of the inner boundary condition allowed different
solutions to be considered. One of the solutions was found to
reduce to Perrine's pressure approach l . Since Perrine's solution
underestimates effective oil permeability, other solutions were
also investigated. A generally applicable solution was found for
highly volatile oils. For oils of low volatility two solutions were
chosen: the first was the same as that for highly volatile oils and
held for low drawdowns or following buildups, while the second
was different and held for high drawdowns and subsequent
buildups. These solutions were found to estimate effective oil
permeability more accurately than Perrine's approach for all cases
considered. Wellbore skins estimated by the new approach were
accurate for drawdown tests, and slightly underestimated for
buildup tests compared to those of Perrine's approach.
3. Martin's total compressibility was derived from basic principles.
Therefore, Martin's2 relation is valid for any flow condition,
provided thermodynamic equilibrium is reached and PVT
properties reflect interphase mass transfer in the reservoir.
4. The Fetkovichll empirical approach for isochronal oil-well testinl
was derived using the pseudosteady state solutions in terms of p .
The assumptions made explained the variation of the exponent, n,
with time as found numerically in the literature.
5. The Fetkovichll approach was developed only for wells
producing in solution gas-drive reservoirs. Based on the solutions
of the multiphase diffusivity equation, the same approach can
now be extended to three phase reservoirs.
6. The Fetkovich28 empirical material balance relation, for solution
gas-drive reservoir, was also derived. Assumptions involved
were pointed out.
7. The present derivation of the pressure-saturation relations is
different from Muskat' s l8 and Martin's2 derivations. The
cancellation of several saturation-time derivatives results in the
approximate nature of these relations.
8. The relative permeability technique of Al-Khalifah et al. l9 was
applied to estimate the absolute permeability of multiphase
reservoirs. This simple approach seems to deserve further
investigation.
Acknowlede-ements
The first author wants to thank ARAMCO for supporting his
scholarship. The ECLIPSE simulator was made available to the
department of petroleum engineering by Exploration Consultants
Limited. Partial supports through Stanford Center Reservoir
Forecasting (SeRF), Stanford University Reservoir Simulation
Industrial Affiliates Program (SUPRI-B), Schlumberger Perforating
and Testing, and CER Corporation are also appreciated.
References
1. Perrine, RL.: "Analysis of pressure Buildup Curves," Drill. and
Prod. Prac., API (1956),482-509.
2. Martin, J.C.: "Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Drive
Reservoirs and the Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase Pressure
Buildup Analysis," Trans. AIME (1959) 216. 309-311.
16
SPE 16743
3. Weller, W.T.: "reservoir Performance During Two-Phase Flow,"
J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1966) 240-246.
4. Earlougher, RC., Miller, F.G. and Mueller, T.D.: "Pressure
Buildup Behavior in a Two-Well Gas-Oil System," Soc. Pet. Eng.
J., (June 1967) 195-204.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/87SPE/All-87SPE/SPE-16743-MS/2022923/spe-16743-ms.pdf by Universidad Industrial De Santander, kathleen Hooker naranjo on 24 February 2021
5. Kazemi, H.: "A Reservoir Simulator for Studying Productivity
Variation and Transient Behavior of a Well in a reservoir
Undergoing Gas Evolution," Trans. AIME (1975) 259, 1401-
1412.
6. Raghavan, R: "Well Test Analysis for Multiphase Flow," paper
SPE 14098 presented at the SPE 1986 International Meeting on
Petroleum Engineering held in Beijing, China March 17-20, 1986.
7. Chu, W.C., Reynolds, A.C., Jr. and Raghavan, R: "Pressure
Transient Analysis of Two-Phase Flow problems," SPE
Formation Evaluation (April, 1986).
8. Ayan, C. and Lee, W.J.: "The Effects of Multiphase Flow on the
Interpretation of Buildup Tests," paper SPE 15537 presented at th
61st Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New
Orleans, LA October 5-8, 1986.
9. Al-Hussainy, R, Ramey, H. J., Jr. and Crawford, P.B.: "The
Flow of Real Gases Through Porous Media," J. Pet. Tech. (May
1966), 624-636.
10. Evinger, H.H. and Muskat, M.: "Calculation of Theoretical
Productivity Factor ," Trans., AIME (1942) 146, 126-139.
11. Fetkovich, M.J.: "The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells," Paper
SPE 4529 presented at the 48th Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas,
Nevada, Spet. 30 - October 3, 1973. (SPE Reprint Series No. 14,
265.)
12. Raghavan, R: "Well Test Analysis: Wells Producing by
Solution Gas Drive Wells," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Aug. 1976) 196-
208.
13. Verbeek, C.M.J.: "Analysis of Production Tests of Hydraulically
Fractured Wells in a Tight Solution Gas-Drive Reservoirs," Paper
SPE 11084 presented at the 1982 SPE annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 26-29.
14. Whitson, C.S.: Topics on Phase Behavior and Flaw of
Petroleum Reservoir Fluids, Dissertation - Doctor of Technical
Sciences, University of Trondeim, Norway, (Aug. 1983).
15. B~e, A., Skjaeveland, S.M. and Whitson, C.S.: "Two-Phase
Pressure Transient Test Analysis," Paper SPE 10224 presented at
the 56th Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas, Oct. 5-7, 1981.
16. Aanonsen, S.I.: Nonlinear Effects During Transient Fluid Flow
in Reservoirs as Encoutered in Well Test Analysis, Dissertation -
Dr. Scient., Univ. of Bergen, Norway, 1985.
17. Aanonsen, S.: "Application of Pseudotime to Estimate Average
reservoir Pressure," Paper SPE 14256 presented at the 60th
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada,
Sept. 22-25, 1985.
18. Muskat, M.: Physical Principles of Oil Production. International
Human Resources Development Corporation (1949) 404-431.
19. Al-Khalifah, A.A, Home, RN. and Aziz, K.: "In-Place
Determination of Reservoir Relative Permeability Using Well Test
Analysis," Paper SPE 16774 to be presented at the 62nd Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, Sept. 27-30,
1987.
20. Aziz, K. and Settari, A: Petroleum Reservoir Simulation.
Applied Science Publishers. London (1979) 16.
21. Handy, L.L.: "Effect of Local High Gas Saturations on
Productivity indices," Drill. and Prod. Prac. , API (1957).
22. Al-Khalifah, A.A: Advances in Multiphase Well Test Analysis,
Ph. D. Dissertation, Stanford University (1988),(to be
completed).
23. Matthews, C.S. and Russell, D.G.: Pressure Buildup and Flow
Tests in Wells. Monograph Series, Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME. Richardson, TX, (1967) 1, 130-133.
SPE 16743 A. A. AL·KHALIFAH & K. AZIZ & R. N. HORNE 9

24. Earlougher, R.C., Jr.: Advances in Well Test Analysis, Pwt flowing wellbore pressure, psi
Monograph Series, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AlME,
Dallas, TX, (1977) 5. Pws shutin pressure, psi
25. ECLIPSE: Reference Manual, Version 84/11, Exploration
Consultants Limited (November, 1984). p average pressure, psi

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/87SPE/All-87SPE/SPE-16743-MS/2022923/spe-16743-ms.pdf by Universidad Industrial De Santander, kathleen Hooker naranjo on 24 February 2021
26. Levine, J.S. and Prats, M.: "The Calculated Perfonnance of
Solution Gas-Drive Reservoirs," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Sept. 1961) q flow rate, STB/D
222, 142-152.
r radial distance, feet
27. Camacho, R.G. and Raghavan, R.: "Inflow Perfonnance
Relationships for Solution Gas-Drive Reservoirs," Paper SPE
16204 presented at the 1987 Production Symposium.
rD = dimensionless radius
28. Fetkovich, M.J.: "Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves," r. external radius, feet
J. Pet. Tech. (June 1980) 1065-1077.
rw = wellbore radius, feet
Nomenclature
Rs solution gas/oil ratio, MSCF/STB
a = the empirical slope
s skin
Bl fonnation volume factor of phase I, RB/STB, RB/MSCF
Sl saturation of phase 1
~ fonnation volume factor of phase 1 at p
Slj saturation of phase 1 at rate step j
c compressibility, psi-1
Sor = residual oil saturation
cf rock compressibility, psi-1
(S - Sor)
compressibility of phase I, psi-1 S·
cl 0
( 1 - Sor)
c, total system compressibility (Eq. 9), psi- 1
time, hrs
GOR producing gas-oil ratio, MSCF/STB
tD dimensionless time based on wellbore radius
GOR GOR at any (r,t), MSCF/STB
/1t = shutin time, hrs
h thickness, feet
WOR water/oil ratio, BBL/STB
Jo' productivity index, STB/D/psi2n
WOR WOR at any (r,t), BBL/STB
k absolute penneability, md
k
I.. mobility of phase 1, ...!.., md/cp
kl effective penneability of phase 1, md III

kt effective penneability of phase 1 at p; md

1.., = 1.. 0 + I..g + I.. w' md/cp
klj effective penneability at Slj' md
III viscosity of phase I, cp
k rl relative penneability of phase 1
JII = viscosity of phase 1 at p; cp
k,.l relative penneability of phase 1 at p
ep porosity
2 2
m slope of the semilog straight line in p plot, psi /log V gradient operator

m• slope of the semilog straight line in P plot, psi/log V2 Laplacian operator

m(p) pseudopressure function (Eq. 2), (psi/cp)/(RBISTB)

n exponent of Fetkovich relation Subscripts

n exponent of Corey's relative penneability relation for

the wetting phase
g = gas
initial
Np cumulative oil production, STB

Npi = cumulative oil production to a reservoir pressure

j = index
of 0 psi, STB 0 oil
P pressure, psi t total

Pi initial pressure, psi w = water

17
10 A NEW APPROACH TO MULTIPHASE WELL TEST ANALYSIS SPE 16743

Appendix A Eqs. (A-4), (A-5), and (A-6) are substituted in Eqs. (A-I), (A-2)
and (A-3) respectively and added up to obtain:

Multiphase DifTusivity Equation

The flow of a· three-phase, three-component, oil-gas-water

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/87SPE/All-87SPE/SPE-16743-MS/2022923/spe-16743-ms.pdf by Universidad Industrial De Santander, kathleen Hooker naranjo on 24 February 2021
system can be represented by Eqs. 5, 6 and 7. Gravity and capillary
effects are neglected. this form of the equations also assumes that no
gas dissolves in the water phase, and that oil does not evaporate into
+ Bw V [Powk krwB V]P =
• --
[So
ell - -
dBo
-- +
So B, -
dRs
the gas phase. These flow equations can simplified to the multiphase Bo dp Bo dp
w
diffusivity equation in terms of p2 as discussed here.

Multiply Eq. 5 by ~o - B, Rs)' Eq. 6 by B, and Eq. 7 by B w to

obtain:

[B o- B, Rs] v. [:ok;o vp] [:t [~:: ]] [Bo- B, R.] (A-I)

=
which is reduced to :

B, V . [[ 11,k kB,r, + R110s kBkro ] vp] = B,[1..at [~B,S, ~ R.B So]]

I
o
(A-2)
o

and + B V . [kPowB
w k.w V p] = ell ct ~
at
(A-7)
w

(A-3)
where Ct is the total system compressibility, defined as:

The right hand side ofEq. A-I can be expanded to:

to, at [~]
rB -B R]• 1.. Bo = _ Sw dBw +
B w dp
.1. i.1
ell dp

= rto,
B -B R]S [_..1. dB
o
+_1 ~]:EE..
s 0 B~ dp B o dp at Expanding the flow terms in Eq. (A-7):

(A-4)

Similarly the right hand side of Eq (A-2) is expanded as:

B'at
1.. [ell s, + ell Rs
So] = [B S {.l.. ~ _..1.2 dB,}
B
,0 B ' , B dp B
" dp

+ - [ko
B w WOR V P . V - - ] + B, r
LV , -. VP --
GOR ]ko
~ ~}]l.2.
110 Bo 110 Bo
s dB o
+ B
,0S {_ ell R B~ dp
+..1.
Bo
dRs
dp B dpo at
+ r, -
B w LV WOR . V P
] -ko- (A-8)
(A-5) 110 Bo

Where the following definitions apply at for all (r,t):

The right hand side of Eq. (A-3) is similarly expanded to:

B
w
1..
at [ell Sw] = =B S [_
Bw w w
i
B;
dBw
dp
+ _1
B w dp
~]:EE..
at
and

(A-6)

18
SPE 16743 A. A. AL·KHALIFAH & K. AZIZ & R. N. HORNE 11

Eq. (A-8) was rearranged as: of p2. This solution is developed following the pressure solutions23
for a closed reservoir producing at a constant rate.
I\l c, ~ = A, V2 P Initial and boundary conditions for a closed outer boundary
system producing at a constant rate are:

[I!:~J

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/87SPE/All-87SPE/SPE-16743-MS/2022923/spe-16743-ms.pdf by Universidad Industrial De Santander, kathleen Hooker naranjo on 24 February 2021
+ VP . V [B o - B g R. + Bg GOR + B w WORj
initial condition:
p2 (r,t) = p~ for t = 0, for all r, (B-1)
g o
+ B k V P . V GOR + w o
B k VP .V ~OR (A-9)
I!o Bo I!o Bo outer Boundary:

where for all t, (B-2)

ko kg kw
1.., = - + - +
I!o I!g I!w
inner boundary:
It should be noted that Perrine's approach neglects all the right
hand side terms of Eq. (A-9) except the first one. However, the new
approach keeps most of the terms and neglects only the last two
rr[~] 2-i!.] _ 27th
~ I!o B o a r
qo
r .. -
for t > O.
terms, based on the following assumptions:

1. V GOR . V P is negligible, and Tf ~eJ'ze the inner boundary condition, the assumption of
2. V WOR . V P is negligible. linear __ 0 - versus p relation is made:
I!o Bo
Hence; Eq. (A-9) reduces to:

I\l c,
~ = A, V2 p
at [~]
I!o oB
= ap

Here a is the empirical slope, which can be evaluated at p as

such:

or:

I\l C, ~ 2
A, V P + ~: [1..0 + Ag + Aw] V p .V [I!:~J
Thereafter, the linearized inner boundary condition, can be
rewritten as:

which simplified to: (B-3)

(A-I0)
Ii;, corresponds to Po
Following pressure pseodosteady state solution reported in
literature 23, Eq. 11 is solved for the above initial and boundary
The assumption expressed in Eq. 12 reduce the above equation conditions. The solution obtained is:
to:

A, at
,
I\l c ~ = V 2 P + V P . V In p 2 2
Pwf = Pi -
qo JIo lio If - -
7t ko h?eO
[2
tD + In
reO - -
4
3] (B-4)

= V2 p + ~ [V p]2 (A-II)
The above pseudosteady state solution applies at the wellbore
for r. :> r w and large tD'
When Eq. (A-Ill is multiplied by 2p, the following diffusivity
equation in terms of p develops: When expanding Eq. (B-4), it leads to:

V2 2 _ I\l C, 2...J!:.. (A-12)

p - A, at

Appendix B
(B-5)
Pseudosteady State Solution

The basis of the Fetkovichll isochronal testing approach is the This paper utilized Eq. (B-5) to derive the Fetkovich isochronal oil-
pseudosteady state solution of the oil-gas diffusivity equation in terms well testing approach.

19
 Table 1: Second PVT set ot higbly volatile oil
p. B,. JIz. R.. B o' J.I.o.
psi RB/MSCF cp MSCF/STB RB/STB cp
14.7 0.0102 0.0 1.00 1.00
414.7 8.459 0.0137 0.044 l.(l668 0.604
814.7 4.194 0.0148 0.129 1.1344 0.482
1214.7 2.755 0.0157 0.222 1.1707 0.419
0.373

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/87SPE/All-87SPE/SPE-16743-MS/2022923/spe-16743-ms.pdf by Universidad Industrial De Santander, kathleen Hooker naranjo on 24 February 2021
1614.7 2.0445 0.0167 0.319 1.2152
2014.7 1.626 0.0178 0.411 1.2663 0.339
2414.7 1.3553 0.0191 0.515 1.3224 0.307
2814.7 1.1665 0.0206 0.637 13817 0.279
3214.7 1.031 0.0224 0.766 1.46 0.255
3614.7 0.9279 0.0246 0.931 1.5507 0.230
4014.7 0.8495 0.0274 1.108 1.6505 0.208
4214.7 0.8174 0.0292 1.224 1.7131 0.199
4414.7 0.7907 0.0311 1.356 1.7956 0.186
4514.7 0.7783 0.0323 1.450 1.85001 0.181
5014.7 1.8254 0.1891

Table 2: First PVT set tor oils ot low volatility

P. B,. 11,. R.. B o• 110,

psi RB/MSCF CD MSCF/STB RB/STB CD
14.7 0.011 0.102 1.0 3.0
500.0 4.54 0.0118 0.2 1.18 2.34
600.0 4.06 0.0122 0.22 1.195 2.2
700.0 3.3 0.0130 0.240 1.205 2.12
800.0 0.26 1.21 1.981
1000.0 2.85 0.0138 0.3 1.215 1.92
1200.0 0.34 1.23 1.82
1400.0 0.36 1.26 1.78
1500.0 1.958 0.0152 0.38 1.278 1.7645
1600.0 1.953 0.0154 1.274 1.77

Table 3: Second PVT set tor oils ot low volatility

p, B,. 11,. R.. B o' 110.
psi RB/MSCF CD MSCF/STB RB/STB CD
400.0 7.28 0.0122 .102 1.123 1.76
520.0 5.54 0.0125 .127 1.133 1.65
652.0 4.36 0.0128 .155 1.144 1.56
777.0 3.62 0.0130 .180 1.154 1.47
900.0 3.09 0.0133 .204 1.163 1.40
1025.0 2.70 0.0135 .226 1.172 1.34
1150.0 238 0.0138 .249 1.181 1.29
1275.0 2.17 0.0141 .270 1.189 1.27
1300.0 2.12 0.0142 1.188 1.28
1800.0 1.57 0.0156 1.183 1.32

Table 4: Reservoir and test data tor the higly volatile oil system.
Test No. Test PiorP Soi • S,i k,set PVI'set h.
psi ft
1 drawdown 4065.7 0.87 & 0.13 1 2 100.0
2 buildup 3054.7 0.69 & 0.31 2 1 100.0

20
 Table 5: Reservoir and test data tor the low drawdoWDS and buildups in
systems ot low volatility.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/87SPE/All-87SPE/SPE-16743-MS/2022923/spe-16743-ms.pdf by Universidad Industrial De Santander, kathleen Hooker naranjo on 24 February 2021
Test No. Test PiorP Soi • S. kr set PVI'set h,
DSi ft
1 drawdown 1288.22 1.0 & 0.0 3 2 100.0
2 buildw 1497.4 0.99 & 0.01 1 1 100.0

Table 6: Reservoir and test data tor the high drawdowns and buildups in
systems or low volatility.

Test No. Test Pi 01' p Soi • S,i krset PVI'set h.

psi ft
1 drawdown 1281.22 1.0 & 0.0 3 2 100.0
2 buildup, ref. 12 1000.0 0.88 & 0.12 ref. 12 ref. 12 25.0

Table 7: Comparison ot errective oil permeabilities tor the

highly volatile system.

Test No. qo. Input ko' Perrine's 1.:". Resulting k o'

STB/D md md md
1 1500.0 5.56 3.50 4.64
2 11000.0 47.6 37.0 45.3

Table 8: Comparison ot errective gas permeabilities tor the highly volatile

system.

Test No. GOR. Input k,. Perrine's k" Resulting k,.

MSCF/STB md md md
I 2.42 0.24 0.596 0.41
2 8.51 9.60 8.29 9.36

21 SPE 16 743
 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/87SPE/All-87SPE/SPE-16743-MS/2022923/spe-16743-ms.pdf by Universidad Industrial De Santander, kathleen Hooker naranjo on 24 February 2021
Table 10: Comparison of effective oil permeabillties for the low drawdowns
and buildups in systems of low volatility. Table 9: Comparison of weUbore skin for the highly volatile system.

Test No. qo. Input k". Pelrinc's ko. ResuIting ko. Test No. til c" r wo Input s Pelrinc s Resulting S
STB/D md md md DSi-1 ft
1 2000.0 100.0 70.01 88.3 1 0.15 1.1ge-04 0.3 0.0 -0.623 0.00
2 100.0 10.0 8.4 9.18 2 0.2 1.5e-04 0.3 0.0 0.83 -1.29

Table 11: Comparison 01 effective oil permeabillties for the high drawdoWDS
ad buildups in oils of low volatility.

Test No. qo. Input k". PeIrine's k". ResuIting ko.

STB/D md md md
1 SOOO.O 100.0 46.0 89.5
2 25.0 2.8 2.24 2.81

Table 12: En'ective permeabillties • •turatioB resales 01 the first test Table 13: Effective permeabillties • •turation resales for tbe second test
(case l)reported in Refs. 19 ad 22. (ease 1) reported in Refs. 19 and 22.

So k". So k".
md md
0.986 9.09 0.844 4.90
0.97 8.59 0.8276 4.68
0.936 7.47 0.798 4.26
0.763 2.78

22
SPE 16 74)
 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/87SPE/All-87SPE/SPE-16743-MS/2022923/spe-16743-ms.pdf by Universidad Industrial De Santander, kathleen Hooker naranjo on 24 February 2021
1.7

0
rI)

1.5 0.95
1 Z
0
Jlo Bo
1.3
~

1.1
~
r I)
0.9
d
0

1070 2070 3070 4070 5070 1000 2000 3000

PRESSURE, psi TIME • minutes
Fig. 1-The linear lIpoPo relation with pressure, PVT data after Bcpe et a/. (Ref. 15). Fig. 2-Sandface saturation profile during a constant-rate drawdown test.

E
~
0.8
~.
ko
~
Jlo Bo ~
I:Q
0.6

-<
~ 0.4
re
0.57 ~
~
..J
0.2

~
0.56 L.LJ..J...J...LL1~LLL.Ll..J..J...J...J...LJ...LLLLL.Ll..Jc.Ll..LW..LLLL1.J..l...JL.O
3400 3450 3500 3550 3600 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
PRESSURE, psi OIL SATURATION, So
Fig. 3-Sandface ko/lJopolinear relation with wellbore pressure for a simulated draw- Fig. 4-The three different sets of relative permeabilities used in the simulation runs.
down test.

23
SPE 16 74)
 •
7.5e-Hl6
••
1.2e-Hl7

•
/

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/87SPE/All-87SPE/SPE-16743-MS/2022923/spe-16743-ms.pdf by Universidad Industrial De Santander, kathleen Hooker naranjo on 24 February 2021
2 2
P P
le-Hl7

~ ••
• ••
5.5e-Hl6

8e-Hl6 L---l---'L..L--L.L.LUL-_L-L...l.--L.L...LI..JLL-_l.-.L.l--LJLLl.U 3.5e-Hl6 L---'_L..L--L.L.LUL-........JL-L-J..--L.L.LU-'-_L-.L...l....L.l...Ll-lJ

0.1 10 100 0.1 10 100
Log t Log t
Fig. 5-The drawdown test in a highly volatile oil system (Table 4, Test 1). Fig. 6-The buildup test in a highly volatile oil system (Table 4, Test 2).

2.1e-Hl6

1.2e-Hl6
• 2e-Hl6

2 2

~
P P1.ge+06
le-Hl6
••
• 1.8e-Hl6

•
8e-Hl5 1.7e-Hl6
0.1 10 100 0.1 10 100

Log t Log t
Fig. 7-The low drawdown test in oils of low volatility (Table 5, Test 1). Fig. 8-The buildup test following a low drawdown in oils of low volatility (Table 5, Test 2).

ge-Hl5

•
••
6.1e-Hl5

2 2
7e-Hl5

/
~.,
P 4.1e-Hl5 P
5e-Hl5 •
2.1e-Hl5

••
1‫סס‬oo
• 3e-Hl5 L-------'--'L..L...L..L.LUL---''--L.L--L.L.LUl.-_'--L...l.--U..LLLJ
0.1 10 100 0.1 10 100
Log t Log t
Fig. 9-The high drawdown test in oils of low volatility (Table 6, Test 1). Fig. 10-The buildup test following a high drawdown in oils of low volatility (Table 6,
Test 2), after Raghavan (Ref. 12).

24
SPE 167 4 J