SPE 101846
Data Acquisition in Pumping Wells
Miljenko Cimic, SPE, TNK-BP Management, and Laura Soares, Partex Oil & Gas
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Russian Oil and Gas Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Moscow, Russia, 3–6 October 2006.
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. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Calculating of bottomhole flowing and shut-in pressures and
bottomhole flowing rates, based on fluid level measurements
and casing head pressures was combined with a convolution
method of the build-up interpretation, for vertical and
horizontal wells. The downhole pressures and rates were
calculated using a mechanistic model(7), which shows good
accuracy after comparing with downhole gauges measured
data. The main uncertainty still remains the accuracy of fluid
level measurement and water content in the annulus fluid,
especially during well clean up period, which influences the
density of the casing fluid column.
During the shut-in period, conventional pressure build-up
analysis (Horner and derivative) and convolution methods
were compared with the purpose of showing the advantages of
the convolution method over the conventional. Consequently,
the well test can be more rigorously interpreted by using
convolution rate analysis, and the shut-in time is reduced by
three folds, leading to economic advantage of testing costs
saving.
The real time knowledge of bottomhole pressure and rates can
be used to adjust the optimum downhole pump working
regime, avoiding two phase flow through downhole pump and
to perform conventional and convolution methods of
interpretation without deploying bottomhole gauges. Majority
of “brown fields” are equipped with different kind of artificial
lift system including positive and dynamic displacement
pumps. A fluid level measurement combined with a
convolution method leads to an improvement of the
production and operating economics of different types of
artificial lift systems (SR, ESP, PCP, etc.) and can be used, as
well, as a reservoir management tool. This paper includes
actual field examples, with solutions that can be applied in the
completion and testing of pumping wells. A field experience
and subsequent achievement with downhole pumps testing in
low permeability oil reservoirs are presented in this paper.
Introduction
Pressure buildup analysis in pumping wells has suffered from
the difficulty in directly measuring pressures at the bottom of
the well. Often, the only reasonable method of acquiring
pressure data in such wells is to combine casing pressure and
Fluid Level Measurements (FLM) with estimated fluid
densities to indirectly estimate the bottomhole pressure, which
is then analyzed.
In such situations, the only practical means of gathering
pressure data is the use of the FLM method to determine the
fluid level in the casing. The Fluid Level Measurement can be
used for indirectly computing bottomhole pressure and rate of
afterflow in pumping wells. This calculation uses fluid level
and casing head pressure data obtained during a transient test.
During pressure build-up tests, free gas returns back into
solution as the pressure increases in the wellbore. This causes
a reduction in both oil density and free gas flow rate. A mass
transfer(1) between the oil and gas phases occurs in the well
annulus during either flowing or build-up conditions. In the
paper presented, Hasan & Kabir(7) method was used to
calculate bottomhole pressure. The bottomhole pressures used
in the analyses contain errors due to measurement of the fluid
levels and due to uncertainties in the fluid densities. These
measurements can easily lead to errors of several percent in
the downhole pressure calculations. The fluid level
measurement is a direct indication of fluid accumulation in the
wellbore (wellbore storage) and gas segregation during a
build-up testing when the amount of gas in the fluid column
changes.
Description of Fluid Level Measurement Methods
The Fluid Level Measurement became very important as a
well testing technique for pumping wells. Many
hydrodynamic models and empirical correlations have been
developed to indirectly calculate the bottomhole pressure and
the afterflow rate during pressure buildup tests in pumping
wells. The use of the Fluid Level Measurement technique to
determine bottomhole pressure and bottomhole rate requires
an estimate of the gas void fraction in the liquid column of a
pumping well annulus. Few correlations relating the “annular
superficial gas velocity” are available for saturated oil
columns, the most used among them are Godbey and
Dimon(4), Podio et al.,(5) and Gilbert as reported by Gipson and
Swaim(6). The validity of using FLM methods in well testing
has been assured because many actual examples have shown
good consistency after the downhole pressure was measured
as shown in Figure 1. The downhole pressure was calculated
by computer program using methodology described below.
2 SPE 101846

The annulus contains a gaseous liquid column during
production and when the well is shut-in, the gas may
segregate, causing some amount of phase redistribution. In
order to determine the downhole pressure in a pumping well it
is necessary to know the casing head pressure, the liquid level
in the well, the produced fluid characteristics and production
ratios, the temperature distribution in the casing-tubing
annulus, and the mechanical condition of the well. During a
pressure build-up the casing head pressure is recorded at given
time intervals and the liquid level is measured concurrently.
The downhole pressure pw, corresponds to the sum of the
casing head pressure pc, the pressure due to the free gas
column in the well pg, and the pressure exerted by the
pseudoliquid column in the well ppl. The so-called
pseudoliquid column is a mixture of liquid containing
dissolved gas and dispersed free gas.
p wf = pc + p g + p pl (1)
The mechanical energy balance equation may be combined
with the gas law to yield an expression to calculate the
pressure due to the free gas column (pg).
The downhole oil density can be estimated by calculating the
density and the volume at downhole conditions. In this
approach the effective volume of the evolved gas, as
hypothetical liquid is estimated and added to the stock tank oil
value at standard conditions. Katz developed the following
correlation:
ρal = 38.85⋅ 10( −0.003326⋅API ) + ( 94.75 −
(4)
33.93⋅ log10 API) ⋅ log10 Sg
This is the apparent density of the gas in the liquid state. The
apparent density of the oil, including dissolved gas at the
standard conditions is determined by the following equation:
0.07621 ⋅ Rs ⋅ S g + 350 ⋅ S o
ρ ao = (5)
0.07621 ⋅ Rs ⋅ S g
5.61 +
ρ al
A density of oil in the column corrected for pressure and
temperature is calculated by:

M ⋅ L fl ρ ocorr = ρ ao + ρ p − ρ Tcorr (6)

corr
p g = pc ⋅ exp( ) (2)
R ⋅ Ta ⋅ z a
Corrections due to pressure ρpcorr and temperature ρTcorr
(equations 7 and 8) are proposed initially by Standing and
In order to calculate the pressure exerted by the pseudoliquid
Katz as working charts, and later numerically expressed by
column in the wellbore hydrodynamic models and empirical
Standing. Computation of the corrections should be done in
correlations can be used. Some of the empirical models
each computing step.
provide some kind of “correction factors” that can be applied
to the mixture, neglecting the component related to the “dead”
liquid density (or the pressure gradient) and the density of the (
ρ Pcorr = 0.167 + 16.181 ⋅ 10 −0.0425⋅ρao ⋅ ) 1000
Pa
gaseous liquid, the model assumes that the gas is dispersed
2 (7)
through the liquid phase. Pseudoliquid column density is equal
to the sum of liquid column and gassy column. Different (
− 0.01 ⋅ 0.299 + 263 ⋅ 10 −0.0603⋅ρao
)⎛ P ⎞
⋅⎜ a ⎟
authors worked out different approaches to calculate gas void ⎝ 1000 ⎠
from the liquid column. Podio at al.(5) and Gillbert(6)
developed empirical correlations to calculate gas void fraction. [ ]
ρ Tcorr = 0.0133 + 152.4 ⋅ (ρ ao + ρ pcor )−2.45 ⋅ (Ta − 60 )
(8)
( )
In our case, a mathematical model, based on the principle of
mass balance of the annular gas phase, is used to determine − 0.0000081 − 0.0622 ⋅ 10 [0.0764⋅(ρao+ ρpcorr )] ⋅ (Ta − 60 ) 2

the superficial gas velocity. This model rigorously accounts

for the time-dependent pressure, volume, and the gas deviation Finally, density of the liquid in the column is calculated as
factor in the liquid-free annulus. If the pressure in the addition of oil and water densities taking water cut into
calculated step is above bubble point then gas void becomes account.
zero. If the pressure is below bubble point then gas void
fraction (fg) is calculated using the Hassan & Kabir method (7), ρ l = ρ ocorr ⋅ ( 1 − Fw ) + ρ w ⋅ Fw (9)
(8)
. Gas void fraction is a function of gas and liquid superficial
velocities and it is determined by equation 3.
Gas density is calculated by the equation:
f g = f ( v sg ,v sl ) (3)
S g ⋅ Pa
ρg = (10)
To determine gas and liquid superficial velocities one must Z a ⋅ Ta
know the liquid sand-face velocity and gas velocity, which
leaves the liquid column. The gas flow rate entering the free Density and hydrostatic pressure of the pseudoliquid are
gas column is computed using equation 20, presented later in calculated by the following equations (11 and 12):
the paper, at the average conditions of each calculated step.
ρ pl = ρ l ⋅ ( 1 − f g ) + ρ g ⋅ f g (11)
SPE 101846 3

ρ pl ⋅ H qsf ( i )
p pl = (12) v sl ( i ) = (23)
144 A

As stated in the equation 3, gas void fraction is dependent on The gas rate at standard conditions is corrected for the gas
superficial velocities that are obtained from gas and liquid dissolved in oil.
flow rates. Superficial velocities and densities are calculated at
the average conditions of each segment. The general mass Q g ( i ) = Q gsc ( i ) − qsf ( i ) ⋅ [ Rs ( i ) − Rs ( i − 1 )] ⋅ B g (24)
balance equation can be written in the following form (14):
Note that i below is not an iteration counter it is a fluid level Superficial gas velocity is obtained by:
and annulus pressure readings counter.
Qg ( i )
p ( i ) ⋅ dV ( i ) ⋅ z st v sg ( i ) = (25)
a1 = c (13) A
T fl ⋅ z fl
Gas void fraction fg can now be calculated by Equation 3,
V ( i ) ⋅ dp a ( i ) ⋅ z st using Kabir and Hasan’s (7) mechanistic model.
a 2 = ch (14)
Ta ( i ) ⋅ za( i ) For each set of measured time, annulus pressure and liquid
level, the well was divided into segments and PVT fluid
properties are calculated for each segment (13), (14). The gas
Vch ( i ) ⋅ pa ( i ) ⋅ dz a ( i ) ⋅ z st
a3 = (15) mass flow rate is changing through each segment of liquid
Ta ( i ) ⋅ z a ( i )2 column. Gas flow rate in the each segment is calculated by
where subtracting from the gas flow rate of the previous segment the
amount of gas that came out of solution due to the change in
Vch ( i ) = A ⋅ Fl( i ) (16) pressure and temperature from this segment to the previous
one. The calculation of the pressure for each interval, fluid
dV ( i ) = A ⋅ [Fl( i ) − Fl( i − 1 )]
properties (Bo, Bg, Rs) and gas void fraction are iteratively
(17) calculated involving a stepwise numerical integration
performed by computer algorithm (13).
and For each time interval between two measurements,
calculations are repeated and downhole pressure and sand-face
dpa ( i ) = pa ( i ) − pa ( i − 1 ) (18) rate are calculated using the methodology described above. In
order to introduce deviated and horizontal wells model,
dz a ( i ) = z a ( i ) − z a ( i − 1 ) (19) volume of each segment was calculated using measured depth
while pressure and temperature in each segment were
calculated using vertical depth of the segment. The model
Finally, summarizing equations 13, 14 and 15 volume of gas
developed using this approach, gives a very good match with
escaping annulus is obtained:
measured data after clean-up phase (Figure 1), showing a
mean difference of 10 psi, within a range of -32 psi to +26 psi.
V g ( i ) = a1 + a 2 − a 3 (20)
Gas rate that escapes annulus is calculated by: Pressure transient analysis using FLM
In pressure transient analysis, it is usually assumed that fluid is
Vg ( i ) produced at a constant rate and that single-phase flow relations
Q gsc ( i ) = (21) can be used. In pumped wells, however, the flow rate is
dt ( i )
controlled by a subsurface pump and fluid flows into the tubing
and casing-tubing annulus. Since gas production reduces the
Where dt(i) is time between two measurements of annulus
efficiency of the pump, gas is normally vented up the annulus
pressure and fluid level.
while liquids are pumped up the tubing. When the well is shut-
in, the reservoir liquids will flow into the annulus, which is
Bottomhole liquid volume is obtained by equation 17 and it is
known as wellbore storage. However, the fluid column in the
corrected to the rate at sandface conditions, multiplying by the
annulus is not comprised only of liquids, as a gas cap is formed
ratio of the oil volumetric factor at bottomhole and at the
above the fluid level. When data is gathered by fluid level
liquid level conditions:
measurement, the casing pressure and fluid level are recorded as
a function of time. The influence of an after-flow on transient
dV ( i ) Bo
qsf ( i ) = ⋅ ( 1 − f g ) ⋅ bottom (22) pressure response has long been recognized in well test analysis.
dt ( i ) Bo The type-curve approach based on the simplified model of a
top
constant wellbore storage coefficient has attempted to assess
Superficial liquid velocity is calculated by:
after-flow effects from pressure data alone (24).
The FLM methodology shows the fluid after-flow into the
well can be monitored at the surface. Consequently, the well
4 SPE 101846

test can be interpreted by using a form of variable rate which is not the case even during the build-up. The reservoir
analysis, and the shut-in time required to allow the detection fluid will flow into the wellbore until the bottomhole shut-in
of a straight line on the appropriate semi-log plot [e.g., Horner pressure equals the reservoir pressure. The method that will
or Miller-Dyes-Hutchison (MDH)] is much reduced. The help to avoid above problems is a convolution method.
analysis of the pressure and flow data taken by the Fluid Level
Measurement technique can be carried out at the well site in Convolution method
real time so that the test can be continued until the desired For an initially static well starting production at time tp = 0,
objectives are achieved. Field examples show how continuous the pressure drawdown is modeled by the superposition
fluid level and annulus pressure measurement during the theorem of van Everdingen and Hurst(19) known as the
wellbore storage period can improve the interpretation of a convolution integral, which can be expressed as:
buildup test.
tn
pi − p wf m′ dq
Interpretation techniques
The constant rate solution of the flow equation in an infinite qn
= ∫
qn dτ
t0
⋅ log(t n − τ )dτ + m′ ⋅ s (26)

reservoir is the basis of the conventional analysis of well tests.

Even if the reservoir is bounded the analysis applies while the
where tn during calculation process stays a constant.
reservoir is infinite acting, e.g., until the pressure change
reaches the outer boundary. For the conventional analysis it is
Having evaluated the convolution integral, we can write the
essential to maintain constant rate, and it is well known that
build-up equation as:
this is difficult to achieve. The best way to maintain constant
rate is to make it zero. Due to the compressibility of the fluid
in the wellbore, the bottomhole flow does not adjust instantly Δp m ⎡ tp ⎤
= ⋅ ⎢log − ∑⎥ + m ⋅ s (27)
to the surface flow after a change of rate is imposed at the 1 − qD 1 − qD ⎣⎢ t p + Δt ⎥⎦
wellhead. This phenomenon is called “after-flow” in a buildup
test or more generally “wellbore storage effect”. During the
where
well shut-in time, the sand-face rate is not constant, and early
data cannot be used in the conventional (i.e., Horner or MDH)
analysis. Furthermore, outer boundary effects may develop qsf ( i )
qD = (28)
before the wellbore storage effect disappears, in which case qsf
the conventional analysis does not apply.
The dimensionless sand-face rate is the ratio of the sand-face
This interpretation is possible through a more general solution
rate, qsf(i), to some reference bottomhole flowing (BHF) rate,
of the flow equation, with a variable sand-face rate as inner
qsf. This reference flow rate is usually the initial production
boundary condition. The after-flow rate was obtained by
rate, qsf(1), (time step i =1).
measuring the rise of the liquid level in the wellbore.
Convolution rate function is given by:
An alternative method involves estimating the sand-face rate
using a mathematical model. Van Everdingen(15) and Hurst(16)
Σ
presented with an exponential function of time as an Σ(Δt ) = (29)
approximation of the sand-face rate. In the currently accepted qsf 0
type-curve analysis, it is estimated from the derivative of
pressure with respect to time, on the assumption that the where
wellbore storage coefficient and the surface rate are constant.
The pre-computed solutions are presented as a set of ⎧⎡i =n−1 qi − qi −1 ⎧( t n − ti −1 ) ⋅ log( t n − ti −1 )⎫⎤ ⎫
dimensionless graphs called type curves and the analyses ⎪⎢ ∑ ⋅⎨ ⎬⎥ + ⎪
involves finding a match between the graphs of pressure time ∑ = ⎨⎣ i = 2 ti − ti −1 ⎩− ( t n − ti ) ⋅ log( t n − ti ) ⎭⎦ ⎬ (30)
⎪ ⎪
⎩( qn − qn−1 ) ⋅ log( t n − t n−1 ) + 0.4343 ⋅ ( q1 − qn )⎭
data with one of the available curves on the compatible axes.

This method implies constant wellbore storage concept that

involves two main assumptions:
− partially liquid filled wellbore with the constant tubing
head pressure in which case C (wellbore storage
coefficient) is proportional to liquid density and,
− wellbore is completely filled by a single-phase fluid. In
reality; this is possible just for dry gas wells.
According to equation 27, a plot of ΔP/(1-qD) versus [log
(tp/(tp+Δt))-Σ(Δt)] should be a straight line of slope m/(1-qD).
Usually, Δt is small compared with tp and we can approximate
tp/(tp+Δt) = 1 after that equation 27 reduces to
Δp = m ⋅ [− Σ(Δt ) + s ⋅ (1 − q D )] (31)

These preconditions are very difficult to be satisfied because From the work published by Meunier(17) is clear that the
dissolved gas separates in the wellbore and its compressibility convolution analyses shows the same straight line as
is governed by gas compressibility. Storage will stay constant conventional Horner or MDH plots, and that the semilog
only if the after-flow rate into the wellbore becomes zero, straight line starts for about one log cycle earlier compared
SPE 101846 5

with the conventional graphs, which means that BU time be identified with a diagnostic plot of the measured data where
could be significantly reduced using convolution Δp and the logarithmic derivative are calculated by:
methodology. Δpi +1 − Δpi dpi d + d i +1
di = and = i
Thus, following conventional technique, we can determine k ln (Δt i +1 ) − ln (Δt i ) d (ln (Δt i )) 2
from the slope and s from the intercept by using the following
equations for vertical wells: where Δp=pws - pwf. Diagnostic plot is plotted vs. elapsed time
on log-log coordinate system as shown at Figure 3.
q o ⋅ Bo ⋅ μ
k = 162.6 ⋅ (32) y (horizontal)
m⋅h x
and
z (vertical)
⎡ k ⎤
s = 1.151 ⋅ ⎢ s − log 10 + 3.228 ⎥ (33) Lw
2
φ ⋅ μ ⋅ Ct ⋅ rw hs
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ zw

Intercept
where s = (34)
Slope(m)
The time to reach the pseudo semi-steady state for circular
drainage area is calculated by the equation:
φ ⋅ μ ⋅ Ct ⋅ rinv
2
t pss = 948 ⋅ (35)
k wellbore volume in horizontal section. The storage effect in
The convolution definitions emphasize the fact that the
variable rate equation relates bottomhole pressures and
bottomhole rates exclusively; therefore, its application does
not necessitate the knowledge of the surface production rate.
Furthermore, it does not require that the production rate stays
constant and it applies to any rate schedule.
Convolution function
Convolution function is a rate convolved graph of bottomhole
( )
pressure pwf vs. F, where F = log( t p + ti ) + Σ(Δt )i + s ⋅ q D .
When s is correctly selected by matching (see Figure 6 and
11) it will give a straight line with slope m and the
extrapolation of straight line to
( )
log( t p + ti ) + Σ(Δt )i + s ⋅ q D = 0 gives p*, just like the
conventional Horner plot. The slope obtained by extrapolating
and adjusting convolution function should be equal the slope
from the convolution rate. (See Figures 7, 9, 13 and 14).
For the s values that are too low, the curve will have a
downward tendency and for the values of s too high the curve
will line upward. This way, we already know the permeability
and skin from the equations 32 and 33 and then we use the
convolution function to find p*.
Convolution in Horizontal wells
During a build-up test in horizontal wells, four different flow
regimes may be developed. They are recognized as the early-
time radial (ER), the intermediate-time linear (IL), the late-
time pseudoradial (LPR) and the late-time linear (LL) regimes.
In many instances these four regimes will not be present
because of reservoir heterogeneities, end effects, wellbore
storage or boundary effects.The above mentioned regimes can
Figure 1. Horizontal well model
Approach presented here is based on the solutions for
transversely isotropic media, i.e. kx = ky = kh and kz = kv. It
should be noticed that for the FLM approach the wellbore
storage is overcame by flow rate indirect measurement in
vertical fluid column, while the storage effect will influence
early times lasts longer due to the formation anisotropy which
reduces effective permeability at early time to k v ⋅ k h .
Intercept for convolution method can be obtained by
expression:
p@ Σ (Δt )=0 − p wf
(1 − q )
Intercept = (36)
D @ Σ =0
The above expression was obtained by rearranging of equation
31 choosing Δt such that Σ(Δt ) = 0 , which means
p@ Σ (Δt )=0 − p wf is an intercept when Σ(Δt ) (1 − q D ) equals
zero. After s is initially computed by equation 34 it should be
additionally adjusted, if necessary, such that all the points fall
on the straight line.
While using conventional interpretation models (e.g. Horner)
for horizontal wells, s should be expressed as
Intercept = p ws ( 1hr ) − p wf for early radial and late
pesudoradial flow, while for linear regime
Intercept = p ws ( 0hr ) − p wf . Data are obtained from pressure
vs. square time plot for linear regime, where pwf is measured
immediately prior to shut in and m is slope corresponding to
adequate radial or linear plot. For horizontal wells effective
permeability/thickness becomes k v ⋅ k h ⋅ Lw = k h ⋅ α ⋅ Lw ,
where α is the vertical to horizontal permeability ratio
( α = k v k h ). Equation 27 is valid for the horizontal wells
analysis and plot of ΔP/(1-qD) versus [log (tp/(tp+Δt))-Σ] will
also give a straight line of slope m/(1-qD).
The early radial flow regime (ER) occurs early during the
transient in the vertical (y-z) plane perpendicular to the well
6 SPE 101846

bore axis.(20) Wellbore storage effects will mask it most likely, Lw ⋅ k h ⋅ α

and measurement of the downhole flow rate is considered s= ⋅s
141.2 ⋅ q ⋅ B ⋅ μ
critical for its identification. Early radial flow can occur only (42)
before the flow pattern has been significantly altered, either by
the hemispherical flow at both extremities of the wellbore or
⎡π⋅r
(⎛ π ⋅ zw
+ 2.303 ⋅ log10 ⎢ w 1 + α ⋅ sin⎜ ) ⎞⎤
⎟⎥
⎣ h ⎝ h ⎠⎦
by the presence of the nearer bed boundary.(20) For horizontal
wells at early radial time (ER) permeability is calculated by:
The late-time pseudoradial regime (LPR) occurs in the
horizontal plane (x-y), provided the external reservoir
q ⋅ Bo ⋅ μ
k h ⋅ k v = 162.6 ⋅ (37) boundaries exert no significant influence other than the bed
m1 ⋅ Lw boundaries and provided no gas cap or aquifer is present.
During this flow regime the horizontal well behaves as an
Skin is calculated by: enlarged vertical well, similar to a well intersected by a
vertical hydraulic fracture. The flow-region radius is much
⎡ larger than Lw, so that the distance from the well center to the
⎛ 1⎞ ⎤
⎢ s + 2 ⋅ log10 ⎜⎜ 4 α + 4 ⎟⎟ ⎥ nearest external boundary must be several times Lw for this
⎢ ⎝ α⎠ ⎥ flow regime to occur. The effective permeability-thickness
s = 1.151 ⋅ ⎢ ⎥ (38)
⎢− log kh ⋅ α ⎥ product of this flow regime is expressed as k h ⋅ k v ⋅ hs .
+ 3 .228
⎢ 10
φ ⋅ μ ⋅ C ⋅ r 2 ⎥
⎣ t w ⎦
The beginning of late pseudoradial flow regime can be
expressed as:
The early radial regime ends at approximately:
1,500 ⋅ L2w ⋅ φ ⋅ μ ⋅ ct
125 ⋅ L2w ⋅ φ ⋅ μ ⋅ ct t StartLPR = (43)
t EndER = (39) kh
kh
and for the reservoir with finite width would end:
If occurs, the intermediate linear flow regime (IL) takes place
between two radial flow regimes. This regime may not
develop if the formation is thick, or if k v k h is small. This 1,650 ⋅ D x2 ⋅ φ ⋅ μ ⋅ ct
t EndLPR = (44)
flow regime is analogue to the one of vertical fracture. It is kh
often hidden in transition between two radial flows. When
calculating the intermediate linear flow regime time, ti in During the late-time pseudoradial flow, another semi-log
equation 30 should be replaced with t n − ti −1 . straight-line behavior is expected and the permeability is
calculated by:
The intermediate linear regime should be plotted as Δp=pws-
pwf vs. Δt for conventional interpretation (Horner) or q ⋅ Bo ⋅ μ
k h = 162.6 ⋅
Δp (1 − q D ) vs. Σ(Δt ) (1 − q D ) with time square root for
(45)
m3 ⋅ h
convolution interpretation method on Cartesian coordinate
grid as shown on Figures 5 and 8. The skin factor can be found from:

The intermediate linear flow regime ends at approximately:

⎡ kh ⎤
⎢ s − log10 2⎥
L ⎛ Lw ⎞ ⎥
160 ⋅ L2w ⋅ φ ⋅ μ ⋅ ct s = 1.151 ⋅ α ⋅ w ⎢ φ ⋅ μ ⋅ Ct ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ − sz (46)
t EndLR = (40) h ⎢ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎥
kh ⎢ ⎥
⎣+ 2.527 ⎦
Permeability is calculated by:
The component sz refers as a pseudo skin is related to partial
2 penetration or not fully opened wellbore. The magnitude of
⎛ 8.13 ⋅ q ⋅ Bo ⎞ μ
k h = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⋅ (41) pseudo skin is a direct function of reservoir thickness (hs) and
⎝ m2 ⋅ Lw ⋅ hs ⎠ φ ⋅ ct well location in vertical plane (zw). The pseudo skin is not
present during early-time radial regime. Here is expressed by
and skin is expressed by: the following equation:
SPE 101846
⎡ π ⋅ rw
sz = −2.303 ⋅ log 10 ⎢ ( ) ⎛ π ⋅ z w ⎞⎤
⋅ 1 + α ⋅ sin⎜ ⎟⎥
⎣ h ⎝ h ⎠⎦
(47)
1 2 ⋅ h ⎛⎜ 1 z w z w2 ⎞⎟
− ⋅ ⋅ − +
α Lw ⎜⎝ 3 h h 2 ⎟⎠
The late-time linear (LL) regime is a second linear regime and
will exist only for a finite width reservoir case(20). Plot needed
to find intercept and slope should be plotted on similar way as
for the first linear regime, except Δt should be replaced by
t p + Δt - Δt . Permeability and skin can be calculated using
the same equations as for the intermediate-time linear, except
slope and intercept should be obtained as described above.
The above equations for different flow regimes can be used
for both, drawdown and build-up analyses, the expression
valid for drawdown analysis is pi-pwf(1hr) or pi - pwf(0hr) in
case of linear flow. For build-up analyses valid expression is
pwf(1hr) - pwf or pwf(0hr) - pwf for linear regime.
Field examples
Two different wells, one horizontal and one vertical have been
described in the paper. Important to say is that the reservoir is
laminated, dirty sand with shale and claystone interbeds. On
one of the wells, vertical pilot hole was drilled and DST was
performed. The effective oil permeability obtained from DST
with downhole shut-in device was 3.45 mD, which is in good
agreement with the analysis results.
The two following field examples show the pressure build-up
analysis in one horizontal and one vertical well. Bottomhole
pressures and sand-face rates are calculated from fluid level
measurement readings and annulus pressure using the Hasan
and Kabir mechanistic model. In Figure 1 is shown a
comparison between measured and calculated bottomhole
pressures. A good match is obtained by Hasan & Kabir
method after the well cleaned up and the water cut
stabilization.
Horizontal well
From adiagnostic plot, Figure 3 is clear that high storage effect
is developed after shutting the well in, while the early radial
flow is masked by wellbore damage effect. Duration of linear
flow is short and affected by shale and clays strakes because
this particular formation is characterized as “dirty sand” with
lots of shale and clay content. Also, the effective length of
horizontal section might be questionable.
From Table 3 we can see that the test was suspended before
the beginning of late pseudoradial flow disabling estimation of
skin and permeability in “x” direction. The attempt was done
to analyze this period, named by authors “after linear” but it is
obvious that results are not representative. The permeability in
vertical direction is low what is normal for the presence of thin
shale layers.
For horizontal wells and such “dirty” and low permeable
formations is advised the use of downhole shut in device and
7
also is recommended to extend duration of flowing period in
order to be able to identify all regimes. Another improvement
could be during a completion of pilot hole to perform a well
test under partial penetration which will cause spherical flow
giving effective permeability k h ⋅ k v and then perforate the
remainder of formation to obtain horizontal permeability kh.
Vertical well
Figure 10 is a diagnostic log-log plot for vertical well. Vertical
well log-log plot shows the early time data that follows the
shut-in falling on a straight line of unit slope. Durations of
transient flow is 11.5 hours for the vertical well. Following the
1.5 log/cycle rule, which shows that radial flow starts after 1.5
cycle in logarithmic scale, in our case it is 30.6 times the
duration of transient flow. We obtain that the duration of the
build-up should be 352 hours. All data up to 352 hours are
considered to be compromised by wellbore storage effects and
these data are not amenable to semi-log analyses.
From Figure 11 it is obvious that possible interpretation
suffers from the lack of final build-up curve trend. One can
only guess how the curve could further develop, especially in
the vertical well case where build-up time is almost three
times shorter than the proposed by 1.5 log/cycle rule. Figure
13 is sand-face rate convolution plot. Straight line starts much
earlier than the straight line on semi-log Horner plots. The
sand-face rate convolution plot shows some amount of
scattered data, probably due to noise in bottomhole pressure
caused by the imperfection of fluid level measurement and
computing method.
Derivatives
Figures 3 and 12 are derivative plots of horizontal and vertical
well, respectively. Agarwal’s effective shut-in time is used to
calculate pressure derivative but no satisfactory type-curve
match was found with the present data. Derivative plots are
very sensitive to the noise caused by the inaccuracy of
calculated, not measured data. Derivative plots are useful with
the accuracy, sensitivity and no noise characteristics of
pressure recorder data. It should be noted that all the type
curve solutions are obtained for the drawdown case, which
means that these type curve solutions cannot be used for the
build-up without restrictions. The only restriction is that the
flow period preceding buildup must be large. With large
flowing time, the rate of pressure decline would be small, such
that it can reasonably be assumed nil during the shut-in period.
With this assumption, the build-up curve would be a mirror
image of the drawdown curve and it justifies the usage of the
type curves.
Convolution function
Rate convolved function is plotted in Figures 9 and 14, giving
a good estimation of p*. The correct skin s will bring the data
on the same straight line. Extension of the straight line gives
p* for the horizontal well of 2340 psi and for vertical 2300 psi.
Conclusions
Comparing calculated and measured sandface rates and
pressures, computed by different methods (3), (4), (5), the best
8 SPE 101846

match was obtained using the Hassan and Kabir(7) discarded by the 1.5 log cycle rule can be computed any time
methodology. The results from this method are then used as an knowing sand-face rates.
input for the convolution interpretation method, which results
are shown further in the paper. It is obvious that is quite difficult to perform transient pressure
analyses interpretation for horizontal wells because of too
The bottomhole pressure and sand-face rate calculation many uncertainties like effective horizontal length Lw,
method considers the mass transfer between the liquid and gas reservoir boundaries, lateral distribution of “dirty sand” and
phases and can result in better quality parameters obtained also relation between vertical and horizontal permeability
from the interpretation of pressure build-up tests from fluid ( α = k v k h ).
level measurement data. The interpretation of pressure build-
up tests from fluid level data may show a systematic error In horizontal wells, is very difficult to estimate when storage
when compared with the results of a conventional well test, if effect finishes, when different regimes start and end (Figure
the effect of the mass transfer between the gas-liquid phases is 3). It is minimized by measuring the downhole rate
not considered. The effect of gas solubility has been simultaneously with pressure. It is advisable to take fluid level
incorporated into the model to closely simulate the physical measurements as frequent as possible from the beginning of
process. The results suggest a reduction in the gas and hence build-up in order to indicate a start of early radial flow.
in the total downhole volumetric flow rate, while the Automatic device for taking fluid level measurements is very
bottomhole pressure remains unchanged. Inclusion of this valid solution. A reservoir engineer should analyze “real time”
effect improves the transient interpretation, involving the data in situ in order to identify start of a linear flow when
sandface rate data. recording of FLM should be also very frequent. In a case of
horizontal wells, the drawdown should be as long as possible
To minimize phase redistribution effects and increase the and much longer then build-up time, it will facilitate
accuracy of fluid level measurements, in order to more identification and analysis of flow regimes.
precisely calculate the bottomhole pressure and rate, it is
recommended not to bleed off gas pressure from the annulus Due to erratic data and “noisy” environment caused by
during the flowing period. Less liquid column in the annulus downhole pump action the use of software programme is
will minimize the phase redistribution effect. recommended in order to smooth data obtained either by
calculations or by downhole recorders.
The fluid level measurement method was verified by
comparing the measured bottomhole pressures with the Nomenclature
downhole pressure recorded. The field tests validate the fluid A = Inner annulus area
level measurement methodology in sucker rod pumping wells. API = API gravity
Discrepancy between the measured and calculated pressures is Bg = Gas volumetric formation factor
due to the changeable water cut during the well cleaning phase Bo = Oil formation volumetric factor
and due to the indirect nature of the FLM. ct = Total compressibility
Dx = Lateral reservoir dimension
The simultaneous determination of the bottomhole pressure dt = Time step
and afterflow rate allows the application of convolution dV = Volume of segment of reservoir fluid flowing to
transient pressure analyses methods, which may result in wellbore
significant reduction of the shut-in time especially in vertical dV(i) = Volume of ith segment
wells testing. Bottomhole flow rate measurements or dt(i) = Time step measurement of fluid level and annulus
calculation in this case, during wellbore storage period can pressure
improve the interpretation of short duration build-up tests. Fl(i) = Fluid level depth at ith step
Fw = Water cut
A combination of fluid level measurement and convolution fg = Gas void fraction
method of pressure analyses is not an ideal technique, but it is H = Mid reservoir depth
good as a reservoir management tool for quick look analyses. hs = Formation effective thickness
Measurement on the wells equipped with ESP can be done by i = readings counter
gathering downhole data via electric cable if the downhole kh = Horizontal permeability
sensors are installed. On SR or PCP pumping wells high kv = Vertical permeability
resolution downhole gauges can be run below downhole pump Lfl = Fluid level depth
while simultaneously recording fluid level. In both cases, the Lw = Productive wellbore length
convolution method of interpretation may be used. log = Natural logarithm
log10 = Decadal logarithm
Outer boundary effects may develop before well bore storage M = Gas molecular weight
effects disappear and conventional analysis then does not m1,2,3 = Slope ER, IL and LPR, respectively
apply. This is the reason for interpretation of early time data. pa = Average pressure
Compared with the conventional analysis (e.g. Horner pc = Casing pressure
analysis) the early data, in vertical wells scenario, that were pg = Gas head pressure in annulus
SPE 101846 9

pi = Initial reservoir pressure 2. Alexander, L.G., “Determination of the “Gas-Free” Liquid level
pwf = Flowing pressure and the Annular Gas Flow for a Pumping Well”, JCPT, 66-70,
ppl = Pseudoliquid column head pressure April-June, 1976.
3. Brownscombe, E. R. “Afterflow and Buildup Interpretation on
pwh = Wellhead pressure
Pumping Wells”, JPT, 397-405, February, 1982.
Qgsc = Gas rate escaping annulus 4. Godbey, J.K. and Dimon, C. A.: “The Automatic Liquid Level
Qg ( i ) = Gas flow rate at ith step Monitor for Pumping Wells,” JPT (Aug. 1977) 1019-24.
q = Surface production oil rate 5. Podio, A. L., McCoy, J.N., and Huddleston, ‘K. L.: “Automatic
qsf(i) = Sandface oil rate at ith step Pressure-Buildup Data Acquisition and Interpretation Using a
qsf(1) = Shut-in sandface rate Microcomputer Based Acoustic Liquid Level Instrument,” paper
SPE 16228 presented at the 1987 SPE Production operations
R = Gas constant Symposium, Oklahoma City, Mach 8-10.
Rs = Dissolved gas in oil 6. Gipson, F.W. and Swaim, H. W.: “Designed Beam Pumping”
rinv = Radius of investigation Proc., 19th Annual Southwestern Petroleum short Course,
rw = Wellbore radius Lubbock, TX (April 1972) 95.
Sg = Gas specific gravity 7. Hasan, A. R. and Kabir, C.S., “Predicting Liquid Gradient in a
s = Skin Pumping Well Annulus”, Paper SPE 13638, presented at the
So = Oil specific gravity SPE 1985 California Regional Meeting, USA, March, 1985.
Ta = Average temperature 8. Kabir, C.S.: “Experiences with Pumping Well Testing”, paper
Tfl = Temperature at fluid level SPE 18832 presented at the 1989 SPE Production Operations
Symposium, Oklahoma City, March 13-14.
tp = Flowing period duration 9. C.S. Kabir, and A.R. Hasan, “Two-Phase Flow Correlations as
tLPR = Beginning of late pseudoradial flow Applied to Pumping Well Testing”, Paper SPE 21728 presented
ti = Time at stage i at the Production Operation Symposium, Oklahoma City,
tn = Last cumulative time Oklahoma, April 7-9, 1991.
tpss + Beginning of pseudo semi-steady flow 10. Hasan, A. R. and Kabir, C, S. “Determining Bottomhole Pressures
Vch = Total chamber volume between fluid level and in Pumping Wells”, Paper SPE 11580, presented at the 1983
wellhead Production Operation Symposium, USA, February, 1983.
Vch(i) = Total volume of chamber after ith step 11. Gipson, F.W. and Swaim, H. W.: “Designed Beam Pumping,
Vg(i) = Volume of gas escaping annulus Proc., 19th Annual Southwestern Petroleum short Course,
Lubbock, TX (April 1972) 95.
vsg(i) = Gas superficial velocity 12. Ali Danesh: “PVT and Phase Behavior of Petroleum Reservoir
vsl(i) = Liquid superficial velocity Fluids”, Elsevier Science BV, 1998.
za = Average compressibility factor 13. Cimic, M.: “Simulation of Wellbore Foam Washout Process,”
za(i) = Average compressibility factor at ith step Journal of Society of Engineers and Technicians of Croatia,
zfl = Compressibility factor at fluid level depth DIT, October 1995.
zst = Compressibility factor at st. cond. 14. Hans-Heinrich Waskoenig, Grit Langhans, Miljenko Cimic,
zw = Standoff of the horizontal well from the nearest Matthias Heil, Gerhard Hoog Antink, and Eric Toskey: “A
boundary Method for Real-Time Well Clean-up Optimization”, SPE paper
No. 77409, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference, San
Δp = Drowdown
Antonio, Texas, 29 Sep. - 2 Oct. 2002.
φ = Porosity 15. van Everdingen, A. F.:”The Skin Effect and Its Influence on the
μ = Viscosity Productive Capacity of a Well,” Trans., AIME (1953) 198, 171-
π = Ludolf’s number 76.
ρl = Liquid density 16. Hurst, W.: “Establishment of the Skin Effect and Its Impediment
ρo = Oil density to Fluid Flow Into a Well Bore,” Pet. Eng. (Oct. 1953) B6-B16.
ρw = Water density 17. Meunier, D., Wittmann, M.J. and Stewart, G.: “Interpretation of
Pressure Buildup Test Using In-Situ Measurement of
ρal = Apparent gas density in liquid state
Afterflow,” JPT (January 1985), 143-152.
ρao = Apparent density of oil 18. Stewart, G., Wittmann, M.J. and Meunier, D.: “Afterflow
ρocorr = Corrected oil density Measurement and Deconvolution in Well Test Analysis,” Paper
ρpcorr = Correction due to pressure SPE 12174 presented at the 1983 SPE Annual Technical
ρTcorr = Correction due to temperature Conference and Exhibition held in San Francisco, October 5-8.
ρg = Gas density 19. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: “The Application of the
Σ(Δt) = Convolution rate/time function Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs,”
Trans., AIME (1949) 186, 305-24.
20. Piyush C. Shah, Deepak K. Gupta, Lehmbar Singh and Bruno G.
Acknowledgements
Deruyck: ”Field Application of a Method for Interpretation of
The authors wish to thank to the colleagues, who helped in Horizontal-Well Transient Tests”, SPE paper 20611, presented
data collection and the paper revision. at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition Now
Orleans, 23-26 Sept. 1990.
References 21. Roberto Aguliera et al.: “Horizontal Wells” 1991, Gulf Publishing
1. C. S. Kabir, A. R. Hasan, “Application of Material Balance in Company.
Pumping Well Analysis, Paper SPE 9932. 22. D.K. Babu, G.B. Asher and A.S. Odeh: “A Reliable Method for
Analyzing Constant-Rate Drawdown Data From a Horizontal
Well”, SPE paper 24540.
10 SPE 101846

23. Robert C. Earlougher, Jr.: “Advances in Well Test Analysis”,

Monograph, 5, SPE, Dallas 1977.
24. M. A. Sabett: “Well Test Analysis” 1991, Gulf Publishing
Company.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

bbl x 1.589 873E–01 = m3
bbl/day x 6.624 471E–03 = m3/hr
cp x1.0 E-03 = Pas
ft x 3.048 E-01 =m
ft3 x 2.831 685 E-02 = m3
in. x 2.54 E+00 = cm *
lbf x 4.448 222 E+00 =N
lb/ft3 x 1.601 846E+01 = kg/m3
md x 9.869 233 E-04 = mm2
psi x 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa

*Conversion factor is exact

SPE 101846 11

Input data:

Description Unit Value

Wellbore radius ft 0.3
Formation thickness (estimated) ft 98
Horizontal wellbore length ft 1200
Formation mid true vertical depth ft 5600
Pump intake true vertical depth ft 5500
Pump intake measured depth ft 5750
Oil viscosity @ Reservoir Conditions cP 1.123
Porosity % 18
Oil Volumetric Factor rbbl/stbbl 1.17
Gas Specific Gravity - 0.84
Oil API Gravity API 42
Bubble Point Pressure psi 1186
Gas Oil Ratio scf/stbbl 230
Table 1.

Pressure & Fluid Level vs. time

1,600 2,000
Good match with calculated BHP

1,800
1,400

1,600
1,200
1,400

1,000
1,200
Pressure (psi)

Fluid level (ft)

800 1,000

800
600

Well cleaning phase, WC unstable 600

400
400

200
200

0 0
1550 2050 2550 3050 3550 4050 4550 5050 5550
Cum time (min)
BHP measured CSG press BHP calculated Fl. Level

Figure 2. Comparison between measured and calculated bottomhole pressures

12 SPE 101846

Build-up diagnostic plot

10,000 3.50

Early radial flow is masked by storage

effect and wellbore damage. Linear flow is
End of storage
very difficult to identify. 3.00
1,000 Early radial

2.50
Late radial

Storage effects
100
2.00
dp/d[ln(dt)]

Magnitude of

log(p) psi
wellbore damage

Linear regime 1.50

10

1.00

1 Unit slope
0.50

0 0.00
0 1 10 100 1,000
time (hr)

derivative log-log

Figure 3.Diagnostic plot - horizontal well

Horner plot

2,400.00
p*= 2365

2,200.00
slope m3 = 310 psi/log cycle
intercept 3 = 2365 psi

2,000.00
Pressure (psi)

1,800.00 p3 1hr =1725 psi

1,600.00

1,400.00
slope m1 =130 psi/log cycle
intercept 1 =1275 psi
1,200.00

p1 1hr = 1130 psi

1,000.00
1.00 10.00 100.00 1,000.00
(t+dt)/dt

Figure 4. Horner plot - horizontal well

SPE 101846 13

Linear regime

1,300.00

1,200.00

1,100.00

slope= 10 psi/hr^0.5
1,000.00
intercept Δp(0hr) = 1170 psi

900.00

800.00

700.00
Δp psi

600.00

500.00

400.00

300.00

200.00

100.00

0.00
0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000 16.000 18.000 20.000
sqrt(Δt)

Figure 5. Linear flow - horizontal well

Derivative plot

100,000

10,000
Derivative dP*Dt

1,000

100

10
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
Cum Time (Dt) min

Figure 6. Derivative - horizontal well

14 SPE 101846

Convolution sandface rate - early & late pseudo-radial regime

1300

1200

1100

1000 Late radial (after linear)

Rate normalised pressure ΔP/(1-qD)

intercept = 940 psi

900 slope m3 = 150

800

700

600

500 Early radial

intercept = 100 psi
400 slope m1 = 120

300

200

100

0
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Σ/(1-qD)

Figure 7. Sandface rate convolution early & late regime - horizontal well

Convolution linear regime

1400
Intercept = 1190 psi
1300 slope = 9.5

1200

1100

1000

900
Normalized dp (psi)

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
Rate convolved function sqr(dt)

Figure 8. Sandface rate convolution linear regime - horizontal well

SPE 101846 15

Convolution function

2,400.00 p* = 2340 psi

slope = 150
2,200.00

2,000.00

1,800.00

1,600.00

1,400.00
Pws (psi)

1,200.00

1,000.00

800.00

600.00

400.00

200.00

0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Convolution function F

Figure 9. Rate convolved function - horizontal well

Log-Log plot

4.00

3.50

3.00
Log pressure (psi)

2.50

2.00

radial flow start

1.50

1.00
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Log time (min)

log-log plot unit slope

Figure 10. Log-log plot - vertical well

16 SPE 101846

Horner plot

2,400.00
p*
slope (m) =190
intercept =2300 psi
2,200.00
p1hr = 1870 psi

2,000.00

1,800.00
Pressure (psi)

1,600.00

1,400.00

1,200.00 much less than 1.5 log cycle

1,000.00

800.00
1.00 10.00 100.00 1,000.00
Horner time (t+dt)/dt

Figure 11. Horner plot - vertical well

Derivative plot

10000

1000
dp/dt

100

10
10 100 1000 10000
Cum time (min)

Figure 12. Derivative - vertical well

SPE 101846 17

Convolution Chart
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
dP/(1-qD)

slope (m)= 140

900 intercept = 1070 psi

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Sigma/(1-qD)

Figure 13. Convolution rate - vertical well

Convolution Function

2500
p* = 2300 psi

2000
slope (m) = 140

1500
Pressure (psi)

1000

500

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Convolution Function

Figure 14. Rate convolved function - vertical well

18 SPE 101846

Results:

Horizontal well (results summary)

Horner method Convolution method

Regime Early radial Linear After linear Early radial Linear After linear
Intercept 1,275 1,170 2,365 100 1,090 940
Slope (m) 130 10 310 120 9.5 150
p 1hr 1,130 1,157 1,725
kv ⋅ kh 0.35 - - 0.38 - -
kh - 2.37 1.78 - 2.63 3.68
kv - 0.05 - - 0.054 0.038
Skin -1.90 -5.01 7.32 -1.44 -4.68 7.41
Table 2.

Flow regime Horner (hr) Convolution (hr)

Time to end early radial flow 169 152
Time to end early linear flow 216 195
Time to start late radial flow 2,023 1,826
Table 3.

Vertical well (results summary)

Log-log Convolution
Horner Convolution
plot function
Duration of transient flow (log hr) 11.5 - 11.5- -
Time to achieve radial flow (1.5 log cycle) - 352 - -
Time to achieve radial flow (0.5 log cycle) 11.5 - 35.2 -
Real build up time (hr) 130.7 130.7 130.7 130.7
Slope (psi/cycle) - 190 140 -
Intercept (psi) - 2,300 1,070 -
Permeability (mD) - 2.47 3.35 -
Skin - 1.83 4.41 -
P star (psi) - 2,300 - 2,300
Table 4.